Uncategorized

Irina Soeffky

The Indian G20 presidency deserves commendation for its focus on digital public infrastructure, emphasizing the importance of integrating technology into public infrastructure. Germany is also actively contributing to the development of digital public services through projects such as EID (Electronic Identification) and the EU-wide ID, aiming to enhance digitization across various sectors.

Irina Soeffky, a supporter of international cooperation for digitalization, recognizes the need for collaboration in this field. The Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, in collaboration with GIZ (the German Corporation for International Cooperation), is actively providing open and interoperable elements to countries. Their goal is to assist countries in building their public infrastructure and fostering cooperation in digitalization, highlighting the importance of international partnerships.

The Gafstag Initiative, a noteworthy project, promotes interoperability and openness in public infrastructure. It is remarkable for creating public infrastructure that is not only interoperable but also reusable, enabling new business possibilities and fostering innovation in digital public services.

In conclusion, the Indian G20 presidency’s focus on digital public infrastructure and Germany’s contributions through projects like EID and EU-wide ID emphasize the significance of digitization in various sectors. The support of Irina Soeffky for international cooperation in digitalization and the Gafstag Initiative’s efforts to promote interoperability and openness further reinforce the importance of collaboration and innovation in building digital public infrastructure. These initiatives collectively contribute to the advancement of technology and digitalization globally.

Audience

The analysis of the implementation of digital public goods (DPG) and digital identity systems highlights the need for a coordinated and inclusive approach. It stresses the importance of instilling the DPI mindset in policymakers and leaders, especially in terms of championing successful implementations like Amado. The analysis also points out coordination problems within governments, such as turf wars and a lack of unified effort, which hinder the implementation of DPG and digital identity systems.

To overcome these challenges, the analysis suggests starting with a use case and building upon it in a way that allows others to easily plug into the system. Emphasizing minimalism can also contribute to a more effective approach.

Learning from both successful and unsuccessful implementations is crucial. The Indian experience is particularly highlighted, where a digital identity project was implemented without a legal framework that adequately protected data rights. The reliance on a centralized, cloud-stored biometric database proved to be problematic. By examining this case, valuable lessons can be learned to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

The analysis also addresses the issue of digital identity misuse and exclusion. Insights from experiences in India, Kenya, and the Philippines can inform the efforts of communities like the Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA) in mitigating these issues. It recommends involving human rights groups in the consultative process to ensure a more comprehensive and inclusive approach.

Furthermore, the analysis draws attention to the high failure rate of identity systems in India and its impact on public welfare delivery. Low levels of digital literacy play a significant role in these failures. A bottom-up approach for the redressal mechanism of digital identity systems is proposed to address these challenges.

Additionally, the necessity of user choice in dealing with system failures is highlighted. Allowing users the option to switch to human assistance when there is a digital verification failure can especially benefit regions with low levels of digital literacy. This user-centric approach ensures that individuals with limited digital skills are not excluded from the benefits of digital public goods and services.

Overall, the analysis emphasises the need for a coordinated and inclusive approach in implementing digital public goods and digital identity systems. It highlights the importance of the DPI mindset, learning from past experiences, mitigating harm and exclusion, involving human rights groups, adopting a bottom-up approach, and providing user choice. Following these principles will help achieve effective and secure digital public goods and identity systems.

Adriana Groh

The concept of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) extends beyond immediate innovations and necessitates a focus on the robust and ongoing maintenance of software components. It is concerning that 64% of the 133 most widely used software components are in critical shape and are only maintained by a few individuals. These software components are not only critical but also vulnerable, posing a significant risk if they were to break, as they are extensively used in our day-to-day lives.

Adriana, a strong advocate for a holistic approach to DPI, emphasises the importance of securing and maintaining these underlying software components, which often go unnoticed. She underscores the need for open digital-based technologies and the dependence on open-source software that operates in the background and is continuously maintained and available to support the functioning of various systems.

Interoperability and adaptability of public software and digital technology are also vital aspects that Adriana highlights. She suggests that sharing and learning together will help achieve this goal and points out the need for interoperable software and digital technologies. Additionally, she mentions the concept of ‘public money, public code’, asserting that software financed by taxpayers’ money should be open and adaptable.

Adriana further argues that redundancy in digital base technologies is indispensable to prevent single points of failure. She explains that having similar tools running concurrently ensures that if one fails, alternative routes can be taken to ensure uninterrupted functionality. She employs the analogy of a road, emphasising the significance of having multiple routes to reach a destination.

Moreover, Adriana emphasises the necessity of international cooperation in addressing global digital challenges. She highlights the potential risks of the ecosystem being torn apart without international cooperation and underscores the need for well-coordinated efforts. She draws attention to the “tragedy of the commons” in the context of the digital public commons, where everyone relies on it but no one feels responsible. This further underscores the importance of international cooperation and shared responsibility.

In conclusion, the concept of Digital Public Infrastructure encompasses the maintenance of software components beyond immediate innovations. Adriana advocates for a holistic approach, with an emphasis on securing and maintaining underlying software components, promoting open digital-based technologies, interoperable and adaptable public software, and redundancy in digital base technologies. International cooperation is crucial in tackling global digital challenges and ensuring well-coordinated efforts in the digital public commons.

Valeriya Ionan

The speakers provide valuable insights into the digital transformation in Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of creating a conducive environment that allows all participants to work efficiently within the digital ecosystem. The success of the DIA app in Ukraine is highlighted, with its impressive user base of over 19.5 million users. The app is not limited to digital documents and online government services; it also focuses on streamlining workflows in both the public and private sectors.

Furthermore, the government of Ukraine is commended for its effective collaboration with startups, private companies, and civil society. This demonstrates the need for governments to adopt an agile and flexible approach, operating more like IT companies. The speakers advocate for the implementation of Chief Digital Transformation Officer (CDTO) positions within governments to expedite the digital reform process across various levels and spheres.

The importance of public-private partnerships is emphasized as an effective means to enhance digital infrastructure and literacy. The creation of the DIA Education platform in collaboration with the private sector and civil society serves as an example of how such partnerships can contribute to improving digital literacy. The platform focuses on equipping individuals with the necessary digital skills and knowledge.

The speakers also highlight the value of learning from successful digital transformations in other countries. Ukraine draws inspiration from Estonia’s digital transformation and actively incorporates their GovTech products and experiences. This approach encourages governments to leverage existing successful solutions rather than investing time in seeking new ones.

Effective communication and collaboration between the government, civil society, and the private sector are seen as crucial for the progress of digital transformation. The establishment of platforms that facilitate the exchange of digital products and experiences is recommended. This allows for the sharing of best practices, knowledge, and experience across regions.

Additionally, the speakers stress the importance of world-class education programs catering to digital leaders. They argue that such programs should not only provide knowledge and expertise but also offer networking opportunities. Currently, there is a lack of academic or non-academic programs specifically tailored to preparing individuals for Chief Digital Transformation Officer roles within governments.

The speakers emphasize the need to view digital transformation as a comprehensive system rather than isolated initiatives. This holistic perspective ensures that all aspects, including user-centric and human-centric services, are considered. Building a digital country is not just about technological advancements but also about inclusivity and improving the basic level of digital literacy.

This analysis provides valuable insights into the digital transformation efforts in Ukraine, highlighting the successes achieved through the DIA app, effective collaboration between the government and other stakeholders, the importance of public-private partnerships, and learning from other countries’ experiences. The introduction of CDTO positions and the need for communication platforms and world-class education programs are also emphasized. Overall, the speakers’ arguments shed light on the essential factors and strategies required for successful digital transformation in Ukraine.

Mark Irura

The analysis highlights several important points regarding the development and maintenance of digital services and infrastructure.

One key point is the need for a community approach. This involves developers putting in their intellect and energy to build these services and maintain them over the long term. Open source development is seen as crucial in enabling the developer community to contribute to long-term development. The argument is that there is no community in between the demand and supply to be able to innovate around packages of reusable, interoperable components.

On the topic of governance, it is emphasized that the government is responsible for maintaining the vision and foresight of the digital platform in the long term. The regulation aspect or the vision or the foresight cannot be delegated by the government or funders. This illustrates how governance plays a vital role in implementing digital public infrastructure, with proper procedures required to address issues that cannot be solved by technology alone.

Long-term planning and examination are necessary for the successful implementation of digital public infrastructure. The pressure to show immediate results can hinder the progress of digital projects. It is more beneficial to think in longer terms and allow time for the development and improvement of these digital infrastructures. Data sharing across agencies also requires a long-term viewpoint to understand its implications. This highlights the need for long-term planning and examination for the implementation of digital public infrastructure.

Another important aspect is the development of skills to support the procurement of digital public goods. The government should develop skills to handle the procurement of these goods, which can help lower their total cost of ownership. Additionally, funding instruments should be designed to sustain long-term projects that, although may not show immediate results, will benefit in the longer run. For example, the construction of the foundation of a house might take a lot of resources and not show immediate results, but it is crucial for the overall structure. This argues for the development of funding instruments that reflect long-term objectives.

Increasing trust between citizens and their governments regarding digital IDs in Africa is crucial. Public participation in designing these solutions is often treated as an academic exercise, leading to a low level of trust due to a connection deficiency between data and service delivery. Regulations are needed to help citizens push back and use the instruments of the law. Trust is also hampered by the politics of how everything is done. This reveals the importance of increasing trust between citizens and their governments when it comes to digital IDs in Africa.

Citizen involvement in the defining or designing solutions can drive or stop court cases implementing the system. Testing the laws and involving citizens in the process can increase trust. Policies should take account of individual rights as data rights. This highlights the need for citizen involvement in the development and implementation of digital infrastructure.

Consideration of the ‘total cost of ownership’ is critical during procurement. Shared experiences reveal challenges in terms of costs for SMS systems and infrastructure development when handing over systems to the government. It is important for the government to try out systems before making purchase decisions to avoid being locked in and facing issues later. This emphasizes the importance of considering the long-term implications of licensing at the database, middleware, or application level during government purchases.

In terms of security and data protection, the analysis advocates for preventative and curative measures for digital public good security. The Digital Public Goods Alliance is developing good practice principles, and adapting these principles can preempt issues. This supports the need for measures to ensure the security of digital public goods.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes the importance of a community approach, governance, long-term planning, skill development, funding instruments, trust-building, citizen involvement, and security measures in the development and maintenance of digital services and infrastructure. These insights shed light on the challenges and considerations that need to be taken into account for the successful implementation of digital services and infrastructure.

Pramod Varma

India’s approach to Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) emphasizes the importance of civil society and citizen engagement to improve privacy and inclusion elements in DPI building. The use of civil society or citizen engagement as a supply-side tool is considered common and essential in this process. Creating one solution infrastructure and building several solutions on top of it is key for India due to its diversity and scale.

Marketplaces, NGOs, and other non-governmental organizations (NGOs) play a crucial role in the DPI ecosystem. Marketplaces are important for creating sustainability and agile innovation, while NGOs are key in addressing diverse needs, especially for vulnerable sections of society. The DPI also reduces the cost of solutioning for NGOs, making it feasible for them to develop solutions for specific sections.

A minimalistic approach is emphasized in building DPIs in India. The identity project, payment project, and credential sharing in India were built with this minimalistic principle. This approach aims to streamline processes and ensure efficiency in delivering digital public services.

Participatory governance, accountability, and dispute grievance resolution are crucial in implementing digital infrastructures. Governance plays a vital role in the effective implementation of DPI.

Resilience and redundancy are necessary aspects of digital infrastructures. India has implemented three or four payment systems for this purpose, ensuring resilience and redundancy.

Societal, political, and regulatory buy-in is necessary for the successful implementation of digital public infrastructure. Given that these DPIs impact a billion people in India, significant support and coordination from society, political leadership, and regulatory bodies are essential.

Global coordination is critical for interoperability. As people seek opportunities for work, education, and healthcare across countries, global coordination is important for seamless cross-border operations.

Support for sharing digital assets as open source goods accelerates digital innovation. The availability of Digital Public Goods (DPGs) and open-source goods contributes to rapid development and adoption of digital technologies.

A common definition and understanding of DPI have been created among many countries through G20 coordination and discussions. This has led to the development of a shared vocabulary and a common set of principles that underpin DPI.

The context of each country is unique, necessitating country-specific DPI residents. Many countries are working to create their own DPI residents to cater to their specific needs and challenges.

Efforts to share assets via the Digital Public Goods (DPG) ecosystem are supported by DPI funds. These initiatives aim to facilitate the development and sharing of digital assets, fostering collaboration and innovation.

The establishment of identity systems varies for each country, revolving around their specific context. Starting now, countries are advised to have full legal support, especially for identity systems.

Data storage in identity systems should be minimalist and secure. The identity system in India, for example, has not been breached so far, highlighting the importance of secure storage practices.

The analysis emphasizes the significance of participatory governance, the need for resilience and redundancy in digital infrastructures, and the importance of societal, political, and regulatory buy-in. It also highlights the critical role of global coordination, support for open-source sharing, and the country-specific nature of DPI implementations. These findings provide valuable insights into India’s approach to DPI.

Aishwarya Salvi

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) has the potential to transform governments, economies, and societies worldwide. The rapid advancement of digital technologies has significantly changed how we interact and conduct business on a global scale. Governments are now adopting various approaches to implement DPI, recognizing its crucial role in facilitating participation in society and markets.

The successful implementation of DPI requires striking a delicate balance between the diverse needs and interests of different stakeholders. This complex task involves carefully considering the expectations and demands of governmental bodies, businesses, civil society, and the general public. By effectively managing these varying perspectives, DPI can be tailored to meet the specific requirements of each stakeholder group, ensuring inclusivity, interoperability, and accountability.

International cooperation plays a vital role in fostering the creation of inclusive, interoperable, and accountable DPI. Collaboration on a global scale allows governments, policymakers, regulators, businesses, and civil society organizations to leverage shared knowledge and resources in developing DPI solutions that empower individuals and enable seamless interactions across borders. The German Federal Ministry of Digital and Transport, in conjunction with GIZ, has organized digital dialogues as a platform for direct exchange and discussions on the importance of international cooperation in developing effective DPI solutions.

These digital dialogues enable policymakers, regulators, businesses, and civil society representatives to engage in meaningful conversations, sharing lessons, ideas, and perspectives on approaches to implementing DPI. Through this collaborative effort, best practices and innovative strategies are identified, guiding countries in establishing robust DPI frameworks.

In conclusion, DPI has the potential to revolutionize governments, economies, and societies worldwide. Its successful implementation rests on finding a delicate balance between the diverse needs and interests of stakeholders. Moreover, international cooperation is crucial for fostering the creation of inclusive, interoperable, and accountable DPI. The digital dialogues organized by the German Federal Ministry of Digital and Transport in partnership with GIZ provide a valuable platform for policymakers, regulators, businesses, and civil society to exchange ideas and insights, contributing to the development of effective DPI solutions.

Moderator

The analysis focuses on the challenges faced during the digitisation process of India’s digital identity project. One of the major issues identified is the absence of a proper legal framework to govern the project. This lack of legal guidelines created uncertainties and posed challenges in implementing and regulating the digital identity system effectively.

Another significant concern is the inadequate consideration given to data protection rights. The digitisation process failed to account for the rights of individuals in relation to their personal information. This omission raises important questions regarding privacy and data security in the digital identity system.

Furthermore, the design of the system, which relied on a centralised cloud-based and cloud-stored biometric database, is notable. While this approach may have certain advantages in terms of convenience and accessibility, it also raises concerns about the security and potential misuse of personal data stored in the cloud. These issues highlight the need for a more thorough and thoughtful approach to the design and implementation of such systems.

In light of these challenges, the analysis suggests that the global community can learn from the mistakes made in India’s digital identity project. By examining these shortcomings and addressing them proactively, other countries and organisations can avoid similar pitfalls and create more robust and secure digital identity systems.

Additionally, the analysis highlights concerns about the misuse and exclusion of digital identity in infrastructure rights and governance. It argues that steps need to be taken to mitigate the potential harms associated with such misuse and to ensure that the benefits of digital identity are shared inclusively among all individuals and groups. To achieve this, the analysis recommends consulting with human rights groups and other stakeholders, as they can bring valuable insights and perspectives to the decision-making process. By including them in the consultative process, the aim is to mitigate risks and harms and ensure that the design and implementation of digital identity systems align with human rights principles.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of addressing the challenges faced in the digitisation of identity systems by considering legal frameworks, data protection rights, and the design of the systems themselves. Learning from the Indian experience and the mistakes made can benefit the global community in developing secure and inclusive digital identity solutions. Furthermore, the involvement of human rights groups and other stakeholders in the decision-making process is crucial for mitigating risks and ensuring that human rights are upheld in the digital age.

Aishwarya Salvi:
you you you you hello everyone, a warm welcome to you all who have joined us in this room and also to everyone who’s joined us virtually a big thank you for attending this session creating digital public infrastructure that empowers people. My name is Aishwarya Salvi, I’m an advisor at the German Agency for International Cooperation, GIZ, working in the field of digital governance and I’ll be your on-site moderator today. A brief note on the housekeeping and what is it that we planned for the session. Our session is being held in a hybrid format and it will be a roundtable discussion with an open Q&A. We highly encourage all participants to contribute to this discussion. For all participants who are joining us virtually please keep your microphones muted during the session. You are encouraged to post questions and comments in the chat box at any point of time. My colleague Torgy Walters will be monitoring the chat and fielding questions from there for our Q&A rounds. This session is organized by the German Federal Ministry of Digital and Transport together with GIZ. The ministry engages with digital dialogues with several key partner countries to ensure that we shape better framework conditions for digital transformations of our governments, economies and societies. As a multi-stakeholder initiative the digital dialogues provides a platform for direct exchange between policymakers, regulators, businesses and civil society. The goal of this session is to share lessons on approaches undertaken by countries represented on this panel in the implementation of digital public infrastructure. We all know digital technologies have drastically transformed the way we interact and transact in the world. The most notable means of digital transformation has been the development of digital public infrastructure. So what do we mean by DPI? DPI are society-wide digital capabilities that are essential to participation in the society and markets as a citizen, entrepreneur and consumer in the digital world. With the growing demand governments are now adopting different approaches to implement DPI based on the availability of resources, engagement with the private sector, interaction with the civil society and citizens and also support from international organizations. In this session we set out to understand the existing DPI ecosystem in the countries that are represented on the panel. Also we understand the steps taken by the governments to balance differing needs and interests of the stakeholders. Additionally we will use this opportunity to exchange the lessons from the DPI implementation and discuss how international cooperation can foster the creation of inclusive, interoperable and accountable DPI that empowers people. For this discussion we are joined by our esteemed panel members who have contributed extensively in the field of digital transformation. First off we have Valeria Yonin, Deputy Minister of Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine, joining us from Kyiv. Valeria oversees Ukraine’s national digital literacy policy, development and growth of SMEs, entrepreneurship, regional digital transformation as well as Euro integration and international relations. Next we have Dr. Pramod Verma joining us virtually from the US. Thank you Pramod for waking up so early in the morning for us. Presently he’s serving as the CTO at AXF Foundation and co-chair at the Center for Digital Public Infrastructure. His extensive experience as a former chief architect of India’s Aadhaar program and his work with India stack layers like the eSign and digital locker makes him a prominent player in India’s digital infrastructure. Next up in this room we are joined by Mark Irura from Kenya. Mark is currently a technical advisor for the Fair Forward Artificial Intelligence for All project at GIZ. He possesses valuable expertise in data and digital system management. His previous background includes his role as the consultant at Open Institute and project manager at Development Getaway. He has extensive experience in implementing various digital initiatives in Kenya. And finally we have the dynamic Adriana Groh. She is the co-founder of Sovereign Tech Fund in Germany and former director of impactful tech projects such as the Prototype Fund at Open Knowledge Foundation and she has been a prominent figure in advancing digital sovereignty, participation as well as open digital infrastructures. A

Irina Soeffky:
round of applause for our panel members. Thank you. But before we dive into our discussion I would like to make a special mention here. As said earlier the session is organized by the German Ministry of Digital and Transport and we are joined by Miss Irina Zufke. She’s a director at the National European and International Digital Policy and I would request her to kindly give her opening remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much and welcome everybody. It’s wonderful that you’re all here and it’s a great pleasure for me to engage today in this discussion on digital public infrastructure. A very timely topic obviously and I must say that in particular the Indian G20 presidency did a great job in bringing this topic to the center of the stage and the process we learned a lot about what India has achieved in the field already which is quite impressive and I assume we will hear a bit more about that also today but obviously there are also other countries that have already done impressive projects in the field. So it’s great that we engage into further discussion today, talk a bit about lessons learned and obviously Germany is also doing its share in the field. We don’t usually call it digital public infrastructure internally. We rather talk maybe about digital public services but probably in substance we’re doing about the same thing. So we certainly do have an EID which is supposed to get smart so on your smartphone this year we are moving it in the direction of an EU idea which should then be usable within the entire European Union so these are pretty important projects and for good reason. They are central in our national digital strategy because we believe that implementing these projects is particularly important to enable digitization across different fields and branches. So another example for our national work would be and this is actually something that my ministry is doing, building an ecosystem of mobility data which we use to really make public data available but we also fuse with data that is provided by private sector players. So bringing the two together we hope will have an impact on making new business models, new options possible. But this is just examples of what we do at home. Maybe the even more spectacular thing is what we do together with partners internationally and that is not us but colleagues from the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development and of course GIZ. That is the Gafstag Initiative which is a pretty impressive project that we also during the Indian G20 presidency talked about quite a lot. It’s all about open interoperable elements that are reusable offering them to two countries to use them to build their public infrastructure. As I said with a focus on interoperability and openness for usability which is very very important. So yeah this is maybe something that we can bring to the discussion and talk a bit about lessons learned there. But now I’m really excited to hear what what others do and I know that there are very impressive examples that we hear about. So looking forward to the discussion and the debate and very glad to be here. Thank you. Thank you so much

Aishwarya Salvi:
and we’ve seen Germany has always supported inclusive and interoperable digital services and the work that Gafstag has done has also helped other countries introduce and implement these digital services in their countries. So thank you so much. We now jump into the discussion. We have two rounds and each round will be followed by a Q&A. We have reserved three minutes for each speaker to respond to these questions in each round. I just want to reiterate that we will be strict with the time in order to allow everyone including the audience to participate in this discussion properly. So in the first round we will look at the existing DPI ecosystem. We all know that creation of DPI in several countries is a result of cross-sectoral partnerships between governments laying down the digital guardrails, the private sector providing the technical services, the civil society academia and citizens providing feedback to their services to make them more user-centric and each actor in this ecosystem has its own needs and interests. For instance, IT companies need a return on investments to be incentivized to participate in the ecosystem. We have data-driven models that drive innovation but they also raise privacy-related risks and could lead to exclusion of marginalized communities. So given this context, my question to all speakers is what role does each actor play in your country’s DPI ecosystem and how does the government strike a balance between deferring needs and interest of these stakeholders? I would first invite Dr. Pramod Varma. He’s worked extensively in India and would request him to respond to this question now. Thank you.

Pramod Varma:
Good afternoon. I hope you can hear me. Yes, we can hear you. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Aishwarya, for setting that up. Thank you, Minister. There are two parts to your question and let me clarify a little bit of the difference in how India is looking at these ecosystems. There are supply-side ecosystems. Supply-side means building DPI. To build DPI, who is supporting you? Is the private sector supporting you? Is civil society engaging with you? I think that’s what you alluded to, Aishwarya, when you mentioned the two ecosystems are joining in. But there is also a – and that’s been done in most of the e-governance projects in the last two decades or maybe even more. You know, especially many of the countries use private sector to supplement the capacity of the government and get it done. So, IT services and other private sector services participating in the supply side, that is towards the build of the DPI, is very common. And India is no different, frankly, in that. Use of civil society or citizen engagement also as a supply-side tool to improve the privacy elements, inclusion elements, the desirability of that particular project is very, very key. And that is also essential in building up anything that is infrastructure in nature. So, DPIs, by definition, are not full solutions and they are just infrastructure in nature. So, that’s key. But there’s a significant difference in India’s approach to DPI. It’s also the demand-side usage. That’s very different. That is where you put out something like GPS as a building block, as a digital public infrastructure. And private sector innovation is innovating market solutions. These are not IT services company helping you build it. It’s a use of DPI is where the ecosystem is very key, not building of the DPI. Use of DPI, we believe, India believes, once the DPI is architected well, interoperable, minimal, I would actually put minimalism as one of the most important principles as well, interoperable, like GPS, think very minimal. All it does is very, very little. But combining and using these DPIs, market, civil society, like NGOs, and even government can build layered set of solutions, like the way solutions on the internet, that actually reaches the large population. And this is key for India, because India’s diversity and scale is enormous, 1.4 billion people, 22 official languages, but hundreds of languages. It’s like a continent by itself. So, it’s creating one solution for you or one solution for Africa, for example, it’s a continent, so a lot of people. So, different culture, different society, different context. So, one solution is not what we are after. One infrastructure, what is what we are after, many, many solutions on top of the infrastructure. So, think of internet, many solutions on internet. Think of GPS, many solutions combining GPS. So, think of infrastructure as a means to create minimal, interoperable building blocks that is left now opened up for the demand side ecosystem, which is market ecosystem, civil society ecosystem, and government. Even government can innovate, can innovation system, who creates very contextual solutions to those people. And in this market is very key, because market creates sustainability and creates very, very agile innovation, unlike government trying to do everything. So, market is key for us and UPI, Unified Payment Interface, is a classic example, where multiple unicorns and multiple, multiple large countries, like including Google Pay, plays out, but interoperability is, we have mentioned, no monopolization or colonization of that sort, right? It is infrastructure is open and interoperable. And, but NGOs are even, even key for us, because India diversity necessitates a long tail. The last long tail solutioning is very hard, solutioning for the small section. For example, a very small vulnerable section in a tribal sector is very hard, because cost of developing solutions are very high. And so, DPI is also bring down the cost of solutioning, which is what happened with digital ID, digital payments, and digital paperless interactions. It dramatically reduces the cost of solutioning and for NGOs as well. So, we believe demand side ecosystem is more important for the DPI, Aishwarya, than the supply side ecosystem, because that, that creates sustainability of solutioning and diversity of solutioning. Thank you. Thank you so much, Pramod. I think in India, it’s unique to see how the community got involved in this ecosystem, how the uptake was higher because Because everyone, right, in the remotest villages were able to get a phone to access these services on just one device.

Aishwarya Salvi:
So I think that’s unique to India. Moving next into the room, I would request Mark to give his response. Thank you. Thanks.

Mark Irura:
To add on to what’s been shared already, the supply and the demand side were mentioned. And on the supply side, we have actors such as funders, actors such as government, sometimes even private sector, and civil society. They’re trying to create something, to build something. And the way it’s been portrayed as well is that we have people who sit in the middle there, still on the, almost on the demand side, because they are waiting on this package. They are waiting on a payment system to leverage it to deliver a service. And then we have users. Users who do not care, they do not care about digital government. They know government. So they want a service. So if I could speak to Kenya previously, before we moved on to like one e-government platform, it was management information systems being led across various departments. So if you wanted to register a business, you go to one office, you fill in a form, you wait a couple of days, you go back. So when they digitized or automated, you still had to go to that office, and then you were sent to another office, even though they had a system. But now everything has kind of been centralized a little bit. But we are still finding a challenge, because there is no community in between the demand and the supply to be able to innovate around packages of reusable, interoperable components. So because of that, there is no longer term view about these digital services. What do they look like? If payments, if today for some reason the payment platform for government goes down, what’s the impact on the economy? If today, for example, there’s an outage for 30 minutes that businesses cannot be registered. And so I think to add on to what’s already been shared is the thinking that we have system integrators who sit in between. System integrators are startups. They have been mentioned, startups, or even tech companies who are able to latch on to what is already existing and build upon it. But there are some things that government or even funders, they cannot take away. So let me give an example of a responsibility government cannot delegate. The regulation aspect or the vision or the foresight. What does this platform look like 10 years from now? Because whatever we are building now in two or three years will be a legacy system. So what will that look like? Who will continue to maintain it and sustain it? Who will pay for it? So it’s if we have a community approach, then we don’t just think in terms of open source in terms of open source free beer. But it’s open source around how can this developer community not resent putting in their intellect and their energy into building these services and building them over the long term.

Aishwarya Salvi:
Thank you. Thank you so much, Mark. Yes, I think the concept of system integrators is very important because, as you mentioned, the government needs to look at governance and the regulations that they need to lay down. But when we talk about operational and management issues, we need these startups and companies to get more involved in the economy and in the ecosystem, to do the daily repair work or the maintenance of these services. So thank you so much, Mark, for your response. We now move to Adriana. I would invite her to share her experience, what’s happening in Germany, how do we balance these needs of stakeholders?

Adriana Groh:
Thank you. So now I’m stretching the definition and, there while, the topic we’re talking about a little bit with the work that we’re doing with the Sovereign Tech Fund in Germany. But we’re not limited to software that is developed in Germany. So maybe a few words about this, so you understand how I’m stretching the definition of DPI that we’re using right now. The Sovereign Tech Fund supports open digital-based technologies, that’s how we call them, to not use digital infrastructure again, because otherwise the term just gets really bloated. And what I mean by that, to put it simple, is software that developers use to develop software. And we, not speaking for this room maybe, but most people don’t think about that, although it’s very necessary. This software is very critical and very vulnerable, and if it breaks, it scales massively through everything that we’re using every day. But it’s invisible for many people who are not software developers, because you’re just using the interface, but there’s a lot behind that. We’ve seen with Heartbleed way back, but also with Log4J, how it impacts everyone, basically, when it breaks. And the Sovereign Tech Fund’s mission now is to, well, probably won’t be able to prevent it forever, but to work on it and increase the awareness a bit for this layer of the software stack. So what I mean then, by stretching or complementing the DPI approaches we already heard, is to, well, basically saying, look a bit deeper. Because everything we build relies on software that is running in the background, and that community and software developers also in companies and businesses need. I have some numbers, they’re all very, very terrible, but I’m just going to say maybe one there, like 64% of the 133 mostly widely used software components that everyone relies on are in a very critical shape and only maintained by a handful of people. Can be two, can be three. They are doing this, nobody notices, most people don’t notice. It’s a community of very intrinsically motivated people, some of them work for companies, but most of them do this critical work in their free time. So what we need to do is to develop a more holistic approach when we talk about DPI, in a way that we need to secure the foundations, innovate, and maintain. It needs to be the whole life cycle. I think people in this room know about this, but because this work is also very, not very thankful, it’s a little bit like the road you take every day to work. You don’t think about that road until it’s blocked or broken, and there’s long maintenance work and then you’re really annoyed. But if it’s just working, it’s just there. That’s the same for the layer, the focus of the Sovereign Tech Fund, and so if that’s not working, all the great missions we heard just about are also not working. So that is my short pitch. I’m really looking forward, if we’re opening up the room for the discussion, because it’s a particular topic, the production logic, we also heard about this, is different in this field. So I mentioned the intrinsic motivation of many people. It’s also a very old legacy, so to speak, and our whole very successful global digital economy relies on this software running. The whole world relies on software, of open source software actually, running in the background, being maintained, being available. One of the key reasons why we’re innovative, why we have competition, why we have startups and SMEs. So it’s a really important topic for civil society, for governments, and for companies worldwide, and if we manage to have this holistic approach, I think that’s going to really get us far, and also secure us, everyone, in a position to act in the future. Because if the roots are not well maintained, then the growth will not be long-lasting.

Aishwarya Salvi:
Thank you. Thank you. I think you’re absolutely right. We need to stretch the definition of DPI, because when we talk about infrastructure, the mentality is, is it hardware, just hardware? But it’s not. It’s also software, and as you rightly mentioned, the entire economy relies on these softwares. So, yeah, we should include software as well in the definition when we talk about DPIs. We now move online, and I would request Valeria to kindly respond to this question. Yes, good afternoon, dear colleagues.

Valeriya Ionan:
So I would like to echo, in some ways, the previous speakers. Well, we believe in golden triangle of relations, government, private sector, and civil society, but we think it’s not about building the ecosystem. It’s about, first of all, creating conditions that enable all participants to work efficiently. So instead of discussing the ecosystem stakeholders, which are, to my mind, more or less similar in all of the countries, I would like to concentrate on several concrete examples, which we have in Ukraine. So just for the content, for the context, in Ukraine, we have our state super app, DIA, which is used by 19.5 million of users with digital documents, digital services, and digital signature. And even before the full-scale Russian invasion to Ukraine, Ukrainians already have been able to pay fines, to pay taxes through DIA, or to use DIA for digital documents. But DIA is not only about digital documents and online government services. We are also digitizing the workflow of both public and private sectors. We use such features as document sharing, validation, and DIA signature to speed up document flow and customer service, and replace paperwork with digital and intuitive services that reduce costs and save time. So let’s say some organization can receive electronic copies of digital documents of DIA users using a sharing scenario. Through validation, companies can check the digital document validity just in two clicks, for example, in stores, post offices, or governmental institutions. So just as an example, the financial sector in Ukraine is one of many industries that most actively uses DIA services. 59 banks have already integrated sharing and DIA signature into their processes. This allows them to conduct quick customer identification and verification, open a bank account without visiting a physical branch, verify a customer when working with payment terminals, etc. So one of the most popular banks in Ukraine, Monobank, registers customers using a sharing scenario, and the record registration for this is 99 seconds. Also, one of the banks had around 80K open bank accounts per day because of basically the possibility of DIA signature opening bank accounts online. Another great example is our project DIA Education, which is a national edutainment platform for rescuing digital literacy, and the majority of content is created together with private sector or civil society. And that’s really great because that helps us to, you know, I would say, enable our citizens with new knowledge and expertise, which is really needed on the market. Another great example is our partnership with private sector. So when the full-scale Russian invasion started, we have been able to create fast an app, which is called AI Alert or AI Alarm, that sends alerts about missile attacks. And we have basically a lot of other examples where government is communicating and working really efficiently with private sector companies, with startups, with civil society. We have this fast track of communication, and we think that that’s exactly the way how modern governments should operate. They should be working like IT companies more. They should be more agile and flexible. So what we are doing here in Ukraine, we are basically changing with such solutions as DIA the way how government communicates with the citizens. So with that, DIA really became a love mark for Ukrainian citizens.

Aishwarya Salvi:
Thank you. Thank you, Valeria. We now open the floor for questions. We would take one or two questions if anyone in the room has any questions to the panelists. Otherwise, we can move it to the end of this discussion. All right. So moving to the next round, thank you, everyone. In the next round, we basically look at what role does international cooperation have in this ecosystem? So considering the diverse approaches have been undertaken to implement DPI, it’s still an evolving concept. And there is still so much we don’t know, so much we need to do. And we also see a lot of countries are struggling to implement DPI because of limited technical capabilities and financial resources. So my question to all speakers is, what lessons did you learn in implementing DPI in your country? And how can international cooperation be leveraged to build interoperable, inclusive DPI that empowers people? I would first request Mark to respond to this.

Mark Irura:
Thank you. Thanks for the question. So I’ll begin by agreeing with what has been said by Valeria about governance. So that is very important. So in Kenya, we have this platform, eCitizen, that has been in use. But then it’s beginning to come under, not scrutiny, it’s beginning to be tested, its limits. And part of it is because there are governance issues that cannot be solved by technology. And there are technology issues that cannot be solved by governance necessarily. And I think on the governance side, there is need to look at it a little bit more critically. In what ways? So for example, how do we have a very robust infrastructure to deliver these services? And how do we begin to look at a community around it? So that’s one. As a funder, and those who are in the room, we have to think about this in a longer term view than we do right now. Because a lot of times there is pressure to show results. Sometimes we don’t want to accept we are failing. But it is important to show, to think a bit about it in a little bit of a longer term view. Because if you’re talking about governance and governance of data, so what does it mean now? Yes, it’s very convenient that at the proverbial click of a button, I can log in and do something in five minutes. But data has been shared across multiple agencies without me being aware. What does that mean? And what does that mean when I’m aggrieved, when I want to complain? So we have to think about that, and that takes time. Then number two, we also have to think about the technology and the economics of the technology. Because there’s something for government when they say, we want to lower the total cost of ownership of this technology. We don’t want to pay recurrent licenses because we cannot afford, and that is valid. So do they have the skills to procure digital public goods? So that’s another consideration, just building that capability. And then that takes time. So as funders, are we looking at that and looking at that? Do we understand it even as we speak to it? And then, I think, lastly, I will just mention that… we have to create maybe funding instruments that like look at it and maybe collaborate with others so that we look at it as we are putting the foundation of a house. When you’re putting the foundation of a house, and I’m speaking about Kenya now, you sink a lot of money in the ground, and you do not see results. But once you kind of get the foundation is done, then you can have a lot of progress when you’re constructing. And people will come around and see something. But for a long time, you’re just under the ground, like just putting in money. And people could not see what you’re trying to do. But then if you have a longer-term view, then you have a robust infrastructure that maybe continues to be relevant even when some of the technologies become obsolete in seven to eight years. But those tools are still in use. Thank you, Mark. I think we all agree that there is a need for long-term planning because these technologies are fast-changing. And as government, as private sector, and even communities, we need to keep up pace with these dynamic technologies. Thank you, Mark.

Aishwarya Salvi:
I would now request Valeria to respond to the question. How do you think international cooperation can be leveraged to build interoperability PI? Yes, thank you for the question.

Valeriya Ionan:
So first of all, it’s important to say that all governments are facing the same challenges, especially when it comes to digital transformation. So it’s, again, digital services, digital literacy, interoperability, cybersecurity, now AI, and many, many others. And there is absolutely no need to waste a lot of time in order to find the solution to some problems if the solution already exists and operates efficiently. And it’s not just about the concrete technical products or technical solutions. Like, for example, in Ukraine, we are learning a lot from Estonia. Estonia has been our mentor in digital transformation. We are using a lot of Estonian GovTech products, including X-Road for interoperability, which in Ukraine is called Trambita. But now with our DIA and DIA ecosystem, we also have a lot of achievements. And we are ready to share our experience with the world. So what I’m trying to say is that the world should be more aligned when it comes to the questions of digital transformation and understand all the existing solutions in order not to waste and to optimize time and to use those. And also, it’s not about just products, not about just solutions. It’s also about the experience in some soft questions. For example, in Ukraine in 2020, we have created a new position in Ukrainian government, which is called CDTO, Chief Digital Transformation Officer. So these people operate on the level of deputy ministers or deputy governors. And for today, we have CDTOs in every ministry, in every governmental agency, and in regional councils. So that basically gives us a possibility to move fast with all digital reforms in different spheres and on different levels. And we know that when it comes to such kind of organizational structure that in other governments, in other countries, the organizational structure is, I would say, slightly different. But what we see is that especially this organizational structure was one of our success cases, which helped us to make a huge leap in digital transformation just in three years. And if we would have a good platform for communication between government, civil society, private sector, where we could share not just products, which obviously could be open sourced or not, but also could share such kind of experience, I think that this is something important, at least, to elaborate on. Also, there is no great, I would say, academic or non-academic programs which really prepare people to become Chief Digital Transformation Officers for their governments. So there are some high-level strategy or leadership courses. But when it comes to finding some concrete solutions, I think the new world-class education for digital leaders from all over the world, which will give not just knowledge and expertise, but also the possibility of a regular unofficial even networking, would improve a lot and give a lot of new possibilities. So of course, we can speak in this panel and in this question a lot about interoperability, lots of different technical solutions. But I believe this information is more or less available on the web. And that’s why I think my main message here is that we have to focus more on communication, on networking, on finding more points for cooperation between our countries and different institutions. Thank you. Thank you, Valeria. I think all governments need to make drastic institutional changes, create positions like the Digital Transformation Officers that Valeria mentioned. Because these people can reach out to the citizens, build the capacities and also ensure that each citizen uses these digital services.

Adriana Groh:
Thank you, Valeria. I would next ask Adriana to respond. Thank you. Thanks. Yeah, I agree also with what has been said. I think it’s important to stress that we need to be in a position where we can do the sharing and learning together. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Sometimes it’s good to have similar tools running at the same time and test which one works better and then plug and play a little bit. So it’s necessary, I think, to stress that, yeah, public money, public code has been heard before, I guess. But you need to be able to share, adapt and change software that is around if you really want to push it to the maximum, this learning and sharing approach. Coming back to the focus of the Sovereign Tech Fund, those digital-based technologies, it’s a bit different. Because maybe you do want redundancy. You want to have two or three things that do the same job running at the same time. Because coming back to the road analogy, if you only have that one road that is then blocked that one day, what are you going to do? So it’s maybe less about finding that one solution, share it, adapt it to your specific needs. It’s maybe about deliberately seeing where we need redundancy and how to maintain it. And coming back to the international cooperation, this is a global digital common. There are no geographic boundaries around those parts of the software that we’re talking about. They’re used in all different kinds of contexts everywhere. So it is particularly important to be well-coordinated here. Because what could happen is that, with all the good intentions that we have, is ripping this ecosystem of the very foundations that we all rely on apart. Because you’re not coordinated. You’re pushing and pulling in different directions. You can also not fix it by just throwing money at it. There needs to be a strategy. There needs to be community that advises you. There needs to be engagement from the private and the public sector. So if we’re not doing it together, it’s not going to work. So it’s not a nice-to-have, it’s a real must-have to be well-coordinated and understand that for this digital public common, we need to fix also the tragedy of the commons. Because I think right now what we have is everyone relies on it, but nobody feels responsible for it. So this is, I think, our exercise for everyone to analyze this, to then come up with solutions, and then sit down together and really implement that. And not do it in our little boxes, but really from the very, like, day one, do it together. Thanks.

Pramod Varma:
I would now request Pramod Verma to respond to the question. Yeah, I think many of these best practices and learnings have been actually shared quite widely, and it’s available on various papers, you know, writings and talks. But I’ll give you maybe three different parts of at least the learning we went through. One, when you build DPIs, at least for us, we were looking at just one component of that that allows a lot more innovation to happen. That’s why I keep using the GPS analogy. It is not about thinking through the whole solutions. We are letting the market and society and other parts of the government and so on to put together solutions later. So for others to build solutions, what do we need to build? And that was a real question we were asking. So hence, minimalism was a big principle that we kept playing out. If you look at our identity project or a payment project or credential sharing, and like in Ukraine, the paperless ideas, the paperless workflows. We wouldn’t build the workflows, but we built the credentialing infrastructure that allows many, many workflows to be built. So minimalism was very, very essential. Interoperability, of course. Decentralization. And India is very diverse and we have the federal hierarchy between the center and the states and quite a lot of autonomy spread across many different parts of the system. So centralizing as an architecture or design never works out. It never gets implemented well. It’s also good for privacy. So decentralization as a design principle is very key. And of course, thinking through privacy and cybersecurity for any digitization is very key. This is sort of the technology principles, but on the governance, I think very good comments were made in the panel. Policy interventions are necessary. Creating a participatory governance, especially if this highway or this road is used by many, many people. How does the governance of the road itself work? Because many people are going to depend on it. Marketplace and others are going to depend on it. So participatory governance, accountability, dispute grievance resolution. My colleague talked about that. It’s importance thereof because something will always go wrong. And if things go wrong, what are the process of addressing that wrong is very, very key. And most importantly, resilience. I think the redundancy topic was key. Resilience in India is not one payment system. We have three or four payment systems that seem to do somewhat similar things, but this is actually a good thing because depending on the entire system for one digital building block is key because if you get attacked or down for some reason, the entire system can come down. So resilience and redundancy is very key. But one more learning, other learnings we had, non-technical, non-participant, non-governance learning is also regulatory, political, and social, societal buy-in. Many of these DPIs touch, at least for India, most of them touch a billion people, and that requires significant buy-in from society, political leadership, and regulatory leadership, and most importantly, market incentive alignment. Market, why should they use the DPI? Can they create a closed loop or a walled garden, a monopoly? They would all want to create those private solutions that are locking the users and locking the country, but what is their incentive in playing interoperability? So I think there’s a lot more discussion that needs to be done to get those buy-in, especially if you’re implementing at scale, whole country scale, then it’s very key to get the alignment. And on the global coordination, I mean, this is a no-brainer, frankly, global coordination, because as somebody mentioned, there’s no border to people’s aspirations. People’s aspirations are not limited to borders, geographical borders. Now, people want to go across the countries. They want to work across economic opportunities, education opportunities, healthcare needs. People travel and go across. So it’s discussing interoperability and portability of my data and credentials so that I can continue to use as a citizen. I can continue to use my data instead of depending on large systems to coordinate is very key. And we saw that with vaccine certificate in the COVID time. It was essential that we allow people to move around with the vaccine certificate. So interoperability, sharing of learning, and I’ll also add sharing of assets. I think most of the panel said our assets are now available as DPGs, so digital public goods, open source goods. I think sharing of assets of what we are building with others also help accelerate this journey.

Aishwarya Salvi:
Thank you. Thank you, Pramod. So do we have any questions from the chat? Also looking into the room, of course, if there are questions in the room, happy to take them as well. We have one microphone in the middle. Please line up. But thank you for lining up already. As Mr. Abdiaziz Ahmed posed a question quite a while ago in the chat, I would read this out first. It goes towards Africa. And so I look to Mark. He might have a response on this. Question goes, how can we increase trust of citizens with their governments, especially when it comes to digital IDs in Africa? I go for it? Okay.

Mark Irura:
So there’s probably four things. Part of it has been mentioned by the last speaker. So we have people, we have processes, we have the product that you want to sell, and we have politics. And it’s things that are taught when you’re developing IT solutions in terms of maturity models and managing change. So I think one of the solutions is we of course talk about the citizen at the center or human-centered design. It might be challenging or difficult to do it with very many people. But I believe one of the things that can drive or stop these court cases, you know, you implement a system and people go to court to stop it, is just because anchored in the processes like how do we treat with my individual rights as data rights? And the citizen is often left out of, you know, public participation is an academic exercise. So I think having the regulations is good because it helps citizens to push back and use the instruments of the law. And that’s a good thing. And I think then we are kind of testing the laws and seeing how best to involve citizen in defining or designing these solutions. And I think that might be part of the issue right now in just, you know, the low level of trust. If I sign up today, how does it translate to a public service being delivered to me? And that connection between data and water or electricity is not direct, but it’s also because there’s a trust deficit in the politics of how everything is done. Thank you so much, Mark. I will not do what most moderators do and kind of repeat the gist of what has been said because we were warned we only have a few minutes left and still many questions in the chat and in the room. And we take the first question from the floor.

Aishwarya Salvi:
Please, Leah. Yes, thank you so much.

Audience:
My name is Leah Gimpel. I’m from the Digital Public Goods Alliance. And I really love that we speak so much about sharing technologies and open source here in the session. However, we work a lot with countries, right? And I think we discussed here already that it’s not only about technology being available. It’s also about the governance and in general, an approach, DPI is an approach much more than technology. And what we hear a lot from countries is that they’re… afraid of making the same mistakes again that they did in the past. So, what I mean by that is that we, what we find is that there are coordination problems within governments, and there is turf wars, and people are not working together on the same thing, right? And in that sense, I’m wondering how we can instill this DPI mindset, really, in people. So, I’m very much with Pramut who’s saying it’s about minimalism, it’s about starting with a use case, and building it in a way that others can plug into it. But how do we instill this DPI mindset in people, apart from champions such as Amado here in the room, who is a champion in his country, building an export implementation. But we need more of those people, right? So, how do we get the message across the policymakers and leadership? Thank you. Thank you, Lea. I’m looking to the panel. So, I’m going to take the question up. Yeah, please go ahead. Do you want me to quickly answer?

Aishwarya Salvi:
Yeah.

Pramod Varma:
So, I’ll give some perspective on at least a few things that we are trying. One, I think the minister mentioned about G20 coordination and discussion. So, many of the countries came together on a shared definition, understanding of what DPI is. It’s just a vocabulary, as everybody’s been doing this. But there’s a common vocabulary that was created, and common set of principles were laid out. And they said this is important as the digital economy gets developed in many, many countries in the next 10, 15 years, and so on. So, how do we help every country create their own digital rails that allow their own digital economy to get pushed, and we talked about GALSTACK and many other efforts that are going on. So, from the people perspective, I think the journey has begun, and many of the discussions are happening. But the one thing, in addition, we are also doing is that there are DPI funds now. DPGA, of course, continue to support the sharing of assets via DPG ecosystem. And we also just started, I’m a co-chair at the Center for DPI. We just started a Center for DPI as a pro bono effort to spread, create DPI fellows and DPI residents around the world. So, we are creating proper training certification, both certification for policymakers and certification for actual implementers. These are sort of bootcamp-ish things that you go through to actually build. So, we are working with 21 countries, at least for now, to create their own DPI residents in their own country, because contexts are very different, and everybody needs to think through their own context in their own country. So, there are some efforts that are going on, but I think it needs to get accelerated. So, maybe more panels like this, more efforts, events like this, more training and support systems like this can actually be useful to bring it together,

Mark Irura:
bring a common understanding together. Thank you. Thank you so much, Pramod. I think Mark, you also wanted to react to the question, right? Yeah, very quickly. So, the issue of total cost of ownership, like during procurement, I was once in one of my previous roles, I was once in Malawi and a system had been put in place that was able to transmit some results to patients. So, when it was time now to hand over to government, they were like, do we put in infrastructure like hospitals in bed or we pay for these SMSs? So, from the start, there was a lack of understanding of procurement and what it implies to put this tool, because how do you go back to the taxpayers and say we bought SMSs? So, I think it is important to consider what it means. So, do we license that database at middleware or at application level? And what does it mean over the long term? So, I’ll just add that to the response that was given. For government to try out without burning their fingers and being locked in and having to go back to parliament and say we bought a license and it costs X amount of dollars and, you know, there’s a problem with that.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Mark. We have another question on the floor.

Audience:
Thank you so much. My name is Ramanjit Singh Cheema. I’m Senior International Counsel and Asia Pacific Policy Director with Access Now, the International Digital Rights Organization. And my first, and it’s a two-part question. So, the first question and comment is to promote online and then my second part is to the panel. The first one is to promote and there’s been a lot of discussion around digitization and learning from lessons from the past. So, I’m just curious for this group, wouldn’t it also be useful for the global community engaged in this conversation to learn from the Indian experience and mistakes? For example, having a digital identity project out that didn’t have a legal framework, that did not account for data protection rights, that in fact disputed with the privacy was a fundamental right. But also most importantly, the very design concept and I know you in particular promote extensive experience in this around the design of the system, namely a centralized cloud-based, cloud-stored biometric database. Would that be something that’s good for other countries to adapt to learn from? And the second question therefore, the second part of the question to the panel is given infrastructure has rights and governance concerns, what steps has the DPGA or this community around digital public goods taken to mitigate harms around digital identity, misuse, exclusion, specifically have them in consultation with human rights groups or others around lessons from digital identity experiences in India, in Kenya, in the Philippines and elsewhere? And how do human rights groups be baked into this consultative process?

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you so much. I first look over to Pramod. Do you want to react? Yeah. So, yeah, I think much of these learnings have been actually again documented.

Pramod Varma:
We don’t have to, it’s especially with the identity story. It’s actually 12 years, 13 years now into the system. It was done with full executive support, parliament approval, budgets, all the regulations. I agree. The laws could have been, law could have been done earlier. So, if countries starting today should definitely look at a full legal support, especially for identity. Identity is a sensitive topic today, but unlike things like payment or anything else that will get laid about that. So, but every country has their own journey, and those journeys are in the context of that country. I think we did have existing laws that supported, that deferred, and subsequently, you know, laid the special purpose law for the identity itself. The cloud part is actually wrong. You are wrong about the cloud part, because any unique attestation, any unique identity attestation necessitates the uniqueness part of the you, you part of the uniqueness need to come, and that requires most of the national ID project, even in Germany or anywhere else, have identity database or social, you know, security or anything else. Now, maybe in the future, there might be technologies, I’m not aware at this time, that can actually do a uniqueness attestation without storing the previous data. So, that means there’s some storage of data, but minimal, it has to be minimalist. It has to be secure. Identity system never been breached by the central system, never been breached so far. There were obviously, on the edges, incorrect usages and data leaks that has happened, unfortunately, but it is not the central storage that actually worries me. It’s the governance around it, security around it, but there’s a purpose necessitates the storage of data it needs to store, and needs to store a minimum set of data. So, I think that fundamentally is not an architecture issue at all.

Aishwarya Salvi:
It’s not a design issue.

Pramod Varma:
It’s how every identity system would play out. Of course, the question can be, how is it protected? How is it used, or how do we make sure it’s not misused and so on? So, these are important questions, and much of those learnings have been documented. So, I think countries will have their own context. 2020, 10, 2015, 2023, when you implement, or 2030, when you implement, new technologies can be leveraged to create, you know, relook at some of these design constructs.

Aishwarya Salvi:
Thank you. Thank you, Pramod.

Moderator:
I’ve already seen the sign that our time is up, unfortunately. There was a second part to the question, which was about which measures are being taken that digital public goods are actually secure and protect the data of citizens. Is there a very brief reaction from the panel on this question? Also looking to Valeria and Pramod. No? Mark, please.

Mark Irura:
So, there’s preventative and there’s curative measures. Of course, we run to the law when it’s curative, but I think preventative, there’s work that’s being done by, say, the Digital Public Goods Alliance, and they are coming up with, like, these are practices, these are good practices that we can adopt, and we take them as principles, and the reason we do that is you are preempting an issue happening by just following this set of practices that have been done. So, I’d offer that as a response, but I think Pramod really did talk about it. I’m just going to say one sentence. I think it’s going to make, like, in general, everyone safer if we understand that we need to support an open, available, and secure ecosystem of digital infrastructure components, because that’s where a lot of security issues also arise. So, we should understand it as a public’s job

Moderator:
to invest with public money in that area as well. Thanks. Thank you for that statement. I know we are over time. I would still take one very short, very, very last question from the floor.

Audience:
Okay, hi. I was going to frame this as a question, but I think I’ll leave it as a comment, and the panel can choose to react or not. I was wondering if you’d think about taking a bottom-up approach to the redressal mechanism to a lot of DBIs, right? We have seen in India that the failure rate of identity system can be really high, and that affects the public welfare delivery system to a lot extent. So, maybe thinking about providing the user with a choice if the digitization or the digital aspect of the verification mechanism does not work, they can go to a person who can help them out, because we’re also dealing with a low level of digital literacy here in a lot of countries. So, thinking about those redressal mechanisms particularly, and then also giving the user a particular level of choice where they can deal with these systems in terms of failures would be interesting. And I wanted to know what DBIs in your respective areas are doing around this, but I guess you can choose to react. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any spontaneous, very short reaction? Yes, Valeria, please.

Valeriya Ionan:
Yes, thank you for the question. So, obviously, when it comes to digital transformation, it’s important to see everything as a one system. In Ukraine, for example, we have projects which are working simultaneously. For example, we have a national program on the development of digital literacy. So, everyone who would like to increase their knowledge of digital literacy, they could do it either online or offline in a special digital centers where there is a gadget and internet connection and a facilitator who can facilitate the first contact between a person and a gadget or the platform. But when it comes, for example, to digital identity and to DIA app, which is our state’s super app and which has 14 digital documents, and I would use this opportunity to remind that Ukraine is the first country in the world where digital passports are totally equivalent to paper or plastic ones. So, for example, DIA does not store any personal data. DIA uses the approach data in transit and connects directly to the high secured state registers and shares basically shows this data. So, that’s a really good question, but probably there is no short and easy answer to that. When it comes to digital transformation in government or in country, to my mind, the most important thing is the vision. In Ukraine, we are building the most convenient digital country in the world. That’s why we are created user-centric and human-centric services and products. And when there is a need to create something new or service, product, whatever, we ask ourselves whether this really brings us closer to our vision, to the most convenient digital country in the world. It’s impossible to build it if you don’t have, if you have a basic level of digital literacy in your country. So, it means that you have to do a lot of measures in this regards. It’s impossible to build the most convenient digital country if you will not have digital services which are available for everyone and which are inclusive. It’s impossible to build digital country if you will not have a digital economy, which is working. It’s impossible if government will not have a specific person who will be responsible for digital transformation in their own sphere and in their level, like national level or regional level. So, the really great question, but I think it’s a topic for probably separate discussion. Thank you.

Aishwarya Salvi:
Thank you so much. I would quickly summarize the entire discussion for our audience. So, sorry to keep you waiting. And then, so in this discussion, largely we need to understand what do we mean by DPI. And when we look at this concept, we need a holistic approach, not just include the hardware, but also the software, because again, there are no boundaries. We also need to look at the demand side. We need to see what the community needs and how they can participate in ensuring that these DPIs are built that are safe and are user-centric. From the government side, we need to make drastic institutional changes, have data officers who are responsible for ensuring that the citizens are using these services and their grievance redressal is in place. So, just a quick summary here, and thank you so much to the audience and our speakers, especially to Pramod, who’s woken up so early in the morning for us. Thank you so much. And thank you, Reena, for joining us in this discussion.

Audience

The articles analysed cover a range of topics related to youth engagement and online safety. One article explores the effectiveness and necessity of age verification systems online. It discusses Marie Stella’s investigation into the opinions of youth and children regarding age verification. Stella found that, while adults haven’t found a perfect solution, the issue still needs attention.

Another article focuses on the opinions of young people regarding age verification. It raises the question of whether awareness-raising education alone is enough to prevent access to harmful online content. This article emphasises the importance of further examination and dialogue within the context of quality education and strong institutions.

The third article highlights the importance of engaging companies in child participation, particularly in areas with restricted democratic participation. It discusses how companies can contribute to the design and decision-making processes that affect children. While Microsoft is suggested as a potential partner, other companies are also encouraged to get involved. This article emphasises the role of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) in promoting child participation.

The fourth article stresses the need to develop convincing strategies to engage companies in child participation. It emphasises the importance of partnership for the goals and industry innovation and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 17 and SDG 9. Microsoft is suggested as a possible partner, but other companies are also welcomed.

In conclusion, the articles highlight the importance of addressing these issues to ensure the online safety and well-being of young people. They emphasise the need to explore effective age verification systems, consider youth opinions, and promote awareness-raising education. Engaging companies in child participation and developing convincing strategies are also seen as vital. These discussions align with various Sustainable Development Goals, such as SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 17 (Partnership for the Goals), and SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure).

Courtney Gregoire

The digital environment, although not originally designed for children, has a significant impact on their rights and potential. The policies of technology providers play a crucial role in shaping this impact. It is important to transition from a mode of protection to empowering youth voices. For example, Microsoft has a long-standing commitment to children’s online safety. They recognize the need to understand how children use technology in order to better design it. One way they have addressed this is through their gaming platform, where they introduced ‘Home Sweet Hmm’ to promote online safety.

The argument put forth is that children learn through play, highlighting the role of educational gaming in their development. Microsoft’s ownership of a gaming platform further emphasizes their involvement in promoting learning through play and fostering a safe digital environment for children.

Regarding product development, it is crucial to engage children in the process. Microsoft has convened three councils for digital good, where children aged 13 to 17 have provided valuable feedback on their services and apps. This demonstrates Microsoft’s commitment to involving children and incorporating their perspectives in the development of their products.

The potential of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is also highlighted, particularly its positive impact when used responsibly. The argument suggests that AI has the ability to do good, though responsible use is key to ensuring positive outcomes.

The summary also emphasizes the importance of incorporating children’s online behavior into policy-making. This reflects the need to understand how children ask for help online and to consider their experiences when shaping policies related to child safety and well-being.

Microsoft’s approach to child participation is noted, as they leverage existing organizations to engage children in product safety and design. They have previously convened Councils for Digital Good, collaborating with NGOs and academia to gather information and stimulate conversations on these issues.

Finally, the argument is made that children’s voices should influence both company rules and regulatory/legal rules. Microsoft actively involves their child participants in direct interactions with regulators, demonstrating their belief in the importance of children’s influence at various levels of decision-making.

In conclusion, the expanded summary outlines the significance of the digital environment on children’s rights and potential, the importance of empowering youth voices, the role of play and education in their development, engaging children in product development, responsible use of AI, integrating children’s online behavior into policy-making, and Microsoft’s efforts to involve children in shaping rules and regulations.

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson

The analysis emphasises the importance of actively involving children in decision-making processes and policy development, particularly in the area of online safety. The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises and upholds children’s right to freely express their views. The speakers in the analysis highlight that by involving children, policymakers can tap into their creativity, skills, and unique understanding, leading to more effective and tailored policies and programs.

It is crucial to consider that children interact with digital technology in ways that differ greatly from adults. Therefore, their perspectives and experiences must be taken into account when formulating policies and programmes related to online safety. Including children’s insights allows policymakers to gain a better understanding of their needs, enabling the creation of more relevant and effective guidelines.

Several supporting facts demonstrate the benefits of involving children in decision-making processes and policy development. The Committee on the Rights of the Child proposes nine basic requirements for effective child participation, including transparency, voluntariness, respect, child-friendly approaches, inclusivity, support through training, safety considerations, and accountability.

Examples from Tunisia and the Philippines illustrate how children’s voices have helped shape national plans and legislation. In Tunisia, children’s voices played a crucial role in formulating the National Plan of Action on Child Online Protection. By consulting with children, policymakers were able to gain valuable insights and develop a plan that truly addressed their concerns and needs. Similarly, in the Philippines, consultations with children informed the development of a new national plan of action on children’s issues and other legislative instruments.

The analysis also highlights that involving children in decision-making requires careful planning, allocation of resources, and adequate training. In the consultations held in the Philippines, young adults from the communities acted as facilitators, ensuring that children felt comfortable and supported. Additionally, programming for parents and caregivers was implemented, and an emergency response plan was in place to safeguard children in case of any disclosures.

To conclude, actively involving children in discussions and decision-making processes is essential for developing effective policies, particularly in areas like online safety. The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises their right to express their views, and involving them leverages their unique perspectives and understanding. Transparency, respect, inclusivity, and accountability are all key elements for successful child participation. Examples from Tunisia and the Philippines highlight how children’s voices can shape national plans and legislation. However, it is important to note that involving children in decision-making requires careful planning, allocation of resources, and adequate training to ensure meaningful and impactful participation.

Hillary Bakrie

The Protection Through Online Participation (POP) initiative aims to provide a safe online space for children and youth to access protection support. It emphasizes the importance of peer-to-peer support and encourages children-led solutions and initiatives. Hillary Bakrie, a supporter of POP, believes that the internet can be a valuable tool for young people to seek support and highlights the value they place on peer-created solutions. Young people also desire to be included as partners in decision-making processes, particularly regarding online safety and cybersecurity. This inclusive approach ensures that policies and measures are effective and relevant to their needs. To enable effective youth participation, addressing the digital divide and investing in education and skills are essential. Transparency, accessibility, and the recognition of young people’s contributions in policy-making processes are also emphasized. Overall, POP and its supporters advocate for an empowering online environment that values the expertise and experiences of young people.

Moderator

The discussion focused on the importance of child participation in policymaking, particularly in the context of online safety. Participants highlighted the significance of involving children in discussions and considering their rights in the digital environment. It was stressed that children have a unique understanding of their experiences online, and their perspectives should be taken into account when designing policies and interventions. The Child Online Protection Initiative (COP) and ITU’s role in implementing guidelines for child safety online were mentioned as important efforts in this area. COP aims to facilitate the sharing of challenges and best practices among member states. The ITU has been co-leading the initiative, providing support to countries in implementing the guidelines. The discussion noted that the involvement of children in policymaking can help ensure that their views and experiences are considered, leading to more effective and relevant policies and programs that address the specific needs of young users. The role of Microsoft in promoting child online safety was also highlighted. Microsoft has a longstanding commitment to this issue and has developed a suite of products and services that intersect with children’s online lives. The company engages in conversations with young people to understand their needs and enhance the way they interact with technology. Examples from Tunisia and the Philippines showcased the value of children’s input in shaping national action plans and legislative instruments related to online safety. In Tunisia, consultations with children helped shape the first-ever National Plan of Action on Child Online Protection. In the Philippines, involving children in consultations contributed to the formation of national action plans. The ITU In-Country National Assessment was proposed as a valuable resource for governments to improve child safety online. By conducting a comprehensive assessment of the existing situation and developing a strategy and action plan based on global best practices, countries can enhance their policies, standards, and mechanisms. Overall, the discussion highlighted the importance of involving children in policymaking and designing online safety interventions. Children’s participation ensures that their perspectives are taken into account, leading to more effective and relevant policies and programs. The involvement of youth in decision-making processes was also stressed, emphasizing the need for an inclusive approach that reflects the realities and aspirations of young people. The discussion recognised the value of partnerships between stakeholders, such as the ITU, Microsoft, and governments, in promoting child online safety.

Amanda Third

Children’s meaningful participation in the design of services and online safety interventions is considered crucial. The drafting of the UNCRC General Comment 25, which focuses on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment, was informed by consultations with children in 27 countries globally. This approach ensured that the key issues reflected not only the perspectives of adults but also the lived experiences of children themselves.

The International Telecommunications Union has taken steps towards promoting online safety by developing an online safety app, game, and trainings for three different age groups of children. What sets these initiatives apart is the involvement of a children’s advisory group, ensuring that the voice of children contributes to the creation of these tools.

To further support children’s participation, Amanda led the establishment of national child task forces in five countries. These task forces serve as guides for the government’s approach to online safety policy, emphasizing the importance of involving young people in crafting policies that directly affect them.

Youth participation in policy-making is highly valued and encouraged. Amanda suggests that shadowing decision-makers could enhance children’s influence in shaping online safety policies. Additionally, Amanda proposes that organizations’ platforms should actively seek young people’s input in a daily, approachable manner. This ongoing, real-time conversation would allow organizations to better understand children’s needs and preferences.

A notable finding from the consultations conducted in 27 countries is that children expressed their desire for improved online protections and data security. This highlights the importance of addressing these concerns to ensure a safe digital environment for children.

It is worth mentioning that attempting to restrict children’s online activities without considering their input can often lead them to find ways to circumvent such systems. Therefore, involving children in the decision-making process can lead to more effective and sustainable solutions, as children become active participants rather than passive subjects.

In conclusion, the engagement and participation of children in the design of services and online safety interventions are crucial. Through consultations, the UNCRC General Comment 25 incorporates children’s perspectives, ensuring that their unique experiences are reflected. Initiatives such as the online safety app and the establishment of national child task forces further demonstrate the commitment to involving children in shaping online safety policies. Encouraging youth participation and seeking their input in an ongoing manner will create an environment that better meets children’s online safety needs. By addressing their desires for better protection and data security, we can foster a digital environment that is safe and supportive for children.

Boris Radanovic

The analysis highlights the positive and impactful role played by youth in addressing various pressing issues. One notable example is the development of the Bully Blocker app by a group of teenagers, which aims to combat cyberbullying. This app demonstrates how youth-led initiatives can effectively address societal challenges, particularly in the realm of online safety. Another inspiring initiative is the creation of an online fake shop by a Polish high school student, intended to assist domestic abuse victims during the virus lockdown period. These examples exemplify the creative and innovative solutions that young people bring to complex problems.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the importance of involving youth in decision-making processes regarding their own issues. It argues that discussions on how to support children often lack the direct participation of children themselves. However, in order to create valuable actions and solutions, it is essential to include youth input. The presence of youth-led advisory boards is acknowledged, but it is stressed that following through on their advice is crucial to ensure meaningful outcomes.

In terms of online safety, the analysis recommends government representatives apply for the ITU In-Country National Child Safety Assessment. This assessment provides a comprehensive understanding of the existing situation of children’s online safety and aids in drafting national strategies and action plans that incorporate global best practices. It is argued that such assessments can enhance national policies, standards, and mechanisms to protect children in the digital realm. Additionally, the analysis highlights the importance of local adaptations of global strategies, as local cultural, social, and regulatory differences impact the effectiveness of online safety measures.

The analysis also addresses the issue of children encountering adult or abusive content unwillingly on the internet. It argues that children do not want content that is not intended for them in their online spaces, emphasizing the need for adults to implement protections to prevent children from accessing inappropriate material. It acknowledges that the internet and its content were not specifically created for children and therefore, proactive measures are necessary to safeguard their online experiences.

Furthermore, the analysis recognizes that age verification poses a significant challenge in ensuring online child safety. However, it suggests that with children’s input, a solution can be achieved. It is concluded that working collaboratively with children and implementing their perspectives and ideas can lead to more effective and comprehensive measures to protect them online.

Overall, the analysis highlights the important contributions of youth in tackling critical issues, the need to involve them in decision-making processes, the recommendation for government action in enhancing online safety, and the significance of age verification in protecting children online. By considering these insights and recommendations, society can better empower and protect the younger generation in an increasingly digital world.

Moderator:
What, in this stuff? Whatever the technology is, remind me where you’re based. We have, we, yes. You should, you should, 110%. Okay, can I just be honest, no, no, no. You do understand my value structure is we better be able to do it. Photo DNA, that’s the way, did Liz catch you? Yeah, so if we need to do a couple hours of engineering work to make it operable, like, that’s the way we do it. Easier to, yep. So we’re ready. And listen, do you see the dead line? I’m with you. Do you see the dead lines? See? We can cover it right this way, yeah. Let’s do it. Oh, great. Can you hear me? Yeah. All right, again, thank you very much for coming. Let me welcome you to the workshop number 86, open forum number 86, Child Online, Child Participation Online Policymaking with Children. So I’m your moderator. My name is Preetam Malur. I’m the head of the Emerging Technologies Division at the International Telecommunication Union. And the reason why many of you don’t know me, probably, is because I’m substituting for my colleagues, Carla and Fanny, who are the subject matter experts on the topic. So Carla couldn’t come. There was a last minute cancellation, so I offered to step in. So please indulge me if I don’t use the right terminology or make some mistakes. But to my credit, I’m an expert on this topic because I have my child here, who’s sitting next to me. So since the topic is on involving children in policymaking, if you have any hypothesis you would want to test during this session, here is a subject. No, I can guarantee you he’ll answer it. The quality of the answer is questionable. But anyway. All right. It’ll be great, it’ll be great. So with this, let me just start with a few introductory remarks, and then, which will be very quick, and then we can go to our panel. So some points on the Child Online Protection Initiative. We’ve been working, we as an ITU, has been working on this topic since 2009. Initially, the initiative was founded to facilitate the sharing of challenges, best practices among member states, addressing issues of violence against children in the online environment. Of course, we’ve broadened the focus now, actively involving children in discussions, and considering all child’s rights and the digital environment, including the right to participation, education, access to information, and many others. And the activities are now balanced between protection and participation online. So just to give you a background on the Child Online Protection Guidelines, because I know many of you were involved in drafting that. They were initially developed in 2008, revised again, comprehensively rewritten in 2020 by an expert group of more than 30 organizations from the UN, from NGOs, the private sector, academic sector, you know, so it was a truly multi-stakeholder effort. A global program was launched in 2021, you know, set to run till 24, aimed at assisting member states in implementing these guidelines. And it’s been a success story. You know, they are currently being implemented in 15-plus countries across all regions. You know, they include capacity building. They include policy assistance for member states in developing the national strategies, policies, legal and regulatory frameworks. And there’s a lot of activities going on. And among some of the new collaborative activities is the alignment with the new participation-based approach. And ITU has been co-leading the POP initiative, you know, Protection Through Online Participation, with the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary General on Violence Against Children. And we have a colleague from that office here. A few words on POP, you will hear more from her. It collaborates with over 30 global partners, including the UN, universities, NGOs, youth, private sector companies such as Meta, Disney, Lego, Microsoft, and Roblox. Hillary will tell you more about the effort. And in light of, you know, ITU’s efforts, alignment with global trends with regards to the work of expert organization in this area, discussions around how children can be best involved in matters that are relevant to them, and in particular with regard to child online protection and online safety are clearly more relevant than ever. And this is the emphasis on this session. So we have one hour, so I really urge you to stick to the three minutes for every intervention that’s allocated to you. So without any delay, let me turn to Afroz Kaviani-Johnson. Afroz, so I’ll start to, you know, I’ll start the discussion with a fundamental question. Could you share with us why it’s so important to work closely with children on matters that concern them? And more specifically, when we talk about child online safety. Afroz, over to you.

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson:
Thanks a lot. And a special welcome to your child as well. We’re delighted to have you around the table. Working closely with children on issues that affect them, like online safety, is crucial. And there’s a number of reasons. I’m just going to focus on three main ones. Firstly, it’s a right. The Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that children have the right to freely express their views on all matters and decisions that affect them, and to have those views taken into account. So it’s the right of every child without any exception. And of course, children encompasses like a very broad range of ages. The definition of a child is anyone under the age of 18. So obviously, it’s vital to adjust approaches to suit different ages and capacities. The second main point is that working with children really enhances programs, involving children leverages their creativity, their skills, their unique understanding of their own lives to create and monitor more effective and relevant policies, services and practices. And thirdly, particularly in this space of online safety, it provides real world relevance. So obviously, online safety programs and policies, which are typically designed by adults, will reflect adult concerns and may miss, you know, it will miss, not may, it will miss the nuances and, you know, the things that are important to young users. And children interact with digital technology in ways that are very different to adults. I can say this, you know, in my personal capacity as a parent, but also looking at, you know, the masses of research that UNICEF has undertaken with children around the world, around their online experiences. So consulting children, working with children kind of opens these avenues that we can explore and comprehend actual risks kind of versus perceived threats in the online environment. And it’s not just about listening. It’s really about ensuring that our policies, our programs, you know, are rooted in their lived experiences and tailored to their needs. So involving children, it’s not just beneficial, but it’s essential if we want to make our programs and our policies applicable and relevant to them and to achieve the purposes that we want to. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thanks, Afroz. In fact, you know, I’m always pleasantly surprised when I chat with my son about child online safety because they use an iPad at school. And, you know, the way they set their own passwords, the kind of protections they take, you know, the perspectives they have, you know, we usually discount them. And, you know, that’s to our disadvantage. Anyway, thank you very much. So now we have three speakers that I’m going to pose the same question, bringing three different perspectives based on obviously the stakeholder groups they belong to. We have Amanda Third from the Western Sydney University, Boris Radanovich, who’s an online safety expert from SWGFL, and Courtney Gregory, Chief Digital Safety Officer from Microsoft. So let me start with Amanda. But it’s the same question that I’m going to pose to all three of you. So the question of how children can meaningfully contribute to creating solutions to the challenges they face online. And again, the three that we have, academia, civil society and the private sector. Could you provide us with concrete examples of situations where children have played an active role in creating or developing solutions for online issues from your own perspective, own respective fields of work? And how did this outcome of your work differ from work that is solely driven by adults? So let me first ask Amanda.

Amanda Third:
Thanks so much. And I think I would start by saying that thankfully, there are now lots of examples that we can use to illustrate the meaningful participation of children and young people in the design of services and online safety interventions in particular. There has been a recent trend towards meaningful engagement, which many people in this room are a part of. And I guess what I would do is I would just highlight a couple of examples that I’ve had recent involvement with. The first would be to cite the consultations with children in 27 countries globally to basically inform the drafting of UNCRC General Comment 25 on children’s rights in relation to the digital environment, which is a piece of evidence-based guidance for states about how to implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child in relation to the challenges and the opportunities of digital technology. And that process involved working with child-facing organisations in those 27 countries, designing a creative and participatory-based methodology where children attended workshops of five hours in length. And five hours is very important here because what we wanted to do was to create enough space for children to actively explore the issues because often what we’re doing when we consult children about things is we’re asking them to talk about things about which they have a lot of experience and expertise, but they haven’t necessarily had an opportunity to put those things into words. So, allowing them enough time and space to really work through what are the issues, what do we know about them, how would we put our experiences into language? This is a really important part of meaningful engagement, I would argue. Anyway, the upshot of that is that we now have a general comment. The children’s perspectives were used as a check and balance all the way through the two-year drafting process. And now I think we do have, as a result, a general comment that really encapsulates the key issues from adults’ perspectives, but filtered through children’s own lived experiences of these issues. So, that would be the first one. Another one that I would point to, given the sponsors of this panel, is that yesterday the International Telecommunications Union released an online safety app, game, and set of trainings for three different age groups of children internationally. And that’s a very exciting moment. Again, this is another piece of work where we engaged a children’s advisory group from six different countries around the world, from memory, and they were with us right the way through, from conceptualisation to the refining of the final products. And I think what we know from these and many other examples, as Afrooz just pointed out, is that this does result in online safety interventions that are much better able to address children’s real experiences, to speak about those experiences from the perspective of a child, as opposed to this sort of top-down methodology. And I think there’s another initiative that the ITU has underway, taking the lead from the East Safety Commissioner, but maybe I’ll talk about that next time, because I think my three minutes are probably over. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Amanda. So, Boris?

Boris Radanovic:
Thank you. Hello, everybody. At SWGFL, we’re a not-for-profit charity, and for the first time ever, we’re seeing the next generation coming into the workforce. And just a couple of weeks ago, we realised that the young are leading the unexperienced who are managing a system created by the elders, whatever the system is, and that creates a lot of issues and a lot of problems. Thank you for the question as well. There are a lot of examples that we can find, especially in the European Union, pan-European and worldwide. I think those examples of youth-led activities, children-led activities, or apps, or many of those examples need to shine even more through. But I did manage to find a couple that I think are worth mentioning and worth definitely shining a light. There’s something called the Bully Blocker app. A group of teenagers developed an app called Bully Blocker to address online bullying. Think before you type a campaign, which was started to raise awareness about the consequences of online hate speech and cyberbullying started by teenagers. I Can Help movement, funded by a group of students that later on became a literal movement, and digital literacy initiatives by youth all over the world. But at the same time, I found an example that just amazes me. A teen in Poland, disturbed by the reports of rising domestic violence under coronavirus lockdown, a Polish high school student decided to launch a fake online shop to offer a lifeline to victims trapped in their homes. Victims could look at lipsticks and other forms of makeup, but look for help in the descriptions of those lipsticks of different kinds of domestic abuse. I think that just showcases the different way of thinking and the richness that this little angel next to you gives to this conversation and to many others. And I’m saddened that often, and I am not young, and I’m often the youngest in the room, the youngest person in the room, when we are discussing how and what to do and how to help children. So I would love to see in the future conversations about this, to have children around the table and discuss the same things and principles, because in the last 10, 25 years of our charity, it has been evident that we, as adults, do not have enough experience to connect with what children are living through today, because we had the fortune or misfortune of not having 2K, 4K, HDR-ready connected cameras all around us and having to basically put yourself out there in front of the whole world to see. So it’s sometimes really difficult to understand the issues they are going through if you are not ready to listen. But then I will take it a step further and then action on that. It’s really nice to have a youth-led board. It’s really nice to have a youth advisory board. But the conclusions and advice that are coming out of that require, I would say they demand from us action so we can create a better world for them, because it’s going to be their world, and we are just managing it for the time. Rather badly, but I think with time, if we are listening to them a little bit more, that will be helpful. Thank you.

Moderator:
Boris, that’s a good point. Even within the UN, I’ve spent 15 years here, and I can see, and I’m largely involved in running processes that are member-state facing, where I sit at the ITU, and I’ve seen the delegations change in nature with more youth involvement. Of course, the definition of youth changes from country to country. So in some countries, you’ll see a 35-year-old, 40-year-old youth delegate, and in some they are much younger. But still, it’s getting younger, the age of the delegation. And also, we’ve had specific consultations with youth on so many of these topics that I’ve seen earlier being just decided in closed meetings among traditional set of delegates. So hopefully it’s all changed for the better. Thank you very much. And I can assure you there is no angel sitting next to me. They’re calling you an angel, man. Okay. So let me go to Courtney. Courtney, over to you.

Courtney Gregoire:
Well, thank you very much. And just at the outset, I think it’s valuable to think about the concept of our conversation today, policymaking with children. And I respect that many of our conversations today are about how we ensure that children’s voices are at the center of laws and regulation. But when we’re talking about the digital environment, let’s be perfectly honest, there are multi-layers of what policy is made and what it means to have policy made by tech providers that equally impacts the ability of children to unlock their potential, their rights in the digital environment. It’s also worth just stating the fundamental reality, that the digital environment was not designed for children. And we now have to recognize how significant a role it plays in their lives. Microsoft has a longstanding commitment to child online safety. And we also recognize the need to think and evolve from a protection mode to truly an empowering youth voices as to how they can unlock their potential through tech. Microsoft has a suite of products and services that intersect with children from their gaming lives, their social lives, to their economic and educational opportunities of the future. And we think it’s pretty critical to understand at the core how children are using our technology to better design it to fit their needs. First and foremost, I probably have to thank every single other panelist here because the work you’ve done has informed how we think about product design and build it in through our standard. Whether it’s recently a conversation with Amanda in Australia, reminding me that, you know, as a parent, how well does it go when you give a list of thou shall nots? The top ten things not to do online does not exactly inspire the young people to think about how to unlock their potential. And has had a huge impact on me reshaping how we think about that. Giving you two concrete examples about how we put this into practice, Microsoft has convened three councils for digital good over the past couple of years and I really respect exactly what you said. We structure that intentionally to be a conversation. We thought at the first outset it was important to create a baseline understanding with our young people, ages 13 to 17, how we think about privacy, safety and cyber security and how that’s built into our products. But with that baseline, bring it on. Tell us how you engage with our services and our apps and how those can better achieve what you want. They did have a final project and actually one of the most wonderful parts of my job has been reviewing some of those final projects. They were responsible for saying what they wanted their digital life to look like in five years. And then how do we together co-create that reality. And one of the most fascinating things was their sense of responsibility to their friends and their peers. They understood that maybe they had not reported something they’d seen online, but now they understood they were doing it for their community. The feedback we also got, we should learn because we obviously own a gaming platform, that kids learn through play. And so one of our releases just about seven months ago, Home Sweet Hmm, is a fun and educational way to introduce young people to online safety within Minecraft where they already spend a bunch of time. I had to be told why it’s called Home Sweet Hmm. That’s because I’m not an average Minecraft user. But you may know that the Minecraft iconic villagers don’t speak but rather grunt hmm. But in the cyber safe adventure, this sound is also intended to represent that pause. To think about what it means to make sure you are setting the tone for what you want for your online future. So we think through play when we get that active engagement, we can better help bring that to life.

Moderator:
Thank you, Courtney. Again, I’m using him as a subject. Yes, that is true. Minecraft, you do hmm. But, you know, about a decade and a half ago, I was also involved in the Child Online Protection Initiative for a few years. Microsoft has been a steady partner of this initiative over many years. So, you know, thank you very much for that. All right. Hillary. Hillary Bakery, Associate Program Officer on Youth Innovation and Technology from the Office of the SG’s Envoy on Youth. Hillary, thank you for being here. So let me pose the question I have for you. So together with the ITU and thank you for highlighting ITU’s work, Amanda. So I know my colleagues have been working hard and, you know, so also a shout out to Carla and Fanny for the, you know, the new release yesterday. So, okay, Hillary. So together with the ITU, your colleagues present here today and many more partners from the UN, NGO, academic and ICT sectors, you’re working on POP, the protection through online participation. So can you share some insights about this initiative? Give us some ideas on how children and youth can be part of the solution with regards to violence against children and violence online? Hello. Yes.

Hillary Bakrie:
No, yeah, thank you so much for the question. It’s been a very exciting journey actually to be part of POP with ITU, the Office of the SRSG’s on Violence Against Children, working together with Amanda and many of their colleagues are in the room. So as you mentioned, the initiative is called Protection Through Online Participation. We call it POP for short, very youth friendly, children friendly in terms of name. And I believe the name also really speaks for itself, right? It has a vision of a world where children and youth can leverage from the internet, can leverage from digital platforms to safely access protection support either from official services or from their peers. And we often hear a lot about how the internet brings harm or there’s a lot of risks that comes with digital platforms. I think with this initiative we’re taking a slightly different approach. We want to explore the other part of that narrative, right? We want to explore how internet and other platforms could be used to, you know, do good impact, to empower, to create solutions that can help children and young people to stay safe. And with this initiative we’re actually doing a series of mapping, one of the mapping exercise that we are looking into is we’re looking to one, seeing how young people and children are using the internet itself to access protection support, but second, and I think this is one of the key unique aspect of the initiative is that we’re looking into the role of peer-to-peer support. So really looking into children-led solutions and initiative, youth-led solutions and initiative. And I think it was mentioned a little bit by Boris as well, how crucial this is. So we asked young people from around the world a few months ago to share and participate in this mapping exercise and through the survey we learned that the majority of young people, as obviously we assume, use online system and online platforms to seek support when they’re feeling scared, when they’re feeling unsafe or experiencing harm. And then majority of them either find this by themselves or actually through their peers. So this power of young people and children understanding themselves, understanding other children and young people, I think that really speaks for itself, right? Like no one understands children and young people better than themselves. And then I am now a millennial and then going at the end of my late 20s and then I cannot speak on behalf of Gen Z’s who are a few years younger than me. So I think there is also, it’s important to acknowledge that the power of that peer-to-peer support system matters. And from that finding as well, we learned that not only that young people and children have the agency to navigate this challenge when they’re feeling scared or when they’re experiencing risk in terms of harm and violence, but they also believe in the solutions and initiative that their peers created. And funny enough, when we ask young people and children if they know who made the solutions, if they know who made this platform, not many of them are actually aware if children and young people are part of the solutions that created this platform. But when we ask if children and young people should be involved in the design and the creation and the development of the solutions, the majority of them, I think nearly 80% of them really believe that young people and children of their age should be involved, right? So I think there was a little bit of this perspective, also mentioned by Courtney earlier on the importance of involving youth directly. And then I think Amanda spoke a little bit also on meaningfully engaging young people and children into the process.

Courtney Gregoire:
In Singapore, but we talked to parents and caregivers about the different conversations you want to be having with children, yes, zero to five, and maturing from there about how you understand children are using technology and being age appropriate in those conversations. It’s just worth noting that as a parent, that is a hard thing to do if you do this job daily. It does mean getting in there and co-play and co-understand how they’re using technology. Just as we think about how we help our children understand the world, we need to be thinking about how they play through technology. Lastly, there is a big question on the table, and I think one of the most interesting things we’ve seen through surveys from kids is the challenge they feel in the misinformation and disinformation space online. They understand the overwhelming nature of what’s coming at them and want the tools to help better understand and make rational decisions about the information they’re coming in contact with. There are opportunities to do that as we really think about content provenance and other spaces in generative AI. But if we don’t do that, thinking about what the information is communicating effectively to young people, I don’t think will really help navigate that new world order in the generative AI context.

Moderator:
Thank you, Courtney. Actually, you gave me two interesting pieces of information among all the things you said. One is that children are more open to asking for help online, which is an eye-opening statistic. And second is you gave some very good examples of the potential of AI to do good, because obviously the conversation is all on governance, you know, which are important conversations to have, the guardrails that are needed for generative AI. But you’ve highlighted the good that it can do and use the right way in a responsible way. Thank you very much.

Courtney Gregoire:
Can I just add, the research, what you said was surprising was surprising to us. So I love that of course children know that they turn online and turn to their friends for peers. We have to acknowledge that for those working at tech companies and in government, the fact that this was eye-opening for us to learn, they’re willing to ask those vulnerable questions of a digital technology that we wouldn’t. We now need to build that into how we think about policy.

Moderator:
Absolutely, absolutely. And I acknowledge that, yeah. All right, so Hilary, let me come back to you. Can you tell us a little bit about how children and young people would like to be involved? You know, what are they requesting us, the international community, to consider when it comes to policymaking in relation to online safety?

Hillary Bakrie:
Yes, well, the short answer is nothing about us without us. I think earlier I shared that through the mapping that the POP initiative did, young people noted that they believe youth should be part of the solution, children should be part of the solution. But even just a few days ago in the IGF Youth Summit, many youth activists and leaders also highlighted that when it comes to policymaking processes and policy implementation on cybersecurity, on online safety, on safeguarding human rights in this digital age, young people are still not included fully, right, in the decision-making table. And sometimes youth is consulted, and I think Amanda mentioned a very exciting trend that young people are consulted. There’s an increasing trend in terms of meaningful engagement. But when it comes to actually making the decisions, delivering decisions, young people are not yet included as partners, as I briefly mentioned earlier. And if you look at the bigger picture, nearly half of the world’s population is actually young people, however, less than 3% of the parliamentarian members are actually under the age of 30. And I think that number speaks for itself, right, the lack of representation of youth. And even for younger youth or adults and then children specifically, right. So I think we need to change this number. We need to make these spaces available for young people and have young people meaningfully included in the policies that really affect their lives. Most policies like on online protection, on cybersecurity and many others. And beyond access, many of young people have not only noted that access is important, access to the policymaking process is important, but we need to make an enabling environment, right, so youth can effectively contribute as partners. Like we need to close the digital divide and make sure that everybody has access to meaningful connectivity. We have to invest in young people’s and children’s educations and skills, right, not just technical and digital skills that will help them become experts and contribute substantively to the subject, but also skills that will allow them to navigate how the policymaking process looks like. And to build on this, we have to make information on policies, process, policies, processes, not only transparent, but also accessible, right, to every layers of community, both children, young people, and not accessible in terms of just language, but also taking into account what is the cost to access information, disability inclusion, and many other factors that could help it to become a more inclusive process for both children and youth. And lastly, I think many young people have also voiced out that they are all also working in this sector as well. Many of them are young innovators. Many of them are young people in STEM, or even contributing to policy process in regional or national level. I think really just reiterating what I’ve been saying, it’s important to acknowledge them as partners and experts in this, again, so that they could have an equal footing in this conversation, yeah. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Afroz, the next question is for you. We’ve heard what children and young people are asking for, but in practice, how can we actively involve children in policymaking that concern them? And can you provide some examples, you know, good practices or lessons learned from successful initiatives, meaningfully involving children in policymaking?

Afrooz Kaviani Johnson:
Yeah, thank you. I think I’m gonna pick up a lot of what Hilary just mentioned. I just wanna point to another general comment of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is number 12, which actually talks about child participation. And I think this is really important when we’re thinking about what makes effective child participation. And they talk about all processes in which children are heard and participate. They’ve got nine, nine basic requirements. So one, that they’re transparent and informative. Two, that they’re voluntary. Three, that they’re respectful, child-friendly, inclusive, supported by training. I think it’s a big one. It’s not just something that happens. The people that are facilitating, the children that are participating need to be supported by training. Another really important one, safe and sensitive to risk, recognising that it’s not always a safe process to engage children on some of these sensitive issues. And sometimes even when it seems like it is fine, things can come up. So being ready for that. And then very importantly, accountability. So being accountable as well. So I’m just gonna share two quick examples in my, I don’t know how many minutes I’ve got left, very few, that strive to kind of embody those requirements. And so they’re examples from my colleagues around the world. So firstly in Tunisia, where Children’s Voices have helped shape the first ever National Plan of Action on Child Online Protection. And the impetus for this plan actually came from children. It came from a qualitative study with children about their online experiences. And there was a series of focus group discussions around the country with girls and boys aged 11 to 17, taking place in different parts of the country. So really trying to make it accessible and inclusive. And children were consulted not only for the input into the plan of action, but also to kind of validate and provide feedback on the draft plan of action. Children that were involved in the consultations, it wasn’t just your usual kids on school councils or a convenient sample of children, but children who were in school, but also out of school, and those also living in alternative care. So even in residential care facilities. And I think there were a lot of insights from that process that wouldn’t have been garnered if it had just been an adult-led process, just insights as to the topics that were most important for kids and privacy and data protection, coming out really strongly. The kids shared preferences on how they wanna receive information, be it peer-led initiatives or online or school programs. So it was a process in which children could not only kind of voice their concerns, but also help shape the measures that the country is now gonna take. The second example, which I’ll summarize very quickly, is from the Philippines, where there’s actually a longstanding practice of child participation that’s being refined and kind of improved over time. So our colleagues at UNICEF recently supported a series of consultations to inform the new national plan of action on children. And they’ve used similar methodologies for informing other pieces of legislation, including the recent legislative instrument on online exploitation and also one on child marriage. So just some kind of success factors around the methodology. The facilitators are young people. So they’re not older adults. They’re adults, but they’re younger adults in the scheme of things. And they’re young adults that have been trained over years and supported in this process. The facilitators are also from the communities in which children are from, right? So there’s already trust and there’s already a relationship there that, and yeah, it makes it more accessible as well. There’s minimal adult intervention, or I should say older adult intervention, so that children can, they feel safe to voice their perspectives. They’re not intimidated. They’re not influenced. Interestingly, there was also programming for the parents and caregivers to the side, right? Because it’s not always that easy to gather children and consult children. Well, what are the parents gonna do during that time? So there was programming to the side to engage them in parallel sessions. There was an emergency response plan in place for safeguarding, and there were social workers ready in case there were disclosures. And in fact, there were disclosures from participation. Just quickly, the methodology was child-friendly. So a lot of games in terms of inclusivity. A lot of diverse groups of children were involved, children with disabilities, children who were in alternative care, children in street situations. But you can’t just bring all these kids from all these different situations together without some careful planning, thought, preparation. And what I loved when my colleagues were telling me about this was that they wanted every child to go home feeling like they were seen and heard through that process. And that really stood out to me as kind of a principle. And I think just to close up, some of the lessons learned, especially from colleagues in the Philippines who have been working on evolving these practices of child participation is that it takes resources, it takes funding, it takes deliberate investment in kind of the capacity of facilitators over time. So some of the young people that are now facilitators were actually consulted, you know, at times during their childhood. So there was that nice kind of building of that capacity over time. So I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thanks, Afroz. Very interesting information. I think we have 15 minutes, so we’d like to have at least six, seven minutes of Q&A, if not more. So let me quickly move on to Boris. Boris, so you’ve concretely worked with the ITU to draft national strategies on child online protection in several countries. Can you tell us a bit more about this work and how it positively affects children’s well-being online?

Boris Radanovic:
Thank you. I think that’s the best part of my job, honestly, from the last 10 years I’ve been doing that. I’m going to call this a love letter to your government. Whoever government is looking at this and listening for the last three days of IGF and you’re wondering, where am I supposed to start? What am I supposed to do? ITU In-Country National Assessment is where you should start. So basically, the principle is, if you apply and discuss it with ITU, you’ll get the support. The worst part of that support, you’re going to meet me, but everything else is awesome. So National Child Only Safety Assessment. I honestly urge each and every one of them, especially the government, the government representatives listening to this, that you consider applying for this. This includes a comprehensive assessment of the existing situation, the development of a national strategy, and then the action plan, the much-needed action plan with recommendations based on global best practices. I had the pleasure of visiting many countries, and the difference of 50 to 100 miles does in culture, approach, consideration, and data behind it is just remarkable. Marking that we can have global solutions, but we need local adaptations, and they need to be carefully, carefully managed. With this, you not only enhance your national policies, standards, and mechanisms, that you can ensure the safety and well-being of children in the digital realm, but for all children in the entire country. I heard a lot of words in the IGF in the last… power words in the last couple of days of inspiration, speakers of many… paradigms, new shifts, and I love it, but I come from a non-profit sector, we are there for impact and action. So the time is now that you can apply for that, and I think this is the first step for any government official in considering where to start. This is a beautiful first step, and you need to take that step as a responsible government to understand where you are right now so you can understand where you want to go. Do not leave children of your countries just behind by not adapting simple actions that have wide-reaching consequences to protect them literally immediately while we are doing the assessment. I’m going to tell you a little bit what it is. And all of us, but especially anybody working in the government, have a duty to protect children in your country, and we want to help you with that, and pretty much that is it. Let us help you skip years, and in some countries decades, of stumbling in the dark and endangering children by your lack of knowledge and experience and just awareness of the global best practices or what to do and how to skip some of those issues. Please do reach out to ITU to start the process, and we can together create a better and safer environment for all children in your country, but for all children in the world than afterwards. By working together, we can build that environment, but we have to understand that while understanding the issues on a global scale, we need to understand that each of those issues is represented really differently in each of the countries. So how does it look? It’s rather simple after the application process starts with ITU. There is research that goes on first, and we love to do that research because we send it at the same time to children and parents, and some of the questions are the same, but the parents and children don’t know that they have the same question. So in some countries, parents would say that 80% of parents feel that their children will always talk to them if they found any issues online, and then 10% to 20% of children would really speak to them. So it’s really evident from the get-go that we as adults have a totally different picture of what is happening on the ground. Then happens the interviews, and I think that is the best advantage of this process because we do a multi-stakeholder interview, which is basically a marathon interview, 12 to 14 hours a day, with every part of the government, NGO, industry, stakeholders, every part of the internet society in each country, representing and asking them similar questions or sometimes even exactly the same to see those different perspectives, then combining that into a report, then providing the positive examples on a global scale, and literally at the moment of an interview, you can find the gap. In some countries, child sexual abuse material was illegal to distribute and to download and stop there. Then we asked a simple question, what about possession? It’s not in the law. So we just added one word in the law, and suddenly the police could have an action. In another country, they were really proud that they have a cyber-bullying law, but the cyber-bullying law only applied if you are cyber-bullying a child in your own school. So if you’re cyber-bullying a child in a different school, the law doesn’t apply. There are many, many, many other kind of simple solutions or simple fixes to maybe some good-willing actions that are already being made, literally seen in a couple of hours, if not in a couple of days. So this is like a bespoke assistance done by experts in the most sensitive way, especially listening to the voices on the ground, at the same time interviewing and listening to children going to schools and as well, putting their experiences through the report as well to shine through. And I think if you’re thinking about doing anything, especially after this wonderful IGF, I honestly believe this is a great first step, and we can only, like that, I think in that way, create a better and safer Internet for us all by thinking globally but looking at how to implement it locally. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thanks, Boris, and again, thanks for highlighting this important work of the ITU, but of course, we wouldn’t have been able to successfully do it without partners such as you, and all of you are on the table, so thanks again. So I think this is the last question, and it’s to Amanda. So you’re currently working with the ITU to involve children in the development process of national strategies related to child online protection. So can you share a little bit more about this effort and what you’re expecting to gain from it?

Amanda Third:
Yeah, sure. So I am indeed leading a piece of work with the ITU around the development of national child task forces in five countries to support the development of national strategies on the ground, which is a really exciting piece of work that I’m very happy to be part of. But it builds on a previous piece of work going back two years now when the eSafety Commissioner in Australia commissioned the Young and Resilient Research Centre that I direct to design a national task force to guide the government about online safety policy and programming across the country. And so what we did was we worked with a group of young people aged 10 to 18 to really dig deep into their experiences of online safety, but also of online safety interventions to get a really sort of like nice deep snapshot of the strengths and limitations of all of the good work that’s going on. And the eSafety Commissioner was very, very invested in doing this work so that they could really understand whether or not their messaging was hitting the mark and whether or not there were any sort of impacts emanating from some of their interventions. And certainly we did come across those. But also young people in that study gave us a really strong reality check on just where messaging is failing to land. They really reacted very strongly to top-down messaging, the list of don’ts. We all know that, don’t we, from our interactions with children in our everyday lives. But also they really spoke passionately about the ways that they felt that they had this expertise that could be channelled meaningfully into policy-making processes. So then we worked with them after we’d identified the strengths and limitations of the messaging and programming. We then worked with them to co-design a national youth advisory. And one of the beautiful things about this process this time around was that the old people like myself, I’m never the youngest person in the room, Boris, the old people like myself were not face-to-face with young people. We trained a team of youth researchers, sort of around the age of 18 to 20, to implement this work. And wow did it really, it was a complete game-changer because those young people opened up in ways we just hadn’t seen before. So that was really, really exciting and subsequently we’ve gone on to design a co-research, a youth co-research toolkit to support young researchers to be part of teams. And I’m happy to share a link to that if anybody would like it. But out of this process we’ve got a sort of, you know, young people designed a mechanism if you like, whereby there’s a group of young people who are diverse, they’re appointed over a two-year period and they guide and shape the government’s approaches to online safety policy and programming. It’s early days yet, we have only just started to implement that program and indeed it was implemented rather more quickly when a federal politician took a liking to it than we had anticipated. But so we’re sort of, you know, we’re just working out some of the bumps and roadblocks. But now what we hope is that we can now translate this process, working with people on the ground in different countries to culturally adapt this process and to create an ongoing mechanism for children to feed into that process of developing national strategies in their various countries. So I think what I would say is that I think it’s very, very encouraging to see that so many different entities from Microsoft to national governments, you know, to NGOs embracing advisory mechanisms to guide their work. I think though we, let’s not rest on our laurels. It’s really wonderful to have these mechanisms but we need to make sure that they stay fresh and that they remain open to young people’s insights and perspectives. Because they can get ritualistic, they can become kind of tick the box, as I said in an earlier panel today, tick the box kind of mechanisms and so we, and I think we need to remember too that not all young people’s experiences can be appropriately reflected through formal advisory mechanisms, right? So I think two things we should be thinking about in particular. The first is to level up on Boris’s challenge, not just to actually respond to children’s and young people’s insights, which is absolutely important, but really to reflect on our own processes, to think about the ways that we run things as adults in a quite like closed door sort of way often, to reflect on our processes of decision making and to really expand those and make new spaces for young people to become part of an ongoing real time conversation rather than the thing that we do when we need some input, right? How do we embed it? For example, could there be young people shadowing important decision makers, guiding them on what children and young people might like to do, etc. So things to think about there. So how do we transform our institutions so that young people can genuinely influence the agenda? But also how could we use our products and platforms to be seeking young people’s input on issues that relate to policy in a really everyday way that taps into their everyday interactions, right? How can we sort of seek their input, make spaces for people’s input to be channeled through to the decision making process inside organisations? So I think, like I say, I’m really excited and encouraged to see the ways that these youth participation models are being embraced around the world. It’s just so, so fabulous to see how far we’ve come in the last decade when we really were incredibly focused on protection and not really thinking about these questions of participation. But I think also let’s continue to think creatively about participation. Let’s not rest and let’s just think of this question of participation as one we won’t resolve and we have to keep paying attention to as things unfold. Thank you.

Moderator:
So thanks, Amanda. Your call for action was a good closure to the formal set of questions. So let me open it up for Q&A. I think we can take five minutes. So I have an online question, so let me start with that. In addition to the UN Youth Envoy and ITU’s plan to empower young minds against cyberbullying, would you take that? Thanks.

Hillary Bakrie:
Thank you. I think we had a chance to see the full question that was shared online and thank you so much also for sharing that. If I’m not mistaken, I think the question also highlighted that many young people have been working on solutions that address, solutions that help other young people and children to navigate cybersecurity and whatnot, so I think it’s actually exciting to see a real-life example of that. It would be really great, actually, if you are a young person or children or adolescent who is working on these solutions to be in touch with us. I think if the online moderators could help out, perhaps we can pop on the link of our actually initiative protection online participation because we actually want to not only hear from you but also learn from you specifically. How have you been building the solutions? Why did you decide to make the solutions? And really learn from your expertise as children and young people with lived experience and who are navigating through these challenges of cybersecurity and online protection, and we want to partner with you, as we indicated earlier in the panel, that it is important to recognize you as partners. So actually, if you would be open to connecting with us, that would be really great, and then perhaps the online moderators can help share the link, how you can get in touch with us. And then also, I think just a quick shout-out again to ITU and the other interagency partners like the SRSG’s Violence Against Children’s and also UNICEF, who has so many resources that has been building capacity of children and young people to contribute into this space as well.

Moderator:
Thank you, Elriana. In fact, the online moderator, if there are other questions that are being posed online, I just don’t have access to that. So please, you know, ask for the mic and you can read out the questions. Meanwhile, anyone here who, ah, yeah, please.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. I’m Marie Stella from the Philippines. So I’m just wondering, based on your interactions with the youth and the children, did they say anything about age verification? Because adults like us can’t seem to find the perfect solution to age verification. Do they think that we even need age verification online? Or is awareness-raising education enough to make sure that they will not access illegal or harmful content online? Thank you.

Boris Radanovic:
I’ll try to be quick and give space to others. It’s a wonderful question, and thank you so much. I think over 17 countries, I had the pleasure of speaking with children, they do not want content that is not intended for them in their spaces. And sometimes that is evidenced by data. A significant proportion of children encounter content of adult content or any other abuse content unwillingly. That’s the problem. That’s step number one. Step number two, we as adults do have to implement protections for children, whether they consider and we should consider their opinions about it, just because the internet and the content there is not created for children. So we need to find a way how to make it safer. Unfortunately, the solution to age verification is one million-dollar question, another one. But I think we will get there, and we will find a way to do so, but we will get there with children, because those spaces need protection so they can feel safe and they can feel protected. I hope that helps a bit.

Amanda Third:
I would just add quickly that when we spoke to children in 27 countries for the general comment 25, they were very, very clear with us that they wanted better protections online. They were also equally clear with us that they want their data to be protected, and they want to know how their data is being protected and why. So our solutions around age assurance, age verification, need to balance these tensions, obviously. But I think also they were also quite clear with us that systems that are sent up to prevent them doing things are often an invitation to subvert them. So I think we also need to think through the implications of protecting children through a range of mechanisms, and to think about, actually, does that keep a child safe all the time, or does it make them unsafe in ways that we then can’t deal with? So I think there’s a very complex set of questions there that we need to work through, and as Boris says, in partnership with children.

Moderator:
So let me first, before I give you, so I have the question now, and let me acknowledge the person who posed the question. It’s Omar Farooq, a 17-year-old boy from Bangladesh who’s working actively to ensure children’s rights and mental health. He’s the founder and president of Project OMNA, which is an AI-powered upcoming mobile project focused on children’s mental health and child rights.

Audience:
Thank you to the panelists. I’m Dora from UNICEF. I just wanted to ask maybe Microsoft, but open to the other companies as well, in context where child participation or democratic participation is more restricted, what could be winning arguments to engage the companies to do child participation in the design, or what could be winning strategies to convince them?

Courtney Gregoire:
A great question, and you opened a new window in my brain to acknowledge, and it’s interesting because we have, as I mentioned before, Microsoft had previously convened Councils for Digital Good and leveraged this as an important mechanism to have a conversation about how to think about safety design. As we’ve thought about how to scale, we really had taken a step back and said we want to work with existing organizations who think day in, day out about how to engage child participation and leverage their understanding and the information they can gather as we think about product and safety by design. Our expectation is that we should be doing that with the NGO community and the academic community who are building in, everyone here has said, the fundamental principles that we need to be thinking about to meaningfully engage children, that we are representative, that we are doing it in a safe environment, that they have the trust, and we’ve had that moment of, okay, that’s how we should be leveraging the ecosystem. I think we need child voices and participation at both layers. I’m sorry, they have to influence. And one thing that I failed to mention before, we had thought about our child participation and the councils to inform, yes, product design, but we opened up the door to have them talk directly to regulators so that it really was the true multi-stakeholder engagement that we wanted to hear out of those voices, whether that was with Ofcom or Archon, so that that was, they knew that they should be influencing all rules that impact them from a regulatory and a legal perspective to the rules of the road set by companies.

Moderator:
I’m getting a signal that we have run out of time. Let me quickly close by thanking our speakers. It was a fantastic panel. So Afroz, Amanda, Boris, Courtney, Hillary, thank you very much. I guess one takeaway which is very clear is the influence of children in not only the design of the online spaces is unquestioned. It’s also important that we as decision makers, as product makers, we make sure that the voices are properly heard and taken into account meaningfully. So again, thank you very much. Let’s probably end quickly with a round of applause for the speakers. And we hand over the room to the next set of people. A series of government meetings. And then fly tomorrow evening home to Seattle. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. I know. We really do. I’m excited about it though. Including, I want to have a conversation with WeProtect about thinking about how they could potentially be a convening room. But then that is to me, I think so. So starting with Ian and saying what do you think?

Vinicius W. O. Santos

The open forum, co-organized by CGI.br (The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee) and ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers), aimed to facilitate the exchange of experiences and knowledge on memory and documentation in the field of Internet Governance. CGI.br presented its efforts in designing a specialized library on Internet Governance and publishing official documents related to the subject.

Discussions at the forum focused on the challenges of managing and retrieving information in the dynamic field of Internet Governance. Participants expressed a strong interest in creating a comprehensive collection to organize, preserve, and retrieve the wealth of information generated in this rapidly evolving domain.

The project initiated by CGI.br and ICANN has grown significantly, incorporating various tools, practices, methodologies, and content types. This progress demonstrates the commitment and dedication of the organizations involved in ensuring accessibility and availability of valuable resources in Internet Governance.

Looking ahead, the session addressed the challenges and future prospects of the project. There are various obstacles to be addressed in the short and long term. The forum aimed to provide an overview of the project’s progress and foster discussions on overcoming these challenges.

Partnerships and collaboration emerged as fundamental pillars for successful work within Internet Governance, particularly in informational and archival projects. The absence of partnerships could impede the implementation and deployment of these initiatives, while collaborative efforts form the foundation of achievements in this field.

In conclusion, the open forum organized by CGI.br and ICANN served as a valuable platform for exchanging experiences and knowledge on memory and documentation in Internet Governance. It highlighted the importance of specialized libraries, the publication of official documents, effective management and retrieval of information, and establishing partnerships and collaborations for success in this domain. The project has evolved significantly, but challenges remain. Future prospects were discussed for continued progress.

Audience

The role of libraries in providing access to knowledge and the internet is significant, with a major impact on internet history and facilitating access. They bridge the digital divide by ensuring access to information and resources. In the context of internet governance-related events, having content available in the Brazilian language is seen as crucial for effective engagement and reducing inequality. Cgi.br collections greatly contribute to qualifying Brazilian participation in internet governance-related processes, while systematic organization and documentation are commended. Additionally, there is a call for a larger project on internet data archive that would benefit researchers, policymakers, and civil society. The use of machine learning algorithms for data categorization and the importance of partnerships and collaboration in internet governance projects are also highlighted. The absence of a taxonomy initiative in internet governance sparks curiosity, and the library sector recognizes the importance of the internet in delivering services and promoting information dissemination. Libraries are seen as more than just buildings, playing a vital role in educating for digital and information literacy. The close connection between libraries and internet service providers is emphasized, and there is a suggestion to explore the use of large language models for taxonomy extraction. Overall, the analysis underscores the significance of libraries, language inclusivity, collaboration, and technological advancements in internet governance.

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos

The project at hand is primarily concerned with the development of the CGI.br and NIC.br collections, encompassing various activities such as documentation, publishing, and the design of a physical library. To efficiently manage and organize the collections, the project relies on the usage of tools like DSpace for the creation of digital repositories, Koha for library system operations, and ViewFind as a discovery tool.

Additionally, the library serves as an educational resource for capacity-building initiatives, providing valuable information and resources to enhance knowledge and skills. However, the project faces certain challenges. One of these challenges is the construction of controlled vocabularies, a crucial aspect in the field of internet governance. Likewise, the implementation, development, and maintenance of open-source tools present significant complexities.

Nevertheless, the project also brings forth several potential benefits. Collaboration and dialogue within the IGF community, for instance, can lead to numerous fruitful collaborations and exchanges of experiences. The project is open to establishing networks with other organizations and aims to maintain constant dialogue with the IGF community.

Furthermore, the project recognizes the potential of machine learning algorithms in the categorization of documentation, using them in the OECD AI Policy Observatory. Additionally, NIC-BI produces a substantial amount of data, reflecting the project’s commitment to data production.

However, challenges concerning data description, preservation, and reusability are noticeable. Describing the data effectively, preserving it for future use, and ensuring it can be reused poses significant hurdles that the project aims to address.

To improve data usage, the project actively seeks tools and standards that can be employed to utilize data more efficiently. Additionally, by incorporating standards and practices from library studies, the project hopes to organize the vast amount of content produced in the field of internet governance.

Standardised identifiers are deemed crucial for better content recovery and preservation within the internet governance community. The usage of digital object identifiers is recommended to prevent the loss of content.

A noteworthy objective of the project is to establish a taxonomy for internet governance. This initiative requires the cooperation of various stakeholders, including information science professionals, the technical community, and others. Creating a taxonomy will enable better organization and understanding of the interdisciplinary aspects of internet governance.

The importance of specific terms and concepts is acknowledged as aids in understanding the boundaries and components of the field of internet governance. By having a shared understanding of these terms and concepts, stakeholders can effectively communicate and collaborate.

The library created by the project seeks to meet the information requirements of the internet governance field. It has been designed to provide a comprehensive range of resources, expanding beyond traditional books. Additionally, efforts are being made to enable the Brazilian community and others to contribute to internet governance through the library.

Lastly, the project emphasises its openness to collaborations and contributions. By actively involving the community, the project aspires to build a stronger and more inclusive internet governance framework. After the session, the project encourages open dialogues, welcoming any questions or further discussions.

In conclusion, the project focuses on the development of the CGI.br and NIC.br collections. It employs various tools and technologies to manage and disseminate information effectively, while also addressing challenges such as the construction of controlled vocabularies and the implementation of open-source tools. Collaboration, dialogue, and the utilization of machine learning algorithms are recognized as valuable assets. The project also emphasizes the importance of data description, preservation, and reusability. By incorporating library studies, standardized identifiers, and establishing a taxonomy, the project aims to enhance information organization and understanding within the internet governance field. Furthermore, the project seeks to build a comprehensive library, engaging the community and encouraging collaborations and contributions. Overall, it demonstrates a commitment to the continued development and improvement of internet governance practices.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Good morning to everyone, the few ones that are with me here in the room, but also to those that are remotely following us. Also good evening and good afternoon for those in different time zones. Thank you for attending our open forum. This open forum called the, named as CGI.br’s collection on internet governance. Five years later, our intent with this session is to build upon a previous work that we have been done and also that have been presented here at the IGF to this community and to also advance these dialogues, advance some discussions, advance partnerships and so on. So I’ll just make a brief start and a brief description of what are we doing here and what are the main concerns we have and a bit of history, but very brief and then we go to the main presentation. Thank you. So this open forum, as I said, draws upon a previous open forum that was held at the IGF 2017 in Geneva. In that one, more than five years ago, almost six right now, called Memory and Documentation in Internet Governance, the Challenge of Building Collections. We described our history and the importance of building collections, shedding light especially to initiatives focused on developing internet governance. It was a very interesting session which provided a productive debate between participants and rich inputs on documentation processes and challenges in creating collections on internet governance. That time, the open forum was co-organized with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, ICANN, as means to exchange views and experiences within the initiatives of both organizations in terms of memory and collections in internet governance. ICANN emphasized its initiative focused on documenting, organizing and preserving institutional information and memory. In that time, ICANN was also releasing and launching a new initiative together with us. We as the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br, presented our initial efforts to design a specialized library on internet governance. We first introduced to the IGF community that time what we were planning and had recently deployed within CGI.br regarding documentation, memory and collection in internet governance. We also shared our experience on CGI.br’s documentation and outreach initiatives, including our publishing initiatives which cover different books and other publication formats, as well as various CGI.br’s official documents. Some questions really guided us back then in that discussion. I think it’s very important to mention those questions also now for us to move forward. In that time, we were talking about how do we establish practices, processes and technological tools to organize and retrieve information in internet governance fields? What are the particularities and challenges of managing and retrieving information about internet governance? This was the core of the discussion in that moment. These concerns emerged from the interest in creating a collection to organize, preserve and retrieve information produced in this field. Of course, we were dealing specifically with our activities as the background, so the activities of our organization, but we were also trying to envision how this experience could dialogue with other initiatives, other organizations, other types of work. From that time until now, the project has evolved in many aspects. The debate on the session back there allowed us to advance in the project to create and develop CGI.br and NIC.br collections. We at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee and the Brazilian Network Information Center, we started to grow this set of tools, practices, methodologies, and also contemplating more and more activities and types of publication, types of content, and trying to organize them all. This time, we are now at this session to show to you, to present how this work has been evolving since there, and what are the main achievements of this work until now, and what are the main concerns we have at this moment, but also looking further. What are the challenges we are looking ahead, and how do we expect to address them in the short and long term? This is more or less the intent of the session, the basics, I would say, and I will pass now the word for the floor to my colleague, Gilles, that will present the actual status of our project right now, and then we will get back to the audience and hope to have some sort of conversation with those interested in these themes, and maybe some questions and answers, and we are available to any sort of dialogue. Thank you. Jean, the floor is yours.

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos:
Thank you, Vinicius. Good morning, everyone, to attending our Open Forum TGI Collection on Internet Governance five years later. My role here is to report how it’s going since the previous Open Forum five years ago, and the idea here is to report the main activities of our collection. So TGI.br activities includes the production and dissemination of information on the use of development of internet in Brazil through its operational arm, the Brazilian Network Information Center, NIC.br. There is a wide variety of materials created by TGI and NIC.br, such as books, guides, reports, minutes of TGI.br meetings, resolutions, and technical notes and other outreach materials. During the pandemic, the number of audiovisual content has also grown significantly. Many events moved to the online format, and the videos, for example, were made available on YouTube NIC.br channel, and different areas in NIC.br also start producing different contents, for example, podcasts. And in order to not risk or afford to be just on more out of so many books, videos, images, and sounds, we developed permanent and well-established documentation process to preserve and make all that content available to Brazilian audience. So I would say that we have mainly three pillars that support the development of TGI collection. The first pillar is documentation of TGI.br activities, which involves organization, classification, and retrieval of minutes, resolutions, and other activities carried out by TGI.br. All the official documentation produced by TGI are made available online in our website. Another aspect involves the documentation, recording, and preserving memory of TGI.br’s activities and process. Making them recoverable is one of the main challenges. It’s necessary to thematically sort and catalog this internal information for use in TGI.br process, enhance transparency, and make it accessible to anyone interested in referencing or repurposing this content. For example, researchers, students, and anyone that would to understand how TGI works and how or what TGI do. And the second pillar encompasses our publications. For instance, TGI.br book series, this is just an example that the publication that we made, TGI.br book series is a book collection that started in 2014, focuses on references and studies on internet governance in both printed and online format. This series had a significant impact on the local community. These book collections aim to provide the community with access to essential references for internet governance. When the documents are not available in Portuguese, one of the steps includes translating these documents, these contents, into Portuguese. Just to mention some interesting examples, we have translated the WSIS Declaration, which was the first CGI book series that we published. The Jovan Corbaliha book, Introduction to Internet Governance, it’s a very important reference to understand what is internet governance, was a cooperation with Diplo Foundation. We have translated some reports through collaboration with the Internet and Juridiction Policy Network. For example, the Global Status Report and other documents. This publication are sent to a large number of libraries in Brazil. Our libraries partner network that receives CGI and TGI.br publications has approximately 700 entities across the country, including university libraries, public libraries, libraries of research institutions, institutions from third sector, civil society, and the business sector, among others. The books are also adopted by different capacity-building initiatives in different parts of Brazil, such as universities, schools, and others. So these publications are very important in different contexts in Brazil. Furthermore, it’s worth underlining that CGI and TGI.br embrace an open access model, so our publications are freely available for download on our website under a Creative Commons license. The Project Third Pillar involves designing a physical space to house the physical collection and support the community interested in internet governance subjects. In this sense, we have worked on creating a space with a specialized physical library, which brings together reference printed pieces on the most diverse topics in internet-related activities and areas of knowledge. This library is based at NIC.br headquarters. While working this way has been to conduct a bibliographical survey, monitoring the bibliographical production on internet governance and related subjects to integrate it to the collection, so we are permanently obtaining these new books, new publications on internet governance. Currently, the library has about 1,300 items. We have been prospecting the main academic bibliographic production related to internet subject, technical, social, legal, and others, reports, periodicals, technical documents as well, and also to document and store the entire CGI and NIC.br bibliographical production, so the idea is that the library protect and preserve the production of TGI and NIC.br. So it’s a diverse collection reflecting the internet’s interdisciplinarity. The library also supports NIC.br teams in their activities. It is also an educational resource useful for capacity-building initiatives, such as the Brazilian Internet Governance School and the Youth Brazilian Program, so they can use this library. So considering these three pillars, the project’s second phase aims to identify and sort the materials produced by CGI and NIC.br and estimate the amount of digital items and other materials, and then from there prospect tools and standards for organizing and making these materials available. So considering these three pillars, documentation, publishing, and design the physical library, the following step of the project was to focus on identifying specialized infrastructure for creating and managing collections. So we have been working a lot in prospect and choose good tools to create this collection, to make it useful. So at this stage, the support of the Brazilian Institute of Information and Science and Technology, IBICT, was essential. IBICT is a federal institutional organization in Brazil that gave us free consultation and support on exploring suitable tools and standards for creating, managing, and making information sources available. IBICT also guided us to identify cataloging good practice and standards for bibliographic items and digital objects. And considering the amount of existing materials, their formats, and the project proposal of organizing and enhancing their retrievability, the necessity for the following technology was noted during the process. We need an integrated library system used for book description and cataloging, creating of the online catalog for search in a system that make it possible for users to borrow books that allow the users using the physical library, a digital repository to register, sort, and organize digital materials and make them available in a structured way. We need a specific software to establish interrelationship between authors, their affiliations, and production and subjects. We need a tool that’s supporting interoperability standard was a factor that we used, support standards that enable the exchange of data and metadata across systems. Creation and management vocabularies and metadata models are essential to make the records standardized and indexing. Libraries integration, we need a tool that integrates different platforms into a single search interface. So we choose open source and free software. It was our philosophy. We choose software specialized in collection management that had a large number of users, and that software that many libraries use this tool. So just to briefly mention some of the softwares we have. been using. Here is just a representation of some tools that we use to create and manage all this content. This is a cora, a library system that provides online catalog of the physical collection, lending books and managing all library activities. It’s an open source software that has a large active community of libraries that use it. So it’s a tool that a lot of libraries in the world use this software. This space, it’s a software for creating digital repositories. This space can be used to manage and make digital objects available, including e-books, videos, audio and other documents formats. Many academic institutions around the world widely adopt this space. In Brazil, a lot of universities adopt this space to create digital collections. On this platform, we make the files available and describe the subject and the authors using Dublin Core standard to describe the files. And it also supports interoperability with other systems. Stematris, it’s a web application on creating and managing vocabularies and taxonomies. ViewFind, finally, is a discovery tool that integrates all these databases through a single search interface. So it’s a tool that allows the user to search in the oldest browser in this oldest database. So in addition to our physical library, repository development has advanced recently. So we have the physical library, but the repository is under construction. But we hope, we plan to launch it soon, making all Brazilian IGF materials available in organized and indexed collection. It includes the workshop reports, the videos. It is a strategy to increase the visibility and the impact of workshops and other materials of the Brazilian IGF. This is just a print screen of the collection. The repository interface, it’s under construction. It’s a work in progress. The repository allows to create some collection, subcollection, and, for example, this is a collection of the Brazilian IGF. We list our edition, and each edition has the materials, videos, reports, and presentations. It’s just, it is our last edition of Brazilian IGF, is a record. So this is our COHA interface, is the catalog. The users can search in this box and know what titles and books we have. So the collection has been growing in relation to the physical library, so that we will expand the physical space. In the future, it will be an open space in which the community can not only access our specialized collection, but also receive support to search and retrieve specific information efficiently, and taking full advantage from libraries’ vast collection. So in the future, the idea is to open this physical library for the community. We aim to expand interaction with the Brazilian community. Our collection is quite unique. Researchers, students, and practitioners, among others, will benefit from this library. So we hope that people from civil society, from private sector, can use this library in the future. So some challenges we are facing. For example, the vocabulary construction, the standards to make vocabularies, is the main challenge that we deal every day. Most cataloging processes and software require standardized terms, building controlled vocabularies is a challenge in Internet governance as a whole. In our previous open forum in 2017, this topic was pointed out as a barrier in general for retrieving information in Internet governance. One of the main challenges we face is the availability of collaborative and shared controlled terminology in Internet governance and related subjects. So we are working on vocabulary in the Internet governance area, focus on semantic retrieval of digital materials. Another challenge concerns the open source set of tools we adopt. They are very robust and meet our needs, but they perform equal or even better than private software. However, there is a significant complexity in its implementation, development, and maintenance. But we believe that this open source set of tools are also an important way to integrate our collection with other collections, establish network with other organizations, and spread more efficiently TGI and .br materials. At the same time that we also have access to new and different publications and materials from partner organizations. So just to conclude my presentation, the project, I would like to highlight that the project has a potential for many collaborations. We are open to exchange experience, sharing what we have been learning on building our collection or struggle with these tools. Building an Internet governance vocabulary is also part of the project. Next step, it will become a first pillar of the project. The idea is to create multilingual vocabulary, which allows us to index materials and standardize it in a structured manner. This work requires stakeholder collaboration. Our proposal is also to always be in dialogue with the IGF community. So we believe it’s essential to build a track on collection in this forum. So thank you. Now we are open to comments and questions.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Thank you. Thank you, Jean. Well, this was the overall presentation of our project and the actual status of it. I think, but before anything else, let me just correct something that I just forgot to do at the beginning. Let us introduce ourselves. My name is Vinicius. I’m here actually replacing Hartmut Glaser, that guy that you are just reading on the session description. He is the Executive Secretary of CGI.br in Brazil. He couldn’t come here, and I’m replacing him as the moderator of this session.

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos:
We have many colleagues here from NIC.br and CGI.br, from the advisory team and also from specialized departments of NIC.br, departments that produce a lot of knowledge and a lot of materials that are inside of this scope we are just discussing here of how to sort, classify, and spread, and so on. Jean, that just presented the actual status of this project, is the coordinator of this project in NIC.br, CGI.br. We also have Amanda with us. She’s together with him in this project and will be helping us with the good report for this session, for us also to be able to index this report within the set of tools Jean was just proposing. Well, just to pass the floor to any interested person to make questions, I would just like to say that this session is very important for us because we do think that this is a subject that is not very much discussed, and we do believe that this is very important. For example, yesterday we had that main session on the future of digital governance, and we had a member of the library’s ecosystem making a question, and we were just chatting with him after the session, and chatting about these initiatives and other discussions related to libraries and access to knowledge. The library’s coalition is a very important coalition in the history of the IGF. Libraries had a very important role to the Internet throughout its history, mainly in terms of access to the Internet for some time, and now mainly for the access to knowledge, as we know. This is something that we are trying to also integrate in the scope of this discussion we are bringing here to the IGF community. The floor is open for questions. If someone has comments, questions, please feel free to ask for the floor. We have Alexandre, we have Everton, and that’s it. So please, Alexandre, feel free to. Everton. Thank you. Is it?

Audience:
Yeah, it works. Well, good morning. Thank you, Jean, for the presentation. Thank you, Vinicius, Amanda. I just would like to make more a comment than a question. We often see many Brazilians joining Internet governance-related events all over the world, and I just would like to emphasize how important it is to have content available for the audiences that we deal with, and the collections, the cgi.br collections is a great example of that, because it helps so much to qualify the Brazilian audience in order for them to reach out, to participate, to engage in processes, in Internet governance-related processes, in a much higher level than if they just showed up completely new to the environment. So cgi.br collections play a very important role for the community in growing that community qualification for the audience in Brazil. So that’s more a comment than a question.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Thank you. Thank you. Alexandre, please.

Audience:
Yes, good morning, everyone, and congratulations, Jean, for this amazing project, and I would say that since the last IGF in Geneva that you have mentioned, you really made a huge progress in systematizing all this documentation, and it is, for me, a good example to be followed by other Internet governance structures. I would say that besides this very good work that you have been leading, this should be the basis for a future, a more humblest project on Internet data archive, which is really very important, not only for researchers and policymakers, but the whole civil society community. So this is a very quick comment, and my question is, since we are dealing with non-structured type of data, documents and publications, have you ever thought of using machine learning algorithms to categorize this type of documentation based on the taxonomy? I’m asking that because at the OECD AI Policy Observatory, they do have algorithms that will, based on that given taxonomy, categorize all the documents related to AI, such as national strategies, or regulatory frameworks, or legal frameworks, and also technical documentations. These would really enhance even more the great potential that the work you have been leading in terms of constructing this database and documentation.

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos:
Thank you, Alexandre. Yes, I think it’s a good question. We are trying to prospect all these tools and good practice on organizing data and materials. We are working now in text and videos, but we have a huge challenge about data. NIC-BI produced a lot of data, but we need tools and standards to use this data more efficiently or extract good insights from this data, and a big challenge is to describe it, preserve it, and make it reusable, apply other standards, specific standards for data to use and share this data. I think it’s our next phase of the project, how to use this data more efficiently. How to collect and preserve and make this data useful.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Thank you, Alexandre, for the question. Thank you, Jen, for the answer. Raquel, do you want to get the microphone?

Audience:
Yes. I also want to make a question. For the record, my name is Raquel Gato. I’m also from NIC-BI’s team, but this is an individual capacity question. For Jean and Vinicius, thank you very much, and Amanda, for your work and the presentation. My question is for someone who is listening and is inspired right now to replicate what you were doing and taking into consideration the five years lesson learned that you have, what would be the tips for someone to start this project, if you have two or three takeaways that could help someone to replicate?

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos:
Thank you, Raquel, that’s a very good question. In fact, it’s a long way. We try to apply standards and practice from library studies, information studies field, and library studies is not a field that has a good interface with internet governance, but this field has a lot of tools and standards, open source tools, open source space, and software that can help organizations to organize this huge amount of content that internet governance produces all the time. I think we need dialogue with this community. For example, in Brazil, as I mentioned, it helped us a lot because they had expertise to identify the right tool, the right standard, and some of these tools are for free, but there is a challenge because we need knowledge to understand programming, to code this tool, so we need interface. with the technical community. And I think it’s this, and the other challenge is the internet governance communities produce a lot of books, reports, but we don’t have standardized identifiers, we don’t have, we don’t use codes to, that allows, recover this content, so a lot of things, we lost this content, and so we need to use this digital object identifiers, different ways to recover and preserve this content, I don’t know if I answered your question.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Thank you. I would just pass the floor to Alexandre, but just a brief comment, I’m the moderator, but I would also like to make a comment. Just building on what Jean just said, and also from some parts of his presentation, I think there is a word that is very important for many things related to internet governance, and it also applies to this discussion here about information and archiving and so on. Partnerships. We do need partnerships and collaboration. Partnerships and collaboration are the basis for many of our work within internet governance, and it’s not different from this kind of project we are discussing here. If it was not for the partnerships we had, like Jean mentioned, we probably would have had more difficulties and more barriers to be able to implement and to deploy things related to this project, and this is a work in progress, as he also mentioned, and we still need a lot of partnerships and collaboration to move forward. Alexandre, please.

Audience:
Just a curiosity, Jean, because we’ve seen that many organizations, like ISO or even OECD, are working on taxonomies for different specific specialized areas, such as AI, or even ISO is working on a taxonomy for ICT in health, but I haven’t heard yet any type of initiatives to create a taxonomy on internet governance. It’s just a curiosity if you have an idea, if there is anyone working on this type of creation of a taxonomy, and as Vinicius has just said, I strongly believe that this is a collaborative type of initiative, to build a taxonomy based on many stakeholders building this type of taxonomy. Do you have an idea if this exists or not?

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos:
Yeah. As I mentioned, the library studies and information science have this kind of practice, but internet governance, since five years ago, every edition, IGF edition, there is a session or a workshop or DC that try to discuss how to build a vocabulary or taxonomy in internet governance, but I think there is the community struggle, what is this, why we need, how to, because internet governance is a diverse field, so we need a lot of collaboration, a lot of subjects and specialized knowledge, but we need to discuss in IGF, create more open forum, maybe a workshop to try to bring the community from information science, from technical community and other stakeholders to think about how to create a vocabulary, and I think it’s important to, important community think about what is internet governance, it’s an area, it’s a field, so when we think in terms of, it’s a field of knowledge, we need terms, we need concepts, we need to understand the boundaries, to identify what we are, so I think I’m philosophy a little bit. That’s good.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Thank you. Yeah. Please.

Audience:
Good morning. My name is Winston Roberts and the first thing I must say is to apologize for my late arrival, I have been unwell, I tried to send a message to Everton, but the phone call didn’t go through, so apologies for that. I’m, because I’m not well, I don’t want to speak a lot, but on the other hand, I am tempted to speak a lot because I should, because I am here on behalf of the International Federation of Library Associations, IFLA, and we are heavily involved in internet governance in the IGF process as one of the multi-stakeholder communities. I am not prepared for this session because I had not really planned to attend it, however, thanks to Everton’s invitation, I have come along and I seem to have arrived just in the middle of a very interesting discussion about libraries. So this is an interesting coincidence, but the question is, what do you mean by libraries? The library sector is like any global professional sector. It has regions and sub-regions and categories and types, it has technical standards for all its different types of operations, and we, when we talk about technical standards, we tend to mean standards for performance, standards for service delivery, we also mean standards for processes within libraries, but that’s not of great concern to you, I think. One area of standards that does concern us is coding, but I’m not an expert in that so I won’t comment further. I think the main thing to say is that we do have, I disagree with one previous speaker who said there is not really an interface between your sector and libraries. I don’t agree with that because we cannot deliver our services without using the internet. We cannot possibly do that because all our services depend on certain applications of the internet and the transmission of our information services depends on the internet. We don’t use physical transport so much anymore, we use the internet. And, you know, if you regard a library as a building with books, then it cannot disseminate its information without using the internet. On the other hand, a library is not anymore just a building with books. The library is a motor for generating information and disseminating information and it has to use the internet and therefore it has to use, excuse me, the libraries use the internet as a platform. We provide content services to, we put content on the internet, we deliver, we mediate between the internet service providers and our users and we provide information to our users. We help them understand the purpose of the internet, we help them understand, evaluate information they find on the net, we help them develop digital literacy and information literacy, which means learning how to understand the truth or untruth of the information they find on the net, how not to be fooled and how to use it constructively. We have a lot of things in common with the technical community. One of those is the inclusion of all sectors of society in the information ecosystems that we have today. Inclusion of all, regardless of whether they are men, women, children, regardless of their beliefs, their religions, their race, their anything, we do not discriminate. Information services are support for democracy and we educate our children using these information services, but also in education. Internet is used in schools, in school libraries, not just in textbooks but in information services which are online in classrooms, at least in many countries. So I feel I am turning into a professor in this comment. Sorry, I didn’t mean to come along and talk like an academic. What I suggest you do is if you want to know more about IFLA, you look at our website, which is www.ifla.org. It is based in the Netherlands. It has a secretariat in the Netherlands. My microphone is not working. Two of our senior people from headquarters from the secretariat are here at the IGF. One of them is Maria de Bradefeuille. She is Mexicana, but she speaks many languages. I will give you her name. Not that. I will give you her email to the secretary or somebody if you like. You could email her to ask her details. You could also email our policy director, Steven Weiber, whose name you will find on the Internet as well. You could email him to ask about our policies on the Internet, but particularly look at information on our website about the Internet Manifesto, which we are developing. We published our Internet Manifesto 10 years ago. It is being updated now because of all the new technical developments. Things go very fast, as you know, and a 10-year-old manifesto is very out of date. Remember that we are developing a manifesto for libraries, not for you, so we are trying to tell our members what the Internet is, how it is important for them and their societies. It is also important for you to understand how we use the Internet services that you are developing. The two sectors have a strong interface intellectually and politically in terms of policy. We have a regional committee for Latin America and the Caribbean, IFLA-LAC. You will find information. I do not want to give you names and addresses and emails now in this session, but look on our website and you will find the details of our regional committee and the members, the chair and secretary and the regional office. I think you should contact them and ask them all the questions you would like. If they do not know the answers, they will refer them to headquarters, but we are heavily involved in the policy process with the multi-stakeholder community. We support this IGF process. We have been doing this since it started in 2005. I have said enough. I am going to start coughing if I keep talking, so apologies again. If you want to ask me questions after the session, feel free to come and approach me. Thank you.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Thank you, Winston. Thank you for your intervention. Don’t worry, we were actually talking about libraries, really, and you just arrived at a very good moment. Well, you could not be in the first part of the session, but the session was about presenting our project in terms of how it is in terms of status and also discussing some of its challenges in terms of developing, advancing, but also in terms of collaboration and partnership, as we were just discussing when you arrived. So your intervention regarding EFLUT, that is something we try to follow as well within the ecosystem and also the dynamic coalition on libraries. All of this, we are actually following the developments as well, so all of this is very connected, so thank you very much for your intervention. Diogo, you had a question or a comment?

Audience:
Hello? Yeah, it’s working now? Okay, good morning. It’s not a question, it’s a comment or an idea, because Alexander mentioned about taxonomy and so on, and also machine learning algorithms, and we see, I mean, we are in a new way since the beginning of the year with large language models, and I do think you could explore large language models on this process, because we see many research from the technical point of view, possibilities of using large language models to extract taxonomies or try to identify. Of course, it’s not, will be the final taxonomy, but could help to extract insights, and it’s like a paradox, because a large language model hallucinates, because it does not have a curated knowledge there, but it’s also being used as a tool to extract taxonomies and then go to a process of human creating these and using again in new algorithms. So, it’s just an idea that you can push in the future with partners, and I mean, we can be a partner for this. So, thank you and congratulations for the project and for the presentation.

Vinicius W. O. Santos:
Thank you, Diogo, for your question and for your proposal of partnership. We will charge you anytime. But, well, I think we are actually arriving and reaching the time limit we have for this session. It’s almost 9.30 is the limit we have. Do we have any final comment or question? If not, I’m passing the word to Jean for Jean to say some final words, and then we can just close the session. Okay, thank you.

Jean Carlos Ferreira dos Santos:
Thank you, Vinicius. Just a few comments. Just to say thank you. I think we got a lot of insights for our next step, and just emphasize that we try to build a library that is just more than books. We try to attend all the necessities around the information on internet governance to enable the Brazilian community and others to participate and build internet governance, and we are open to collaborations and contributions. So, I think it’s this. So, thank you very much, and we can talk after the session if someone has some question. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. The session is closed. See you in other sessions, in the IGF and other moments. Thank you. Thank you very much. Arigato gozaimashita.

Pablo

The analysis raises awareness about the importance of cybersecurity and provides several key points to support this notion. One of the main insights is the need to convince authorities and agencies about the significance of cybersecurity. It acknowledges that countries often confront complex and pressing issues which may cause cybersecurity to be overlooked. Therefore, there is a requirement to advocate for cybersecurity to be prioritized by governments and administrations.

Another crucial aspect discussed is capacity building. The analysis emphasizes the necessity of developing expertise at the national level in order to effectively address cybersecurity issues. Without this capacity building, countries will struggle to tackle the rapidly evolving challenges posed by cyber threats.

Partnerships with stakeholders are also stressed as vital factors in cybersecurity. The analysis highlights the importance of engaging with stakeholders such as the private sector, academia, and civil society. These collaborations are seen as crucial at both national and international levels. Governments need to recognize and appreciate the relevance of including stakeholders in the decision-making processes pertaining to cybersecurity.

The analysis also takes a positive stance towards governmental and international collaboration. It stresses the importance of partnerships with stakeholders and the necessity of prioritizing cybersecurity for governments and administrations. The supporting evidence for this stance includes communication about the significance of partnerships and the need to prioritize cybersecurity.

Additionally, the analysis advocates for capacity building as a means to effectively address cybersecurity challenges. It emphasizes the need for expertise at the national level and identifies capacity building as strategically important for combatting cybersecurity issues.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of cybersecurity and highlights the need to convince authorities and agencies about its significance. It emphasizes the necessity of capacity building and partnerships with stakeholders, and supports governmental and international collaboration. These insights provide a comprehensive perspective on the importance of cybersecurity, the strategies required to address it, and the key stakeholders who should be involved.

Audience

The discussion focused on multiple key topics related to digital policy and cybersecurity. The participants highlighted the significance of emerging technology and artificial intelligence (AI) in shaping digital policy and diplomacy. They acknowledged the challenges faced by diplomats and policymakers in adapting policy and legal frameworks to handle these innovations. The emergence of new technologies and AI presents opportunities for enhancing digital policy and diplomacy, as well as addressing global challenges.

Public-private partnerships were identified as crucial in the field of cybersecurity. Cooperation with the private sector was seen as bridging the gap between technical expertise and technological resources. The involvement of the private sector in the implementation of policies was considered valuable. It was noted that public-private partnerships provide an opportunity for private sectors to contribute their knowledge and resources towards addressing cybersecurity threats effectively.

Participants stressed that cybersecurity is a transnational issue that cannot be handled by a single nation alone. International cooperation was identified as paramount in mitigating cyber threats. The interconnected nature of cyber threats necessitates collaboration and information sharing among nations. It was highlighted that effective cybersecurity measures require collective efforts and coordination.

The importance of multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism in tackling digital and cybersecurity issues was advocated. Participants expressed a need for a collaborative approach involving multiple stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector. It was argued that engaging different stakeholders can lead to more comprehensive and effective solutions to cybersecurity challenges.

The discussion also drew attention to the digital divide between the global north and south. Concerns were raised about the disparities in digital access, infrastructure, and skills between developed and developing nations. Participants emphasized the need for international cooperation to address this divide. They called for increased capacity building initiatives and the role of digital ambassadors in developing countries to enhance digital literacy and bridge the gap.

The introduction of new internet standards called zero trust, announced by the United States, was seen as a positive development in enhancing internet security. The concept of zero trust re-architects how the internet works, placing security at its core. It was highlighted that everyone owning their own IP address based on public-private key pairs can contribute to a more secure internet ecosystem.

The importance of reflecting the lessons learned from programs and initiatives in policies was emphasized. Participants encouraged ambassadors to apply their knowledge of internet security to their respective ministries and governments. They stressed the need for policy changes to incorporate the insights gained from addressing cybersecurity challenges.

Estonia was recognized as a small but influential country in the field of technology and cybersecurity. It was noted that Estonia’s national leadership, investment, and focus have resulted in the development of world-defining expertise in these areas. The relatively low capital expenditure required for technology development in Estonia was also mentioned.

The impact of online threats on development efforts, particularly in small island nations like Jamaica, was discussed. Participants acknowledged that online threats intersect with various developmental concerns. They emphasized the need to address online threats as they can undermine progress in areas such as industry, innovation, infrastructure, peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Participants also highlighted the importance of prioritizing issues wisely in countries with limited resources. They acknowledged that different priorities often compete with each other in small states. Effective decision-making and resource management were seen as key factors in maximizing the impact of limited resources.

Overall, the discussion shed light on the complex and interconnected nature of digital policy and cybersecurity issues. It emphasized the importance of collaboration, multilateralism, and multi-stakeholderism in addressing these challenges. The need for bridging the digital divide, enhancing international cooperation, and prioritizing resources wisely were key takeaways from the discussion.

Garima Vatla

During a series of discussions on cybersecurity and digital issues, the importance of the human component was highlighted. It was observed that this aspect is often overlooked in these conversations, despite its significance. Participants stressed the need to consider how individuals interact with and are impacted by technology. Empowering individuals with knowledge to understand these issues effectively emerged as a crucial factor.

Another key finding from the discussions was the nuanced nature of technology. While it presents numerous opportunities, it also poses significant threats in the form of cybersecurity issues. This highlights the need for a balanced approach in addressing these challenges and maximizing the benefits of technology.

One area that requires increased understanding and clarity is the definitions of cyber and digital diplomacy. Participants noted a lack of consensus and confusion surrounding the terminology and scope of these concepts. It is important to address this confusion to facilitate effective communication and collaboration in the field of cyber and digital diplomacy.

The discussions also emphasized the significance of integrating digital and cyber issues within the broader context of global policy. It was highlighted that these issues should not be viewed as separate entities but rather as integral parts of the overall global policy landscape. Recognizing and integrating these components into policy-making processes is essential for effectively addressing the challenges posed by digital and cyber issues on a global scale.

To summarize, the discussions underscored the importance of considering the human component in cybersecurity and digital issues. Empowering individuals with knowledge, clarifying definitions in the field of cyber and digital diplomacy, and integrating digital and cyber issues within global policy frameworks are crucial for effectively tackling the challenges and opportunities presented by technology in the digital age.

Hideo Ishizuki

Japan is taking significant steps to strengthen its cybersecurity measures. The National Police Agency has established a Cyber Affairs Bureau and a National Cyber Unit to address cyber threats effectively. The Ministry of Defense is also committed to increasing the number of personnel in cyber-specialised units to enhance their ability to respond to cyber attacks.

Efforts are being made to introduce active cyber defense to eliminate the possibility of severe cyber attacks. This proactive approach aims to detect and counter cyber threats before they can cause significant damage. Additionally, there is a focus on enhancing public-private collaboration and reforming the government structure for better coordination in dealing with cyber threats.

The increase in cyber threats has shifted responsibility towards the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They are tasked with international cooperation for information gathering, analysis, and the formulation of international frameworks. The geopolitical competition, including incidents such as Russia’s war on Ukraine, has heightened the risks of cyberattacks against critical infrastructure.

To build up cybersecurity capacity, regional mechanisms and worldwide efforts led by organisations like the World Bank are proving to be effective. The ASEAN-Japan Capacity Building Centre, established five years ago in Bangkok, has trained over 1,000 individuals from ASEAN member states. Furthermore, the World Bank has set up a fund called the multi-donor capacity building trust fund and multi-donor cybersecurity trust fund to support global cybersecurity capacity building initiatives.

However, a common issue is a lack of resources dedicated to cybersecurity. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Japan suffers from a staff shortage in dealing with cybersecurity issues. Leadership does not adequately prioritize the importance of cybersecurity, which further affects resource allocation in this area.

To address this issue, it is crucial to highlight the importance of investment in cybersecurity. Efforts are being made to demonstrate the return on investment in cybersecurity measures. However, one challenge is that the impact of these efforts is not easily visible until a cyber attack occurs.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs plays a crucial role in collecting and disseminating threat information and incident cases from abroad. This information is essential for government agencies to protect themselves from threats effectively. The dissemination of this information within the government is vital to ensure a coordinated response to cyber threats.

International participation by law enforcement agencies in countermeasures is also crucial. Japan is actively involved in the United States’ counter-ransom initiative, which has more than 40 countries participating. Such international cooperation helps generate interest and investment in cybersecurity.

In conclusion, Japan is committed to strengthening its cybersecurity measures through the establishment of specialized bureaus, increasing personnel, introducing active defense measures, and enhancing public-private collaboration. While regional mechanisms and global efforts are proving to be effective, a lack of dedicated resources poses challenges. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs plays a significant role in collecting and disseminating threat information, and international cooperation in law enforcement agencies is essential for effective cybersecurity.

Nathaniel Fick

The extended summary focuses on the importance of technology and cybersecurity in building diplomatic networks and creating a safe cyberspace. It emphasizes that success in these areas requires the involvement of people, processes, and technology, with the human element being particularly significant. By building connections and strengthening diplomatic networks, countries can work together to address cybersecurity challenges effectively.

The need for a global network of trusted counterparts is emphasized as essential for responding to emergency situations. When a crisis occurs, being able to rely on a trusted counterpart to provide assistance and support is crucial. Developing a framework for responsible state behavior in cyberspace can contribute to the creation of such networks.

Mainstreaming technology diplomacy globally is seen as of great importance. This entails building diplomatic networks to ensure a safe and secure cyberspace. Ambassadors Ishizuki Hideo and Regina Greenberger are lauded as pioneers in this field, showcasing the impact of technology diplomacy.

The significance of achieving basic connectivity for the unconnected is emphasized. With around 2.8 billion people still lacking access to basic connectivity, it is essential to prioritize efforts to bridge the digital divide. Without basic connectivity, individuals are unable to participate in the advantages offered by emerging technologies, further exacerbating inequalities.

Capacity building is discussed as a challenge for the State Department and not limited to developing nations. It is recognized that building capacity within organizations is applicable to everyone.

The positive stance towards the priority of achieving basic connectivity for the unconnected is reiterated. By ensuring universal access to basic connectivity, more individuals will have opportunities to benefit from emerging technologies.

The importance of collaboration and open-mindedness in decision making is highlighted. It is crucial to assume good intentions and be open to considering other points of view. The ability to hold opposing ideas simultaneously is deemed a mark of intelligence.

A fresh perspective is seen as beneficial, particularly amongst those new to government bureaucracy. Nathaniel Fick, who has been in government bureaucracy for little more than a year, is mentioned as an example.

The importance of building digital and cyber skills within countries, regardless of their size, is underlined. Estonia’s success in cybersecurity despite being a small country is commended, highlighting the notion that any country can develop world-defining expertise with focus and discipline.

Cybersecurity is regarded as a cost, with efforts focusing on avoiding negative consequences. The prioritization of cybersecurity by leaders is highlighted, with a call to emphasize the positive aspects and opportunities associated with the digital shift. The integration of digital and cyber issues into global policy matters is recommended.

The conclusion of the Jellix Fellows program is acknowledged, expressing gratitude towards Regina and Hideo for their contributions and partnership. Anticipation for ongoing collaboration with the fellows in the future is expressed, and the fellows are looked upon to set the tone for future classes.

In summary, the extended summary emphasizes the significance of technology, cybersecurity, collaboration, and the acquisition of digital and cyber skills in building diplomatic networks, ensuring a safe cyberspace, and addressing emergency situations effectively. It highlights observations such as the need for a global network of trusted counterparts, the role of pioneers in technology diplomacy, and the importance of open-mindedness and fresh perspectives.

Regine Grienberger

The discussion highlighted the significance of cyber diplomacy and its cross-cutting approach. It was argued that cyber diplomacy requires a holistic, governmental approach, involving coordination among different departments and ministries to address cybersecurity challenges. It was emphasized that foreign ministries, military, and various agencies are key players in cyber diplomacy.

Additionally, the role of career diplomats in cyber diplomacy was discussed, with an emphasis on their ability to bring a generalist approach and connect commonalities among security policies. The relevance of the diplomatic toolbox in cyber diplomacy was also highlighted.

The speakers stressed the need for an entrepreneurial spirit and confidence in cyber diplomacy, as it is a new concept that requires promotion and adaptability. Diplomats in this field may need to take risks and be comfortable with uncertainty.

The discussion also acknowledged the relevance of cybersecurity to national and international security, with the potential for cybersecurity concerns to turn into national security threats.

The interlinkage between digital transformation and cybersecurity was emphasized, with a suggestion to focus on opportunities rather than just risks. Both aspects were seen as interconnected and requiring attention.

Investment in cybersecurity capacity building was discussed, noting the indirect rewards of programs that assist law enforcement in tackling cybercrime in other countries. The need for international collaboration in addressing cyber threats was highlighted.

Lastly, the importance of increasing international competencies in dealing with cybersecurity across all government players was emphasized, pointing to the formulation and implementation of a national cybersecurity strategy.

Overall, the discussions provided insights into the nature of cyber diplomacy and the various factors that need to be considered for effective implementation. These insights are valuable for policymakers and stakeholders involved in cybersecurity and diplomacy efforts.

Sharif

Collaboration between technology and policy discussions plays a critical role in bridging the gap, as highlighted by various speakers at the conference. They emphasized the necessity of collaboration in achieving SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The dialogue from the United Nations Global Goals (UNGG), the Expert Working Group, and the Collaborative Research Initiative (CRI) all stressed the importance of collaboration.

To further facilitate these discussions, it has been suggested that specific bodies responsible for maintaining discussions be established. Noteworthy examples include the National Cyber Security Coordination Centre in Nigeria and the National Authority for Cyber Security in Albania. By having dedicated agencies, countries can ensure effective communication and cooperation between various stakeholders in the technology and policy realms.

Foreign programs, such as the GLX programme, have also been recognised as valuable resources in understanding the interplay between technology and policy entities. These programmes offer insights into the complex dynamics and interactions between different sectors, providing additional perspective on how to bridge the gap effectively.

Overall, the sentiment from the conference was positive regarding the importance of collaboration between technology and policy discussions. It is evident that it is crucial to work together to address the challenges highlighted by SDG 9 and SDG 17. By embracing collaboration and establishing dedicated bodies responsible for maintaining discussions, stakeholders can foster meaningful dialogue, overcome barriers, and collectively work towards achieving the goals outlined by the United Nations.

Maritza Ristiska

The GEL-X network is a highly regarded asset in the realm of cyberspace security. Comprising dedicated diplomats and experts from around the world, this network is pivotal in advancing international cooperation, building trust, and bolstering resilience to cyber threats. By facilitating collaboration among nations, the GEL-X network plays a crucial role in addressing the global challenge of cybersecurity.

One key argument in support of the network is its ability to enhance cooperation on a global scale. This is achieved through its experience within the OEWG on ICT and the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime. By serving as a platform for the timely sharing of information related to cyber threats, the network promotes proactive and coordinated responses to emerging challenges in the cyber domain. This exchange of information is instrumental in enabling nations to stay abreast of evolving threats and develop effective countermeasures.

Moreover, the network’s impact lies not only in its ability to facilitate cooperation but also in its potential as a coordination hub during and after cyber incidents. During large-scale cyber attacks, the network enables swift communication and coordination among nations. This real-time collaboration is essential for mounting effective responses to mitigate the damage caused by cyber threats. Furthermore, the network provides technical forensic evidence, aiding in the attribution process during cyber incidents. This attribution capability is crucial in holding responsible parties accountable for their actions and deterring future cyber attacks.

Notably, the GEL-X network’s efforts align with the overarching goal of promoting responsible state behavior in cyberspace. By advancing international cooperation, sharing information, and enabling swift coordination, the network contributes to establishing a more secure and stable cyberspace environment. Responsible state behavior is critical in maintaining peace, justice, and strong institutions, as well as fostering continued innovation and infrastructure development.

In conclusion, the GEL-X network is an invaluable asset in cyberspace security. Its role in advancing international cooperation, enhancing coordination during cyber incidents, and promoting responsible state behavior makes it instrumental in addressing the challenges of cybersecurity. As the landscape of cyberspace continues to evolve, the GEL-X network’s contributions will play a pivotal role in securing the digital domain and safeguarding global interests.

Sumiya

The analysis delved into the importance of understanding cyber landscapes and cyber diplomacy from three different perspectives. Firstly, one perspective highlighted the crucial nature of comprehending a country’s cyber landscape. The argument presented was that in order to navigate the complexities and challenges of the ever-evolving cyber realm, it is imperative for countries to have a deep understanding of their own cyber landscape. This involves understanding the various agencies and entities involved, as well as recognising the role of foreign ministries in facilitating collaboration between public and private entities.

The second perspective explored the benefits of learning from the U.S. cyber diplomacy and cyberspace. It was noted that the U.S. State Department organizes a program that provides insight into U.S. cyberspace, thereby enhancing the participants’ ability to understand their own ecosystem. By studying the approaches and experiences of the United States in the realm of cyber diplomacy, countries can gain valuable knowledge and apply best practices to their own contexts.

The third perspective advocated for supporting collaboration and understanding in cyber diplomacy. The discussions stressed the importance of foreign ministries in fostering partnerships and collaboration between different stakeholders. The analysis emphasized the need to continue such collaboration and understanding in order to address the complex challenges of cyberspace effectively. By working together, countries can create a more secure and resilient cyber environment that promotes peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In conclusion, the analysis highlighted the significance of understanding cyber landscapes and cyber diplomacy from multiple angles. It emphasized the role of foreign ministries in fostering partnerships and collaboration, and the benefits of learning from the experiences of other countries, such as the United States. A comprehensive understanding of cyber landscapes and effective cyber diplomacy is crucial in today’s interconnected world to ensure the security and stability of cyberspace.

Christopher Tate

The United States has introduced new standards called zero trust to enhance internet security. These standards enable the re-architecting of the internet core, providing improved protection against cyber threats, and ensuring the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information. This proactive approach aims to mitigate potential risks and addresses the growing concern for internet security.

Connect Free has unveiled a revolutionary concept where individuals can own their IP addresses. This concept is based on a public-private key pair, ensuring a secure and unique identification for each user. Connect Free’s aim is to promote internet accessibility and reduce inequalities in terms of internet connectivity.

Recognizing the complexity of the internet, there is an acknowledgment of the challenges faced by diplomats. Christopher Tate, an IT expert, has apologized on behalf of the IT community for making diplomats’ jobs more difficult due to the intricate nature of the internet. This recognition highlights the need for collaboration between the technical and diplomatic sides.

However, there is a belief in the potential of productive collaboration between the technical and diplomatic realms in addressing internet security and accessibility. By bridging the gap between technical expertise and diplomatic efforts, effective strategies and solutions can be developed to tackle the complex issues related to internet security and accessibility.

In conclusion, the introduction of zero trust standards by the United States and the concept of individual IP address ownership by Connect Free are significant advancements in the field of internet security and accessibility. Despite the challenges posed by the complexity of the internet, there is optimism and appreciation for collaboration between the technical and diplomatic sides to overcome these challenges. This cooperation is crucial in ensuring a secure and inclusive internet for all.

Nathaniel Fick:
All right, let’s begin. Welcome, everyone, and good morning. There we go. That’s the problem with putting me in charge. Welcome, everyone, and good morning. My name’s Nate Fick. I’m the US Ambassador for Cyberspace and Digital Policy. And it’s a thrill to be here this morning with our class of global emerging leaders in international cyberspace security, JELLX for short. I had the great privilege of being with this group at the beginning of their fellowship year at the RSA conference in San Francisco. And we pledged then that we would be together again here in Kyoto at the Internet Governance Forum. And it’s such a pleasure to see it all actually come together that way. We just had a bit of a graduation ceremony for the fellows in the other room a few minutes ago. They are diplomats and government experts from 20 countries, almost literally every corner of the world. And what they have in common is a commitment to the importance of technology issues and cybersecurity and foreign policy, an understanding that these issues are becoming more important and more central, and I think a visceral appreciation that this is, in fact, a team sport, and none of us can do it alone. I am pleased, honored, to be sitting between two of my colleagues who help ensure every day that I don’t have to do this alone, representing our host government here in Japan. To my left is Ambassador Ishizuki Hideo. Ishizuki-san is ambassador for international security and cyber policy in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. And a wonderful colleague, one of the pioneers in technology diplomacy, and someone who welcomed me to the fold when I was appointed to this role a year ago. And to my right is Ambassador Regina Greenberger, ambassador for cyber foreign policy and cybersecurity in the Federal Foreign Office of Germany, also a pioneer, someone who has been at work mainstreaming technology diplomacy around the world, and another in this community who welcomed me to the fold when I took the job. The title of this session is Building Diplomatic Networks for a Safe, Secure Cyberspace. And it drives home, I think, the point that success in these areas is really about people, process, and technology in that order. We often want to default right to the technical answer. But nor, I think, as you said at the beginning of our session a little while ago, we can’t forget the human element. And in fact, the human element matters more than the others. So this gathering was intended to build connections in order to strengthen our diplomatic networks in the service of a safe, secure cyberspace, and to create champions, really, for the power of the framework for responsible state behavior in cyberspace, and to create global networks of people who, when the proverbial bad thing happens, can pick up the telephone at 3 o’clock in the morning and have a trusted counterpart on the other end of the line who can help them solve a problem. So in the discussion this morning, we are going to hear from several of the fellows. We will hear from the ambassadors to my left and right. We’ll turn this into a conversation around the table. And I just want to say at the outset, again, thank you all for committing your time and energy to this fellowship over the past year. And this really is only the beginning. We look forward to working with you for years, and hopefully decades to come. So having said all of that, our first question is for Siriprapa of Thailand, who is sitting. There we go. So I would love to hear, just quickly, insights that you gleaned from the program, and three or four that matter most to you as a diplomat engaged in these issues around the world.

Audience:
So thank you, Ambassadors Dionis to meet you again, Ambassador Fick, and also Ambassador Hideo Ishizaki and Ambassador Eugene Greenberger. So I’m Siriprapa from the National Security Council of Thailand. I’m here with a very diverse cohort. And in my group, to be honest, we discussed this question prior to today’s session because we need a more inclusive answer. So we have here a representative from Dominican Republic, Estonia, and Poland, and also Indonesia in my group. The first point that we gleaned from the program is especially the emerging technology and AI. So for us, diplomat and policymaker, we feel that it is so challenging that we need to be more agile in adapting policy and also the legal framework of our country to handle this situation of the innovation. The second one is maybe the most cliche word that you hear along the IGF. It’s about the public-private partnership or the multi-stakeholder. So the cooperation with the private sector help bridging the gap between us about a technical expertise and also the technological resources. But not only us gaining from the private sector, the private sector also got a chance, the opportunity, to be in the session and help us implement the right policy for them as well. And the last point is about the relationship between geopolitics and cybersecurity. So it’s undeniable that cybersecurity, cyber threat is a transnational issue. So one single nation cannot handle this kind of threat alone. So we need the cooperation, the international cooperation. So in a nutshell, it is cliche that you may hear the word multilateralism, multi-stakeholderism. But it is the must that we need to go to that direction. So if you want to move on to the next cliche, so let’s do it right now. Thank you.

Nathaniel Fick:
All right, thank you. Next question is for Maritza. And this is fairly straightforward. In what practical, concrete ways do you think this network will be useful in your work?

Maritza Ristiska:
Thank you, Mr. Ambassador. Good morning to everyone. Good morning to the English ambassadors. I’m Maritza Ristiska from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of North Macedonia. I will speak on behalf of my colleagues from Georgia, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. We believe that this network is a valuable asset in the complex and rapidly evolving landscape of cyberspace security. Our network is composed of dedicated diplomats and experts from all around the world, who should play a very important role in advancing international cooperation, fostering understanding, building trust, and strengthening resilience to the wide spectrum of cyber threats. Our network could be affected in several key ways. It can facilitate and enhance cooperation, both multilaterally and bilaterally, with an international organization, such as UN. For example, we already have experience within the OEWG on ICT and the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime. It can also facilitate and enhance cooperation, both multilaterally and bilaterally, within the framework of regional organization initiatives and platforms. For example, we already have cooperation within OEC, European OEC, and the American region OS60. Furthermore, it can serve as a platform for the exchange of policy ideas and approaches to cybersecurity issues, both at international and national levels. It could serve as a platform for timely sharing of information, insights, and best practices related to cyber threats and vulnerabilities. In case of massive cyber attacks against one of our countries, the network can enable swift communication and coordination among our nations. To effectively address a large-scale cyber attacks against a single state, a coordinated and multifaceted international approach is of immense, immense importance in order to ensure accountability and provide information and technical forensic evidence in order to facilitate attribution. In this context, our network can serve as a hub for coordination during and after cyber incident. In conclusion, I would say that GEL-X network will improve the understanding among countries so we can advance responsible state behavior in cyber to ensure the world is a safer place to facilitate and national development goals.

Nathaniel Fick:
Thank you, Maritza. Next question is for Sharif. And I think we’ve said that all of us who are technology or cyber diplomats, to some extent, are bridges, bridges between our mainstream ministries and the technical community. And there’s a saying that bridges get walked on. So Sharif, what’s your recommendation to avoid the technology and policy conversations being separate? How do you bridge these communities?

Sharif:
Thank you very much. So I’m sure you can hear it. So yeah, like, you know, there were a lot of discussions in that area that we’ve been having. Thank you. She just talked about collaboration, partnership. We’ve been hearing that almost throughout the conference today. And, you know, through discussions coming out of the that came out from UNGG, the EWG, CRI, it has been collaboration, collaboration, collaboration. And our experience is also, like, so to keep these discussions, you know, like together instead of separate, we feel like, for example, from the Philippines, they used to do some cross-functional team building. They do meetings that bring these people together to have these discussions. And we also think there should be specific agencies that are responsible for keeping people together. Like in Nigeria, for example, we are just setting up the National Cyber Security Coordination Center. There’s the National Agency for Cyber Security in Albania. National, what’s it called again? National Authority for Cyber Security. So the National. National Authority for Cyber Security. National Authority for Cyber Security in Albania. That this team, this, it holds, you can hold someone responsible for those discussions. And like the National Authority for Cyber Security in Albania, for example, they are also working on a communication to help delineate these responsibilities and to have a collective front when having these discussions. And one last thing I’d like to also say, like the discussions, to take in these discussions outside the shores of our countries, programs like GLX, like the one we are in, can really help bring people together and, like, build a collective knowledge of understanding the interplay between the two responsibilities, the two groups, rather. Thank you very much.

Nathaniel Fick:
Thank you, Sharif. And I think another reality in this work is that each of our countries is at a different stage of maturity in dealing with cybersecurity issues. And nonetheless, there are commonalities that cut across every level of the capacity building spectrum. So Pablo, what are some of these commonalities that you and colleagues face when it comes to promoting international cyberspace security?

Pablo:
Thank you, Ambassador, for the question. Also, thanks to Ambassador Shisuke, Ambassador Greenberger, met you before. And also, I’m going to speak on behalf of my lovely group from Ecuador, Malaysia, and South Africa, acquired the virus group, by the way. And I have to agree, again, was not to say that people, actually, who makes a difference in the process to promoting cybersecurity, and especially you and the governor, no matter if you’re a minister for foreign affairs and other agencies. Maybe I want to highlight three elements. The first one is probably maybe one of the most important ones. How you make cybersecurity the top priority for your governments or different administrations? Because our country, our state, has to face and deal with different threats. They are very complex, urgent sometimes. And sometimes cybersecurity probably is not the top priority. And you have to do a lot, I mean, in terms to convince your own authorities, other agencies, that this is important. And as an older boss sometimes used to tell me, Pablo, urgent things come first and important things. But in trying to make this something urgent, important, permanently, is a daily effort. And sometimes it’s frustrating, sometimes quite exciting. But it’s something you must do, definitely. The second point I would say is something which is quite important in terms of cybersecurity today. We were discussing a lot during this forum. It’s about the capacity building. Has to really has to work a lot in terms to how you create your expertise at national levels, get training on financial assistance. This is something that I would say all the state, but especially in my group, I mean, this is something quite critical. And I would say strategic, important, because with no capacity building, there’s no way to face the problem you have right now in cyberspace. And that is also permanent tax. It’s very important. And that means resources, which is not, I mean, too many resources we can get. So that’s also very important to highlight. And the last one is something that this is all about. I mean, in this photo, it’s about your work and your partnership with stakeholders. This is something that, of course, we, I mean, we’re trying, I mean, to do more, but in terms to your work with the private sector, the academia, civil society, it’s trying to also to understand and to make everyone can understand that those stakeholders are really important and relevant to include in your own process. Because sometimes governments say, well, this is just a government issue. We need to, I mean, to engage, but you have to tell they are important, not just at the national level, but also the international discussion area. So I would say these three elements is something we have as a permanent task regarding our group. Thank you.

Nathaniel Fick:
Thank you. My last question for the fellows before we turn to the ambassadors is for Sumiya. And this is an annual program, although this is the first class. What advice do you have for those who will come behind you about how to get the most out of it?

Sumiya:
Thank you very much, Excellency, and good morning to you all. I am speaking in behalf of my very wonderful colleagues from Panama, Jordan, and from Costa Rica, and I’m from Bangladesh. We are very proud to be the first cohort because we have all sorts of things that we have learned new. So we believe that our advice to the future cohorts as mentors would be very effective. In this journey, it would be vital to have a very comprehensive understanding of their own country’s cyber landscape, including the various agencies or entities are involved with their unique roles in the global context. In that line, multistakeholderism comes in because it’s so essential in this venture, and we believe that the foreign ministries will play a very important collaborative role to bridge between the public and the private entities. Next, because we are grateful that this program has been arranged by the U.S. State Department, which gives us, actually, it has given us the way to look into the U.S. cyberspace, how you have dealt with this cyber diplomacy, and how the country, United States, has evolutionalized their venture into this space. And this will give the future cohorts also an insight into this, and the various stakeholders and counterparts. This interaction will enhance their ability to understand their own ecosystem. So we would encourage them to further do so. And all this, summarizing all this, it brings us the past cohorts, which is us now, and the future cohorts very closer to achieving what we had actually set out to achieve in the first place when we began in May, and when, if I may quote our ambassador, this will be an opportunity to turn to a friend, an ally, or a fellow when we are having a bad day, or a good day. Thank you very much.

Nathaniel Fick:
Thank you very much for that. And now, for Ambassador Ishizuki, your government’s commitment to international leadership on cybersecurity and technology issues is clear. It’s demonstrated by hosting 9,000 attendees in person and virtually at this IGF. How is Japan organized around cybersecurity at the government level, and what’s changing as the MFA now continues to elevate these topics in Japan’s foreign policy? Thank you.

Hideo Ishizuki:
Thank you, Ambassador. Good morning, everybody. And I’m quite honored to be here to participate this forum. And first of all, on behalf of the officials of the host country, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all of you who are here today. And maybe, I think there is also someone who is attending online, I think. And for those who are lucky to be here in Kyoto, please enjoy the rest of your stay in Kyoto. And I’m Hideo Ishizuki, Ambassador in Charge of Cyber Policy, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And I have taken up this position as Cyber Ambassador last October. So it’s been exactly one year since I took up this position. And I must confess, this is totally a new area for me. During my 30 years of diplomatic career. And what I learned from my one year struggle is the value of human network across the board. And I really, in that sense, I really appreciate the personal relationship with Ambassador Fick and Ambassador Greenberger. Both of whom I met for the first time in Singapore exactly one year ago at Singapore International Cyber Week. And I believe that human network fostered by through this fellowship will be a good foundation for to- international cooperation. And now let me turn to turn on to you your question how Japan is organized around cyber security at the government level. In Japan we are facing increasing threats of malicious cyber operations including including those of ransomware and those against critical infrastructure like hospitals and the reported cases of ransomware incident has increased by 58 percent from 2021 to 2022 so it’s a huge increase. And to respond to these increasing threats Japan is strengthening its cyber security organizations. In April 2022 our National Police Agency established the Cyber Affairs Bureau and National Cyber Unit with 2,700 fully engaged personnel. Also the Ministry of Defense aims to increase the number of self-defense force personnel in cyber specialized units from the current 890 to 4,000 by fiscal year 2027. So this is a very ambitious plan but we are trying to achieve that goal. And in addition we are currently working on the challenges tasked by our national security strategy which was issued in December last year in order to strengthen the response capability in the cyber in the field of cyber security. And these challenges include as somebody has already mentioned to enhance public and private collaboration which is a big challenge. And also we are now trying exploring the way to introduce active cyber defense for eliminating in advance the possibility of serious cyber attacks. And also there is also need to reform the government structure. We need to set up a new organization which will coordinate cyber security policies in a centralized manner allowing us to take more effective hold of government approach across sectors. So these are the challenges we face. And as for Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the national security strategy has given us a task of enhancing international cooperation for information gathering and analysis and attribution and the public announcement as well as the formulation of international frameworks and rules including those at the UN for responsible state behavior in cyberspace. So in Japan threats in cyberspace has become to be viewed as more related to international security. Traditionally it’s been the area of the law enforcement agencies but now it has become more important to Ministry of Foreign Affairs. And this is because as somebody has already mentioned increasing geopolitical competition such as Russia’s war on Ukraine together with increased threats of disinformation campaign as well as increased risk by cyber attacks against critical infrastructure. Then I must confess that maybe the biggest challenge our ministry or we face is short of staff in the ministry. Policy challenges we need to address in cyberspace and the importance of diplomacy in this area never stop increasing. We need more staff to handle these increasing tasks. I think this may be a common challenge as Pablo has already said that this is a commonality side we face I think. All the Ministry of Foreign Affairs all over the world may face this kind of situation and I think this is where the value of this fellowship lies. This would be a very important endeavor to improve the level of diplomats in the cyberspace and I think that’s where the value of this fellowship is. With that I conclude my remark. Thank you very much.

Nathaniel Fick:
Mr. Suzuki-san, thank you for that and sharing your insight. So Ambassador Greenberger, you’re a career diplomat with a background in economics and financial issues and agricultural issues. How do you bring that experience to bear now negotiating and discussing cyber policy topics? Thank you Nate for that

Regine Grienberger:
question. Where could I start? I think cyber diplomacy as such is of a cross-cutting nature. So you don’t only deal with one particular field of experience or expertise within the foreign ministry but you have to connect several dots that lie mostly in different departments. Not only within the ministry but also within the government and Ambassador Suzuki mentioned this already. The joint approach of a government to tackle these challenges by cybersecurity has to be strengthened. And my personal background helps me because I am not specialized in any of the fields so I have a general approach by my own training. Then the second element that is important to understand and it was also mentioned but I would like to highlight it again and stress it a little bit more is that we are basically speaking about a security policy portfolio which means that there is a role for foreign ministries. It’s not only for agencies, homeland affairs, military. It is really a foreign and security policy issue and so a career diplomat like myself who has wandered through different bureaus and has served at different assignments sees also the commonalities of this particular field of security policy with others. So this I would say is another element that from my personal background helps me to deal with the portfolio that I have now. And then of course cyber diplomacy is also, also the internet is not new. Cyber diplomacy is quite a new avant-garde topic I would say in many of the ministries and is not very well structured even in our case where we established the first unit for cyber diplomacy in 2011. So you know 10, 12 years ago and still we have to fight for you know the awareness that Pablo also mentioned the awareness at the highest level of leadership in our ministry and what is what is necessary to do this is this entrepreneurial spirit that you perhaps also you know you can share you can relate to that. This spirit that means you have a new you have a product that is interesting for other people and you try to sell it to them. And then perhaps also something that is important to have confidence as a you know as a diplomat who has different experiences but has no cyber experience. I mean this is basically about diplomacy. So we are diplomats. We use the diplomacy toolbox. We don’t fix the computers of our colleagues. You might help them when the printer is out of order but basically we are diplomats. So the diplomatic toolbox is valid also here. Ambassador Ishizuki mentioned the multilateral negotiations. I mean this is tradecraft at its best. So we have to deal with the same you know terms of reference as in other fields. And you mentioned it that my last point it’s team sport. So you might not be an IT expert yourself but you have to work with IT experts and that is something that I have learned during my all of my career that I always have to turn to colleagues who know it better than myself and then my role is to bring all these arguments and perspectives to the table. Thank you for that really

Nathaniel Fick:
wonderful synopsis. I think that really ought to help drive home the point for all of us that that our colleagues who may not have as much exposure to these topics as we collectively now do need not be intimidated. Right. There is a role here for diplomats with diplomatic skills and we need to apply those skills in this new and emerging domain of diplomacy. So with that I think we have time for discussion. My colleague Catherine Fitrell will moderate any questions that come in from online viewers. But this is an opportunity for audience questions or comments. It’s an opportunity for the fellows to weigh in with more thoughts or questions and of course my colleagues. Yes let’s can we pass the mic only because otherwise it may be very hard to hear online. Thank you.

Audience:
Hi Ambassador Figg, Ambassador Hisuzuki, Ambassador Greenberger. The other key word that we learned in the different panels was the gaps between the global north and the global south. Not only must multi-stakeholderism but also this gap existing between both regions in the world. In terms of international cooperation, what is your best advice to digital ambassadors for developing nations in terms of capacity building and digital literacy?

Nathaniel Fick:
I’m happy to give my colleagues the first crack at that.

Regine Grienberger:
So the first thing that is to be done is to acknowledge the relevance of cyber security for national security. So that might be the case if you have a national security strategy or cyber security strategy from whichever angle you approach it. In the end it has to be clear okay this is a national security issue and somebody said it from you it’s also not a national it’s actually an international security issue. So there should be some you know some reflex in a foreign ministry to claim ownership for this topic. This is a leadership decision. Then the next one is of course literacy as you said is important but literacy can be acquired by but on different paths pathways. So I think there is a lot of opportunities for example online learning tools and so on. It doesn’t necessarily have to start with you know you don’t have to start with a cyber diplomat you can become a cyber diplomat on the job. So that would perhaps be my two advices.

Hideo Ishizuki:
Maybe I’m speaking from a bit of different perspective. In order to build up the capacity in this area maybe we are thinking that regional mechanism or regional effort might be might be a valuable might be effective and such that with ASEAN countries we’ve been working on here our capacity building support and we have set up a center in Bangkok which is called AJCCBC. AJCCBC ASEAN Japan Capacity Building Center in Bangkok and it was set up it was set up five years ago and during these five years we have given the training program through this AJCCBC more than more than 1,000 people from the ASEAN member state. So these kind of you know regional efforts might be kind of you know might be useful to level up the capacity of each state. And also just a bit of advertisement that there is also the World Bank is working on the capacity building support and they have recently set up a fund called multi-donor capacity building trust fund and multi-donor cybersecurity trust fund and this is a kind of you know worldwide effort conducted by the kind of you know World Bank and this is this is this kind of you know multilateral framework efforts is also useful to level up the capacity building of each country. Thank you. I can just add a

Nathaniel Fick:
my perspective on this. It’s easy as a as a cyber tech diplomat to spend all of your time and energy focused on the most sophisticated aspects of this work and all of the advantages that these emerging technologies can bring to our societies but we need to never forget that there are still 2.8 billion people 2.7 or 2.8 billion people on this planet who are not connected and without basic connectivity they will have little or no opportunity to participate in all of the advantages that we spend our time and energy on. So priority number one in in many regards in my view is focusing on that basic connectivity. A second observation is that capacity building actually applies to all of us. It’s it’s not just a matter of some more developed nations building capacity in some that are less developed in these areas. A key challenge for us at the State Department is building capacity inside our own organization where where we don’t have nearly the the skill base that we need in order to meet the challenges in the world in these areas. And one of the that can sometimes seem like a daunting challenge but there’s very little need to reinvent the wheel. We can take what we’ve done or what we’ve learned we can take what anyone has done or learned and try to share it or repurpose it for others in order to accelerate their path up that maturity curve. So we try to try to keep both of these aspects in mind when we’re when we’re building or negotiating or discussing policies across the full spectrum of technology issues. Okay I’ll need I’ll need someone with eyes behind me to we’ve got the video as

Christopher Tate:
well. So good morning everyone I’m Christopher Tate with Connect Free and Internet 3. I’d like to apologize first on behalf of all IT experts for making your jobs harder as diplomats. It wasn’t our really kind of idea to make the internet a hard thing to do but there is hope and there’s hope in the in the sense that the United States has really brought a lot of new standards online called zero trust and what that means is that we can re-architect the way that the internet works in order to really bring security into the heart of the internet and so there’s a lot of really hard people really hard work going on to make sure that the internet can be a new not will keep the keep the existing infrastructure in place but also extend it to a lot of places. We here at IGF have Connect Free here at IGF have announced kind of a new way of thinking about the internet where everyone can own their own IP address and it’s based off of public-private key pair so that means that everyone can essentially generate their own IPv6 address and therefore extend into these regions where there’s really hard to it’s really hard to bring in these network operation centers and other infrastructure so I really appreciate your delegation here and your time and consideration and I really think that you know there’s a lot of diplomatic side and also there’s a lot of things that we can do on the technical side and bringing bridging the gap as it were to connect these two technical and to book other things so thank you for your attention and time. Yes.

Audience:
Good morning Ambassador Isorzuki, Ambassador Greenberger and of course Ambassador Fick. I have a question directed to Ambassador Fick. So I have read somewhere that a certain Marine in the early 2000s stated that good commanders act and create opportunities great commanders ruthlessly exploit those opportunities so in order for these fellows for us to be great leaders as a person who rose from the ranks of leadership in many forms how would you advise us to go about in our post-gelics journey in affecting the necessary changes and updates in policy in our respective ministries and governments to reflect the lessons we have learned from this great program this great opportunity provided by the USDOS and Meridian. Thank you. Thank you for the

Nathaniel Fick:
question and I appreciate the researcher reading that may have gone into that question. Look a couple a couple observations here. I am new to this government bureaucracy and and still maybe a little more than a year in have the benefit of fresh eyes so a couple things that I would I would urge you to remember as you go back fully into your your roles on the other side of this fellowship are first assume good intentions on the part of your colleagues back to our last discussion there’s uneven understanding of these issues there are many different factors and considerations many different values to weigh we are going to have different points of view about what matters most how to rack and stack those priorities but I think most people working on these issues generally share a similar desire to to connect people to bring to benefits of technology to people to to mitigate the harms and to try to make the world a better place so first is assume good intentions I think at a very personal level that the next thing that I would urge is it’s it’s very helpful to have the ability to walk away and sometimes in our system people talk about that in financial terms that’s not what I mean I mean psychologically or emotionally don’t fall so in love with your position that you can’t consider other points of view and I think that’s actually quite hard to do the one of my favorite authors F Scott Fitzgerald said it wrote at one point that the the mark of a first-rate intelligence is the the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time. And I think with these issues, you have to be able to do that. And you have to be able to walk away from an idea that maybe you’re deeply invested in, because these are complicated things and they change.

Garima Vatla:
Yes. Thank you. Is it working? Thanks a lot. I’m Garima Vatla from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, currently posted to Geneva. It’s been really a nice journey with these people all around the table. And I think the human component indeed is the most important thing about that. I would maybe continue which Ambassador Fick just said about having always those two sides or positions in mind, because I feel very often when we talk about cybersecurity issues, we focus on the security perspective, the threats that come from it, but we shall not forget that technologies as such bring us a lot of opportunities, as well as when we train people, we need to train them to also look at the digital perspective. Because I feel there’s a lot of sort of confusion around semantics or definitions of what is a cyber diplomacy, what is a digital diplomacy, and how they actually connect to each other. It was very interesting to hear Ambassador from Japan saying that there’s a need to increase the amount of people, because we have three countries behind the table with a very big administration, as I come from a country where the amount of diplomats is around 400, 500, and we have to tackle those sort of global issues all the time, right? So I would just, I think it’s more of a comment than a question that we need to really emphasize the capacities or the knowledge of people to understand that digital and cyber issues both are part sort of the global policy sort of questions, not as a domain or a field on its own. Thank you very much.

Nathaniel Fick:
Karen, thank you. Can I respond to your comment though, and just point out that Estonia may have four or 500 diplomats total, but Estonia is small but mighty, especially in these areas. And that’s actually a generalizable comment, I think. One of the great benefits of these technologies is that the capital expenditure required to develop them is pretty low. The scale benefits that they bring with them are pretty high. And so there’s a bit of a decoupling between traditional measures of national influence and the ability to influence the world on these topics. Estonia is a perfect example. A very bad thing happened in Estonia. And in the wake of that bad thing, because of national leadership and investment and focus, you developed this kind of world-defining expertise in this area that is incredibly inspiring, I think, to everyone around this table. And I think that’s a huge success story. It’s a repeatable success story in other places with focus and discipline and investment.

Audience:
Good morning, everyone. My name is Andrew. I’m from Jamaica. A question I have for ambassadors. Coming from an island state, very small, there are different priorities that compete with each other all the time. This particular issue intersects with all issues of development. It’s a developmental issue, I see it as well, because the harms that exist online, they sometimes undermine what is done back home in terms of different areas. What would be your advice for countries who this issue may not be at a high level? And what would be your recommendations to help us go back to our different countries and to convince, to persuade different leaders of government and at different levels to put this issue at the focus which it needs to be, given that a lot of things compete and with a small country, you have to decide what’s the net benefit of pursuing X or pursuing Y. So what would be, let’s say, your top three recommendations that would help an individual to go back home to persuade the movers and shakers who need to approve these things? Thank you.

Regine Grienberger:
Thank you. It’s on. Okay, I give the first and you do the other two. Okay, so my point would be, sometimes digital is the door opener and cyber follows. So focus on the opportunities is sometimes much more convincing, especially for leadership, than focusing on the risks. It’s also, I mean, if you look at it at the corporate level, it’s also sometimes that the Department for Digitization gets all the means. The CISO has to ask for money all the time because when everything’s fine, he has done his work, but nobody sees it. So I mean, a little bit, it’s the same with cyber and digital. Digital is much more comforting for leadership, but it’s just the same topic, just look from the other side, focusing on the opportunities. And many, many countries will look at it from this perspective, although the other perspective, the security perspective cannot be neglected. And if you want to have a sustainable transition, you have to cover, protect also the backside of the project. Thank you.

Hideo Ishizuki:
I think this is, again, another commonality we are facing, actually. And as I have said that we are suffering from the short of staff in the ministry, and this is also the matter relating to the priority. So we have to deal with this issue of awareness, and we have to pass with our leaders so that we can have more resources on cyber security issues. And actually, I mentioned earlier that the World Bank has created a cyber security trust fund, and they are also struggling this kind of element, because traditionally, development agenda is for digital, not for the cyber security, because cyber security, you cannot see the benefit of cyber security unless you got cyber attacks. So this is, again, you know that you have to show it, why cyber security is important. And I think World Bank is working on that, how to, it’s very hard to get the statistics to show the effect of cyber security efforts, or sort of return of the investment on cyber security stuff. But they are working on that, and I think maybe if you approach to the World Bank, they may have some good statistics to show the importance of cyber security investment. So this is just an information. Thank you.

Nathaniel Fick:
I would echo and agree with the comments from my colleagues, and I think a useful analogy here is, it doesn’t matter how many times you tell a child not to touch a hot stove, the child has to touch the stove to learn not to do it again. And so I agree with Ambassador Shizuki’s point that cyber security is a cost, and it’s really about avoiding bad things. And rather than learn from our own hard experience, touching the stove, we need to try to learn from others’ hard experience. And so part of our challenge is convincing our leaders that the bad things that we see happening other places could happen to us. And that is a hard argument to make in a busy world where they may have 40 priorities, and this is number 41. Which leads really in my mind to Ambassador Greenberger’s point, which is, and this has been true for me as well, focus on the opportunity, focus on the upside. Often that’s digital, and digital can be a path to cyber security.

Audience:
Hello, my name is Chittakiat Matapaniwat. I’m from Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand. First of all, I wish to echo Ambassador Shizuki about the capacity building. I couldn’t agree more with what you just say about the capacity building, and then regional can be the way forward. Of course, I think on Thailand, we work closely with Japan for the ASEAN-Japan cyber security capacity building, and then we look forward to do more in our region. And capacity building can also be more of the global initiative, like what the Bureau of CDP has been doing for this program, this fellowship. I have one question that may be, or may not be echoed with other countries, but I think in my country, Thailand, when we talk about cyber security, most of the people think about cyber crime. They want to see how we can tackle cyber crime, but they don’t really know there is another aspect of security. Let’s say, in general security, as Ambassador Greenberger had mentioned about, how we can, of course, as a diplomat, and as a cyber diplomat who working day to day, every day with this issue, I know how important it is, but for the other ministry, other government officials, they don’t really know how we can raise awareness, and how we can convince them that this issue merit another investment, further investment, to make us prepare for the cyber attack or other challenges. Thank you.

Regine Grienberger:
Okay, let’s start with the investment part. There has also to be a trade-off between domestic investment and investment abroad in this field. That is when I talk with my colleagues about cyber capacity building, I always describe it as a two-way street. So you might be investing in a program that helps law enforcement in other places to get up to speed to what cyber criminal organizations are able to do, and you spend that money abroad, but at the same time, you get indirect reward from that activity, because this is by nature cross-boundary activities that you are combating here. So if your partner is able to reduce the level of activity, it will benefit yourself. So I think that is one trade-off that you can use in your argumentation towards other parts of the government. And the second one is, of course, should I go for investment in my own structures as for ministry, for example, or is the issue better taken care of in other parts of the governments? So increasing the international competencies, for example, of your cybersecurity agency. And in our case, we have decided that all of the players in the government architecture, or in the whole of, we have a whole of society approach to all of the actors in this architecture should be able to deal with the international aspect. So we have a cybersecurity strategy, a national cybersecurity strategy that defines one of the action fields is Europe. For us, it’s the first framework, Europe and international affairs. But it’s not a list of taskings only for the foreign ministry. It’s a list of taskings for all the actors in the field.

Hideo Ishizuki:
I think maybe the role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the government system is to collect the information from abroad, on the incident cases or threat intelligence or threat awareness. And with that, maybe we can convince other agencies that you have to work hard in order to protect yourself from these threats. So information gathering and dissemination of these informations inside the government is I think this is one of the roles and one of the things we can do vis-a-vis the other agencies. And as for the cyber crime, I think that nowadays, most of the threatening, I think one of the most threatening, one of the biggest threats in the cyber space is a ransomware. And for that, I think the US and United States has set up a framework called Counter-Ransom Initiative. And I think here, nowadays, I think there are more than 40 countries have already participated in this framework. And I think in our case here, our national police agency is quite active in that framework. So if you can have this kind of international framework where police agencies or law enforcement agency can participate, that would give them a kind of cause or interest to invest more heavily on the cyber security side. Thank you.

Nathaniel Fick:
And with that, all good things come to an end. Not only the session this morning, but this fellowship here for our inaugural class of Jellix Fellows. I wanna thank my friends and colleagues, Regina, Hideo, for not only joining us here today, but for your partnership around the world. And I really wanna thank our class of fellows for committing your time and energy to each other and to the fellowship. I hope it’s been a good year from your perspective. It’s been really exciting for us to see the energy in the group. We look forward to working with you now out in the world, all around the world in the years to come. We’re gonna look to you to help us set the tone for the classes that follow. And I just wanna conclude maybe with a round of applause to thank you for all your hard work.

Audience:
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. We wish you well and we really are in it together. Take care. We’re all separate, but together we are? That is true. Thank you for doing this. Thank you for coming all the way down here. Yeah, good, good, yeah. It’s always nice to get out of the capitol, yeah. Ah, for sure, yeah. I’m a believer now, yes. Coming to Kyoto. It’s a special place, yes. Yeah, yeah, it’s good. Well, I’m off to the airport, so I’ll see you somewhere soon. Good luck in Singapore. Give David Cole my best. I’m sorry to miss him. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It’s great. Good. Okay. Bye-bye. Thank you. Thank you. There was one person who wasn’t here, so she’s right here. It’s good. Great. Let’s go do it. Perfect. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bye. Bye. Bye. I’ll have that. And then I’ll come back and drop it in. I’ll see you soon. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience

The analysis of the speakers’ arguments regarding encryption reveals a variety of key points and perspectives. Overall, there is a prevailing negative sentiment towards anti-encryption policies due to the potential risks they pose.

One notable concern is the risk of fragmentation in encrypted services. The mention of various policies that could threaten end-to-end encryption in Europe, the UK, and the USA raises alarms. Additionally, the gathered public views indicate a potential fragmentation in the encrypted services offered. This fragmentation could disrupt the seamless communication and interoperability that users currently enjoy.

The extraterritorial effects of anti-encryption policies are another significant concern. The internet ecosystem and human rights can be affected if encrypted applications become region-specific, leading to a fragmented online environment. There is also anxiety surrounding the possibility of surveillance or the implementation of backdoors to encryption. These concerns highlight the potential infringement on privacy and human rights.

Furthermore, there is strong opposition to anti-encryption policies and the possibilities of surveillance and backdoors, with some participants expressing the belief that the issue of child pornography is being weaponised to strengthen these policies.

Contrary to the compliance or denial dichotomy that is often presented, there are alternative solutions to consider. Technological literacy can empower individuals to access platforms in different ways within a given jurisdiction. This undermines the notion that compliance or denial are the only options. The false dichotomy of compliance or denial is seen as limiting, and there is optimism that technological literacy can pave the way for innovative approaches.

Blockchain technology is suggested as a positive solution that could provide a global, interoperable network without relying on encryption. The launch of a standardised blockchain platform by the MLS from the ETF is cited as a successful example. By preventing the monopoly of a single entity on a billion people, blockchain could offer a decentralised solution that empowers users while ensuring security and functionality.

The potential consequences of removing encryption services, such as WhatsApp, are also highlighted. Many migrants and citizens with families in other parts of the world rely on services like WhatsApp to communicate. The removal of these services could potentially oppress diasporic populations and the global South, as they were among the earliest users and audiences. This raises concerns about reduced connectivity and the potential disruption of social bonds.

Additionally, the dominance of Facebook and Google in the technology sector is seen as an issue that limits competition. The disproportionate influence and control exerted by these companies are believed to hinder opportunities for other players in the industry. The audience perceives this dominance as detrimental to fair competition and the exploration of alternative technological solutions.

In conclusion, the analysis reveals a negative sentiment towards anti-encryption policies. Concerns about the fragmentation of encrypted services, the potential infringement on privacy and human rights, and the dominance of certain tech giants echo throughout the discussions. However, there is a strong belief in the possibility of alternative solutions, such as technological literacy and blockchain technology, to address these issues. The potential impact on diasporic populations and the global South is also a significant factor that adds to the urgency of preserving encryption services.

Pablo Bello

This analysis explores the various arguments and stances surrounding encryption and its implications for online safety. It specifically focuses on WhatsApp, a widely used encrypted messaging platform, which strongly opposes anti-encryption policies and regulations. WhatsApp argues that weakening encryption would pose a significant threat to the security and privacy of its users on a global scale.

One of the main concerns raised by WhatsApp is the risk of internet fragmentation that could arise from policies undermining encryption. The platform has even stated that it would consider leaving the UK if the proposed online safety bill is implemented in a way that compromises encryption. This highlights the potential implications of lower security standards for the interconnected global network.

On the other hand, some experts argue against the commonly perceived trade-off between safety and privacy. They assert that the idea that reducing privacy will automatically increase security is false and disproven. They suggest that it is essential to maintain a balance between both aspects rather than compromising one in favour of the other.

Discussions also focus on who should decide encryption standards and whether multiple protocols should be encouraged. Questions have been raised regarding the potential implications of having a single standard and the decision-making process involved. Careful consideration must be given to ensure that the best standards are implemented.

Importantly, WhatsApp collaborates with other companies and civil society groups to resist encryption regulations. This coalition is working together to avoid regulations that would impact encryption. WhatsApp actively advocates for maintaining the highest standard of protection with end-to-end encryption worldwide, emphasising its duty and responsibility to protect its users.

Furthermore, the analysis underscores the critical nature of encryption for society’s safety, with encryption being vital to protect millions of individuals, particularly those in the Global South. The argument against weakening encryption is supported by the belief that it does not make society any safer.

In conclusion, this analysis presents a range of arguments and stances on encryption and its impact on online safety, with WhatsApp taking a strong stance against anti-encryption policies and regulations. The platform highlights the potential risks of internet fragmentation and advocates for the protection of high encryption standards. It actively opposes encryption regulations and emphasizes its duty to protect users worldwide. Encryption plays a crucial role in ensuring online security and privacy, and finding the right balance between safety and privacy is essential.

Juliana Fonteles da Silveira

The analysis explores the impact of anti-encryption policies on human rights in the Americas. It reveals that these policies may infringe upon the rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights by granting access to personal information and allowing its processing. This argument is presented with a negative sentiment, highlighting concerns about the potential repercussions of anti-encryption policies.

The analysis also highlights that anti-encryption policies extend beyond privacy concerns to broader implications for freedom of expression and human rights. It asserts that encrypted communication is essential for activists, protesters, and journalists to communicate securely. It further points out that in many countries in the Americas, the absence of the rule of law, judicial independence, and democratic stability exacerbates the impact of these policies. This negative sentiment reflects a critical stance towards the rise of anti-encryption policies.

Another viewpoint discussed in the analysis raises concerns that anti-encryption policies in the Americas and Europe may contribute to the introduction of new repressive internet regulations in the region. The argument is made that any restriction on expression must meet the three-part test, which requires it to be provided by law, based on legitimate reasons, and in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality. This underscores the belief that anti-encryption policies should be subject to scrutiny to ensure compliance with human rights principles.

The analysis also mentions the role of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, which issues reports and recommendations on the impact of non-encryption policies on human rights to states and private companies. It also facilitates public hearings for civil society and other actors to address violations related to encryption legislation. These observations are presented in a neutral sentiment, highlighting the involvement of international bodies in addressing potential human rights violations resulting from anti-encryption policies.

Additionally, the analysis notes that there is no substantial evidence to support the effectiveness of non-encryption policies in ensuring safety. This negative sentiment raises doubts about the necessity and proportionality of such policies.

On the other hand, there is a positive sentiment expressed in support of encrypted and protected private communications. This viewpoint aligns with the importance of upholding human rights, privacy, and encryption. Although no supporting facts are provided for this support, it reinforces the notion that safeguarding private communication is crucial.

Overall, the analysis emphasizes the significance of protecting human rights while considering encryption policies. It underscores the potential consequences of anti-encryption measures on various facets of human rights, including privacy, freedom of expression, non-discrimination, and human dignity. The analysis calls for a careful examination of these policies to determine their compatibility with international human rights standards.

Prateek Waghre

During the discussion, several issues regarding internet regulations and digital sovereignty were explored. The focus was specifically on the impact of Western institutions on the global South. It was argued that actions taken by Western institutions can have significant consequences for parts of the global South, and this sentiment was expressed in a negative manner.

The discussion highlighted concerns regarding the regulations imposed on digital services in India. These regulations include the retention of customer data for up to five years, the tracing of original messages on end-to-end encryption in accordance with Indian internet laws, and the broadening definition of Telecommunication, which may impose licensing requirements on all internet services. These measures were viewed negatively by the participants and were seen as potentially harmful.

The exportation of regulatory designs to other countries was also a key topic of discussion. It was noted that countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam, Kenya, and Venezuela have adopted similar regulations to those enacted in Germany, including intermediary liability regulations. This observation was made without expressing a particular sentiment, indicating a neutral standpoint.

The control exerted by the Indian government over digital spaces raised concerns among the participants. The Data Protection Act, which grants the state the power to process large amounts of personal data while exempting the state from the right to privilege, was mentioned. Additionally, potential obligations to intercept messages and the involvement of a state-appointed grievance committee in content moderation decisions were seen as alarming. These points were discussed in a negative light and raised concerns about potential reductions in digital inequalities.

The importance of protecting encryption and end-to-end encryption was positively emphasized. The need for solidarity in safeguarding encryption in the coming years was underscored, highlighting its significance in preserving privacy and security.

The discussion also touched on the traceability issue in India, particularly in relation to a high court traceability order that WhatsApp managed to obtain a stay for. The impact and implications of this order were presented in a neutral manner, suggesting the need to cautiously monitor developments in this area.

Overall, the participants advocated for the protection of encryption and stressed the importance of vigilance in monitoring traceability developments. They highlighted concerns over the regulations imposed on digital services in India and the potential exportation of similar regulatory designs to other countries. The need for solidarity in protecting encryption and the significance of observing the traceability issue were recurring themes throughout the discussion.

Masayuki Hatta

The discussion focuses on the impact of encryption on the economies of the Global North and Global South. It acknowledges that many individuals are using encryption without being aware of it, highlighting the need for greater awareness and education about these services. The lack of understanding could lead to problems if encryption is prohibited or removed.

Regarding Japan’s role in encryption regulation, it is noted that the country generally follows the policies of the Global North. This raises questions about whether Japan should be categorized as part of the Global North or Global South. The discussion is further complicated by Japan’s technical and socio-political characteristics, causing confusion about its position. Additionally, Japan’s inclination towards authoritarian tendencies may have implications for privacy and internet freedom.

The Global South is increasingly implementing regulations on encryption. However, it is important to recognize that technology is not constrained by geographical boundaries or regulations. Services like WhatsApp, Apple, and Signal remain accessible to users regardless of regulatory measures. This demonstrates that technology is universal and not limited by individual countries’ decisions.

The main point of the discussion appears to be uncertain and confused. There is a lack of clarity regarding the focus and objectives of the conversation. Additionally, the issue at hand is seen as multifaceted and political, contributing to the uncertainty surrounding the discussion.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of raising awareness and understanding among users about encryption. It highlights the potential problems that could arise if encryption is prohibited or removed. The discussion also raises intriguing questions about Japan’s role and position in encryption regulation. Moreover, the differing approaches taken by the Global North and Global South in regulating encryption reflect the evolving landscape of technological governance. Overall, the discussion necessitates further exploration and clarification of the main points and objectives.

Mariana Canto Sobral

The analysis examines various aspects related to encryption, privacy, and global trends. One key argument posits that global south countries often feel compelled to conform to trends set by the global north out of necessity or a perception of trendsetting. However, the analysis cautions that transnational regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) can impose compliance requirements on global south countries, risking exclusion from the market. This highlights the challenge these nations face in balancing global norms with their own interests.

Regarding privacy, the analysis emphasises that its definition and understanding are primarily shaped by Western, white, middle-class perspectives. As a result, privacy is seen as a privilege, disregarding the experiences and needs of marginalized groups. The historical example of people of color being obligated to carry lanterns for surveillance further illustrates how such perspectives perpetuate inequality and social injustices.

Encryption evokes mixed sentiments. While it is viewed as a threat to vulnerable groups, it is also recognised as a powerful tool that can benefit the underprivileged and address power asymmetries. Challenging the prevailing notion that encryption hinders protection calls for a reevaluation of the narrative surrounding its role.

The analysis also disputes the notion that the absence of privacy automatically leads to increased security. It suggests that alternative approaches should be explored to achieve a balance between privacy and security.

Moreover, the analysis asserts encryption as a matter of human rights, emphasising the importance of protecting it as a fundamental right that contributes to peace, justice, and strong institutions. It calls for the Global South to embrace and safeguard encryption instead of perceiving it as a threat.

Additionally, the analysis recommends implementing regulations and policies to strengthen encryption in Latin America. It cites the example of Brazil, where revelations by Edward Snowden led to the establishment of a comprehensive civil rights internet framework. This demonstrates the potential positive impact of proactive measures in addressing encryption.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the complex dynamics surrounding encryption, privacy, and global trends. It highlights the need to challenge prevailing narratives, redefine privacy, and recognise encryption as both a potential threat and a valuable asset. The analysis stresses the importance of safeguarding encryption as a human right and implementing appropriate regulations to promote security and reduce inequalities.

Moderator

Multiple legislative proposals introduced in the Global North, specifically in the USA and EU, are causing concerns about the potential negative impact on end-to-end encryption. These proposals, including the Online Safety Act and the Kids Online Safety Act in the USA, as well as the Chat Control proposal in the EU, pose a threat to the privacy and security provided by encrypted services.

There are fears that these proposals could lead to a fragmentation in the availability of encrypted services worldwide. If certain encryption services are only accessible in specific regions, it could create a situation where some users have access to secure communication while others do not.

Adding to the complexity is the lack of awareness among users about their reliance on encryption in everyday tech usage. Many people are unaware that they are using encryption when using applications like WhatsApp or LINE. This lack of awareness makes it difficult for users to understand the value and implications of restricting encryption.

The potential consequences of these legislative measures extend beyond privacy concerns. There are significant worries that these policies could curtail human rights and freedom of expression. Weakening encryption poses a risk of reducing global standards of security and privacy, especially impacting vulnerable populations who already live under non-democratic regimes.

It is crucial to defend against regulations that weaken encryption as encrypted communication plays a vital role in protecting freedom of speech, privacy, and security globally. The absence of data protection laws in many countries in the Americas contributes to state abuses and enhances state capacity for arbitrary measures on private communications.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest that mass surveillance enabled by non-encryption policies has been effective in ensuring safety in proportionate ways. The potential for abuse in surveillance policies and the infringement on privacy rights is a major concern.

In conclusion, the legislative proposals threatening end-to-end encryption in the Global North have sparked concern for the global internet ecosystem and human rights. Defending encryption is crucial as weakening it not only compromises privacy but also threatens human rights and freedom of expression. The lack of awareness about the role of encryption among users further complicates the understanding of its value and implications. Protecting encryption is essential for maintaining higher standards of security and privacy globally, especially for vulnerable populations.

Moderator:
I’m going to start with a brief introduction. I’m going to start with a brief introduction. We have a panel which is about encryption and the impact of encryption policies happening in the global north and the impact they have on the global south. We have a room with approximately, I would say, about five, six, excluding the speakers. Thank you for all being here. My name is Olaf Kollekman, I’m with the Internet Society and I will be your moderator today. As I said, this is about encryption policies in the global north, impacting the ability to communicate throughout the world. We have a room with about five, six, excluding the speakers, thank you for all being here. Since 2022, there have been a number of legislative proposals introduced that threaten end-to-end encryption. End-to-end encryption is the ability to communicate with confidentiality and integrity from one user to the other. This is a very important issue. We have a number of bills that are circulating in the European Union, the online safety act and the kids online safety act, all bills that are circulating as proposals and being looked at, I would say. In the European Union, there’s a proposal of chat control. The online safety bill has become an act. to come up with a solution to find harmful content, while a community of security researchers and practitioners have brought consensus that such a solution doesn’t quite exist. During the development of the bill, that’s the online harms bill, various providers of encrypted services announced already that if that bill would come in effect and actions would be taken that the bill enables, that they would take their business elsewhere. And these are all laws that focus on specific regions of the world. As I said, Europe, the UK, the US, those are very specific areas of the globe, but their effects are felt all over the place. Because of course, we know the Internet is global. This panel, we put together, that is a number of us, to assess how these measures, when introduced, impact other regions of the world, and in particular, the global South. Now, we have an excellent panel, expert panel to discuss this, consisting of five people, two of them here, three of them online, again, showing the global nature of this discussion. We have with us Juliana Fontelles, who is sitting next to me. Juliana is a consultant for a special report on freedom of expression of the Internet. She is also a researcher at Interlabs and a project assistant at the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism. Welcome. We also have Masayuki Hata. Masayuki Hata is a researcher at the Interlabs and a project assistant at the Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism. Welcome. We also have Masayuki Hata. We also have Masayuki Hata. Masayuki Hata is currently an Associate Professor of Economics and Management at the Tsurugaidai University of Japan. Sorry if I butchered that name. And you were originally trained as an economist and organizational theorist, and you write and speak extensively on intellectual property issues. But you also have, I think that is a hobby, which is very much related to encryption, and that’s as a contributor to the Tor product project and other privacy-enhancing technologies. Online, we have a number of speakers, contributors. We have Mariana Canto, and she is a visiting researcher and Chancellor Fellow at the Berlin Social Science Center in Germany, Director of the Institute for Research and Law and Technology of RECIF, IPREC, in Brazil, PhD candidate in law at the University of Stirling in the UK, where she is part of the Interdisciplinary Cluster on Democracy, Human Rights, and Communication Advocacy in the Digital Age. Further, we have Pablo Bello. He is also online. Pablo is the Director of Public Policies at WhatsApp for Latin America. He graduated in Economics from the University of Chile. an MBA in business from Esada in Barcelona, in Spain. He worked at the Inter-American Association of Telecommunication Companies, where he held a position of Executive Director. He was also Chile’s Assistant Secretary of Telecommunication between 2002 and 2006. Welcome. Pratik Waghre, I actually, I hope I’m not butchering your name, Pratik is a Policy Director at IFF, he’s a technologist turned public policy professional. And Pratik has spent nearly a decade in the CDN industry as a consultant and product manager. Since moving to public policy, his research work has focused on a number of areas such as internet shutdowns, information disorder in the information ecosystem and governance of digital communication networks and social media in India. Pratik is also an alumnus of the U.S. State Department’s International Visitor Leadership Program on disinformation in the Quad. So those are the speakers today, and you are the audience, and I expect a little bit of engagement. If all is well, we are about to share, Marcos is about to share, Marcos Pereira, who is online, is about to share a QR code to a Mentimeter board. And if all is good, that will appear there. So we have a bunch of questions, just to heat you up, participate with us, grab your phone, and if you cannot scan the QR code, type in menti.com and enter the code 6831 2810. I repeat, 6831 2810. 2810. And we are offering you a bunch of questions that we hope you can add and we hope we get some insights from those questions. What is the risk of fragmentation in encrypted services offered? Have and have nots. Or talk to or talk not to. We see responses coming in and I’m going to wait a while so that people also online can participate. This was a thing at the IGF. How do we make things interactive? So this is our experiment here. I haven’t seen it in other rooms yet. Well, thank you. I think we leave it at that. High would be 10 of course and low would be zero. And I think that what we see here as a question or as a result is that people think that there is indeed a risk of fragmentation in encrypted services offered. Make an example of what is fragmentation. That’s what I mean with have and have not people who are able to use encryption services and people who are not able to use those services or services that only exist in a particular region. So there is an encrypted application that is only available in Latin America and you cannot talk to me in Europe. That would be fragmentation for me. So people are still entering their numbers. I find it interesting that there is some low votes. Perhaps we come back to that in the Q&A and I will ask you to raise your hand if you were one of the low voters, like you don’t think there is fragmentation at all, or barely, and explain why you think that. I’m actually interested in that answer and we’ll pick that on the question and answer section if I don’t forget to return to that. I believe we also have a second question on the sheet, we have three I believe. How can the internet ecosystem and human rights be affected by the extraterritorial effects of anti-encryption policies from other countries? So for instance, the Online Safety Act, how can that impact other jurisdictions? And I believe that this country has a number of words that you can fill in. It’s always interesting to see what comes out, I’ll wait a few seconds. Okay let’s see what the result is. Now we see the word cloud building, that is what is happening. I don’t know what a surveyed surf dom future is. Ah, I think I know what it is, yes. A life in servitude, perhaps. The program doesn’t allow you to write about the normal circumstance. Ah, okay. And what does it mean? I’m going to ask you then what you mean by that sentence.

Audience:
I mean, if we are allowing surveillance or back-to-server encryption at this moment in time, it’s a slippery slope. And I think everyone knows that. And the whole discussion on child pornography is just used. I mean, it’s one good reason why you would want that, but it’s used to weaponize anti-encryption policies around the world.

Moderator:
Thanks. I think we have one more. Just have a look at this. I think this is not a very positive image, if I may summarize it as that. Do we have yet another question? No, the third one is the one that we finished the workshop, so it’s the same question as the previous one.

Masayuki Hatta:
See if we had some change in the opinion. So let’s ask our panel a couple of questions. So Masayuki, starting with you, the Internet has become essential for public and private services. Everybody is essentially using the Internet. And in countries such as Brazil and India, encrypted services such as WhatsApp and Signal, Telegram, all those type of services, and not only in Brazil and India, are being used by big and small companies to run their businesses. And, of course, we’re using Brazil and India because they are very, very big countries. you. How do encryption policies from the Global North impact Global South economies? It’s a very, very difficult question for answer because I live in Japan and I think, I’m not sure about Global South. I have been to India or Brazil and I think in Japan, many people don’t know about encryption or more specifically, many people don’t know they are actually using encryption usually, which means, for example, in Japan, so many people, almost every people are using application, smart phone application called LINE. LINE is something like WhatsApp. So I’m pretty sure in India or Brazil, Global South, WhatsApp is widely used and in Japan, LINE is very widely used and LINE has a protocol called letter sealing. It’s end-to-end encryption protocol. So I think one big issue before we think about the foreign influence or something to Global South is actually, I’m not sure how many Global South people know they are using encryption already. I’m not sure, is this the answer to your question?

Moderator:
But suppose that people are using, they are using encryption without knowing it, but still if they are not able to use encryption and And the confidentiality that is now offered is taken away from them. What do you think would be the impact?

Masayuki Hatta:
So I mean they don’t know they are using encryption already, so they might not be aware that when encryption is prohibited or gone, I think that’s one of the problem I guess we face, because we or they don’t know the true value of encryption without knowing it. And I think that’s a situation in my country or global south.

Moderator:
Thank you. I think we might return back to that. Mariana Kanto, let’s see, where are you? You are online. The current geopolitics shaped by the history of colonization and new forms of dominance reflect the perspective of the global north, at least that’s something that we hear often. Not to dismiss that in the way that I said that a minute ago. In your evaluation, how do the power dynamics of the global north impact the construction and development of cybersecurity policies in the global south? Is the tech dominance, the colonial nature, the colonial history, does that play a role in all of this? Over to Mariana.

Mariana Canto Sobral:
Thank you so much for the invitation first, it’s a pleasure to be here, it’s always an honor to be at the IGF, and I thank to ISOC and I also thank to IPEREC for the invite. In relation to the question, I think global south countries, they tend to follow general trends that happen in the global north. Sometimes due to necessity, for example, transnational regulations such as the GDPR, and because if you don’t adhere to this kind of regulation, you’re excluded from the global market. Other times due to what is perceived as a global trend, for example, the import of narratives produced in the global north. For example, in the case of encryption by law enforcement actors. However, those import of narratives, especially this letter case, are very dangerous when you have open discussions happening in the judiciary, for example, as the case in Brazil. For those who don’t know, I’m from Brazil, and we’ve been following the recent discussions in the judiciary since the shutdown of WhatsApp in 2015 and 16. So when you import those narratives and during those kind of discussions happening at the same time, those dilemmas can be tricky and can harm encryption many times. So I think it’s also important that those measures such as the weakening of encryption can have extraterritorial effects in relation to the application of the law in other countries such as the UK now act, but also in relation to the import of those narratives. So the extraterritoriality is not only in relation to the application of the law, but also how the narratives work around the globe. So, for example, even if the country does not choose to adhere to that certain regulation, presidents can make a risk for encryption to exist in a certain country. I talked about the online safety bill, but I also now act, but we’ve been following on the kinds of regulations such as European ones that are being developed and that are very much influenced our bills on fake news, for example, and our AI strategy, too, that’s following the AI act in Europe. It’s impossible to talk about encryption. Latin American, I would say, without talking about power symmetries and the regulation of encryption, regulation itself. It’s impossible to talk about law without connecting to the real world because regulation does not operate in isolation. We know that. It needs the real world to function. Otherwise it’s just useless text. And in relation to privacy, I question sometimes the privacy concept that we use. According to some experts like Paya Aurora, we’re gonna have a legislation that’s based on privacy concepts, that, for example, still consider privacy, related to attitudes of Western-based, white, middle-class groups. So in this case, privacy is a privilege of many. And we can see this not only now, but during over the years and centuries and centuries, such as when Simone Brown talked about the lantern laws in the US, that you would have people being obligated, people of color being obligated to carry a lantern with them in order to be surveilled. So privacy is a privilege, and I believe that still nowadays it’s a privilege of the very few people in the world. And the awakening of encryption tends to even accentuate this kind of power symmetry. Today, we have a very, very serious agenda that’s being discussed, which is child sexual abuse material online. And it’s a very, very difficult matter to address. And even more, when you see that survivors and victims are not being heard in most discussions, that’s because when we talk about encryption, when we talk about regulation, we still consider children as unable or lacking in agency. And that for me, it’s a very relevant matter in order to include those voices in the debate. And not only the victims and the survivors, but also the people that work with those subjects and those people. So, I think it’s very important to understand the power symmetry not only in relation to the Global South and North, but also in relation to the people who are connected to the issue, in this case, children versus law enforcement authorities. But as the discussion is also connected to Global North and South, we can see that the Global South countries are still being highly affected by policies that are not made by them, and they are still perceived as unable to enforce rights, between quotes, I would say, and as many times open-air laboratories for highly intrusive technology. We’ve been following lately after the Pegasus case, and the investigation of the Pega committee, that highly intrusive technology is being used and exported to countries in the Global South with the permission of the Global North in countries that defend human rights. So, even this kind of, is this regulation enough to protect the Global South? That’s my question, like sometimes I wonder if our notion of privacy is enough to protect all of vulnerable groups in the world. And unfortunately, I don’t have many answers, I have more questions than answers, but I would love to debate this questioning of the status quo, let’s say, and how we can bring our region to the center of the debate and to be heard. And it’s such a very important debate for all of us. I think that’s it, thank you so much.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mariana. If I may, so I’m looking up because the screen is there. If I may ask a clarifying question. In the context of, you were just talking about questions around the status quo and I was trying to understand how would I summarize that status quo and I call it lack of sleep, I couldn’t. Could you summarize the status quo as you have it in your mind, just in a line or two?

Mariana Canto Sobral:
I think the current status quo in relation to encryption, we still see encryption as a threat to vulnerable groups and I don’t think this is how we should perceive encryption. I think encryption can be a huge ally to those who are underprivileged and those who are in a situation of power symmetries. So I think we have to question this narrative or maybe the status quo that encryption is still perceived by some actors as a barrier to protection. Security doesn’t mean that the lack of privacy doesn’t mean that we’re more secure. That’s what I meant.

Moderator:
Thank you. I think that was at least very clarifying for me and I presume also for others. Patrick, Pratik, over to you. Digital services from the Global North, they have the things that are developed in the Global North, the services that are deployed in the Global North have a large influence in shaping the internet, if only historically. Of course, that is creating dependencies on that technology for everybody, including people from the global south. India, however, has tried to face some of those challenges, and I think it would be useful for you to explain what those challenges were and what insights we can draw from India’s digital sovereignty policies that are relevant to the ongoing encryption disputes. Prateek, over to you. All right.

Prateek Waghre:
Thank you very much for having me. I was told I have about 10 minutes, so I’ve just started my timer to make sure I don’t go over. I’ve got three things that I broadly want to cover through the question, and I want to talk about encryption, but without actually, for large part, directly talking about encryption. So I’ll start with an example from India that highlights how actions taken by global north or western institutions, not just government, not just services, can have an impact in other parts of the world. I want to make a general comment on the idea of regulatory contagion, where an instrument in one part of the world or one country can be imported into other countries, even if they have different underlying objectives. And then finally, I’ll just come back to specifics about India and some of the current or recent regulatory interventions that are happening here and why some of them are concerning, especially from the encryption perspective and more broadly from the individual autonomy perspective. So as you aptly asked, digital services certainly have an influence, but I want to talk about a very specific instance. So on August 5 this year, the New York Times reported on alleged links between a quote unquote tech mogul in America and propaganda networks from China. A lot of the details are not directly relevant to the present conversation, except for one point where they included a reference to a news portal in India that also happens to be very critical of the current union government and for a number of years now has been at the forefront. the receiving end of harassment obstructions by the country’s financial investigators, who themselves, over a period of time, have become increasingly partisan in terms of the people they pursue, right? Now, as recently as last week, citing some of the allegations in that very story, law enforcement offices conducted quote-unquote raids or seized electronic devices of around 50 current, former reporters, contributors, staff of the organization called Newsclick, including arresting two people, the founder and the HR head, under a law meant for terrorism charges, right? And this law currently has a history of people being detained for months and years without a trial, right? Now, you could argue that the paper was not aware of the consequences of its reporting, but people who declined being quoted in the story have come out publicly saying that they didn’t want to deal with the story in its current form. And one of the organizations quoted has also come out and said that the ultimate report didn’t include its categorical denial, right? So this just goes to show that actions by institutions, you know, in the global North, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes, you know, knowing fully well, can have outside effects on people in the global South and in other countries, right? And I want to quickly cross the Atlantic Ocean, right? From a US specific example and go to Germany. And of course, everyone is, you know, at IGF is likely aware of the Network Enforcement Act or on NETCG, right? Now, I’m not going to go to specifics of the provision itself, and none of this is either a comment on its effectiveness in the German context, because I do not have expertise there, but multiple scholars and researchers over the years have alluded to some of its provisions being imported by other countries, right? Especially with more authoritarian leanings and, you know, apologies in advance, I’ll just quote. through some of them very quickly and apologies if I mispronounce some of their names. But Heidi Torek in a 2021 paper stated that bills at the time in Malaysia, Vietnam, Kenya, Venezuela invoked similar language about broad and elastic categories. And that’s the quote that Russia and Singapore made references to it in some form either directly or through statements. Isabel Cannon refers again to Russia, Singapore, and Turkey and notes how some of them have incorporated provisions requiring local presence. And this has a context as we’ve seen in certain instances as reported with Apple and Google. In some cases, recent Washington Post reporting about India suggests that these local presence requirements have been used to threaten companies and their employees as well. And in a foreign policy essay, Jacob Changama and Joel Fisk cited a 2019 Freedom House report which said that since NetPG or the Network Enforcement Act was enacted, about 13 other countries have enacted similar intermediary liability regulations using a similar framework. Again, I’m making these points not directly from encryption, but just to make that these are the forces of factors at play. When you have regulation or when you have regulated designs in some of these countries, they tend to get exported. And we’ve already made references to the Online Safety Act, which is something that we are working very closely and with a lot of concern to see how some of that language then gets imported to other countries as well. Now, I want to come now specifically to India. And I’m going to sidestep the definition of digital sovereignty, because I know that that’s much contested, much debated. But as things stand, India is currently in the midst of rewriting a lot of its laws that govern digital spaces. And And unfortunately, there are several bad things in there that us as civil society organizations are concerned about. And it matters also globally, because of the sheer number of people in India, it has a precedent-setting capability. And as Kiran Ohara and Wendy Hall describe in their book, it’s a swing state for the future of a lot of regulatory practices. Now, there are three or four specific items of regulation that I’ll talk about, which is the certain directions of 2022, the current draft telecommunications bill, the Digital Personal Data Protection Act of 2023, and the current efforts to rework the intermediate liability framework through updates to current rules and potentially a new impending bill. And a common thread, before I get into specifics, a common thread that we’ll see is that a lot of them amass a tremendous amount of control and discretion for the union executive with limited oversight over their actions, and often leaving us very little to rely on other than just verbal assurances, which are not really enforceable in a lot of cases. So the certain directions, which were notified in April 2022, these impose the six-month log retention requirement on pretty much all internet services that operate in India. Specifically, also had a five-year retention period for various types of data. And there’s some nuance here, but various types of data for information about customers retained by VPNs and by cloud service providers. What this means for zero knowledge services, I think, is a huge open question. Then the intermediate liability framework, which is the IT Rules 2021 and subsequent amendments to it, these introduce what GNI has called hostage-taking laws, right. They introduced traceability requirements directly relevant in the context of end-to-end encryption, which is essentially the idea that you can trace messages on end-to-end encrypted platforms and you can trace them to the point of origin without compromising end-to-end encryption itself, right. You have provisions for a grievance committee that is appointed by the executive that has a direct say in content moderation decisions that digital services may take and more recently, you know, a fact-check unit being envisioned that will be used to flag content about the government itself as fake or false, right. Then the telecommunication bill, which expands the definition of telecommunications so broadly or define them so broadly that they can impose licensing requirements on pretty much any service on the internet and this is relevant because the licensing requirements then can potentially include obligations to intercept messages, again, a direct implication for end-to-end encryption or identity verification requirements, right. Again, for a lot of services that people rely on and, you know, have a huge implication for vulnerable populations that tend to use these services, right. Then there’s the Data Protection Act which was recently notified which imposes incidentally duties and potential for penalties on people if they withhold any information from the state and in a very interesting inversion, it grants the state the ability to process large amounts of personal data under a clause for certain legitimate uses but pretty much exempts the state from the right to privilege, right. So, you know, if I were to come back and, you know, it’s not a happy picture that I’m painting but these are some of the trends that we’re seeing currently in India. Some of them have very significant, I think, implications, right? For the ability of people to be able to use end-to-end encryption services, not only in India, but globally as well, because there is a precedent-setting ability that, you know, that it has got. I’ll pause there. I realize I think I’m done with my 10 minutes.

Moderator:
Thank you. That was a very comprehensive overview of the issues, and also clearly the sense of precedent-setting of all of this came out clearly. Pablo. Pablo is also online. Recently, WhatsApp declared that if the online safety bill were to be approved, and in fact, it has by now, the company would exit the United Kingdom. I believe there was a nuance with that, if it would be approved and implemented in the way that it is approved, so to speak. In the company’s assessment, is there a potential risk of internet fragmentation of encrypted services providing stemming from the anti-encryption policies like the one that is put forward in the UK? Pablo, please.

Pablo Bello:
Yeah, thank you so much for the invitation. I’m very glad to be with you. Sadly, from Brazil, so it’s 2 a.m. in the morning, but it’s all good. Yes, I think this is a very important question, and in particular, of course, I’m seated in this panel in representation of WhatsApp, but I am also a Global South person living in Latin America, and I have been working for the Chilean government on this kind of issues in the past. So my perspective is both the company perspective, but also mine perspective from the Global South. And yes, the company strongly believes that the threats on encryption, the risk that we are facing in- UK, in the European Union, and in other parts of the world, creates a huge risk of fragmentation in terms of imposing, in some sense, lower standards of security and privacy for global communications. Of course, internet, it’s a global network, interconnected network. If one part of the network has lower standards, that has implications to everyone. And I think it’s super important to consider the perspective of the Global South in that debate and in that regard, because the effects of decisions made in the Global North, in few countries, could have implications everywhere. And in particular, I would want to stress this idea that weakening encryption in one place affects the entire world. One data that I think is important to introduce in that discussion is not a technical data, it’s a political data. The economists presented this survey year by year regarding the quality of the democracies in the world. And only 8% of the world population lives in full democracies, only 8%. And it’s not by casualty that these countries are in the North, in the Global North mostly. And in particular, in Europe, UK, of course. And 55% of the world population lives under authoritarian regimes or hybrid regimes. 37% under authoritarian regimes where human rights are not respected. So the problem we have here is that if we, from the Global North perspective, introduce pieces of regulation that weaken encryption because they believe that their institutions are strong enough, the rule of law is strong enough, and that would be fine from their perspective. I strongly believe that that approach is wrong, but if they believe that, they should consider as well the implications of that decisions globally. And this is very important because… Because most of the people in the world lives under flower democracies or not democracies at all, without rule of law, without proper institutions, without balance of power. So when a country in particular, the UK or the European Union, make a decision in terms to weaken an encryption, it’s affecting the lives of people everywhere. The activists in Nicaragua, the activists in Venezuela, the activists in Saudi Arabia. So I think this is why it’s so important to have this discussion here at the IGF, because the implications are not limited to the borders of every country. So yes, the introduction of country level regulations that weaken an encryption has global effects. And it’s super important for the technical community, the civil society and the private sector to continue working together, trying to make the case that these decisions will be profoundly wrong. And that will create a huge, huge impact. Besides this idea that weakening encryption in one place affects the entire world, two other concepts that I want to mention. The first one, of course, is the falsehood of the trade-off between safety and privacy. Of course, this idea that you can get more security, you can get more safety, reducing privacy is completely wrong. And we know that. But it’s important to repeat this idea, because it’s in the core of this discussion. And second, weakening encryption hurts everyone. This idea that is still in the center, in the core of some of these attempts of regulation, that you can create a backdoor or you can create some way to reduce features of security for certain people is not true. We know that it’s not true. So based on these three concepts, I strongly believe that we should continue fighting against those ideas. And going to the idea of the status quo that you asked it before, I fully agree with Mariana. Nevertheless, the status quo on encryption is better than the… a terrible situation that we can be in the future if encryption is not protected. So part of the status quo is important to defend as well in order to preserve certain attributes of the internet that already we have. So yeah, I think this is my first intervention. Thank you so much.

Moderator:
Thank you, very clear, at least for me. Juliana, up to you. Brazil, 33 other countries with it have ratified the American Convention on Human Rights. It ensures, among other rights, the rights to privacy. In your assessment, how might the extraterritorial impact on anti-encryption policies influence the rights safeguarded by this convention?

Juliana Fonteles da Silveira:
Thank you. Well, it’s a pleasure to be here. I hope people online can hear me well. And I would like to say that in the Americas, when we talk about privacy rights and data protection and other interests in conflict with them, the discussion goes in another direction and assumes other interests, other frames differently from regions like Europe. The right to privacy is not usually regarded as one of the most important rights and protections in our social context. And most countries in our region don’t even have data protection legislations and are far from bringing this discussion to the table, which means that there are no procedural safeguards that could limit the state and non-state power in accessing and processing personal information, which is the central issue of anti-encryption policies. And this favors the flourishing of those very popular narratives that claim access to data for law enforcement agencies and other decryption measures. as a solution to protect other highly valid public interests such as the protection of children, security and public safety. And at the same time we are also talking about the region in Americas where in many countries an absence of rule of law, judicial independence and democratic stability prevails and because of that state abuses of all sorts are not subjected to street control. And likewise countries in Latin America and Caribbean, even the ones that have a long history of commitment to democracy, are guided by traditions of violent repression of protests, murder of journalists, persecution of human rights offenders, arbitrary arrests related to the expression of opinions, criminalization of LGBT people and of abortion for instance. And the information about all this trivial behavior is registered in private communications protected by encryption. So in this regard at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights we have increasingly received reports on the persecution and online monitoring of activists and journalists that report cases of corruption or that represent conflicts with the interest of the political regime in their countries and the penetration of surveillance softwares and other methods of surveillance to persecute them. Also in Central America there are a growing number of legislations that criminalize and suffocate the work of NGOs being put in place and these organizations rely to a large extent on the protection of their private communications and to do their work on defending human rights and supporting the victims. So keeping all this in mind we should consider how this scenario can be pervasively viewed and these rights undermined by weakening end-to-end. encryption techniques and giving government agencies access to private communications. Because we are talking about an imagining amount of data that that offers comprehensive information about all thinkable aspects of individuals life. In context of abuse it doesn’t matter whether you have something to hide or not, being a government’s target is enough to be harassed by by digital surveillance in case where what one says says or what an organization does threatens the credibility or the legitimacy of the regime or because one’s behavior is incompatible with the government’s moral agenda. And making the content of private communications available qualifies the state capacity to conduct those arbitrary measures to an extent that we are still unaware, which ultimately choose expression and intimidates activists, activities of human rights reports, adds the pressure of reprises to to LGBTQ people or people who are pursuing reproductive rights and in some case facilitates also the tensions and killings. And journalists for example rely deeply on encrypted communications to communicate with their their sources and do their work of investigation and reporting and to shed light on issues of general concern that support the functioning of a democratic and accountable political regime. Encrypted communication has also been necessary for activists and protesters and has been threatened by states that continuously try to intercept communications in times of protest or civil unrest and people who may be at risk benefit from encrypted communications to hold opinions safely and without unlawful interference and attacks. That said, I would like to answer the question by stating that the effects of anti-encryption policies in the American go beyond the sole protection of privacy, as if you were detached from other rights. The encryption debate needs to be framed as a matter of human rights in a broader sense, and as a matter of freedom of expression, given its role as a gateway to securing the right to opinion and the collective dimension of freedom of expression, which allows the society as a whole to have access to critical information and knowledge. And the problem is still much broader than this, because introducing, for instance, the so-called backdoors or any vulnerability does not provide access only to specific actors, as it is usually claimed by these legislations. The introduction of these vulnerabilities gives all malicious actors access to private communications, and can be exploited by the same criminal and terrorist networks that the limitations aim to deter. And the consequences are severe, because we haven’t been seeing the reports of Snowden on state surveillance over foreign states around secret and strategic communication. And this highlights the effects on sovereignty and national security produced by the weakening of encrypted communications. And on top of that, particular attention must be paid to the fact that undermining encrypted communications means that we are making even more personal data and data of all aspects of an individual’s life available to private actors from the technology sector, whose capacities of merging databases and profiling are already incredibly high, and who use this data to train and feed AI models and deploy micro-targeting and recommendation strategies, for instance, which impacts the digital public debate as well. And in this sense, we We should bear in mind that digital technologies developed by these actors have become more reliant on user data based on demographics and behavior and non-encrypted private communications and private non-encrypted policies offer a vast amount of this type of data and facilitate corporate surveillance. And when it comes to these digital technologies, this has not only effects on privacy, concerns of consent and in the democratic public debate, as I said, but it is also usually related to reports on bias and discrimination on AI models and which ultimately has effects on human dignity, equality and also non-discrimination rights. Well, besides that, I would like to highlight that the rise of anti-encryption policies in jurisdictions of the Americas and in Europe could inspire other new repressive internet regulations in the region, since we have already seen an increment in rhetoric using online safety and security as a means to crack down on internet freedom across Latin America and to put forward regulatory proposals to suppress human rights in the online environment. And if all of these restriction efforts on encryption could represent these threats to human rights, especially privacy and freedom of expression, then their implementation must meet the well-known three-part test, which states that any limitation on expression must be provided for by law, may only be imposed for legitimate grounds and must conform to the strict text of necessity and proportionality. And well, under international human rights law, states are obliged to protect privacy and freedom of expression against unlawful and arbitrary interference and attacks. And just to I would like to say that we should move the conversation on digital communication in the direction of advancing people’s protection online and not people’s control and increasing surveillance, and we should be strengthening policies and enhance human rights centre approach to digital communications. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. I do want to return to Professor Hata. I believe my question caught you a little bit off guard earlier, and I think you prepared some opening statements, so I want to make sure that I give you the opportunity to share your prepared thoughts.

Masayuki Hatta:
Yeah, not really, because I’m kind of confused as to whether Japan, I’m supposed to talk about Japan, but whether Japan is a global north or a global south in this context. I mean, yeah, so Japan is one of the developed countries, and we enjoy freedom, basically internet freedom and working democracy, but Japan is not really a trendsetter on this encryption regulation or something, because, you know, we don’t even have a big tech, any big tech, and so how can I say ? So I understand that the global south is increasingly regulating encryption and maybe oppressing democracy or something, and still, you know, I don’t know whether Japan is a trendsetter or not. So then, so how can I say, so even in Japan, many people actually do not support, many people do not support privacy or freedom or something. We have a bit of authoritarian tendency, and so we actually used the West or global north influence on making our policy or something, so every country could go either way, anti-encryption or pro-encryption, and many country is not originally, I guess, I’m not sure, many country naturally pursuing freedom or something, and we counter the tendency with the global north or west philosophy or policy, but still I think I heard that the global south people think the global north influence is not always good for global south policy or something, I might be misunderstanding, sorry I’m still open. being caught off guard, but I, so yeah, my main concern or my main question is, what am I supposed to talk as a member of Global North or Global South?

Moderator:
Well, thank you for your thoughts. One of the things that I thought about when discussing this, maybe there is also a West-East dimension to this, to the way that people approach this issue. But I want to turn around. I do have questions, but for the audience, either online, and I trust that somebody will take care of the online questions if they’re there, or in the room. Are people who want to add comments or say something or ask something of our panellists? Well, in that case, I’m going to ask a question, and of course, panellists, feel free to discuss among you. A question that I have around WhatsApp. So, the threat, or threat, yeah, I think it’s a threat, that WhatsApp made was at some point, if this law is going to be enforced in the UK, if Ofcom is developing technologies that will be able to scan content on the machines, and we’re pretty sure that’s not safe, then we will draw from the market. But if you do that, you provide that market no encrypted service any longer, and that means that the people who live there don’t have any means to communicate with confidentiality. Of course, that also fits in the playbook of non-democratic nations that would like to see encrypted technologies leave rather than come. What’s your thought on that? Is the threat of leaving actually the threat that you want to make?

Pablo Bello:
If I may, I’m going to start with this one.

Moderator:
Yes, please.

Pablo Bello:
I would not say that this is a threat. For WhatsApp, encryption is in our DNA. WhatsApp is an encrypted platform, and this is part of our definition. This is what we are. And it’s critical for WhatsApp to preserve that. The issue with the regulation that is being discussed in the UK and maybe in the European Union as well, is that we strongly believe that this kind of regulation will break encryption. We strongly believe that client-side scanning is against the principles and the characteristics of encryption. If that regulation is enforced and we have to implement client-side scanning in order to continue operating, that will create a huge risk, not just for the UK people, but also for the rest of the world as well. It’s not a threat. It’s the idea that in order to keep operating as an encrypted platform, it’s not feasible for us to comply with that approach if the deal is implemented in the worst way that we have considered. It’s important to clarify that. It’s not that we are pressing regulators in order to change the democratic decision of a certain country. It’s that we are saying that we will… defend encryption in the same way that we went to the Supreme Court in India to try to avoid the trustability prohibition that was decided in the IT rules, in the same way that we are debating in Brazil against trustability as well. We are defending encryption. And the idea that to break encryption in one country for a global platform, global communication platform as WhatsApp is just not feasible.

Moderator:
No, but I think even if it’s not a threat, but really the result of not being able to operate the service under your quality in a specific nation, the result is that you’re out of that nation after the regulation has been put into effect. And that might actually be also a way for countries to impose a regulation and see a signal on WhatsApp or leaving that country and leaving the population of that country without any encryption. Perhaps any of the other panelists would like to respond? Ah, there’s somebody from the audience. Thank you.

Audience:
I love this panel. And I just wanted to comment on your question, the last question. I think there is no compromise possible for these platforms. Once you compromise on encryption, then there is no going back. And then there’s just no more encryption possible. I think that the question you asked, and forgive me for this, but it’s a false dichotomy because it’s not that either you comply and then you offer your services to all these people, or you don’t and they don’t have access to it. There is another alternative to all of this. And this relates a lot to technological literacy of the people within that jurisdiction. And I think that we can work more on this. if we can do it in the same way in authoritarian places where some of these apps are forbidden, people still have access to them, then, like, the same can be applied in other form of non-authoritarian, per se, jurisdictions, too. So, I think that there are third, fourth, fifth alternative ways to do this. There’s a very good example. We just launched market blockchain, and I follow a bit the discussion on this. This has been standardized by the MLS from the ETF. This is a very good example, and it’s a very good example of how we can use blockchain to do this. In fact, some of the countries want to hinder encryption, and the first question was about how much this can create fragmentation, but in theory, if we have a network that is interoperable, the network becomes global. Depending on the client you have, you can plug in, and I hope the person in this state can still get access to the blockchain, and this is a very good example of how we can use blockchain to do this. This is a very good example of how we can use blockchain to do this, but this provision, this infrastructure can guarantee that the world is as safe as possible, and do not exist, let’s say, a monopolist that can, in fact, influence a billion of people. As far as I know, this was endorsed by other SUDs. Let’s talk about blockchain. to keep the monopoly. So, if you want to keep the monopoly, you have to have a good security for all your users, or you want to avoid it because it’s the best way to keep the monopoly.

Moderator:
Thank you.

Pablo Bello:
Hi, I’m not a technical expert on encryption at all. And it’s regarding the technicalities, how to implement that without reducing or introducing additional risk. And there is a huge discussion with different perspectives, and a lot of experts have stated that the interoperability as is proposed or decided by the European Union in DMA, could create some vulnerabilities in terms of how the information is protected. And which standard? Who will decide the standard? Why one standard? How that could create implications in terms of the development of the different standards? There are different approaches on encryption, on end-to-end encryption. Signal protocol is one. There are other approaches or other technologies. So, it’s not an easy question. It’s important to have more solutions or more protocols in the pipeline. It’s an ongoing discussion, of course. It’s not a dogmatic approach on that. The critical aspect from our perspective is to ensure that the high standards that we are introduced using the signal protocol on WhatsApp is protected. And at the same time, and this is also the other side of the discussion, is that the integrity measures are also available in order to avoid some kind of the misuse of the technology that is already a risk, that we already know that. So it’s an ongoing discussion, and I would prefer to have other people from the company explaining the technicalities of our approach.

Moderator:
We have the chair of the IAB, who knows everything about the ITF standards process.

Audience:
Not everything. Oh, almost everything. Hello, my name is Mirko Levin. I’m the chair of the Internet Architecture Board. I wanted to comment a little bit, and I would also like to comment on your part, but I also want to comment on your idea. What happens if we don’t have an encrypted communication platform anymore? And there’s one thing, which is there are a lot of circumvention techniques, so you can still access services in other countries, because the internet is a global platform. So it’s really hard to block access from just one country. I think that’s a very important point. The other point is also, encryption is not a layer. Encryption is a function that you can implement on every layer of the stack, and the stack, the way we design the internet, the way we design the internet architecture, is that you can kind of stack things on each other. So you can also always kind of add another layer with encryption somewhere else, right? So this might then be a cat and mouse game or whatever. So that’s also, I wanted something to say. It’s like, if you try to break encryption here, this is not the silver bullet, because encryption is, and security is a function, and not like something that you only deploy in one place. And then to comment on the IETF, I cannot speak for Matter, of course, but I think you cannot generally say somebody has withdrawn participation or whatever, because we design standards that are, a couple of companies are involved in the designing process, hopefully enough companies, so we can design a good protocol at the end where we have agreement. between a large enough group, but we design our protocols for like all internet participants, right? So everybody can adopt that. And for this specific case, the reason why we’re standardizing something is not necessarily interoperability. It’s not that, like hopefully we come there as well, that like different platforms maybe can talk to each other. But the reason why people came to the IETF to standardize that is to actually get this engagement from other companies and then get a really good and secure and well-designed protocol. But it doesn’t mean that like other people who don’t deploy this protocol doesn’t deploy encryption because as the person from it I just said, there are many approaches to that. And it’s not about interoperability if you talk about encryption within one platform. So I wouldn’t read too much into like who is actually actively driving work in the IETF. It’s more important who is actually adopting and deploying these technologies.

Moderator:
Yeah, and that work really came out of a DMA requirement, Digital Market Act requirement, or Digital Services Act requirement. I wanna…

Audience:
No, it’s not DMA, it’s a digital work requirement.

Moderator:
I was asking a leading question actually. So I wanna clarify that a little bit. Suppose that we lose a signal from the market, we lose WhatsApp from the market, and I think you also touched upon that. Then one would hope that people are looking for different alternatives. And of course, the issue with companies like Meta, like Signal, like Telegram, they have an office, they have a corporate presence. And my prediction would be if something like that happens, that the users that… The internet always routes around its problems. That’s a famous quote. I don’t know who said it, but the internet always routes around the problems. Or the internet only just works, always just delivers what you need. And what I think what will happen is that people will start to move. to decentralize services. Just like the Tor network, Professor Hatta, you’ve been working on that, the Tor network provides decentralized means to provide encryption. During the security conference in Las Vegas, caught DEF CON, yeah, the cult of the dead cow released valid, a new protocol that’s highly distributed and has privacy and confidentiality guarantees. Not to say that that has stand the test of time yet, but at least those type of things I think the world will move to. That was, sorry for my intervention here, but that was a leading question in some way.

Audience:
Hi, I just have a quick question, I think, for the WhatsApp representative, and it’s on this topic as well. The question for me, my focus around encryption is that it’s oftentimes one party of the two-party conversation is the one that’s requiring encryption. Oftentimes it’s the way that diasporic populations communicate with each other. And so when we talk about legislation that removes WhatsApp from UK, a country that has tons of migrants from all over the world, tons of citizens who have families in other parts of the world, is this a frame of, is this a form of oppressing the global South who are your earliest users and your earliest audiences, and they find the most use out of this to this day? Do we see the parallels between the global North shutting down communication lines that the global South uses, and then we’ve spent decades condemning folks who shut down access to Google, and do we see there might be a similarity where the North cares about encryption and shutting it down, I’m sure the South does as well, but isn’t seeing how that is an oppression? And then I go back into a question.

Moderator:
What is the question? So I’m going to come to a time later and Tia Windrup wants to put in to a discussion if I can wrap up.

Audience:
But I will take turn and build it up again. And Tom is from Facebook and that’s a really close . If they go all the way down the operating system, they go google, put android sensor, everything. When it goes to any application. It’s two companies and you are out of luck.

Moderator:
I think that’s a correct observation. The question we had online was, from

Audience:
Monika from Germany. If you can make a legal case against a government that with its encryption legislation is in violation of international human rights by which it has signed up. So, there was a typo in that sentence. But I think that’s a good question to you. Is that a case one can make? I think that’s a good question to you.

Juliana Fonteles da Silveira:
question. Well, yes, we do a lot of that in the Inter-American Commission Human Rights. We have in the Americas a lot of proposals, regulation proposals, and other efforts of non-encryption policies, including Brazil. And what we do in the Inter-American Commission Human Rights, it’s basically, we have reports, and we issue recommendations to states and to private companies on the issue. I think we have a lot of recommendations on those violations on human rights, and how this affects human rights. besides only privacy, as I said, like freedom of expression rights and discrimination, non-discrimination rights and human dignity. And we also have other mechanisms, such as public hearings, where we also receive civil society and other actors to make a case and discuss with states around those violations, so it would be something in this line.

Moderator:
Thank you, Juliana. And there was the question… Right over here. Yeah, but in the meantime, I would like to offer Paolo the opportunity to answer the other question in the room, if you can.

Pablo Bello:
Yeah, sure. Super quickly. Look, WhatsApp, of course, don’t want to stop working on UK at all. Quite the opposite. WhatsApp wants to keep operating with the highest standard of protection with end-to-end encryption worldwide. WhatsApp is mostly a Global South platform. By far, most of our users are in the Global South, India, Indonesia, Latin America, Brazil in particular. This is where most of our users are. And we have the duty and the responsibility to protect those users all the time. So, of course, we want to continue working and operating in the United Kingdom. This is what we want and this is why we are pushing hard and this is why we have this coalition with other companies and with the civil society in order to avoid having a regulation that will affect encryption. Because we strongly believe that this kind of regulation puts people’s lives in jeopardy, not just in the UK, but worldwide. So this is the point and this is what we want and this is what we will continue doing. It’s not a threat. And, of course, we want to protect the diaspora. We are trying to protect people everywhere by defending encryption and we will continue doing that.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. In the last five minutes of our panel, I want to give the panelists an opportunity to give final remarks of each one minute. Starting with Juliana.

Juliana Fonteles da Silveira:
Thank you. I would just like to say that we either have, when we are talking about encryption and human rights and online and digital communications, we don’t have an in-between situation. We either have encrypted and protected private communications or we have readable messages and communications. So we don’t have evidence that shows that mass surveillance allowed by non-encryption policies have ever been effective to proportionate safety as these policy efforts claim. So I guess it’s that.

Moderator:
We’ll always be abused, is what you say. Professor Hata.

Masayuki Hatta:
Okay. Sorry, I’m kind of confused and I couldn’t reply properly this time. I think the basic attitude is that technology doesn’t choose the country or users. So even if the country regulated it, we can use it, like WhatsApp or Apple or Signal, just walk away and just exit. So I still don’t understand this discussion’s main point. Sorry.

Moderator:
Would users, if those services would not be available, since you’ve been a contributor Do you think that is a way out?

Masayuki Hatta:
I’m not sure what way out means, but users can use it, even if it’s banned or prohibited. So the Global South program, about the regulation or something, is basically a political program in Global South countries, so I’m sorry, I still get the main point of this discussion, but maybe I’m the only one, so thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you, thank you. Going online, Mariana, please, final thoughts.

Mariana Canto Sobral:
I just want to thank for the debate, I think it was a very rich debate, and I leave here my voice to echo with Juliana and say that encryption is a human rights matter, and I think it’s essential that we preserve encryption, and the Global South take the position of protecting it and not threatening it, and I hope that in the near future we can adopt this position of relevance as we did post-Snowden revelations, in which we built a very strong civil rights internet framework in Brazil, and I hope that we can also take this position in relation to encryption too, in building regulation or even building policies that are going to strengthen encryption in Latin America.

Moderator:
Thank you. Pablo.

Pablo Bello:
Yeah, well, thank you so much for the invitation once again. My final message, I think it’s critical to civil society, the technical community, and the private sector reunited at this IGF to continue working together to convince some of the governments of the that we can encryption won’t make their own society safer, but we’ll put millions of people at risk. And most of them, most of the people affected are in the global south. Thanks so much.

Moderator:
Thank you. And then last but not least, Prateek. Thank you once again.

Prateek Waghre:
I think this was a very interesting discussion and conversation. Just two quick points. I think one, I will echo, I think, what have been called across the room about the need for solidarity to protect encryption and end-to-end encryption. Because I think we are headed for a slightly tumultuous period in that sense. And there is need for a lot of us to work together to ensure that it remains defended, protected and advanced in the years to come. Second, not so much of a remark, just a lead. I mentioned traceability. Some of you will be interested to know that over the last couple of weeks, there is a case in India where a high court has handed out first traceability order, which I believe WhatsApp has been able to go and get a stay for. But I would just say, watch that space and we’ll have to see how that one evolves.

Moderator:
Thank you for that. And with that, I would like to thank the panelists and the engaging audience in the room for input and comment. I hope and think there is hope for this dossier for keeping encryption available for everybody. Because we also heard that if we start eating away at it, not only at the legal side, but also technical side, that will cause a race to the bottom. And we’re not there to see that happen. Thank you very much. Thank you for watching.

Saba

The session aims to explore policies, strategies, and technologies that promote inclusive and accessible digital services for people with disabilities. It acknowledges the challenges faced by individuals with disabilities in bridging the digital divide and aims to address these challenges by examining ways to close the gap and provide equal opportunities for all. Key policy questions to be addressed include inclusive technology and digital services design, bridging the digital divide, and accessible training programs. The session emphasises the importance of inclusivity and accessibility in digital technologies and services, and highlights the ongoing efforts and commitment in this regard. The panel discussion will feature guest speakers Judith, Gunela, Teoros, Denise, and Mohamed Kamran, who are experts in the field, and their contributions will be appreciated. The session aims to provide a platform to discuss and explore innovative solutions for promoting inclusivity and accessibility in the digital realm.

Audience

During the discussion, the speakers focused on the challenges and opportunities of digital inclusion for people with disabilities. They emphasized the importance of adopting a granular approach to address the specific needs of each disability type. It was argued that people with disabilities have diverse requirements, and efforts in digital inclusion need to be both broad and deep to cater to these specific needs.

Collaboration between governments, businesses, and individuals was identified as a key driver for meaningful change in digital accessibility. The speakers stressed that fostering a collaborative environment can lead to impactful initiatives and solutions that benefit people with disabilities. This collaboration could involve sharing resources, knowledge, and expertise to achieve greater accessibility and inclusion.

Furthermore, it was emphasized that the inclusion of people with disabilities should go beyond technical accessibility and encompass the content and functionality of digital platforms. The speakers argued that it is not enough to simply make digital platforms technically accessible; it is equally important to ensure that the content and functionality of these platforms are designed in a way that caters to the needs of people with disabilities.

Another important point raised during the discussion was the need for better recognition of different types of disabilities and parameters in countries. The classification of disabilities varies from country to country, leading to inconsistencies in support and accessibility measures. Therefore, addressing this issue and working towards a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of disabilities is crucial.

Additionally, the speakers highlighted the low representation of people with disabilities at the Internet Governance Forum and the low internet use among this population in some countries. These observations underscored the urgent need to focus on including people with disabilities in all fields, especially in internet access and participation. Increasing the representation of people with disabilities at forums and conferences, as well as improving the availability of accessible internet services, are crucial steps in ensuring their equal participation and inclusion.

In conclusion, the discussion shed light on the challenges and opportunities of digital inclusion for people with disabilities. It emphasized the importance of a granular approach, collaboration, and recognition when addressing the specific needs of different disability types. The inclusion of people with disabilities should extend beyond technical accessibility to include the content and functionality of digital platforms. Moreover, improving representation and increasing internet accessibility for this population are vital for their equal participation and inclusion.

Marjorie Mudi Gege

Stigmatization of people with disabilities is a pervasive issue that affects individuals across all sectors of society. However, it is particularly detrimental for people with disabilities as they often face additional challenges and barriers due to the stigma associated with their conditions. One of the main factors contributing to this issue is the fact that some disabilities are not immediately visible, leading to misunderstandings and further stigmatization.

Education and policy play crucial roles in combating stigmatization towards people with disabilities. Education has the power to reshape attitudes and perceptions by teaching individuals about the humanity and capabilities of people with disabilities. By educating society about the diverse range of disabilities and the unique challenges faced by individuals living with them, empathy and understanding can be fostered, reducing stigma and promoting inclusivity.

Furthermore, the implementation of effective policies is essential in addressing the issue of stigmatization. It is important to examine whether policies exist to protect individuals with disabilities and promote equal opportunities. However, determining the existence and accessibility of such policies can be a time-consuming process. Nevertheless, it is imperative to ensure that policies are in place and readily available to support individuals with disabilities, as they serve as a foundation for fostering a more inclusive and accepting society.

In addition to education and policy, advocacy is considered a never-ending but necessary process in battling stigmatization. Advocacy plays a significant role in raising awareness and promoting the rights and needs of people with disabilities. By amplifying their voices and experiences, advocates can challenge misconceptions and break down stereotypes, facilitating social change and progress towards a more equitable society.

In conclusion, the stigmatization of people with disabilities poses a significant challenge that needs to be urgently addressed. Education, policy, and advocacy are essential components in combating this issue. By promoting inclusive education, implementing effective policies, and advocating for the rights of individuals with disabilities, society can work towards creating a more accepting and inclusive environment. It is crucial that we strive to dismantle the misconceptions and prejudices surrounding disabilities, fostering a society where everyone is treated with dignity, respect, and equal opportunities.

Theorose Elikplim Dzineku

Advocacy work is crucial in making technology and digital services accessible for people with disabilities. Currently, there are several challenges that need to be addressed. Firstly, content creators often overlook the needs of individuals with disabilities, resulting in inaccessible content. Secondly, many users are unaware of the accessibility options on their devices, which limits their ability to access digital content effectively. Additionally, those who cannot afford devices with built-in accessibility features are left out, leading to a significant accessibility gap.

The issue is particularly pronounced in Africa, where limited awareness exists on how to make content accessible. This lack of understanding perpetuates the accessibility gap, further marginalising individuals with disabilities. To tackle this, capacity-building initiatives are needed to educate content creators and users on the importance of accessibility and provide them with the skills to make content accessible.

Involving people with disabilities in problem-solving and content creation is crucial. By including individuals with disabilities in the design and development of accessible content and applications, the products can better cater to their needs. Opportunities should be created to utilise the skills of people with disabilities, who often have computer science expertise.

Collaboration between organisations, governments, and civil services is essential for effective inclusion. This collaboration can lead to increased funding and support for initiatives like the inclusive tech programme in Ghana, led by Dr. Millicent, a disabled individual. The programme organises hackathons and technology training sessions for people with disabilities, empowering them with the skills to navigate digital technologies.

Stigma in online spaces is a significant challenge for individuals with disabilities, which needs to be addressed through policy interventions. People with disabilities often face discrimination and abuse online, amplified by misconceptions and the complexity of disabilities. Policies should be implemented to counteract this stigmatisation and create a safe and inclusive online environment.

Education and awareness are vital in combating stigma and prejudice. Many people have misconceptions about disabilities due to a lack of understanding. By promoting quality education and raising awareness, society can develop a more inclusive attitude towards people with disabilities, reducing inequalities.

Advocacy for disability rights and awareness must continue as an ongoing process. It is crucial to advocate for the rights of individuals with disabilities, promote accessibility and inclusion, and challenge societal barriers. This will create a more inclusive and accessible digital landscape that empowers individuals with disabilities and reduces inequalities.

Judith Hellerstein

The analysis highlights the issue of digital accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities. Judith Hellerstein, who represents multiple interests in the sector, is an important figure. She runs her own firm, Halicyn Associates, and works directly with the US government on accessibility. Hellerstein has participated in events organized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and is a co-coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability.

Hellerstein advocates for the development of stronger digital economies and increased accessibility. She helps countries develop their digital economies and emphasizes accessibility. Currently, only 3% of the internet is accessible for persons with disabilities worldwide. With over 1.3 billion people with disabilities globally, there is a clear need to make technology and digital services more accessible and inclusive.

The analysis supports efforts to update the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and enforce Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). These initiatives aim to legally mandate digital accessibility and ensure that companies follow guidelines to make their online content accessible to all users. Updating the ADA and enforcing WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 standards are seen as important steps in achieving greater accessibility for people with disabilities.

The analysis also points out the need for better awareness and practices in developing and designing accessible content. Companies often fail to inform developers about accessibility guidelines, creating barriers for people using screen-readers. Issues with metadata and image descriptions also contribute to the lack of accessibility. Therefore, improving awareness and incorporating accessibility practices in the development and design of digital content are necessary.

In terms of education, there is a strong argument for making programs accessible and inclusive for people with disabilities. Programs should be designed to be accessible to all, regardless of their disabilities. This applies to both online and in-person education. The analysis also highlights the importance of adequately describing pictures and diagrams used in educational materials to ensure that persons with disabilities can fully understand the content. An example is given of a person who developed a special Braille keyboard for STEM education, underscoring the need to adapt educational materials for different learning needs.

It is acknowledged that there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to meeting the educational needs of people with disabilities. Different disabilities, such as visual impairments, hearing impairments, and cognitive disabilities, require tailored approaches to address their specific needs. Therefore, to achieve true accessibility and inclusion, it is crucial to understand and address the unique challenges faced by different groups of individuals with disabilities.

Lastly, the analysis stresses the importance of testing platforms used for education programs for accessibility. Many programs claim to be accessible, but when used as a whole, they may not meet accessibility standards. To ensure that these platforms are truly accessible, it is essential to have accessibility testers and firms that can thoroughly audit and test the programs. This will help identify and address any accessibility barriers, ensuring that people with disabilities can fully participate in education programs.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need for greater digital accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities. Judith Hellerstein’s advocacy for stronger digital economies and increased accessibility, efforts to update the ADA and enforce WCAG guidelines, as well as the need for better awareness and practices in developing and designing accessible content, are all important steps towards achieving this goal. Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of making education programs accessible and inclusive, tailoring approaches to meet the specific needs of different disabilities, and testing platforms for accessibility.

Denise Leal

The analysis suggests that there is a pressing need for greater inclusion and visibility for people with disabilities in Brazil and Latin America. The speakers argue that in order to achieve this, policies need to be implemented and there needs to be a better understanding of these policies to make education and training programs more accessible. It is highlighted that only 14% of people with disabilities in Brazil pursue higher levels of education, indicating a significant gap in access to quality education. Additionally, there is a large wage gap of almost 25% less for people with disabilities in terms of salaries in Brazil, further emphasizing the need for equal opportunities.

The analysis also points out the crucial role that technology plays in increasing accessibility and connectivity for people with disabilities. It is noted that the legal system in Brazil is primarily online, which enables individuals with disabilities to participate more effectively. Social media platforms are also becoming key venues for speech for individuals dealing with disabilities, enabling them to have a voice and share their experiences.

However, the analysis also highlights the need for appropriate moderation on social media and online spaces to protect people with disabilities from online bullying and hate speech. Instances of online bullying and hate towards people with disabilities in Latin America have been reported, and it is emphasized that moderation is necessary to safeguard individuals from online harm.

The analysis further emphasizes the importance of recognizing and accepting invisible disabilities. People with disabilities that are not easily visible often face difficulties and prejudice. It is argued that their rights are not immediately recognized, and it is imperative to raise awareness and promote acceptance of invisible disabilities.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the role of communities in providing internet access for disabled individuals and other minorities. A successful example in Brazil is mentioned, where indigenous and traditional communities have taken the initiative to self-organize internet access. This highlights the potential of communities as key players in bridging the digital divide and ensuring accessibility for all.

An interesting point raised in the analysis is the question of the economic feasibility of making online content more inclusive. There is a consideration that economic interest plays a role in determining the inclusivity of online content, raising questions about the prioritization of accessibility in commercial ventures.

Lastly, the analysis laments the lack of attendance at events discussing disability issues. It is argued that more space and voice should be given to discuss situations for the improvement of infrastructure and technology for people with disabilities.

In conclusion, the speakers in this analysis shed light on various aspects related to inclusion and visibility for people with disabilities in Brazil and Latin America. They stress the importance of policies, understanding, and accessibility in education and training programs. Technology is seen as a powerful tool for connectivity and accessibility, while moderation is necessary to protect individuals from online harm. Recognition and acceptance of invisible disabilities, the involvement of communities, and the economic feasibility of inclusivity are also key considerations. The analysis highlights the need for increased attention and dialogue to address the challenges faced by people with disabilities and work towards a more inclusive society.

Gunila Astbrink

Gunila Astbrink, an influential advocate in the field of accessibility and disability within internet governance, actively supports individuals with disabilities and promotes accessibility. She is championing inclusivity by accompanying three persons with disabilities to the IGF meeting and mentoring them in their journey within internet governance. Astbrink argues that mainstream legislation and policy should include provisions for accessibility, highlighting Australia’s national disability strategy and the Telecommunications Act. She commends the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network (ACAN) for enforcing accessibility-related policies. Astbrink emphasizes the importance of including disabled individuals in policy implementation and praises ACAN’s representation of consumers and consumers with disabilities. She also promotes the use of public procurement provisions to ensure widespread use of ICT accessible products. Astbrink believes that organizations should have accessibility champions to collaborate with content and tech developers. She highlights the employment challenges faced by people with disabilities and stresses the need for greater opportunities and support. Astbrink calls for more representation from the disability community in internet governance discussions and encourages individuals to voice their concerns to the IGF Secretariat and the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG). She mentions the existence of a funding program and a training program on disability in digital rights and internet governance. Overall, Astbrink’s work aims to reduce inequalities and create a more inclusive society.

Muhammad Kamran

The analysis reveals several important points discussed by the speakers. Firstly, Muhammad Kamran, a practicing lawyer from Pakistan, is highlighted as an expert in cyber crime. This establishes his credibility in the topic and sets the stage for further discussions.

The speakers also discuss the increasing prevalence of cyber crimes with the advancement of technology. This negative sentiment implies that as technology evolves, so do the methods and sophistication of cyber criminals. This poses a significant challenge for individuals, governments, and organizations to protect themselves from cyber threats.

To address these issues, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is presented as a platform for finding solutions to cyber crime. This positive sentiment emphasizes its importance in bringing together various stakeholders to tackle the complex issues surrounding internet governance and cyber security.

The broader impact of technology on our lives and future generations is acknowledged. This neutral sentiment indicates that technology is seen as a powerful force that influences various aspects of society. It can bring numerous benefits but also raises concerns about its potential negative consequences.

One of the positive aspects highlighted is the use of technology to assist people with disabilities. The existence of assistive apps and devices like Google Assistant is mentioned as evidence to support this argument. The sentiment here is positive, implying that technology has the potential to improve the lives of disabled individuals by providing them with greater accessibility and independence.

The speakers also emphasize the importance of making digital platforms accessible to everyone. This requires implementing features such as screen readers or captioning and involving disabled individuals in policy-making. This positive sentiment highlights the need for inclusivity and ensuring that technology is designed with consideration for people with disabilities.

The topic of disability and inclusivity continues with the understanding that disabled individuals should be considered “specially abled”. This neutral sentiment challenges societal perceptions of disability and promotes a more empathetic and positive approach towards disabled individuals.

To effectively utilize technology, it is argued that training and resources should be provided to disabled individuals. The sentiment here is positive, indicating the importance of empowering disabled individuals with the necessary skills and tools to fully engage with technology. The mention of alternative formats such as Braille or audio versions further highlights the need for accessibility.

Collaboration between tech organizations, government, and disability organizations is seen as essential to address the challenges faced by disabled individuals. This positive sentiment acknowledges that by working together, these stakeholders can combine their expertise, resources, and influence to create meaningful change and greater inclusivity.

Furthermore, the argument is made that disabled individuals should be actively involved in policy designing. This positive sentiment emphasizes the importance of consulting disabled persons when developing effective policies and programs. Their lived experiences provide valuable insights that can help create more inclusive and sustainable solutions.

Finally, the responsibility for promoting disability rights and advocacy is also stated to fall on disabled individuals themselves. This neutral sentiment implies that it is not solely the government’s responsibility, but disabled individuals should also actively participate and advocate for their own rights. This promotes a sense of empowerment and agency within the disabled community.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights various important discussions regarding cyber crime, the impact of technology, and inclusivity for disabled individuals. It stresses the need for collaboration, accessibility, and the active involvement of disabled individuals in policy-making and advocacy. These insights provide valuable considerations for addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by technology in creating a more inclusive and secure society.

Saba:
Good afternoon, welcome to this session on digital inclusion and accessibility. Today, we have a crucial objectives to explore policies, strategies, technologies, and that can promote inclusive and accessible digital services, especially for people with disabilities. So we aim to address the challenges they face and also identify on the ways to bridge the digital divide. Throughout this session, we will delve into three important key policy questions. First, we will address the topics on policies that can be implemented in different regions across the world to ensure that technologies and digital services are designed inclusively. And second, we will examine strategies to bridge the digital divide, empowering people with disabilities rather than marginalism. So lastly, we will explore how training and education programs can really be implemented or can be more made accessible and also inclusive to meet the needs of people with disabilities. So by the end of this session today, we hope all participants joining us from onsite and joining us from online will gain valuable knowledge on how this really properly include and provide systems, digital services, and technologies that really allow all people to actively participate and also engage in the digital world. So now, let me introduce our panelists and speakers who will shed light on these important topics. First, we have speakers from onsite here, Judit from the private sector representing the Western Europeans group. Second, we have Gunela from Asia Pacific representing the civil society group. And third, we have from online speakers, Teoros from civil society representing the African group. And lastly, we have Denise who will be onsite here representing the private sector and also from the Latin American and Caribbean group. And we also have from our online speakers, Mohamed Kamran representing the private sector Asia Pacific group. So I will give the floor to the onsite speakers to introduce themselves and also I will give the floor to our online moderator to introduce our online speakers. Thanks so much and welcome to everyone coming here.

Judith Hellerstein:
So my name is Judit Halicyn, although I have multiple hats, I do have my own firm Halicyn Associates and besides doing other policy and regulatory work trying to help make countries have more effective digital economies, I also do a lot of work on accessibility directly with the U.S. government. I’ve participated in several of the ITU, the Plenipotentiary, the Council Working Group on Intended Public Policy and other ones. But here I am also representing the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. We’re one of the main Dynamic Coalitions here. We had our session yesterday. And I am one of the two co-coordinators here. So I welcome you all to the session. Thank you.

Gunila Astbrink:
And I appreciate the invitation to participate in this particular session. And my name is Gunilla Astbrink and I’m based in Australia, but I work globally as chair of the Internet Society Accessibility Standing Group and Judith just mentioned the DCAD, the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. And through the generosity of INTSURF, we have three persons with disability able to come to the IGF to participate and I’m fortunate to be mentoring them in their progress in Internet governance. Thank you.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Thank you very much. Now I will give the floor to our online moderator Marjorie to introduce our online speakers. Hello. Hello, Sabah. Hello, everyone. I’m happy to be here and happy to have you all for this session. I’m Gege Marjorie. I’m in Cameroon, Africa. And I would like to introduce our online speakers. So we have Theoros Elekplim and Mohamed Kamran, who will be talking on the first policy question. Okay. So I would like to give the floor to Theoros now to introduce herself more properly.

Theorose Elikplim Dzineku:
Thank you, Marjorie. And hi, everyone. Good morning. Good afternoon. And hi from Dawn. My name is Theoros Elekplim. But I’m currently a PhD student at Penn State University. Just like any of most of our speakers, I guess I’ll borrow Judith’s words to say I share many hearts. I work with the Ghana Youth IGF as part of the CRM team member. I’m currently also part of the ISOC alumni network. And I do advocacy work and inclusion in encryption and online safety as well. So I’m glad to be here. And I hope that we have a fruitful discussion. Thank you, Marjorie.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Okay. Thank you very much, Theoros. So that is really nice to have you here. So I’ll give the floor to Mohamed Kamran. Mohamed, you have the floor.

Muhammad Kamran:
Hello, everyone. I hope you all are doing well. And my video finds you well. So my name is Mohamed Kamran. I’m from Pakistan. And currently I’m in Peshawar. I am a practicing lawyer. I have graduated two years ago. And my specialty is criminal law and specifically cyber crimes and such kind of things. With the passage of time, day by day, as technology is coming into our lives, the thieves are also getting smarter. And cyber crimes and such issues are also increasing day by day. So I have some expertise in that. And IGF, I think, is a platform where we can address such issues. We can find some solutions to that. And also how technology is having an effect in our life and also the generation that is coming up next, like after us, how it is affecting their lives. So I think being here is going to be fruitful for me and maybe for myself and others as well. Thank you so much for having me.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Okay. Thank you very much. So we’re just going to move directly into our first question, which is, what policies can be implemented in your region to ensure that technology and digital services are designed and developed to be inclusive and accessible to people with disabilities? So this policy question will be addressed by our speakers, Theoros and Judith Hellerston. So I’ll give the floor first to Judith.

Judith Hellerstein:
Hi. Thanks so much. So it’s actually a combination of policies and also awareness raising. With policies, it has to do with, I’m from the U.S. And in the U.S., we have the Americans with Disabilities Act, which works to ensure that things are, at least government right now, all government websites and other websites are accessible for persons with disability. But there’s also a movement working now as an effort to update the act to make sure that websites and other areas are accessible. And with that is the key is the guidelines to be looking at the World Wide Web, the accessibility guidelines. And with that is a series of guidelines from the W3C, which is the abbreviation of that. And they work on web content guidelines. There’s work on all types of publishing of dialogues. And the key also is that you need, everything needs to follow the WAI, the Web Accessibility Initiatives Guidelines, whether, and especially on websites, is the WCAG has to be 2.1 or 2.2. And there’s a really big problem lately because today, throughout the world, only 3% of the internet is accessible for persons with disabilities, despite there being over 1.3 billion globally. And a lot larger. So it’s a very big problem since many, and the problem is also made more problematic is that companies are not telling developers they need to follow these guidelines. And so developers are not doing it. And then they have to retrofit a system. So the real issue is what you need more is enforcement that everyone has to follow and make sure that all the sites are at least WCAG 2.1 and either AA, preferably AAA compatible. And if you look at the WAI, so it’s W3C.org, and if you look at WAI or the WCAG, you can get those. And that is really the key to make them. Besides the laws we have is also on making sure that these are accessible. And they also has an issue of metatags. So what we, when I say awareness is that people, when they’re creating sites or when they’re publishing images or other things, they’re not aware that when they take an image and that people can’t see it. And so when a person using a screen reader comes across that, it’ll just say image, or it may say possibly man, possibly with a dog, possibly who. And so all the pictures need to be described. And also what PowerPoints or any of these images. Or some people like to do cut and paste from a document. But when you’re cutting and pasting, you’re creating an image. And then it makes an accessible document inaccessible. So you have to be aware that you have to save the documents. It’s really easy in Word. You could save it and upload it or links. And the metatags is really easy. You can just right click on it. So the software is easy to use. It’s that people are just not aware.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Okay. Thank you very much, Judith, for that. I would like us to now have Fiora’s opinion about the policies that can be implemented in her region to ensure that technology and digital services are designed and developed to be inclusive and accessible for people with disabilities. So Fiora, you have the floor.

Theorose Elikplim Dzineku:
Thank you so much, Marjorie. And again, I’m grateful for the first speaker because she has actually tackled on part of the things that I wanted to say. And so I’m not going to repeat that again. I’m glad she did spoke about the platform regulations and how content can be more accessible online as well. So I’m speaking from the African region. And I’m going to delve more on advocacy work. Because one of the points that she made, which is very real, is the fact that people just don’t know that something like that exists. And people are not even, I wouldn’t use the word not interested, but people seem to forget that not all content is easily accessible by everyone. So even content creators in themselves do not make provisions for that. For example, when somebody is creating a YouTube video, who are the audiences in mind? And how does the person, for example, make that particular video accessible to everyone? The whole idea is to create an almost seamless way of consuming content where we don’t necessarily have to say this is for able people and this is for disabled people. Because virtually it’s just all one humanity. So access is very important. But advocacy is more important, especially in my opinion. Because the content creators and the platform moderators, platform creators, sorry, I’m not even aware of that mistake. I know for Apple devices or even some mobile phones now have accessibility options where you can have voice over text to help you out. Or you can have an easier way of navigating your phone without necessarily being able to see it or hear it. There’s a way of that. But again, within the African region, how adoptive is that? How many people are aware of that? How often do we do capacity building and training people to teach people? And the major issue is how many people can afford those devices? We’ve had in other sessions and we’ve had the issue about internet accessibility, the digital affordance of technology and devices as well. So the question is how many people can even afford the mobile devices that have those options? What is the percentage of that? And those who cannot afford those devices, what is the percentage of that? Now, I mean, it’s obviously those who are in the minority gap of affordance are huge. Now, how do those people still access content? If they go to the internet cafes in the local communities and say, I want to read something on the internet, how accessible is that content to them? How do they know about that? And how do we probably say would handle such a situation as well in our institutions, in our schools? How many schools have a computer lab that is built to cover that? Those are some of the questions that is still, I mean, some of the questions that needs to be explored. But overall, the idea is that we should come to a middle ground where we bridge the gap, where we don’t necessarily have to assume that everybody can easily access content online, and everybody should be able to understand, everybody should be able to afford the whole devices that are able to provide accessibility. I’ve always stood the whole idea, or I’ve always stand on the idea that there shouldn’t be any clear discrimination or gap to necessarily point out that this person is able and this person is not able. Technology, in its sense, should be basic to everybody. And I’m glad you really spoke about the web and how content are tagged. Again, I would ask within our African context, and I stand to be corrected on that, but how many of us know that? How many of us know how to meta-target? I was surprised that you said you can just do it in Word and right-click, and my question is now we know we can right-click and put things or meta-tags on it, but how many of us know that before this session? How many of us will remember after this session? But if there is any training and capacity building at every level in our schools, perhaps we can get used to doing that, and we can know that there are just basic and easy ways of making sure everybody’s included. And that’s where the advocacy work comes in. That’s where the grassroots community work comes in. Not that just after session speaking, we leave it behind, but after IGF and after various sessions where we speak about bridging these gaps, what do we do after that? I’m going to end here for now and leave the floor, but that’s something we can think about and take home and see what each individual can do to contribute. Thank you.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Theoros, for that very insightful opinion. So I’ll just pass the floor now to Saba, on-site moderator, for the next phase of this.

Saba:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Marjorie and Theoros and Judith for your valuable insights on the first question. Now let’s move to our second policy questions. How can the digital divide between people with disabilities and those without disabilities be bridged? What strategies can be employed to ensure that technology is used to empower rather than marginalize people with disabilities? I invite Gunela, joining us from on-site, to speak on this question, and also Mohamed Kamran, joining from online, to speak on this question. Over to you.

Gunila Astbrink:
Hello. Yes, I live in the Asia-Pacific region, which we are now in for the IGF, and I’ve been asked to speak more specifically about activities in this region. And this region is the most populous in the world. It has huge populations, as we know, over one billion, two little countries in the Pacific that might have 2,000 people. That’s it. And the greatest diversity in religion, language, culture, and economies. So there’s a lot of challenges in this region. And one of the things, though, when it comes to bridging the digital divide is to ensure that mainstream legislation and policy include clauses about accessibility. So it’s not that they are separate policies, which are very important, but having them as part of communications acts, communications policy, really does make a difference. And if we take the case in Australia, sure, we have a national disability strategy that has some key aspects on accessibility to communications technologies, but also the Telecommunications Act includes specific provisions there as well. And certainly when it comes to disability discrimination legislation. But with all of those cases, implementation has to happen. It’s one thing having the policies, but they need to be implemented. And that’s really where persons with disability come in to ensure that they are part of a process in helping implement policies. In Australia, there is funded through the federal government, and it’s actually in the Telecommunications Act, the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network, ACAN. And its role is basically to represent consumers and consumers with disabilities in government, in the private sector, to make sure that there are implementation actions happening in all of those cases. And so again, you have consumers generally being represented in this body, but specifically persons with disabilities. So there is that cross fertilization of ideas and strategies and advocacy. And I also wanted to mention the public procurement provisions that are in force in a number of countries. It started in the U.S. with something called Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. And it means that governments need to include ICT accessibility criteria when they purchase anything ICT related. And in Europe, it has been harmonized with European standards, and one is called EN 301549. And that is talking about user requirements by persons with disability and how to achieve that in public procurement. That has been adopted in a number of countries across the world. Kenya, for example, India, and Australia. And we want to see the implementation of that public procurement type of provision. And my final point in this particular session here is, in a mainstream organization, to try and make sure that there is an understanding of accessibility and persons with disability and bridging that digital divide. It’s really, really important to have accessibility champions. People who have some knowledge of accessibility and work in various parts of an organization and can remind content developers, any tech developers, to make sure that accessibility is included as particular products are developed. Thank you.

Saba:
Thank you very much for that insight. Now, I will give the floor to Marjorie. And then, second question will be also answered by Mohamed, joining us from online. Over to you, Marjorie.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Sure. Thank you, Saba. So, Mohamed, can you please take the floor? So, how can a digital divide between people with disabilities and those without disabilities be bridged? And what strategies can be employed to ensure that technology is used to empower rather than marginalize these people?

Muhammad Kamran:
Okay. Thank you, Marjorie, for the question. See, I think technology can help us in many ways, specifically when it comes to the disabled people. It can help us in various ways. There are assistive apps. There are assistive devices. Google Assistant is one of the very small examples. I think if we include that to other gadgets and to other devices, it can be helpful to us. Coming to the bridging of a technology between the disabled people and others, first of all, I think that disabled people are not only like we cannot call them disabled, but we should call them specially abled. Because if God takes one thing from you, he is going for sure he is going to give you so many other blessings where he has not blessed with that thing, the normal people. He is going to bless you with that. So, I think there are people who are specially abled to bridge the digital divide between people with disabilities and other people. It is important to normalize the digital platforms and technologies and to make it easily available to everyone. Such digital platforms can include like implementing the feature like screen readers or captioning, adjusting phones, which is available in some apps and some phones, but not everything. And I have used the word normalizing these things. So, we have to normalize all these things and we have to make it available as much as we can. Also, by prioritizing accessibility and engaging the disabled people while making these programs and while making these strategies, because if disabled people are a part of making these policies, these policies will be made so much effective on the ground root level, because they are the ones who are the effectees. They know where the lacuna lies and they are the ones who are going to tell us how we can make strategies which are the best in ground level. So, providing training and resources to individuals with disabilities can also help them navigate and utilize technology very effectively. As I have said earlier, that if we leave it to the people who are the effectees, only then are we going to get the results as much effective as we need. So, yeah, collaborating. One more thing, it is I think one of the most important things, that collaboration with the technology organizations, like those organizations which work for technologies or the government entities, and also the disabled organizations, or I would say those organizations who works for disabled people. So, technology companies and disabled organizations, along with the government entities, can collaborate while making such platforms, while making such programs or policies, I think is going to be one of the very effective ways to bridge the technology between the disabled people and those who are normal people. So, training and education programs to be made very accessible to every one of us, specifically to individuals who are disabled. Providing alternative formats, such as Braille or audio version, and physical assistance to the learning environment should be made very accessible, because only physical learning environment and the physical learning environment is going to help them in the best way. Because if let’s say if a person is blind, so if he sits there in a physical learning environment, I think he is going to learn it as fast as like none other platform. That is why I have included physical learning environment into my opinions. Incorporating assistive technologies, as I have mentioned earlier, that Google Assistant is also a very effective thing, but we can include such assistive technologies in different gadgets, in different platforms, and to different aged people, like Google Assistant is going to work the same for everyone. But if we divide it according to our age groups, for example, what a 10 years old kid will need is different from what a 25 years old person would need. So, I think dividing it into age level is also important to me. Offering flexible learning options, such as online courses, etc. If someone has no access to physical learning environment, they can be given options with online learning. For example, we are connected through online. See, some of us are sitting in Ghana, some I’m in Pakistan, some are in Japan. So, online connectivity is also very important. Same goes for the disabled people, because they’re the ones who need it more than us.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Oh, Mohammed, thank you. Please round it off now. Okay, I’m sorry I’m taking long. I’m sorry.

Muhammad Kamran:
So, yeah, disabled individuals are to be involved in designing all these policies. My last point would be, as I mentioned earlier, that while designing each and every policy and program, we need to consult these people, because they are the ones who are effective. So, they are the ones who are going to give us the policies which are effective on the ground. Thank you so much.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Thank you very much, Mohammed. That was very insightful. I learned a lot about it and many things that I don’t even know about. So, I think we can move now to our next policy question. That is policy question three. So, Sabah, we have Denise there already. You’re welcome, Denise.

Saba:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Marjorie. Now, I really want to give the floor now to Judith to share on the trainings and also what kind of education programs can really be made to accessible and inclusive to meet the needs of people with disabilities. So, I would like to give the floor to Judith to answer this question, and please, if you have any comments or if you have any questions, feel free to raise your hand from here, and for online participants, you can also put in the chat, and Marjorie will take one of that. Judith, over to you, please, and also, please, at the end, you can also raise about your key takeaways and also recommendations on all of those topics.

Judith Hellerstein:
Sure. Thanks so much, and thank you for giving me the floor. I’m going to be leaving shortly afterwards because I’m organizing another 530 session on Policy Network on Meaningful Cognitivity, so I apologize. I have to run out afterwards, but one of the key on the training and education programs, the key is that programs needs to be designed to make accessible to all, and I know a lot of places like to use a lot of pictures and descriptions, but then all these pictures need to be described because otherwise, persons with disabilities are not getting anything out of them. We had a perfect example of one of our disability fellows who created a special braille keyboard in India for STEM education, and so you need to have a lot. You need to rethink the sessions and what you’re trying to gain out of it, and so that way, you could actually address all the people and everyone can benefit from the same session, so if you use pictures, you really have to describe them. If you use diagrams, you have to describe them because otherwise, the person is not going to be able to get there, and they’ll get frustrated, and they’ll drop off, and if you really want to have people to be active in it, they need to feel part of the whole conversation and part of the learning, and they need to partner with it, so that is really the key is that you need to have, you need to rethink how you’re going to do online education or in-person education to focus on how you’re going to meet the needs, and there’s also the problem is that there are many different needs. You have a person with visual disabilities, you’re a person with hard of hearing, and then you have a person with cognitive disabilities, and so each one is very different and has a different approach, so there’s no one, there’s no one thing fits all approach. You need to have tailored the approach to the actual group, and so that way, you can really address all the issues with a cognitive one. You have to also make sure that it’s not too many images or not too, the pictures is not taking up the whole screen because they cannot deal with all the pictures, while maybe a hard of hearing person will want that, so you really have to work with who is the community you’re trying to address, and then figure out how you’re going to address it, and how you’re going to meet needs of those, so that’s sort of what one goal you have in mind in there, and the other one is make sure everything is accessible. Make sure that the platform that you’re using is accessible. Oftentimes, people think the platform is, or the plate of the company said, oh yes it is, but it really isn’t, and so the key is often to get these programs be audited and tested by another company who’s in that business to audit and test them, and to make sure they are actually accessible, because so many programs say they are, and it could be that individually the components are, but when put together in the actual program, it no longer is accessible, so that’s why it’s the key to have accessibility testers, and have a firm who’s audited that. The enforcement is the key. Places say, oh yes, we’ll do it, oh yes, but then it may have been initially, but then as they added more and newer material, they didn’t keep up those standards, and then the whole program becomes inaccessible, so I would say that’s my takeaways. Make sure that you have an online program tested by an accessibility firm to make sure that it actually works, and that there is no, and that pictures are described, everything is described and appropriately meta-tagged so that people can be reading and seeing it. And now I have to run off to my, so sorry, but Gunala has my information and she can direct any questions, probably also answer any of them.

Saba:
Thank you, thank you very much Judith for your insightful. Now I will give the floor to Denise to answer on how trainings and educational programs can be made more accessible and inclusive to meet the needs of people with disabilities. Denise, first introduce yourself and answer. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Hello everyone, I am Denise Leal from Brazil. I am here to represent Latin American Caribbean people. I belong to the private sector and academia and I am also part of the youth Latin American Caribbean IGF and I was part, I am a former fellow from the youth program of Brazil and you might be thinking why am I here speaking on the topic. I was also a volunteer and a teacher in the inclusion program in Brazil in Pontifico University of Goiás and we worked there with elderly and also people with disability. I had some experience in the topic then, so answering this question, before answering this question I wanted to say that I am very happy because we have this session, because we are giving voice to this topic, to this theme. It’s really important, it’s a thing that we need to do more often and I wish we had more participation on the topic and that the IG community really could get more involved on it. And for beginning, when we talk about training and education programs and how they can be made more accessible and inclusive to meet the needs of the people with disabilities, I think that first of all we need to give space and voice to the people with disability to speak about their situations, how they feel and what are their needs, because sometimes, very often, we don’t really give a space to them to speak about their needs or we don’t have patience enough to listen to them speaking, because we think that, oh, they speak in a different way or they hear in a different way. We must be patient when a person without disability sees and listens to a person with disability. The person really needs to be heard at that point and we need to give space and voice and power to these people to say what are their needs. And, of course, we need policies on the topic, but also we need people to understand the policies. In Brazil, we have almost 15 percent of the population as a person with disability, so it’s a large amount of people, it’s not a small number. In Latin America, it’s 85 millions of people with disability and, therefore, we need to work on policies to make training and education programs more accessible, not only the online one, but also the online one, but also the on-site. Schools need to be more accessible and when it gets to the technology topic and internet topic, what we have seen in Latin America is people with disability are getting space on social media to speak and it’s nice. When it comes to internet, the social media is having a paper, a work on the topic. They are occupying spaces on internet and it’s nice and we need to also moderate more the social media because I have seen some cases where, in Latin America, people with disability have suffered bullying, online bullying, online hate for speaking about their lives and their problems, their issues. Therefore, what we need, of course, our colleague has spoken really well on the topic that we need training, online training, online platforms that are really accessible, but also we need to moderate the social media, the websites, so that we don’t have people with disabilities suffering in these spaces from all the kinds of problems that they could suffer in online spaces. I also believe that technology plays a huge role on the topic, helping people to get more connected, to learn more. I have a friend that has spoken on the youth Latin American Caribbean IGF and he’s today a lawyer and he is a person with disability. He is able to be a lawyer because today in Brazil, the legal system is almost everything online, works online, so he is able to use the online platform, the technology, to help him in his legal activities. So today he is in a high, he has high education, he has studied and he’s planning to go for a master’s degree because of technology on education in Brazil education. I also wanted to highlight an important point, which is we have in Brazil only 14% of people in going for higher levels of education, so it’s a really small number, 14 people of all the people with disability, so it’s a really, really small number and also there is a wage gap of almost 25% less for people with disabilities in terms of salaries, so it’s so unfair and the law is, the law talks about it, we cannot have wage gap of salaries, but it is a reality. So we have policies on the theme, we have laws on the theme, but how can we make them a reality, a practical reality? We must, how is the accountability of the theme, of the topic? So I wanted to leave you with these answers and also these questions and I hope that in the next years, in the next IGFs, we have more involvement on the theme, on the topic and we have even more people with disabilities speaking and occupying spaces. Thank you.

Saba:
Thank you, thank you very much Denise for your valuable inputs. So far we have been discussing on implementing policies that really prioritise inclusive and accessible design on using technology and also digital services, especially considering the diverse needs of people that are with disabilities. You also talked about the need to develop a training in support programs to enhance the literacy, digital literacy and also the assistive technology skills for people with disabilities and also offering ongoing technical support to address the accessibility challenges have also been mentioned as well. And bridging the digital divide also has been mentioned by providing accessible access, affordable accesses to some devices and also internet connectivity, creating accessible digital content and also some of the tailored digital literacy programs as well. We have also been discussing on fostering the collaboration among different stakeholders to promote the digital inclusion and raising awareness and advocacy has also been mentioned for the rights and needs of those people in the digital realm. Now I will give the floor to any questions or comments from on-site and also please feel free to share your comments and questions in the chat and Marjorie, our online moderator, will take it from there.

Audience:
Hi everyone, I’m Joelson Diaz from Brazil. I represent here the Federal Council, the Federal Bar of the Brazilian Bar Association, although at this moment I’m speaking on my personal capacity. Well, I see this very empty room, regrettably, which means to me that we have this big challenge on including persons with disability. We talked a lot about inclusion in this conference, women, indigenous people and so on, which is quite important, of course, but it looks like the challenge to include persons with disabilities is even bigger. Well, I have a brief statement and two questions to the panelists. I’d like to express my sincere appreciation to the sponsor organizers and organizations for hosting this crucial panel on the inclusion for people with disabilities. The insights from the panelists have been deeply insightful, emphasizing the complexity, dimensions of digital accessibility. The Internet serves as a gateway for many to find partners, jobs and purchase products. Ensuring that apps and platforms are designed to allow persons with disabilities to have the same opportunities is not just about technical accessibility, but also inclusivity in content and user experience. In this regard, I have the first question. Given the diverse types of disabilities and the unique challenges which presents in the digital space, how can we ensure that our efforts in digital inclusion are not just broad, but also deep, addressing the specific needs of each disability type? Additionally, how can we foster a collaborative environment where governments, businesses and individuals work hand-in-hand to drive meaningful change in digital accessibility? And finally, in addition to technical accessibility, how can we ensure that the content and functionalities of digital platforms are inclusive, allowing persons with disabilities to fully engage in online activities such as dating, job hunting and shopping? What strategies can be employed to ensure that digital content is both accessible and relevant to their needs? Thank you very much.

Saba:
Thank you very much for that question. Now I will give the floor to Gunil to answer on the first question and second question. Maybe Tioros, if you can add on

Gunila Astbrink:
that one. Thank you. Yes, there was a lot in those two questions. I will probably start by addressing one aspect in your second question and relating to employment. And that is a huge issue. And I will refer to Vidya Y, who is a DECAD Disability Fellow here at the IGF. And she is blind and she finished her high school education with a gold medal. And she was the only one of her cohort who didn’t get a job at the end. And she has done a degree in computer science, etc. So she started her own organisation because she’s a very strong woman. But the percentages of people with disabilities who have employment is far, far too low. And what is happening in some countries, like Sri Lanka and Australia, is that there are organisations training both persons with disability in marketable jobs. But as well as that, raising awareness in companies that may employ those people. And being part of the interview process, being mentoring there for a number of months as a person joins the workforce. So that process really does make a difference. And it’s been quite successful. But it’s long term. And it’s again this thing about employers understanding that a person with a disability isn’t a liability. They are not a liability. People with disabilities have proven by many studies to be very loyal employees, very consistent in their work. And there might be some accommodations needed in the workplace. But it’s to raise that awareness of how it can be achieved. So I might pass it on to if anyone else wants to have a say on that question.

Saba:
Thank you very much. Maybe, Tiorus, if you can add on the second question, and then we proceed to other one.

Theorose Elikplim Dzineku:
Thank you so much. I’ll try to make my answer very brief, actually, so we could have more questions in there. But just on a quick one, I agree with the person that asked the question, because this is more like, I wouldn’t say very important than the other sessions, but this is a critical topic. And when he said that the room was empty, I saw the camera going on, I was like, well, yeah. And it’s always a challenge that we face, that we talk about inclusion, and yet we don’t include the people who need to be included. So it’s more like trying to solve somebody else’s problem without having the person there to give you the whole idea of that. But that not withstanding, I do agree with my earlier speaker, making the whole, I agree with her point on the idea that the people with disability have equal rights and are equally committed to their work, just like how we able people are also committed. Now, the first question is on how to address specific needs. In all honesty, to address somebody’s need, you have to speak to the person. It’s easier being an able person saying you need to build a platform, you need to do this, without necessarily talking to the disabled people. So again, I’ll come back to the whole idea of speaking to people who need the help and asking them how they want to help. It’s always better to speak to them to tell our innovations and to tell our building ideas around what they want, and not what we assume they want. So it’s always needed to have them included in every discussion we do as well. There’s also another question on collaboration, how does government and other people collaborate? Well, I don’t know if this is a simple answer, but there has to be collaboration. So reaching out to them. I know in Ghana, for example, we have an organization called inclusive tech, being owned by Dr. Millicent, she herself is disabled. She usually or mostly have hackathons for disabled people training them in innovation, building technology, that’s just one thing. I’m sure other countries have similar things as well. If we could collaborate with government or civil servants or get funding to do all those things, that should help. And my last part of concluding on this point as well, how do we create content? Again, I’ll come back to my first point. Let’s ask the people what type of content they want, if they can be involved. I’m sure that there are a lot of challenged disabled people, sorry, who are computer science people, they know how to build the app. Why don’t we give them the opportunity to do that? I guess that will help. Thank you.

Saba:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Theoros. Since we are also running out of time, maybe for the next questions. Okay. Okay. So we have a question from onsite, and I will give the floor to Veronica.

Audience:
Hello. Can you hear me well? Hello, everyone. My name is Veronica. I’m Italian. I’m the chair of the Internet Society Youth Standing Group. Thank you, first of all, for bringing the topic of disability to the IGF. And I do actually have a question. I have a comment because I would actually like to bring my own experience. When I was a child, due to an infection, I lost between the 30 and 70 percent of my hearing ability. And for me, the interaction since I was a child has always been very difficult, especially with people that have a very low tone of voice. So I always have to ask them to repeat what they say. And hearing your panel, your intervention, I think that is something that is lacking, and it’s granularity of approach. Because not all disabilities are the same, and not all of them have to be treated like that. For example, in my experience, I don’t have full hearing capacity, and the interaction in person for me is always very difficult. In order to hear your intervention, I always have to read the subtitle. So for me, you know, those type of auxiliary instrument for me are very helpful. And on the other hand, I had to give a lighting talk the other day, where this instrument was not actually available. And for me, it was very difficult to understand people who were talking at the microphone. And just for you to say that sometimes also digital tools are very helpful. I have a better interaction online compared to the interaction I have on site or in presence. So what I would like also to invite you to consider is also that digital tools can be an amazing tool to help people with disability. Mine is de facto a disability, but it’s not recognized in any way. Because in order to be recognized as a disabled person, each country has its own parameters. So it’s not always simple, you know, to get access to, how to say, aid to on this. So, yes, this one. Thank you very much, Veronica, for your comment. And next, please. Hello, this is Umar Khan from Pakistan. I will leave some disappointment to second the Brazilian guy, and some statistics from Pakistan as well, with regards to the person with disabilities. These empty chairs in the room show the seriousness toward the inclusion of the digital literacy for the people with disabilities. So I think these rooms should have been more crowded than ever. We also have seen very less number of people with disabilities, some disability in the IGF during the international conference center. So this also shows that the actual people with the disabilities, with the inclusion of them in any field, especially in the Internet, this is somehow a disappointment. And I think the IGF should take it very serious. If I just come to the statistic of my country, my friend, my class fellow, and my college colleague is also on the panel, Mohammad Kamran. I’m so happy for him to be here on the panel. Pakistan having a population of around 236 million population, and in which 6% of the population is somehow with disability physically or mentally. But it’s also a disappointing moment that only 37% of the population among the 236 million are using Internet. The general public, only 37% of the Internet users are in the population. So you can guess, you can observe that a country having 236 million population having just 37% of the Internet user, how will you take or how will you notice the people with disabilities? So I think IGF should really work, and the technical, the companies, and the civil society should be more serious, and I’m hopeful that we can see some good number of people with disability next year in IGF happening anywhere. So I’m hopeful for that. Thank you.

Saba:
Thank you very much for that comment and questions. Now I will give the floor to our speakers on-site and online to give their final remarks or final words, and also they can address the comments and also the questions asked. I will give the floor to the speakers, and please make it very brief, up to 30 seconds. Over to you.

Gunila Astbrink:
Thank you very much. Yes, in regard to the gentleman from Pakistan, I totally agree with you, and we need to have more persons with disability attending, because the disability community’s motto is nothing about us without us. We need to be here. I have a disability. We need more people who represent our own voices, and I would strongly suggest that you write to the IGF Secretariat, to the MAG, to express your disappointment that there aren’t enough persons with disability here. The IGF Secretariat has a funding program, but it still isn’t enough people with disability coming here, and just one short point is we have, as the accessibility standing group, a training program on persons with disability in digital rights and internet governance, and paired with the DCAD, the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, we have a small amount of funding to bring people here, but we need so much more. So thank you very much for that point.

Denise Leal:
Hi. I would like to thank you for your participation and questions. I was a little bit worried, since we didn’t have lots of participation, but we had questions, comments, and online questions also. It’s really an important point, and well, thank you, Veronica, for what you have said. Have you spoken to us? It’s the same in Brazil, about how it’s sometimes difficult to recognize the disability of a person, and most importantly, when the person doesn’t have a disability which is visual, which you can easily see, the person suffers a lot of prejudice and doesn’t have her rights recognized immediately. So it’s important that you say to others and that we talk about it, because we also have these disabilities that we cannot see, but we must recognize their existence, that these people also need somehow help and somehow to be recognized as people with disabilities. And thank you for the Brazilian, another Brazilian person here, I don’t remember your name, Joelson, I think. Yes, thank you for being here and for your comment. I think that it’s actually difficult, hard, your question. What strategies are both accessible and relevant? How can we make the online content more inclusive? Well, we have ways to make it, but also, do we have the economic interest in making it? And also, I think that this answer and this question goes aligned with the question from my other friend, the other lawyer here from Pakistan, about the technical and infrastructure aspects for internet. I think that we have an example in Brazil, a successful example of the indigenous and traditional communities where they couldn’t have access to internet, so that the community itself organized an internet, a local internet. So maybe in the case of people with disability and other minorities, maybe the answer is the communities itself, not the disability, the people with disability community, but other minorities and local communities could be the answer to it. But we have to mobilize and to make these peoples understand the needs of all these minorities and communities. In the case of the indigenous, they could make it, because they were all located in the same place. But how can we make it? How can we make our small communities and minorities work together to find an infrastructure solution? I believe it’s possible, but we have to work harder on showing it to people. As you have all noticed and told us and spoken about it, we don’t have that many people here. We should have a crowded room, but we don’t have. So we must mobilize more people and have more space and voice to talk about these situations, so that we can have a better infrastructure and technology for people with disability. Thank you, everyone.

Saba:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Denise. Now I will give the floor to Marjorie to take the floor to our speakers for their final remarks or recommendations or any key takeaways.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Thank you very much, Sabah. So we have Tiaras and Mohamed remaining. And I would just please like that also we include our online participants. So I’ll read out their questions. And then while you give your final remarks, we’re just going to touch on them, please. So this is from Joseph Komiti. He said, why would make systems and apps as well as content online accessible to people with disabilities? What policies can be implemented to protect abusive content against people with disabilities online, because there is some kind of stigmatization, especially on social media. This is from Joseph, IGF Ghana Hub. And then we have the next, can our world truly progress if we continue to build barriers that exclude people with disabilities? Or should we unite to break down these obstacles of creating a more inclusive future? So maybe Tiaras, you can start. Thank you.

Theorose Elikplim Dzineku:
Great. So, again, I’m going to try as much as possible to keep it very short and all of that. Now, in terms of policies and stigmatization, I mean, this real stigmatization is really in every sector. But I guess it’s worth for, for the one with worse for people with disabilities, because again, some of the things as Veronica said, and as all our speakers keep saying over and over again, is that some of the disabilities are not like, visually, it’s not visual for you to see. And the mistake we keep doing all the time is to try to group everything as one. So this is what I would say, that policy takes time. But the question is, we even need to know if we have policy, such policies, for example, I would not really say Ghana, we do have or not, because honestly, I’ve not done data research on that. And I would not want to say that on authority. But it will be a good thing, a good thing to find out if we do have one, how accessible is that? How are people even aware of such a policy? Is there a common knowledge that we have to do in terms of stigmatization? I guess it would still stem from education, teaching people that people with disabilities are human. And there’s no problem with that. And we are okay. And everything is fine. It’s a good thing to start with. And as I conclude, I just want to take the time to just even say thank you to everyone. We hope that this session are extended more. But I will leave my email in the chat. Feel free to suggest any project any capacity building training. This is not just a one time of discussion. It could be some something that continues and hope that next year was we have discussion on the same area, we have a more fuller room and we have people who would really, really want to tell and probably share what they have been going through and how we can basically build content around them as well. But I will still stand on my first point at the beginning that advocacy is always key. Advocacy never ends, it starts. But it’s a continual process. And I hope that we all take that in. Thank you so much. And I’ll hand over to Karma.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Thank you. Please 30 seconds. Thank you.

Muhammad Kamran:
So thank you so much, everyone. And I hope all the answers, all the questions have already been answered. And as far like what, what we can do for implementing these ideas. I was just like, we have talked in detail about in details about all of these things. But I’m going to add one more thing. We said that government should do this and we should do this and that. But one more thing that I want to add here, why after seeing the situation in the hall in the room right now, that the people with disabilities needs to also address their issue. Like, we are not going to be like, we are not only be the ones who are going to talk about that, but they are going to make us talk about all this. Like this empty room is an example that maybe they’re not interested to be a part of all this. So they have to be interested. And we have to, yeah, we have to be organizing some conferences or some awareness sessions to educate them so that they can come up and talk about their disabilities. So I think we have talked about all the aspects possible in a very short span of time. And I’m sorry if I have left anything. And I’m thankful to all of you for having us here, for letting us speak. And I hope to see all of you in some other tomorrow. Thank you so much.

Marjorie Mudi Gege:
Thank you very much. Yes, I have the floor. Thank you.

Saba:
Thank you very much. So we have come to the end of our session now. And I would like to thank our speakers, our panelists for their valuable inputs and also contributions. Indeed, your expertise and also insights has been really, truly enlightening. And what I would like to say is let’s all together continue our efforts to ensure the inclusivity and accessibility in digital technologies and digital services. So thank you all for attending our today’s session, for joining us from on site or joining us from online. And we hope you found this very informative and thought provoking. And yeah, remember that your involvement is really crucial on creating a more inclusive future for all persons. Have a wonderful day. Thank you so much.

Audience

During the discussion, various topics related to technology and data were explored, including the use of blockchain technology for collecting biometric data. An audience member asked for opinions on this matter. The sentiment towards this question was neutral, with no specific arguments or evidence provided for or against using blockchain for biometric data collection. However, it was mentioned that blockchain might be beneficial in controlling access to data, suggesting a potential advantage in using this technology for biometrics.

Another concern raised by an audience member was the issue of real-time surveillance in India. The sentiment expressed was negative, with the argument focusing on the lack of protection and rights for users in the face of such surveillance. The audience member questioned whether individuals are adequately informed when their data is being processed and if they are aware of being under surveillance in public areas. Unfortunately, no supporting facts or evidence were provided to further substantiate these concerns.

Furthermore, an audience member from Australia discussed the increasing use of advanced technology in accumulating data and enhancing private surveillance. This sentiment was negative, and the argument emphasized the implications this has for user privacy. It was highlighted that developed nations are acquiring wealth and control through the collection of data using advanced technologies. However, no specific evidence or examples were provided to support this claim.

In conclusion, the discussions surrounding blockchain technology, data security, biometric collection, and surveillance touched upon important implications for data protection and user rights. While the use of blockchain for biometric data collection was not extensively debated, the potential of blockchain in controlling data access was acknowledged. The concerns raised about real-time surveillance in India and the increasing use of advanced technology in data accumulation and private surveillance highlighted the need for protections and solutions to safeguard user privacy. Nonetheless, the lack of concrete evidence and specific supporting facts weakened the arguments presented.

Beth Kerley

The rapid increase in network surveillance of physical spaces, alongside traditional digital surveillance, has become a growing concern. It exposes individuals to potential targeting by both public and private entities. By 2021, it was predicted that the number of surveillance cameras globally would exceed 1 billion, blurring the lines between public and private surveillance.

Emerging technologies such as biometric surveillance and ’emotion recognition’ are giving those who control cameras in public spaces new capabilities. Facial recognition technologies are being sold as part of the surveillance package, enabling the identification of individuals in real time. Emotion recognition technology is also being used in different countries to monitor students, drivers, and criminal suspects. These new developments raise ethical and privacy concerns as they can be intrusive and have significant implications for personal freedom and autonomy.

The involvement of private companies in surveillance poses challenges to transparency and accountability. Private entities are inclined to protect their intellectual property, making it difficult for citizens and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to understand how surveillance systems operate. Additionally, contracts between public and private partners often lack specific provisions on how private entities can utilise the resulting data. This lack of clear guidelines raises the risk of misuse and potential violation of privacy rights.

While biometric identification has its controversies, it also has legitimate uses that should not be overlooked. It distinguishes itself from biometric surveillance, which involves the monitoring and tracking of individuals without their explicit consent. Biometric identification allows users to intentionally use their physical attributes, such as fingerprints or facial recognition, to access a space or account. However, appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure that biometric data is properly protected and not misused by unauthorised entities.

The integration of sensitive data with blockchain technology is met with scepticism. Storing sensitive data in a system designed to be unerasable raises concerns about data security and privacy. The immutability of blockchain can be seen as both a benefit and a risk, as any potential breaches or unauthorised access may have long-lasting consequences.

European digital rights groups argue for a ban on real-time surveillance in public spaces. They believe that real-time surveillance is difficult to control and regulate, which can lead to potential abuses of power. Striking a balance between security and privacy is crucial to maintain public trust.

Furthermore, public awareness and understanding of surveillance systems and the information possessed by the government are vital. In countries like Estonia, where elaborate e-government systems are in place, public awareness is a key safeguard to ensure trust in surveillance practices.

In conclusion, the rapid expansion of network surveillance in physical spaces, coupled with emerging technologies, raises significant concerns regarding privacy, transparency, and accountability. The involvement of private companies, appropriate safeguards in biometric identification, scepticism towards integrating blockchain with sensitive data, and the need for public awareness and trust all play crucial roles in shaping the future of surveillance systems. Striking a balance between security and individual rights is essential for the responsible development and use of surveillance technologies.

Yasadora Cordova

The debate centres around the issue of control and consent regarding users’ biometric and personal data. One perspective in the debate argues that user control is vital in order to prevent the misuse of data and protect privacy. They suggest implementing rules and ethical frameworks that increase user awareness of data collection. This approach emphasises the importance of separating different types of identification technologies to improve user control and promote data privacy.

Another viewpoint suggests that the control over sensitive biometric data should be entrusted to a neutral third-party or citizens’ counsel. The proponents of this argument raise concerns about law enforcement having access to and retaining the ability to edit videos, as this encroaches on personal freedom and raises privacy concerns. They caution against potential abuse of data by law enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, it is argued that user control over their data is essential not only for privacy but also to prevent potential misuse. The introduction of new rules and ethical frameworks is proposed to enhance user awareness of data collection practices. By doing so, users would have more control over their personal information and be able to protect their privacy more effectively.

A related point that arises in the debate is the need for user control in data privacy. It is observed that both industries and governments are collecting data indiscriminately. The cost of maintaining the integrity of personally identifiable information is said to be increasing. Therefore, it is suggested that obtaining permission or consent for the use of a dataset is crucial, ensuring that the dataset belongs to the person it represents.

Transparency and ethical considerations in data handling are also highlighted as significant concerns. It is noted that structuring and cleaning data are among the most expensive activities in the machine learning process. The demand for transparency through regulation is seen as a potential driver for governments and industries to clarify their data practices. Transparency is seen as the foundation upon which user control can be built.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding user control and consent over biometric and personal data highlights the importance of protecting privacy and preventing data misuse. Various arguments propose different ways to achieve this, including implementing rules and ethical frameworks, entrusting control to neutral parties or citizens’ counsels, and promoting transparency in data handling. These discussions aim to establish a balance between leveraging the benefits of technology and safeguarding individuals’ rights and privacy in the digital age.

Barbara Simao

Private surveillance companies in Brazil, such as Gabriel and Yellow Cam, are providing readily accessible 24/7 surveillance solutions to neighborhoods without oversight or accountability. This poses major risks for privacy, human rights, transparency, and data sharing. The lack of sufficient information and oversight surrounding these surveillance practices is of particular concern, potentially impacting historically marginalized groups and leading to exclusion. Additionally, the demand for private surveillance solutions highlights a lack of trust in public government solutions. The regulatory gaps in Brazil regarding the use of technology and data for public security contribute to the lack of oversight and accountability. Users should be informed about the risks, legal grounds, and potential access to their data. Moreover, more legal guarantees and safeguards need to be developed to regulate the activities of private surveillance companies. Overall, greater transparency, public awareness, and comprehensive regulatory frameworks are essential to protect privacy and individual rights in the context of private surveillance in Brazil.

Swati Punia

Swati Punia raises concerns about surveillance automation and its approach to crime and criminality. She argues that current surveillance practices tend to focus on handling petty crimes, while larger, structural crimes like financial crimes are often overlooked. Swati emphasises the need to reassess our conceptions of crime and criminality to address these systemic issues more effectively.

Swati highlights the importance of an interdisciplinary approach in civil society to tackle surveillance-related challenges. She believes that conversation and collaboration among academics, lawyers, and NGOs are crucial in effectively addressing these issues. Swati points out that working in silos can limit the effectiveness of addressing systemic problems, and therefore, calls for shared learning and interdisciplinary efforts.

Furthermore, Swati stresses the need for collaboration and shared learning among the global majority to address surveillance-related challenges. She suggests that conferences and discussions can provide platforms for stakeholders from different parts of the world to engage in dialogue and share their experiences. Understanding shared experiences within similar socio-political and cultural contexts can lead to more effective solutions and responses.

Another aspect Swati discusses is the importance of digital literacy and empowerment. She notes that even educated individuals may lack digital literacy skills, such as understanding financial matters online. Swati suggests that the government should do more in terms of digital empowerment, ensuring that individuals have the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate the digital landscape.

In terms of technology, Swati argues that it should focus on building privacy and security by design. She proposes that with the lack of digital literacy, there should be technologies that inherently secure and respect the user’s privacy. Swati believes that prioritising privacy and security in technological developments can mitigate potential harms and protect individuals’ rights.

Swati also highlights the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in capacity building. She mentions that her organisation, the Center for Communication Governance, actively works on initiatives such as the privacy law library, regional high court tracker, and professional training. Swati believes that CSOs play a vital role in enhancing understanding and expertise in surveillance-related matters.

Lastly, Swati suggests that countries like India should not simply copy-paste solutions from Europe or other developed countries. Instead, they should consider their own social, cultural, and political environments when implementing digital solutions. Swati notes that many developing nations are rapidly adopting advanced privacy norms without sufficient preparation, which may not be suitable given their unique contexts.

In conclusion, Swati Punia’s discussion on surveillance automation highlights the need to reassess our approach to crime and criminality. She advocates for an interdisciplinary approach in civil society, collaboration and shared learning among the global majority, digital literacy and empowerment, privacy and security by design in technology, and the role of civil society organisations in capacity building. Swati encourages countries like India to consider their own context when implementing digital solutions in order to better address surveillance-related challenges.

Moderator

The session titled “Beneath the Shadows: Private Surveillance in Public Spaces” focused on exploring the involvement of the private sector in surveillance and public security solutions, highlighting the associated risks, implications, and necessary safeguards. Despite Estela Aranha, the on-site speaker, being unable to attend, the session featured three online speakers, including Bárbara Simão, the Head of Research in Privacy and Surveillance at Internet Lab.

Bárbara Simão provided an overview of the topic, emphasising the role of the private sector in surveillance solutions and public security. Internet Lab, a think tank based in Brazil, specialises in digital rights and Internet policy. Bárbara holds a Master’s Degree in Law and Development and has extensive experience in digital rights research.

Beth Curley, a programme officer with the National Endowment for Democracy’s International Forum for Democracy, contributed to the session. Beth, who has a background in history and foreign services, discussed the challenges associated with private surveillance in public spaces. She offered insights based on her experience as the former associate editor of the Journal of Democracy.

Swati Punia, a technology policy researcher based in New Delhi, India, focused on the intersection of technology, law, and policy in society. With her legal background and expertise in privacy, data protection, and emerging technologies, she highlighted the importance of addressing these issues, particularly in developing countries. Swati’s current research involves exploring the potential of non-crypto blockchain in India and its implications for socio-economic challenges and privacy in the global South.

Representing the private sector’s perspective, Iezodara Córdova, the principal privacy researcher at Unico Idetec, a biometric identity company, shared valuable insights. With a history of collaborating with esteemed organizations such as the World Bank, the United Nations, Harvard University, and TikTok, Iezodara has worked on projects concerning digital citizenship, online security, and civic engagement.

During the session, questions from the audience were addressed, allowing for engaging discussions. The speakers also shared their final thoughts on the importance of regulation and policy to tackle the concerns surrounding private surveillance in public spaces.

Overall, the session provided a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse surrounding the role of the private sector in surveillance and public security. The speakers’ diverse backgrounds and expertise added depth and richness to the discussion, offering attendees and online participants valuable insights to consider in this ever-evolving domain.

Moderator:
who’s here, thank you for being present, and hello to everyone who is following us online. And welcome to our session, who is titled Beneath the Shadows, Private Surveillance in Public Spaces. The general idea of the session for us is to discuss a little bit the role of the private sector in surveillance solutions and public security solutions. So we are here trying to cover in general how the private sector has been being present in public security and surveillance solutions and the risks, implications of that, and which safeguards are important. For today’s panel, we will have three online speakers. Unfortunately, our on-site speaker was not able to be present today, Estela Aranha, but we will have three online speakers, plus Bárbara Simão, who is the Head of Research in Privacy and Surveillance in Internet Lab, and who will also be introducing a little bit the subject. So I will introduce briefly Bárbara and pass the word for her so she can give us an overview of the topic, and afterwards we’ll pass to our online speakers. So Bárbara is the Head of Research, as I mentioned, for Privacy and Surveillance at Internet Lab. Internet Lab is a think tank on digital rights and internet policy, which is based in Brazil. She holds a Master’s Degree in Law and Development from the Fundação Getúlio Vargas in São Paulo, and she graduated in Law on the Faculty of Law at the University of São Paulo. She was an exchange student at the Paris Panthéon Sorbonne. She worked as a researcher in the field of digital rights at the Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense between 2017 and 2020, and she also served as a counsellor for the Digital Health Data Protection at FIUCRUS. So, Bárbara, the floor is yours.

Barbara Simao:
Hello, everyone. Good afternoon. Actually, good morning or good afternoon or good evening depending on the time zone you’re at. As Luisa mentioned, I’m Barbara and I’m Head of Research for Privacy and Surveillance at Internet Lab. And first of all, I’d like to thank you so much for coming here, for being present. And I will give you just a brief overview of what we are talking about and why we decided this would be an interesting topic for discussion. I’ll just share my screen because I have a few images that I would like to show you. Let’s see if this goes smoothly. I think you’re being able to see it, right? Yes, we can see it. Okay. So, well, the topic of the session is private surveillance in public spaces. And Luisa already mentioned and introduced a bit of what we are talking about. But I just like to give you an overview of what’s happening in Brazil that made us think that it was interesting to bring this topic to discussion today. So, in the past couple years, we are seeing the growth of these private companies called Gabriel, Yellow Cam, and, well, different names for one same kind of business. That is, these companies that sell private solutions, private cameras, private totems with cameras that with, well, 24-7 ability to access them and that are shared between neighborhoods. So, any group of neighbors, any type of local community can buy a camera or access them by a monthly fee, and they are installed into a… … … … … … … public streets. So they are offering these totems or cameras that can be easily accessed by anyone. I bring here some of the excerpts of their websites. It is in Portuguese, but I will translate it to you. In general, they say, they claim that, I’ll just see if I can point so it’s more clear. OK. In general, they claim that modern cameras, they are solutions for security anywhere. They claim that their mission is to make streets, neighborhoods, and cities more intelligent to protect anyone inside and outside home. And Yellowcam, one of these cameras, includes the app to access the cameras is 100% free. The download can be made by anyone in Play Store or Apple Store. And in the app, it’s possible to locate and city map the cameras installed and visualize the images in real time, 24-7. And it’s even possible to search for images that were took in different times or dates. They claim also that the installation of these cameras can make the region safer and that they can be accessed by the public authorities, including the police. And they claim the tendencies with the cameras is that it can decrease criminality rates from these regions over time. So they’re basically selling these 24-7 solutions that can be acquired by local communities, by a group of neighbors, and that can be accessed without any kind of oversight and accountability. And that’s what’s concerning for us. And also the fact that some news pieces here in Brazil announced that these companies were having private channels of communications with the police stations. So the police stations weren’t actually demanding a warrant to access the images held by these private companies. They were accessing it almost like real time because of these private channels of communications that were existing between the companies and the public authorities. So we think this is an important topic for us to cover because it can pose an amount of risks for privacy and human rights. It can have impacts on transparency and data sharing between private and public bodies. And besides that, it can even affect the right to the city considering the fact that surveillance may affect in a bigger form, certain groups of people that are already excluded. And this case is somewhat relatable to what happened within the Clearview AI case, which for those who aren’t familiar with it, it was a company that held a database with over 3 million images obtained through data prepping. So they data scratch public bases of images and they shared these images with police stations over the world for identification and resolution of criminal cases. And these images were collected without any kind of information, without any kind of oversight. And there wasn’t any kind of accountability about the company’s practices. And it was a case that caught the world’s attention because Clearview AI actually became inclined by many different jurisdictions because the lack of legal grounds on it was… doing it. So I think this session is to discuss these topics, is to discuss the relation between public security, criminal procedure, and these private surveillance solutions that are arising. And not only in Brazil, but many countries have these home security solutions that are also being sold. So I think it’s important for us to discuss that having the lens of the impacts it can have to privacy and human rights and for transparency. So we prepared a few policy questions for you. And in general, we want to understand what are the broader societal implications of extensive surveillance and their impacts on human rights. How does private surveillance affect historically marginalized groups? How does the lack of transparency required from private surveillance companies affect human rights? What are the dangers concerning third-party sharing with other private institutions or public authorities without transparency? What are the liabilities that insufficient legal protections regarding the shared use of data posts to individuals and groups? And does the current regulatory landscape for privacy and data protection give us sufficient protections to ensure enforcement of human rights and equitable access to public spaces? So these are a few questions we prepared for today’s session. And these are a lot of questions to discuss, only one hour. So without further ado, and giving this brief introduction, I would like to pass the floor to Beth Curley, who will also join us for this panel. And Eloisa, I think you’ll present her, right?

Moderator:
Yes. So Beth Curley, thank you for joining us today. Beth is a program officer with the research and conference section of the National Endowment for Democracy’s International Forum for Democracy. studies. She was previously associated editor of the Journal of Democracy and holds a PhD in history from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Science, science, foreign services from Georgetown University. Thank you for being here today, and the floor is yours. Thank you. That can you hear us.

Beth Kerley:
Hi, I’m sorry I was muted. Barbara I think you need to unmute my video as well. I can’t. Now we are hearing you. I’m able to unmute my audio but not my video. I guess I can start talking and perhaps my face will show up later on in the proceedings. So, thanks Barbara and thanks everybody. I’m sorry I can’t be there in person but really looking forward to this discussion. And so, Barbara that was really fat I hadn’t seen those slides before but I think those cases that you shared are really great illustrations of some of the broader points I was hoping to make here. And so, um, oh, there I have a video to. And so I think what I’m going to do in these remarks is first try and situate those examples in some broader global trends that we’ve been tracking, and also highlight how the potential of use of emerging technologies like biometric surveillance in connection with cameras in public spaces poses additional risks. So, to frame the comments, a little bit in an essay on what he calls subversion in Rod Deibert at Citizen Lab has written about the risks from surveillance vendors, making more widely available to both government and private clients capabilities that would previously have been available to just a few well-resourced states. His focus in that article is on the profound challenges to democracy from commercial spyware, which tracks us through the devices that we carry with us. But I would argue that this question of the growing accessibility spread and if you like democratization quote unquote of surveillance technologies, and they’re intertwining with the broader surveillance capitalist ecosystem, very much applies to the devices that other people place in the physical world around us as well. And in that regard, there are three main points that I’d like to cover. First, network surveillance of physical spaces is rapidly emerging alongside traditional digital surveillance as a pervasive reality that changes the conditions for engaging in public life and exposes people to targeting by both public and private entities. Second, emerging technologies such as biometric surveillance or so called emotion recognition are enabling the entities that control cameras in public spaces to do new things with them. And third, commercial suppliers play a crucial role in the spread of physical surveillance technologies to both public and private sector clients and their involvement, as Barbara very correctly stated, presents challenges to enforcing transparency and accountability norms. So on the growth of surveillance cameras. Already in 2019 there was an estimate that by 2021 which is two years ago, the number of surveillance cameras installed globally would exceed 1 billion, a significant number of those cameras, more than half are in But established and emerging democracies are also home to staggering numbers of cameras. Those include smartphone cameras, as well as cameras that have been installed in commercial settings, which was traditionally an anti-theft measure but now you see commercial entities installing surveillance is actually a kind of consumer convenience letting people skip the checkout line to have their faces scanned instead. The line between public and private surveillance can be very thin. So the system that Barbara described would be a perfect example of that. In India, there’s similarly an app that lets citizens share footage from their private CCTVs with the police and that’s just one of many cases. Those kinds of partnerships can reflect genuine public concerns about crime, but they also raise challenging questions on how privacy and anti-discrimination safeguards can be applied when law enforcement functions get outsourced to untrained citizens. Citizens can of course themselves also misuse access to CCTV, for instance to digitally stalk strangers or acquaintances or to engage in blackmail, but the blurry line between public and private surveillance also works the opposite way. the other way around, by which I mean to say that the private vendors who supply surveillance tech to public entities play an important role that’s increasing as that tech itself gets more complicated. For instance, when companies sell smart city packages, their selling points, strengths, and profit logic can play a large role in determining what’s included as part of those packages. Some great reporting from Access Now has shown how companies like Dahua have incentivized officials in Latin America to adopt their surveillance tools by offering so-called donations. And finally, vendors after the point of adoption can become very closely involved in managing the tools and of course the data from public surveillance projects. So simple CCTV cameras present plenty of risks, but the new AI tools that researchers like IPPM have identified as the drivers of the video surveillance market are multiplying these risks by letting people make sense of the images that are captured quickly and at scale. In a 2022 report for the forum, Steve Feldstein identified 97 countries where surveillance technologies involving AI are in use. And I think it’s safe to say, given all the trends around us, that that number has since grown. Facial recognition technologies are probably the most widely discussed quote unquote enhancement to surveillance cameras. And they might be sold as part of the package together with cameras for so-called live facial recognition, but facial recognition can also be applied to ordinary camera footage after the fact using software from private vendors like their UI, which was mentioned earlier. And the risks of facial recognition have been pretty widely discussed. I think it’s the best known type of AI surveillance. So just to very quickly recap, when it doesn’t work, facial recognition can lead to false arrests, a harm that has very specifically affected black communities in both North and South America, as documented by Joy Buolamwini and others. And when it does work, facial recognition alongside other forms of biometric surveillance like voice or gate recognition make it much easier to use cameras to track specific individuals. This again has potentially legitimate purposes, but it can very easily lend itself to political abuses as with the abuse to track and identify protesters and dissidents in Russia and Belarus, which you’ve already seen. And it also puts the potential for private citizens to. abuse facial recognition technology in greater reach. So also in Russia, there was a widely publicized lawsuit in 2020 that started when an activist was able to buy images tracking her own movements from the city’s facial recognition system on the black market for just $200. There are slightly different challenges presented by emotion recognition technology, which doesn’t focus on someone’s identity per se, but tries to infer their emotional state based on facial cues. Analysts have very sharply criticized this approach as pseudoscience. And it’s also not hard to understand the ways in which it might be abused to ensure at least the perception of conformity with government policies. But there’s still a strong commercial interest in that kind of technology, whether to monitor students, drivers, and criminal suspects in China, or to test and target ads in Brazil and the United States. And again, we see this kind of technology actually installed in public spaces so that the billboard is looking back at you, so to speak. And finally, AI means that surveillance cameras in public spaces aren’t working on their own. Analytical tools can combine information from biometric surveillance tech with information from other online and offline sources, like shopping records or government databases, to build profiles of people or of groups. On an aggregate level, all this information collection can both exert a chilling effect and enable abusive behaviors by data holders, both public and private. And just to go through a few of those, first, profiles of people and groups can be the basis for targeted information operations meant to deceive and polarize something that Samantha Hoffman has worked on. As Cathy O’Neill has described, profiles can enable discrimination, whether in the form of withholding state resources, targeting advertisements in a way that disadvantages certain people, or through negative treatment by law enforcement. Third, digital rights activists worry that the mere presence of biometric surveillance in public spaces, and this would certainly extend to cameras more generally, whether or not they’re working, can have a chilling effect on people’s willingness to attend public protests, journalists’ ability to meet with sources, and other vital civic activity. And finally, profiles can enable governments to track people’s behavior in minute detail and exercise control through subtle systems of rewards and penalties in the manner. that is somewhat loosely envisioned by China’s social credit initiatives. So finally, why does it matter that private companies are so deeply involved in surveillance? I think whether we’re talking about genuinely private surveillance or public private partnerships, there are a few basic challenges and these include first data access. So vendors who partner with governments on surveillance projects are likely to have a commercial interest in keeping the data that’s collected. And that’s all the more true as companies are seeking to train and refine AI tools that depend on data. Democratic governments on the other hand have an interest in following principles like data minimization and purpose limitation for data collection. And in the project that we worked on together as part of the Forum Smart Cities Report, I know Barbara and her co-author, Belinda Santos pointed out that a lot of the ICCT contracts that she was seeing in Brazil did not have specific provisions on how those private partners could use the resulting data. And that kind of gap is a broader trend which raises a lot of risks that vendors may be reusing data which perhaps there was some privacy infringement but it was collected for a public purpose that was so important it was worth it. But then it gets reused by commercial companies for reasons that would not have justified that infringement or it may get resold through the ecosystem of data brokers or even shared with foreign governments if we’re talking about foreign companies that are operating in different countries. Second, transparency. Public institutions in democratic societies are at least in theory supposed to follow transparency norms whereas private companies are not subject to the same rules and they’re naturally going to be inclined to try to protect their intellectual property. This can make it difficult for citizens, NGOs and journalists to find out about how the surveillance systems that are watching them work. And I would argue that this is going to become a more important issue as surveillance technologies themselves get more complex and need to be evaluated for issues like encoded bias. And finally, when private surveillance feeds into public surveillance, it can be difficult to maintain clear lines of accountability for abuses. Again, these challenges are likely to grow as citizens experience infringements such as unfavorable government decisions that they can’t have explained that are made by inscrutable technologies based on a mix of public and private data that’s been collected about them. So private surveillance, especially in an age where the trend is toward cloud-based and AI enabled surveillance is very deeply entwined in a broader surveillance ecosystem that crosses boundaries of sector, of country and of the physical and the digital world. And that ecosystem is enabling new types of infringements on human rights. We see these being taken to an extreme and authoritarian settings but they’re relevant to all of us as we grapple with ways in which technology is changing the landscape for privacy. And these risks really raise the urgency especially with private actors playing such a large role of multi-stakeholder engagement to develop new guardrails for democratic rights in a world where incredibly powerful surveillance tech is now an easy reach for our governments, companies, and even private people. And on the question of solutions since I think I’m about at my time, I am going to shamelessly turn things over to the next speaker in hopes that they will provide some answers. So again, thanks very much and look forward to the discussion.

Moderator:
Thank you, Beth. Thank you so much. for the rich contributions to this discussion. And now I will pass to Swati Punia. Swati is a technology policy researcher based in New Delhi, India. She is a lawyer by training and has earned certificates in digital trade and technology, cyber law and corporate law. Currently, she works with the Center for Communication and Governance and Academic Research Center based in the National Law University of Delhi on issues that apply at the intersection of technology, law and policy in society. Her focus areas include privacy, data protection, data governance and emerging technologies. At present, she is examining the non-crypto blockchain ecosystem in India and studying its potential for addressing socioeconomic challenge, creating inclusive in governance models and embedded in privacy in the context of developing countries of the global South. Prior to joining CCG, Swati worked with a leading Southern voice on fostering consumer sovereignty in digital economy. Swati, thank you for joining us today and the floor is yours.

Swati Punia:
Thank you so much, Barbara and Elisa. It’s so lovely to be on the same panel as all of you and thank you to Beth for laying down such apt and elaborate impact and implications of surveillance. And I think that allows me to deep dive into the question that was asked of me, which is essentially like, what are the social inequalities and the discrimination, you know, regarding these kinds of surveillance acts and what in civil society do in terms of bridging some of these big cracks in the world? that we’re seeing in the society develop. I think to just sort of hinge it to what Barbara was mentioning that’s happening in Brazil is not a standalone thing. We’re seeing that happen across the world. And India is unfortunately not behind any of these trends. We’re emulating all of these trends that we’re seeing in terms of automating surveillance. And a number of states that I know were named as like the biggest surveillance states in the world, not just in the country. It seems like every state in India is sort of in a race and competing to automate surveillance. That seems to be the top priority. Having said that, the good part is the civil society has been an active player and been studying and researching and looking at this development. And they do sort of move to courts in the last couple of years that we’re seeing when we see these kinds of instances come up and rise. But I think essentially what I want to highlight is that given that you have all of these instances happening and you have these kinds of systems put in place, the most important thing is the public-private partnership aspect. Often we’re seeing these public-private partnerships add efficiency, but here I think the main question that is to what end and for what purpose? They’re not just deployed in sort of developing the technology for the state and deploying it, but they often are also involved in management of it and sort of upgrading the systems. And nobody really, this is to anybody’s guess, nobody really knows how they’re involved in with the data management or whether they’re not. Nobody knows that when a police is sort of stopping a person on the road for like random biometrics, random face recognition and all of those clicks that they take. where does that data sort of land and what purpose it is used for and unfortunately this is despite India sort of six years back in 2017 having the landmark judgment on the right to privacy passed by the Supreme Court of India which sort of gave a very spectacular turn to the jurisprudence on fundamental rights where the Supreme Court tied the right to privacy with the right to life, liberty and dignity and sort of reading it as an important facet to ensuring equality and freedom of speech and expression and also at the same time placing you know people at the heart of new age policymaking but we’ve seen not enough happening on this side but one is going to be positive with like new data protection act coming into place and all of that but one important thing that the Supreme Court categorically mentioned over there was that privacy cannot be used to further systemic inequalities. Now what that means is that everyone recognizes the fact that automation is is not creating something new, it is often exaggerating which already is pervasive and exist in the society and we all know that the kind of societies that we live in are not exactly balanced and we have a range of inequality sort of you know within our societies or really deeply entrenched so I think the main problem then is not the way you know exactly we shouldn’t really like what I mean to say we shouldn’t really go to automation but to like take a step back and see like what how do we really understand crime and criminality as a concept to really go back over there and start from there that if automation is just a tool to exaggerate everything then should we like take a step back and then try and see what are our misunderstanding and misconceptions of what is really a crime made of because if you see all these CCTVs and all of this gadget and stuff is really being into force to handle petty crimes on the street, right? In a very set place, you know, where they’re saying, okay, you’re putting in so much of resources, money and effort to handle this one type of crimes, but is that what contributes to the larger, you know, criminality in the society? What is the percentage of it? Where is this kind of like a behavior of the state or of the private sector in conjunction with the state leading us to create what kinds of society? So in that sense, I think if we go back to just see that every state is a way of defining their crime and criminality, and we can all, I think, come together on this understanding that a lot of the people that we look as criminals are often people from these historically marginalized communities, people who come from below the poverty line, people who have already experienced and lived in equal treatment from the state and from the society. There’s certain religious castes and sects who suffer already these kinds of discrimination, and that kind of social inequality then sort of gets highlighted through technology and even exaggerated and entrenched. And the fear is that a lot of these inequalities through the use of all these automated techniques that Beth also talked about, they sort of will regularize, get regularized into the way things will function going forward. So I think the million dollar question then is that the fact who is going to make that assessment that the kind of crimes we’re trying to handle, are they the real crimes? Or I’m not taking of the fact that maybe, you know, some of this should not be done, but to what end and for what purpose? Another thing that we all sort of. is the reason some of this act is being put together is that you know to check people’s behavior and you know that sort of understanding seems to develop and even become popular that if you sort of check somebody’s behavior then good behavior will get internalized if you’re constantly being surveilled and you know one cannot deny this completely because yes we’ve seen a lot of studies which support that constant surveillance might sort of create a dent in creating good behavior and some sort of internalization can happen but again then i would go back to the same question that you know how much of these kind of crimes which are getting corrected through this behavioral surveillance we’re trying to tackle and what are these crimes and are there bigger crimes like financial crimes and everything which needs maybe more attention so maybe what needs to be looked at are we trying to plug small loopholes and small gaps and turning a blind eye to like those big cracks and holes which are sort of getting deeper and wider and the fact that you know one important aspect of criminality and crime is that is crime generally as a concept behavioral or structural i think if you can go back to thinking that because my limited understanding of the whole issue is that crime is generally structural it is not behavioral and there are a lot of studies at least that i’m aware of in the indian context written by people across civil society and one work which i’d love to highlight of a colleague shivangi narayan in the indian scenario who did like an ethnographic study of one of the states in india which is the national capital delhi where she’s uh you know categorically gets into how policing and construction of the idea of criminality impacts the society and why we define and decide to employ certain kind of measures and how they do not really work for creating a better society you’re rendering a better society, but it’s actually just the opposite. So in that sense, I think we need to go back to some of these ontological and taxonomical related questions and then assess where are we moving towards and why are we moving towards that role? I think civil society’s role is extremely important. It’s often, of course, working in its own silos, like within civil society, academics are sort of working within that closed space, lawyers are with themselves, the larger NGO system are working in their own space. I think a lot of conversations with each other is important so that you can share work and build a better understanding. For example, lawyers might be looking at laws that exist even till date, despite India having the landmark judgment on right to privacy six years back. A lot of the way things are getting defined in India in terms of surveillance still is getting decided by predated laws to this Puttaswamy judgment. And even after that, we don’t see much change sort of happening. At the same time, employers working on these kinds of laws and understanding are talking with people like NGOs who are looking into ground research, who understand how these marginalized and vulnerable communities really get impacted and bring out those instances and experiences in conjunction with their study on secondary research and laws and policy framing. I think that will help us build a clearer picture and better resources. One of the reasons could also be that, these kinds of issues now will sort of help us go towards this direction. And another thing is I think conferences and discussions like the one that Hinojosa and Barbara are hosting, which is allowing people from different geographies and people across the world in the Southern Belt and global majority come together to discuss these issues and figure out, okay, these are the similarities and these are the differences. the divergences because often my understanding is a lot of similarities and synergies and experience shared experiences that we go through in the kind of familiar socio-political and cultural context that we have in this part of the world so it will be fabulous I think in terms of growing together and understanding and learning from each other’s experiences how what we can change and how we can look at the subject. I’ll stop there and happy to come and meet again. Thank you Suari. Thank you

Moderator:
for the rich reflections you have made. Now I will pass the word to Iezodara Córdova who is representing the private sector. Iezodara is the principal privacy researcher at Unico Idetec, a biometric identity company. She has worked with various organizations such as the World Bank, the United Nations, Harvard University and TikTok on projects related to digital citizenship, online security and civic engagement. Thank you so much for joining us today Iezodara and the floor is yours.

Yasadora Cordova:
Right, thank you so much for the invitation. It’s always a pleasure to be in any event that the internet lab invites me and I have just a little bit of information to add. The first one that I would like to to feature is that I know that we navigate the intricacies of identification technologies so I want to delve into the nuanced distinctions between biometrics and facial recognition and because it’s where the question of user control takes the center stage. So biometrics as a comprehensive concept involves recognizing individuals through unique physiological or behavioral attributes such as fingerprints or iris scans, for example. Crucially, what sets biometrics apart is the insistence on user consent or authorization. So for example, in countries where there is a wide amount of people that have no digital literacy, it’s easier to use their biometrics to buy or have access to social benefits or even to complete transactions using their own identity if they’re using biometrics than keeping passwords, for example, because it’s safer. So I think when you call biometrics, you have to also emphasize the importance of user control over the data collected about them. The users are seeing that their data is being collected and they’re using this biometrics because they want to open up a set of opportunities that they didn’t have before because they couldn’t keep their password safe or they couldn’t use the system because it was too complicated. And in contrast, facial recognition, which is a subset of biometrics, hinges on the analysis of facial features for identification. This method can operate without explicit user consent or even awareness. So it raises concerns about privacy and freedom of expression and personal control. So here, the crucial point emerges. User control is paramount. The fact- that entities like law enforcement can retain and edit videos recorded by body cams, for example, underscores the potential misuse of data. So the power to control such sensitive information should ideally rest with a neutral third party, citizens, counsel, or something like this, at the very least, to preserve the user’s autonomy over their own identity. So preserving user control becomes not just a matter of privacy, but a safeguard against potential misuse. And it’s not an expensive safeguard. It highlights the need for robust ethical frameworks and regulations, but also highlights the need of putting the data in control of those who actually are the origin of the data, if you’re talking about biometrics. So we could create rules, international rules, or talk about rules that could separate those two types of different types of technologies, of identification technologies, so that we could have better frameworks to protect people that are being filmed, having their biometrics, their facial biometrics collected, like, for example, Clearview AI, and kind of demand that these companies have a way to inform the users that their data is being collected, and offering an option for these users to withdraw the consent or withdraw the permission of these companies to negotiate this data. or to collect or to keep this data in their user base, in their database, instead of just, how can I put this, instead of just assuming that it’s an impossible question. There is use to biometrics. Biometrics is already being used to create opportunities in some countries and make technology better and safer. But this is not going to happen if the user is not part of the decisions over their own data. So I think the crucial conversation should not be around the type of data that is being collected, because it could be biometrics, or it could be very sensitive type of data that’s being collected, and you are not aware of that. So I think control is more important than, it’s a more important question right now, than who controls this data is more important than what type of data is being collected. I think that’s it. And this is also a solution that can reach the end users and kind of help us build trust and give back the control to the users. That’s what I had to say. I’m happy to take questions or feedback later, feedback later if you have. And that’s it.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Azadara. So now we have around nine minutes. So I will quickly open the floor to those who are here and may have a question. I will ask you to come close to the table to get a microphone. And we will do a quick round of interventions. For those who are online and have any questions or interventions, please write this on the chat. We have someone here who will get this. And after that, we’ll do a quick round of wrap up with our speakers. So we do have two questions here. Please.

Audience:
And thank you for sharing your very interesting thoughts about the data security and who should control the data. I would like to hear your opinion on the blockchain technology, how and whether do you think that the blockchain would be a solution for specifically collecting the biometric data? Do you think that might be a solution to just help to control the access to the data, the blockchain technology itself?

Moderator:
Thank you. I think we have another question there.

Audience:
Yeah. My question pertains to India, essentially. There is a very recent development just this earlier year, earlier in this year, where it was made known to the public that there is something called real-time surveillance happening. And this was in a reply to a right to information request. And the reply was from the Internet Service Providers Association. So in light of this, with our act having come into play, which is yet to come. into force. But my question is, are there any safeguards that the speakers would like to highlight? I understand one such safeguard was just mentioned, but in terms of the others for protecting users and giving them certain actionable rights, for instance, even being made aware of all the data that is being processed, and even a notice showing that they are under surveillance in public areas, specific to public areas, this is. So just wanted your thoughts on that. Thank you. So now I think we have one question on the chat. We have one question online from Ayawalesh Bashi. I’m sorry if I mispronounced your name. From Australia, from civil society. And the question is, increase advanced technologies such as AI, blockchain, EOT, IOT, NFC, NFT, QC, increase private surveillance in public spaces. All these technologies are creating big data information. And these days, data and information are wealth, the wealth accumulated in developed nations. All these technologies perform activities and services via the internet. So the question is, what will be the solution for end users? So far, that’s the only question we have in the chat. So thank you.

Moderator:
So thank you. I will get back to our speakers and do a quick round of wrap up. And I will ask you if you want to add any considerations, any final considerations. And any considerations you may have on how regulation and policy in general can work to address these concerns also. And please feel free to pick the question that you feel most comfortable to answer, so you don’t need to answer at all. So I will start back with Beth.

Beth Kerley:
Sure. So difficult questions there. But I think on the question of types of safeguards, it definitely does depend on what type of tech we’re talking about. So I agree, I would distinguish, I’m following up on Yesodara’s remarks, not just between facial recognition and other forms of biometrics, but also between biometric identification and biometric surveillance, the things you were talking about would mainly fall under biometric identification, where users basically intentionally use a certain physical aspect as the way to access a space or access their account, or what have you within a particular system. And in that context, I think it’s easier to apply the consent framework. Of course, there are also other forms of biometric surveillance besides facial recognition, that are very hard to opt into like voice recognition or gate recognition, something like a fingerprint, I think, you know, that’s the one I am willing to actually use on my phone and my computer, it’s slightly harder for someone to kind of get from you unawares. So would agree with that distinction. And I think that there are certainly, it’s a different question. So when we’re talking about biometric identification, I think there are indeed valid purposes for it. But there’s a really heightened need to establish appropriate safeguards. Because sometimes, even if you’re giving it over for a legitimate reason right now, it can end up later on in the hands of entities who you would prefer not to have it. And unlike a password, you can’t change your fingerprint as easily. And I do think that’s a fundamental distinction there. But I would agree that identification versus surveillance is important. And in terms of blockchain, I am less of an expert on blockchain instinctively. I think putting sensitive data in a system that is designed to be unerasable is a move that we should definitely think twice about, but open to arguments on that one. And real-time surveillance, finally, I think that is really the hardest thing to put safeguards around. And that’s why a lot of European digital rights groups in the context of the EU AI Act have been arguing that that’s something that should simply be banned, having constant awareness of who’s going in and out of public spaces. I think at the very least, you need to delete any data that is collected that way very clearly, and definitely agree with the suggestion of making people aware of when they’re being surveilled and what information about them the government possesses. In settings that have very elaborate e-government systems like Estonia, that’s actually part of the safeguards that are built in to ensure trust. So that could certainly be part of the answer. I do not have the comprehensive solution, unfortunately, to the challenge of emerging technologies and surveillance. Otherwise, I could write one report and go home.

Moderator:
Thank you, Ben. I think none of us has the solution. So thank you, actually, for all your contributions. And I will pass now to Swati.

Swati Punia:
Thank you, Alyosha, and you rightly say that none of us have the solution. But good that at least we’re coming together to discuss this. sort of at least think of ways that we can work together for a better response in society. I think Beth talked a lot about blockchain and my next panel right after this is on blockchain. Those interested, please join us there. But I’ll speak to the point on the consent and notice issue. I think, again, maybe this is how my brain’s wired in the last few days, that I want to step back and really look at some of the issues or the concepts that we’re bringing in the digital era of policymaking and regulation is that notice and consent, how is somebody who is from these vulnerable and marginalized communities or even people like us who we call ourselves educate spectrum class of people, we really don’t have, a lot of us, really don’t have the digital literacy. Like I would say for myself, I don’t have enough of financial literacy despite being educated. I really think that is the main issue that the government’s doing barely about anything in terms of using the word empowerment. Of course, that’s very nice and it’s used across all sorts of regulations or anything, but for somebody to use and implement and understand notice and consent, you need some level of that digital literacy. People wouldn’t even recognize, I think, harms when they sort of happen to them. So I kind of feel that a lot of like technology that is being used in the name of trust and everything should be focused towards building privacy and security by design with the kind of communities and the public that we have and the kind of work that we need to build on digital skilling and understanding should be taken much more seriously. And I think that’s where the CSOs are playing a massive role. And just to give an example, like we at the Center for Communication Governance, we’ve been building this privacy law library which traces privacy jurisprudence across 17, 18 jurisdictions. in the world. We also do like a regional high court tracker where we sort of map what is India sort of looking at in terms of privacy and the expanding rights over there, how is it tackling. This is to, and we also do capacity building for like not just students and professional, but also for judges and bureaucrats, because a lot of these people who will now come into enforcing and implementation of the new act and everything, really don’t understand the nuts and bolts of how to go about things. So India, and I think a lot of similar countries are jumping directly to like a privacy 3.0, 4.0 situation where they’ve really not lived through it gradually as Europe and some of these other countries live, right? So I think we have to be cognizant of that kind of social, cultural, political environment, and then think of ways that will fit into our specific, you know, pegs and not just like copy paste.

Moderator:
Thank you, Swati. Now we’ll pass first to Yazudara and then to Barbara so we can close the session. Due to time constraints, we won’t be able to take any more questions. I know there is someone online with their hands up, but we really need to close the session, but I do encourage you to get in touch both with us and with our other speakers. So I’ll pass it over to you, Barbara, and then we’ll move on to the next slide. Please, Yazuda.

Yasadora Cordova:
I’ll be real quick, I promise. So I think we find ourselves in an era where data is amassed indiscriminately, not just biometrics data. And this is propelled by both industries and governments. There is a demand for data. So amidst this deluge of information, the integrity of personal identifiable information has become increasingly expensive. It’s a daunting task. So this intricacies. of structuring and cleaning data, which are integral steps in the machine learning cycle. They are a challenge and this process is undeniably among the most expensive activities in this machine learning process. So I propose a pivotal shift in focus towards the user control. We know that you can control what you don’t see and this resonates in the realm of data privacy because if we need permission or consent over a data set, we need to make sure this data set belongs to that person. So if we demand this through regulation, we might end up compelling both governments and industries to bring light to the data practices. So this shift is not merely about implementing complex blockchain solutions. It’s a call to collaborate, to build transparent systems that are hand-in-hand with regulators and technologists. Of course, we will still have lots of work to do, even though we can conceive such systems that can be transparent over user data, but it’s crucial to recognize that transparency is the bedrock upon which user control stands. So it’s not just a technological challenge. It’s a societal demand. It’s a societal imperative. And I believe that we have to work collaboratively to shape a future where individuals have a meaningful say in how their data is utilized, but this for real, like in systems and where ethical considerations guide technology as a feature backlog toward the responsible and sustainable data-driven future, I guess. So that’s it.

Barbara Simao:
Well, I think that and Swati and Yasariah already answered a lot of what I was wanting to say, but I think when we are talking about solutions and regulations, especially in the case of Brazil, I think the appeal for private surveillance solutions from population in general comes from a place of insecurity and not trusting the public government solutions and they look for it in a way to overcome their lack of security felt in general. And I think the solution would be societal, as Adara mentioned, in the sense that this would also require a big level of trust of the people in general into the public institutions. And I think when we are talking about regulation also, especially in Brazil, we have a lack of regulation regarding the use of technology and data collection for public security purposes. And not that these private companies actually do public security because they are private solutions and then they are not exactly providing public security, but I think when we ask them what they are doing, they can use the argument of public security. So I think it’s a tricky scenario, it’s a regulatory scenario, and I think in Brazil we have a lot to develop yet in this sense, and I think there are many room for more guarantees and for more legal guarantees regarding it. And I think we’ll… should be awareness, should be also raised in the sense that the people that acquire these solutions are also informed on what are the risks and what are the grounds in which these companies can share data with public authorities and who might have access to it. And well, I think that’s it. I’m not sure if I added much to the discussion, but I would like to thank you both for coming and especially for the time zones, which I know weren’t so good for everyone, but thank you so much and that’s it.

Moderator:
Thank you everyone. Thank you for our speakers for all the contributions and for having joined us today. And thank you for everyone who were here today, both in person and online and who made excellent contributions and thank you. I hope you continue to have a great IGF. Thank you.

Martin Shepherd

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Office of the United Nations Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology have collaborated to establish targets for achieving universal and meaningful connectivity. To promote and measure the progress towards this goal, the ITU, along with the European Commission, has launched a project. The project has three key work streams: advocacy, measurement and capacity building, and research. These work streams aim to bring the concept of universal and meaningful connectivity to policymakers, collect and disseminate data, and track progress. This initiative acknowledges the need for everyone to have safe, satisfying, enriching, and productive online experiences at an affordable cost.

Accurate data tracking is regarded as crucial in order to make informed decisions related to universal and meaningful connectivity. The ITU’s Telecommunication Development Bureau plays a vital role in maintaining an online dashboard to track progress. This data-driven approach helps policymakers and stakeholders understand the areas that require attention and improvement. Furthermore, enhancing the statistical capacity of countries is essential to effectively measure the concept of universal and meaningful connectivity. The ITU, through its Data Analytics Division, is involved in collecting and disseminating data to support this effort.

The ITU indicators play a significant role in this project. These indicators are not limited to technical aspects but also encompass the number of internet users, their online activities, their perceptions of the connections, and their skill sets. This quantitative approach provides comprehensive insights into the supply and demand side indicators of universal and meaningful connectivity. In addition to the ITU’s quantitative indicators, UNESCO takes a qualitative approach, including many qualitative indicators in their data collection. This combination ensures a holistic assessment of universal and meaningful connectivity, enabling individual country assessments.

While the efforts of ITU and UNESCO in data collection are complementary, they are not perfectly coordinated. Nevertheless, both organizations share a common objective and are members of the Partnership on Measuring IST for Development. This cooperative approach facilitates the exchange of information and promotes a collaborative environment for advancing the measurement of universal and meaningful connectivity.

One area that presents a challenge is the lack of good quality data on how communities use the internet. The ITU has yet to collect comprehensive data that accurately reflects the usage patterns and needs of different communities. This knowledge gap hinders the formulation of targeted policies and interventions to ensure equitable access and usage of the internet.

ITU’s focus on connectivity also means acknowledging the need to address safety, affordability, and the quality of internet services. The concept of meaningful connectivity extends beyond mere access; it encompasses the quality of the connection and affordable data plans. However, assessing the value of what people do on the internet remains a complex task, and the ITU intentionally maintains its focus on connectivity rather than evaluating specific services.

The organization led by Martin Shepherd takes a human-centred approach to internet usage. They emphasize the importance of considering the needs and experiences of individuals and communities, rather than solely focusing on businesses. Additionally, they are exploring alternative sources of data to enhance understanding and measurement.

While progress continues to be made, there are areas that require improvement. Martin Shepherd’s organization acknowledges the lack of good indicators for safety and security, as well as speed, and recognizes that the realities of rural regions may not be fully reflected in the data collected. However, the commitment to continuing the ITU project and the belief in its importance remain strong.

In conclusion, the ITU, in collaboration with various stakeholders, is working towards achieving universal and meaningful connectivity. This ambitious goal involves promoting and measuring connectivity, ensuring accurate data tracking, enhancing statistical capacity, and adopting a human-centred approach to internet usage. While challenges and areas for improvement exist, the commitment to this project and belief in its significance remain unwavering. By addressing these issues and leveraging partnerships, the goal of universal and meaningful connectivity can be realized, ensuring that everyone can benefit from safe, satisfying, and enriching online experiences at an affordable cost.

Anir Chowdhury

The analysis examines the state of internet usage and connectivity in Bangladesh, shedding light on both positive advancements and areas that require improvement. One significant point of progress is the increase in internet access and broadband connectivity across the country. It is noted that different cell phone providers have successfully covered 98% of the nation with 4G network, marking a considerable achievement. Moreover, 3,800 rural locations have been connected with fibre through collaboration with the private sector, while a service obligation fund has facilitated the connection of over 700 hard-to-reach locations, such as islands or hilly areas. Additionally, a new project was initiated recently with the aim of connecting around 110,000 institutions with fibre, further enhancing connectivity.

However, concerns are raised regarding the affordability and availability of devices, which still pose barriers to internet access for many individuals. Although the regulator has managed to maintain affordable internet pricing, the penetration rate of smartphones in the country is only 52%. This indicates that a significant portion of the population still lacks access to devices that can utilise internet connectivity. Despite the progress made in extending 4G network coverage, it is highlighted that only approximately half of the available network is being utilised, further underscoring the hindrances posed by device accessibility and affordability.

Another noteworthy point discussed in the analysis pertains to advancements in AI and large language models, which have the potential to redefine digital skills and literacy. Large language models in AI could compel people to adapt and acquire new digital literacy skills, while the inclusion of native languages in these models could simplify digital interaction for individuals with low literacy levels. This demonstrates the transformative role that AI and language models can play in shaping digital skills and accessibility.

Furthermore, there is a recognition of the need to design content and services that cater to specific groups in order to bridge the digital divide and reduce inequalities. The analysis highlights that services have not been tailored for the ultra-poor, persons with disabilities, women, or Cottage Micro Small and Medium Enterprises (CMSMEs). To address this issue, attention and effort must be devoted to designing services in a meaningful manner for these specific groups.

It is worth noting that policies and technologies are being implemented to improve connectivity and digital literacy in Bangladesh. Efforts are being made to address policy matters and deploy skills and technology for development. The importance of universal and meaningful connectivity is emphasised, particularly in relation to skills development and service design. Furthermore, an equality index is being worked on, indicating a focus on promoting gender equality and the inclusion of marginalised groups.

Looking towards the future, strategic insight is highlighted as a crucial aspect. The analysis mentions the prediction of humans, devices, and robots exchanging data, and stresses the importance of adequately preparing for the needs of the next five to ten years. This emphasises the need to future-proof connectivity and explore innovative approaches for data exchange.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the internet usage and connectivity landscape in Bangladesh. It highlights the positive developments in increasing internet access and broadband connectivity, as well as the advancements in AI and large language models. However, concerns remain regarding device affordability and availability, the need for inclusivity in content and services, and the existence of a digital divide. Policy implementations and technological advancements aim to address these issues, with an emphasis on universal and meaningful connectivity. The analysis also acknowledges the importance of gender equality and strategic foresight for future-proofing connectivity. Overall, it appreciates the insightful discussion and the attention given to the various pertinent issues.

Dr Cosmas Zavazava via Video 1

During the analysis, the speakers emphasized the importance of enhancing internet connectivity and accessibility for those who are still offline. They highlighted that approximately 2.6 billion people are currently without internet access worldwide. The aim is to improve the internet experience for those who are already connected and make it accessible to those who are offline.

The speakers argued that this goal can be achieved through partnerships and collaborations. They mentioned a recent partnership between ITU and the European Union, which aims to adopt holistic approaches to enhance the statistical capacity of countries. This collaboration demonstrates the willingness to work together for enhancing internet connectivity.

Moreover, the discussion focused on the importance of universal and sustainable digital transformation. The speakers emphasized the need for initiatives, research, and technical assistance to enable this transformation. By implementing these measures, they believe that the benefits of digital technology can be harnessed in a way that ensures inclusivity and sustainability.

The analysis provided a positive sentiment towards efforts to enhance internet connectivity. The speakers recognized the challenges involved in reaching the vast number of people who currently lack internet access. However, they expressed optimism that through strategic partnerships, collaborations, and focused initiatives, progress can be made in bridging the digital divide.

In conclusion, the analysis underscored the significance of enhancing internet connectivity and accessibility for those who are offline. It emphasized the importance of partnerships and collaborations in achieving this goal, highlighting the recent partnership between ITU and the European Union. Additionally, the analysis highlighted the focus on universal and sustainable digital transformation through the implementation of various initiatives, research, and technical assistance.

Audience

The discussion centered around the concept of meaningful connectivity and highlighted the various aspects that need to be considered to ensure its effectiveness. One key point raised was that internet access is not limited to merely establishing a connection but should also take into account the availability of services and content in local languages. This emphasises the importance of tailoring internet offerings to meet the specific needs and preferences of local communities.

Furthermore, concerns were expressed regarding the adequacy of existing indicators used to measure meaningful connectivity. It was argued that these indicators may not fully capture the complexity and granularity of the issue, and that there is a need for more nuanced data measurements to identify and address disparities within countries. The quality and accuracy of the data used in measuring meaningful connectivity were also called into question, emphasizing the importance of improving the overall quality of the data used in such measurements. There is a need for more granularity in data measurements to fully understand and address the inequalities that exist.

In addition, the discussion highlighted the importance of adopting a human-centered approach in defining meaningful connectivity. This involves considering the needs and perspectives of communities and ensuring that the benefits of connectivity are equitable and accessible to all. Policy-making should be informed by a community-centric viewpoint to better understand what aspects of connectivity are meaningful and desired by different communities.

The session also addressed the issue of limited device availability, particularly in rural areas, which hinders the full utilization of network services. Strategies to address the affordability and accessibility of devices were emphasized to ensure that connectivity reaches its full potential.

In conclusion, the discussion underscored the need to go beyond simplistic measures of connectivity and focus on meaningful and inclusive approaches. It emphasized the importance of considering local languages, addressing disparities, improving data quality, and adopting a human-centered perspective. The session highlighted the importance of ensuring that connectivity is accessible to all, regardless of their geographic location or socioeconomic status. Overall, there is a need for comprehensive strategies to ensure meaningful connectivity for all.

Alexandre Barbosa

In Brazil, there is a pressing need to address inequalities in connectivity at various levels. Firstly, there is a need to understand and tackle inequalities in terms of infrastructure, usage, and proficiency. The quality of connectivity in terms of high speed and advanced devices is crucial. However, barriers to digital usage, such as education level, socioeconomic income, age, and gender, have resulted in unequal access and usage. Proficient usage of the internet also leads to tangible outcomes such as content creation and the promotion of well-being.

Low-income households in Brazil still face limited internet access, with only 62% of such households having internet access compared to 98% of high-income households. Moreover, rural areas in Brazil also have a lower proportion of internet access compared to urban areas. This creates a significant digital divide, both geographically and socioeconomically. The South and Southeast regions of Brazil, which are wealthier, have higher proportions of fixed broadband households, while connectivity in the Amazon forest region and Northeast is mostly covered by radio or satellite. These disparities highlight the need to bridge the gap and ensure equal connectivity for all.

Despite these challenges, Brazil has embraced the concept of meaningful and universal connectivity. The country has experienced significant growth in internet usage over recent years, and there has been a rapid expansion of fiber optic connection. Policy makers in Brazil have been proactive in conducting surveys into internet usage since 2004, demonstrating a commitment to understanding and addressing connectivity issues.

In addition to access and infrastructure, digital skills play a pivotal role in promoting meaningful connectivity. Mobile-only users in Brazil display a lesser proportion of digital skills compared to computer and mobile phone users. Without digital skills, the full potential of the internet cannot be harnessed.

Furthermore, Brazil places importance on data protection and privacy. The country has implemented surveys to measure alignment with personal data protection laws, indicating a strong commitment to safeguarding individuals’ information.

To enhance connectivity and address inequalities effectively, it is crucial to have universal and meaningful connectivity indicators in a disaggregated format. National averages without disaggregation may not accurately capture the extent of inequalities within a country. Therefore, a more nuanced approach is needed to accurately assess the state of connectivity and identify areas that require improvement.

However, concerns about the quality and availability of data persist. It is important to ensure the reliability and accessibility of data, as well as to promote the production of high-quality data. This can be achieved through conducting primary data and using internationally recommended methodologies with probability samples that provide disaggregated data.

Despite efforts to bridge the digital divide and promote universal and meaningful connectivity, a human-centered approach is lacking in the design and implementation of connectivity initiatives in Brazil. By prioritising the needs and perspectives of individuals, a more inclusive and equitable approach to connectivity can be achieved.

The concept of Universal Media Connectivity (UMC) is of utmost importance in the current era of disinformation and lack of skills for content creation and critical use of the internet. Digital literacy and content creation skills are vital for individuals to navigate the digital landscape effectively and contribute meaningfully. Brazil, along with other countries, should produce data that can measure progress towards achieving the UMC concept, further emphasising the importance of tracking and monitoring connectivity goals.

In conclusion, Brazil faces significant inequalities in connectivity in terms of infrastructure, usage, and proficiency. While progress has been made, challenges remain, particularly in bridging the digital divide and promoting universal access. By prioritising digital skills, data protection, and a human-centered approach, Brazil can enhance connectivity and ensure that all individuals have equal opportunities to benefit from the digital era.

Peter Mariën

The European Union (EU) strongly supports the concept of universal meaningful connectivity, recognizing its importance in achieving sustainable development goals. The EU is collaborating with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to work on this concept. It believes that robust data collection is crucial for measuring progress and success in achieving objectives. This perspective aligns with the EU’s emphasis on data governance and the value it places on accurate and comprehensive data to drive effective decision-making.

In line with its commitment to promoting digital transformation, the EU advocates for a human-centric approach. It prioritises the individual and aims to bridge the digital divide by ensuring access to an open and free internet. The EU also emphasises the protection of privacy and security in the digital realm.

The EU has taken initiatives to enhance cybersecurity, a vital aspect of safe and secure connectivity. It has established a regional cybersecurity hub in the Dominican Republic and is actively involved in the BELA program, focusing on cybersecurity. The EU mainstreams cybersecurity in its programming, recognising its significance in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

A key argument put forth by the EU is the need to link infrastructure investment with investments in soft elements such as data governance, digital skills, and e-government. The EU’s collaborative efforts with Kenya in the digital package collaboration highlight the importance of this approach. Measures to improve last-mile digital connectivity, enhance vocational education, and implement data protection and procurement legislation have been implemented to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive digital ecosystem.

Data collection is deemed fundamental for effective planning and implementing strategies. However, collecting data at local levels can present challenges. The EU recognises both the importance of having data and the difficulties faced when collecting it in field and partner countries. This understanding underscores the EU’s commitment to leveraging partnerships for data collection and analysis to make informed decisions.

Despite the EU’s efforts, last-mile connectivity remains a challenge. It recognises that achieving universal connectivity necessitates the participation of both private and public operators, who must find it appealing to invest in infrastructure in remote areas.

The EU also acknowledges the need for foresight about future requirements. New technologies, skills, and systems may be necessary to address the evolving demands of the digital era. This highlights the EU’s commitment to staying ahead of the curve and ensuring that its strategies and policies are adaptable to technological advancements.

In conclusion, the EU is strongly committed to various aspects of digital development. It supports the concept of universal meaningful connectivity, promotes a human-centric digital transformation, and takes initiatives to enhance cybersecurity. The EU emphasises the importance of investing in both hard infrastructure and soft elements like data governance and digital skills. It recognises the significance of data collection and the challenges associated with it at the local level. The EU acknowledges the struggle with last-mile connectivity and the need to anticipate and adapt to future requirements. Finally, the EU advocates for taking action and making things better through organisations dedicated to improving health, education, and combating climate change.

Video 2

Universal and meaningful connectivity is crucial for driving digital transformation and working towards the achievement of sustainable development goals. It allows individuals to access a wide range of essential services such as education, healthcare, government services, and job opportunities. Universal connectivity helps bridge the digital divide, ensuring that everyone can participate in the digital age.

To effectively track progress towards universal connectivity, measurement and data are essential. Proper data usage enables better decision-making by providing insights into past, current, and future positions. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology have established aspirational targets to guide efforts in this area. The ITU’s Telecommunication Development Bureau maintains an online dashboard, which transparently monitors and tracks progress towards universal connectivity.

Promoting universal connectivity requires a combined global effort. Recognizing this, the ITU and the European Commission have launched a global project that facilitates the expansion of connectivity. This project demonstrates the positive stance towards achieving universal connectivity and the commitment of various stakeholders to collaborate and make it a reality.

In conclusion, universal and meaningful connectivity are fundamental for digital transformation and the attainment of sustainable development goals. It provides individuals with access to essential services and promotes inclusivity in the digital era. By utilizing effective measurement techniques and tracking progress through data, we can move closer to achieving universal connectivity. The collaborative efforts of organizations like the ITU and the European Commission highlight the importance of global partnerships in accomplishing this noble goal.

Moderator

The session focused on the importance of universal and meaningful connectivity and the role of policymakers in achieving this goal. Its aim was to discuss the definition, reach, and impact of universal and meaningful connectivity, with the goal of exploring how it can improve the quality of life for all people. The concept of meaningful connectivity was emphasized throughout the session as a way to understand and address digital inequalities. The session also highlighted the need for robust measurement policies to ensure connectivity, with a suggestion to create a Universal and Meaningful Connectivity (UMC) Dashboard. Lithuania was commended for its progress in reaching UMC targets, particularly in ensuring broadband connectivity in rural areas. The importance of developing digital skills and promoting gender diversity in the tech industry was emphasized. Collaboration between governments, the private sector, and civil society was deemed essential for successful implementation of digital strategies. The digital divide in Brazil was discussed, along with issues of data accuracy and granularity in data consumption indicators. The challenges of last mile connectivity and the need for foresight in anticipating future needs were also explored. The session emphasized the significance of universal and meaningful connectivity in promoting sustainable development.

Agne Vaiciukeviciute

Lithuania is making significant efforts to achieve meaningful connectivity and digitization through a range of strategies. These strategies primarily focus on rural broadband connectivity, affordability, and the promotion of digital skills.

To ensure widespread access to the internet, Lithuania has invested in broadband deployment in rural areas through a non-profit organisation under the Ministry. By leaving the last mile of connectivity to the operators, the country has been able to keep costs affordable nationwide. In fact, Lithuania boasts the lowest prices for end users across Europe.

The commitment to digitisation is evident through the state digitalisation development program, which involves every ministry. This approach ensures that each ministry creates its plan to meet specific digital targets. The digitisation strategy is intended to be horizontal, cutting across all sectors, thereby promoting comprehensive digitisation efforts.

Public libraries play a crucial role in imparting digital education and skills, particularly through their network of 1200 public internet access points across urban and rural areas. Additionally, various NGO initiatives, such as Safer Internet Week, All Digital Week, and the Women Go Tech programme, contribute to promoting digital education and skills. These initiatives aim to enhance digital literacy and encourage women to enter the tech and IT world.

To achieve meaningful connectivity and digitisation, collaboration between the government, private sector, and civil society is deemed necessary. This collaborative approach enables the implementation of digital strategies and maximises their reach to different segments of society. It ensures that a wide range of perspectives and expertise is considered in the planning and execution of these strategies.

Municipalities and regional levels are recognised as crucial players in the digitisation process. They are the closest organisations to the people and hold the potential to significantly affect the digitisation process within their cities. In Lithuania, the majority of initiatives are taken by the municipalities, which highlights their importance in driving digitisation efforts.

Recognising the importance of rural areas, Lithuania aims to extend digital strategies beyond dense cities. It recognises that there is a need to attract and implement initiatives in these areas as well, to ensure that all citizens can benefit from digitisation.

Lithuania ranks highly in digitalisation for public services, as evidenced by its 8th place worldwide ranking according to the World Bank’s digitalisation for the public service index. The country utilises new technologies to enhance accessibility to services, and the majority of services can now be accessed through digital service approaches. However, initiatives like GovTech are also created to address the gap for services that cannot be reached yet through the internet.

The importance of local content and internet accessibility to digital services is emphasised in Lithuania. The country acknowledges that digital solutions should be customised to fit the local environment, rather than being copied from elsewhere. They actively involve civil society, the public sector, and the private sector in creating digital solutions. The successful GovTech project in 2019 serves as an example of this collaborative effort, which resulted in tailored solutions that fit the Lithuanian context.

Collaboration and coordination within the government and stakeholders are crucial aspects of achieving meaningful connectivity and digitisation. By working together, these entities can align their efforts, share resources, and ensure a cohesive approach towards achieving digital goals.

Furthermore, the importance of data quality is emphasised for insightful decision-making and progress measurement. Accurate and reliable data are essential in shaping effective digital strategies and tracking progress towards digital goals.

Lastly, considering the fast-paced nature of technological advancements, adaptability and flexibility are recognised as key attributes. It is important to be able to adapt and adjust measures and strategies in response to rapid changes in the digital landscape.

In conclusion, Lithuania’s multifaceted approach to achieving meaningful connectivity and digitisation encompasses strategies focused on rural broadband connectivity, affordability, and digital skills. Through collaboration among the government, private sector, and civil society, as well as the involvement of municipalities and regional levels, Lithuania strives to ensure comprehensive digitisation efforts. The emphasis on local content, data quality, and adaptability further enhances the effectiveness of these initiatives.

Moderator :
Thank you very much for your attention. I would like to invite the next speaker to come to the stage. Thank you. Good morning, everyone, and good day for those people following online. My name is Deniz Susar. I’m the co-chair of the IGF, and I would like to welcome you to this session. This session is entitled beyond universality, the meaningful connectivity imperative. The objective of this session is to inform the audience how universal and meaningful connectivity is defined, how it can help reaching underserved communities, which are some of the targets and baseline indicators needed to assess where a country stands, and the impact of this policy, and how it can be used to improve the quality of life for all people, including the concept in national policy plans. The session will aim to answer two policy questions. One, how can governments and stakeholders ensure universal and meaningful digital connectivity for all people, particularly those in underserved and marginalized communities, and two, how can policymakers establish robust measurement policies to ensure universal and meaningful digital connectivity for all people? The second question is how can policymakers establish robust measurement policies aimed at achieving universal and meaningful digital connectivity? We have a great panel today that will give us the perspectives from very diverse countries, namely, Lithuania, Brazil, Bangladesh, and we will also hear from the European Commission how they partner with other parts of the world. We will also hear a recorded message from Dr. Cosmas Zavazava, the director of the ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau. After his message, Mr. Martin Shepherd, on my right, Senior ICT Analyst in the ICT Data and Analytics Division, will give a short introduction to the project on Promoting and Measuring Universal and Meaningful Connectivity. Martin, the floor is yours.

Martin Shepherd:
Thank you very much, Deniz. Good morning, everyone. Also, on behalf of the ITU, good morning here in the room, good morning online. As Deniz has mentioned, I would like to start with a small video of our director, Dr. Cosmo Savasava, who would like to say a few words to the audience. Can we have video number one, please?

Dr Cosmas Zavazava via Video 1:
Distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you all at this Internet Governance Forum workshop on Universal and Meaningful Connectivity. I’m not able to join you in person today, but I’m confident that this session will be very productive given the caliber of the speakers before us. We have a common goal here, to enhance the Internet experience for those already connected, to make it accessible to the 2.6 billion people that are still offline. Our goal is to get everyone connected and enjoy the benefits of meaningful connectivity. We are committed to universal and sustainable digital transformation through our initiatives, research, technical assistance, and tools. Undoubtedly, we can do more working together. Our work at ITU is enabled through partnerships and collaboration. One of the key partnerships of interest to you is the one we recently forged with the European Union. Through this partnership, we aim to adopt holistic approaches that help enhance the statistical capacity of countries to measure multiple… aspects of meaningful connectivity. On this note, I call upon all to work with us to make universal and meaningful connectivity a reality. I wish you successful deliberations at this workshop and thank you for participating.

Martin Shepherd:
And now I would like to shortly introduce the product that was mentioned in the video of Dr. Zavazava on promoting and measuring universal and meaningful connectivity. And again, we have a little video, so if we can have video two please to give a general introduction and then I will say a few words about it. Thank you.

Video 2:
Universal and meaningful connectivity is the possibility for everyone to enjoy a safe, satisfying, enriching and productive online experience at an affordable cost. It enables access to educational resources, health care and government services, job opportunities and much more. Universal and meaningful connectivity is the new imperative to enable digital transformation and meet the sustainable development goals. To meet this imperative, we must also address the measurement challenge. Data tells us where we were, where we are and where we ought to be and enables individuals, policy makers and businesses to make better decisions. The International Telecommunication Union and the Office of the United Nations Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology established aspirational targets for universal and meaningful connectivity to help monitor progress and galvanize efforts. In addition, ITU and the European Commission launched a global project to promote and measure universal and meaningful connectivity through advocacy, measurement and research. To support the project’s advocacy and measurement efforts, ITU’s Telecommunication Development Bureau maintains an online dashboard to track progress towards universal and meaningful connectivity. The dashboard lets countries know where they currently stand, where they ought to be and compare their performance against peers. The dashboard allows us to assess global progress toward each target. Let’s join forces to achieve universal and meaningful connectivity and unlock the transformative power of connectivity for everyone, everywhere.

Martin Shepherd:
If I can have the first presentation, please, then. Thank you. As you can see in the video, two years ago we launched a number of targets on universal and meaningful connectivity, and that’s really the genesis of the project that we’re talking about. So we launched a number of targets as part of the digital cooperation roadmap of the UN Secretary General, but of course, just having targets doesn’t mean anything if there’s no action around it. So we were very pleased that we found a very good partner in the European Union, and we’ve launched a project for three years for three million euros to promote and measure the concept on universal and meaningful connectivity. So basically bringing the targets and the dashboard that you just saw to life. First of all, what we really mean with meaningful is not that we are telling people what they should do once they have an internet connection. It’s the possibility that everyone can go online at any time they want to, in a safe, satisfying, enriching, productive and affordable experience. So the quality of the connection should be good. People should have an affordable data plan with enough data on it. We have a little diagram that shows what is included, what is excluded, what is, in the middle you can see, universal and meaningful. So everyone should have a connection and it should be meaningful for everyone. What we kept out of the project is how to get there and what comes out of it. It’s of course very important, but if we want to go into that aspect, it becomes too complicated. We first want to focus on getting the connection to people and getting a good quality connection to people. going into too much detail of this diagram, but we have some papers that explain it if you’re really interested. What we’re doing in the project is promoting and measuring. So we have three work streams. There’s an advocacy work stream that is bringing the concept to as many policy makers in the world as we can, so that there is an increased awareness of UMC, short for Universal and Meaningful Connectivity. Then we have a work stream on measurement and capacity building, and I’m from the IST Data Analytics Division, and that’s really the bread and butter of what we do on a daily basis, is collecting the data and disseminating the data. But we also have a capacity building aspect in all of this, because countries often need help in understanding which data are important, how to collect those data. So the output of that work stream is an improved data dissemination, but also an enhanced statistical capacity of countries to measure the concept of UMC. And then finally we have a research work stream. Basically we want to do every year a publication, the Global Connectivity Report, that shows us where we are, but also where we should be going, and also how we could be going there, and the expected output is that there would be better policies for achieving UMC. So this is in more detail, these three work streams. The event we are at today is in the advocacy work stream, so that we get the concept out to policy makers. We want to do more events like this. We also want to prepare briefings that policy makers can use, that they can understand what the concept is, how it should work, coupled with websites and social media campaigns. On the measurement and capacity building, we have a large data collection already going on as part of our daily work. We have a UMC dashboard that you saw in the video, and I will show one more slide on that after this one. Then we want to do a number of regional workshops to explain the concept to countries and how to collect the data. We’re going to create an online course for this. We also want to look into new data sources, see if big data can be of help, for example, and how it can be of help. And then finally, in the research, looking for a solution to accelerate progress towards UMC and the Global Connectivity Report. So this is the dashboard. You already saw a bit of it in the video. So we have a number of targets, and every target has an indicator attached to it. So if you’re interested in one specific indicator, you can click on that indicator and you’ll see where all the countries in the world are with respect to that indicator. But if you’re more interested in a particular country, you can just go to that country and then see for all the indicators of that country how they are placed with respect to achieving the targets. They may have met it already, they may be on their way, or they may be far away, or maybe there are no data, which is also an important indication. So that really is, in a nutshell, the aim of the project, and I think it’s now time to listen to the voices from the various countries in how they include UMC in their policies and how they measure it. So thank you, and back to you, Denise.

Moderator :
Thank you, Martin. That was a very good introduction, and I used the platform before, and it’s really helpful. This workshop is hybrid, we are online in Zoom. And we have an online moderator, Mr. Thierry Geiger, head of the IST Data Analytics Division. I don’t know what time is it in Geneva, but he’s there monitoring the chat. So we have dedicated people for this project, which is a very good sign. And if you raise your hand in Zoom, he will make sure that relevant questions are being channeled to us. The first panelist is Ms. Agne Vaiciukeviciute Vice Minister of Transport of Communications, Lithuania. Lithuania is a country that, in a relatively short period, reached most of the targets of UMC, Universal and Meaningful Connectivity. So we would like to hear from you, Vice Minister, if and how policy played a pivotal role in getting there, and also how important digital connectivity to policymakers in Lithuania. Can we learn something from you so that we can pass it to other countries? The floor is yours.

Agne Vaiciukeviciute:
First of all, good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. I like how we presented here in Japan. And thank you very much for having me in this panel. I think that IT did a very good work. I was analyzing the dashboard before I came here to this discussion. And I was elaborating a little bit with my colleagues. So are we so good, as it says in these charts? And we were laughing that, obviously, when we speak about Universal Meaningful Connectivity, it’s never enough. It’s never enough. There is always a lot of work that could be done. So in Lithuanian perspective, we look into meaningful connectivity through several aspects. Obviously, it’s through the broadband connectivity. I think we have quite a unique Lithuanian approach and model. Lithuania model has also ensured the affordability of being connected. because in Lithuania we do have a non-profit organization under the Ministry who basically invests… Behind that organization lies the biggest investments to the broadband deployment and only the last mile is left to the operators. So this is the way how we can keep the… And I speak about rural areas, so this is the way we can keep the affordability prices within the whole country. I think it’s a very successful model and I’m proud to say that we have the lowest prices for the end users in all Europe. So that is one way of looking into. We need to be connected in order to create more opportunities for the meaningful connectivity to appear. And then the other part which we’re really focusing on is our state digitalization development program which is created for the whole country but every ministry has to take a part in it and has to create and initiate its own plan how they will reach all the digital targets which were raised for each sector, if I may put it this way. And now I would like to share with you several aspects of the… Also critical part is skills and knowledge which are very much necessary to take advantage of digital technologies. And there’s another key factor such as involvement of other ministries, other institutions, civil society and so on. One type of institutions that is particularly important for the spread of digital skills and literacy are public libraries in Lithuania. These libraries run a network of 1200 public internet access points. in both urban and rural areas and operating in a decentralized manner, so this is a one of good examples how we try to reach those segments of the society that is not reachable so easily. Also we have a lot of NGO initiatives in Lithuania such as Safer Internet Week, All Digital Week, Senior Online Week, so there’s a lot of NGO work and implications towards creating more opportunities and more skills within the different society groups. And I do believe that there’s also important to represent some particular programs to women and we have a very well-known in Lithuania program Women Go Tech, where people who are already in their career path has a possibility to go into the tech world, IT world, and I think it’s very well corresponds with ITU goals, how to involve more different society as part in the tech IT world to get awareness of how it could be helpful for a better future in the countries. And obviously I did not mention here, but a huge part of it belongs to the private sector as well, so the collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society is necessary here. And from the government perspective, just to highlight one more time what is really really important that whatever digital strategies we would create, that it would go horizontally through all sectors, through all ministries, and I think this is quite common in different countries as well, that there is someone who is owning the policy in the area and then the others are just trying to implement it. So what we are trying to do in Lithuania, that everyone would understand the digitalization process and meaningful connectivity as a part of their job, as a part of their targets, and be not only involved, but actually really a part of the process. So thank you very much.

Moderator :
Thank you very much, Ms. Vaiciukeviciute for that presentation. We have some time now to get questions from the people here around us or from online. Please just show yourself to me and I can pass the microphone to you. In the meantime, I have a question for the minister. You mentioned, you highlighted about sectoral importance of digital strategies. What about at the local and regional level or at the municipality level? Do you have any strategies in that regard?

Agne Vaiciukeviciute:
I think municipalities and regional levels are the most important and key level because these municipalities are the closest and organizations to people. I myself belong to the Council of Lithuanian Capital, so I’m well aware of how municipalities can affect digitalization process within their cities. So I think that obviously, this is the layer which should be distinguished and recognized as a crucial part of the digitalization process. And all these initiatives are taking place firstly from maybe more dense cities and our job is to attract it in more into rural areas altogether. So I think that municipalities level here is playing a crucial role as well. And in Lithuanian case, majority of initiatives are taken by the municipalities in this area as well.

Moderator :
Thank you so much. Let me look around if there are any questions. Yes. Can we please pass the mic? Or you can come there. I think people will be able to see you. Yes. The people online. Please introduce yourself and keep the question short.

Audience:
Thank you. I’m Giacomo Mazzone. I’m one of the co-chairs of the Policy Network on Meaningful Access that will gather this afternoon in the main hall at 5.30. I will finish the advertising break. Two questions. One for the statistical research made by the ITU. I see that you do these efforts, but these efforts are limited to the technical part. And I would like to know if there is any coordination between these two efforts. And I would like to know if there is any coordination while UNESCO, for instance, with the Rome indicators, evaluate other qualitative parts of the offer that is available on the Internet that is equally important. Is there any coordination between these two efforts?And also about the Minister of Lithuania. The question is the assess to the internet does not finish at the moment when you get a connection, the problem is how much of the services and contents in the local languages are made available for general people, are you also considering this in your local policies?

Moderator :
Thank you. Thank you, Giacomo, for that question. If you allow me, Martin, let me give… the floor to first Mr. Vaiciukeviciute about the importance of local content.

Agne Vaiciukeviciute:
Thank you very much. The question was absolutely on good spot, because Lithuania takes a lot of attention on the air governance solutions, you know, that the accessibility to different type of services would be very easy. I think we just recently were placed, according to the World Bank, digitalization for the public service index on the 8th place worldwide. So in our case, I think it’s quite helpful that the country is relatively small. The majority of services could be accessible very easily through the digital service approaches. We highly use all the technologies newly adapted within the society, and you basically can do, especially, you know, COVID, all these processes even enhanced everything so much that now I would say that you can basically do everything through the Internet very easily. And obviously there is a gap between aged people, but I think it’s quite common everywhere, so we need to find different ways to reach them. But the majority of the society is very well aware of the digital solutions and can do mostly 90% of the activities, necessary activities, you know, through the Internet. So this is a very good point, and we put a lot of attention out there. We even have, you know, GovTech initiatives to create more like sandbox regimes, to create more digital solutions, you know, to overtake the gaps within these services which cannot be reached yet, you know, through the Internet. So it’s very successful. project as well, award-winning project from 2019. It showed that it’s a very successful way to involve civil society together, you know, with a public sector and private sector to create some good solutions that would fit Lithuanian environment, you know, because you cannot just take it from somewhere. You need to adapt to the circumstances you live in. Thank you.

Moderator :
Thank you very much, Vice Minister. Martin, quantitative versus qualitative.

Martin Shepherd:
Yes, that’s the short summary of it indeed. Yes, the ITU indicators, I mean it’s not just technical, it’s quantitative, because it’s not only about the pipes, the internet, the subscriptions, but it’s also about the use of it. So we have two types of indicators, the supply side indicators and the demand side indicators, and in the demand side we have how many people use the internet, what they do when they use the internet, how they feel or how the connection is, the activities, the skills, etc. The UNESCO indicators, they use also our indicators, there’s a part that is really in common, and there’s a collaboration in the sense that they use our indicators, and at the beginning of the project we also have been talking together about this. But they go much further, they have many more indicators, and a lot of them qualitative, which doesn’t really fit very well in the type of work that we are doing. We like to collect quantitative indicators. So UNESCO goes further, and what they do is also more for an individual country assessment, where you really need to go to the country and do the assessment, whereas we just use the indicators that we collect for all the countries and put them there. there together. So I think the efforts are complementary. We are coordinated, but maybe not perfectly. But I know now there’s a project going on in the Pacific where ITU is directly involved with UNESCO. And again, our data are free to use for everyone, and UNESCO uses them, and we certainly work together in that direction. There’s the Partnership on Measuring IST for Development, which is an international collaboration between international and regional organizations, and both ITU and UNESCO are both members of that partnership. So in that framework, we’re also coordinated. Thank you.

Moderator :
Yes, thank you, Martin. Not only UNESCO, but UNDES also uses your indicators in our e-government survey. We’ve been using it since 2003, so that’s very helpful. We may get one last question to the minister, if there is.

Audience:
Please go ahead. Hello. My name is Nils Brock from RISE America and DW Academy. And I have a question about the methodology. So with the local network initiatives working a lot about the needs of communities, and I saw this as a category in the methodology, which is really great, I was wondering when it comes to services, so services that give meaning to specific connectivity and how far this is measured in your categories or in how far, and that would be the second question, if it’s not foreseen as such, it is possible to enhance the statistical capacity on this side because this was mentioned, and also the identification of new data sets. So maybe also a question how far this methodology is open also to add, or if it’s now also for the timeframe closed in terms of the categories that are established. So, I think, from a community perspective, broadband access is maybe not an option for many rural communities in the next year, so the services that are meaningful can depend and can be quite different, because big platforms or data-hungry applications may be just not giving meaning because they’re not accessible, so what from their view gives meaning to connectivity, so turning around the question a bit, yeah, thank you.

Moderator :
Thank you, thank you so much, I think this is a question for ITU.

Martin Shepherd:
Yes, thank you for the question, it’s a type of question that we had before, but we’re actually staying away from this a little bit. I mean, to start with, when you saw communities in the framework, but communities from the point of view of universality, that means we want all communities to be connected to the internet and using the internet. The problem is that we don’t have any good indicators there, because there’s no good quality data on what a community is, how communities are using the internet and how to survey that, that is very difficult, so we have to do with proxies there. As to the services run, done on the internet, what people do on the internet, we actually quite specifically on purpose left it out. We had a very long discussion about that in the beginning, and everyone was saying it’s very important, local content is important, and I fully agree, local content is extremely important, but once you start there, then you have to take choices that we don’t want to take. E-agriculture is very useful for farming, e-learning is very good for people to get skills, absolutely true, but does that mean that we don’t like people to watch a video on YouTube while they’re waiting for the public transport to come? So to really put a… a value on what people do on the internet that is too hard for us and also to draw the barriers. So we decided to focus on people should be using the internet or if people want to use the internet they should be capable of using the internet with good quality infrastructure, in an affordable way and in a safe way. And then what they do on the internet and what the impact of that is, those are extremely interesting and important questions but we kept them out of our focus because otherwise our focus would be too wide and we wouldn’t be able to do anything meaningful, if I may use that word.

Moderator :
Okay, thank you Martin. So I would like to now move to the next speaker and I think for the second question I also encourage we can discuss after the session in more detail with the person who asked the question. But let’s now go to Brazil, Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, Head, Centre of Studies for Information and Communication Technologies, CETIC.br. How can solid data inform policy makers on where the country stands with respect to the use of the internet and where are the digital divides in a country and with the vulnerable groups? So, Alexandre, you have seven, eight minutes.

Alexandre Barbosa:
Thank you very much, Denis, and thank you the previous speakers for giving and setting the stage for what I’m going to speak about the Brazilian case. May I ask our colleagues from the technical support to, yeah, thank you very much. Well, good morning everyone. The intention here today is to share a little bit how Brazil is adopting this concept of meaningful and universal connectivity and put this concept into practice and how we are measuring this concept. c So, I think it’s important to mention that in Brazil, there’s a lot of policymakers and regulators, and we need to understand how we are putting that into practice and how we are measuring this concept. It is important to mention that in case of Brazil, policymakers and the regulator, policymakers from the minister of communication and the regulator in the country they have embraced this concept of meaningful and universal connectivity. And from our side, ITU statistical data provides a measurement to policymakers. Let me start by saying that for us to understand how we can move from the previous concept that we have in terms of digital divide, because we are not more interested in having or not having connectivity. We are more interested in providing a meaningful use of internet and enhance the internet experience for the users. So, this concept of meaningful connectivity and universal connectivity is a critical concept to understand how we can achieve broader objectives in the digital age so that we can understand not if we are connected or not connected, but what are the digital inequalities, and how we can bridge the existing gaps especially in terms of device and skills, safety, etc. So, this concept allows us to understand how we can reduce inequalities, not only in the access, but also in the use of the internet and digital skills as well. So, it is a critical concept.This concept also helps to policy makers the needs and existing gaps for more sustainable development so that we can assure that no one is left behind in the digital era, and through this critical concept, we also can highlight the need to address these issues within a more comprehensive global digital cooperation framework. So, having said that, it is important that we understand inequalities in three different levels. So, the first one is the quality of connectivity, and the quality of connectivity is very important. So, if you have access, not only at the household level, but also individual levels, and the quality of this connectivity is really connectivity that provides high speed, that there is no data gaps. So, this is very important. And also, what type of device are you using? So, the second level, we are talking about the quality of access, and the quality of broadband, most low-income households, they only access the internet through mobile devices, which is really limited. So, in this first level, we are talking about infrastructure, connectivity, and quality of access. In the second level, we are talking about the quality of access, and the quality of access, and the quality of access. So, what are the barriers? What are the barriers or motivations? And, at the third level, which is more, I would say, proficiency, proficient usage of internet, we are talking about really tangible outcomes, like content creation, and promoting well-being through the use of internet. So, what are the barriers? So, the third level, which is more, I would say, proficiency, proficiency in internet, and promoting well-being through the use of internet. So, what are the barriers? So, the third level, which is more, I would say, proficiency in internet, and And then mobility, we are talking about how a user income, we are talking about the robots modulating the mobile RROTM uh behaviour, understanding educational levels, understanding socio- economic income, age, gender, and many others socio-economic variables. And the maximal level we are talking about offline networks, the communities, and the neighbourhood effects. And then we are talking about the social impact of the mobile RROTM, the social impact of the mobile RROTM, the social impact that will affect these users. And at the macro level, we have other components which is very important, mainly related toSo, having said that, it is important that we understand inequalities in three different levels. At the level of infrastructure, I mean connectivity. So if you have coverage, access not only at the household level, but also individual levels, and the quality of this connectivity is really connectivity that provides high speed, that there is no data gaps. So, this is very important. And also, what type of device are you using? I come from Brazil and although we have a high penetration of broadband most low-income households, they only access the Internet through mobile devices which is really limited. So, in this first level, we are talking about infrastructure, connectivity, and quality of access. In the second level, we are talking about the usage, what are the digital skills, what are the barriers or motivations? And, at the third level, which is more, I would say, proficiency, proficient usage of internet, we are talking about really tangible outcomes, like content creation, and promoting well-being through the use of the internet. And the level of analysis that we can provide through the adoption of this concept of meaningful and universal connectivity we can analyse on the micro level. Including individual demographics, understanding educational levels, understanding socio-economic income, age, gender, and many other socio-economic variables. At the mezzo level we are talking about the off line network, the communities, and the neighbourhood effects. If you are user in a poor community, or in a remote community, what are the neighbourhood effects that will affect these users? And at the macro level, we have other components which is very important, mainly related to regulation, competition, coverage, and affordability. Those are variables or dimensions that will affect this concept of meaningful and universal connectivity. I tihink Martin gave already a good overview of the concept and I’m not going to discuss this again, but what I’m going to do here from this slide onwards is to understand what are the universality metrics that we are using to describe how people are using, how households are connected, community, and business, and in terms of connectivity enablers, I will share with you indicators that we are using to discuss infrastructure, affordability, device, skills, security, and safety. So I will start now showing some indicators that will cover those universal and meaningful dimensions of this concept. Here, you have the universality metric related to people. So, as you can see, we have a very long track history in terms of data series in Brazil with the launch of the partnership on measuring ICT for development, which was in 2004. But since then, Brazil has every single year several surveys, not only household, but also others. But I’m just showing in the last eight years what happened in terms of Internet users in Brazil. You can see that we had a very significant growth, but we still have some challenges in bridging some gaps, like, for instance, the urban-rural gaps. Rural areas is 10 percentage points below the total access. If you move only for urban areas, the proportion is still higher. And we can see that in terms of households, this universality metric is now – I moved from individual to the household level – we have 80% of the Brazilian households covered by broadband connectivity. And also, this slide is very interesting to see when you have disaggregated data, what type of analysis that you can provide to policy makers to design effective policies to address specific issues, like socioeconomic gap. The low-income households in Brazil, which represents the majority of the population, we have only 6% of households with Internet access, whereas in the high-income households, you have it already universal, 98%. In terms of infrastructure, now I call your attention for the infrastructure as a connectivity enabler for meaningful and universal connectivity. Here we have unequal penetration of fixed broadband households in Brazil. If you go to the south and southeast regions of the country, which are the richest part of the country, we will have most of the households having broadband connectivity, but if you go to the Amazon forest region, we have a higher proportion of connectivity covered by radio or satellite. In the same in the northeast of the country.

Moderator :
Alexandre, you have around two minutes. I know the indicator will go very fast.

Alexandre Barbosa:
Yes. Okay. So, in terms of… So, this again shows the equal penetration of fixed broadband in Brazil in terms of urban and rural areas by different types of connectivity, like fiber, radio, satellite, etc. Someone has mentioned about connectivity networks. We have conducted a study specific on community networks in Brazil that also provides policymakers with important insights to design policies in terms of meaningful and universal connectivity. In terms of, again, connectivity, fiber optic in Brazil has really grown very fast in the last years. In terms of affordability, I just would like to highlight that high-income households spend over 30 times more on ICT services when compared to low-income households. In terms of major use in mobile, you can see again that low-income households use a very large proportion exclusively on mobile phones. This is almost the same, but with another segregation. Here it’s important to mention about skills. This concept is skills plays a very important role. connectivity. So, in this case, you can see that the internet is not used in meaningful connectivity. If you don’t have digital skills, you are not going to use the internet in a meaningful way. And here again, you can see a comparison. What happens when you go to activities performed online? So, in this case, you can see that the connectivity is very, in lower proportion. Here, again, related to the use of access by mobile and by computers or by both. And what the message this data shows is that when you are internet users and you are mobile users, you have lower proportion of digital skills. And here is a very important mention reinforce what I have said, mobile users, they develop less sophisticated activities when compared to computers and mobile phone users. I’m going to reach the end of my presentation just to show that Brazil has a very strong commitment to privacy and data protection. And I would like to highlight the fact that we have a private and personal data protection survey to measure how individuals and organizations are aligned with the Brazilian law on personal data protection, and here, I would like to highlight the fact that stakeholder engagement and cooperation is really very important in this process. in terms of defining and implementing these measurements. And my last message is that indicators for measuring universal and meaningful connectivities, they are critical and we need to have them in a desegregated format. We may have different level of desegregation based on different variables. And the target for meaningfulness use of Internet may change over time. What is good today may not be enough tomorrow. So, again, national average without desegregation may not be able to capture inequalities in the country. And I think that my last message is that ITU plays a very important role in fostering the increase of data production among member states. We do have a lot of data on infrastructure, but low data availability in skills and other key dimensions such as security, safe to use as the concept impose those dimensions. Thank you very much, Denis, and sorry for taking longer time. Thank you.

Moderator :
No, no, no problem. You took time from your Q&A section. But thank you. This was a very comprehensive presentation and you mentioned many things. I will again invite people in the room to ask you one question. And if you have a question, please, you can walk up to the mics behind me and you can ask your question. Yeah. While waiting for questions from the room. Let me just thank our online moderator, there is Catherine Townsend from Measurement Lab. You can also, Catherine, if you would like to ask a question, you can ask after the question in the room. And also I would like to read very quickly, these are not taken from Alexander’s Q&A time, we received a feedback from Bangkok ITU working on the Smart Island initiative in Asia Pacific, that one of the things they are establishing is universal service obligation policy, if people are interested in to learn more. But yeah, let’s take the question now. Hello, good morning, thank you very much for the

Audience:
presentation. Carlo Rey Moreno from the Association for Progressive Communications. A really interesting effort, I mean, moving from universal access to meaningful access and all the indicators and the work that has been done there, coinciding very much with Alexandre and the presentation on the need of accuracy, not accuracy but maybe granularity, because if we have advance from 75 to 95 percent and a target being met from 95 to 100 percent, you are leaving a lot of people behind on that granularity. There is indicators such as affordability that is looking at a very low amount of data. There are many studies that say that the trend of consumption of data is going higher and higher, and those indicators are remaining a bit low if we are considering how much data people are going to be using in 2030, and the affordability for that and the granularity when there are huge inequalities inside countries. That would be one thing. The other thing, whether there is an opportunity to reconsider those indicators. The other one would be about the accuracy of the data. There are exercises by civil society and universities, at least in Malaysia and Nigeria, that I know that that are creating tools to challenge the data, in particular around coverage and around the quality of the coverage in rural and remote areas, because it’s way less than the one that is being reported. So what is the quality of the data that you are using? What is the source? And how could we work together into improving the quality of the data that is being used to actually measure against the indicators that you are using? Thank you very much.

Moderator :
Thank you very much for that question. I see we may have one more question. Let’s also take that one, and then Alessandra answers two of them at the same time. Great, thank you.

Audience:
Hi, everyone, my name is Farzana Badi. I’m doing some research for USAID, and they are working on human-centered approaches to digital transformation. So I was wondering if in your definition of meaningful connectivity, you also consider this kind of human-centered approach, and if there are ways to discuss with the different communities that you work with and build the network, what their needs are, and just looking for best practices and best approaches about that. Sorry if it’s not relevant, but I thought I’d raise it.

Moderator :
No, thank you, it’s very relevant. Yeah, Alessandra, first you, but if the other panelists would like to respond to second question, they can.

Alexandre Barbosa:
Yes, well, thank you for both questions. The first one related to data quality. This is an issue we have been discussing, discussing this issue of data availability and quality in the international forums, such as the ITU Forum, which holds two expert groups on ICT statistics. In case of Brazil, CETIC conducts, so those are primary data. We follow strictly the international methodological recommendation with a probability sample. representative sample in Brazil, and the sample is designed so that we can provide disaggregated data in the variables that was foreseen in the design of the sample. So those data are high quality data and the months, most of them, the monthside data, but every member state also provide supply data, statistical data, on the offer and coverage of infrastructure, and those data are particularly provided by regulators. So regulators compile the data from the operators and submit it to ITU, and the data that ITU, maybe Martin can speak with more more legitimacy on that, but member states provide consolidated and aggregated data, but every member state should be able to disaggregate that data so that we can understand inequalities at the different levels, education, age, gender, regional, urban versus rural, so the quality is a very important issue. The second question related to human-centered approach. This is a very relevant question, but it is not considered in this design of this, or implementation of this concept. I don’t know if Martin

Moderator :
wanna, considering the time, Martin you can respond briefly. Yeah, thank you for reminding. So can we go to Catherine online? So Catherine Townsend, if you are still online, please take the floor, and I don’t know if the online moderator can help us. to give, to make Catherine and also Anir Chowdhury a presenter. Hi, Thierry here. Catherine cannot unmute herself, so I can now. Okay. Oh, there you go.

Audience:
Great. Thank you all so much. So yeah, Catherine Thompson. Thank you for this session today. And I run a nonprofit called measurement lab, which provides the largest open data set about the speed and performance of the internet and interconnection points around the world. And, you know, primarily the way that people experience how well their services is by running a speed test and speed is not well defined and it’s sort of an imperfect proxy of what a user’s experiences. And there’s a lot of investment right now in broadband infrastructure, and even broadband is not sort of a universally recognized goal of what connectivity should be. So, all this background to say that we’re trying to improve our own metrics for what means meaningful connectivity or since you all have to find this that we have this internet quality barometer. And so I wanted to ask you all, when you think of additional information that you would have liked to have in developing the meaningful connectivity metrics, particularly those, the technical community could add to and support. You know, what are the gaps and what are the sort of specific measurements that you would hope to say. Thank you.

Moderator :
Thank you, Catherine. I think all the panelists can think about that question. What component of meaningful connectivity do we think we can get more help from the technical community. So, respecting time, I will go to the next panelist now, European Commission, Mr. Peter Marion, Director General. He will be talking about Global Gateway, which is a program through which the EU is strengthening connections between Europe and the world. So let’s hear from that, but please keep in mind Catherine’s question, all panelists, and we will go back to Martin as well.

Peter Mariën:
Thank you, thank you very much, and maybe we can come back to the questions a bit later. So my name is Peter Marion, I work in the European Commission, Director General International Partnerships, and I am Head of Sector for Digital Governance. So first of all, I’d like to underline the EU’s support to this development and further development of this work on universal meaningful connectivity. We started thinking about such needs a few years ago, and we were also inspired by the EU’s approach, which is, amongst others, the Digital Economy and Society Index. It’s not the same thing, but having robust data, we do consider that as an essential condition to be able to measure what we and our partners are doing, whether we are achieving objectives and, of course, to set policy to achieve those objectives. And as I could see from previous speakers and the questions in the room, this need for data is essential, and we are very happy to work with ITU on this. So I’ve been asked to elaborate on the EU’s experience with global partnerships and also with the global gateway. So I will go through a few slides in that context. So the Global Gateway is an opportunity for partnerships between the European Union and partners around the world. The European Commission has foreseen investments of around 300 billion euro in the next couple of years. These investments will come from European Union grants, but of course, as was also mentioned by other speakers here, of course we do this also together with the private sector. And that also includes banks and the financial leverage of various banks and financial intermediaries. The Global Gateway intends to be a principle-based cooperation mechanism which focuses on a few sectors and one important sector is digital. So when we look at digital, our policy will cover elements such as focusing on government side, business side, infrastructures and skills. Let’s say that’s the large compass that you can see on the slide. But then when we go a little bit deeper, how does the Global Gateway differentiate how is this an alternative offer of what is available to our partners? I’d like to point out the following elements and this also resonates with what was said by previous speakers and people in the room. So EU promotes a human-centric digital transformation. We put the person at the center, not the companies, not the states, and this then reflects itself in the policies. We want a trusted Internet, an open and free Internet where people can feel safe and secure, where their privacy is respected and which then leaves nobody behind. to bridge the digital divide. I will go a bit fast because I know we’re short in time. We want to increase resilience. Security is important. You can also see this in the universal meaningful connectivity indicators, the aspect of security and safety. Boosting digital sovereignty is essential. It’s, of course, a very delicate topic, but we also think that this is something where the EU can, where we hope to be an equal partner and a trusted partner with our partners, where we think of the interest of all the parties involved. And this is important when it goes, when we talk about, for example, data governance amongst so many things, privacy. I mentioned the open internet. And then, of course, promoting the twin transition. For us, this means to focus on environmental sustainability. So, the global gateway is about investments, but these investments are in hard infrastructure and in soft elements. And they are supposed, they’re meant to be sustainable. And sustainable means transparent, transparent funding, but also sustainable funding and environmentally sustainable amongst others. So, now I’ll just jump into some examples. In March of this year, in Colombia, the EU launched the EU LAC Digital Alliance with a whole range of Latin American and Caribbean countries. This alliance has different elements. On the one hand, there’s a policy aspect to it. And on the other hand, you know, with regular policy dialogue on a range of topics, but also with concrete action. And so, this action is already ongoing. So, I’ll run through a few examples. As a first element, we will work on policy and regulatory frameworks together. that includes policy on connectivity, on e-governance, on data governance, on cybersecurity and probably soon we will, I mean we are already discussing to have regulatory framework discussions on the topic of artificial intelligence. Of course this all links again to this universal meaningful connectivity indicators because it’s not just about investing in hardware. Another example of this is the expansion of the BELA program. The BELA program is a fiber optic cable between Europe and Latin America. This fiber optic cable, I’ll come back to that later in one of the next slides. Third points, the private sector was mentioned today, so digital transformation without a private sector is a no-no, I mean that will not work. So in the EU Digital Alliance there is also the setup of what we call the digital accelerator, where basically we intend to set up about 100 new joint ventures and about 50 startups. And then as a fourth point, I’ll just mention something about Copernicus, which is Earth Observation System, so satellite data. So the BELA link on the left image, you see the current in blue, the current cable as it runs, and on the right-hand side you see the proposed extensions of this cable as we are speaking. Now this seems like we’re talking about hardware, but, and it is, but this program also connects more than 1,200 academic institutions, and in that sense again it relates to this universal meaningful connectivity indicators. Of course it also relates to affordability and so on and so on, but at the moment there’s a big focus on the academic link. Okay, I mentioned Earth Observation. Just to say that one of the questions is, okay, but what do you do with connectivity? Well, the European Union Copernicus system is a set of satellites providing earth observation data. It’s, I’ve been informed, it’s at the moment the most advanced system that there is. Well, this system gives open and free data to any individual who wishes to access this data around the globe. And so this can be used for a whole range of policies. We are working to set up a local data hub in Panama, and also one in Chile. But I won’t go into more detail right now. And that, of course, can, you know, lead to policies and all kinds of other economic and social impacts. The universal meaningful connectivity indicators also look at safety and security. So also in the EU context, Latin American, Caribbean, we are working on cybersecurity. There’s a whole range of actions that we are doing on cybersecurity, policy regulation, critical infrastructure protection, capacity building, but also the mainstreaming of cyber in our programming. So, you know, the whole topic of secure and trusted connectivity has been high on the agenda since some time. And so we take this into account with all our programs. And then as a concrete example, in the Dominican Republic, we have set up a regional cybersecurity hub for the whole region, together with our partners, of course. So there I gave previously an example of a regional alliance, because let’s talk about partnerships, EU luck. But we also work, of course, at bilateral level and at other levels. At bilateral level, I just want to point out the concept of digital economy packages, where, as you can see on the slide, we want to link our partnerships and investments in infrastructure with investment. and partnerships on the soft elements, and the soft elements, for example, on data governance, on digital skills, e-government, amongst others. And so concretely speaking, this slide gives an example of our cooperation with Kenya. So in Kenya, you can see below on the slide a whole range of European Union countries that are coming together in a Team Europe spirit, together with the European Union institutions, and we provide a package of digital action with Kenya. And so in total, for the next couple of years, we’re looking at 430 million euro. And I won’t go into too much detail here, because of the time, but you can see that we’re looking at reducing the gap, leapfrogging, but also assuring an open and exclusive governance. And with the arrows, I wanted just to highlight some elements related, again, to universal meaningful connectivity. So on the left you see last mile digital connectivity. This was also mentioned today. What about this rural? What about, you know, the most vulnerable communities? It says they’re, you know, expanding the network and the fiber. So this is also about submarine cables, but also terrestrial and last mile. Looking at TVET, so that’s vocational education. We are working with hundreds of TVET institutions in Kenya on the scaling. And on the right hand, for example, you see data protection and procurement legislation and cyber security. So this is again about policy and other elements which can impact affordability and safety and security. The digital package, as we call it with Kenya, was announced last week in Kenya by our Commissioner. This is the tweet she put, and as you can see in the tweet she mentions remote places and unprivileged areas and leaving nobody behind. And I would like to finish with with that, thank you very much. Thank you.

Moderator :
Thank you very much, Director General. That was a very rich presentation, and again, I think all the presentations will be online who would like to access later. I think we have time now for one question for the Director General. If you have a question, please stand up and ask your question.

Peter Mariën:
If you’d like to add. Thank you very much, I just want to specify I’m the Head of Sector, not the Director General, but thanks for the promotion.

Moderator :
Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Martin, you did not answer to a previous question.

Martin Shepherd:
Yes, thank you, Denise, there’s still a few questions from the previous sessions where I own answer. So human-centered approach, that actually, I’m sure it’s not really the answer that you want to hear, but we also have a human-centered approach. So we look at, we want people to be using the internet. We also have, we’re not focusing on business, but on people and everything around people and communities. There were a few questions on the quality of the indicators on the targets themselves, if they can be changed, that the targets are moving. Yes, we have an initial set of targets, but the idea is that to keep on monitoring this and also to annually look at the targets as part of the project and see where they need changing if we need to have different targets, if you have to move the targets or if you have to include other indicators, maybe. There’s a few areas where we’re not so strong. Safety and security, we don’t have any good indicators at the moment. The question from Catherine online is also one that’s very important and very good. We do have a target on speed. But we don’t have good indicators yet, so we are very happy to talk to you and see how we can maybe include your work in ours, or how we can move together. We’re also looking at alternative sources of data. We have a number of big data products going on in our division, and that can help in getting better regional data in countries, for example, which was also one of the comments. The comment was that in rural areas, the reality on the ground is maybe not the reality that you see in the data, and the data that we get. And we get the data from the regulator. We do process the data, but it is possible, of course, that the reality on the ground is not exactly the way it’s perceived in the data that we get online. So for that, the big data project, the measurement lab data can all help in moving forward there.

Moderator :
Okay. Thank you, Martin. Is there any question for Peter online? If not, let me move to the next panelist, Mr. Anir Chowdhury, Policy Advisor, A2I Programme Bangladesh. He is online. I believe he is in North America right now. So we are now moving from a large country in Asia. It’s still a considerable journey to go towards UMC, but where connectivity is considered very important. So we pose the same questions to Mr. Chowdhury. Anir, if you are online, the floor is yours. And I think we may… may need to upgrade Anir’s level in Zoom so he can speak. Yes, so Anir can still, cannot unmute himself if the IS moderator can give him the right to unmute. And yeah, thank you. Okay, good.

Anir Chowdhury:
I think I’m on right now. Dennis, can you hear me?

Moderator :
Yes, Anir, the floor is yours.

Anir Chowdhury:
Wonderful, thank you so much. I’ve been listening with a lot of interest what other speakers have been saying. And thank you for giving me the floor. In Bangladesh, we’re actually seeing a surge in terms of internet usage, but still not at a point where we’d like it to be. To increase internet penetration, what we have done in addition to the cell phone providers, the MNOs, which have covered 98% of the country with 4G, the availability is there, but in terms of access, it’s still lacking. So I’ll come to that point. But in terms of fixed broadband, what we have done is we have worked with the private sector, three national transmission providers to connect about 3,800 rural locations. So these are the lowest tier of local government institutions in the country. So about 3,800 rural locations who have connected with fiber in the last few years. And another 700 plus locations, which are hard to reach, the island areas, the hilly areas. So we have used the service obligation fund, which is a percentage of the profit that the MNOs deposit with our regulators. So we’ve used that fund to. connect another 700 plus locations with fiber or radio connectivity. We have a new project that started just last year, where we are going to connect about 110,000 institutions with fiber. These will cover all the government offices at the lowest tier. Almost all the schools, primary and secondary schools, you’ll see the data shows that the school connectivity is quite low. This will remedy that situation. We’ll also connect the courts, about 2,000 courts across the country, the 14,000 plus health facilities in the rural areas. A lot of the post office, about 8,000 plus post office will be connected. About 110,000 institutions across the entire country will be covered. We’re expecting that to be done. The coverage will be done in the next few months. These are the 110,000 institutions, but that still won’t have fiber coverage to the homes. That’s where we are expecting the ISPs. In the country, we have close to 2,000 ISPs, about 1,000 of them actually work in the rural areas. They’ll be extending connectivity to the rural locations. Now, that brings me to the question of cost. Our regulator actually has capped the cost to an affordable level. It’s just been, the fiber has not been extended to the rural areas. The cost of 4G is at an affordable level for the most part. We have many different packages, packages that run for three hours, packages that run for three days, seven days. So there are many different types of packages that the telcos have provided that have quite an affordable cost. The cost has been brought down many, many times in the last few years to a point that it’s affordable. But what is one of the biggest bottlenecks right now is the… availability of smartphones. The smartphone penetration is only about 52 percent in the country. Even though broadband is available, I won’t say it’s at a point where meaningful connectivity is there because the devices are not available. Devices are still expensive compared to the per capita income in the country. Add to that the issue of digital skills. Just today, I just finished a conference at MIT Innovation Lab just a couple of hours ago, and we were discussing what does digital connectivity and what does digital skills mean in the near future. The issue of connectivity will actually become more and more important. As we know, in Bangladesh, the official figures that I see at the dashboard here is quite low. Within the country, we have a higher figure when we add the mobile connectivity. It’s about 70 percent Internet connectivity that we talk about today, and this one actually is talking about less than 40 percent, this official figure. But because of low smartphone penetration, we actually don’t see meaningful usage of that broadband. From a skill standpoint, what we discussed today at MIT is that, what will the skills requirement be in future? Today, we talk about the ability to use a keyboard. It could be a small keyboard on a smartphone, or a large keyboard on a laptop or a computer or a desktop that people must use for us to say that that person is digitally literate. But in future, and that future is not too far, we’re actually seeing the emergence of large language models in AI and ability of current digitally illiterate users to use computation just using native languages. We actually are deploying just in the next week, we’re deploying a a large language model in the native language Bangla to augment our national call center. So a lot of the questions that our national call center operators have been answering for the last three years will now actually be answered by voice bots and that technology will mature over time. So what will happen in the next two to three years is actually we’ll see a lot of native languages around the world start to use large language models and the digital literacy concept will be totally redefined. So that’s a very important aspect for us to think about which I don’t know if you’re thinking in the policy debate right now. We just completed just a couple of months ago completed a research called equality research, E-quality research. And that looks at the issues of digital divide. Obviously connectivity or meaningful connectivity is one of the primary areas of digital divide. Two thirds of the population are connected globally. One third is actually not even 2.6 billion people are not on the internet. In Bangladesh, very similar numbers. One third is not on the internet. The second issue is the digital literacy that I talked about which will be completely redefined because of AI and large language models. And the third issue which came up in our research and we don’t talk too much about is the issue of content and service design. The way we have designed it for the ultra poor, the way we have designed it for the persons with disabilities the way we have designed it for the women, the way we have designed it for the CMSMEs, the cottage micro, small and medium enterprises. So when I said the way we have designed it we actually have not designed it for these clientele. We have not designed them for the hardcore poor, not designed them for the persons with disabilities, not designed them for the women, not designed them. for the CMSMEs and that’s where a lot of our attention needs to happen. So even if we achieve full coverage in terms of internet connectivity, affordable internet connectivity, the digital skills will be solved with AI to a large extent. If we don’t design the services in a meaningful way, then we will not actually get to the point of meaningful connectivity because people will not be able to use the content and services meaningfully to the best of the advantage. We’ll still actually widen the digital divide. So that’s something I think we need to bring in our discourse that the research report that we published for Bangladesh just two weeks ago at the UN General Assembly, the equality report only looks at the Bangladesh perspective, but that is similar to many perspectives of the LDCs and the countries in the global south. We hope to extend that research to the equality center that we also launched two weeks ago. We hope to extend that research to other LDCs in the next few years with the support of organizations at the UN, World Bank, World Economic Forum, Commonwealth Secretariat, and many other partner organizations that we are working with. Thank you very much, Dennis.

Moderator :
Thank you, Anir. This was really valuable input to this discussion and I know that it was not the ideal scenario for you to connect remotely, but we very much appreciate it. Let me first turn to the room and also the online participants if there are any questions for Anir. Questions? Yes, please.

Audience:
Hello. Thank you for the presentation. My question is, if we take the concept of meaningful connectivity also sometimes touches on the idea of having connectivity everywhere, not just limited to some places or some countries. So, I’m just wondering if you have any some places or when it’s connected in work, in schools. So how do you, in Bangladesh, deal with these two options of the policies? So enforcing, enhancing connectivity in institutions. So the idea is to foster connectivity in institutions, of both in households and institutions, or how to connect both places, and how do you deal with this in your policymaking in the field? Thank you so much.

Moderator :
Anir, would you like to briefly respond?

Anir Chowdhury:
Sure. In my deliberation, I talked about those two issues. So one is the institutional connectivity. We have extended fiber connectivity to the rural areas, but not to the institutional level. So these are 4,500 plus rural locations that we have connected as hubs of connectivity that will be branched out to the institutions. And as I mentioned, about 110,000 institutions will be connected in the next few months. That includes offices, schools, health facilities, courts, and so on and so forth. So that’s one fiber connectivity. That’s a public-private partnership with the three national transmission providers and over 1,000 ISPs. So that’s what will happen. And we’ll actually get fiber to households also through affordable price. And we’ll set the price to a regulator. But there is also the wireless connectivity that is going through our telcos, 4G connectivity. But as I mentioned, even though about 98% of the country has 4G network, only about half of it is actually being used because of lack of devices. So affordable devices and the right design of the services and content. So when we are able to address the device costs, affordable to the right persons and households, and we’ll be able to design the services and content. a way that makes sense to the currently marginalized population, that’s when actually these issues will be resolved. There are policy matters that we’re actually addressing, technology that we are deploying, skills development that we’re also going through. But again, as I mentioned with AI, the skills development will be a thing of the past in the next few years. Does that answer your question, sir?

Audience:
Thank you, Anir. Yes.

Moderator :
Are there any questions in the room? No. We are coming to the end of our session now. Before we close, I would like to give one last opportunity to all speakers. If there is anything that you couldn’t pass it out, maybe Alessandro, we can start with you, but please keep it one or two minutes so that people watching us online, they can make reference to the final point.

Alexandre Barbosa:
Thank you very much, Denis. Well, I think that this concept of UMC is really important at this moment that we’re living in where this information and the lack of skills to content creation, critical use of Internet is of utmost importance. What my message is to countries to really produce data that can be used to measure the progress towards achieving this concept. So Brazil is maybe among the countries that produce many statistics in this area, and I think that what we would like to see is other member states also producing data that will allow track the progress.

Moderator :
Thank you. Agne, would you like to add something?

Agne Vaiciukeviciute:
Thank you very much for such insightful discussions and messages so far. I will just add up several aspects from our side. I think what is really important as in all discussions was highlighted collaboration and coordination within the government, within the other stakeholders as well. This is a huge part of making it happen. And of course, I want to reflect on one of the questions from the audience. I think what is really important is not only the quality of data, but that all these measures would be checked once in a while if the measures are good enough at that time. It means that everything is changing so fast and we need to be adaptable, we need to be flexible in the way we approach the measures. And of course, the backbone of everything is data quality. And I bring this message back to myself as a government official every day, how to make sure that we would gather more quality data to make more insightful decisions and then to measure the progress. Thank you.

Moderator :
Thank you. Thank you so much. Peter, please.

Peter Mariën:
Thank you very much. After these excellent comments, it’s hard to add many more, but just a few. I think for me, this kind of discussion confirms also our need and our commitment to this kind of work. Because, you know, I think a lot of the community in organizations like mine, we are very much focused on making things better. things happen in the field but we do need to do the basic homework to know what it is we need to do and in that context I think you know again having the data and everything that was said about this remains so important and of course we know also how difficult that is within the countries in the field you know in our countries in our partners countries so it should be done at global level but of course it needs to be done in the end at the local level maybe just to add also yes but what I took away is that the challenge of the last mile connectivity or whatever you want to call it and we are actually also struggling with that quite a bit how to make that interesting for the private operators or for the public operator then but you know under which philosophy do you spend taxpayers money on that if you would and then what I also like very much is are these questions about foresight what will we need in five years or in ten years or in or beyond that whether it’s with new technologies coming up and the skills that that you will need or the systems that might be completely different or who knows indeed other indicators and measurements that we will need to look at thank you.

Moderator :
thank you Peter and Anir let’s go back to you for one or two final messages that you would like to pass thank you

Anir Chowdhury:
Dennis again I’ll go back to the equality report that we published for Bangladesh I think that that report has given us a deeper insight to the issue of universal and meaningful connectivity and connected to that skills development and service design are two issues that have come up so connectivity is important but to make sure that connectivity is meaningful we have to make sure there are other issues in terms of skills and service design. So those have come up, and we’re now working on the issue of an equality index. It’s a tough issue right now because there are seven different areas that we are actually exploring in terms of how the meaningful connectivity serves us in education, in health care, in employment, in CMSM issues, the cottage micro-enterprise issues, and the issues of public service delivery. So those are about seven areas that we’re looking at. And we hope that this equality index will give us a much deeper understanding, both with data, quantitative and qualitative data, to give us a deeper understanding of the UMC issues and also take us forward. And I really like the issue of the strategic insight, looking at strategic insight, what will be needed in the next five years or even ten years when we’ll have not just humans exchanging data amongst each other through systems and social media, but we’ll have a lot of devices and perhaps even robots working in different fields, in farms, in factories, perhaps even offices, also sharing data as well. So that’s the future that we will be looking at maybe ten years down the road, maybe even five years down the road. So looking at that future, painting the pictures of alternative futures with strategic insight, I think could be really valuable as well. So I really appreciate that issue being brought up in today’s discussion. It’s a very rich discussion to all participants. Thank you. My gratitude. And Dennis, thank you for the moderation. Really useful. Thank you.

Moderator :
Thank you, Anir. I’ll turn to ITU now.

Martin Shepherd:
I hope ITU also thinks the same way. Yes, we’re out of time, so I only want to say that the final remarks and the whole thing. I hope you have enjoyed the discussion and here’s a special parting by Martin , and he’s unstoppable when we are having one final session. I can only an echo them and that’s what we’re doing with a project promoting measuring universal and meaningful connectivity is spot-on and important and timely so we will work very hard and continue the product, thank you.

Moderator :
Thank you very much, Mr. Martin, and thank you to all the people who have joined us in this and there’s so much insight. I think the discussion will and has to continue. With this, we came to the end of our session. I hope it was useful for all and I hope it will be watched online with others in the future. And thank you to everyone. Thank you very much, and now I’m going to say goodbye. And thank you to the ICT and the AI team for organizing this event . Thank you very much. Bye-bye.