Pre 11: Freedom Online Coalition’s Principles on Rights-Respecting Digital Public Infrastructure

Summary

This discussion focused on the Freedom Online Coalition’s (FOC) development of principles for rights-respecting Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), presented during a consultation session at EuroDIG in Strasbourg. Lea Kaspar from the FOC Secretariat introduced the initiative, explaining that the 42-country coalition aims to ensure digital technologies support human rights, democracy, and rule of law. Rasmus Lumi, Director General from Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presented the current draft of 12 principles, emphasizing Estonia’s 25-year experience in building digital public infrastructure based on public trust.

The proposed principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, international human rights standards, transparency and accountability, privacy and security, societal context consideration, sustainability and resilience, data-driven approaches, interoperability, technology neutrality, openness, and collaboration. Lumi stressed that trust between government, private sector, and civil society is fundamental to successful DPI implementation. He also shared insights from recent consultations in Africa, noting that basic connectivity remains a primary challenge in developing regions, while European contexts face different implementation issues.

Participants raised several important concerns and suggestions. Representatives from the UK, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and UNESCO contributed perspectives on making principles more applicable to developing countries, addressing legislative barriers, incorporating power imbalance considerations, and establishing measurement indicators. Online participants questioned inclusive participation mechanisms and implementation strategies. The discussion highlighted the need for context-specific approaches while maintaining universal human rights standards, and emphasized that successful DPI requires comprehensive planning, digital literacy programs, and international cooperation to avoid creating new forms of digital exclusion.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Introduction and Overview of FOC DPI Principles**: The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), chaired by Estonia, presented their draft principles for rights-respecting Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), featuring 12 key principles including human-centered solutions, inclusivity, transparency, privacy/security, and interoperability.

– **Regional Implementation Challenges and Context**: Significant discussion around how DPI principles must account for varying regional contexts, particularly the basic connectivity challenges in Africa versus more advanced implementation issues in Europe, and the need for principles to explicitly recognize developing country constraints.

– **Operationalization and Implementation Concerns**: Multiple participants raised questions about how these principles would move beyond being another set of guidelines to actual implementation, emphasizing the need for measurement indicators, promotion strategies, and practical application mechanisms.

– **Technical and Governance Challenges**: Discussion of specific implementation barriers including legislative obstacles (digital signatures, interoperability between government systems), the need for algorithmic transparency, and addressing power imbalances between different actors in DPI deployment.

– **Stakeholder Engagement and Collaboration**: Emphasis on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation, public consultation processes, and coordination with other international forums and initiatives working on similar DPI frameworks.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to gather European stakeholder input on the Freedom Online Coalition’s draft principles for rights-respecting Digital Public Infrastructure as part of a global consultation process. The session sought to refine these principles based on regional perspectives and practical implementation experiences before finalizing them by the end of 2025.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout. Participants were generally supportive of the initiative while offering practical suggestions for improvement. The atmosphere was professional yet informal, with speakers acknowledging the small but engaged audience. There was a sense of shared commitment to human rights in digital infrastructure, with participants from various countries (UK, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia) and organizations (UNESCO, RNW Media) contributing thoughtful, experience-based feedback. The tone remained consistently positive and solution-oriented, with no significant disagreements or tensions emerging during the conversation.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Lea Kaspar** – Head of the Secretariat for the Freedom Online Coalition

– **Rasmus Lumi** – Director General of the Department of International Organisations and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members with various backgrounds (see additional speakers below)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Paul Blake** – UK government representative

– **NebojÅ¡a Rego** – Foreign Ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina

– **Giovanna Fleck** – Representative of RNW Media, researcher working on digital public infrastructures

– **Xian Hong** – UNESCO representative, Information for All program

– **Jure Bilic** – Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia

# Freedom Online Coalition’s Digital Public Infrastructure Principles: European Consultation Summary

## Introduction and Context

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) held a hybrid consultation session at EuroDIG in Strasbourg to gather European stakeholder input on their draft principles for rights-respecting Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). The session brought together representatives from government ministries, international organisations, and civil society both in person and online to discuss this critical initiative.

Lea Kaspar, Head of the Secretariat for the Freedom Online Coalition, opened the discussion by explaining that the FOC is an intergovernmental coalition of 42 countries committed to ensuring digital technologies support human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. The coalition, currently chaired by Estonia, has identified DPI as a key priority, recognising the urgent need for rights-respecting approaches to digital infrastructure development globally.

The consultation formed part of a broader global engagement process, with previous sessions conducted in African regions, including a consultation at the Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum (DRIF) in Lusaka, Zambia. This comprehensive approach reflects the FOC’s commitment to ensuring diverse perspectives inform the final principles through their ongoing consultation process.

## Presentation of the Twelve Core Principles

Rasmus Lumi, Director General of the Department of International Organisations and Human Rights at Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, presented the current draft of twelve principles for rights-respecting DPI. Drawing on Estonia’s around 25 years of experience in building digital public infrastructure, including a digital platform connecting all government digital services and an e-identity system, Lumi emphasised that successful DPI implementation fundamentally depends on trust between government, private sector, and civil society organisations.

The twelve proposed principles encompass:

1. **Human-centred solutions** – ensuring DPI serves people’s needs and rights

2. **Inclusivity** – providing equal access and participation opportunities

3. **International human rights standards** – adhering to established rights frameworks

4. **Transparency and accountability** – maintaining open and responsible governance

5. **Privacy and security** – protecting personal data and system integrity

6. **Societal context** – considering local circumstances and needs

7. **Sustainability and resilience** – building long-term viable systems

8. **Data-driven approaches** – using evidence to inform decisions

9. **Interoperability** – ensuring systems work together effectively

10. **Technology neutrality** – avoiding vendor lock-in and promoting competition

11. **Openness** – supporting open standards and accessibility

12. **Collaboration** – fostering multi-stakeholder partnerships

Lumi stressed that trust cannot be achieved through policy decisions alone but must be built through various methods within society. He noted that the principles must be transparent and understandable to enable public participation in demanding rights-respecting DPI from their governments.

## Three-Step Implementation Framework

The FOC outlined a clear three-step approach to implementing the principles: first, adoption of the principles by the coalition; second, promotion to raise awareness globally; and third, implementation by national governments. This sequential approach recognises that successful DPI requires comprehensive planning that goes beyond technical infrastructure to include digital literacy programmes, internet access, and equal participation opportunities.

Lumi emphasised that this framework acknowledges the complexity of moving from principle adoption to actual implementation, requiring sustained effort across multiple phases and stakeholder groups.

## Regional Perspectives and Implementation Challenges

The discussion revealed significant regional differences in DPI implementation challenges. Lumi shared insights from recent consultations in Africa, where basic connectivity remains the primary barrier to implementing rights-based digital infrastructure. In contrast, European contexts face different challenges, including legislative barriers and interoperability issues between government systems.

Paul Blake, representing the UK government, raised a crucial point about the need for principles to explicitly recognise developing country challenges. He specifically suggested that issues such as “affordability” and “reliability and continuity of service” should be explicitly recognised within the inclusivity principle. This observation resonated strongly with other participants and prompted acknowledgement from Lumi that the inclusivity principle needed substantial improvement.

NebojÅ¡a Rego from Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Foreign Ministry provided a concrete example of implementation challenges, explaining how his country had spent a decade attempting to implement digital signatures due to legislative barriers rather than technical limitations. He also mentioned that Bosnia and Herzegovina is not currently an FOC member but has proposed joining the coalition. This highlighted how comprehensive principles may be relevant to everyone but not applicable to everyone simultaneously, depending on their specific legal and political contexts.

## Technical and Governance Considerations

The discussion delved into several technical and governance aspects requiring further development in the principles. Lumi specifically mentioned algorithmic transparency as an important technical aspect that should be considered, emphasising the need for independent oversight as crucial components that should be explicitly included in the framework.

Giovanna Fleck from RNW Media, participating online, introduced sophisticated analytical considerations about power imbalances between different actors in DPI implementation. She noted that digital infrastructure can be both more malleable than physical infrastructure but also more brittle, making it essential to embed approaches to change management that are tailored to context and identify issues that must be addressed upfront in the design phase.

Jure Bilic from Croatia’s Ministry of Science and Education proposed an innovative approach to strengthening the principles by explicitly naming practices incompatible with rights-respecting DPI, such as population surveillance or profiling. Drawing parallels with the EU AI Act, he suggested that whilst the principles couldn’t prohibit such practices (being guidelines rather than binding law), naming unsupported practices could provide pragmatic guidance.

This suggestion prompted an interesting exchange with Lumi, who initially expressed concern that mentioning such practices might inadvertently “give someone ideas” to bad actors. However, the discussion evolved to recognise the potential value of this approach for providing clearer boundaries and expectations.

## Coalition Membership and Expansion

An interesting aspect of the discussion involved coalition membership expansion. Kaspar noted the presence of what she humorously termed an “ex-Yugoslavia contingent” and mentioned ongoing conversations with Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina about joining as observers. This highlighted the FOC’s active efforts to expand its membership and engage with countries interested in rights-respecting DPI approaches.

## International Collaboration and Coordination

Multiple participants emphasised the importance of collaboration with existing international forums, including the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), and UN platforms. The FOC is planning an IGF workshop in Norway as a merged workshop to continue the DPI discussion.

Xianghong from UNESCO highlighted their “Information for All program” working with developing countries and emphasised the need for indicators to measure DPI advancement as part of digital inclusion metrics. She also extended an invitation to participants for UNESCO’s conference on AI and digital transformation in the public sector scheduled for June 4th-5th.

This coordination approach aims to avoid duplication whilst leveraging existing networks to promote the principles more effectively and share good practices from leading DPI countries to developing nations.

## Areas of Strong Consensus and Constructive Debates

Throughout the discussion, several areas of strong consensus emerged among participants. There was universal agreement on the fundamental importance of inclusivity as a core principle, though with recognition that developing countries need explicit acknowledgement of their unique challenges such as affordability and connectivity issues.

The most notable constructive disagreement concerned the approach to addressing incompatible practices in the DPI principles. Whilst Bilic advocated for explicitly naming prohibited practices like surveillance for clarity, following the EU AI Act model, Lumi expressed concern about potentially giving bad actors ideas by mentioning such practices.

All speakers agreed that successful DPI implementation requires transparency, public participation, and trust-building as fundamental prerequisites for rights-respecting digital infrastructure, extending far beyond simply adopting technical solutions.

## Consultation Process and Next Steps

The FOC opened a public consultation period until May 16th for written input on the DPI principles zero draft. This extended consultation period allows stakeholders who could not participate in regional sessions to contribute their perspectives and expertise.

Based on the feedback received, the FOC will refine the principles, particularly around inclusivity challenges for developing countries and the incorporation of power imbalance considerations. The coalition will continue participating in international forums and regional consultations to promote the principles and gather additional feedback.

## Outstanding Questions and Future Directions

Several important questions remained unresolved at the session’s conclusion. The operationalisation and measurement of principle implementation represents a significant challenge requiring further development. The question of whether to explicitly name incompatible practices without providing ideas to bad actors remains a delicate balance to strike.

Addressing power imbalances between different actors in DPI implementation requires more sophisticated analysis and explicit incorporation into the principles. The specific mechanisms for sharing good practices from leading DPI countries to developing nations need further elaboration, as does ensuring meaningful participation from Global South countries in the ongoing consultation process.

## Implications and Significance

This consultation session demonstrated both the potential and the challenges of developing universal principles for rights-respecting DPI. The high level of consensus on fundamental values and goals suggests strong prospects for successful adoption and implementation of the FOC principles, while the constructive nature of the feedback and the FOC’s responsiveness to suggestions indicate a collaborative approach that could strengthen the final principles significantly.

The emphasis on trust-building, transparency, and multi-stakeholder collaboration throughout the discussion reflects a mature understanding that successful DPI requires more than technical solutions—it demands social infrastructure and democratic governance processes that respect human rights whilst delivering public value.

As the FOC continues its global consultation process, the insights gathered from this European session will contribute to developing principles that are both universally applicable and contextually sensitive, potentially providing a valuable framework for rights-respecting digital infrastructure development worldwide.

Lea Kaspar: Good afternoon everyone. I just want to welcome everyone to this session. We’re in hybrid format as well, so as I understand we have online participants joining us here today as well. My name is Lea Kaspar. I am the head of the Secretariat for the Freedom Online Coalition and I’d like to welcome you all to this session hosted by the FOC, the Freedom Online Coalition, as part of our efforts to consult on the principles on rights respecting DPI. So this is a digital public infrastructure. I don’t see a lot of people in the room here at the moment in person. I don’t know if this is because we’re taking place during the lunch break. I heard that the cafeteria is difficult to reach but also difficult to come out of, so I wonder if people will still be joining us. But I suggest we start and invite you all to participate in this conversation with us. I’m going to give a little bit of an intro before we dive into the principles themselves and look at the principles and see if there are any questions on that before we dive into a discussion. First, on the Freedom Online Coalition, I don’t know if any of you are familiar with the FOC. For those of you who are not, this is an intergovernmental coalition of 42 countries. and the FOC are two countries committed to ensuring that the use of Internet and digital technologies at large enforce human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The FOC members work to coordinate their efforts, specifically diplomatic efforts, to share information about current developments and then to collectively voice concerns over measures that threaten human rights in the digital age. Since it was founded in 2011, the Coalition has played a role in promoting the values of democracy and human rights online and helped like-minded democracies supported by civil society, academia and the private sector to raise awareness, empower stakeholders and advance strategies to promote a human rights-respecting digital environment. Now, this year’s priority for the Freedom Online Coalition and I have to say, at the moment, the Coalition is chaired by the government of Estonia and if you are sitting here in the room, there are a couple of documents which capture the program of action for this year so you can have a look a little bit about what the priorities for the FOC are this year. One of those priorities for the FOC and the governments who are leading it is digital public infrastructure which is what we’ll be discussing today. DPI in the context of the Coalition is seen as an important enabling component towards digital inclusion which is one of the key components and aims of the FOC that has the potential to promote reliable, inclusive and meaningful connectivity and access to bridge digital divides and to strengthen civic participation online. Now, DPIs are, for just a little bit of background, are digital technologies that can enable the delivery of public services and when When they are designed and deployed in a rights-respecting, inclusive and collaborative manner, they can work towards securing social and economic benefits for communities and to enable the fulfilment and enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms, particularly for marginalised groups. Now, today’s session, as I already mentioned, is part of the FOC’s effort to conduct regional consultations on the Zero Draft of this set of principles, which we will take you through in a moment. The document that we’re discussing is called the FOC Rights Respecting Digital Public Infrastructure Principles. We’ve already held similar consultations in other regions, and just two weeks ago we held a similar consultation at the Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum or DRIF in Lusaka, Zambia, and Rasmus Lumi was there and can tell us more about how that went. But at this point, we thought we’d leverage the opportunity of having EuroDIG hosted here in Strasbourg to also reach out to European stakeholders and consult on how the design and implementation of DPI can balance the benefits of digital innovation with the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. Perhaps to say this consultation is ongoing and we’ll share on the screen in a moment a link where you can also submit written input via the FOC website if you feel so inclined. I will now hand over to Rasmus Lumi, the Director General of the Department of International Organisations and Human Rights at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia. As we mentioned, Estonia is chairing the coalition this year and following this presentation that Rasmus Lumi is going to take us through, we will open it up for discussion. So Rasmus Lumi, over to you.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to be here. It’s a pleasure to be here representing the government of Estonia. Thank you very much for coming. It’s true, not too many people in the room, but it means that we have the best of the best. I’m also tempted to ask you all to come closer, but at the same time, you have to be comfortable in your position, so it’s fine. We will proceed from here. I just wanted to start by saying that you may know that Estonia has quite extensive experience in developing its digital public infrastructure. This experience over, well now, around 25 years, has enabled us to see how it can transform governance in a country and how it really has affected the economic well-being and also general benefits of public participation in a democratic society. So, we have only very positive experiences with developing digital public infrastructure in a democratic way, using all the necessary safeguards and, well, let’s say, human-centric principles while developing it. Of course, technological advancements or technological developments that we have undertaken in building our infrastructure would not be very much valuable in themselves if it wasn’t for the main basic principle that is needed, which is public trust. And in order for the digital public infrastructure to work well, according to our experience, there has to be trust. between the government, the private sector and civil society organisations, and so on. Of course, trust is something that cannot be effectuated through a policy decision. So it has to be built up through different methods in the society. And that’s why it is so important to try to draw up relevant principles that would be clear and understandable and concise to everybody, so that the society could proceed from them and that the society could actually, you know, like interoperably discuss this and commonly get the understanding that this is how we want to do things. So this is why I’m saying that trust is an extremely important part of the whole build-up. And through trust, we can finally start achieving the important parts based on the principles that the digital public infrastructure needs. This includes transparency, openness, safety, and so on, which all are important elements of the digital public infrastructure that in a democratic society we would like to see. Now, globally, of course, things are not always and everywhere as simple. And that’s why we feel that, you know, if we try to adopt and present principles on behalf of the Freedom Online Coalition, then this could be some sort of a catalyst for many countries to use as a basis for their own public infrastructure, whether it is being built from the scratch or built on. are being developed as it goes. So, for example, in Estonia, there are two main and very important elements for the digital public infrastructure, which one would be a digital platform, which connects all the digital services of the government, and then the other part of it, which is equally important, is the e-identity system, which allows everybody to actually take part and be able to benefit from the public infrastructure. So, these are the key elements, and we hope that through the development of the principles, the other countries and the people in other countries can then also demand from their governments similar principles to be followed while they do the work on their public infrastructure. Now, Lea mentioned our visit to Zambia, and this is a very good example as to what are the different challenges in different regions when we talk about these topics, because I’m sure that here in Europe, the issues are a little bit different. In Africa, they are, again, different. And my experience, after my contacts with people there, with different regional representatives at this event in Zambia, is that for many Africans, the main issue is not so much the infrastructure itself or the rights that the infrastructure is based on, rather than that they are still grappling with a very basic concept. It’s not a concept, it’s connectivity. they don’t even have for a large part of their population the necessary connectivity in order to build anything upon it. So this is something we also need to realize when we’re doing this work globally and to try to tie into our work with the principles also the technological assistance that we have already been giving, but we have to continue with this so that everybody could ultimately enjoy what is being offered by these principles and through these principles also by the digital public infrastructure. So this is why the Freedom Online Coalition in 2025 set as one of its priorities during the or in our program of action during the Estonian presidency one of the priorities being then the FOC principles on rights respecting digital public infrastructure. This means that we expect or hope to have by the end of the year an agreement on a set of principles which we are working on currently and we initially have envisioned to have about 12 different points that would hopefully cover most of the principles that we would like to see about what is the rights respecting digital public infrastructure and there is currently discussion about these principles going on between the governments of the Freedom Online Coalition also between multi-stakeholders either related or not related to the Freedom Online Coalition and there is also a public call for contributions which I think closes on the 16th of May. if I remember correctly. So we are doing it, at least in our view, in a very transparent and open manner, and we sincerely expect the public to contribute to this, so that we could have the best possible result that could also resonate with most of the people around the world, who would then hopefully push their own governments also towards the acceptance and use of these principles in their further work. But let’s move on to what is the current version, or where we stand right now with the principles. So there’s currently 12 different points that we have thought about, and I will just briefly run through them. And I don’t know if we can maybe share them page by page on the screen as well, but I will start with the very first, and this is the human-centered solutions. And actually we can move to the next slide immediately, because there we have a little bit more information on that. And so human-centered solutions, it means that the focus of digitalization must be on humans. And when we develop the technology and the solutions that we want, and information systems in our countries, then all this must serve this objective. It means that technology has to be designed to cater to the humans’ or people’s needs. And this is the very first and most important principle that we would like to put on paper, so that there is always the understanding that what comes first. and that we are not building any technology or digital solutions for the wrong reasons. Then the second principle that we have currently put here would be inclusivity. Again this is something that nowadays is a very important concept. We keep hearing it in different global regions where people say that they feel excluded for various reasons. I mean not necessarily for the political reasons but very often it comes from developmental or economic reasons. As I said in some places there is no connectivity, in some places there is no money and then so on. This is the reason why people are not included in many parts of the digital development. That’s why we believe that it is very important to stress the principle of inclusivity. Everybody should have access to the internet, to the digital services and skills because otherwise they cannot benefit from the digital transformation. As it says here as well, it’s kind of a cliche but no one should be left behind. Then there is international human rights standards. Again a challenging topic today and that’s why it needs to be reminded constantly that we need to promote the international human rights standards through the use of our technologies. We should not forget that we have very many international legal instruments that should be followed when we talk about further developing our policies on the public infrastructure. Then something that I believe is quite self-evident whenever we do something in democratic countries which is transparency and accountability. accountability. I think it’s quite obvious that at least here in Europe everything we do has to be transparent and there has to be accountability for wrongdoings and so on. So this is a point or a principle which we feel is something that of course needs to be said because it’s not as self-evident in some other places but here I can just stop on it very briefly. Then privacy and security, something that probably should resonate with each and every person. When transparency and accountability as the previous point is more of a question of how do we see our governments, our officials and so on, then the privacy and security should be something that is very personal to everybody and everybody should understand the very specific personal importance and how it affects everyone if there is lack of privacy and lack of security be it online or offline but well in this context when we talk about the public infrastructure and that’s why this principle has to be pointed out and hopefully again everybody who reads these principles and thinks about them will realize how much it personally may affect them if the privacy and security is not ensured while the governments are building the public infrastructure. Then something that often you may not think about when we talk about something technological or digital or so on and this is the societal context. While of course it may sound as if the societal context should not count or should not be taken into account in some cases then we believe that it is essential to take it into account because in each country, region and community there are different legal and social contexts and although of course human rights are universal, we have to take into account some specificities in order to help people better understand and accept these principles and understand that these principles are actually supportive of their own interests and rights, but in order to do that we have to make sure that they also realize that we have taken into account their societal context. Then sustainability and resilience. We want of course that whatever we build or whatever we do that this is sustainable and that we can have maximum long-term impact in what we have built and so that it would make sense and be efficient what we have put on the table for our populations. Then of course we want the initiatives to be data-driven because this is what ensures that quality information is available for decision making and also for taking action. Data-driven means that we base the decisions and our work on something that is scientific and that is not coming out of just emotional type of decisions. Interoperability. Again something maybe more complicated on or from the personal point of view, but then again this is something that might be very important and understandable to those who are actually building the systems plus to those who are financing the systems. Interoperability that the systems would work together is important in order to minimize the costs and avoid situations where we keep building different systems and then spend huge amounts of money in trying to connect them or even having to build more systems that would cover the gaps between the existing ones. So that’s why it is so important to have a comprehensive solution in mind when we build something. Then technology neutrality, which means that we want to propose to commit to building digital public infrastructure in a technology neutral manner, which means that there should not be any specific favoring of particular technology vendor or solution and decisions should be driven by user needs and fundamental human rights. And this is also in more maybe blatant terms to say something that helps avoid corruption and that’s why this is also a very relevant point if we take into account the global reach or possible global reach of these principles. Then openness. Again, something that should be very understandable for all of us here, that there has to be an open approach to digital development, which then can increase cooperation in the digital development community and avoid duplicating work. In addition to that, of course, it relates very closely to transparency, which then again is also something that allows for maybe more democratic approaches to all of it and thereby also helps transforming societies a bit more towards adopting democratic governing styles. Then collaboration. As the last point, which is sort of obvious, we encourage sharing information, insights, strategies and resources, because it helps to share best practices and again, gain something that maybe somebody else has already thought about, which we haven’t and so on and so on. And this is also one of the great experiences of Estonia during our development of our own digital public infrastructure, that collaboration with other countries is extremely useful in trying to figure out and find solutions that are the best possible, and which would take into account all the latest possible developments and understandings. So these are the principles that we have currently on the table. Of course, the comments behind the principles are also open for commenting. So we are very glad that we have had the chance to present this to them. As I said, we very much hope for active public participation in this. We want to make the best possible or want to reach a best possible solution in terms of these principles. So we would be glad to get your insights right here on the go. But then please do not forget that you will also have a right to add to whatever thoughts you may have on these online, so that we could take all this into account, synthesize it with all other proposals, and hopefully this is something that in the end will help us all to make the world a better place. Thank you very much.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you, Rasmus Lumi. And this is now… Thank you so much for as you can see on the screen behind us, there is a link to access the principles and to provide written input by May 16, as Rasmus Lumi already mentioned. It’s really open for want to open the floor for all of you, and we had a couple of guiding questions that we wanted to share on the screen as well for to kind of help us in this discussion but really if there’s any reflections that you have to what you just Rasmus Lumi, any questions, any comments or thoughts you’d want to share. We’re making a record of this conversation as well make sure that that feeds into our thinking about the process of finalizing the principles. Are there any immediate reactions from the floor. I also want to note that we have online participation so and I have one question from the online chat, which I’ll read out now, while people are thinking about coming in. There’s one question about how the FOC is ensuring inclusive and meaningful participation from the public to provide input into the DPI principles zero draft a little bit about that. But there’s a sub question there, especially from the developing regions in the global south. I don’t know if Rasmus Lumi you want to maybe share a little bit about kind of the outcomes of the conversations in DRIF beyond what you already mentioned. And then if anyone wants to come in just give me a signal. I’ll bring you in next.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much. Well, first of all, Yes, it was already mentioned that we, we expect and hope to receive input from the public, which was already on the screen. As you can see, now, with regard to the outcomes of our discussions in or with. with our regional representatives in Africa. As I said, I think one of the main impressions that I had is that quite a number of them were quite concerned about the very basic issue of the populations there to be able to actually access the Internet. So that was maybe one of the most striking issues that comes to my mind that was put forward on the table. At the same time, of course, they have different types of issues that they pointed out, depending on a country. In some cases, the developmental levels are very different. This is one thing. And also the approach or the policy towards human rights and human-centered approaches is also very different country by country. So it is a little difficult maybe to give some sort of a uniform answer on what was the outcome, because really it depended quite a lot on a specific country. But I think maybe one thing that I could say that was an underlying understanding is that all the civil society organizations are extremely like-minded and understanding about what we are trying to do and are very much interested in taking all this on board. And, of course, they have varied opportunities or possibilities to push their governments on these topics, but at least very many of them were quite open-minded. are quite interested and prepared to do it, as they genuinely seem to believe in the importance of this and in the possibilities of making a difference in the development of their country’s digital public infrastructure. So I guess that could probably respond to the question of what was my impression of the outcomes of the discussions with different regions in Africa. But I would also have to say that it proved to me that it is very important to engage them, to constantly engage them, and to make sure that we engage them in a comprehensive manner, meaning that not only from the human rights point of view, but as I said in the beginning, also from the technological and other types of assistance, so that we could actually deliver on our own, well, promise or understanding of the need for inclusivity. Thank you.

Lea Kaspar: We are in Europe now, though, and it’s really good to have Estonia chair the coalition and spearhead this effort as really a leader in this space, I want to say. So maybe if we turn now to the European context, it would be interesting to hear from you all as European stakeholders about your thoughts about how this stacks up to European experiences in implementing some of the threats. How do, when you look at these principles, how does that resonate with your experiences? Are there any questions or any really recommendations that you might have for us as we work through this? I’m saying us as the coalition and Estonia kind of leading this effort. I’m going to turn to you then, Rasmus Lumi. I don’t know if, from your perspective, from Estonia, what is it that you would want to make sure that is captured in the principles?

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you. Well, what we want to capture in the principles are the 12 points that I read out. But, of course, there are many details that should also be taken into account that are in addition to all this. Some, of course, will move a bit away from the very principles themselves and become maybe a bit technical. But still, there are many important aspects to take into account when we develop the infrastructure and also in Europe. For example, I was just thinking of several different things and one that comes to mind is algorithmic transparency, which is something that is very technical, sounds very technical, and is quite technical, but at the same time is extremely important that there is a chance for those members of the public who have this interest and understanding and maybe even ability to explain it very easily to others to have access and enough transparency to see how algorithms governing the digital public infrastructure, how those algorithms have been designed, so that you could actually verify that these algorithms do respect the human rights or the principles that we’re talking about. So I just wanted to point this out as something that might be of interest to know. Then, of course, there are many other things. independent oversight, there has to be inclusive participation and as many people you know should have a possibility to have a say in how these things are being developed in the society.

Lea Kaspar: Maybe to note I have a couple of points from in the chat as well and one of the questions that’s being asked is about implementation and operationalization of principles and at least since I joined this space and kind of the broader digital rights space there have been a flurry of principles internet universality principles and this and that where it really kind of comes down what it comes down to is implementation. Have you already thought about how this is going to be operationalized once the principles are completed?

Rasmus Lumi: Well as usual the principles firstly need to be there so that you know people could actually kind of absorb them and not only you know not only you know people on the street but we also talk about the governments. The principles need to be there so that people could think about them, have the understanding of the existence of those principles and this is why it is important to not only adopt the principles but then to actually also promote them because it’s true that you know as you said there is a flurry of all sorts of different principles that we tend to adopt within our different institutions but then the question is that you know what are we doing afterwards and how’s the what are we doing afterwards and then how’s the promotion going. With regard to implementation then I would say that the implementation is maybe the third step first being the actual adoption of the principles second being the promotion of the principles and then the third step maybe would be implementation which comes only after people have actually absorbed the information. about the existing principles and have developed an understanding of the importance of those principles. So I would say that, I mean, I have been thinking about the second step, but not necessarily about the implementation step, because this is very much down to the national governments to decide what to do and how to do. But it’s very important that people would also have the understanding and would be able to request this from their governments and not leave it up to the policymakers to take these decisions or even worse, just leave it to the tech experts to take the decisions on how to develop those things. That’s why public participation is key, and this is why transparency is key, because without transparency and openness, the public will not be able to understand these concepts. And that’s why we need to go step by step with all this. Thank you.

Lea Kaspar: Did anyone want to come in at this point? Paul, yes, go ahead, UK.

Audience: Thank you very much. My name is Paul Blake. I’m from the UK government. And thank you so much for this presentation. It’s really interesting, and I think it’s really important. I’m actually reading the principles for the first time, so forgive me if this is a quick reaction from the top of my head. But there were two questions that struck me. The first one, going back to what you said about your experience in Africa, I understand these are principles, but, of course, developing countries will face really huge challenges in implementation of these principles. And I wondered if the principles might have more traction if they were able to recognize that more explicitly. So, for example, thinking about inclusion, really important principle, but to think about that in terms of a developing country, you must address issues around affordability, issues around reliability and continuity of service, et cetera. And I wondered if the text used those words or recognized those challenges more explicitly, then it might have more traction in countries that are really challenged by those kinds of issues. Again, what you were saying about the next steps, I wanted to ask what the timetable was. When will they be finalised and published, do you think, roughly? And then there are so many international forums discussing this topic, whether it’s IGFs, ITU, WSIS. Actually, the Commonwealth Telecommunication Organisation is doing a lot of work on digital transformation. At the moment, they published a report last year looking at case studies around the Commonwealth of digital transformation, and whether there are opportunities for using those kinds of forums and others just to promote these principles and make them more widely known. Thank you.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much. I’m a big proponent of saying that the first feeling is the right feeling. So when this is your first reaction, then I suppose you’re right anyway. But I agree also very much. I think you’re quite right that we could definitely develop this principle on inclusivity and this explanatory part of it in a much better manner so that people would actually be able to read out of it more of our understanding towards their challenges. So thank you very much for that, and then we will definitely take this into account. Now, what comes to other international fora and the promotion of the principles there, yes, I mean, we, as the Freedom Online Coalition, always participate at the IGF, and we try to be… Well, I mean, we can’t be everywhere, but we are doing our best to be present in as many different fora as possible where to promote these principles and the rest of the work of the Freedom Online Coalition. And we have always been also grateful to our own membership and everybody else for proposals. and invitations to different fora for speaking there, for participating there and so on. So we are extremely open to all that and I will gladly continue with all of it during the Estonian chairship. Thank you.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you. I have another person in the room here. Go ahead. Yeah.

Audience: Hello everybody. My name is NebojÅ¡a Rego. I’m from Foreign Ministry of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I’ve been following Freedom Online Coalition for several years as a participant of EuroDIG, IGF and I’ve been familiarized with the work of Freedom Online Coalition. I even participated once in your event in Ghana when I was invited to discuss the, at that time, global initiative of the Secretary General. And I really have a great admiration to the work of and of the concept of Freedom Online Coalition but unfortunately my country, in spite of my proposal, still is not part of Freedom, of Coalition of Freedom Online. The problem with these principles, speaking about the concrete issue, is that when I see all of them, they are really comprehensive and, I would say, relevant to everybody. But not relevant to everybody at the same time. Some of the countries would have probably this minimum request of providing internet connection to the population and in the sense of both both physical infrastructure and also educating people how to use it. For example, in my country, you have a remote village in the mountains that they have no connection to the Internet, but you have people who would gladly use it and who know how to use it. And at the same time, in the big cities where connectivity is omnipresent, you have so many people who have no knowledge how to use it. They have no interest, actually. We come to another principle of spreading information and of importance of that. One of the things, again, based on example from my country, is legislation. How to first, let’s say, convince legislators that they should enforce use of digital platforms in order to first make more efficient processes to the citizens and second, to make it also easier and much cheaper in their offices in the institutions. I remember visiting Estonia, I think it’s been already 10 years. At that time, I was amazed with the things like voting from your home using ID card. And 10 years forward, we still cannot have digital signature in Bosnia and Herzegovina because legislators cannot agree. We have possibility to do infrastructure, physical infrastructure, but we have a problem. with the legislation that would allow that. Another example is also one of the principles, I think it’s called interoperability, where you have government offices where I have to go literally in one room, get the paper and then go in the next room to bring that paper in order to get the third paper, you know. It sounds funny, but it is like that. I don’t know what is the reason for that. Is it that actually these systems are not compatible, so they cannot communicate? Or is it actually just a matter of, you know, turning one switch that would allow that communication? That’s speaking on the basis of experience of this. I would agree with this, what you both agreed about the need for spreading the information. I wanted to say that, actually to start with that, but since you mentioned it, I left that for the end of my address. I think that really these principles deserve to be widely spread. I know that you are going to do that on IGF and other forums that are dealing with internet governance and the digital agenda. I think one of the good forums would be somewhere in the United Nations, where all other countries that are not part of freedom of of Freedom Online Coalition could hear and maybe absorb ideas. Keep good work. Thank you.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you. And perhaps also to mention that we are actually, due to the question of linkages with other initiatives, there are other initiatives working on DPI. And so we’ve been making an effort to link all of those up. We’re working on an IGF workshop that we’re merging and we’ll be holding a conversation about this in Norway. So for those of you who will be there, it would be great to have a continuation of this conversation. Maybe Rasmus Lumi, to you, I have an online participant also who wants to ask a question, but maybe if you want to make a comment. Yeah, go ahead.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you. I just wanted to comment on what you said and very much agree, as also with another question, that inclusivity is very important. We absolutely realize that not everybody has sufficient or even access to the Internet at all. So this definitely has to be taken into account. And of course, it’s very much country specific. Also, all the situations, digital literacy that you mentioned is extremely important. Without this, some people will absolutely be at a disadvantage. That’s why digital literacy and education on the digital transformation is very, very important. Now, with regard to interoperability and, for example, e-voting that you mentioned, I mean, e-voting is, of course, a very unique thing that we have. And this really, first of all, requires everybody in a country to have equal access and absolutely equal access to the digital public infrastructure, which is not really very easy. to achieve, we just happen to be lucky with that. And that’s why I understand that this is something that is not very easily to be replicated in many other countries. But with regard to interoperability, this is very important. As I said also, when we are designing different parts of the digital public infrastructure, that there was comprehensive thinking behind it. And this is, as you said, that there are different systems and different ways of bringing papers in between different rooms. It can be technologically solved, of course, and then there can be a digital solution to all of it. But in order to have it, there has to be a comprehensive understanding of what you are building, because otherwise you will end up exactly with dozens of different systems without them really working smoothly together. So this is something that everybody would have to take into account while starting.

Audience: Just one small remark. I was giving this, I guess, more as an example, how interoperability is important on the low level. And then from that, let’s say, basic level to continue building up and taking into account connectivity among the countries or between, inside the region and then internationally. How to build, let’s start from your own backyard, connect offices, then connect, I don’t know, if you have different states or regions or provinces in your country, then inside the region, inside the continent, but you need to have some standards. to take into account from starting the basis. If you have one principle in your municipality and in the state level, you have another system, you have that problem. So, it’s a very important principle.

Lea Kaspar: Okay, thank you. I think we should talk to Bosnia and see if they would like to join the coalition as observers. It would be really good to have your perspectives there. But I have an online participant, so I want to go to Giovanna now and then Xianghong, I’m going to come to you next. Okay.

Audience: Hi, everyone. I hope you all can hear me. My name is Giovanna Fleck. I’m representing RNW Media and for full disclosure as well, I’m submitting a few comments on the public consultation with a group of other researchers doing work on digital public infrastructures. I want to say that it’s very exciting to be able to have this discussion on a human rights-based perspective on digital public infrastructures. And my comment, it was more of a question that came up while we were establishing our recommendations or our input. And we came across this conversation or this debate around the principles in the way that they are stated right now, which is we didn’t see a view that proposes the power imbalances between different actors in the implementation of DPI. And that’s taking into account that all infrastructure investments can create externalities and some of those need to be mitigated around. In our discussions, it came out that digital infrastructure can be both more malleable than physical infrastructure, but can also be more brittle. And therefore, it’s very important to embed. within an approach to DPI and approach to change management, something that is tailored to context and aims to identify which issues must be addressed and upfront in the part of design of the DPI and what can also be mitigated through ring operation by modifications to the system in itself. So really considering people’s perspectives upfront and potentially communities that might be most impacted but by not only on the sense of inclusion as digital inclusion was mentioned before or even digital literacy, but also how those technologies will be used and apprehended by specific parts of the population. So I was just wondering if there’s a specific part of the current principles that address this or if this was also a discussion within the FOC and therefore if it should also be more explicit. Thank you very much.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much for the question. Firstly, maybe a reaction to your very last comment. Well, there hasn’t been a specific open discussion among the FOC yet about this, but of course there will be. Now, with regard to your question about how all of this that you pointed out has been included in the current version of the principles, I think, well, what you mentioned, I see it here and there in the principles, but I would maybe agree with you that it would be worthwhile maybe to try to have a more concise approach or point on what you were saying so that it could be read out from the principles in a more clear and understandable way. So thank you very much for this comment and proposal, and we will definitely be looking into it. incorporating into the principles in a clearer manner. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you. Thank you for giving the floor. My name is Xian Hong, representing UNESCO. I first like to congratulate Freedom Alliance Coalition for launching such a wonderful initiative, because DPI is still comparatively new concept in the internet governance discussion, but it becomes so crucial issue, particularly in face of the implementation of the global digital compact with all about how we can harness the digital public good. And this morning, I have moderated a session on the dynamic coalition on measuring digital inclusion. However, I perceive that in the discourse on digital inclusion, there’s still a lack of attention and consideration on the DPI issue. So I do hope that we can collaborate further to get this concept more noted by the expert policymakers to when they try to measure digital inclusion, they should definitely have an indicator to measure how DPI is being advanced, enhanced at national level. And that’s about measurement. I think we can really enhance this. Also, I think it can contribute to the question asked before about how we implement the principles once we have them, because if you cannot measure properly the problem, you cannot put in place the tailored policies. And then third point is about good practice. We know that Estonia and several other countries are among one of the leading countries, very strong in the DPI. UNESCO, we are so connecting with the global south, and my program called the Information for All program, we are really working with developing countries to reinforce their DPI capacity. So I also perceive a need that perhaps we can share some good practice from DPI countries and then we can duplicate the good practice in other countries, particularly in the developing countries. And if you allow me, I’d also like to invite the Free Freedom Land Coalition and also colleagues here to attend our June conference. UNESCO is convening a conference in June 4th to 5th about the capacity building on AI and the digital transformation in the public sector. That’s exactly the occasion we can also perhaps flag this important subject on the digital public infrastructure with the governments and stakeholders to move the agenda forward. And I have some flyers. Feel free to come to me. Thank you.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you, Xian Hong. I have a hand up over there in the back.

Audience: Hello. Thank you. Jure Bilic from the Ministry of Science and Education of the Republic of Croatia. I’m thinking along the lines of AI Act. I like the principles, but is it possible perhaps to also name practices incompatible to the principles? I’m talking about along the line of population surveillance or profiling. So we cannot say they are prohibited because these are guidelines, obviously, but I think it might be pragmatic also to name the practices we are not supporting when using digital public infrastructure. Thank you.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much for this proposal. Again, I think this sounds like a very good idea, but we’ll probably have to think about it a bit because my initial reaction would be that if we mention it, then we might be giving someone ideas, which we also don’t want. So we have to think about how to… to put it into the principle so that it would serve the purpose that you’re mentioning, but at the same time, you know, avoiding potential negative impact of it. But thank you very much.

Lea Kaspar: I don’t know, Rasmus Lumi, if you had any comments on what Xian Hong was mentioning about, she was talking about measurement indicators, and did you get as far as thinking about that, or maybe that’s in the next step when it comes to operationalization? Okay, yeah. Very good. I like this ex-Yugoslavia contingent to happen. Okay, yes, not only, not only. We don’t have Croatia or Bosnia in the fold of the coalition, and no, no, neither. Okay, okay. I don’t see any other hands, just want to see if there’s anyone else in the room who wants to come in, or anyone online who’d want to comment. I don’t know, Rasmus Lumi, it sounds like there’s a lot of agreement. Is there anything else that you were thinking about, or that you want to ask to the audience here, kind of our European stakeholders that we have in the room today?

Rasmus Lumi: Well, not maybe specifically, other than just saying that as it has been voiced here too, I think we have a lot of common understanding about the need for inclusivity as one of the maybe main points that has come up in our discussion, and that in order for all of this to actually work well, we need to firstly work towards getting everybody everywhere on more or less the same ground. So this is something that, of course, is maybe a little bit far-reaching for the Freedom Online Coalition, but at the same time, it is up to all of us. to try to deliver this message also to the European policy makers, that if we actually want to spread these principles and our approach and understanding of what would be the human-centred solution or solutions for all the people, then we really need to take a more comprehensive approach to all of it, and especially from the point of view of being able to implement all this as well. I mean, of course, it is nice to draw up another set of principles, but if there is no basis for effective implementation, then I would agree that it’s kind of pointless. So that’s why I would agree very much with everything that you have said about the need to get everybody on the same page from the point of view of digital literacy, from the point of view of access to the Internet, from the point of view of having the same possibilities to participate publicly in the policy making inside a society, using the digital developments. So, I mean, again, thank you very much for all that. And from the Freedom Online Coalition point of view, we will definitely be discussing it among the coalition, and we will see how and what the coalition could do to also direct some of this and some of your ideas towards our policy makers, so that we could actually do something practical also on the ground in order to increase the possibilities for these principles to be implemented also globally. Thank you.

Lea Kaspar: Thank you, Rasmus Lumi. I’m just going to check if there’s anyone else who wants to come in, either here or online. This is your chance, although as we noted… You may still submit any comments online and this is a conversation that we will continue to have so it’s not the last chance also to help us shape the principles but unless there’s anything else in the room I’d like to thank everyone for joining us today and we hope you stay engaged. Reps from Croatia and Bosnia I’m coming to you next now after the close of the session to see what we do to have you kind of engage with the coalition and everyone else thanks again and Rasmus Lumi thank you as well for leading us in this endeavour. Thanks everyone.

Agreement points

Inclusivity is a fundamental requirement for DPI implementation

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

Twelve principles proposed including human-centered solutions, inclusivity, international human rights standards, transparency and accountability

Developing countries need explicit recognition of challenges like affordability and service reliability in principles

Legislative barriers and lack of interoperability between government systems hinder DPI development even where technical infrastructure exists

Summary

All speakers agreed that inclusivity must be a core principle, with developing countries needing explicit recognition of their unique challenges like affordability and connectivity issues

Topics

Development | Human rights

Implementation requires comprehensive approach beyond just adopting principles

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

Three-step approach: adoption of principles, promotion to raise awareness, then implementation by national governments

Comprehensive approach needed including digital literacy, internet access, and equal participation opportunities for effective global implementation

Need for indicators to measure DPI advancement as part of digital inclusion metrics

Summary

Speakers consensus that successful DPI implementation requires more than principles – needs measurement frameworks, capacity building, and addressing foundational barriers

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Transparency and public participation are essential for democratic DPI

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

Public participation and transparency are key to enabling citizens to demand rights-respecting DPI from their governments

Trust between government, private sector and civil society is fundamental for DPI success, requiring transparent and understandable principles

Algorithmic transparency and independent oversight are crucial technical aspects that should be included

Summary

Strong agreement that transparency, public participation, and trust-building are fundamental requirements for rights-respecting DPI implementation

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

International collaboration and knowledge sharing are crucial

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

Privacy and security, societal context, sustainability and resilience, data-driven approaches, interoperability, technology neutrality, openness, and collaboration are essential components

Collaboration with international forums like IGF, ITU, WSIS and UN platforms needed for wider promotion

Sharing good practices from leading DPI countries to developing nations through capacity building programs

Summary

Universal agreement on the importance of international collaboration, knowledge sharing, and leveraging existing forums to promote DPI principles globally

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both recognized that developing regions face fundamental infrastructure and connectivity challenges that must be addressed before implementing sophisticated DPI principles

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

African regions face basic connectivity issues as primary barrier before addressing rights-based infrastructure

Developing countries need explicit recognition of challenges like affordability and service reliability in principles

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Agreement that technical governance aspects like algorithmic transparency and addressing power imbalances should be explicitly incorporated into the principles

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

Algorithmic transparency and independent oversight are crucial technical aspects that should be included

Power imbalances between actors and potential externalities from DPI implementation need explicit consideration in principles

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Need for explicit naming of incompatible practices in DPI principles

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

Naming practices incompatible with principles, such as population surveillance, could provide practical guidance similar to AI Act approach

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around the idea of explicitly naming prohibited practices (like surveillance) in the principles, similar to the AI Act approach. This was surprising as it moves beyond positive principles to explicit prohibitions, which Rasmus Lumi initially had concerns about but ultimately found valuable

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Strong emphasis on measurement and indicators for DPI implementation

Speakers

– Audience

Arguments

Need for indicators to measure DPI advancement as part of digital inclusion metrics

Explanation

Unexpected strong consensus on the critical importance of developing measurement frameworks and indicators for DPI, with recognition that without proper measurement, effective policy implementation is impossible

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around core principles of inclusivity, transparency, public participation, and international collaboration. All speakers agreed on the fundamental importance of addressing developing country challenges, building trust through transparency, and ensuring comprehensive implementation approaches that go beyond just adopting principles.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive suggestions for improvement rather than fundamental disagreements. The discussion was collaborative and focused on strengthening the principles rather than challenging their basic premises. This strong consensus suggests good prospects for successful adoption and implementation of the FOC DPI principles, with clear pathways identified for addressing implementation challenges through measurement frameworks, capacity building, and international cooperation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing incompatible practices in DPI principles

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience (Jure Bilic)

Arguments

Naming practices incompatible with principles, such as population surveillance, could provide practical guidance similar to AI Act approach

Initial reaction would be that if we mention it, then we might be giving someone ideas, which we also don’t want

Summary

Audience member suggested explicitly naming incompatible practices like surveillance in the principles for clarity, while Rasmus Lumi expressed concern that mentioning such practices might give bad actors ideas, showing disagreement on whether to explicitly list prohibited practices

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Risk of providing ideas to bad actors through explicit prohibition lists

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience (Jure Bilic)

Arguments

Naming practices incompatible with principles, such as population surveillance, could provide practical guidance similar to AI Act approach

Initial reaction would be that if we mention it, then we might be giving someone ideas, which we also don’t want

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because both speakers shared the same goal of preventing harmful practices, but had opposite views on whether explicitly naming prohibited practices would help or harm that goal. The concern about ‘giving ideas’ to bad actors was an unexpected counterargument to what seemed like a straightforward transparency proposal

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high levels of agreement on core principles and goals, with most disagreements being tactical rather than fundamental. The main areas of disagreement centered on how explicitly to address challenges and prohibited practices in the principles document.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high consensus on fundamental goals. The disagreements were primarily about implementation approaches and specificity levels rather than core values, suggesting strong potential for collaborative resolution and indicating that the FOC principles have broad support among stakeholders.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both recognized that developing regions face fundamental infrastructure and connectivity challenges that must be addressed before implementing sophisticated DPI principles

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

African regions face basic connectivity issues as primary barrier before addressing rights-based infrastructure

Developing countries need explicit recognition of challenges like affordability and service reliability in principles

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Agreement that technical governance aspects like algorithmic transparency and addressing power imbalances should be explicitly incorporated into the principles

Speakers

– Rasmus Lumi
– Audience

Arguments

Algorithmic transparency and independent oversight are crucial technical aspects that should be included

Power imbalances between actors and potential externalities from DPI implementation need explicit consideration in principles

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) is developing 12 principles for rights-respecting Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), with Estonia leading the initiative based on their 25 years of experience

Trust between government, private sector, and civil society is fundamental for successful DPI implementation, requiring transparent and understandable principles

Regional differences in DPI challenges are significant – African regions face basic connectivity issues while European countries deal with legislative barriers and system interoperability

A three-step implementation approach is proposed: adoption of principles, promotion to raise awareness, then implementation by national governments

Public participation and transparency are essential to enable citizens to demand rights-respecting DPI from their governments

The 12 core principles include human-centered solutions, inclusivity, human rights standards, transparency, privacy/security, societal context, sustainability, data-driven approaches, interoperability, technology neutrality, openness, and collaboration

Technical aspects like algorithmic transparency and independent oversight need explicit inclusion in the principles

Measurement indicators and capacity building programs are needed to support global DPI advancement

Resolutions and action items

Public consultation period open until May 16 for written input on the DPI principles zero draft

FOC will continue regional consultations and participate in international forums like IGF to promote the principles

Principles will be refined based on feedback, particularly around inclusivity challenges for developing countries

FOC will explore collaboration with UNESCO’s June 4-5 conference on AI and digital transformation in public sector

Coalition will consider how to incorporate power imbalances and externalities more explicitly in the principles

FOC representatives will engage with Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina about potential coalition participation

An IGF workshop will be held in Norway to continue the DPI discussion

Unresolved issues

How to operationalize and measure implementation of the principles once finalized

Whether to explicitly name practices incompatible with the principles (like surveillance) without giving bad actors ideas

How to address power imbalances between different actors in DPI implementation

Specific mechanisms for sharing good practices from leading DPI countries to developing nations

How to ensure meaningful participation from Global South countries in the consultation process

Integration with other existing DPI initiatives and principles to avoid duplication

Concrete technical standards for algorithmic transparency and independent oversight

Suggested compromises

Developing the inclusivity principle with more explicit recognition of developing country challenges like affordability and service reliability

Taking a comprehensive approach that addresses both technical infrastructure and capacity building needs simultaneously

Balancing the need to name incompatible practices while avoiding giving bad actors ideas about surveillance methods

Incorporating societal context considerations while maintaining universal human rights standards

Phased implementation approach that recognizes different countries are at different stages of DPI development

I wondered if the principles might have more traction if they were able to recognize [developing country challenges] more explicitly. So, for example, thinking about inclusion, really important principle, but to think about that in terms of a developing country, you must address issues around affordability, issues around reliability and continuity of service, et cetera.

Speaker

Paul Blake (UK government)

Reason

This comment was insightful because it identified a critical gap between high-level principles and practical implementation realities. Blake recognized that universal principles need contextual adaptation to be meaningful and actionable in different economic and developmental contexts.

Impact

This comment immediately resonated with Rasmus Lumi, who agreed they should ‘definitely develop this principle on inclusivity…in a much better manner so that people would actually be able to read out of it more of our understanding towards their challenges.’ It shifted the discussion from presenting principles to critically examining their practical applicability and led to concrete acknowledgment of needed improvements.

We didn’t see a view that proposes the power imbalances between different actors in the implementation of DPI…digital infrastructure can be both more malleable than physical infrastructure, but can also be more brittle. And therefore, it’s very important to embed…an approach to change management, something that is tailored to context and aims to identify which issues must be addressed upfront in the part of design.

Speaker

Giovanna Fleck (RNW Media)

Reason

This was the most sophisticated analytical comment, introducing the concept of power dynamics and structural considerations that weren’t explicitly addressed in the principles. It demonstrated deep understanding of infrastructure theory and highlighted the unique characteristics of digital versus physical infrastructure.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion to a more nuanced level, forcing consideration of systemic issues beyond individual rights. Rasmus Lumi acknowledged this hadn’t been specifically discussed within the FOC and agreed it should be ‘incorporated into the principles in a clearer manner,’ indicating this input would directly influence the principles’ development.

The problem with these principles…is that when I see all of them, they are really comprehensive and, I would say, relevant to everybody. But not relevant to everybody at the same time…We have possibility to do infrastructure, physical infrastructure, but we have a problem with the legislation that would allow that.

Speaker

Nebojša Rego (Bosnia and Herzegovina Foreign Ministry)

Reason

This comment provided crucial ground-level perspective on implementation barriers, highlighting the paradox of universal principles in diverse contexts. It illustrated how legal and political frameworks can be more constraining than technical capabilities, using concrete examples from his country’s decade-long struggle with digital signatures.

Impact

This comment reinforced the theme of implementation challenges and added a new dimension – legislative barriers. It prompted discussion about the need for comprehensive thinking in system design and led to Lea Kaspar suggesting Bosnia should join the coalition as observers, showing how substantive contributions can lead to expanded participation.

Is it possible perhaps to also name practices incompatible to the principles? I’m talking about along the line of population surveillance or profiling. So we cannot say they are prohibited because these are guidelines, obviously, but I think it might be pragmatic also to name the practices we are not supporting.

Speaker

Jure Bilic (Croatia Ministry of Science and Education)

Reason

This comment introduced a different approach to principle-setting by suggesting negative definitions alongside positive ones. It showed strategic thinking about how to make principles more actionable and clear about boundaries, referencing the EU AI Act as a model.

Impact

This comment introduced a new methodological consideration that hadn’t been discussed – whether to include prohibited practices. It prompted Rasmus Lumi to engage in real-time policy thinking about potential unintended consequences (‘we might be giving someone ideas’), showing how the comment pushed the discussion into practical policy design considerations.

In order for the digital public infrastructure to work well, according to our experience, there has to be trust between the government, the private sector and civil society organisations…trust is something that cannot be effectuated through a policy decision. So it has to be built up through different methods in the society.

Speaker

Rasmus Lumi (Estonia Ministry of Foreign Affairs)

Reason

This comment was foundational because it identified trust as the prerequisite for all other principles, acknowledging that technical solutions alone are insufficient. It demonstrated sophisticated understanding that social infrastructure must precede digital infrastructure.

Impact

This comment set the philosophical framework for the entire discussion, establishing that DPI success depends on social relationships rather than just technical capabilities. It influenced how subsequent speakers framed their contributions, with many referencing the need for inclusive participation and contextual understanding.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shifted the discussion from a presentation of principles to a critical examination of implementation challenges and gaps. The conversation evolved from theoretical to practical, with participants identifying specific barriers (legislative, economic, social) and methodological improvements (negative definitions, power analysis, contextual adaptation). The comments created a collaborative refinement process, with Rasmus Lumi repeatedly acknowledging the need to incorporate suggestions, demonstrating how substantive input can directly influence policy development. The discussion also revealed the tension between universal principles and local contexts, ultimately strengthening the FOC’s approach by highlighting areas for improvement before finalization.

How can the FOC ensure inclusive and meaningful participation from the public, especially from developing regions in the global south, to provide input into the DPI principles zero draft?

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This addresses concerns about whether the consultation process is truly reaching and including voices from regions that may be most affected by DPI implementation challenges

What is the specific timetable for when the principles will be finalized and published?

Speaker

Paul Blake (UK government)

Explanation

Understanding the timeline is important for stakeholders to plan their engagement and for coordinating with other international forums

How can these principles be promoted through other international forums like IGFs, ITU, WSIS, and Commonwealth Telecommunication Organisation?

Speaker

Paul Blake (UK government)

Explanation

This explores opportunities for broader dissemination and coordination with existing international initiatives to avoid duplication and increase impact

How should the principles address power imbalances between different actors in DPI implementation and the need for change management approaches?

Speaker

Giovanna Fleck (RNW Media)

Explanation

This highlights the need to consider how DPI affects different stakeholders differently and how to manage transitions and potential negative externalities

How can measurement indicators be developed to assess DPI advancement at national levels as part of digital inclusion metrics?

Speaker

Xian Hong (UNESCO)

Explanation

This addresses the implementation challenge of how to measure progress on DPI principles and integrate these measurements into broader digital inclusion assessments

Should the principles explicitly name practices that are incompatible with rights-respecting DPI, such as population surveillance or profiling?

Speaker

Jure Bilic (Croatia Ministry of Science and Education)

Explanation

This explores whether the principles should include negative examples or prohibited practices to provide clearer guidance on what constitutes violations

How can algorithmic transparency be better incorporated into the principles to ensure public oversight of DPI systems?

Speaker

Rasmus Lumi (Estonia)

Explanation

This technical but crucial aspect needs further development to ensure that the algorithms governing DPI can be scrutinized for human rights compliance

How can the inclusivity principle be developed to more explicitly recognize challenges faced by developing countries, such as affordability and service reliability?

Speaker

Paul Blake (UK government)

Explanation

The current principle may be too general and needs to better acknowledge the specific barriers that prevent inclusive DPI implementation in resource-constrained environments

How can good practices from leading DPI countries be systematically shared and adapted for implementation in developing countries?

Speaker

Xian Hong (UNESCO)

Explanation

This addresses the practical need for knowledge transfer and capacity building to support global implementation of the principles