Advancing digital inclusion and human-rights:ROAM-X approach | IGF 2023

Iglika Ivanova

Bulgaria is currently conducting its first National Assessment on Internet Development, which is part of the Digital Decade Programme of the European Union. The aim of this assessment is to evaluate the internet development in the country and identify areas for improvement. It is worth noting that this assessment is an ongoing national evaluation that is also being conducted in two other European countries.

The assessment highlights the need for enhanced performance in digital transition and infrastructure distribution, particularly in rural areas. It recognizes the importance of ensuring that all regions have equal access to digital infrastructure to promote sustainable cities and communities. Additionally, the assessment emphasizes the importance of promoting digital skills among the population to ensure the successful transition to a digital economy.

A key aspect of conducting the National Assessment is the adoption of a multi-stakeholder approach. The assessment is guided by a diverse advisory board with extensive knowledge and experience in relevant fields. This board plays a crucial role in developing the research methodology and identifying relevant information sources. Their involvement ensures a comprehensive and robust assessment.

However, there is room for improvement in the consultation and validation process with the multi-stakeholder advisory board. The experts on the board should have a vested interest in the project and be provided with all relevant documents in advance to facilitate their ability to provide significant and relevant feedback. Additionally, the direct involvement of relevant national authorities in the board can enhance their understanding and prolong their engagement, leading to a more effective assessment process.

In conclusion, Bulgaria’s National Assessment on Internet Development, as part of the Digital Decade Programme of the European Union, aims to evaluate and improve internet development in the country. The assessment focuses on enhancing digital transition and infrastructure distribution in rural areas, promoting digital skills, and reducing administrative burdens. The process is guided by a multi-stakeholder approach, although there is room for improvement in the consultation and validation process with the advisory board.

Fabio Senne

The analysis highlights key points regarding the Internet Universality Indicators (IOI) and potential improvements. The IOI process begins with the establishment of a multistakeholder advisory board and consultations with relevant stakeholders. This inclusive approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of a country’s internet environment, identifying data gaps and creating roadmaps for action. The sentiment towards the IOI process is positive, as it promotes inclusivity and collaboration.

Suggestions for improvement include revising the IOI framework to incorporate developments in the digital ecosystem over the past five years. This involves consultations with 15 countries and an online survey with responses from 23 countries. The sentiment towards this revision is positive, recognizing the need for the IOI to adapt to technological advancements.

Furthermore, there is a call for deeper connection between the IOI and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This would enhance alignment and coherence between the IOI indicators and the SDGs. This suggestion is viewed positively, strengthening the IOI’s relevance to the broader development agenda.

There is also support for integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the IOI framework, given its significant impact on the internet environment. Currently, AI is only represented in one indicator out of 303, developed five years ago. The sentiment towards this proposal is positive, acknowledging the need to accurately reflect the modern technological landscape.

Lastly, it is proposed that the IOI address aspects such as mental health and sustainable development. These dimensions emerged during the consultation process. This suggestion is positively received, reflecting the growing recognition of the Internet’s influence on mental health and the importance of sustainability in the digital age.

Overall, there is a need for an updated IOI framework that considers developments in the digital ecosystem, aligns with the SDGs, incorporates AI impact, and addresses mental health and sustainable development. These enhancements will ensure the IOI remains relevant in assessing and promoting a thriving and inclusive internet environment.

L. Ariunzul Ochir

The current accessibility of the internet for persons with disabilities, language minorities, and the elderly in Mongolia is a pressing issue. The government has implemented a website standard, MNS 6285-2017, for planning requirements of government websites. However, this standard does not adequately address the barriers faced by these specific demographics.

Several challenges hinder internet accessibility for these groups. For instance, Mongolian government websites do not fully comply with the globally recognized Web Content Accessibility Guideline, developed by the World Web Consortium. This non-compliance exacerbates the difficulties faced by persons with disabilities, language minorities, and the elderly.

The Web Content Accessibility Guideline is crucial in many countries, including the United States and the European Union. In the US, it is followed under section 508, while the EU has a similar guideline called EN-301549. These guidelines emphasize the importance of ensuring accessibility for all users.

To address these challenges, it is suggested that the IUI (internet usability and impact) assessment of accessibility be revised to incorporate inquiries about whether the country adheres to the Web Content Accessibility Guideline or a similar guideline. This revision would help improve internet accessibility and promote inclusive practices in Mongolia.

In conclusion, the current state of internet accessibility in Mongolia poses barriers for persons with disabilities, language minorities, and the elderly. The existing website standard for government websites does not adequately address their needs, and Mongolian government websites do not fully comply with the globally recognized Web Content Accessibility Guideline. By revising the IUI assessment to include adherence to accessibility guidelines, progress can be made towards enhancing internet accessibility and achieving greater inclusion for all demographics in Mongolia.

Alain Kiyindou

The analysis reveals several significant findings and insights related to gender equality, internet access, and empowerment. One key observation is that while many countries have implemented laws aimed at improving gender equality and facilitating women’s access to technology and education, the effectiveness of these measures is questionable. There is still a considerable gap between men and women in terms of accessing the internet, acquiring digital skills, and achieving positions of responsibility.

The analysis also highlights persistent challenges in areas such as data collection, e-waste management, and internet access, especially in less connected regions. This emphasizes the need for concerted efforts to address these issues and ensure equitable access to the internet and its associated benefits for all individuals and communities. The use of Internet and Communication Technologies (ICTs) is deemed crucial for the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals, making it imperative to tackle these challenges effectively.

On a positive note, the analysis recognizes the popularity of online financial services, attributing their success to their ability to provide instant, tailor-made, and affordable banking and financial solutions. These services not only cater to the public’s desire for convenience but also offer new opportunities for businesses and economic growth. This highlights the importance of online financial services in supporting SDG 8, which aims to promote decent work and economic growth.

Regarding legal frameworks, the analysis highlights the delicate balance that must be struck between combating online hate speech and protecting free speech. It is crucial to approach the regulation of hate speech in a manner that upholds human rights and ensures that freedom of expression is not unduly curtailed. Ethical considerations are also deemed vital in the fight against hate speech, emphasizing the importance of finding an appropriate balance between these competing interests.

The analysis asserts that achieving the universality of the internet requires both local and macro approaches. Sub-regional forums are seen as valuable platforms for shared reflections on the issue, fostering collaboration and cooperation in achieving universal internet access.

Furthermore, the analysis underscores the significance of thoughtful follow-up to evaluations. It is essential to evaluate initiatives and programs aimed at promoting industry, innovation, and infrastructure and to use the findings to inform future decision-making and planning. Additionally, communicating the benefits and progress made through these evaluations is important to foster support and understanding among stakeholders.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of issues related to gender equality, internet access, and empowerment. It emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and collaborative approach to address challenges and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Furthermore, it underscores the importance of balancing the regulation of hate speech with the protection of free speech, the significance of online financial services in driving economic growth, and the necessity of ongoing evaluation and communication to ensure effective implementation of initiatives and policies.

Pisal Chanty

The IUI (Indicators for Universal Internet Access) assessment in Cambodia has faced significant delays due to data gaps and other issues. Initiated by the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication and UNESCO Phnom Penh in 2022, the project aims to evaluate Cambodia’s progress in achieving universal internet access. However, the assessment process has been impeded by insufficient data and other challenges. This has hindered the accurate understanding of internet access in Cambodia, which is crucial for fostering innovation and development according to SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure and SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

In addition to data gaps, the assessment has also encountered challenges related to human rights. Although the Royal Government of Cambodia has ratified various regional and international human rights agreements, there is no specific regulation defining the equivalence of rights in the online and offline realms. This inconsistency in interpretation and practice, particularly concerning defamation and cybercrimes, poses challenges to upholding fundamental human rights in the digital sphere. While Cambodia’s constitution enshrines fundamental human rights, the absence of specific regulations leaves room for ambiguity and potential violations.

Another area of concern is the legal framework for data interception in Cambodia. The introduction of the telecommunications law for legal interception in 2015 led to contention between the Royal Government of Cambodia and civil society organizations (CSOs). Furthermore, the implementation of measures such as the national internet gateway, which allows authorities to monitor and control internet traffic, has been postponed due to its contentious nature. The vague and contentious nature of these legal frameworks hampers transparency and accountability.

To address these challenges, there is a need for legal refining and adoption, capacity building for judiciary and policymakers, and encouraging multi-stakeholder participation. Human rights have been a contested issue between the government and CSOs. Establishing a multi-stakeholder advisory board that represents various stakeholders, including the government, academia, and CSOs, could ensure a balanced and inclusive approach. Additionally, the voices of all stakeholders should be incorporated into the text of the IUI assessment report, ensuring a comprehensive and representative analysis.

UNESCO plays a crucial role in moderating the IUI assessment report, acting as a balancing force to reconcile differing opinions between the government and CSOs. By ensuring the report’s text is agreeable to both parties, UNESCO promotes a collaborative and constructive dialogue for addressing internet access and human rights in Cambodia.

Additionally, it is important to revise the IUI assessment to keep it relevant, incorporating advancements in technology as the digital landscape rapidly evolves. Meaningful connectivity and participation, along with the development of digital skills, become crucial factors in bridging the digital divide and achieving inclusive and sustainable development. These factors align with SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Lastly, multi-stakeholder participation and ownership of the report are essential for successfully implementing recommendations. By involving all relevant stakeholders and ensuring their active engagement, the chances of effective and sustainable implementation of the assessment’s recommendations significantly increase. This aligns with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, emphasizing the importance of collaborative efforts in achieving the SDGs.

In conclusion, addressing data gaps, refining legal frameworks, promoting human rights, and fostering multi-stakeholder participation are crucial for enhancing internet access and rights in Cambodia. The involvement of UNESCO and the need to continuously revise the IUI assessment to keep it relevant highlight the importance of international cooperation and adaptability in tackling the challenges posed by the digital age. By working together and ensuring meaningful connectivity and participation, Cambodia can move towards an inclusive and technologically equipped society that upholds human rights both online and offline.

Grace Githaiga

Kenya has implemented a comprehensive policy, legal, and institutional framework for human rights that adheres to international standards. This framework encompasses various aspects, including freedom of expression, access to information, association, participation in public affairs, privacy, and socio-economic and cultural rights. Notably, in 2022, the first review report on Kenya’s human rights was released, demonstrating the country’s commitment to transparency and evaluation.

One positive aspect highlighted is that Kenya does not have specific legislation in place that blocks internet access. This unrestricted access to the internet supports the freedom of expression and dissemination of information. It allows individuals to express their opinions, engage in online activities, and stay informed about local and global issues.

However, challenges have been observed in effectively implementing and enforcing human rights laws in Kenya. These challenges became evident during the general election in August 2022 and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. These events revealed gaps in the protection of human rights, as legal restrictions were imposed during the election and pandemic, hindering the full exercise of individuals’ rights. Additionally, threats and instances of disinformation have emerged, indicating gaps in internet freedom.

The presence of legal restrictions during critical events and the occurrence of disinformation emphasize the need for continuous improvement in safeguarding human rights in Kenya. While the comprehensive framework provides a solid foundation, there is still work to be done to ensure consistent respect and upholding of human rights.

In conclusion, Kenya’s dedication to a comprehensive policy, legal, and institutional framework for human rights is commendable. The integration of international standards and the absence of legislation restricting internet access are positive aspects. However, challenges in implementing and enforcing these rights, along with threats of disinformation, highlight areas for improvement. Ongoing efforts to address these challenges are crucial in creating a society that fully respects and protects human rights for all citizens.

Santosh Sigdel

The discussion highlights the importance of establishing consultation and validation with the multi-stakeholder advisory board (MAB) in the Internet Universal Access (IUA) assessment process. Involving various stakeholders ensures a more inclusive and comprehensive approach. By seeking input from different perspectives, the resulting findings and recommendations are likely to be more robust and representative of society’s diverse needs and interests.

To prevent biased representation, it is suggested to maintain a balance between government involvement and independent fact-checking. The potential influence of government agencies in shaping the Internet scenario is a concern that needs addressing. Incorporating independent fact-checking mechanisms can mitigate potential bias, resulting in a more accurate and unbiased assessment.

Furthermore, the involvement of all important government agencies from the beginning of report preparation is deemed significant. This ensures that crucial stakeholders are engaged throughout the process, allowing their expertise and insights to be integrated into the assessment. By including representatives from all ministries and government departments, a more comprehensive and well-rounded report can be produced.

Advocating for the inclusion of the national census office in the multi-stakeholder advisory board (MAB), it is highlighted that obtaining descriptive data is particularly challenging in least developed countries like Nepal. Including the national census office, which holds important indicators for data collection, can contribute to obtaining more relevant and segregated data. This would result in a more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the Internet scenario in the country.

The discussion also underscores the importance of regularly updating the content of the IUA assessment, as the digital landscape rapidly evolves. The IUA process should not be viewed as an end in itself but as a driving tool for the future. It should serve as a starting point for collaborative efforts to improve the Internet ecosystem in the country, maintaining its relevance and effectiveness.

Overall, the discussion emphasizes stakeholder involvement, unbiased representation, and regular updates in the IUA assessment process. By considering these factors, countries can work towards achieving greater inclusivity, accuracy, and progress in the development of their Internet ecosystems.

Claire Mélanie Popineau

Claire Mélanie Popineau highlights the importance of including contextual indicators when examining Internet Universality Indicators. These indicators are essential for understanding, gaining perspective, and making comparisons. Popineau emphasizes the significance of considering a country’s gross national income when interpreting connectivity rate indicators, as their meaning can vary depending on economic status.

The issue of accessibility, particularly illiteracy, is also addressed. Popineau argues that illiteracy poses a significant barrier to accessing and benefiting from the internet in France. This highlights the diverse challenges faced by different countries in achieving internet universality.

Despite the importance of indicators, Popineau raises concerns about their interpretation due to the influence of country contexts. The example of electricity access in France is used to illustrate this issue. In France, electricity access is not a major concern, which affects the evaluation of certain indicators. It is essential to contextualize and interpret indicators carefully to avoid generalizing conclusions across diverse national scenarios.

The complex relationship between rights and indicators is explored as well. Certain laws aimed at preventing harassment and hate speech are criticized for potentially creating ad hoc and infra-legal procedures. Popineau questions their effectiveness and the balance of rights they achieve. Furthermore, it is emphasized that comprehensive assessments of indicators require constant updates and consideration of ongoing legislative changes.

In conclusion, Claire Mélanie Popineau underscores the importance of incorporating contextual indicators when studying Internet Universality Indicators. These indicators provide a nuanced understanding and enable meaningful comparisons. The interpretation of indicators is influenced by country-specific contexts, making it crucial to consider each nation’s unique circumstances and challenges. The relationship between rights and indicators introduces further complexities, particularly regarding effectiveness and balancing. Continuous updates and vigilance regarding legislative changes are necessary for accurate and insightful evaluations.

Marielza Oliveira

The UNESCO Romex Indicators have played a crucial role in assisting countries in evaluating their digital landscape. These indicators, which were introduced in 2018, serve as a comprehensive tool that allows nations to voluntarily assess their digital environment. So far, over 40 countries have either completed or are currently undergoing a national Romex assessment. This demonstrates the widespread adoption and recognition of the indicators as a valuable resource.

The internet has experienced significant evolution over the past five years. More than 1 billion new users have joined, leading to a substantial increase in online activities such as e-commerce, e-government, and e-learning. This growth reflects the expanding influence and accessibility of the internet on a global scale.

In response to the ever-changing nature of the internet, UNESCO is actively revising the ROMAX framework in collaboration with the UNESCO Category 2 Centre, CETIC.br. The objective of this revision is to adapt the existing indicators to match the evolution of the digital environment. By updating the framework, UNESCO ensures that the Romex assessment remains relevant and applicable in assessing the digital landscape of countries.

Efforts to shape the internet and promote its development require collective action. Stakeholders from various sectors are urged to participate in this endeavor. An example of this collaboration is the Internet Governance Forum, which serves as a platform for stakeholders to come together and actively contribute to shaping the internet. The session conducted by these stakeholders aims to shape Internet of Individuals (IOIs) and understand the role of Internet Governance.

Furthermore, stakeholders are encouraged to share their experiences in implementing the ROMAX framework. This includes highlighting both the opportunities and challenges encountered during the process. These shared insights will contribute to the ongoing revision of the internet universality indicators. By learning from each other, stakeholders can further refine the Romex assessment and promote effective digital development.

In conclusion, the UNESCO Romex Indicators have proven to be a valuable tool in empowering countries to evaluate their digital landscape. With the internet continually evolving, UNESCO’s efforts to revise the ROMAX framework demonstrate its commitment to ensuring the indicators remain relevant. Collaboration and the sharing of experiences among stakeholders contribute to shaping the internet and advancing its development in a meaningful manner.

Online Moderator

During the discussion, several challenges and issues were highlighted. One of the main challenges is the difficulty of government-led studies in finding common ground with civil society organisations (CSOs) on various issues. This has led to disagreements and hindered the progress of research. Sadaf, a researcher from Pakistan, pointed out this issue, emphasising the struggle faced by government organisations in reaching agreements with CSOs.

Another challenge that emerged is the pressure to reflect the government’s perspective and position in research. Sadaf highlighted the issue of digital authoritarianism in her country, which puts significant pressure on researchers to align their studies with the government’s viewpoint. This pressure compromises the objectivity and impartiality of research outcomes.

The involvement of the government in the validation process was also identified as a challenge. Sadaf described the difficulties encountered when the government is engaged in the multi-stakeholder validation process. This involvement often brings about complications and slows down the validation process.

Furthermore, the issue of whitewashing in research was raised. Swaran highlighted this problem, referring to the act of concealing or ignoring certain aspects of research in order to present a more favourable outcome. Whitewashing hampers transparency and makes it difficult to produce objective and accountable research.

On a more positive note, Swaran emphasised the importance of mutual understanding between stakeholders and the government. It was highlighted that successful research outcomes require a reciprocal understanding between these two parties. This understanding helps to bridge the gap and facilitates collaboration for the betterment of research results.

Additionally, Sergio Martinez posed a question regarding the development of sector-specific regulations in the context of Namibia. It was suggested that developing regulations tailored to specific sectors such as e-commerce, digital business, and people with disabilities can support digital development in countries like Namibia. This approach promotes inclusivity and supports the growth of the digital sector.

In conclusion, the discussion shed light on various challenges and issues related to government-led research and the involvement of stakeholders. The difficulties in finding common ground with civil society organisations, the pressure to reflect the government’s perspective, and the challenges in the validation process were highlighted as major obstacles. The issue of whitewashing in research was identified as a hindrance to transparency. On a positive note, the importance of mutual understanding between stakeholders and the government was acknowledged. Furthermore, the development of sector-specific regulations was seen as a way to support digital development in countries like Namibia.

Maria Fernanda Martinez

Argentina’s legal framework is largely in line with international human rights standards, providing a solid foundation for safeguarding individual freedoms and ensuring justice. However, concerns have been raised about the expansion of surveillance and the use of facial recognition technology, which raises questions about privacy infringement and potential misuse of this technology.

While Argentina ensures freedom of expression through its legal framework, there is a notable absence of specific regulations regarding intermediary liability. This lack of clarity poses challenges in holding intermediaries accountable for content that may infringe on individuals’ rights.

One area where Argentina’s legal framework falls short is data protection. The existing framework is considered outdated and does not adequately safeguard the privacy and security of individuals’ personal information. Additionally, there is a growing use of biometric data for security-related activities at the subnational level, raising concerns about potential abuse and misuse of this sensitive information.

In order to improve local monitoring strategies, it is recommended that UNESCO focuses on realistic work preparation and scheduling. This will ensure effective and efficient monitoring of relevant instances. Furthermore, it is crucial for UNESCO to emphasize the relevance and viability of recommendations by engaging in consensus building with all relevant actors. This inclusive approach enhances the likelihood of implementing effective strategies and policies.

In conclusion, while Argentina’s legal framework aligns with international human rights standards in many aspects, certain areas require attention and improvement. The growing use of surveillance and facial recognition technology, coupled with the lack of specific regulations regarding intermediary liability, necessitates an update to the legal framework. Additionally, enhancing data protection measures and addressing the increased use of biometric data are imperative for safeguarding individuals’ privacy and security. By implementing realistic work preparation and scheduling, and engaging in consensus building, UNESCO can enhance its monitoring strategies and ensure the relevance and viability of its recommendations.

Swaran Ravindra

The analysis highlights serious gaps in data availability and quality in the Pacific region, hindering access to citizen-centric services. This lack of data poses a significant challenge in providing efficient and effective services to the people. To address this issue, the implementation of a Right to Information project is suggested. Such a project would enable better access to data, promoting transparency and accountability.

The analysis also emphasises the need for more support from global organisations and the government to tackle the data gaps. Global organisations like UNESCO have been helpful, but further collaboration and assistance are required, especially in the lesser-developed economies of the Pacific. Government support is crucial in providing the necessary resources and infrastructure to improve data availability and quality.

Moreover, creating a team of special consultants dedicated to data collection is proposed as a beneficial approach. These consultants, with their expertise, can gather data from important and vulnerable communities where information is needed. Their work would provide valuable insights and improve the overall understanding of the region’s development needs.

The analysis acknowledges the significance of multi-stakeholderism in the Pacific. It advocates for creating partnerships with local stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Communication and Ministry of Education, to foster a civic-centric style of multi-stakeholderism. This approach would involve various actors from different sectors working together to address the data gaps and improve the overall development of the region.

The role of civil society in strengthening existing legislation is also stressed. Many legislations have embedded indicators, but their deployment is often an issue. The involvement of civil society can make a significant difference by holding authorities accountable and ensuring the effective implementation of these legislations.

Research is regarded as a powerful tool in assessing various aspects of legislation and highlighting any discrepancies. The analysis underscores the importance of the community’s trust in research and its potential to bring about positive changes. By conducting research and shedding light on inadequacies within legislations, necessary improvements can be made to enhance the overall governance and development of the Pacific region.

However, territorial issues and contradictory legislation in certain South Pacific Islands can impede progress. The absence of a Privacy Act while having provisions for the right to information in the Information Act creates inconsistencies and challenges. Resolving these issues is crucial to ensure a coherent and harmonious legal framework in the region.

In conclusion, addressing the serious gaps in data availability and quality is crucial for the development of the Pacific region. Implementing a Right to Information project, seeking support from global organisations and the government, creating a team of specialised data collection consultants, promoting multi-stakeholderism, engaging civil society, and emphasising the power of research are all significant steps towards overcoming these challenges. Resolving territorial issues and contradictory legislation is also essential to establish a coherent legal framework. By taking these actions, the Pacific region can achieve greater transparency, accountability, and effective governance, leading to inclusive and sustainable development.

Sadaf Khan

The Internet Universality Indicators Framework is facing challenges related to contextual analysis. This issue is particularly prominent in countries with digital authoritarianism, such as Pakistan. In Pakistan, obtaining a SIM card requires biometric validation, resulting in different patterns of mobile phone usage. Therefore, ownership alone is not an accurate indicator of mobile phone usage, especially among women who fear harassment. To address this, there is a need to revisit and revise the assessment framework to better reflect the realities of the global South and countries with digital authoritarianism.

One suggestion for improving the framework is to include an annex in the methodological guidelines. This annex would capture the intersections between the framework and different realities faced by countries in the global South, particularly those with digital authoritarianism. By doing so, the challenges of conducting contextual analysis can be addressed and the assessment process can be more accurate.

Another issue within the framework is the problem of repetitions. Certain indicators appear in multiple categories, which becomes evident during the analysis. This repetition hampers the efficiency and effectiveness of the assessment process, so it is important to streamline the framework and remove these repetitions.

Furthermore, there is a need for improved cross-cutting analysis within the framework, particularly with regard to gender and children. Although gender is recognized as a cross-cutting issue, it does not receive sufficient attention in the analysis. Similarly, children mentioned in Category X are not adequately represented. Therefore, enhancing cross-cutting analysis is crucial for a comprehensive and inclusive assessment.

To resolve conflicts that may arise during the assessment process, a two-tiered system proposed by Sadaf Khan could be implemented. In this system, governments would voluntarily submit their assessments in the first phase, and civil society would provide a “shadow report” in the second phase to counter any contradictions highlighted in the government assessments. This system allows for both government and civil society participation, resulting in a balanced and comprehensive assessment.

In conclusion, there is a consensus in favor of revisiting and revising the Internet Universality Indicators Framework. The challenges related to contextual analysis, the need for improved cross-cutting analysis, and the problem of repetitions all highlight the necessity for change. Including an annex in the methodological guidelines, revising Category X as a cross-cutting lens for analysis, and implementing a two-tiered assessment system involving both government and civil society participation are proposed as solutions. These changes would enable the framework to accurately reflect the realities of different countries, particularly those with digital authoritarianism, and ensure a more comprehensive and inclusive assessment.

Anna Amoomo-David

The analysis examines various aspects of digital governance in Namibia and presents several key points. Firstly, it highlights the crucial role played by a multistakeholder advisory board in addressing different indicators relevant to various categories. The board is seen as pivotal in Namibia’s digital governance and is generally viewed positively. The analysis also notes that the assessment process in Namibia is currently ongoing, indicating the government’s commitment to evaluating and improving its digital governance practices.

Regarding consumer protection, the analysis points out the lack of a specific legal framework in Namibia for protecting consumers in terms of open data. This gap in legislation is seen as a negative aspect and underscores the need for a legal framework to safeguard consumer interests in the digital sphere.

The analysis also stresses the importance of prioritizing national cybersecurity without compromising the openness of the internet. While openness is vital for innovation and growth, it should not come at the expense of national security. The analysis suggests that different sectors should have specific regulations in place to strike a balance between openness and security.

Regulations for internet-based businesses are viewed positively in the analysis. Such regulations would ensure that entrepreneurs looking to establish web-based businesses or digital e-commerce platforms adhere to certain standards. The analysis cites the Access to Information Bill, which was enacted in Parliament and allow for proactive disclosure of information, as an example of positive measures to ensure compliance with required standards.

In terms of inclusivity, the analysis advocates for the inclusion of people with disabilities in the openness of digital resources. It argues that data should be presented in a format accessible to individuals with disabilities. This emphasis on inclusivity is seen as a positive step towards reducing inequalities and promoting accessibility for all.

Collaboration with various government bodies, including the office of the prime minister and ministries of ICT and education, is considered essential for capacity building and enriching openness aspects. The analysis underscores the importance of collaboration in these areas and views it positively in terms of fostering partnerships and achieving the goals of capacity building and openness.

Engagement with various ministries and institutions is also highlighted as a key aspect of research in digital governance. The analysis points out that the Internet Society in Namibia has successfully established partnerships with various ministries and engaged directly with them on research exercises. This approach is seen as positive in facilitating research and promoting cooperation between different stakeholders.

The analysis raises concerns about global standards. While Namibia has adopted ISO 27001 standards, it acknowledges that they do not fully meet the country’s needs. This critique suggests the call for tailored solutions that are specific to Namibia’s context, as opposed to adopting international standards that may not be suitable.

Encouraging more countries to participate in voluntary government assessments is seen as positive in the analysis. It highlights the efforts of civil society in Namibia, which successfully pushed for the assessment to be undertaken and gained government agreement. The analysis sees this as an opportunity to promote transparency, accountability, and stronger institutions through voluntary assessments.

The analysis also applauds UNESCO’s contribution in terms of both technical and financial resources. This recognition demonstrates the value placed on international partnerships and support in enhancing digital governance and its associated goals.

Finally, the analysis notes that the assessment process itself is simplified and straightforward. This observation suggests that the process is designed to be accessible and manageable, contributing to its effectiveness.

In conclusion, the analysis of Namibia’s digital governance landscape reveals various strengths and areas for improvement. It emphasizes the importance of multistakeholder involvement, the need for a legal framework to protect consumers in the digital realm, prioritizing national cybersecurity while maintaining internet openness, implementing regulations for internet-based businesses, promoting inclusivity, fostering collaboration and engagement, tailoring solutions to local contexts, encouraging voluntary assessments, and recognizing international contributions. These findings offer valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders to consider when shaping Namibia’s digital governance strategies and practices.

Eduardo Carillo

The analysis of Paraguay’s internet access and connectivity highlights several challenges and opportunities. Firstly, there has been an 11% growth in internet users between 2018 and 2022. However, the country still faces issues with high connection speeds and unequal access, particularly through zero-rating plans, which provide limited free access to certain social media platforms. This uneven access to the internet and information remains a challenge for Paraguay.

Gender equality in terms of internet access also requires improvement. Unfortunately, difficulties were encountered in finding gender-disaggregated data on internet access in Paraguay. It is crucial to have gender-specific data to develop appropriate gender policies and ensure equal access to the internet for all individuals.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals a shortfall in adequately representing Paraguay’s official languages, Spanish and Guarani Indigenous language, on online platforms, including government websites. Regulations exist to ensure that both languages are represented, but this is not generally practised. This lack of language inclusion undermines the accessibility and inclusivity of online platforms in Paraguay.

Discrepancies in connectivity percentages further complicate the understanding of the country’s internet access. Different methodologies used by the ICT and National Statistics Agency result in varying numbers, indicating the need for government agencies to collaborate closely and provide accurate representation of the country’s connectivity.

The Romex methodology, which assesses data availability, should also consider local realities and the challenges faced in obtaining data. In Paraguay, there is a general lack of data availability, and it is suggested that slightly outdated data could be used initially where current data is unavailable. This approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the country’s internet access and connectivity.

On a positive note, the analysis identifies the digital economy as a potential area for growth in Paraguay. It is expected that the digital economy will continue to expand. To ensure its benefits are distributed equitably, a more careful approach is needed to consider its impact on workers. This intersection between the digital economy and workers’ rights should be addressed to promote decent work and economic growth.

In conclusion, the analysis of Paraguay’s internet access and connectivity reveals a mix of challenges and opportunities. While there has been growth in internet users, issues with connection speeds and unequal access persist. Gender equality in internet access needs improvement, and language inclusion on online platforms is inadequate. Collaboration between government agencies is necessary to accurately represent connectivity percentages, and the Romex methodology should accommodate local realities. The digital economy has the potential for growth but requires careful consideration of its impact on workers. Ultimately, states in Paraguay need to be thoughtful in their digitalisation processes to ensure inclusivity and equitable distribution of benefits.

Simon Ellis

The analysis explores various topics concerning internet governance and its impact on different aspects of society. One of the main focuses is the use of M indicators to measure the involvement of diverse stakeholders in a country’s internet governance. These indicators play a vital role in assessing the effectiveness of multi-stakeholderism, the approach implemented by the country in internet governance. This neutral argument supports the notion that M indicators provide valuable insights into the extent of multi-stakeholder involvement in internet governance.

Another key aspect highlighted is the need for high-quality participation and meaningful engagement in internet governance. The analysis points out that civil society often feels excluded and believes their input is not adequately valued. The argument advocates for a greater emphasis on elementary democratic processes and open participation mechanisms to ensure that all perspectives are considered. This neutral viewpoint suggests that prioritising the quality and meaningfulness of participation can lead to more effective and inclusive internet governance.

The analysis also discusses the ongoing debate on whether to mainstream or separately address gender issues in reports. Simon Ellis supports the mainstreaming approach, which involves integrating gender considerations into every aspect of the report rather than treating it as an afterthought. This positive sentiment acknowledges the debate and urges for a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing gender issues in internet governance.

The significance of satellite technology in disseminating the internet, particularly in geographically challenging regions like the Pacific, is emphasized. The analysis highlights that satellite technology is often the only feasible option for internet connectivity in these areas. This positive argument underscores the importance of satellite technology in bridging the digital divide and ensuring universal internet access.

The environmental impact of the internet is also discussed. The analysis highlights the significant issue of e-waste, particularly from Western countries being dumped in Asia. However, the analysis also acknowledges that the shift to online meetings due to COVID-19 has potentially reduced the environmental impact of travel. This neutral argument highlights the dual nature of the internet’s environmental effects.

Addressing data gaps in indicators is another important aspect emphasized in the analysis. Strategies to fill these gaps include obtaining data from existing statistics, published documents, focus groups, and key interviews. The analysis suggests that transforming remaining gaps into recommendations can also help address the issue. This positive stance emphasizes the systematic approach needed to address data gaps in order to ensure accurate and comprehensive monitoring of internet governance.

The role of libraries in providing public access to information is a noteworthy point. The analysis notes the presence of libraries in almost every village and their significance to the Information for All program. This positive argument underscores the key role played by libraries in facilitating access to information and highlights the importance of public access to information in achieving sustainable development goals.

The analysis briefly acknowledges the functionality of the internet in sectors such as health, employment, and culture without providing specific arguments or evidence. This neutral statement highlights the broad impact of the internet on various aspects of society.

Lastly, the impact of mobile phones on internet usage is mentioned. The analysis states that the use of mobile phones has led to decreased usage of libraries and internet cafes. This neutral argument emphasizes the transformative effect of mobile phones on internet accessibility.

In conclusion, the analysis covers a wide range of topics related to internet governance, including multi-stakeholderism, participation, gender mainstreaming, satellite technology, environmental impact, data gaps, libraries, and the impact of mobile phones. It provides insights into the challenges and opportunities associated with internet governance and emphasizes the importance of inclusive and sustainable approaches in achieving the goals of internet governance.

Moderator

The Internet Universality Indicators (IUI) offer a comprehensive and evidence-based approach to assessing a country’s digital landscape. The assessment is guided by principles such as human rights-based, open to all, accessible by all, nurtured by multi-stakeholder participation, and cross-cutting issues. So far, 40 countries have completed or are in the process of conducting a national IUI assessment.

The IUI framework is currently being revised to adapt to evolving technological developments and trends. The revision process aims to improve the framework by addressing gaps, establishing a closer relationship with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and incorporating emerging dimensions like artificial intelligence and platform regulation.

Stakeholder participation is a crucial aspect of the IUI assessment process. It begins with the establishment of a multi-stakeholder advisory board consisting of representatives from government, academia, the private sector, and civil society organizations. This board plays a vital role in validating the assessment report and monitoring the impact of policies and changes.

CETIC.br, a UNESCO Category 2 Center focused on Internet Governance, has been instrumental in implementing IUI assessments worldwide. They have provided support for the implementation of IUI assessments in various countries and actively contribute to the revision process.

The IUI framework is undergoing revision after five years, and the International Governance Forum (IGF) serves as a platform for diverse stakeholder discussions and contributions to the revision process. Stakeholder involvement ensures a balanced perspective and enhances the implementation of recommendations.

Apart from national assessments, contextual indicators and interpretation of indicators play a significant role in understanding and comparing progress. The interpretation of indicators may vary between countries, emphasizing the importance of considering each country’s unique context.

Efforts are underway in countries like Cambodia and Argentina to secure and regulate the digital space, address issues like harassment and hate speech, and protect digital rights. However, legal gaps exist in Cambodia when it comes to online and offline human rights, highlighting the need for comprehensive legislation in this area.

UNESCO has formed partnerships with countries like Cambodia and Argentina to conduct IUI assessments. These assessments involve multi-stakeholder participation, legal drafting, capacity building, and collaboration between government and civil society.

Libraries are recognized as important stakeholders in promoting internet access and media and information literacy. They serve as a pivotal point of contact, disseminating knowledge, and facilitating digital inclusion.

The evaluation process of IUI assessments should include effective communication about the assessment’s benefits, actions taken, and progress made. Cooperation, collaboration, and contributions from various stakeholders, including government and global organizations, are vital for successful data collection and implementation of assessment recommendations.

In summary, the IUI framework offers a comprehensive and inclusive approach to assessing a country’s digital landscape. The ongoing revision process aims to adapt the framework to keep pace with technological advancements. Stakeholder participation, diverse representation, and multi-stakeholder involvement play essential roles in achieving accurate and comprehensive evaluations.

Matthias Ketteman

The analysis highlights the importance of multi-stakeholderism in the development of assessments, under the guidelines of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). It emphasises the need to involve all relevant stakeholders in the process and suggests consulting a diverse range of stakeholder groups to ensure comprehensive input. The analysis recommends creating separate indicator categories and appointing a consultant for stakeholder engagement to enhance the assessment’s quality and credibility.

Additionally, the analysis suggests sharing the assessment’s output with a broad range of societal stakeholders for review and input. This allows for valuable perspectives to be incorporated, ensuring a robust and inclusive assessment. Furthermore, the analysis proposes holding a final review meeting with sounding board members acting as devil’s advocates to ensure scrutiny and improve the assessment’s robustness.

On the other hand, the analysis critically evaluates common multistakeholder exercises that fail to include an adequate number of diverse stakeholders, leading to biases and limitations. Instead, it argues for involving a larger number of societal stakeholders to gain a broader representation of views and insights.

The analysis also underscores the effectiveness of a multi-stakeholder-based review phase. By sharing the assessment output with a wide range of stakeholders and seeking their feedback, the report can be refined and improved, ultimately enhancing its quality and credibility.

Moreover, the analysis observes a global rise in multistakeholderism, indicating a growing recognition of its importance in decision-making processes.

Lastly, the analysis cites the International Ocean Institute (IOI) as a successful example of multistakeholderism in practice, highlighting the positive outcome of engaging various stakeholders in the assessment process.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the significance of multi-stakeholderism in assessment development. By involving a diverse range of stakeholders and considering their perspectives, assessments can become more comprehensive, credible, and reflective of societal needs. The analysis also stresses the value of a robust review phase, involving a large number of stakeholders for feedback. The observed global trend towards multistakeholderism further demonstrates its increasing prominence. The IOI serves as a successful case study, showcasing the benefits of effective multistakeholder engagement. Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the advantages and challenges of multi-stakeholderism in assessment processes.

Audience

The analysis of the provided arguments highlights several important points regarding internet governance, internet universality, community engagement, project implementation, and volunteer work. Firstly, it is observed that framing internet governance as digital questions may exclude certain stakeholders from actively participating in the decision-making process. The perceived complexity of digital issues is identified as a barrier that prevents some stakeholders from engaging. This raises concerns about the inclusivity and representation of all stakeholders in shaping internet governance policies.

On the topic of internet universality, it is argued that the concept should consider how well the internet is working for different communities. The impact of the internet varies across communities, and it is essential to engage various stakeholders to ensure its universality. By involving diverse groups of people, the aim is to address inequalities and reduce disparities in access to and benefits from the internet.

Libraries are highlighted as potential venues for community engagement on internet universality. It is noted that libraries provide access to the internet, making them valuable spaces for individuals to encounter internet-related issues. By leveraging libraries, community members can come together to discuss and address internet-related concerns, further promoting inclusivity and universality in internet usage.

The analysis also stresses the importance of governments and companies, such as UNESCO, in ensuring that projects reach out to the local communities where they are implemented. It is argued that close collaboration with local owners is crucial for successful project implementation. This emphasizes the need for strong partnerships and coordination between different stakeholders to effectively implement projects that benefit the local population and align with sustainable development goals.

Another noteworthy argument is that volunteer work is not a sustainable solution for long-term projects. While volunteerism can provide short-term support and assistance, it is not an adequate or lasting solution for achieving sustainable development. This highlights the importance of creating opportunities for decent work and economic growth to support long-term sustainability.

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on various aspects of internet governance, internet universality, community engagement, project implementation, and volunteer work. It highlights the need for inclusive and participatory approaches to internet governance, the importance of engaging diverse stakeholders, the potential role of libraries in promoting community engagement, the significance of involving local communities in project implementation, and the limitations of volunteer work in achieving long-term sustainability. These insights and arguments contribute to the understanding and discussion of these topics and can guide future efforts in promoting a more inclusive and universally accessible internet.

Moderator:
Hello everyone, hello again, thank you very much for being here. Hello again and thank you so very much for being here with us in the room today and thank you so much for the participants who joined us online, to the participants and speakers. I am very happy to welcome you all on behalf of UNESCO to this session which is dedicated to UNESCO’s Internet Universality Role Max Indicators, which is a unique tool for measuring the internet development and the development of digital environment in a given in a country at the national level, based on the principles which we will be talking about and I’ll have a presentation on that. So we are very excited to be here and we have distinguished speakers here as well as online and without further ado I’d like to give the floor to UNESCO’s Director for the Division for Digital Inclusion and Policies and Digital Transformation and the Secretary of the Information for All Program, Miss Marielsa Oliveira, to address her opening remarks. Please, Maia, the floor is yours.

Marielza Oliveira:
Thank you, Tatevik. Hi, everyone. You know, it’s really great to see you at the IGF 2023. And I’m super glad that UNESCO team can start our interventions of this week with Internet Universality Indicators Day Zero session. So welcome, everyone. And I really wish I could be with you today. But this year, we have an overlap on dates of the IGF and UNESCO’s governing body. So we can’t travel there. But I really join you with a lot of enthusiasm, as this year, there’s much change going on, both for Internet governance and for the Internet Universality Indicators. Since 2018, the UNESCO Romex Indicators have served as a unique and comprehensive tool to help countries voluntarily assess their digital landscape based on the five guiding principles that we all work towards. We advocate together for an Internet that is R, human rights-based, O, open to all, A, accessible by all, and nurtured by M, multi-stakeholder participation, and also that address the cross-cutting issues such as gender and safety. More importantly, the Romex assessment actually leads to the design of policies that support an inclusive, open, safe Internet for all users. This is one of the ways in which UNESCO supports policies that nurture this human-centered Internet, the Internet we all want. In the five years since UNESCO member states endorsed the Romex Indicators, we have made enormous strides together. Over 40 countries from all regions of the world have completed or are underway with a national Romex assessment, and several countries are adding their unique ideas to the approach. A great example is Kenya, which piloted a follow-up assessment to measure the impact of the Romex approach on their national Internet ecosystem after they started implementing the policies. This is groundbreaking and really exciting. But the internet has also changed significantly in these five years. We have seen over 1 billion new users join. We have seen acceleration of the global digital transformation process, especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have e-commerce, e-government, e-learning, e-everything having exponential growth. We have seen the rise of frontier technologies like artificial intelligence, augmented reality, blockchain and others. But we also have realized the many ways in which the internet can harm from fragmentation to misinformation and hate speech. We have seen internet governance evolving to address these issues with the creation in the UN system of a tech and voice office. And now the upcoming most stakeholder body for artificial intelligence. It is time then for a change for the IOIs as well. So that’s why in collaboration with UNESCO Category 2 Center, CETIC.br, UNESCO is currently in the process of revising the ROMAX framework. So make sure that we continue having relevance in this of these indicators and that they adapt to this new digital environment. The Internet Governance Forum is the place where we come together to collectively shape the internet. And this session will have to shape the IOIs as well. We will learn from various different experiences of implementing the framework in different contexts and leverage our collective expertise to draw lessons that benefit our digital community. And I’m really grateful to the ROMAX community. We have grown together as we support each other. You guys are such a generous community who is making the digital world better. So today we will hear from researchers and stakeholders from different regions of the world who will share their insights. perspectives on ROMAX implementation. Let me ask all speakers and all participants to share both the good and the bad. What opportunities the ROMAX framework has opened in your countries for advancing internet development? But I also point out some of the challenges we have yet to address. This would be immensely helpful to us, because your insights on the discussions to be held today will contribute to the revision of the internet universality indicators. This important process will certainly be informed by your rich experience and expertise. I have no doubt that in the past years, our day zero discussions have proved, like in the past years, it will prove super productive, enabling mutual learning and the strengthening of our collective efforts towards real internet universality. We will succeed if we keep in mind that the internet is a shared global resource that really has been touching every aspect of our lives. It is our collective responsibility to ensure it upholds human rights and the values of openness and inclusivity as it evolves. So let me thank you all again for the contributions you have made to the ROMAX framework in the past, for joining us here today, and for being so generous with your experience sharing that will shape our framework in the future. I really can’t wait to hear your insights and wish you a fabulous session.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Maria Elza. Thank you for your strategic guidance over the years and for your strong support for this project and for your contribution and welcoming remarks. So I will proceed with my presentation. Just to elaborate, Maria Elza gave an excellent overview, but just for me to elaborate on. on a bit more on the Internet universality framework and and the progress in across the world. Great, so we can see my slides now. I hope the online participants can also see it well. So just to present myself, I’m Tatevic Grigorian, an Associate Program Specialist at UNESCO. I’m coordinating the IEI Romex project at UNESCO. I have my contact here for further reach after the discussion. So just to also go back to the start of the IEI Romex indicators. So at the 38th General Conference of UNESCO, which is the governing body of UNESCO back in 2018, the General Conference and the Member States endorsed the concept of Internet universality and the principles, Rome principles, meaning that Internet should be universal and based on human rights, be open and accessible to all, nurtured by multi-stakeholder participation, and cross-cutting issues were also introduced into this framework to address issues such as gender equality, environment, safety and security, and sustainable development, sustainable development. And what is Romex framework? Romex framework is a set of indicators, 303 indicators, and 109 of which is core indicators that measure the development of the Internet at the national level of the country, taking, using the Internet universality indicators and principles. And the idea is to develop a clear and substantive understanding of the Internet environment. and map the overall situation and identify any gaps that are out there and assess the possibilities, the opportunities and challenges and formulate actionable policy recommendations for all stakeholders concerned to address any gaps that were addressed during the assessment. And where does it come from? So just to make the link between the UNESCO’s mandate, one of the mandates which is free flow of ideas, which is addressed by UNESCO’s communication and information sector, which works on a number of issues including digital transformation and ensuring universal internet access and human rights based approach and also making link between strategies and frameworks out there and including the sustainable development goals, addressing a number of them and overall addressing those and making a link with global digital compact. And it is really, these assessments can really help nurture this compact as, for example, in the core it’s to address, for example, digital divides and human rights online. And I want to highlight a couple of ideas related to the framework. So the idea of these assessments is really to have it at the national level and to help the countries to have the understanding and move forward with their digital agendas and contribute with evidence-based information so it is not to create any ranking among the countries although the countries which can look at each other’s example but there is no idea to have a ranking of any sort but really to help the countries and it has really this evidence-based approach which addresses a number of themes whether it’s legal policy regulatory frameworks measuring human rights whether it’s a measuring multi-stakeholder approach so there is a very clear focus on digital inclusion dimensions as I mentioned which we we have cross-cutting issues such as gender youth people with disabilities or minority groups such as language minorities so what we also highlight as a very important aspect is the process and I will be speaking a bit more about the process but it’s a really we we focus a lot on the methodology and and the process of establishing this multi-stakeholder approach to make sure that every stakeholder concerned is involved and their voice is heard and of course I would like to highlight that we really have this solid evidence-based approach which fits the assessment so as I mentioned we have 303 indicators in total so the number may be a bit scary but in fact so the reason why there are so many indicators is that we really want to capture the cultural environment and make sure that it’s adapted to a country context. So we recommend that 109 indicators, which are the basis, are employed and tested, assessed in the country. And then we strongly recommend the country to look at which of these additional indicators are relevant for their country context so that they complement these 109 indicators and capture the actual holistic situation. So we have these five categories that I mentioned, rights, openness, accessibility, multi-stakeholder participation, and cross-cutting issues, which form the ROMEX abbreviation. And we have six themes and a number of questions. And just to give you an overlook, so we have these themes under each category, but for example here, which we note, and as pointed by the experts as well, so there are, for example, themes which are across each theme. For example, policy, legal, and regulatory framework are across each theme, for example. And here I would just, I just wanted to illustrate the sort of the structure. So for example, if we take under the rights, if we take the rights theme, and for example, specifically rights to privacy, then for each theme, we will have a specific question, which is displayed here. And then this question that helps, so the question is, is the protection of personal data guaranteed in law and enforced in practice with respect to government, businesses, and other organizations, including? rights of access to information and held to, sorry, held to redress, sorry. And then this question helps then address the indicator of existence and power of an independent data protection authority or similar entity. So it’s really, the framework really facilitates the work while experts will talk a bit more about that. So to really capture the overall situation and for example a recommendation that arose out of while assessing this indicator was to create an independent national personal data protection authority and a national council for the protection of personal data making the normative framework in force consistent with the enhancement, enactment of the personal data protection law. This is just to give an idea. So as Marielsa mentioned we have a number of countries across the five continents that have have published the report, finished and published the report and currently we have 34 countries where the assessment is ongoing and these are countries that have just launched or approaching or finalized or approaching the finalization of the reports. So out of this 34 ongoing countries, 13 are in Africa, 12 in Asia-Pacific, two in Arab states, Latin America and the Caribbean, six countries and three countries in Europe. So we have representation here of researchers from almost all continents so they will elaborate more on the process in their countries and actually we have six published reports at the moment since we started the publication since 2019. And Brazil was one of the first, and Kenya as well, and lead researchers will talk about that. So I would invite you all to, I have the link there, I would really invite you to, which reminds me that I also have some copies here which I will distribute afterwards. I invite you to go to our website to have a look at the publications to have a better understanding, and of course to see the recommendations, for example, and the process. Yes, as I speak about the process, I want to highlight eight steps which we have while the assessments are carried out. So as I mentioned, it’s a voluntary assessment, meaning that the national stakeholders initiate the assessments themselves, and there is a very strong local ownership. So, and UNESCO’s role is to facilitate the process and provide technical assistance and support to the researchers, to the multi-stakeholder advisory board to help them carry out the process. So as I mentioned, the multi-stakeholder approach a lot, so the assessment starts with establishing a multi-stakeholder advisory board which consists of government representatives, relative ministries, academia, private sector, civil society organizations, and all the relevant stakeholders, also based on the context of the country. These are the people, this is the group which will be consulted since the beginning, for example, from where to collect data, how to collect data, to the validation process where all the stakeholders are representing different stakeholder groups then. then really validate the report and agree that this is the situation that really reflects the situation in the country. And then, of course, I won’t go through all the steps, but I would also mention the research group. Establishing a research group is also an important step, so we have lead researchers who are here, but also given that it’s a diverse and it’s a very comprehensive framework and it requires diverse expertise, people with all this expertise then gather together to form the group and ensure that each topic and each theme is really covered with an expert approach. And then there is the data gathering where we can see also challenges, but I won’t elaborate. And as researchers can talk about that, I would also highlight the face of impact assessment and monitoring. So the assessment doesn’t end when the validation is there and validation is completed, but also there are mechanisms and we are improving the mechanisms for follow up and monitoring. And then actually then further assessment or further actions are taken to see what has changed since the report was published. And we have an excellent example of Kenya who will speak about that. So here are just a few examples of, for example, impact that IUI made on national policies. I would really like to highlight that these IUI assessments are really essential for… countries, which developed countries, developing countries, so it doesn’t really depend on the development status of the digital ecosystem because there is always room for improvement and we have, for example, Germany has carried out the assessment and we have distinguished colleague online who will talk about it. For example, IOI recommendations in Germany were proposed to the parliament and the topics raised by IOI recommendations were then reflected in the coalition treaty 2021-2026, or for Senegal IOI assessment facilitated the implementation of the 2025 digital strategy for the country and of the high-speed national plan. So these are just two examples or on the screen a few examples, but we have seen very excellent examples of how these assessments made an impact. Okay, I arrive on my, I’ll leave this here, but so just to also mention that, so we do understand that we’re dealing with the internet and digital ecosystem and a topic and an environment and area which is evolving very, very rapidly. So the idea, since we had this IOI framework, the idea was to ensure its ongoing relevance and to do that, we planned to, we gave ourselves this five-year period and with the idea to review the framework every five years and to, of course, this can be reviewed, but the plan is to review it and to see the development, technological developments, and to make sure that the framework remains relevant. relevant, addressing the current technological advancements. So we are reaching this five-year mark in 2024, but back in the last year’s IGF in Ethiopia, we started consultations and discussions with lead researchers, with experts, to really assess and understand whether it’s really the good moment to update the IUI framework. And we did reach this conclusion, and we have actually started taking concrete actions towards this revision of the IUIs. And we are working with CETIC, that is a UNESCO Category 2 center, and Fabio will present more about the center. We have Fabio here and Alexandre here in the audience who have been driving this work forward in coordination with UNESCO, and I will give the floor to Fabio now to present a bit more about the IUI revision process. But before that, I would invite people to check our website, to check the assessments and the framework, and to see how you can get engaged. We have a dynamic coalition, actually an IGF dynamic coalition on Internet Universality indicators, and I invite you all to be part of this coalition and really keep in touch for any possible cooperation or any inquiries you may have. And we do have the dynamic coalition session on Wednesday, and I will be announcing the details, but in the meantime, I’m giving the… Sorry. a cable to Fabio to connect now. Is it good? So I’ll give the floor to Fabio and ask him to introduce himself. Thank you so much.

Fabio Senne:
Thank you Tatavic. Thank you very much. I’d like to thank UNESCO for the invitation and also for putting together such an international and interesting group of people to discuss those issues. My presentation today will focus, as Tatavic mentioned, in the process of what we learned from these five years of Internet Universality Indicators Assessments and what are the possible future developments of the framework. I’m Survey Project Coordinator at CETIC.br. First, I would like to explain why CETIC is doing this work. CETIC.br is a UNESCO Category 2 Center linked to NIC.br, the Brazilian Network Information Center, and the CGI.br, which covers the Mood Stakeholder Model for Internet Governance in Brazil. CETIC runs surveys since 2005, and by 2011 we were recognized as a UNESCO Category 2 Center, especially focused on Latin American and African Portuguese-speaking countries. So, and why Brazil is involved in this process? First of all, CETIC participates in the very inception of the process of the IOI. So, back in 2015, when UNESCO approved sure we’re going to save data so We did research for a few months on the concept of ROAM in the general conference and then started the process of consultation to build the IUI framework. And SETIC helped to finace this work and we did a lot of work on this. And we did a lot of work on the assessment of the indicators when they were not approved yet. And Brazil was also the first country that launched the assessment back in 2019. And since then, because of our role, regional role in Latin America, and because of this partnership with NESCO, we supported lots of countries that were not approved yet, and we also supported countries that were not approved yet. And we also supported other types of support to countries. And this year, in 2013, 2023, we started to help with the revision of this five-year revision process. So I’ll tell you a little bit about it. So as Tatevic mentioned, the process of revision of this five-year revision process, it’s a comprehensive process. And it’s a process that, in five years, there’s a demand for updating the indicators to see if the indicators are still relevant, according to the context. So we decided to support this first in March, this year, but 2023, we supported, we helped, we provided further support, but support applied only to one country. So I think more or less already you know. January, basically the first two days are research, based on looking into which one of the country has assessment and also interviews and meetings with partners, and then in July, we started a consultation process with other partners. And based on that, we started to offer that we interviewed lead researchers from different countries that implemented the assessment to understand difficulties and possible ideas for the framework. And finally, in August, we started to develop a draft proposal that is still ongoing on how to update the indicators. I think it’s important to mention that based on all those consultations and interviews that we made with lead researchers in the process, we understood a few main recognized benefits from having this type of assessment. First of all, the holistic perspective, so we are not talking about understanding just one part of the situation, just access, but what we are doing with access or just rights but have no access. So the idea of having a holistic perspective, I think it’s well recognized. Some other thing is IOI as a roadmap for action, so not just because we have recommendations, but also because in each area you see by looking into all the different indicators, you can see what is not going on in your country compared to other countries and everything, so that you have a checklist of things to do. The idea that you have not just evidence on legal provisions, so what is provided by the law, but what is happening in practice, in the policies in practice, so this is something important. Also, the flexibility of the approach of the framework, so each country can adapt the number of indicators to their reality, and also identify what are the data gaps in your country, so what data you don’t have and you need to produce because you map through the indicators. So, we decided to go into three different discussions, so is there any revision necessary to the process itself, because we know this is a multistakeholder process, so you need to consult all the areas and start by defining a multistakeholder advisory board, so how you can improve this process of multistakeholderism participation within the framework. If there are any methodological issues that we can improve, so indicators that are difficult to understand or to implement, and also if there are different aspects or substantive dimensions that are not covered and should be covered in the framework. So we went through all the assessments, the ones that were published, but also the ones that were ongoing, and we saw that something that is very important, the prevalence of developing countries and countries in Africa using the framework, which I think is very interesting to understand, and also the prevalence of countries that implemented the core indicators and not the full indicators, which also means that there is some complexity in implementing the whole indicators part. And also, something that we discussed that I think we will come out today is the idea that we do need to have more tools for following up when it has the assessment. I think Kenya will talk about this, because they have the second assessment, but we also can have different types of follow-up based on the process. So how do you follow up on the main gaps? So how do you identify the main gaps in a particular country? How can you add more level of detail or some part that you don’t cover in the first assessment? And also, I think it’s important to understand what are the recommendations, the follow-up or recommendations, so which recommendations were or are not implemented, and what are the relations of the IOI with other upcoming agendas, such as the global digital compact, and so on. And also, the idea that something that we might come out before this discussion on revisions is that there is a lot of work to be done, and there is a lot of work to be done, and for visualizing the data and the results, there is something that several experts suggested, such as creating heat maps or other types of visualizations to the results. And just to say that, to tell a little bit about the consultations, so some of you that are in this room participate in this consultation, so we have a very large consultation process, and we have a very large number of countries, and we have a consultations approach around 15 countries. In a quantitative approach to an online form, we reached 27 responses from 23 countries, so we have a very large process of consultations with those that implemented the IOI. And we have a very large number of countries that are interested in this approach, and it’s very interesting for mapping the situations. They also see the complexity of implementing this, so we need to balance the capability of being holistic, but at the same time, being easy to implement. The availability of data is something that lots of countries have, and it’s very difficult to comply with all the indicators, and this is something that is happening in lots of countries. countries, not just the developed countries, but also in other countries. And of course, we have the COVID-19 pandemic during most of these implementations, so most of the implementations have very strong difficulties in meeting the most stakeholder bodies because of the pandemic. I won’t go into the details of the results, so how many, the percentage of countries that mentioned each one of the difficulties, but just to finish with a few questions for the future. So first of all, there’s an intention of defining a small sample of new indicators that need to consider the developments in the digital ecosystem in this past five years. So what are the group of indicators that can complement this IOI framework that is already being implemented? Is there any connection with other important agendas? One of them is the UN SDGs, so what are the connections between, for instance, the IOI and the SDGs that we need to understand? If there are any review of the wording of the indicators that can make them more understandable and easy to apply. Sometimes we need to improve the organization of the framework itself, so having additional tools for countries. And we are also evaluating and proposing a reduction in the number of overall indicators. This was considered desirable by most of the countries, but maintaining the balance among categories in a holistic perspective, so how to keep this balance in place. We also are suggesting to have a more deeper relation with the SDGs. We are classifying all the IOI indicators. the SDGs, so not just those SDGs that really mention in the targets and in the SDG indicators that really mention the ICTs, but those that have any connection with SDGs, so how, for instance, the idea of sustainable development can be, for instance, treated in the AI framework, so this is something that we are also working together with UNESCO. And finally, I’m not going to discuss this in detail, but just to say that in this consultation process, a few areas of new dimensions appeared a lot in the interviews. The first one was artificial intelligence, so artificial intelligence is present in just one indicator of the 303 because it was five years ago, but nowadays, we know that artificial intelligence has an impact in the Internet environment, so how do we need to deal with this? We have lots of discussion on platform regulation, UNESCO is working on a lot of this. The idea of introducing this idea of meaningful connectivity into IOI, so do you need in the accessibility part, we need to change something to connect more with this idea of meaningful connectivity? The UN also updated the general comment 25 on children’s related to children’s rights, so is there any updates that we do need to also implement in the IOI? The idea of sustainable development that I already mentioned, and other aspects such as mental health, so we do not mean that we will cover all these issues in the revision, but just to say that there are a few dimensions that came out into this process of consultation that we need to deal with. So I think that’s all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This is where we are and I think IGF will be a very good opportunity of having a deeper understanding on what should we do and to interact more in this process. So thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Fabio. Thank you to CETIC for your excellent work regarding the implementation of IUI in Brazil and also throughout the past year contributing to the revision process. So as Fabio mentioned, the fora like IGF are excellent opportunities for us to bring together diverse stakeholders and really discuss the process. And it’s an open consultative process and we do want to hear from everybody who can contribute to the revision process. And in this spirit, we have a number of speakers who have been engaged in the implementation of the IUI in their respective countries and we would like to invite them to contribute to the discussion around the IUI revision by drawing also on their personal expertise and experience of implementing these indicators in their countries. And we constructed the discussion around the themes of the IUI while also making sure we address a number of questions, which I won’t be reading out, but questions around how to improve, for example, multi-stakeholder advisory group process or based on how to address the data gap challenges or what strategies to establish to improve the follow-up process and overall the process. of course addressing the topics of like new themes to be included. We will start the discussion around the category rights and I have four speakers who will specifically talk about the topic and of course drawing on their personal experience and I first invite Claire-Mélanie Popineau from France to address us and please if you Thank you.

Claire Mélanie Popineau:
Bonjour à toutes et tous. I’m very glad to be here. Arigato. Today I will present you two points arising from the experience of France regarding the IUI. First the contextual indicators which will lead me on the second point regarding rights. First the advanced version of the draft allows me to speak about the relevance to include in the study those contextual indicators. There are essential elements of understanding, perspective and comparison for all other indicators. I will take just a few examples of what I say. For example depending on the level of the gross national income the connectivity rate indicators does not have the same meaning. It’s clear. Another example the age pyramid it leads to a necessary questioning of the accessibility of elderly people as well as the birth rate with the need for education of young people on the internet. Another example where we see that rights and indicators are very intricate. The new existence of an obligation to attend school from the age of three impacts very strongly the scolarization rate. For example, the frequentation of child of three years and a half was at 1990.48% and 2021 in France, 100% of boys and a bit less for girls. But it’s very important to understand the big picture in a country to analyze well the other indicators. And maybe a last example of what I say is the literacy rate. Illiteracy is a very important matter in France, even if the scolarization is very good. And it is a criteria which is not only related with Internet, but it is a major accessibility issue in France in a certain category of people. So, lesson learned here, like in many subjects, Internet is not a separate subject, but at the confluence of social, political and economic issues. And it is very important to maintain the indicator at the beginning of the study and even during the study to stay very close of the issue of a country. Those contextual indicators lead to targeting the essential issues. A lot of S in my intervention. In France… For example, the question of electricity access, etc., is not an issue in France. So the interpretation cannot be the same between two countries regarding the indicator. That’s why you said it’s not a purpose of comparison, but to enlighten maybe the way to address the issue. And now, question of rights. Looking at the series of more specific indicators with regard to their number, their scope, and the multi-stakeholder, multi-party and multi-stakeholder dimension in our workgroup, questions are still going strong, because even if a certain number of objective elements are observed and exist to read the indicators, their weight in the final evaluation of the indicator remains under discussion. I will explain maybe a bit clearly what I said. For example, on the Internet, on childhood, the stakeholder conclusions diverge to some extent. During a working session on the place of a judge in the digital space organized last July by Ireste and Isaac Franschapter, there was a question regarding the rule of law, and some critics regarding the tendency to create ad hoc and infra-legal procedures to resolve disputes, particularly regarding the removal of online content, pornography, harassment, etc. All specific and new procedures can give the impression that the indicator is very good because there is procedure. But in reality, the question of effectiveness and the state of duty and balance of rights are questioned here. So it’s not easy with the same rules to say, yes, the indicator is well rated or no, finally, there is another issue in the law, liberty of expression, for example. And finally, I wish to make a focus to illustrate the difficulty to stop at the moment the study and the need of constant updating. That is another issue with the indicators because just now, since May 2023, there is a new law bill which aims to secure and regulate the numerical space discussed. It aims to prevent harassment, hate speech through some new technical measures, but they are also controversial. So we have the impression to have a look at everything in the state of law and a new bill of law. So it’s very complicated to write a final draft to communicate because it’s very fructuant. In this bill of law, there is some measure of… for hosting providers, which must remove child pornography within 24 hours, under penalty otherwise. But there is some subtleties, and again, if you just look at the law, you can say, yes, there is law to protect child, but again, there is law, but what are the consequences? The other indicator, like liberty of expression, is not so well rated. It was my last word, so it’s a perfect time. So thank you for listening and to have me here, and I will quit the session prematurely, because I lost my luggage in airport, so I have to deal with that, thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Claire, and thank you for giving this overview and also illustrating the examples of France. I would like to next give the floor to our online participants, speakers, and specifically to Pisal Chanti, who has been leading the research in Cambodia. Please, Pisal. Pisal will also address the question of, yes, he will address the question around rights. Again, we don’t read out the question. He will just build it around this theme.

Pisal Chanty:
Thank you, first I start by thanking UNESCO for the invitation for me to participate in this forum. You hear me clearly, right? Yes, we do. Yep, thank you. So I think I first start by giving introduction a little bit about the IUI assessment in Cambodia. So IUI assessment in Cambodia is the initiative of the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication, which is the ministry responsible for digital technology and telecommunication, in partnership with UNESCO Phnom Penh, UNESCO in Cambodia, to initiate these projects. So we kickstarted the projects in 2022. However, there is a significant delay due to the gaps of data, but also some issue that I gonna present in the next session. So before I start about the problem we are having in the conducting the application of IUI assessment in Cambodia, especially on the right category. So just to briefly provide you in a background is that based on the finding of the right category, in Cambodia, our constitution have enshrined the fundamental human rights in the text of the constitution. And the Royal Government of Cambodia has ratified numbers of regional and international human rights agreement, thereby committed to uphold the rights both offline and online. However, there is no expression of legal regulation in Cambodia that define online and offline equivalent of basic human rights. Another issue is that the interpretation of this commitment in practical have shown inconsistency, defamation and insults also into a type of cybercrime as well. It’s committed, we are the computer network. Another issue is on the legal gap in the intermediary liability and contents. While personal data protection law and cyber crime is being drafted, computer-related offense were introduced for the time being in Cambodia criminal code in 2009 in Article 317 and Article 320. The crime of infringement on secrecy of correspondent and telecommunication and often in information technology. Legal framework for the lawful inception of data also defined in our telecom law in 2015, but claimed by the human rights special reporter as fake. And also there is a new introduction of the national internet gateway, remain a contentious between royal government of Cambodia and CSO in the country. And the implementations has been postponed without specific data. Recently, the royal government of Cambodia has introduced a digital economy and society policy framework, which is a commitment of the government to transform the country to digital economy and society, but also introduced the Cambodia digital government policy in early 2022, aiming for a technological, equipped and transparent government that foster an inclusive digital society and persists on e-participation, which this policy echo the UN e-government survey focused on e-information, e-consultation and e-decision making. So what is the, in short, the recommendation for this human right, on the right aspect is that we are focusing on three aspects. The first one is that the different stakeholders, especially the government would focus on legal trafficking and adoption. The second aspect is on capacity building of the judiciary and relevant policy maker and stakeholder. And the last one is the encouragement on the multi-stakeholder participation of CSO development partner in the government. This is a brief summary of the finding on the rights. So what is the lesson learned and issue that we are conducting in application of the IUI assessment in Cambodia, whereby I selected to choose on the right method. It doesn’t mean that other category of the Rome X principle is not a problem, but right issue is a good lesson learned from us. So the issue is that rights, the matter of human rights, Cambodia in general is one of the contested front in Cambodia between the government and CSO. So even going without going back into the digital landscape, human rights has been a contested issue already. CSO quite vocal in this field. Therefore, any method related to rights has been a subject to a lot of discussion and need to be careful. Based on the multi-stakeholder, the establish of the multi-stakeholder advisory board, we are trying to create the map in a way that it representing CSO government, everything, even the academy, even the youth, even the gender. However, there is still, we need to be careful on the arrangement of the map. The second thing is the text itself. Despite the finding, we need to ensure that all of the voice from the CSO, all of the voice from the government need to be incorporated. Otherwise, they would not agree in the text or in the validation. So we are planning to do the validation at the latest, at the end of this month or early next month. So the arrangement is also very careful, meaning that we need to prepare properly. so to ensure that everyone takes ownership of it. It is a multi-stakeholder, so not only the government accepted, but also the CSO, but also development partner, but also the user of the internet. So what we have made to get so far? So I think it’s important for the revise of the IUI assessment as well, is that UNESCO in Cambodia has played a good moderator in this part, because from the government side, they have the firm position on the right aspects, while from the CSO, they have a firm stand on the certain aspects of the rights aspect as well. So what is UNESCO is doing is that, based on their knowledge, based on their moderation, they try to moderate the tax, but also ensure that, okay, this is the tax going to be accepted by the government, but also the CSO. So what is the strategy to be undertaken by UNESCO to improve on this strategy is that the UNESCO in respective countries need to play a role, but a role as a moderator, a role that the government accepted, but also the CSO. And the second thing is that the responsible ministry, for example, in Cambodia is Ministry of Post and Telecommunication. So the Ministry of Post and Telecommunication need to also take part to ensure that the recommendations recommended to the government is being addressed, and also entrusted the research institution, to follow up the recommendations that have been done so far, to ensure that all the recommendations have been in application by the stakeholder. So in short, it’s that, UNESCO is trying to make sure that all the recommendations that have been The multi-stakeholder approach is very crucial in the right aspects. And UNESCO in respective countries also play a role. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Pisal. I’ll next give the floor to María Fernanda Martínez from Argentina. Please you have five floor. We’re running a bit behind the schedule, so I’ll request the speakers to please remain within this slot. Five minutes, please.

Maria Fernanda Martinez:
Thank you. Thank you, Tatia. It’s a pleasure for me to share this event with distinguished colleagues from around the world. I am the Executive Director and Researcher of the Center for Technology and Society Studies in Argentina. CETIS is an academic and cross-disciplinary space for research, education, and communication of the policies and the development of digital processes in the public sphere. There are many things to discuss, so we’ll make an effort to share Argentina’s most notable national findings related to rights, and also give our opinion regarding what strategies UNESCO can undertake to improve local monitoring strategies. First, let me tell you that our report, we adopt the strategy of the traffic light diagnosis. For each topic of each axis and according to the maturity level of the institutional path taken by Argentina, a color was identified, red, yellow, and green. We think it has been a good practice since it allows to have a quick approximation for each axis. Regarding to policy, legal, and framework, Argentina will have a general legal framework in keeping with international human rights standards. However, we are concerned about the expansion of the use of facial recognition technology and the increase in surveillance situations in social media. Besides, we have a legal framework that ensures freedom of expression. In terms of liability of intermediaries, there is no specific regulation and general principles of civil and criminal liability apply. There are relevant judicial proceedings tending to not apply objective liability and non-compulsory use of monitoring mechanisms in online context. The right to access to information is recognized and the agenda for the matter seems to have reached some state policy statutes, at least in the wording of the regulation. Transparency in actions is not verified in the same way in all different contexts and levels of the state. Regarding freedom of association and right to participate in management of public affairs, legal framework that favours freedom of association online, however, that right may be affected by use, affordability and access inequality. Related to the right to privacy, here we have an outdated legal framework for data protection. At subnational level, growing use of biometric data for security-related activities were opacity in the norm. You observe little transparency and interruptions in national intelligence and data interception policy. What strategy UNESCO can undertake to improve local monitoring strategies? First of all, we believe that it is very important to have a realistic work preparation, outline and schedule that includes monitoring instance, for example, short progress report or participation or reports on meeting with the MAP. For the application of the recommendation, we think that institutional characteristics are very important. We know that UNESCO takes this into account, but it is necessary to reinforce its importance because it is fundamental that the organisation that carries out the research. has a history and links with all actors in the ecosystem. It is also fundamental to have a balanced composition in terms of sector and gender of the map. UNESCO has to encourage the research team to have a consensus recommendations with the map. In our case, in each axis we establish objectives and recommendations by sector that were debated and then agreed upon with the members of the map. This guarantees its relevance and also its viability. Identify those recommendations where they can have the greatest impact. It is important to recognize which are those where, due to the characteristics of the team, institution and contextual needs, greater impact can be achieved. Then, generate space for dialogue and action to advance the implementation of the recommendations. In our case, for example, we have identified the issue of protection of personal data as crucial, so we organized several meetings with relevant actors to discuss modifications to the current bill that culminate in holding specific conferences on the draft law on protection of personal data. Another important issue is the publication deadlines for local reports. We are aware that there are many internal and necessary validations instances, and we also know that UNESCO is trying to accelerate them, and we appreciate it, since the delay in publications makes it lose relevance. Regarding to this point, we think that at the time of the forming of the team, one of the researchers could be designing the… Regarding to this point, we think that at the time of forming the team, one of the researchers could be designated to continue working within UNESCO. through the period between the delivery of the final document and its publication. Well, thank you very much. And before closing, I want to name all the team, Lex Bustofrati, Carolina Cairo, Ivan Kishman, and Delfina Ferracuti. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Maria. Thank you for also your suggestions. The next one in my list is Grace Githayga from Kenya. Please, Grace, the floor is yours. Five minutes, please.

Grace Githaiga:
I think I want to be very brief. When we looked at the rights, and this is our first review, because we did the first report and released it in 2022. Then we reviewed after two years. The result is that in terms of rights, Kenya has a comprehensive policy, legal and institutional framework for human rights, which adapts international human rights standards for, among others, freedom of expression, freedom of access to information, freedom of association, the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, the right to privacy and socio and economic and cultural rights. And while there is no legislation blocking internet access, there are legal restrictions on human rights and challenges in the enforcement and practical implementation of the laws. And for example, we held a general election in August 2022. And then the COVID-19 pandemic, these two exposed gaps in internet freedom, such as threats of incidents of abuse of repressive laws and cases of disinformation. experience of digital rights. This is also an issue that累

Swaran Ravindra:
the PG National University and I have also been commissioned by UNESCO as a lead researcher for the ROMEX project, which is under my responsibility comes PG, Thubanu and Solomon Allen. So I will not take too much of time. I will just go directly into the question that I have been asked to speak about. So my category was openness and before I go into some of the strategies that we have come up with, I just wanted to let the audience know that for us, this is still work in progress. The project is only one month old so far or one month young so far. So we’re still navigating through the various aspects of the project and So everything that the other participants or the other researchers are talking about, it heavily resonates with our work in the Pacific at the moment. I also have some people in the room today, Kyoto, unfortunately I could not be there, but we have Jenna Noyer, who is the Director of Telecommunications from Tuvalu. So I’m happy to have interventions at the end. So the question precisely that was asked to me was what strategies can be used to overcome data unavailability and obtain high quality and updated data? Now, this is something that is no news in the Pacific. We have been information rich and knowledge poor in some cases. And at the same time, we have seen that there are areas of serious data gaps, both in government institutions and also in many different areas where we need to access citizen-centric services. And so some of the strategies that my team came up with is to regularly update information for citizen-centric services. We also need support from global organizations. So just give me one moment. Your mute is foreign. Apologies. So we noted that it is very important for us to have support from global organizations. So we thoroughly thank UNESCO for faith in the project and also in understanding the predicaments that are Pacific-centric. And as the other speakers were talking about the different experiences, and we as a team, those working in the Pacific for ROMEX project, we have seen that some of them resonate with us and then some of them are so centric to the Pacific. So one particular project that I wanted to share with you, in fact, it could be taken as a strategy. The last two years I have been involved in UNDP’s Right to Information project. And I have realized that many things that are asked under openness. If we already have Right to Information Project deployed by UNDP in those economies, it makes it much easier to answer the questions under the indicators. Of course, there are still lots of gaps, but the fact that Right to Information Project was deployed prior to our OMICS project, it really helped in getting some of the information. Also reports from ITU, UN, and scholarly articles, but I found the Right to Information Project information from the Right to Information Project, as well as ITU and UN reports, more helpful. We also spoke about the need for having a research team or a team of special consultants that could form a national body of researchers to be able to work in ethical standards in terms of data collection. Now, this is something that could be embedded within Bureau of Statistics in Fiji. There was another research project that I did where it was very difficult to get information, and that information came much, much later, about two years later. So there would be a special body of researchers who could support the data collection processes. It’s also quite evident that many people who are doing research may not necessarily be research-centric people, but they are there at ground level, and they’re there to help, and they have access to the most important and even the most vulnerable communities where we need to get data from. The need for support of the government, particularly, is really, really important, especially in the lesser-developed economies. Also the need for benchmarking. Now, as the other speakers were talking about their experiences, I could, in fact, start thinking about different types of avenues where we can get some good benchmarking practices so that we can learn and see what part of it can we adapt in the Pacific. Of course, awareness. Recently, at an informal meeting, our map has not been formalized yet. We have been in the process of talking to different stakeholders, and just because in the Pacific, we have a very different style of working, what we call telenwa in Fiji, which means casual conversation. This is where we build relationships in the community, and it is one of the most important, one of the most, it could be both formal and casual, but it is also one of the best sources of information and in terms of creating partnership with the stakeholders. So we have Ministry of Communication, we also have Ministry of Education, we have the support of the Permanent Secretaries, we have also Pacific Disability Forum, and there’s a number of, if I had more time I would have been able to deliberate on that, we have a number of different representation from the various stakeholders in Fiji who have been willing to support us, but if we did have a lot of information on the website, then it would have been much, much more helpful. In saying that, many things that come under openness, is regulated by… Okay, so we have some predicaments, for example, the difference between the Information Act and the Right to Information Act, in some of the Pacific Islands, they are embedded into one, and then in some of the Pacific Islands, we don’t have the Privacy Act at all. We also have Human Rights Commission, we have Online Safety Commission, we also have the Cybercrimes Act, however deployment is questionable, but if I were to just, you know, make one broad statement about the need for multi-stakeholderism, that is very, very important, however in the Pacific, we have a very civic-centric style to that, however, there’s one more thing that I wanted to reiterate on before I finish off, if we have a prior assessment on Right to Information, I think that would be really helpful in addressing the questions under openness. That is all from me, you’re most welcome to contact me on LinkedIn, and I’d be happy to work with you and, you know, learn more from each other. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Swaran, for driving the work forward in all these countries and for sharing the experience and I would like now to give the floor to Santosh Sikdhal from Nepal, please, you have five minutes.

Santosh Sigdel:
Hello, everyone, here and online, I’m Santosh Sikdhal from Nepal, I’m Executive Director of Digital Rights Nepal and Co-Commissioner of Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principle. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Digital rights Nepal implemented the national assessment in Nepal and based on our experience I’ll be sharing something on the question, how could we improve the process of establishing consultation and validation of the finding with the multi-stakeholder advisory board. So my presentation will be limited on that and I have only five minutes, four minutes, 30 seconds, so I’ll be very quick. So the first step of the national assessment is to establish the process and this is the first step of the national assessment. However, this is not mandatory within the UNESCO framework. That is strongly recommended but not mandatory. And the member of this group includes the government, the private sector, technical community, academics, civil society and others. So the first step of the national assessment is to establish the process and validation of the finding with the multi-stakeholder advisory board. In the context of Nepal, it was largely dominated by the government agencies and the regulator including the representation of UNESCO and we were invited as an observer while we did the research. So it is very important, based on our experience, it is very important that we make the process and validation of the finding with the multi-stakeholder advisory board. That is very important to ensure otherwise the stakeholders feel that at times they do not know about the process and they do not see the importance, so establish the importance of this whole national assessment process. It is important to bring all the necessary stakeholder in the process. And about the role of the multi-stakeholder advisory board. So since 2014, the area has been focused on the indigenous protection issues and based on the experience of Nepal, in Nepal from the very beginning Ministry of they identified the stakeholder group, they supported in finalizing the questionnaire, identifying the data sources. At the same time, they provided inputs and they also provided in the draft report. They actually identified the location, geography, location, stakeholder group, and everything. However, we see as a takeaway, we see that there is a balance. If the government is not involved in the process, it is not easy to get the data because this report is based on the availability of the formal official reports and data. At times, if the process is somehow dominated by the government and regulator, there is a possibility of whitewashing the Internet scenario and presenting a rosy picture. The report will be tool for the time being to give a picture of the Internet situation in the country. So, there is a kind of balance we need to ensure. In that process, from the experience of Nepal, we see that at one point, the MAB also organized an inter-ministerial meeting inviting all the ministries and their representative in the draft report. We see that a very important aspect because tomorrow, the importance of report is on its implementation. If there is only the report for the sake of publication, it’s not important. But if we want to implement the report tomorrow, it is important to have the buy-in from all the important government agencies because tomorrow, Ministry of Education or Ministry of Health is going to implement the report. So, if they are in the process, it is important that they are not at the last point, at the validation walks up, but they are somehow engaged from the beginning of the report. So, that is very important. we already discussed about a non-availability of the desegregated data across the board, but it is more important in the least developed countries like Nepal. And one suggestion is that while talking about the multi-stakeholder, strengthening the multi-stakeholderism or the MAP process, in our opinion, it is also important to include the national census office if there are any, because if they are collecting the national census, they will know what are the important indicators, the critical indicators, and they might include those indicators while collecting the census, and tomorrow we have the relevant data while reporting it. So I remain here. Thank you. Thank you for the time, and if there are any questions or comments, I’ll be here throughout the session.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Santosh. And before we break for coffee, where we would have more time to speak with the speakers, I would like to give the floor to Anna Amomo-David, sorry if I’m mispronouncing, from Namibia. Please, the floor is yours.

Anna Amoomo-David:
All right. Thank you very much. Yes, my name is Anna Amomo-David from Namibia, and I will be presenting briefly about openness as well. I just want to state here that throughout, although Namibia is still in progress with the assessment, one of the pivotal roles that the multistakeholder advisory board have done for us to be able to carry this out was primarily because they would then help us to address the various indicators as they come in that would be relevant to not only a particular category, but at the same time, a particular indicator or guiding question within that particular indicator. Now, when it comes to openness in Namibia, One of the things that we initially looked for was things such as open source and open source softwares and then also realizing that there was no direct legal framework pertaining to the Internet that enabled consumer protection in terms of the open data as well that would come with the open Internet. Additionally, we looked at things like the different licensing softwares and how government would then prioritize considering the national priority for cybersecurity, for an example, on how exactly the openness part of the various indicators would come in. And then what we are busy establishing right now is that in terms of licensing, the openness of the Internet is actually broken down further into sector-specific regulation, so as much as there is these indicators, they are, however, potentially limiting to that particular sector in terms of relevance as well as encouraging a broader innovation promotion. So part of these indicators also prompted that the regulation within the openness category, there were some indication that the regulation would ensure that everybody would then not only establish themselves as an entrepreneur, for an example, coming up with a web business or a digital e-commerce platform would then have to go through One of the things we made clear in the iceberg period was we wanted to implement a required standards regulation for the kind of guidelines of the sector and theas light screen for example. So, what we were looking at using standards as a platform to implement the standards and the standards that we were looking at was the current access to information bill that was enacted in Parliament just last year which allows for the proactive disclosure of information and this plays a role because at the end of the day when there is openness to a particular institution when it comes to digital or digital essences that generate that information , it not onlycoloads in the information but it also calls for this data to be put in a language or in a format for an individual who further takes it away from the rights of the individual. So it’s not just about the digital essences, it’s also about the inclusion of people with disabilities . So that openness aspect is also a little bit hampered. And then one of the major stakeholders that we actually look working with is the office of the prime minister, which is the office of the prime minister , and it’s also the office of the minister of education, as well as policy . So in collaboration with the ministry of ICT, of course, and the ministry of education, we are working with the ministry of education to make sure that people with disabilities have access to the information that they need to be able to have access to higher education, which is responsible for training and capacity building for the various individuals of age. This would then comes to a point where the openness aspects are further enriched, although we’re building capacity towards them. Yes, I will still be around and thank you for the opportunity.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Anna. And I would like to thank all the speakers online and here in the room. Thank you so much for your excellent contributions and for sharing not only your input as we move forward with the revision, but also reflecting on the national context, which is really valuable. And we would now go for a very short coffee break. I know that in the schedule, based on the scenario, we have Q&A, but given that the participants in the room will hopefully stay for the second part of the session as well, I invite you all to speak with our experts, with the panelists around the coffee. And I apologize to online participants, but we will take your questions after the break. We’ll be back just in 10 minutes. If we can be here at 5.45 local time in 10 minutes, please. Thank you very much. Thank you. So we will now resume the session. So just to check if online speakers are back. Are you Zuhl, Sadaf? Yes, I’m here. Sorry, it’s Elin Zuhl. Thank you, Sadaf and Matthias and Asrat and Alan and Iqlika. So thank you very much. I would like to ask the online moderator, my colleague Karen, as I promised we will start with the online questions.

Online Moderator:
Are there any online questions or online comments to be addressed, Karen? There were a few elements that were talked about in the comments. Can you please read them out to ensure that we have participation and inputs from the online speakers and participants as well? Yes. So Sadaf was saying, as a researcher based in a civil society institution, it is interesting for me to see that government organizations leading the research have also struggled with finding the sweet spot where the CSOs and government can agree. There is also one where she talks about digital authoritarianism in her country and the pressure to reflect the government perspective and position, which has been intense in our experience. There is also, Sadaf is also talking about the multi-stakeholder and validation process that should involve the government, but that has been challenging on her part. So there is that, which Sadaf is representing Pakistan. So this is her perspective on such issues. There is also Swaran who was talking about the whitewashing in the research and see it as a difficulty and a challenge to overcome. And also she said that there is a mutual purpose that needs to be understood between the stakeholders and the government. So this is also something that we can discuss in a few. And Sergio Martinez, who was participating online, said that he had a question which said, in countries like Namibia, seeking to develop sectoral specific regulations to support specific segments such as e-commerce, digital business, and people with disability. So this is kind of the only question we have in the chat for now. So if you have any input, we can discuss it now or discuss it in the next Q&A segment. Thank you very much, Karen. And Karen, my colleague, I’m going to turn it over to you. Karen, I’m going to turn it over to you. Thank you. So the question is, which sources, guidelines, or standards offer a starting point to account for a country’s specific needs when there are gaps in their underlying global frameworks?

Anna Amoomo-David:
Okay. All right. I think what worked best in Namibia is because prior to us being able to actually carry out the ROMACS, we have done a couple of research of our own, basic research, and engaged in a number of projects. And then also what we have done is, with the government, because the Internet Society is the one conducting the research, we had established ourselves to be a partner and have our foot in the door with the various ministries, such as the Ministry of ICT, as well as other institutions. And then this paved the way for us to be able to actually engage directly with them, particularly to… when it came to the Romex exercise. In addition to that, I believe that initially when we started, we started off with a multi-stakeholder advisory board where we had invited a lot of the different ministries, government agencies, as well as offices. We felt that our key stakeholders, and should we then reach out to them a second or a third time whenever we had an intervention, this made it possible. The only thing is that the global standards do not necessarily set the tone for the Namibian standards because with the Namibian standards, there are no standards, first of all. We use the ISO 27001 and the office responsible for maintaining the standards at this point simply adopts them. So how we engage with that is basically putting measures in place where we examine our standards ourselves, and if they’re not relevant, then we rather advise that they’re not relevant to us because of various reasons pertaining to whether the indicator speaks to us or not. I hope that answered the question.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Anna. So if there are no other questions from the previous part of the discussion, I will now pass to the second part of the discussion which will be focusing on accessibility category and multi-stakeholder participation as well as cross-cutting category of the framework. As I mentioned previously, we have a set of questions which we asked the speakers to focus on, but of course not limiting the discussion around the specific question, but to make sure all the topics are covered. And with this, I would like to now I give the floor to online participants, Ariuzul Ochir from Mongolia, who is the lead researcher from Mongolia, followed by Sadaf Khan from Pakistan. Ariuzul, please, the floor is yours.

L. Ariunzul Ochir:
Yeah, thank you, Tevnik, and I believe you can hear me and see me well. Very well. Thank you. Thank you. I’m very glad to be a part of the IUI community across the world, and my name is Ariuzul Ochir, and I’m leading researcher of the Mongolian IUI assessment. I just want to clarify the views presented today are based on my professional insights driven from the Mongolian IUI assessment conducted last year. And if I summarize the key findings of the accessibility team in Mongolian assessment, in one sentence, I would say, although the internet is relatively affordable and accessible for general public, it’s not accessible for persons with disabilities, language minorities, and old people as well. So I believe that accessibility is a precondition of the inclusion in both digital and physical world. So therefore, to enhance the current assessment comprehensiveness, I would like to propose a revision or reorganization of the questions in the accessibility sections, and particularly the current question, AD 6.1, which asks, like, existence of legal and regulatory provisions to promote access and use of internet by persons with disabilities in Mongolia. Because for example, in Mongolia, we have a website standard known as MNS 6285-2017, our planning requirements for government websites. However, this standard fall short in adequately addressing the barriers faced by the persons with disabilities, because there are no requirements for to ensure the use of assistive technologies and softwares and devices by the persons with disabilities, no requirements to ensure the adjustment for the color blindness and no requirements for adjusting the websites for especially persons with the photosensitive seizures and so on. And when using the Web Content Accessibility Guideline, which is devolved by the World Web Consortium back in 2008, none of the government website in Mongolia fully comply with these guidelines. Therefore, I felt that the current question may lure the original intention of the ensuring the web accessibility for persons with disability, not necessarily limited by the persons with disability, also again, language minority and old people and people who are temporarily, you know, the injured, injured. So that’s why, because every country obviously has their own standard to ensure the web accessibility, but unfortunately, some of them are not fully addressing the barriers faced by the persons with the disability. So I specifically recommend to incorporating inquiries about whether the country adheres to Web Content Accessibility Guideline by World Web Consortium or something similar, because the Web Content Accessibility Guideline is the world globally recognized and used Web Accessibility Guideline, which plays really crucial roles in many countries, including the US. I know in US, they are following the Web Content Accessibility Guideline. Under the section 508 in the EU country also, they have similar Web Accessibility Guideline called EN-301549. which a majority of the requirements are aligned with the Web Access Week guidelines. So briefly sum up, I see that AIU has two main benefits to our country. First, encouraging governments to ensure the human rights issue in digital environment. And second, educating stakeholders what to do next in order to ensure the human rights in digital world. And therefore, since there’s a good, you know, the best practices, which is web content access to you, why don’t we include this guideline in existing questions? So that’s the one insight that I want to share with you today. And thank you. Over to you, Detevik.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Ariuzul. Thank you for presenting the case. And actually, Mongolia has successfully finalized the report and validated. And we look forward to its publication, which is now underway. The process is underway in UNESCO. So the next on my list is Sadaf, who is leading the research in Pakistan. Please, Sadaf, the floor is yours. And just a reminder that I am not giving a presentation of the speaker. So if you want to present yourself, please go ahead. Thank you, Sadaf.

Sadaf Khan:
Thank you. In the interest of time, I’m just going to try and keep my intervention to three short points. I’m Sadaf. I’m the lead researcher of the assessment in Pakistan. The Pakistan assessment is also complete and in the process of review for publication at the moment. So for the three categories, the multistakeholderism, accessibility, et cetera, I’m making three. cross-cutting points that I felt have potential to be reviewed as UNESCO undergoes the process of revising the Internet Universality Indicators Framework. The first thing that I would like to talk about is the challenges that are linked to contextual analysis. And speakers before me have also pointed out some of the challenges that they had faced. And I think it’s okay to, like, on the onset, it is obviously going to be very challenging to apply contextual analysis to a framework that is global. I think one of the things that came to me again and again, as I was undergoing the process of assessment, I think these challenges themselves also present an opportunity to start looking at the framework in a way that allows UNESCO and other global players to, you know, basically review how they are reviewing and assessing some of the things. There was a question in the chat earlier about whitewashing and this comment also kind of links to that. I’ll give you a very specific example. One of the core elements that is indicative of mobile gender gap and also included as a part of accessibility framework is the mobile and SIM phone ownership. Now Pakistan has one of the largest, highest mobile gender gaps in the whole world. But we know that in Pakistan, at least, ownership is not really an accurate indicator of usage. Here, SIM access is linked to biometric validation. We also are a conservative society, we are also a society where safety for women generally is a challenge. So what happens when biometric is linked to SIM validation is that various women, including those who are actually using the internet, who live in urban centers, and are seen generally like from progressive communities, et cetera, they even they do not prefer to own their own SIM. They will send the men in the family to get the biometric verification done. And it doesn’t mean that they’re not using it. The purpose is simply to ensure that your gender doesn’t become a reason for the shopkeeper, whoever is doing the validation to start messaging and harassing you. So again, because ownership is consistently seeing whether it’s the GSMA framework, whether it’s the Rome indicators, it’s something that’s seen as a very fundamental part of how you assess mobile gender access. I think this kind of gives an opportunity to start looking at how we are assessing and making sure that the assessment framework it also reflects the realities of global South, the realities of countries where there is digital authoritarianism and tribalism conservatism within the society. And my recommendation for this specifically is not to do with the framework itself, but within the methodology guidelines, which inform how researchers frame the research, right? Frame their recommendations. I think it would be interesting to explore the possibility to include an annex where the research team can actually document how these intersections took place, which of the indicators came out to or appeared to be indicators that had a whitewashing or a very universal approach. And that allows later to also have a more in-depth debate. So maybe perhaps not directly a part of the framework, but as an annex that allows the structured commentary on how the Rome framework has intersected with the realities in different countries. The second point that I want to make is about the repetitions within the indicators framework. There are obviously some obvious repetitions, that are also highlighted. And when indicators appear in different categories, you see those listed. But then there are other repetitions that are highlighted only when you are analyzing the findings. And there are obviously intersections specifically, let’s say you’re talking about subscription data, disaggregated data that relates to subscription. And then most specifically, there are the cross-cutting indicators. Now the category X, it’s cross-cutting, and we already know from its framing that it’s cross-cutting. However, after the completion of the research, if I look at how cross-cutting the actual analysis was, I think there are some obvious gaps that come into play. Gender, for example, is something that across like, which not just in Pakistan, but other researchers that have also gone through, gender informs analysis in a specific way. But children who are a part of the cross-cutting category, they do not appear anywhere else. So my recommendation again, because this is a comprehensive framework, would perhaps be to explore if there is a possible way to redraft the elements included in Category X as an analytical framework rather than a separate category. So rather it being a separate category of assessment, it actually becomes a cross-cutting lens for analysis that allow those elements to be reflected more comprehensively within the analytical framework.

Moderator:
Thank you, Sadaf. Thank you. Thank you very much, Sadaf, for your suggestions and your input. I will now give the floor to Eduardo. Eduardo Carillo, who is the lead researcher for Paraguay. Please, Eduardo, the floor is yours. Five minutes, please.

Eduardo Carillo:
I’ll try to be also as brief as possible. Thank you very much. And perhaps even keep it a bit shorter to give other panelists more time to speak also. So we were asked to do a presentation on how the findings in our country in a specific category went. So I’m going to be very brief on the accessibility part. And just to say that although we can affirm or the research that we did for the Romex for the 2018 and 2022 period gave us the affirmation that we had an 11% growth of internet users in Paraguay, we still have a number of scenarios that show a lot of challenges, specifically around high connection speeds and zero rating plans that still exist and offer an uneven free access to certain social media platforms and thus they contribute to an unequal access to the internet and information access in general. And also very similarly to what some of my colleagues have been presenting so far, we still need to improve gender equality or an approach of gender equality in Internet access. Specifically when we were doing the research, we had a lot of problem finding gender disaggregated data on Internet access. And this should be mainstream in national service to support the development of targeted gender policy responses on this matter. And connecting this to the issue of service, I would also say that we encounter a number of differences in the actual connectivity percentages in the country. Because the two agencies, the ICT agencies and the National Statistic Agency that are in charge of developing this kind of instruments, have different methodologies that in a way show different numbers on how connected the country is. And this is a problem. These agencies should speak more closely in order to present a more unified number, if that’s the case. And lastly but not least, we are a country that is quite unique in the world because we have two official languages, the Spanish language and the Guarani indigenous language. And that means that the state is bound to ensure that both languages are available in websites and in general services, general public services in general. But this doesn’t happen both in the offline and also in the online world. Although we have or we now have regulation that obliges the states to have their websites in both languages, this is not the case and is something that definitely needs a revision. In terms of the question that we were posed, that we had to answer and mine was about, you know, how we can overcome data unavailability and obtain high quality and updated data within the ROMEX. process of data collection and then feeding that data collection or that collected data in the indicators. I think that when thinking more broadly about the ROMEx and its future application, different realities should be considered concerning data availability and what is the understanding of data availability in certain contexts. Specifically in the Paraguayan context and for the research that we conducted, we partnered from the get-go with government to ensure fast and detailed access to information replies as well as ensuring private meetings with public officials that were able to give us the information that was needed. So that definitely is an interesting strategy that I know a lot of my colleagues have done in the past or have also adopted to access the necessary information. There are a lot of indicators, even the short one is 106, so you need a lot of information to fill those indicators. And also in our case the help of certain MAP members was quite crucial to access information that perhaps if they weren’t there was going to be a bit more difficult to to map in the data collection state. And this said, and I’m gonna quote Fabio on the flexibility of the methodology that he was mentioning before, I think that in the context of Paraguay, regardless of all the strategies that you can adopt, there is a general lack of data availability. Like the government doesn’t have the capacity to produce data in a evidence-based way or in a structured methodological way. So in example we had some indicators around indigenous community or even children communities, even children’s connectivity details that were non-existent in a way that could allow us to affirm that they were like updated information that could reflect the reality of the country for the years that we were looking at. But in a context of lack of data availability, any information that we found, even if it’s like five years let’s say like we did the research in 2018 and the data that we found was from 2015 or 13 or so we think that should be accepted, at least for the first editions of the Romex in the countries that hopefully will continue conducting this research, because in the end the Romex report should be like the centralized place where all information regarding ICT is locked, at least on the first edition, and then we can see in subsequent editions if it’s worth continue putting the same information or in those cases perhaps it’s more easy to affirm that there isn’t any data on a specific topic and that that information should be produced. So I’m seeing that I’m 40 seconds past my time, but those will be my two cents on this.

Moderator:
Thank you very much Edoardo and thank you for the timing as well. I know Simon would have something to say about the data, so I will not, it was data availability something that many speakers touched upon, so I’ll leave it to Simon, but now I would like to give the floor to Matthias Keteman, sorry if I’m mispronouncing your name, from Germany followed by Asrat Mulatu from Ethiopia. Please Matthias, the floor is yours.

Matthias Ketteman:
Hello, hi, I’m very sorry that I can’t do video, but it’s in the middle of the afternoon and I’m with my family, but I’m more than happy to talk a bit about our experiences in Germany. Now, let me focus on the importance of multi-stakeholderism. So at the very outset, we made sure to include all relevant stakeholders in the process of developing our assessment under the IUIs. What we did from the outset was to consult as broadly as possible, as many stakeholder groups as possible. On the one hand, we included them in our sounding board, that is to say our advisory board. But we also, in addition to that, talked with as many people we could from scholars to scientists, to administrators, to legislators to make sure that the concerns they had were reflected in our studies and in the assessment that we were developing. Now I realize that the importance of multistakeholderism is this is broadly accepted, but the reality is that a lot of multistakeholder exercises don’t actually work so well because you only select a token number of people or you lack in diversity. So you have to be really keenly aware of the importance of making multistakeholderism work in light of the goals you have in mind. So what we did was, at the very outset, separate the categories of indicators we wanted to work on and selected a person as a sort of a consultant to advise us which stakeholders to talk to in order to make sure that all representative groups were in fact represented in the process of developing the indicators. Then after we had written our pieces, after we had collected the data, we then went into a multistakeholder-based review phase. What we did then was to share our output, share the parts of the study we were already comfortable with sharing with a very large number of societal stakeholders and ask them for their input and ask them whether the research we had conducted reflected their… their impression of the topic, whether they felt we had selected and studied all the necessary data, whether they felt we had missed something big. And based on that, we then refined our report. And then in the last step, we had a big meeting with all the representatives in our sounding board. We asked for each topic. We asked a member of the board to act sort of as a devil’s advocate, to advocate what we missed, what we didn’t include. And we were then able to defend or include revisions into our papers. Globally, multistakeholderism is on the rise, but we feel that an exercise like the IOI’s is so important as an example of how multistakeholderism can work in practice. And we are very happy with the outcome. And I’m more than happy to be here for any questions, either in written or right now. Sorry for the unusual format of presenting. Take care and see you soon.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Matthias, for sharing your thoughts and presenting the case in Germany. And we do realize that this is a Sunday session and we do appreciate that all of you here and also back online at your homes took the time to share your thoughts. We appreciate that very much. So next one in my agenda is Asrat, but I was notified that he’s not online. He’s not connected. Asrat, are you there? Karen, is Asrat still not there? No. Okay. No, he’s not connected. Okay. Then we will move to the next speaker. And if he joins, he can contribute later on. Iglika Ivanova from Bulgaria. Iglika, please.

Iglika Ivanova:
Thank you so much. I will now go to share my slides. Would you please confirm if they’re loaded? I cannot hear you. Yes. Yeah, thank you. Thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute to this very insightful, very informative discussion. As you can see, just a second to gain back control to my slides. I will present the Conduction of National Assessment on Internet Development in Bulgaria for the very first time. It’s ongoing national evaluation. It is one among three European countries now with ongoing Romex Indicators assessment. We focused on this presentation on the collaboration we have with UNESCO and advisors on multi-stakeholder participation. Just a very quick overview of what we are doing in the Ministry of Electronic Governance I’m representing now and the department. We focused on the policy in digital transformation in the field of innovative technology, digital rights and principles. We focused on digital democracy and policies for internet governance in the domains. And if I’m mentioning that, even if you have the slides later, is because of this idea of how we identify the neighboring fields and intersections with other frameworks and instruments as global digital compact. In this case, in this case, with the digital decade for this problem of the European Union, which is now the focus of our work in this governmental two years program. And here are some of the important findings. I would say you will for yourself get the conclusion how these two are connected. Here are some recommendations for Bulgaria. There is a scope to improve performance in digital transition and even distribution of digital infrastructure in rural areas requires further attention. In particular, we need to minimise the administrative burden placed on companies and significant efforts should be made in the promotion of digital skills. Here is how we are implementing the project, you can see the framework 2020-2024, it is part among the four measures implemented by the Ministry of Governance in National Action Plan, that is part of Open Government Partnership Initiative, it is thematic areas, transparency and access to information, you can see how it resonates with the philosophy and the goals of the role-mix. It is again about, all we do, it is about multi-stakeholder approach, not only in this assessment but other work we have in horizontal policies as digital transformation. Here is a quick presentation of our advisory council, advisory board, interested government bodies and organisations participate and continuing the thought of Mathias, I would say that indeed, the involvement of institutions and even the leading role of institutions is very, very important, so we are trying to support, to guarantee quality assurance, legitimacy and transparency. And because you can see the timeline here, we are at the phase 4 now, and here are the research aims, you are very well aware with them because I guess that we are all doing this same exercise for the same reasons. And here with two slides I’m finishing because I don’t want to take too much time, the national assessment, as you know, it is led by multi-stakeholder advisory board, we have the diverse backgrounds of members of the board. providing different perspectives, assisted with developing the research methodology finding and choosing the most relevant sources of information, which is challenging. We all mentioned that and emphasised difficulties with data gathering. I would like now to answer one of the questions that we chose to focus on. How could the process of establishment, including the presence of different sectors and groups, consultation and validation of the results with the MID be improved? Here are our thoughts and insights. The involvement of the board of experts that do not have interest in the project should be avoided. The board members should be introduced to all the documents in advance to allow them to provide sufficient and relevant feedback. The assessment process and the level of involvement of the experts should be also presented in advance. The direct involvement of representatives of the relevant national authorities in the board contributes to better understanding and raises their interest, so prolonging their involvement and would improve follow-up strategies. We are already looking at the follow-up strategies, such as the enforcement of the recommendations, updating the indicators, and more frequent board consultation meetings should be planned as provided the approach is successful in our case. The dissemination of the project you can see in the slides later on. What we are doing, we had seven international events that represented the project, the progress. Thank you so much for your attention, looking very much on the discussion. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Iglika. Thank you for sharing the experience. Bulgaria is one of the excellent examples of countries where the assessment is feeding into the national strategy and we are happy to… follow and support the process, and thank you also for your input. The next person I would give the floor to is Alan Guindou, who has led the research in Niger, Benin, Congo, RC, and Congo DRC, unless I’m missing one other country. Alan, please, the floor is yours.

Alain Kiyindou:
Thank you, Patrick. I am going to share my views based on the current out in the Benin, Niger, Ivory Coast, Republic of Congo, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. I’ll be talking mainly about gender, children, sustainable development, financial services, and ag speech. It’s important to highlight the indicator for women, given the gap that exists in access to the internet, in skills, and in occupying positions of responsibility. There are laws in place to promote gender equality for women’s access to new technology and education, but the difficulty lies in pinpointing the effectiveness of these laws. As far as children are concerned, progress is being made with initiatives to strengthen digital literacy. However, research as cyber building exists, and children’s understanding of internet use is limited. Legal and educational frameworks need to be strengthened to meet the specific needs of children online. ICTs are considered essential to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, but challenges persist, particularly in data collection, e-waste management and access, especially in less connected areas. With regard to e-waste, most of the countries surveyed have failed to meet their international and continental waste management commitments. Internet universality indicators should focus more on this issue. Online banking and financial services have been a real hit with the public, not only because they give them access to low-cost services tailored to their needs and to instantaneity, but also because they enable them to develop online business. In my opinion, this is another area that deserves more attention in terms of the indicators to be put in place. In all these countries, the legal and ethical framework aims to combat hate speech and harmful behavior online. But enforcement remains a challenge, gaps remain in the reporting mechanism and online trust. However, care must be taken to ensure that the fight against hate speech does not become a pretext for curtailing freedom of expression. To conclude, I’d like to say that this study has helped to highlight data that was not well known to the general public and sometimes to political players. I think that UNESCO should reinforce this visibility by using all the necessary tools. at local level, it would be interesting to organise sub-regional forums on the universality of the internet so that people living in the same context can reflect together on these concerns. Universality can’t just be for at local or national level, we also need to take a macro approach and encourage the pooling of skills and resources and UNESCO can play an important role in this. With regard to the UNESCO website, it should be pointed out that the reports are not visible and few people are aware of their existence. We therefore need to adopt a marketing approach, explore the different possibilities of data visualisation, implement a strategy around analytical summaries and conclusions and make the most of launches and validation. We can also organise in-country events on the various categories. We need to carry out cross-coaching studies, create communities, involve ministers and their cabinet more closely in reflection on the evolution of indicators and support projects resulting from the evaluation. We need to show the concrete benefits of the study. Thank you very much.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Alan, for sharing your experience in leading the research in five countries, and for your input and suggestions, especially also on the last point, which gives me an opportunity to make a link, as you mentioned, maybe not as many people read the reports as we would have wanted to or aimed to. I would like now to give the floor to the person who reads all of our reports. Simon, who has been acting as a technical advisor for a number of countries lately, for all the countries, who has been supporting and guiding the lead researchers, the MAP, and also us. So he’s also involved, he’s been involved more closely in Thailand report as well, and currently in five South Pacific seats. Please, Simon, the floor is yours.

Simon Ellis:
Okay, thank you, Tativic. So I used to work for UNESCO from 2001 to 2012, and then I stopped, but since then I’m still working for UNESCO. The thing is now that I do what I want, and I can also say nasty things about UNESCO if I need to, because they’re not directly employed by them. But I was asked to talk about the M and X categories, and so I’ll do that, but they’re easy categories to tackle in many ways, because they bring out the whole aspect of IUI. So for M, one thing, most of the people who have talked recently in the past few minutes have been talking about the multi-stakeholderism as applied to running the IUI project, the MAP, but actually the M indicators are about the multi-stakeholderism put in place by the country in internet governance. In many ways, they both apply and they both mean the same thing, but I want to be provocative a bit on both of that, especially since we’re kind of thinking about revising the indicators. So, my comment about M is sometimes it feels very superficial. So, it’s very easy for countries to say, yes, we involve all the different participants, but when it comes down to it, often the civil society feels they’re not involved. The east example of this is on e-governance. So, many reports I’ve done talk about how the country has a good e-governance structure, most of the policy documents that they’re developing are out on the web for people to look at, and there’s even a link to allow people to send back their comments. But very few countries at all have said, or rather most countries have said when they’ve seen that, that actually they never know whether their comments have been read or taken into account. And I think, for example, in this meeting in the next couple of days, CETIC and so on are going to work with ITU on a question of meaningful connectivity. I think one thing it would be nice to see in the internet is meaningful participation. And what does that look like and how can that be put into the IUI indicators? And I think that’s really, perhaps to put it another way, about the quality of participation. So, what kind of things, not just the kind of ticking the boxes about people are allowed to say are consulted, but what does that consultation look like in more depth? And should they be expecting, I used to be a town planner, town planners, consultations, bread and butter, and you publish the consultations for every plan that you issue. And not that you necessarily need to do that with everything, but that there should be some feedback there, a list of who has participated, as indeed, for example, there is in terms of the development of the manual itself. Any other points well balanced? And maybe we should also think about how the MAB is structured. So, Matthias and then Bulgaria and then in talking to Namibia as well, there’s a sense in which talking about whether the two formal MAB meetings we have at the beginning and the end, there should be perhaps some guidance about structuring consultations in between. And I like as we were talking about Namibia, the sense of talking to particular ministries and structuring that conversation. The more that we have those kind of conversations, the more we get buy-in from all the people who are contributing to this and that’s important for seeing reports through. And as Santosh and others have pointed out, that sense of ownership from the government and ownership from civil society as well as Pizal was saying with Cambodia is really important. So, structuring that guidance to get that might be of interest. So, I think that’s probably what I want to say about M and then I’ll move on to X. X is the best category to talk about because you can say anything, it’s all in X. And it’s cross-cutting and this is the problem with X is it’s the last one in the report and the last one in the manual. And I always find that the X is the shortest one of all the chapters and the various reasons. One of them is because X repeats indicators that were used earlier in the report. And again, several people have mentioned that. And that leads to two things. One of that, as Sadaf was pointing out about the whole aspect of gender and it’s… huge importance to UNESCO as a principal through ever. And every time we have these projects, there’s always a debate. Do you have gender mainstreaming or do you have a separate gender section? And it swings in roundabouts. If, as in IUI, it comes in a substantive section at the end, it’s often kind of like an appendix. Whereas mainstreaming through ensures that you pick out gender in every single element of the whole programme. But in putting it in every single element, you lose that sense of concentrating a final summary, if you like, as how gender is. So I’m sorry, I’m not giving a suggested answer to that one. It’s a perennial debate. I don’t know what the answer is. My feeling personally is I’m a mainstreamer. I like to see gender everywhere throughout every single indicator instead of putting it at the end. But it is a debate and I’m not sure about whether that’s the right one. And that then links in to what was said about children as well, that not being a section for children. I’m risen to people, a section for old people like me. That also relates to age and gender breakdown and disaggregated data. Some things that are in there which are important and look forward to, I think, new indicators. One of my favourites is e-waste. It’s in there under sustainable development, but only as one indicator. But it’s a critical indicator, particularly in Asia. I know that in Cambodia and Thailand, e-waste is dumped by Western countries and left to refugees to pull apart. So there’s a lot of issues coming out there. I know that in Pacific, where I’m working now, there is no land… to put waste in. In some countries, you know, the country literally is this high. And you cannot put things in the ground because it contaminates the water table. And there are small countries with very limited fresh water. So that points to that and wider importance there. You know, the internet has affected meetings in the last few years from COVID through Zoom and online meetings. But there is a question, therefore, about the positive and negative effects of the internet on environment and sustainability, which doesn’t emerge, I think, properly in the indicators so far. And again, to bring out a specific point, which links to the technology. And it’s important to show that IUI has the technological aspects as well as the human rights and social aspects. For the Pacific, satellites are the way. You cannot cable up islands or put masks between islands that are thousands of miles apart. The only way to get, in fact, one person talking to the other with a reliable connection across the Pacific in one country is going to be through satellite technology. And we know that satellites, again, are the new internet platform that are going up in thousands almost every minute, it would seem. And I don’t think that, again, perhaps is reflected in the technology side of the indicators as much as it is. Like I say, the exit covers everything. I mean, Alan made a good case of cybersecurity. And clearly, I like what he says about that being not just strengthened in the indicators, being strengthened in a way that is recognizable to the public. And I like what he said about the marketing strategy. And then finally, this point about data availability. I have a clear strategy on gaps, which in the countries I’ve been working with, I set across. So there are five, six priorities. The first one is you want data, preferably statistics, which says exactly what the situation is. And obviously, I’m right, and that’s not what you have. But the second one, of course, then, is published documents. And that you do have with rights, both in terms of the laws themselves and with the civil society publications or comments on that. And that can go down to results of case law. So documentation through written sources. Or if you don’t have that, the next one is a focus group. And the message there is the focus groups should be planned as early as possible, because they may need money, and because you need to get names in people’s diaries. So it’s a key issue. A focus group helps. A focus group itself is like a little multi-stakeholder group, hopefully. So that’s why that’s there. The next priority, if you can’t afford a focus group, is a key interview. So again, a key person, even if it’s only one, but documented. Hopefully use their name, get the date there, and put that down. And again, if it’s a suitable authority, the most common one, in fact, has been spokespeople for the disabled. Almost every country has come up with a disabled society and the head of that society to speak on their behalf as a clear authority in that way. And then finally, the last one is the gap. If after all that, there’s still a gap, you turn it into a recommendation to fill it. And that’s it. So I think with that strategy. It covers most of the gaps and there will always be gaps in data It costs $20 or more to add in a survey question to regular surveys But I think that’s the summary So I think that’s all I had to say, at least on those two categories Thank you

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Simon, for your work with UNESCO on the assessments and also for the individual countries more closely And thank you very much for your input and ideas I would now like to ask, give the floor to actually online participants if there are any questions Also, I would like to ask the online moderator if there are questions online from participants I see comments from the panellists, but the panellists will be given a final floor So if there are comments from the participants, please do let me know Otherwise, if there are questions which you would like to speak and ask, please, online for the moment

Online Moderator:
For now, wait a second, there isn’t any questions from participants There’s a lot of comments from our speakers Yeah, sorry, for the speakers, we will give them the floor So no questions from the participants? No questions

Moderator:
If anybody would like to take the floor now and ask a question, please feel free Sorry, now I’m checking if online participants have any questions If not, please Please introduce yourself and if the question is addressed to a specific speaker.

Audience:
Hi, so I’m Stephen Weiber from the International Federation of Library Associations. What Simon was saying about, are we talking about multi-stakeholderism in the design of internet universality reports or in general, made me think that an issue that we come across is that often when you frame consultations or you frame governance questions as being about digital, you often actually reduce the number of people who want to get involved because they assume it’s not what they’re looking at. An issue that’s quite specific, something we come across within Europe, is that there are some really big, there are some big discussions on AI and whatever else, but these have huge impacts on like research and education and other issues, but actually the research and education and other stakeholders don’t come forward because of the way it’s framed. I’m just zooming out because I know that looks very specific. To what extent does it mean that when we’re looking at internet universality, we’re not just focusing on the technical, on the internet focus, but actually on the universality aspect and that we’re looking at how well is the internet working for different communities and therefore are these communities getting involved? And I think this all comes down to the question of internet for what, rather than just internet in itself. I hope that was vaguely coherent as a point. The other question which I should ask, given who’s paying me to be here, my employer, is to what extent is there reflection on the degree to which we can use both libraries as a stakeholder, but also libraries as a venue for bringing communities together, given that they do have this long experience of being a first point of contact, a backup point of access to the internet for people. And so it is that space where people can think about, they go online, but they also encounter all of the problems, they encounter all of the difficulties, and so they’re used to thinking about how they go online at the library. Is it possible to get people to put that experience into the language of Internet universality through meeting in that context? Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions we’ll get from the audience? No? Did you want to take the question?

Simon Ellis:
Firstly to say, it hasn’t come out today, but in IUI there is certainly a sense of different, for want of a better word, sectors and how the Internet functions for them. So health, employment, culture are mentioned. The second thing I have written down on my paper, which I didn’t bring up, was information literacy. So again, there are one or two questions there. I mean, for me personally, I’m certainly a strong believer in libraries as the key facility for helping people get what they want, what they need throughout the world. As you know, it’s core to the Information for All program, in which I always see as being that everybody has a right to be able to find the information they need to solve their work problems, look for jobs, in other words, skills for training, and solve their health issues of themselves and their families. And I see that the core element of Information for All, and I would like that to be a core SDG of some form, instead of 1610, public access to information, which we’ve mentioned and Swaran particularly mentioned this time. So it’s there, I guess for IUI at the moment that part of the problem is it’s more about the internet itself and what it does and how it does it. And it’s more about that and less about the institutions where you do it kind of thing. There’s the usual question about use of libraries, internet cafes, et cetera, and do you. But I mean, as we know, even with internet cafes now, as mobile phones have come around, that’s kind of fallen out of the picture somewhat. But I think it would be good to, one way or another, libraries have to be in here, I think. I mean, it’s the only thing you find in pretty much almost every village, even if it’s a passing camel or horse or whatever.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Simon. And thank you for the question. So I would just like to add to this that Simon already addressed the idea around the IUI and libraries. I would like to add to the idea that to the point that we cooperate very well with UNESCO, with IFLA, and we do believe that they are core in, as you mentioned, disseminating as a knowledge dissemination and also knowledge carrier. So we do a lot of work with libraries, especially on media and information literacy. And we do a lot of work around that, but not so far on IUI. So are there any questions offline or online? If not, I would like to invite the panelists to say, to add anything that they would like to add, giving them one minute. Please, I know there is a discussion among the speakers in the chat. So, I would invite people to speak one minute each, please, in the speaking order as we started. Bisal, would you like to start, followed by Maria Fernanda?

Pisal Chanty:
Thank you. So, to me, I would recap in two aspects. Is it important that IUI needs to be revised? Yes. I think it needs to be revised to keep it relevant, including technology, but also the way we apply it, but also the way we illustrate, and the way that we can do a peer review or whatever in terms of keeping the progress. Second thing is that I think the term meaningful, meaningful connectivity, meaningful participation is the most important part. So, it’s crucial that meaningful connectivity, including digital skill as well, but not only the connectivity as a technology itself or the network infrastructure. Another aspect is that multi-stakeholder participation is very crucial, and the ownership of the report is crucial so that everyone will take the recommendation and implement it. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Maria Fernanda? Followed by Grace. I don’t think she’s here anymore. Okay. Victor, would you like to add a sentence?

Audience:
To say something, but I just need to point out that governments agencies and company such as UNESCO. The implementation of these projects must reach out to the local owners. I must respond to that because we can’t be volunteers forever. We can’t be volunteers forever. We can’t be volunteers forever. We can’t be volunteers forever. We can’t be volunteers forever. We can’t be volunteers forever.

Moderator:
can’t be volunteers forever. We can’t be volunteers forever. Thank you. Thank you very much. Victor Suaran, followed by Santosh. Thank you very much.

Swaran Ravindra:
So lastly, I would just like to say that the role of the civil society is very, very important in strengthening the existing legislation and the community at large really need to believe in the power of research because many of the things that we have assessed so far, we have seen that there are elements of, you know, the indicators embedded into certain aspects of different legislation, but the deployment is an issue. For example, in some of the South Pacific Islands, we have the Information Act, and the right to information is embedded within it. And then in some of the Pacific Islands, we see the Information Act is there, but there’s no Privacy Act. So it sort of contradicts with each other as well. So if we, you know, involve the civil society, I think it could be, it could really make a huge difference. But then again, we do have issues around, you know, being too territorial, where when it comes to certain governments in less developed economies, I think that’s all I have to say for now. Thank you very much, Suaran.

Santosh Sigdel:
Thank you. All the interventions were very, very important. As a parting point, I just want to reiterate that both the content and the process is important in IUA assessment. We have to update the content also, because it has been five years, and there has been a lot of development in between. And the process, we have to also invest on that. Talking about that, the IUA process itself should not be an end. After the assessment is done, the job done, checkmark, that should not be the… From the local perspective, from the national perspective, that is the beginning of the kind of working in that particular country on… the internet ecosystem, advancing the universality or access or anything. So that should not be an end, but that should be the kind of driving tools for the coming days. And talking about this process, sometimes we just get lost in between. I’ll give you one example. We started the process in Nepal. At that time, there was an IT bill, discussion on IT bill, and discussion on the national cybersecurity policy. Now we have the cybersecurity policy, and the assessment doesn’t talk about it. Because at that time, it was just a draft. Now we invested so much time into that that the policy is there, but there is nothing about the policy in the assessment. So if it takes a long time, the value is somehow we lose the value of the document. So we have to have the timeline also very intact, I believe. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. Yes, you can give back the microphone, please, Anna.

Anna Amoomo-David:
I think I should also maybe just encourage more countries particularly to take up this assessment. And although it is a government voluntary assessment, I think the model in Namibia was approached differently because it was civil society who pushed for the assessment to be done, and the government managed to agree with us because we have that relationship. So if civil society is also not driving their agenda, things will not go as smoothly as they should. Also, just to applaud UNESCO for the resources that you have availed, both technical and financial. But they do go a long way, and they set the tone for the carrying out of the assessment. in a simplified manner. I think that’s one of the aspects that was really not mentioned in terms of the review. Of course, each country would have it differently, but with the baseline indicators, I think they were quite straightforward and simple to understand. Where we don’t have the resources or the data, it’s something else, but other than that, it’s a matter of taking what you’re given and making it yours. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Anna, and actually, on your point, I should correct myself if I said voluntary assessment by the government. It’s an assessment by a national stakeholder, so it can be initiated by an academia, it can be initiated by a civil society, it can be initiated by a ministry. So we have cases of 40 countries, and 40 countries were all different, so we have cases of basically many stakeholders, diverse stakeholders who initiated the process, and of course, we receive endorsement also from the relevant ministry, but thank you for pointing this out, which an apologies if I mentioned voluntary by the government, no, it’s voluntary by national stakeholders.

Sadaf Khan:
I put it in the chat, a recommendation that I have in terms of changing as you go on to revise the framework. I’m wondering whether there’s a possibility to explore a two-tiered kind of an assessment framework. where the governments are voluntarily asked or, you know, I know there is no mandate, but the governments can be asked to submit their own assessment. And in the second phase, a civil society shadow report kind of a thing, as we see in the UPR to kind of do away with a lot of duality and a lot of contradiction that comes through when both governments and civil society are trying to validate the assessment on the similar set of indicators. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Sadaf. I am notified that our time is up, but three more minutes, please. I want to hear from everybody very briefly for a final word.

Eduardo Carillo:
I’m not gonna repeat all the things that have been said already. Perhaps in the update of the indicators and what other things should be looked at, I think that a more careful approach to the digital economy and its intersection with workers, right, could be something interesting to look at because it’s something that is going to grow even more and perhaps in the AI revision could be something included. And then also perhaps this new narrative of digital public infrastructures could also be framed within the internal universality indicators as something to look at, how states are thinking in their digitalization, not only talk about the e-government as a result, but the process also. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Eduardo. Matias, do you have one final thought to add just for a minute? Okay, I think he might have left as well. Iglika. Iglika left as well. Okay, Alan, would you like to add one more last word?

Alain Kiyindou:
Yes. I think for me, it is very important to think carefully about… follow up to evaluation. And I think that we need also to communicate more about the benefits of assessment, the actions taken and the progress made thanks to the evaluation. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Alan. And one final word, Simon, you don’t have to. Okay, so before I close, I, yeah, I would like to thank you all to the speakers so very much for all the work and excellent cooperation that we had over the years. And thanks so much to Setik, Alexandre here and Fabio here for the excellent cooperation. Actually, I brought to Brazil report as one of the first reports. I have only one copy, but we’re digital so you can see them online. And also to all the speakers and experts online and to all the participants online. This discussion really will feed into the revision process. We have excellent input and recommendations for from speakers, which we will look at carefully while revising the document. And we will be having another session of dynamic coalition. There is IGF dynamic coalition on internet universality indicators. The session will be on the on the 10th. Okay, sorry, on the 10th of I am notified that there is another question, but I’m really sorry, the time is up. The participant is welcome to join on the session on Wednesday. It’s at 2.40 local time. And it is in room 11 or room J, we will be but we will be able to address the question if you leave us your the participant can leave us their email address, we will be happy to answer the question. by sending an email. So thank you so much. All I know, it’s been a very long session, but before we close, I invite all the speakers to have a family photo, and I would like to ask the online participants to please turn on your videos. And finally, I should give thanks to the IUI team at UNESCO and my colleagues who’ve been working online, Karen Landa and Camila Gonzalez. Thank you so very much for your moderation and taking it for your hard work. I would like people to see your faces. I know it’s a Sunday morning, early morning in Paris, but thank you so very much. Yes, and please let’s have a photo. Yes, you can give an applause if you want. Thank you.