Advocacy to Action: Engaging Policymakers on Digital Rights | IGF 2023

Fernanda Kalianny Martins Sousa

The political climate in Brazil is currently frustrating for civil society organisations, as it hampers their social participation in discussions related to internet governance. While Brazil has been known for its experiments in participatory governance, the new Lula government seems to be lacking the same level of participation as before. This negative sentiment is driving the argument that the political climate is hindering civil society organisations from fully engaging in discussions.

One aspect of internet regulation being discussed in Brazil is Bill 2630, a proposed law aimed at regulating online platforms. Although this law has been the subject of discussion for the past three years, its approval remains uncertain. While some argue that it is a good law with a few problems, there is still uncertainty surrounding its fate. Civil society organisations have been actively working on this law, with the intention of combating the previous government’s approach to internet governance.

Another point of concern is the complexity of the political landscape in relation to platform regulation in Brazil. Political factors and a lack of government consultation with civil society have made the process more intricate. The argument is that the government needs to consider the input of civil society organisations to address these concerns effectively.

Efforts to bring civil society together in Brazil to discuss online regulation have been ongoing for several years. Internet Lab, along with over 50 organisations across the country, has played a significant role in these discussions. Federal Deputy Orlando Silva has also been instrumental in bringing these discussions to parliament. The sentiment around these efforts is neutral, indicating that there is progress in bringing civil society together for these discussions.

The failure of self-regulation in the internet sector is a cause of concern. Even ten years after the approval of Marcos Civil, self-regulation is seen as ineffective. This negative sentiment highlights the importance of learning from past mistakes and ensuring that any form of regulation, including state regulation, is flexible and able to evolve as needed.

Connecting international, national, and local levels in the regulation of internet governance is both challenging and necessary. Internet Lab has been actively working towards this goal. By working in conjunction with different fields in Brazil and the global South, they have been able to push legal boundaries and regulations combating issues such as disinformation.

In Brazil, the need to address political gender-based violence and hate speech against women online is recognised. Efforts have been made to enforce and utilise a law against political gender-based violence. There are also ongoing efforts to approve points related to a law against hate speech online against women in the election mini-reform. The sentiment here is positive, indicating that taking action against these issues is seen as necessary and commendable.

In conclusion, the current political climate in Brazil is creating challenges for civil society organisations in their engagement in discussions related to internet governance. The uncertain fate of Bill 2630, the complexity surrounding platform regulation, and the issues of self-regulation in the internet sector are significant concerns. However, there are ongoing efforts to bring civil society together, connect different levels of governance, and address specific issues like political gender-based violence and hate speech.

Internet Bolivia Foundation

The analysis highlights the effectiveness of working at the municipal and local levels for digital governance. One notable advantage is that municipalities have a better understanding of local needs, enabling them to tailor policies more accurately to meet the specific requirements of their communities. Furthermore, the absence of excessive bureaucracy allows them to handle policies more swiftly and efficiently.

Another benefit of local regulations is their potential as pilot initiatives for other municipalities. When a municipality successfully implements digital regulations, it serves as a model and encourages other jurisdictions to adopt similar policies. This ripple effect is particularly evident in the case of Coroico, where the implementation of regulations led numerous other municipalities to express their interest in adopting comparable policies.

The analysis also underscores the importance of continuous engagement with communities for effective digital governance. Hosting workshops and maintaining a regular presence in communities helps to spread digital literacy and build support for digital policies. It has been found that people are more likely to support and participate when they have a better understanding of the issues at hand. For example, in Villa Montes, the local population expressed eagerness to learn more about digital rights and requested workshops on the subject.

Notably, the Internet Bolivia Foundation advocates for the presence of key champions in specific issues and encourages the involvement of municipalities or local communities in particular topics. These champions can play a vital role in enacting beneficial regulations and driving digital governance initiatives at the community level.

In conclusion, working at the municipal and local levels proves to be highly effective for digital governance. The analysis demonstrates the numerous advantages of this approach, such as a better understanding of local needs, quicker policy implementation, and the potential for pilot initiatives. Continuous engagement with communities, including hosting workshops and involving key champions, fosters digital literacy and enhances support for digital policies. The Internet Bolivia Foundation recognises the power of community-level work and actively advocates for its implementation.

Nick Benequista

The analysis delves into various aspects of policy intervention and awareness, focusing on the positive sentiment towards Liza Garcia’s comprehensive approach. Nick Benequista praises Liza for actively participating in the drafting and implementation of laws, policy shaping, and raising public awareness on digital laws. Liza’s well-rounded involvement impresses Nick, demonstrating her dedication to effective policy intervention.

Furthermore, Nick expresses interest in the influence of civil society on legislative agenda setting. He questions whether civil society can exert influence in determining which legislation gets passed or regulated. This showcases Nick’s curiosity about the extent of civil society’s involvement and impact on policy matters, particularly in the legislative process.

The analysis also highlights the proactive approach of Internet Lab in engaging with policy processes. It mentions that Internet Lab has been actively addressing internet governance issues for the last nine years and has collaborated with a coalition of over 50 organizations in Brazil. This underscores the organization’s commitment and effectiveness in tackling internet governance concerns.

Additionally, the importance of having allies in parliament for effective policy engagement is emphasised. The analysis highlights the crucial role of Federal Deputy Orlando Silva in platform regulation discussions. This highlights the significance of building alliances and having supportive individuals within the legislative sphere to advance effective policy-making.

The analysis reinforces the importance of serving the public interest in governance. It underlines the necessity of public accountability as a crucial aspect of policy-making. Policymakers are expected to prioritize the public’s well-being and uphold the principles of transparency and accountability.

However, the analysis also raises concerns about imperfect accountability mechanisms. Nick expresses apprehension that policymakers may be influenced by narrow interests, including personal interests, which can hinder their ability to effectively serve the public interest. This draws attention to the need for robust accountability mechanisms to ensure policymakers remain focused on the public’s welfare.

In conclusion, this analysis provides valuable insights into various aspects of policy intervention and engagement. It underscores the importance of comprehensive involvement, the role of civil society, the proactive approach of organizations like Internet Lab, the significance of alliances in parliament, and the necessity of serving the public interest. It acknowledges concerns regarding imperfect accountability but emphasizes the need for effective mechanisms to ensure policymakers act in the best interest of the public. These findings offer valuable perspectives for policymakers and stakeholders striving for inclusive and effective policy-making.

Audience

The analysis explores various topics concerning governance and SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. One key point raised is the difficulty in translating discussions between the national and local levels. This poses a challenge as issues can be lost or significantly altered during the translation process. It emphasizes the importance of improved coordination between local and national governance to facilitate effective communication and policy implementation. The analysis advocates for advocacy efforts to enhance coordination between these governance levels.

Another important topic discussed is Paradigm Initiative’s unsuccessful attempt to enact digital rights enabling legislation in Nigeria. Despite receiving support from certain parliamentarians, the bill did not receive the necessary assent from the President. This setback underscores the need for effective lobbying strategies and consensus-building among political parties. The analysis highlights that political parties may have differing views on digital rights, making it difficult to gain consensus and legislative support. Engaging with Members of Parliament on this issue can also be challenging due to party influences. Developing strategies that navigate these complexities is crucial to promote the enactment of digital rights enabling legislation.

Additionally, the analysis mentions the efforts in Uganda to establish a parliamentary forum on internet governance. This initiative aims to raise awareness and educate Members of Parliament on internet governance issues. The Uganda Media Sector Working Group is actively involved in creating awareness of relevant laws. Plans are underway to establish the parliamentary forum as a platform for important discussions and knowledge sharing among parliamentarians. This proactive approach demonstrates a commitment to addressing internet governance issues and promoting a deeper understanding among policymakers.

Overall, the analysis sheds light on the challenges and opportunities in governance, particularly within the context of SDG 16. It emphasizes the need for improved coordination between local and national governance, effective lobbying strategies for digital rights legislation, and initiatives that educate and raise awareness among policymakers. These insights contribute to the broader discussion on achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions as outlined in SDG 16.

Sarah Opendi

Upon analysis of the provided data, several main points emerge regarding the role and responsibilities of parliamentarians in relation to the digital space, technology, and internet governance.

Firstly, it is argued that civil society should equip members of parliament with necessary information and skills in the digital space and technology. This would enable parliamentarians to better represent the public’s interests in this increasingly important area. Furthermore, the central role of parliamentarians in connecting the public and the executive, thereby representing the public’s interests, is highlighted as essential.

Another key point is the need to create awareness among parliament members about technical matters related to the internet and internet governance. The evidence suggests that currently, only a few parliament members possess an appropriate understanding of these issues. It is proposed that by increasing awareness and knowledge in this area, parliamentarians can effectively address digital literacy issues, advocate for affordable internet access, and ensure the incorporation of ICT in the education curriculum.

Additionally, the analysis reveals that in Uganda, parliamentarians should serve as links to lower local governments on internet governance matters. It is noted that there is currently a missing ICT committee at the local government level to oversee internet issues. The implementation of a top-down approach, engaging policymakers, is advocated by Sarah Opendi, reflecting her belief in the importance of connecting parliamentarians with grassroots communities.

Furthermore, it is brought to attention that artificial intelligence (AI) remains largely misunderstood by parliament members. Increased awareness and equipping parliamentarians with key information on AI is advocated as a means to address this knowledge gap.

In terms of advocacy and collaboration, Sarah Opendi supports the idea of a parliamentary forum on internet governance, which would serve to handle advocacy issues and foster collaboration with civil society organisations. This forum aims to strengthen the involvement of parliamentarians in internet governance matters and enhance partnerships for the goals of peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Noteworthy observations include the suggestion that identifying champions for bills is crucial to ensure their successful passage into law. In Uganda, laws can be passed even if the president does not assent to them, provided that parliament insists on returning the bill to the president. It is also highlighted that engaging local populations through effective means such as radio talks and community meetings organised through local governments is key to advocating for bills.

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on the importance of civil society’s role in equipping parliamentarians with digital knowledge, as well as parliamentarians’ central role in representing the public’s interests and connecting with the executive. It underscores the need for increased awareness and technical knowledge on internet governance among parliament members. Furthermore, it highlights the necessity of advocating for affordable internet access, addressing digital literacy, and incorporating ICT in the education curriculum. The creation of a parliamentary network on internet governance, the identification of champions for bills, and engagement with local populations are proposed as effective strategies to enhance the role of parliamentarians in policy-making and governance processes.

Liza Garcia

Liza Garcia is a prominent human rights advocate who leads an organization dedicated to monitoring and documenting cases of rights violations, with a particular focus on online gender-based violence. Since 2012, Garcia and her team have been diligently collecting evidence of instances of this form of violence. They also actively monitor developments in areas such as SIM card registration and the national ID system.

Garcia strongly believes in actively participating in the process of drafting and implementing laws. She emphasizes the need to ensure the proper implementation of laws and regulations by advocating for her organization’s voice to be heard in policy consultations. By engaging policymakers and parliamentarians, Garcia provides them with evidence of rights violations to support her cause.

An important aspect of Garcia’s work is educating citizens about their rights and the potential impact of new laws. To achieve this, she conducts workshops in communities to increase awareness and empower individuals to protect their rights. By fostering a deeper understanding of the law and its implications, Garcia aims to empower individuals to take action and advocate for their rights.

In the realm of policymaking, Garcia focuses specifically on gender and ICT, as well as privacy and data protection. She aims to address gender disparities in the digital space and advocate for the privacy and data protection rights of individuals. By collaborating with partner organizations and consulting with relevant stakeholders, Garcia works towards building an agenda that reflects the needs and concerns of these communities.

One notable aspect of Garcia’s work is her opposition to the SIM Card Registration Act. She actively campaigned against this legislation, creating a briefing paper that was distributed to legislators and other concerned groups. Thanks to her efforts, the law was successfully vetoed during the previous administration. However, Garcia expresses disappointment that the law eventually passed under a subsequent administration, highlighting the challenges faced in maintaining progress.

Garcia also recognizes the importance of community engagement and collaboration with local governments. She emphasizes that local governments have the ability to pass policies that might be challenging to implement at the national level. By fostering these partnerships, she believes that effective change can be achieved more readily.

Effectively disseminating information is another key area of focus for Garcia. She acknowledges the pivotal role that social media plays in providing information about digital rights issues. Garcia emphasizes the need for individuals to be engaged on whichever platforms they use to stay informed and take action. Additionally, she notes that visual and easily understandable content can be more effective in conveying information, especially as people may be less inclined to read lengthy research papers. By utilizing visual communication, Garcia aims to engage a wider audience and prompt action.

Lastly, Garcia acknowledges the importance of media engagement in raising awareness and expanding the reach of the issues she advocates for. By engaging with the media, she can increase public visibility and generate support for her cause.

In conclusion, Liza Garcia is a dedicated advocate for human rights and an influential figure in the fight against rights violations, particularly online gender-based violence. Through her organization’s efforts to monitor and document cases, Garcia collects evidence to support her cause. She actively engages in the policy-making process, educates citizens about their rights, and focuses on gender and ICT, privacy, and data protection in policymaking. Despite facing challenges in maintaining progress and opposing unfavorable legislation, Garcia remains committed to community engagement, effective information dissemination, and media engagement to further her cause.

Liza Garcia:
chance to intervene and that is with the drafting of the implementing rules and regulations once it’s already a law and implemented then there is the monitoring of the law for its proper implementation of course there are also aside from the laws being passed there are also policies emanating from other government agencies for example in the case of the Philippines with the they were coming up with the national cybersecurity plan so government would always have this consultation with different stakeholders and since since it’s also part of the the issue is also something that we look into then we make sure that we are invited and that our voice is heard when it comes to certain especially in looking at certain provisions in in this plans yeah what else we we as a civil society organization we’ve been monitoring actually and documenting cases of the rights especially the violations for instance since 2012 we’ve been documenting cases of online gender-based violence in the country currently we are also monitoring development in the SIM card registration, which you mentioned, which was just passed. There’s also the national ID system. We’re looking at how our rights are affected by the passage of these laws. And since we’ve been monitoring them, we have cases, then we have evidence also when we go to, when we have dialogues, engagements with parliamentarians or, you know, policymakers, then we have some evidence in our hands that, hey, you know, this is happening, can we do something about this? So those are some of the things that we do. But at the same time, it’s not just with legislators, with policymakers that we engage with. We also make sure that citizens also know their rights, that they are aware of the even digital laws that are being passed and how it would impact them. So we also, from time to time, we go to communities and have dialogues with them, conduct workshops. So they know what the laws are and how this may, or how these are affecting them as well.

Nick Benequista:
That’s terrific. I mean, it sounds like you’re really taking advantage of every entry point that exists within the rules and regulations for participation in the policy process, as well as, you know, gathering the evidence and holding the discussions to keep an eye on how those policies are being implemented, the consequences of those policies. That sounds like a really holistic approach. You hadn’t mentioned the agenda setting aspects of policymaking, and just one quick follow-up. In terms of who is deciding what pieces of legislation, what issues get legislated and regulated, do you get any experience on getting civil society to build the agenda, the legislative agenda itself?

Liza Garcia:
In our case, our focus is really more on gender and ICT and then privacy and data protection. So we mostly intervene in cases like that. But of course, when it comes to, yeah, so we intervene in cases of that. And we have also, we also consult with our other partners. They may not be focused on digital rights per se, but, you know, they are working on specific issues that may be impacted by this law. So we work with them as well. We consult with them and we come up with an agenda. For instance, when we were looking at the SIM card registration act, it’s been there since, I don’t know, 2014, I think. And then by, and we were looking at it already by 2018, I think we came up with a. briefing paper, my colleagues from the privacy program earlier, so we came up with a briefing paper already and it was published, it was distributed to even legislators, to some other groups and yeah, and yet every Congress, there’s always someone who proposes that bill, it’s always there. And I remember in the previous administration, it was about to be passed, both houses of Congress already approved the bill. So it was just for the signature of the president. But what we did in civil society is we had a discussion among ourselves, are we okay with this bill? So what do we do? So we came up with a statement. So I think there were three of us, they came up with, they were doing an online campaign, one group was doing an online campaign. We came up with a statement and we asked other organizations, partner organizations, if they agree with the bill. And if not, there’s this statement, maybe you can sign on it. And at the last minute, we even submitted a letter to the president to veto the SIM card registration act. Fortunately, during that time, it was vetoed by the president. We were also surprised by that small win. However, of course, things change during the next administration, it was the first piece of legislation that was passed into law by this current administration.

Nick Benequista:
Thanks very much, Lisa. That’s great, though, you know, I’m sure you don’t win every battle, but you gain strength every time you engage in some parliamentary debate, I’m sure the networks grow stronger and stronger. So like, that sounds like a terrific approach that you guys are taking. Fernanda, from Internet Lab. So Brazil is known for its experiments and participatory governance, participatory budgeting, in the context of internet governance, platform regulation. Curious to know if you’re seeing the same level of innovation in terms of participatory, multi stakeholder policymaking. So how are parliamentarians in your country engaging in these issues? And are diverse perspectives in particular, finding their way into the debates?

Fernanda Kalianny Martins Sousa:
Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Nick, for the invitation and for the question. It’s really Pleasure to be here discussing this theme with you. Related to Brazil, to be honest, although Brazil to be known for social participation in discussions and related to internet governance, when we started this new Lula government, I think it is a little frustrated for civil society organization. Because in comparison with Marcos Civil da Internets in 2014, when we had really participation of academia, civil society organizations, and legislative and executive members, now the context is so different. Because we had a far-right government in the last four years. And when Lula assumed the new presidential, we had the pressure of society. We have the pressure of federal state. We have the pressure of chamber of deputies. And with this context, with the sense of an emergence, it’s not the same process. So we have the bill 2630 discussed in the last three years. And now with the new federal government, we are trying to approve this law. This law is fruit of the civil society organization’s work in the last three years combating the Bolsonaro government. So it is a good law with some problems. But we don’t have the sure that this law will be approved. So it is. interesting to think how, in Brazil, the discussion related to platform regulation can also side. So, the importance of this discussion now becomes a kind of bargaining ship with the Congress. So, when far-right congressmen decide to vote, I think related to abortion, for example, or a bill that will attack indigenous people, the president of the deputy chamber said, no, if you put this in votation, we will vote 26th. So, it is a movement so complex because we had, in the beginning of the year, the attempt to occupation of Brazil, and after that, some attacks against public schools in Brazil, and all this discussion is related to also side not more the experts of digital rights, as in the case of Marcos Civil da Internet. So, in this context, I think it’s important to say that we don’t have a government consulting civil society as occurred in the past, and I think it is an important thing to pressure the government. And when we leave this process to left government, we have people from civil society organization with the government, to the government, and it’s complex because we know these people, we know that they have good intentions, and at the same time, we know the complexity of the political conjecture. So, it is a really difficult moment, but a moment if we can hope. So, it is hard, but not too hard as in the last four years. Great, thanks. Thanks a lot for three years.

Nick Benequista:
That’s that’s yeah, that’s a lot of work, it sounds like. I mean, can you just there’s one quick follow on question. The three years that you put into bringing civil society together. Can you just say a few words about the scope and scale of that effort? Does it do you have to travel around the country? Is it a matter of, you know, meetings in the capital or a few other cities? How do you how do you do the work of getting these diverse views together on this issue on the twenty six thirty bill?

Fernanda Kalianny Martins Sousa:
Sure. So at Internet Lab, we are working with some things related to Internet governance since the last nine years. So when this discussion started, we are working together with the Kuala Lumpur region. It is the coalition that have more than 50 organizations in Brazil, in all country. And there we have this movement to try, understand and follow all movements in different aspects of the Congress. And the discussion is step by step of these laws of these bills discuss it. And in the case of platforms of regulation, I think it’s important to highlight the role of the federal deputy, Orlando Silva. He’s a congressman in a left party. And in these in in his role in this discussion, it was so important to have a parliamentar that involved it. with the discussion. And it’s not common, you know. We have now the discussion related to intelligence, artificial intelligence regulation in Brazil. And we realized that it’s not easy to parliamentaries understand what is happening, what is the impact of this kinds of regulation. And because of that, I think on main problem in this discussion, it is, okay, the government is part of the emergence, but we can’t think just in the emergence. We need to think in the future and the flexibility of this law, this kind of law need to have. So I think that the point is, 10 years after Marcos Civil Approval, we know that self-regulation has not working. And I don’t know, in five years, we might be saying that state’s regulation was not sufficient. So the challenge for me is how we can learn with what’s happened in the last 10 years and not repeat the wrongs that we committed in this process. That’s terrific, Fernanda. And I mean, it highlights an important point of,

Nick Benequista:
you know, I think engagement for most civil society organizations with parliaments and policy processes tends to start out being quite reactionary. And it sounds like over, you know, the last decade, you are beginning to develop the networks and the capacities to think proactively about that agenda, which is, yeah, fortunate. I mean, I think that’s probably a privileged position relative to others. You also mentioned an important point, which is a great segue to this introduction. You mentioned the importance of having an ally in parliament. uh, you know, at the beginning of the discussions around, uh, the misinformation law. Um, and we are in fact joined, uh, fortunately by the Honorable Sarah Opendy, uh, to my left here, who is an executive committee member of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, APNIC. So, um, she is, uh, the, you know, executive committee member on a network that is precisely trying to build a network of parliamentarians who can champion these discussions and the development of policy, uh, across the African continent. Uh, she is a Ugandan state minister for mineral development, uh, a chairperson, uh, at the Uganda Women Parliamentary Association. And prior to all this, uh, the Honorable Opendy was the state minister for health, uh, for which she received a global, uh, leadership award. So, um, I’m so glad you could join us, um, because it is, uh, allies, uh, in parliaments willing to work with civil society, uh, are, uh, too rare indeed. Um, so a question for you, uh, Honorable, uh, Opendy. Um, you know, we have seen national policy makers exerting growing influence over the internet and digital governance. Um, you know, policy makers, of course, uh, do represent the public and are held accountable through electoral, uh, means, but, uh, those forms of accountability are still imperfect, uh, in many, in, uh, all countries around the world. And it’s especially imperfect on an issue such as this, which doesn’t have a ton of, of public engagement. And so there, there is a risk, I think, you know, that policy makers, uh, may not be serving the public interest in terms of their engagement on these issues. They might be serving other, other interests, narrow interests, including personal interests. And, um, so what, what’s your advice and thoughts on how to ensure that policy makers in this area are serving the public interest through their work?

Sarah Opendi:
Yeah, thank you very much. And thank you for that introduction. I bring you all greetings from Uganda, the Palo of Africa. And, uh, you for inviting me to this panel. I came in when my colleague was speaking about the civil society and how it’s important for them to engage with members of parliament. We must agree that as parliament we play a central role between the public, we are between the public and the executive. And our role as members of parliament is certainly to make laws, legislative function, but also the function of representation. And in as much as possible we must be able to speak and represent the views of the public. But the subject that we are discussing, this digital space, technology, is something that we all know that it’s important. However, not much emphasis has been made in even creating awareness among members of parliament on technical matters. So it’s very important since we have the civil society, the NGOs, to first and foremost as much as possible give the members of parliament, arm them with the relevant information, the relevant skills, so that they can be able then to represent the public interests better. You have said we are serving personal interests or narrow interests. Yes, true, because even amongst us as members of parliament there is a bit of lack of information. Other than us talking about misinformation and disinformation, when it comes to the technical details about internet and internet governance as a whole, we have very few. people who can speak up on that matter. So this is why we came up with the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, so that we can bring together like-minded people to champion the issues of internet governance at the country level. Actually, as we speak now, in my country, although we have the ICT, the Internet Communications Technology Committee within parliament, their role is mainly to oversee, you know, oversight over the government programs and government policies, but that’s not all. We need to engage in advocacy. We need to see the challenges that the population is facing. We need to ensure that internet is affordable. We need to ensure that even as we speak now in my country, only about 29% of the people have access to internet. So we need to ensure that when we are even appropriating funds, we appropriate adequate funds so that the entire country can be covered. We have areas where we don’t have electricity as we speak now, even if, and we have areas where the telecom companies have not been able to invest in. So not the entire country is covered. There are areas you go to and you’re off internet. So these are some of the things that legislators must do. Appropriate funds, first of all, recognize the importance of this digital economy and know that it has a multiple economic benefit to the entire population if they are all connected. So we also must ensure that as part of the education curriculum, this whole technology, ICT, is taught to the children because that is also another challenge. We have a population that are a bit illiterate. We have people. with smartphones and they can’t use them. So there is a lot of work that still needs to be done in terms of digital literacy. And of course, engagement of the civil society, engagement of the government are all important. Other than just legislation, there’s a lot that we have to do as members of parliament. Thank you very much.

Nick Benequista:
Thank you. Thank you very much. I’m so glad you’ve been able to join us. And I have some follow-on questions. I’m going to come back to you for sure. I just want to turn to Camilo for a moment. Camilo joins us from Bolivia, from Internet Bolivia. As I said, he’s an Open Internet for Democracy fellow. And I think Camilo has a really interesting perspective to add. We’ve been talking primarily about legislation and policy at the national level, but Camilo has taken a different approach. He’s been working at the municipal level. And you don’t often think of internet governance and digital governance at the municipal level, but you have a strong view on this. So can you explain why the municipality is a good place to engage in Bolivia? And I think it’s on data privacy in particular, the issue that you’re working on. So if you could say a few words about your approach. Thanks.

Internet Bolivia Foundation:
Hi, thank you. Thank you, Nick. Thank you everyone for coming. Yes, actually, I’ve been working with Internet Bolivia Foundation. And I think that Bolivia Internet Foundation is working really well in municipality level and local levels. Because as you know, there’s no actually a regulation for protection and processing of personal data in Bolivia. But it doesn’t mean that we have to be unprotected. We shouldn’t be policies about that in local levels, right? We have like a really good news. I think we have, for instance, in Coroico, like it’s a small municipality in Bolivia. Recently, they have a policy about digitalization and data management, for example. And that makes me think that how you can really work in local levels, right? And then I decide to focus why and I think I have some reasonable reasons. I think that working in the municipality level, in local levels, have a very direct and deeply understanding what are the local needs, for example, in the communities. Because they are really close to the people, they can work with them. And in these terms, after the pandemics and after everything we throw the last years, I think that the digital access, the data protection, the internet usage, the data violence, the gender approach, having a very important things, right? And in the local levels, you can also work with them. Another thing is like maybe in some local regulations, they can be more faster and more effective. Because sometimes in the local, from a national perspective, for example, there is a lot more bureaucracy, you have to like many steps to do it. But sometimes in local levels, you can do like more effective and faster approach. And they are less bureaucratics. And in that sense, like the local policy can be even better than the national level, right? And sometimes I think that would be really easy for a local level to ensure really nice. policies in that sense. Also, I think that I have another reason that is about innovation and digital. In this topic, at least, I think that it provides to be like a pilot, I don’t know. Because, for example, as I mentioned in Coroico, they recently have this digitalization and data management regulation. And after it happened, many other municipalities wants the same. They contact Internet Bolivia, and they want to know what is this about, what they have it. So is it possible to have it at a local level? We don’t have to wait for the national level. So I think that’s a really nice entry point, because now they are interested, and they realize they can actually do some policy in digital rights from local perspective. And it’s possible, right? And also, I think I was thinking about how these local digital rights regulations can empower, actually, some local leaders also. Because sometimes, the local leaders are young, usually. Because the national policymakers usually are not that young as the local policymakers. So these local policymakers, if they are young and they are engaged in these digital topics, actually, they are very empowering about these topics. So I think that’s very interesting. And taking, again, the example of Coroico, I think that she’s like the major is like a woman. I see 30 years old, so she’s really young, and she’s really into these digital topics. And I think it was a really nice way to empowering her to know about this topic and to talk about that and to be like a really nice policy now. And also, I think that it’s really, I think the most important thing can be like the community involvement. Because I used to criticize a lot some local governments, because sometimes the local representatives in the national policymaking assemblies, for instance, they usually don’t live in the communities anymore. They just decide to move to the big cities and make local policies for them, but from big cities. And they don’t live in their local cities anymore. For example, if I am a policymaker in La Paz, for example, from a small town, but they decide to move to the big city in La Paz, but they are not more engaged in their local municipalities. And I think that doesn’t work. That’s why they don’t really do good policies in that term. But when you work in a municipality living from local perspective, that people is living there, they are with them every day, they can realize what they can do. And in that terms, I think that’s very interesting to work from a municipality entry level point. That’s great, Camilo. And I’m gonna go back to the Honorable Ms. Appendi in a moment to react to some of what you’ve said, but a quick follow-on question for you. It seems to me that you’ve probably learned a lot about what makes people care about digital policy issues. With so many pressing issues in a local community, what convinces people that data privacy of all things is something important? Yeah, I think it’s a nice because when we were working with Internet Bolivia in these local communities, we usually like to do some workshops and everything. And I think that is very important because if the people from the communities know about what we are gonna do, I think that is a really nice entry point to make them like this kind of policies about digital governance. Because sometimes people from small communities, they thought this is a really huge and big issue. But sometimes when you teach them and when they are engaged and we do workshops and we try to show them how it should improve, I think they are more engaged. And I usually like, for example, some communities we are working for, and I used to travel also around inside Bolivia since I work for Internet Bolivia. For example, in Villa Montes, there is a really nice community and you can work with them. These topics, just as soon as we arrived to Villa Montes, they know we are like Internet Bolivia Foundation and they just approached you and like, we want some workshops, we want to know something about digital rights. And they are really into this. So it’s really nice actually, because we are not imposing, they are asking to us to do it. to engage in these topics. And after just working with the communities, then the policy makers come, the government come and say, oh, what should we do? Because people is interested. And I think that is really interesting. And also, and I think it’s very important also that we have, for example, in Internet Bolivia, we have like a nice organization partner. And she works in Coroico, for example, or in Villa Montes, like all the time. And they are present there. I think that’s very important to not to be an NGO that just come there for a two or three focus group, for example. And then the policy makers know, and the people from the community know that this is just some guy or some organization that comes for like one week, two, three days just to do some observation work. Now they realize what we need. And I think that’s not a good entry point. But if you work continuously every week, or basically you live in the community, or you just work in different other topics, they usually engage with the topics we want. And that happened, I think, in Coroico, because in Coroico, I realized that people is really eager to these topics about digital violence, for example, because we’re constantly traveling there. And we also help them with another kind of topics like youth empowerment, for example. And it’s really interesting. And also now in Villa Montes and in Coroico in Bolivia, there are these small communities, but they are also working for regulation for youth, for example. But they are putting in these youth policies like the digital perspective, because they are young and we are living in a digital era. So now it’s like the digital perspective is gonna be in this regulation policy. So it doesn’t have to be also like digital regulation. It can be like the young regulation, youth empowerment regulation, but with a digital perspective.

Nick Benequista:
Great, thanks a lot, Camilo. I said one last question for you, Honorable Appendi, and then I’m gonna open up the floor for your questions. So those of us who are sitting behind, please come join the table. It’s a workshop, so we do at least where we can see you in case you have a question. And there’s plenty of chairs over here. So we’ve heard from the other panelists, different approaches to engaging with policymakers in the Philippines, taking advantage of the kind of formal structures of participation that the. Assembly there offers for participation, this municipal-level engagement that Camilo was describing, and in the case of Brazil, really building a strong network of civil society organizations in conjunction with allies in the Parliament and in the government over the course of many years to actually proactively put forward ideas for policy. I think a lot of the folks here are probably asking themselves, what is the best strategy? And I mean, I know it’s contextual, and it will vary, but what advice do you have for folks on how to think about how to start engaging with policymakers, bottom up, start here in this space and bring more parliamentarians, build the networks? I mean, there’s many options, but what do you think works? In my view, the way we are structured in my country, in Uganda, is that we have a national

Sarah Opendi:
parliament, members of parliament are elected from the grassroots, but also at local government we have elected leaders at the district level and the sub-county level, but also aware that connectivity is still low and access to internet a little limited. As I said, only 29% of the population currently have full access to internet. The best way is to engage members of parliament. It should be a top-bottom approach. And why I’m saying that is because when you move to the local government level, while at the national level we have the ICT committee that does oversight over issues of internet, when you get down to the local government level, that kind of committee is missing and therefore it is the members of Parliament who should be the link to the lower local governments and that’s why I’m opting for the top bottom approach but also as I did indicate awareness creation among members of Parliament is key but also arming the members of Parliament with the key information is also very important we are now talking here about issues of artificial intelligence about other than a few members of Parliament reading about it I’m not sure that we are even one third that know the details about the challenges and the benefits of artificial intelligence so it’s important for the civil site organizations aware that they are also grassroots best and they pick views from the grassroots it’s important that they pick this information whatever information they have and all those other technical information and bring it to the members of Parliament and then we can be able to champion this but also the other thing is to ensure that at the parliamentary level actually as we speak now I am trying to create a parliamentary network on internet governance a forum a parliamentary forum on internet governance so that we can have this away from the ICT committee we need to have members of Parliament who can be champions on issues of internet governance so this to me is the way to go because then when you have this forum which is not the official parliamentary forum then we can be able to handle issues of advocacy and deal freely with the civil society organization so that is to me the way to go thank you very much that’s great that that forum a

Nick Benequista:
little bit separated from the kind of official policy-making bodies gives more freedom to engage it’s away from the usual committees because their work is

Sarah Opendi:
structured in a certain way that’s a terrific piece of advice great I’d like

Nick Benequista:
to open up the floor you questions also experiences if you have of some lessons learned down at the end. Is there a, oh, Herman, is there a microphone in front of you there? I think the camera, they probably prefer that you grab a microphone and be at the table. Well, thank you. Thank you very much.

Audience:
This is Herman Lopez from the board of the Judges Standing Group of the Internet Society. Thank you very much for your explanations. It’s really good to see different perspectives from the global South on how to coordinate between a more local level and a more national level. But I wanted to ask the panelist speakers, maybe what like practical advice should we take when we do that coordination? I particularly work in many advocacy issues with the Colombian Congress, but it’s usually very difficult to translate those discussions that are happening in the capital city, in Bogotá, to other places. So I would like to know in your own experience how you’re able to better do that, because sometimes what happen is that issues get lost in translation when they’re coming from the local level to the national level. Sometimes issues end up changing a lot, but also the other way around, when the government from the national level is trying to do things in the local level, it also changes. So what can we do to kind of preserve the message and preserve the idea that was originally intended? So thank you very much.

Nick Benequista:
Great, I’ll take another couple of questions. Yeah, go ahead, Tobe-Kile, and then Claire.

Audience:
Thank you so much for the reflections there. I will come in and just share an experience from our end. My name is Tobe-Kile Matimbe and I work for Paradigm Initiative. We work across Africa promoting digital rights and digital inclusion. And a few years back, what we did as Paradigm Initiative is we came up with a draft digital rights bill, which we introduced within the Nigerian parliament. And we were able to collaborate with some parliamentarians who were able to help us push forward that digital rights bill. But unfortunately, after it had sailed through, you know, with Parliament, it then was not assented to by the President. So I’m just curious in terms of how we can collaborate in terms of effective, not, I don’t want to use the word lobbying, but effective, you know, pushing for laws to be enacted and how that process works. I will also just possibly direct this question to the Honourable Minister, Honourable Member of Parliament from Uganda in terms of what the recommendation would be with regards to how we can effectively see the enactment of digital rights enabling legislation in view of that. And also in other jurisdictions that we work in, we’ve noted that as well. We have a challenge where we might engage with members of Parliament, but then what happens is that when a political party has a certain view on something, no matter how much you engage with a member of Parliament, the outcome of that possible engagement and collaboration with a member of Parliament might be futile because at the end of the day, even if you sort of like in principle agree on what needs to happen with regards to policy, the pushback comes from the political parties that members of Parliament come from. So what would be the way forward in that respect? Great, thanks. Claire, go ahead and introduce yourself first. Thank you. My name is Claire Mohindo from Uganda, and it’s good to hear from the Honourable Minister from Motherland. Supplementary to what she mentioned about parliamentary forums, and I’m really glad she’s mentioned that they are planning to set up a parliamentary forum because from experience on advocacy and different issues, parliamentary forums have been very key in educating members of Parliament on key issues, especially, but also to help build a of champions on key issues. So it’s a good thing to hear that they’re planning to come up with a parliamentary forum on internet governance. I’m curious to know how far that has gone, at what stage have you reached in terms of setting up that forum. Also to pick on lessons from my engagement with the Uganda Media Sector Working Group, which is a coalition of stakeholders from the media industry, academia, government, the media council, and the ministry of ICT. What we’ve been doing is to organize sessions where we educate people on different laws that have been passed, even those that we don’t agree with, but to create awareness, create messages, and break down things to help people understand them. So it would be nice to know how far the parliamentary forum setting up process has gone so that we can see how to collaborate and see how to work with the members of parliament. Thanks. I’m going to go

Nick Benequista:
back to the panelists now, because otherwise we’re going to run out of time. So there’s Herman’s question about the mismatch between the local and the national level. From Nigeria, what happens, how do you do effective lobbying? It’s a bit of a swing and a miss there. And what happens when it gets politicized, when you end up with real strong political opposition from one side to your proposal? And Claire, how is this parliamentary committee, sorry, this parliamentary forum, I should say, developing? So I know many missed, yeah, do you want to start with the responses

Sarah Opendi:
there? And then you guys as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. Maybe I’ll begin with the parliamentary forum. We’ve written to the speaker and we’re still waiting for a response because certainly the speaker must agree to either being a patron or not. So That’s where we are. Otherwise we have membership drawn from different political parties. So we’ll certainly let you know once we are done with that. And of course, this has all arisen because of the various engagements or meetings that I have attended. And I’m busy out here while in country within parliament. There is not much work that is being done. So it is actually something that I have championed as myself aware that it’s quite important to have that advocacy. And of course, moving to my sister, she was talking about the challenges of the politics around some of these bills that come in parliament in relation to internet or the digital bills. But I want to just tell you that once you have champions, irrespective of which political party they belong to, they will stick to what they believe is right and what should be done. And that’s why it’s important during this whole process when you have a bill before parliament, you need to identify champions. And if a bill has moved through the processes and the president has not assented, when you have people in parliament convinced that that bill is important, they will still stick to that. In my country, we’ve had bills that have gone to the president and the president has not assented to them and returned them. And the law says when the president returns and parliament returns it to the president and the president returns it again and parliament returns for the second time, it becomes law. For as long as we do not change our position. So the most important thing first is to convince members of parliament. that the provisions in that bill are correct. And once, but also the population, because it’s the population that puts pressure also on members of parliament. So when they hear all these voices from the population, urging their members of parliament to stick to certain provisions or to stick to this law and they want that law, definitely the members of parliament will act. So do not just engage the members of parliament. As civil society also engage the population so that the voices can come from down and put pressure on members of parliament. And then they’ll be able to move irrespective of the president’s position, irrespective of the political party’s position, the members will stick to that bill that they believe is the correct one and has majority support from the population. So that is just my advice. Do not lose hope. If the bill was returned, engage members of parliament, go and engage the population, put pressure on their members of parliament. I think the other was from the gentleman who was asking how we can move from the national to the local level. One of the ways is once you have members of parliament armed with the necessary information and you have the members of parliament, like the forum I’m talking about, then you can engage the population through radios. We have radio talk shows, for example, as the Uganda Women’s Parliamentary Association, we have certain bills that we are working on like the marriage bill in my country, it’s over 100 years, 1905. So what we do is to go out, you may not reach every community, but when you get to the different radio stations in different regions, you reach out to a wider audience, sensitize them so that they can understand, but also they can call in and you get the views from them. The other is to engage, for example, we have local governments in my country. my country, at the district level and at the subcounty level. You can engage those local government leaders, equip them with the relevant information, so that they can also reach down and speak to the population. So those are some of the things that can be done. Thank you very much. Thanks very much.

Nick Benequista:
So we’re running short on time. I just wanted to give you guys each a couple of minutes to respond to the three questions. Lisa, do you want to start? We’re not going to be, I think, unfortunately, time won’t allow for another question, but stick around. I’m sure there’ll be an opportunity for us to chat informally, too. Yeah, okay.

Liza Garcia:
That disconnect between the community and at the national level, as I mentioned earlier, it’s not just engagement with legislators that we do. Engagement with the community is also important, and that’s one of the things that we do. We have whole discussions with groups within the community, and also, I agree actually with the honorable opinion that engagement with the local government works, because in our case, for instance, if there are certain laws that are difficult to pass, it would take years, years, even decades for some laws to be passed. But if you engage with the local government, they can pass policies. For instance, this policy on anti-discrimination, some cities have passed this, and yeah, it did not have to pass through national legislation. There’s also the role of social media. Of course, we need to engage individuals wherever, in whichever platform they are, so it’s important to engage them in that area, provide them with information about digital rights issues. And then we also do some, we do partnerships with different groups. For instance, in the case of, we’re doing some campaign on this information for people to understand what it is all about, so we partnered actually with artists, with comic artists. They came up with a series of comics explaining what this information is all about, and then why it’s bad for you, et cetera, and not just that, we published it on social media. we also hold exhibits in different areas for people to understand what it is all about. Because sometimes, you know, people, it’s difficult if you just give them, if you have these long researches that you have, people won’t read that. So the visual thing, and if it’s short, then that’s something that they would read. And also engagement with the media. If you want to hype your issue, then go to the media. So there’s also a wider reach to the public.

Nick Benequista:
Great. Camilo? Okay. I know we don’t have so much time.

Internet Bolivia Foundation:
So I would just like to say that I truly believe in the community level working. And I would like just to highlight what the Honorable Minister says. I think we should have key champions in some issues. But also, I think we should have municipality or local communities champions in some special topics. And that can be a really nice way to work and show other local communities how some nice regulations could be done.

Fernanda Kalianny Martins Sousa:
Final word to Fernanda. Oh, gosh. Really good questions. I think one of the challenges that we have is to connect international, national, and local levels. So at Internet Lab in the last year, because of the elections, we had the opportunity to have part of articulation room against disinformation. And I think it was really important because in this articulation, we don’t have only digital rights organizations, but also different ONGs related to human rights in general in the country. And considering the size of Brazil, we know that it’s not enough that people in Sao Paulo or Rio de Janeiro are talking about digital rights. in the process to approve laws and regulate platforms. So when we work together with CSOs of different fields in the country and different fields in the global South, I think we have the opportunity to pushing for laws, but not only pushing to pressure the big techs, pressure the different companies that are affecting our way of life. So one example to finalize is the law that we have in Brazil against political gender-based violence. And we are using all the structures that the state give us. And so, for example, we have a min-reform each year, not each year. After the election, we have a min-reform and election min-reform. And we are trying to approve in this min-reform some points related to this law that is connected also to hate speech online against women. So we are trying all the time occupy the structures that exist and create new structures. And I think it’s not possible if we don’t work together with different stakeholders. So thank you, Nick. Thank you guys.

Nick Benequista:
Look, thanks very much to our panelists today. I have to say, this is my first IGF and I’m a little biased, but I feel like this panel has given me a little bit of hope. There’s a lot of really amazing work. It’s really substantive. It’s very specific. There’s real results here. And for my colleagues at CIPE, SEMA, NDI, obviously you can be in touch directly with the panelists up here, but is there some way to kind of stay in touch with this conversation about parliamentary engagement? How should people, what should they be looking out for, I suppose? Any final recommendations from our colleagues on how to stay in touch? Hello? This is Daniel O’Malley from the Center for International Media. assistance. And yeah, I think this is a really great panel. I learned a lot listening. And I think if people are interested in this type of engagement with parliamentarians and policymakers at the national, international and local level, just reach out to me or come talk to Anna, because this is a topic that we’re quite interested in, because we think that it is an opportunity to promote digital rights in this broader context where we know that internet freedom is slipping. And so we need to work on all levers of government and to, as Fernando was saying, use the mechanisms we have and create new mechanisms. So yeah, I would say just reach out to us and stay in touch. And thank you everyone for showing up at 8.30 in the morning. Indeed. And to those online, thanks for joining as well. We had a pretty good number of participants. So look, round of applause for our panelists and for yourselves. Thanks very much, everybody.