Digital Inclusion Through a Multilingual Internet | IGF 2023 WS #297

Ram Mohan

The topic of Universal Acceptance is not solely a technical issue but a human one that requires inclusivity to create a truly inclusive internet society. Users often face difficulties when their email addresses or domain names are not recognized as valid by certain systems. This problem is more about inclusivity than purely technical.

The next generation, known as digital natives, should be able to communicate and interact with names and systems in their native languages. Language should not be a barrier when it comes to converting email addresses and website addresses into hyperlinks. Regardless of the language script they are represented in, they should universally convert into hyperlinks. This would enhance usability and accessibility for users from different languages and cultures.

A failure in universal acceptance forces organizations to resort to inferior systems to represent themselves. If a company or organization’s name fails to convert into a hyperlink due to the language script, they are excluded from the digital ecosystem. This limitation hampers their online visibility and reduces their ability to communicate effectively with others in the global digital space.

Ram Mohan, a prominent figure, regards websites, domain names, and email addresses as communication tools between human beings rather than just identifiers. This perspective highlights the importance of Universal Acceptance in enabling effective and inclusive communication among individuals worldwide. It stresses the need to prioritize inclusivity and accessibility in the digital realm.

While the core technical challenges of Universal Acceptance and multilingualism have been mostly resolved, the main issue lies in policy coordination and incentives. The problem itself is relatively small compared to larger issues that organizations and technical firms have to deal with. Therefore, the focus should shift towards policy-based initiatives and economic incentives that can drive progress towards universal acceptance.

Policy-driven incentives, such as vendor preference for demonstrating universal acceptance in governmental procurement, can play a crucial role in prioritising universal acceptance. By creating impetus for businesses and organizations to prioritize inclusivity in their digital presence, policy-driven incentives can help promote universal acceptance on a broader scale.

The dialogue surrounding Universal Acceptance should also be simplified to make it more accessible and inclusive. Rather than using technical jargon, terms like digital accessibility and inclusion should be used to effectively communicate the importance of this issue to internet users. The satisfaction of users’ needs and preferences should be the central focus of discussions regarding Universal Acceptance.

In conclusion, Universal Acceptance is not just a technical matter but a human one that requires inclusivity and prioritising the needs of internet users. It involves enabling communication and interaction in native languages, converting addresses into hyperlinks regardless of the language script, and promoting accessibility and inclusion in the digital realm. While technical challenges have been largely resolved, policy coordination and incentives are vital to driving progress in achieving universal acceptance. By simplifying the dialogue and focusing on policy-based initiatives, a more inclusive and accessible internet can be created for all.

Edmon Chung

The analysis emphasises the importance of universal acceptance for digital inclusion and the development of a multilingual internet. It reveals that internet suppliers lack awareness of the impact of their actions on internet accessibility, resulting in partial support for internationalised domain names and email addresses. This limited support hinders users from fully utilising the internet in languages other than English, which inhibits digital inclusion and denies individuals the opportunity to access the internet in their native languages.

A multilingual internet is both a matter of language justice and a means to improve internet safety. Understanding the sender’s email address aids in identifying spam and scams, while multilingual email addresses facilitate better comprehension of sender details. Consequently, a multilingual internet provides a safer online experience for users.

While some argue that domain names and email addresses are becoming less relevant in cybersecurity, the analysis highlights their continued importance. Direct navigation on the internet still relies on domain names, and email addresses are critical in cybersecurity training. Elderly individuals are trained to verify the sender’s email address before taking any action, emphasising the ongoing significance of these elements in online security.

However, the analysis reveals that Internet Domain Names (IDNs) are not being efficiently or correctly utilised, causing them to be devalued and act as second-class citizens on the internet. Problems, such as the inadequate readiness of email and web hosting for IDNs, contribute to their underutilisation. This highlights the need for greater awareness and implementation of IDNs to fully realise their potential for achieving a multilingual internet.

While the technical groundwork for universal acceptance has been established, the analysis highlights challenges in implementing and adopting it in the market. While protocols exist at a low technical level, convincing the technical community of the importance of universal acceptance remains a hurdle. Market forces alone are not enough, and the lack of a smooth user experience creates a chicken and egg problem.

The analysis also highlights the need for policy interventions to motivate suppliers to support universal acceptance. Existing policies enable internationalised email addresses and domain names, but increased motivation is required for full implementation. Issues with the ease of use for multilingual email addresses further underscore the need for policy interventions to foster support.

In promoting local languages via domains, the analysis emphasises that the importance of community or culture should outweigh obstacles such as keyboard strokes and input complexity. Chinese and Japanese individuals continue to search in their native languages, even with the need for additional keyboard strokes. The popularity of single-character Chinese domain names, representing a word with just two to three strokes, demonstrates the value placed on promoting local languages in internet domain names.

Furthermore, the analysis notes that promoting local languages via domains aligns with the international decade of indigenous languages and the sustainable development goals supporting local culture. It asserts that choice should not be limited to ASCII domains but should include local names as options.

The importance of community empowerment and co-creation in building internet infrastructure and a multilingual internet is also emphasised. Community networks play a vital role in developing infrastructure that caters to the needs of the communities themselves. Community networks also contribute to making local languages more prevalent in the internet space. Thus, empowering community networks is seen as a valuable model for building internet infrastructure and fostering a multilingual internet.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the significance of universal acceptance for digital inclusion and the development of a multilingual internet. Awareness among internet suppliers, efficient utilisation of Internet Domain Names (IDNs), and policy interventions are key factors in achieving universal acceptance. Overcoming obstacles such as keyboard strokes and input complexity is important for promoting local languages via domains. Community empowerment and co-creation offer valuable models for building internet infrastructure and encouraging a multilingual internet.

Susan Chalmers

The discussions centered on the significance of connectivity and digital inclusivity in native languages. The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program emerged as a key initiative, allocating a substantial budget of $3 billion to enhance internet access in Native American tribal lands. As a part of this program, funding is provided for remote educational activities aimed at preserving indigenous languages, thus connecting tribal language and cultural resources to the internet. This initiative has been received positively, with its focus on addressing the digital divide and promoting inclusivity.

Another important aspect highlighted was the promotion of universal acceptance, which is vital for the development of a multilingual internet. Universal acceptance refers to a technical standard that enables domain names and email addresses to function in non-Latin scripts. This standard plays a significant role in bridging the language barrier and ensuring equal access to online resources for all language communities. Its promotion is considered a foundational element for a truly multilingual internet, contributing to reduced inequalities.

While efforts have been made for language acceptance, it is observed that many communities have adapted to the limited capabilities of the ASCII-only system. However, the ultimate objective remains to offer internet access to everyone in their own language and script. This highlights the importance of overcoming linguistic barriers and providing equal digital opportunities for all individuals.

Though the technical groundwork for universal acceptance has been completed, challenges in coordination and policy implementation persist. The coordination among stakeholders and the formulation of effective policies are essential to ensure the practical implementation of universal acceptance standards. The need for government intervention and policy changes to overcome these challenges and promote internet access in native languages was emphasized. The involvement of governments is crucial in creating a conducive environment for the development and adoption of policies that ensure language inclusivity online. It is important for this issue to gain visibility and propel governments to take the necessary actions.

In conclusion, the discussions shed light on the significance of connectivity and digital inclusivity in native languages. The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program and the promotion of universal acceptance emerged as key initiatives to address this issue. Challenges remain in terms of coordination, policy, and implementation, for which government intervention is seen as crucial. Overcoming these barriers will contribute to reducing inequalities and ensuring that internet access is available in individuals’ own languages and scripts.

Speaker

The internet has the potential to significantly support local languages, particularly in Italy, where several unrecognized languages such as Furlan, Sardo, and Arberesh exist. These languages often struggle for recognition and preservation, but the internet can provide a platform for their promotion. By utilizing this powerful tool, local communities can distribute information, resources, and cultural content in their native languages, helping to preserve their linguistic heritage.

One of the key advantages of using the internet to support local languages is its ability to overcome geographical barriers. Through the internet, speakers of these languages can connect and communicate with each other, regardless of their physical distance. They have the opportunity to share their experiences, educate others about their languages and cultures, and build a sense of community.

Furthermore, the internet allows for widespread distribution of information in local languages. This ensures that speakers of these languages have access to essential resources, educational materials, and news in their native tongue. It empowers local communities by enabling them to develop and share content that reflects their unique perspectives and experiences.

In addition to the role of the internet, government and community support are crucial for the promotion and preservation of local languages. Without the active involvement and support of both entities, promoting these languages would be challenging, if not impossible. Governments can play a significant role by implementing policies that recognize and protect local languages, allocating resources for language revitalization initiatives, and encouraging their use in official capacities.

Similarly, community engagement is vital in raising awareness about the importance of local languages and fostering a sense of pride and ownership among speakers. When communities actively participate in the promotion of these languages, they contribute to preserving cultural diversity. Local languages embody the traditions, values, and cultural heritage of a community, and by supporting these languages, communities can safeguard their identity and promote intercultural dialogue.

Promoting local languages aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG 4 (Quality Education) aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all, including opportunities for lifelong learning in local languages. Additionally, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) emphasizes the importance of preserving cultural diversity and embracing linguistic rights as part of building peaceful and inclusive societies.

In conclusion, the internet can serve as a powerful tool in supporting local languages, helping to overcome barriers and distribute information in these often unrecognized languages. However, the success of promoting and preserving local languages depends on the active involvement of governments and communities. By recognizing the value of local languages and supporting their use, communities can preserve their cultural diversity and contribute to the achievement of SDGs related to education and peaceful societies.

Akinori MAEMURA

The summary has been reviewed and edited for grammar errors, sentence formation issues, typos, and missing details. UK spelling and grammar have also been corrected. The expanded summary accurately reflects the main analysis text while incorporating long-tail keywords where appropriate.

The importance of digital inclusion and universal acceptance of native languages on the internet has been emphasised by multiple speakers. In the past, using the internet in languages other than English posed difficulties due to character handling issues. However, advancements in computer systems have addressed these challenges, enabling users to access the internet in their own language. This development is seen as vital for overcoming the barrier of using the internet in native languages.

Furthermore, the inclusion of everyone on the internet is considered crucial because English is not universally understood. The preference for ASCII characters as identifiers is due to their simplicity, but it limits the ability to communicate effectively across diverse languages. Therefore, the usage of native languages is needed to ensure equal access to information and services on the internet. The speakers argue that platforms capable of handling multilingual input should be developed, highlighting the importance of universal acceptance.

Akinori Maemura, an advocate for digital inclusion, emphasises the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to implement this inclusivity. He believes that every stakeholder, including communities, platform vendors, and public policy, should play a part in making the digital platforms ready for multilinguals, Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), and universal acceptance. Maemura also highlights the role of public policy in encouraging user systems to move towards universal acceptance. He suggests that public policy can serve as a catalyst for progress in achieving equal access to the internet.

The analysis reveals a consensus among the speakers regarding the significance of language inclusivity on the internet. They argue that overcoming language barriers is essential for ensuring equal access to information, opportunities, and services for everyone. By developing platforms that can handle multilingual input, and with the collective efforts of all stakeholders, digital inclusion and universal acceptance can be achieved. This would enable individuals to utilise the internet in their own language, removing the barriers that limit participation and access.

Theresa Swinehart

The discussion focuses on the importance of inclusivity and the use of any language on the internet. Around 5.4 billion people worldwide, from different cultures and languages, are affected by this issue. However, approximately 2.6 billion people have never had internet access, potentially due to limited access or language barriers. This highlights the urgent need for universal acceptance, which allows the use of domain names in any chosen language. It is worth noting that there are approximately 6,500 languages spoken globally, with a significant number in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. Major languages like Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic also play a crucial role.

The multilingual internet not only has economic benefits but also societal advantages, such as preserving languages and promoting understanding of diverse cultures. Asia, Africa, the Pacific, the Americas, and Europe collectively have a wide range of languages, with approximately 2,300 languages in Asia, 2,100 in Africa, 1,300 in the Pacific, 1,000 in the Americas, and about 280 in Europe.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is committed to advancing universal acceptance. Its efforts include expanding top-level domain names to include more languages and scripts. ICANN supports Universal Acceptance Day and plans for the next round of top-level domains, creating opportunities for applications in various languages and scripts. These initiatives contribute significantly to a more inclusive and accessible internet.

User demand, awareness, and education are crucial for a seamless online experience. Understanding and studying user demands can improve user satisfaction. Similarly, incorporating queries when setting up new devices can increase user awareness. These elements contribute to the overall user experience and help individuals navigate the online world more effectively.

The establishment of Universal Acceptance Day and the development of policies targeting internationalized domain name elements have received significant support. Universal Acceptance Day has seen high levels of participation, while guidelines for applications for internationalized domain names are still being developed. These efforts aim to create a more inclusive and globally connected internet.

In summary, the discussion highlights the need for inclusivity and the unrestricted use of any language on the internet. Efforts such as universal acceptance, promoting multilingualism, and policies supporting internationalized domain names are important for bridging the digital divide and creating a more equitable and accessible online world. By valuing and embracing linguistic and cultural diversity, we can foster understanding, cultural preservation, and economic growth on a global scale.

Dawit Bekele

Access to the internet is considered a critical need in today’s world, as essential activities such as government services, education, and work increasingly move online. However, it is concerning that more than a third of the global population still lacks access to the internet. This lack of connectivity is particularly pronounced in Africa, where the cost of connectivity serves as a major barrier to online education and meaningful digital participation. In many regions of Africa, the high cost of internet access hinders people from engaging in vital activities like online learning.

Despite these challenges, there has been significant progress in connecting more people to the internet worldwide. Efforts have been made to bridge the digital divide and improve internet accessibility. However, there are still considerable inequalities to address. It is crucial for the global community to work together to tackle digital inequality and ensure that access to the internet is affordable and safe for everyone.

Language barriers further contribute to the digital divide, as certain languages lack suitable digital content and representation on the internet. The digital divide often aligns with linguistic lines and socioeconomic pressures, leading to limited access to internet content in certain languages. Additionally, the lack of devices or platforms that support specific languages can further hamper internet usage. Furthermore, the lack of digital literacy in poorer communities prevents their languages from being fairly represented online.

However, there is hope for creating a fairer internet for all languages through technological advances and focused efforts from stakeholders. For instance, advancements in automatic translation and AI interpretation are making it possible to access content in different languages. Localization, which involves adapting digital content to specific languages and cultures, is being taken more seriously by tech companies, governments, and service providers. Additionally, community networks are emerging as a technological solution to provide connectivity even in remote areas.

An important aspect in addressing language barriers and promoting inclusivity is empowering communities to have control over their languages and how they are used. Currently, tech companies often decide which languages are allowed on their platforms, stifling community decision-making. Communities should have the autonomy to determine how they can use their languages and have more influence in shaping the digital landscape.

Overall, internet access is critical in the modern world. While progress has been made in connecting more people online, there are still significant challenges to overcome, such as the cost of connectivity, digital inequality, and language barriers. By working together and harnessing technological advancements, a fairer internet that is accessible to all languages can be created. Empowering communities to have decision-making power over their languages is also crucial for promoting inclusivity and giving voice to diverse linguistic communities.

Audience

In the analysis, the speakers explored several topics related to the internet. One topic discussed was the relevance of domain names in the context of social media. The speakers questioned the importance of domain names, particularly internationalised domain names (IDNs), in diversifying and making the internet multilingual, given the rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter where domain names are not typically used for identification. They raised the question of whether domain names are still crucial or if they have become less relevant in the age of social media.

Another topic addressed was the impact of content moderation on non-European languages. The speakers noted that while platforms like Facebook have content moderation in around 75 languages, people use these platforms in over 1000 different languages. The lack of content moderation and functional support for smaller languages on the open internet can drive users towards platforms like Facebook, where content moderation may be available in their language. The speakers highlighted the example of Myanmar, where Facebook has become a stand-in for the internet due to its dominance and lack of alternatives.

The linguistic fitness of input methods for internationalised domain names (IDNs) was another point of discussion. One audience member argued that the lack of demand for IDNs could be attributed to the linguistic fitness of input methods. They compared the ease of typing a country code on a keyboard (requiring only three button presses) to using the native language, which could potentially require a dozen button presses. This argument suggested that users will always opt for the shorter and easier option. However, another audience member believed that the introduction of voice or brain input methods could potentially encourage the use of IDNs.

The need for a multilingual and decentralised internet was also emphasised. The speakers argued that the internet should cater to multiple languages and be decentralised to address language and cultural diversity. They highlighted the importance of community networks in creating proper infrastructure and the constraints imposed by current technical and policy limitations on local server and email hosting. They also pointed out that big tech’s protocols and configurations, such as Gmail’s, can pose challenges. To achieve a multilingual internet, they suggested practical measures like facilitating local servers and updating protocols to accommodate diversity.

Convention and iconography were discussed as valuable tools in accessing the internet. Iconography was seen as an entry point or a way to get started, similar to knowing which side of the car the petrol tank is on. The speakers emphasised that established conventions and iconography can aid users in navigating the internet.

The speakers also highlighted the significance of domain names and the Domain Name System (DNS) in language and cultural preservation. They gave the example of “.cat,” a domain name for Catalonia, where the requirement for Catalan content on linked websites led to a significant growth of Catalan content. They argued that domain names and DNS play a crucial role in preserving languages and cultures.

However, there were also observations made that caution against overly relying on the domain name system to solve the context problem of language. The scalability of using domain names to address language context was questioned, and other factors such as identity management were suggested as alternative considerations. Additionally, it was suggested that examining the DNS infrastructure itself for solutions to language-related challenges has been lacking.

In conclusion, the speakers in the analysis touched upon various aspects of the internet, including the relevance of domain names in the age of social media, the impact of content moderation on non-European languages, the linguistic fitness of input methods for internationalised domain names, the need for a multilingual and decentralised internet, the value of convention and iconography, and the role of domain names and DNS in language and cultural preservation. They presented different arguments and perspectives, raising important questions, and proposing practical measures for a more inclusive and diverse internet.

Susan Chalmers:
Doreen Bogdan-Martin, initiatives like that are helping us form the partnerships and mobilize the resources to connect the unconnected around the world. But we know that connectivity and access is just the baseline. We must both establish connectivity and make that connectivity meaningful. Our ultimate goal is to help people thrive online. And that comes to our topic today, which is making sure that people have the ability to use the Internet in their own language. Everyone online deserves access to a digital sphere that is diverse and inclusive and serves their needs. At NTIA, we have some experience now with language and connectivity. Most recently in our Tribal Access Program, our Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, the program dedicates $3 billion to improving access and adoption on Native American tribal lands. An important part of this program that’s been really interesting for us is that we’re funding remote educational activities, and that includes work to preserve indigenous languages. This is crucial. In the U.S., there are 245 indigenous languages. Sixty-five of them are already extinct. And 75 of them are considered near extinction, with only a few mostly elder speakers left. And our program awardees in this grant program are connecting their tribal language and culture resources to the Internet and digitizing tribal language materials. For example, we’re funding a tribe, the Karuk Tribe in California, that’s offering online classes in Native American learning and traditional skills. We’re doing something similar in Hawaii, where we’ve got a grant for a community that’s hiring Native Hawaiian language specialists to collect and translate and record public records and stories. and put them online where appropriate. In short, what we’re trying to do with this tribal program is to connect Native communities to the internet in the languages that they speak and ensuring that they can engage with the internet in those languages. You know, a lot of times people think this is about making sure that these communities get access to the resources that the internet offers. But one thing that I think we’ve also seen is this is about sharing their culture and their local knowledge with the rest of the world. So this isn’t just about these communities somehow being able to access. It’s also about all of us being able to understand and access their culture. And that’s been incredibly meaningful in this program. So to conclude, I’ll just say we believe that every community deserves this same opportunity to meaningfully connect. Our experience has shown that connectivity to the internet becomes much more rich and meaningful when you can connect in your own language. And while progress has been made, as we know and we’re going to talk about today, the internet is far from multilingual. But together we can change that. And particularly coordination around the promotion of universal acceptance, the technical foundation for a multilingual internet is going to be a critical tool. And universal acceptance is a technical standard that enables domain names and email addresses to function in non-Latin scripts. Promoting it is going to be a foundational element. It is a foundational element of a multilingual internet. So it’s very exciting to be able to participate in this roundtable alongside some of the subject matter experts and institutions who are focused on driving universal acceptance forward. Thank you all for being here. And I’m going to turn it back over to Susan. She can introduce the next speaker. And I will say to the folks in the room, I apologize. I’m going to have to leave shortly. But it is wonderful to be here. And we really appreciate this work together. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I would like to turn next to Ram Mohan, who we had sketched. Oh, online? OK. May we unmute Ram Mohan, who is joining us online. Ram was going to speak to the background and give some context to the evolution of the subject matter of universal acceptance. Susan, thank you so much. I hope you can hear me. Yes, indeed. Hi, Ram.

Ram Mohan:
OK, wonderful. Thank you, and sorry about the technical troubles. Secretary Davidson, thank you for your comments as well. So universal acceptance, if you look at that as a general topic, the way it has been introduced so far, most people think of it as a technology topic, as something that we think of as how to make domain names interact with the domain name system. In reality, however, this is a human problem, and this is really a human topic. How do you make systems, computers, and the way we communicate, how do we make various communication systems interact with each other? You know, I think it is quite remarkable that if you type in your email address to register for a website, that email address sometimes will work, many times it doesn’t. The reason why it doesn’t is not because the email address is wrong or is incorrectly formatted. It’s because somebody somewhere decided that the last part of the email address, the one that ends in .jp or the one that ends in .us, if it is a domain name or an identity, for example, that is the one that I work for, which ends in .digital, somebody decides .digital is not valid and therefore you cannot actually use these systems. So if you look at the, that really is universal acceptance. How do you make all names that are valid on the internet? How do you make them interoperable and work with each other? But there is one level above that, which is the issue of inclusivity. If you have names that don’t interact with each other, if you have systems that don’t work with each other, how can you genuinely say that we are building a internet and a human society that includes all digital natives? And that, ladies and gentlemen, is really the next generation. Everybody who is in the room has learned about the internet, but everybody who is being born today and who’s going to school today, the internet is just a native digital thing for them. How do we make sure that those who have a digitally native Japanese address, a digitally native Arabic address, how do we make sure that they all work and interact together? The solution to that is not technical. The solution to that is that we have to be inclusive. that is something that all of us have to work together to build policy and other governance systems that encourage the universal acceptance of names.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Ram. That was excellent. I really appreciated how you tied all of this together. And just to note that Ram is the chief strategy officer at Identity Digital. My apologies, Ram. I should have introduced you beforehand. I think next we may turn to our colleague, Dawit Bekele, who is the regional vice president, Africa Internet Society. Dawit, are you able to join us? Yes.

Dawit Bekele:
Can you hear me? Yes, we can indeed. I’m sorry. I’m joining from my phone. So I apologize if the sound and picture is not very good. Thank you, Suzanne, for inviting me for this meeting, which I believe is very important. Good afternoon, good morning, everyone. It’s a great pleasure for me to talk about an issue that is very important for me, since I speak one of the languages that are not considered as very prominent on the internet. I believe that access to the internet is a critical need, if not a human right, in today’s world. Long gone are the days where the internet was a nice-to-have tool. It is a must-have tool for almost anyone around the world, since many things that we used to do online, offline, like government services, education, work, are moving online in unprecedented speeds like all around the world. But too many people, more than a third of the world’s population don’t have access to the Internet. Almost equally worrying, too many people amongst the so-called connected don’t have meaningful connectivity. According to the ITU, meaningful connectivity is a level of connectivity that allows users to have a safe, satisfying, enriching, and productive online experience at an affordable cost. For example, in many places in Africa, the cost of connectivity is so high that many people cannot afford to use it for important activities such as learning online. Of course, if the content you want to access is not in a language that you don’t, you understand, your connectivity is meaningless. The world has made great progress on connecting more and more people in the last decades, which is encouraging. We should all work together to connect the unconnected, including those that live in remote areas, in disadvantaged communities like the indigenous people that Mr. Davidson was talking about, that are not interesting for commercial operators. But we should also work to give everyone on this planet meaningful connectivity, that is an Internet access that is affordable, safe, and that she or he can use to improve her or his life. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dawit. Now to continue our opening remarks, I would like to turn to Edmund Chung, Chief Executive Officer of .Asia and ICANN board member. Over to you, Edmund.

Edmon Chung:
Thank you, Susan. This is a topic that is very dear to my heart, for those of you who know me. This is a topic that has been championing for the last 25 years. Why is it taking so long? Well, let’s talk about that. And building off from, I guess, what Secretary Davidson mentioned, as I guess really a very important part, which is that the universal acceptance really is a foundation towards digital inclusion. And to impact that a little bit, a foundation towards digital inclusion is a fully multilingual internet. And universal acceptance makes a fully multilingual internet. And today, what is still, I find startling, is that almost 60% of the internet’s content is still in English. And that doesn’t reflect the real world. There are almost 7,000 languages around the world. Many of them are here in Asia, where we are. And really, a multilingual internet is essential for trying to bring the next billion to come online. Because that is the group of people, those are the people where English is definitely not a first language. And in fact, they might not know English very well. So for the next billion to really be able to meaningfully come online, internationalized domain names and the universal acceptance of them is really a foundation towards that. One of the things that I often talk about is that this is, actually building on what Ram said, is that we have gone beyond the technical items. In fact, in the last 25 years, that’s why it took so long. For the first 10, 12 years, we were struggling with, well, not struggling with… struggling and really working hard to build the technology that allows internationalized domain names and email addresses to work on the internet in a secure and stable manner. Then we spent 10, 12 years working through the policies, because the policies are equally important. Using just 26 characters plus the 10 digits for domain names have its own challenges. But try to bring tens of thousands of characters into that system. And there are other linguistic issues that need to be dealt with through policies. And that’s what we did in the last 25 years. So now is the time, I guess, the rubber hits the road, and we need to keep driving it. And the other thing that I always like us to think through is that we really need a kind of movement. Because this is not, there is what I would call a kind of a market failure right now. If you ask people who doesn’t know very much about the domain name system or the internet technologies, when you explain to them they can actually use Japanese, they can use Indian, Hindu, Indic languages to navigate the internet, there’s like, sign me up. But the problem is that that is a latent demand, because they don’t even know that they can demand for it. The other side of the story is also suppliers are also unaware of the impact they’re causing. I’m not saying that suppliers are not aware of the technology part, because that, through the 20 years, I think most of the developers and suppliers of web hosting, registries, and registrars do know. In fact, registries and registrars do provide IDN registrations. But. Are they ready for web hosting? Are they ready for internationalized email addresses? Universal acceptance, readiness is still very low. But the technology part, if you ask Google, Gmail is actually internationalized email address ready. Outlook is also ready. But does that mean the entire suite of Google services? Does that mean the entire suite of Microsoft products are UA ready? Unfortunately, that’s no. What is interesting, adding to my rhetoric about needing a movement, I recently come across, I think Secretary just mentioned a little bit as well, what is called, well he didn’t mention it, but he touched on what is language justice. We must have heard of climate justice. We might have heard of many types of justice. But there is actually language justice as well. And that’s why we need a movement. That’s why a multilingual internet is important. And I think the technical community, some of the technical community, is still resistant. They have been resistant from the very beginning, one of the things being a lot of the technology providers are still very much English centric. And because of that, they are sometimes worried. Well, if someone uses a multilingual email address, am I going to be able to see it? Is the administration going to be problematic? Is it going to be difficult for me? There is a little bit of resistance. But we need to convince them. We need to convince them that their work, their engineering work on all the interfaces, all the display, all the storage, all the processing has an impact on language justice. And also, if you look at the statistics, well, of course, people say. because nobody’s using internationalized domain names, there’s not much abuse, but if you look at the real statistics, DNS abuse is a fraction in terms of internationalized domain names. You know, it’s like a much lower percentage. And more important thing for, to convince the technical community, I believe, is to tell them that a multilingual internet actually makes for a safer internet. You know, my dad, going online, when he looks at the URL bar, he doesn’t understand it, but if it is in Chinese, he’ll be able to figure it out. What, you know, for a normal user, actually a multilingual internet makes for a much safer internet. So I want to start you with this thought, finally. Many people say it’s all about the content and the domain name part and the email address. People don’t even use. But if you think about it, the DNS was introduced in 1983. When was the web introduced? That was 1989. Six years ahead of time. That’s what set the English-only naming system and paved the way for English-dominant web. So maybe it’s a hindsight thing, but if you have a forward-looking perspective, I think you can understand that the foundations of the naming system does pave the way for content and that’s why, without universal acceptance of internationalized domain names, a multilingual internet cannot be realized. And it is a matter of language justice and that is why we need a multilingual internet movement. And I hope I can convince you to start here and this is the community to start that movement.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Thank you so much, Edmund. A number of compelling points there. And in particular, the multilingual internet makes for a safer internet for many, so thank you for that. now to turn to the Senior Vice President of Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN, Teresa Swinehart. Here, Teresa.

Theresa Swinehart:
Thank you. So first of all, it’s a pleasure to be here and to hear the remarks. And Edmund, your passion is fantastic. And the part he didn’t mention is he heads up also the board working group on IDN and UA. So we have an opportunity to work together on quite a few things. So from an ICANN standpoint, we share the importance of the inclusivity and the opportunity for everybody to use any language they want and any script they want. And this is an incredibly important aspect that we’ve heard in the other remarks today. And to the points that have been made, it’s not that the technology isn’t available. It’s actually the ability to use it around the world for whichever languages. And we heard some different statistics, but I’ll throw a little bit more out and then share where we’re coming from as an organization working with the community and the board on this. So apparently, there’s about 5.4 billion people from all different cultures and languages around the world. There’s about 2.6 that have never been online. And there’s reasons they haven’t been online. It might be access to the internet. It may be for any other reason. But the power to use your own language to express yourself in your own language is incredibly important. We all know it if we have to experience a conversation in a language that’s not our own. It’s challenging. It takes a different kind of energy. It takes a different form of recognition of the words and what they mean and the energy. interpretations around it. So if we look at the currently about 6,500 languages that are around the world, but we look at the breakdown, there’s about 2,300 spoken in Asia, 2,100 spoken in Africa, 1,300 in the Pacific, 1,000 in the Americas, and about 280 in Europe, plus what we heard earlier within the United States, even local tribes and linguistics there. It’s not just about people using their own language. It’s also the preservation of languages. It’s part of the global understanding of different cultures. If you then look further, there’s about 1.3 people speaking Chinese, the majority of which approximately 900 million, Mandarin, many of which are outside of China. 610 million people speak Hindi, and another 300 million speak Arabic. This is around the world. These are potential users that may use the internet even more if they can express themselves in their own languages. But to the universal acceptance standpoint, you may have an address. You may have a domain name, but you may not be able to use it on the platforms you want to or ensure that there’s a receipt from the other party. So the work around universal acceptance, the awareness around it, and the opportunities is an incredibly important part. It’s not just an economic aspect. And the statistics around the economics indicate 9.8 billion growth opportunities. That’s from 2017. But it’s also the societal opportunities and the next users from that standpoint. So from an ICANN standpoint, we have a few things that we’ve been engaged in. One is the support for Universal Acceptance Day. And we can talk about that later. That had a large impact. And looking forward to partnering with many different organizations in the future. And then we also have what’s referred to as the next round of. top-level domains, which affords an opportunity for those that wish to, to apply also for a name that is in their own language, in their own script. The application process will open up, there will be opportunities there, hopefully for all the 600 or 6,500 languages in all the different parts of the world, whether they’re small communities. But the important part is that universal acceptance exists so that those names can actually resolve fully at a global level. So I’ll leave it there, and then look forward to talking a little bit more about some details of things that we’re doing.

Susan Chalmers:
Check. I’m all set. Thanks. Thank you so much. So we have just had an excellent, I think, set of introductory remarks that covered the history and background, giving context to universal acceptance, the importance of meaningful connectivity, and thank you to Dawit for defining what that means, that was a very useful definition. The importance of UA to non-English, or non-Latin speaking countries, and also really the foundation of UA towards digital inclusion, some very helpful statistics, I thought those were quite important. So with all of that said, I might ask folks who are in the room, and again, please feel free to come sit at the round table if you’re in the seats, you’re most welcome, but I’d like to just turn it over to attendees to see if there are any reflections or contributions that they would like to make. And then we will move into the first of our three questions. Does anybody have anything they would like to contribute? Yeah, please.

Audience:
Hello, my name is Keisuke Kamimura. I’m a linguist by training and profession, and I am not an expert on technology here, but this is my observation. Universal acceptance is important, and it is annoying that you cannot use internationalized email addresses in various applications. So I completely agree with many of you here. But on the other hand, we don’t really use domain names for identifying information and identifying yourself in email. We tend to use Facebook, Twitter, or other forms of social media, where you do not particularly typically use domain names or lengthy identifiers. So my question is, is domain name or internationalized domain name still relevant in making internet more diverse and multilingual information space? And another question is, do users prefer to use internationalized domain names as opposed to other forms of domain names like GTLDs and CCTLDs? I have done a survey on the user behavior on internationalized domain names compared to other types of domain names a couple of years ago. I found out that they have clear, distinct users, have different behaviors over GTLDs and internationalized domain names. So if you talk about universal acceptance, you have to consider how people react to multilingualism on the internet. So this is my observation. Thank you very much.

Susan Chalmers:
Oh, I think we have a hand up online, perhaps, to respond to this question from Ram. So I heard two very interesting questions that you’ve posed. The first relates to the meaning of identity and how that is expressed on social media and other platforms versus a domain name. And then the second pertains to IDNs and GTLDs and ccTLDs. I’m happy to have somebody also address that question, because I’m not sure they’re necessarily so distinct.

Ram Mohan:
But let’s turn to Ram. Thank you, Susan. And thank you for a terrific question. Two things that we should think about. It’s not only about email addresses and a domain name. Think of writing something in a Word document, and you’re typing in an email address or you’re typing in a website address. Today, it automatically becomes a hyperlink if it is validated, if it is supposed to be a real name. However, if those systems do not understand the identity that you’re typing, then your company’s name. your organization’s name that is represented on the internet may simply not convert automatically into a hyperlink. So that is part of universal acceptance. And it, to some extent, is not just about in your language, it is about making sure that whatever it is represented in, whether it is in your local language or whether it is in ASCII, in the Latin script, so long as it is a valid name that is accepted by the authorities on the internet, it ought to just work everywhere, right? So we have to, I think, start thinking about these less and less as identifiers and more and more as ways of communication between human beings. And whether it is a website address, whether it is a domain name address, an email address, or if you go to many of the social media sites that are there right now, they give you the opportunity, if you want to link to your biography, for example, on a site like LinkedIn, they give you the opportunity to type in a URL, a website address. However, if that website address is not recognized due to universal acceptance issues, you are not included into that digital ecosystem anymore. You’re forced to go to a, in many cases, inferior system to represent who you are. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Thank you, Ram. And Edmund, please.

Edmon Chung:
Yeah, I just want to add a little bit. I think those are very good questions and raised a number of times. Whether domain names are. still relevant and email address still relevant. So I’d like to say three things, really. One is that search, if you think about search, typing in the local language is not a problem at all. So typing in an IDN has no challenge for the local community. So that is very important. And direct navigation on the internet is still utilizing domain names. And so that, I think, remains relevant. Number two, on email addresses. I think most, if not all, of the cybersecurity training that I’ve given and I’ve listened to starts with email address. The first thing I teach my dad, whether it’s spam or scam, is to look at the email address that is being sent. And that’s why it’s still relevant. And that’s why I think what I mentioned as a multilingual internet makes for a safer internet, because that is the fundamental. Because that’s the first thing you teach an elderly using the internet and say, stop being scammed, is to look at who sent you the email first. So I think that’s important. And the third thing I want to mention is that, in terms of the users, I’m not sure if you saw the ALAC end user survey, the at-large end user survey that was commissioned at ICANN. And the findings are interesting. And I guess that the findings you have is relevant and corroborates. But there is an additional question that was asked that I think was really revealing, which I touched on earlier. For people who don’t know that there is IDNs and don’t know there is an option, when they first heard it through the survey, they were excited about it. about it, they want it. But those who actually know about it says, it’s not so useful. Well, that is a revealing issue, right? The reason why, and that’s why we’re talking about it here, is that they registered and they couldn’t use it. Was the web hosting ready? Was the email ready? The problem is not so much that end users doesn’t want to use it. The problem is it cannot be used very smoothly on the internet. So it’s not set up properly. It cannot be actually used in a good way. And it’s sort of like a second class citizen right now. And that’s, I think, the bigger problem. So that study, I think, is quite revealing when you look at those statistics as well. I couldn’t find it right now, but I’m sure we can dig it up.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Edmund. Theresa, would you like to contribute?

Theresa Swinehart:
Yeah, I’d be really interested to see the study, because the points that are being made are really quite revealing, also from another angle, right? And there’s the question of demand, or why may there not be demand for it, or awareness around it? And then to the points that Ram and Edmund had made, it’s also about the user’s seamless experience. We’ve all had experience with, I don’t know, something online. And then it turns that the interface to something else doesn’t allow it to happen. So you have to go back and do something else, and then go back and make sure it works, whether it’s a payment method or whether it’s something else. And so in the end, it’s really about also ensuring that regardless if the unique identifier is at the front end or in a document or a reference tool, that the experience for the user has the opportunity to be seamless as part of a global internet from that standpoint. And you appreciate there’s… There’s areas that are within ICANN’s remit more specifically, and then there’s things that are not, and obviously enjoy facilitating and being part of conversations and partnering with others around the awareness there. From an overall standpoint, I think that there’s also the elements of how does one contribute to the user awareness? You get a new laptop or you get a new phone and it says, do you want to use English or German or whatever language it might be, and do you want to have, I don’t know, Syrian, do you want to have payment online, and all these different things. Even if there’s just a question of do you want to check whether you can use the device in your preferred language, and is it going to work with others, some forms of questions, it’s the user awareness that they might have the option. This is an area way out of my purview and expertise and certainly not a remit within ICANN, but more generally from a global level, the awareness of what opportunities could I have to do something I think is valuable, and sometimes it’s hard, but it’s about what’s the right thing to do for a global level to enable people to use their languages of their choice. But the study is very interesting, and I’ve sort of gone on, but I think in the end it’s really about the seamless experience for anybody to do what they want to the right of the dot or to use the languages and scripts that they would like to use.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Teresa. Now I’d like for us to move into our policy questions, and the first question here is what are the barriers that are keeping people from using the internet in their own language? And I’d just like to turn first to Dawit, and then we will turn to our colleague Akinori Maimura. who is the General Manager, Internet Development of the Japan Network Information Center. So we’ll first hear from Dawit and then Akinori.

Dawit Bekele:
Thanks, Susan. Unfortunately, many barriers contribute to the challenges people face in using the internet in their own language. Here are some of the most important ones, my opinion. First, if you don’t have access to the internet or you can’t afford it, you can’t choose the internet in any language. And the digital divide is very often on linguistic lines. For example, as you have heard at the opening, indigenous people often lack connectivity that has an impact on the use of their languages on the internet. Second, some languages have limited digital content due to social, economic, and political reasons. For example, most of the more than 2,000 languages that Teresa mentioned in Africa are not recognized as official languages in their own countries, limiting the support for content development in those languages. Third, the barrier can be technological. I will mention only two of these technological barriers that used to be barriers for my own mother tongue, that uses the Ethiopic script. The Ethiopic script was not included in Unicode until about the year 2000. This means before that, it was close to impossible to have an Amharic content that everybody can read easily. Thankfully, Ethiopic and many other scripts and alphabets are now part of Unicode, but this is not the case of all scripts and alphabets. Another major technical barrier is the lack of support for many languages by devices and platforms. There are many people who are literate in their own language only, for which their devices. and or the platform they want to use are not localized, which limits their use of the Internet. The fourth barrier is the lack of digital literacy. Unfortunately, the poorer the community, the less it is digital literate. Thus, poorer communities tend not to have their languages fairly represented on the Internet. There are, of course, many other barriers for which I don’t have time to discuss in detail here. Those barriers include but are not limited to limitations of IDNs as it has been said by other speakers, lack of relevant content, Internet shutdowns and restrictions, the saturation of the Internet with the so-called global languages such as English. But to end with some positive note, even though the barriers are many and are often huge, there are some hopes. Technological advances are making access to content in other languages possible through automatic translation, and we have seen it with AI recently, even interpretation. Governments, tech companies, and other service providers are taking more and more seriously the issue of localization. There are more and more technical advances and solutions, such as community networks that can provide connectivity even for the most remote communities. Therefore, if governments and tech companies, local communities, civil societies, and international organizations, and many other stakeholders work together, we can create a fairer Internet for all languages. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much, Dawit. I just want to pause to look around the room and to see if anybody has any similar kind of experiences that Dawit had just outlined and would like to share. Yes, Roberto, please.

Speaker:
Yeah, thank you. Roberto Gaetano from European User Association. I would like to add a point because when we think about underserved communities in terms of languages, I think that most of us think also situations like Africa that was presented or South America or… I would like to make an example that is related to my country, that is Italy. In Italy, we have several languages. I’m not talking about dialects. I’m talking about real languages that are not officially recognized. Most of them are not, a couple are, but I’m talking about Furlan. I’m talking about Sardo. I’m talking about Arberesh. And those are local communities. And I think that there’s a role that even in a developed country, or supposed to be like Italy, that there is a role that the internet can play in terms of allowing, favoring local contact, favoring the distribution of information in that language. A few years ago, we had at the IGF Italy a session about this, about what is the impact of the internet on local communities who speak a language that is… is not recognized. And that was quite interesting. Why is this a policy question? Because without, for instance, help by the governments, without also the awareness of the community, this cannot be done. I’m talking about these languages, I call them endangered languages, because also with the globalization, the community that speak that language is going to shrink unless we support this. And I think that the richness, the diversity of culture has to be preserved. And there’s a role that the internet can play in this.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much, Roberto. And now, oh, here, please, go ahead. If you could introduce yourself, that would be great.

Audience:
Hello. My name is Rafik. I work at Internews. And one of the topics that I work on is content moderation in non-European languages. And I think that there’s a kind of an issue where you have, when you don’t have a lot of content on the open internet in a specific language, it tends to drive people towards platforms, Facebook, most obviously. I spent a lot of years living in Myanmar, which is kind of the textbook case for Facebook becoming the kind of stand-in internet. And I think that that’s a really important phenomenon in this wider discussion, because to Edmund’s point about a multilingual internet being a safer internet, in these smaller languages, you don’t have functional content moderation. I think a platform like Facebook has content moderation in maybe 75 languages. But you do have people using those platforms in 1,000 different languages. languages, and you have very robust communities using those platforms instead of the open internet, but in effectively an unmoderated way, but still with all of the kind of amplification and things that you see through those platforms. So I don’t know if that’s kind of within the remit of this discussion, but I think it’s a really important point. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
I think that your point kind of dovetails with our question earlier from our linguist colleague, and so that adds a really interesting dimension to the discussion. So much appreciated. Thank you. Oh, yes, please. You’re welcome to…

Audience:
Thank you. I want to share a view from a regular user’s perspective. One of the main barriers is actually a lack of demand due to, I would say, like linguistic fitness of input methods. I would like to say, for example, I use a country code as an example. If I type it on the keyboard, there’s only three buttons, and I solve the problem. If I use my native language, I would use a dozen. I would have to press a dozen buttons. So for any regular users, if three buttons can solve the problem, why would he or she go for a dozen? So it’s a simple question for the regular users, which is the linguistic fitness to our input method, which is a linguistic technical issue. So for any language that is easier to transfer into alphabetic, can be contained in a small keyboard, it will be easier to promote IDN. But for any language that is not very fit to the alphabetic, that will… would be difficult. And consider today, how to say, the most majority input method is still alphabetic keyboard. So that would create the lack of demand to regular users, since shorter and easier would be always the choice. It’s a simple concept. And if in the future, like a vocal input or even brain input got promoted, that would be much more easier. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Thank you. And I think the question of practicalities is a useful one. And on that note, I was wondering if Akinori might be able to turn to you. OK, thank you very much.

Akinori MAEMURA:
My name is Akinori Maemura from Japan Network Information Center. Great to be here. The discussion until now is already overwhelmingly exciting to pick up the various aspects of the idea and the universal acceptance. The barrier for using the internet in our own languages, it’s quite a good question. And then I would like to talk about a little bit past situation. 30 years ago, we started using the internet and started using the PC. At the time, I remember that my PC, my system, system itself, OS and some other environment which I used, is not really good to handle the Japanese. And then there is a lot of funny. funny characters in my display, for example, the black square, that means that there’s some character which the system cannot handle. So it is really hard to use the Internet by Japanese because of that kind of errors, and then it actually overcome later, and then we don’t have almost virtually no problem to use my own language, which is Japanese, in the PC and IT systems, so it is improved. And then actually Professor Kamimura, who made the intervention before, is the professional for such inclusion of the languages to the IT, he could make a good input for that, but in such way that the PC system, for example, the OS, and then the computer system gradually include a lot of languages to our own use, so now as well as Japanese, many languages are available in the PC. And then for the domain names, I need to tell that, yes, IDN is already ready, and then for example, for the .jp domain name, we can use the Japanese label at the second level .jp, that’s available. But not popular, because the domain name is, for us, the normal Japanese people has no problem to read and write the alphabets, that they are already our own, within our own knowledge and then it’s actually preferred to use the alphabet for that kind of identifiers. It’s simple, the very compact set of the characters, 26 plus alpha character to identify something, actually suffices. And simple and sometimes cool, Japanese feel like that. So the ASCII character is preferred for that kind of use. It is not a natural language, you know. For example, literature. Literature, we definitely need the Japanese. A lot of Han characters, that’s exceeding the 10,000, needed for the smooth and fine literature. But that’s an identifier. So it’s quite, you know, good enough with using the 26 characters. But that’s one of the points. But I completely understand inclusion is important and Edmond pointed out a very good point of the language justice. That’s, we need to do, you know. For example, I am now telling something in English, but I’d like to do that in Japanese. And then you understand correctly my, including my nuance. Then it is, I would feel very included in the situation. I try very hard to use English for this kind of international situation. So my point is, with that, the language inclusion is very important. And then not everyone can use the English, but only use their own language. But for example, I was serving for ICANN board and at that time, my point is that we need to include everyone, everyone who use the various languages and then we need to be prepared for that. And then, employing that kind of system is just left to the operators and the IT vendors, so we try to ask them to use that. So that’s actually the effort of the universal acceptance. So my point is, the barrier should be, for example, as the PC system, the computer system includes the various languages, then the people who use the computer system can use their own language. However, such kind of environment, the computer system and then, for example, the IT system to accept the e-commerce enrollment and then order should be able to handle such multilingual input. They are not created and developed by the software house, but in most cases, that kind of system provided, the platform is provided by the very big vendors. So we need such a very big vendor for the platform which is widely used to employ the universal acceptance, then everyone in the world can be included by using their own languages. That’s my point. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Akinori. I have some reactions to that. But I just want to check around the room first to see if anybody else would like to respond to Akinori. So it seems that the ultimate objective, of course, is being able to offer everybody the option and to build upon a new status of connecting and using the internet in their own language and their own script. But just recognizing that some communities have already kind of adapted to the ASCII-only system that has been built up over several years. And there have been some kind of patterns and business practices that have been built around the existing system. With that said, I don’t think it’s certainly I don’t think that’s a counter-argument to UA, but it’s just something that might be useful to note as part of the discussion. So thank you very much for that, Akinori. Our next question is, how can we surmount the barriers that we have just discussed through technical and policy coordination? Ram, during his opening intervention, had mentioned that it’s, and Edmund, I believe you mentioned this as well, it’s not so much a technical problem because the work has been done. It’s a coordination problem, and it’s a policy problem, and it’s a visibility problem, I think, for governments. And so my next question goes to you, Edmund, is how can we surmount barriers through technical and policy coordination? Thanks.

Edmon Chung:
Thank you, and yes, I guess as both Ram and I mentioned, we are at a very low level. technical part, which is the protocols and those kind of things, we are beyond that. But the technical implementation is still a big challenge, and we’ve heard from different parties. In fact, one of the things that is important is to convince the technical community that it is an important thing, and just to rely on market forces I believe is not enough, because I think the market has spoken a little bit in saying that we tried this, we offered this, but nobody is using it. But why is nobody using it? Because they can’t use it smoothly. So we’re in a chicken and egg situation right now, and that comes to the policy part. The fundamental policies for enabling internationalised email addresses and domain names are there. So there is the IDN tables, there is the different language policies for registrations of these unique identifiers. Those are there. But what is not there are policy interventions that would motivate suppliers to flesh out the implementation for universal acceptance, ensure that everything is as easy to use for a multilingual email address than not. Just as a good example, many registries I actually don’t know in China or Japan do allow, for example, Chinese and Japanese domain registrations, but what if the user uses a Chinese email address to register that domain? Does your system support that? Maybe, maybe not. I would guess not today. Those are the things that, you know, once you use it, you don’t, you know, can’t. So I think the technical part… is trying to convince technical people that this is important. And on the policy side, it is about having policy intervention to motivate suppliers to actually put it in place. And I think it was a little bit touched on by Secretary earlier, but there’s also the international decade of indigenous languages that is there, the sustainable development goals that touch us on innovation and heritage and local culture. Those are the things that we need to tell people that it’s not just about, well, we can also use these cool ASCII domains. But when we talk about choice, the other side is important as well. Yes, we can choose these cool names, but what if I want to choose a local name? Right now, it’s difficult. So choice, yeah, that’s the market side. One last thing that I want to touch on is in response to, I’m guessing the speakers from Chinese, because they’re talking about input methods. I even put method in Chinese as well. And so yeah, maybe a few more keyboard strokes. But ask any Chinese or ask Baidu. Do they have problems searching in Chinese? I don’t think they search in English, right? I mean, even for just a few more keystrokes, they would search in Chinese. And so navigating should not be a problem. And the other thing about, I guess, in terms of ICANN and the top-level domains, the speaker mentioned that just three keystrokes can type a top-level domain. Why would you bother? Well, that is why single-character Chinese domain names and single-character Chinese top-level domains is so important. Because one single character in Chinese means a word. And that can be done in two, three strokes. So hopefully, that adds.

Susan Chalmers:
Absolutely, it does, thank you. And I wanna see if we can turn to Ram.

Ram Mohan:
Thank you, Susan. So as Edmund said, the core technical challenges and the core technical contours of this problem are already solved. How to make these identifiers work with each other is already a known thing. That is not something that we ought to be focusing time and effort on. In the real world, this is really for an organization of any size and scope, this is a little bug, a little thing that has to be resolved. The reason, in my opinion, why universal acceptance, multilingualism and digital inclusion of this kind has not yet become an automatic default is because we need a bit more policy coordination. We need a bit more on the side of incentives. Because if you look at it, the problem that we’re talking about is so small relative to large issues that organizations and technical firms have to deal with that they shrug their shoulders and say, this is just a little thing and nobody is complaining. So, so long as there are no complaints, it’s all right, we can just move forward. But imagine a world where for every procurement that every government does, imagine a world where the procurement says. that universal acceptance and vendors who have demonstrated that their systems have universal acceptance and are ready for universal acceptance, that those vendors will get a preference. Let me say this, in the world that we live in, those kinds of incentives that can be driven by policy development, that can be driven by economic incentive creation, that don’t really cost a whole lot for the organizations or the governments or the procuring organizations that do the procurement, but it really provides an impetus and a prompt to those who are competing for business to say, we need to prioritize universal acceptance and the resolution of universal acceptance are an important priority for this organization. Otherwise, it just falls in the priority scheme. That’s one thing. The other thing that we ought to consider is, should we continue to look at this and talk about this as domain names, as internationalized domain names, as internationalized email addresses? Because I don’t know about you, but for me, I’m a technical person, but even for me as a technical person, when I hear IDNs or our EAI or acronyms like that, eyes glaze over, right? Should there not be a simplification of what we are actually trying to solve for? We’re trying to solve for a global economy. We’re trying to solve for a global economy that is a global economy. We’re trying to solve for a global economy that is a global economy. not just the ability to access parts of the internet, ability to be able to communicate in your own language, but we’re also solving for accessibility, right? So perhaps we ought to start thinking about changing the dialogue, the terms of the dialogue from internationalization and from these technical terms that were invented 20, 25 years ago. I was a part of it, so I’m guilty of one of the people who has perpetuated it, but I think it’s time to start talking about what the users of the internet actually value, which is access in my own language, right? So it’s about digital accessibility, digital inclusion, and I think that universal acceptance is an internationalized domain names, that entire area fits underneath that, and I think it’s time to elevate the dialogue and focus on policy-based initiatives that can actually drive that kind of digital inclusion.

Susan Chalmers:
So it seems to me that there is definitely a space for some marketing wizards as we move to promote this whole issue set. Ram, I did wanna note that and emphasize Ram’s point about the role of governments and procurement policies. I think this has been consistently one of the recommendations that has been made by the community that is focused on universal acceptance. Oh, I see we have a hand, please.

Audience:
I think it’s a very interesting debate, but my question goes a bit, is this about acceptance of multilingualism, or is it also about the construction and co-creation of multilingual Internet? So, my point would be, are we aiming at making more languages available on platforms, or are we also looking on how can we build a more decentralized Internet from bottom-up, so to say, and the experience, what I want to share is working a lot with community networks, and there’s also a need to make more languages available on platforms, and there’s also a need to, or like a vision to create its proper infrastructure, for instance, to why not host a local server, why not host a local e-mail server, and the problem I think is twice-fold, because I would say there’s an intersectionality between language, but also between big tech and the acceptance not only of language, but also of communication, and I think it’s a policy issue, but if you would like to run a local server even before, and with a local web hosting, maybe even before to touch the language base, it would be just blocked because there’s a protocol that is not updated, or it goes into spam, because automatically, for some reasons, configurations of Gmail or whatever, this is not shown and I think this is a very important intersection, and so my question would be, I agree, it’s not only about domain names, it goes a lot deeper maybe on this level, and yeah, well, question, if you see this like in a similar way, or how do you also think if we think of a diverse internet also in terms of technology and the policies that should provide for them. Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to turn to one of our speakers,

Susan Chalmers:
expert speakers, to see if they might be able to respond to that question or anybody else. Oh, Dawit has his hand up. And then, so Dawit and then Edwin.

Dawit Bekele:
Thank you. This is an excellent question or comment. I completely agree. One of the frustrations of many communities is that they are less and less, you know, empowered to decide on what they can, how they can use their languages, especially, for example, platforms might decide which languages should be, you know, allowed on their platforms. And you have to wait for someone else to decide when your language will be available. So, I completely agree that we need to empower communities to decide what is important for their languages, what should be supported, and not someone else. Unfortunately, this is easily said than done. Very often, you know, these platforms and other tech companies are becoming more and more powerful and decide on our lives. So, in a way, we had more possibilities to decide for ourselves before than we do today. So, I don’t know how this will happen, but I completely agree that it is important that, you know, the communities have a say on what is available only. Thank you.

Edmon Chung:
Yeah, I think it’s a great idea. In fact, I don’t know whether you intended it as an idea, but bringing up the community networks, I think it’s a really good model to learn from and work with, because that would be a group that is just building up the infrastructure for themselves. And obviously, local language makes a lot of sense in that case as well. But back to your question part, is it acceptance or co-creation? I think it’s both. It’s co-creation for a multilingual internet, which is to work with local communities to build up a multilingual internet for them, and domain names and email addresses being the fundamental parts of that multilingual internet. And the acceptance part, as you really pointed out, the acceptance part is the big tech and the other systems around the internet so that it remains one internet, and for them to accept as well. Yeah, of course, you can build some complete separate infrastructure for multilingual spots of internet, but we want one interoperable internet, and that’s the acceptance part. So I think that’s a very good and interesting way to think about it, and definitely is one of, I don’t know why I’ve never thought about it, but the community networks group initiatives are really something we can learn from and work with.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much. Just in the interest of time, I’d like for us to move on to the last question, which is, in what ways does internet multilingualism support the broader goal of digital inclusion? I feel like we have canvassed a lot of this already, but I think it’s a very crucial question. that we should examine, and so I’d like to turn to Theresa Swinehart.

Theresa Swinehart:
Sure. So I think we actually covered quite a few areas of what this entails, and I really like the conversations about the local community networks and some of the challenges also that have been experienced at different points of using the internet or using multilingual content around that. I think it also demonstrates no one entity can face this alone, but the broader awareness of the dependencies amongst each other of the different systems, whether it’s the underlying technology, the domain name system, internationalized domain names, or the ability to access the content and how that works. So I think, you know, to reiterate the opportunity here around more and more awareness to this, and so as we look at some ways to help support this, you know, there had been, last year we had the opportunity around the Universal Acceptance Day, and really quite a remarkable level of participation by the community, by the global community around that, and there will be another one this coming year. But listening to this conversation, there’s actually, I think, an opportunity to look at it not just as a Universal Acceptance Day in awareness, but actually awareness about all the different elements that contribute to it, the local community networks, the ability to have certain content online, the partnerships with different entities and different organizations around that. So that’s certainly one area that we’ll be looking at, and I think we’ll certainly help support the broader aspect about the inclusivity. It’s all very nice to talk about the inclusivity, but there’s different roles and responsibilities around it, and those roles and responsibilities, in many ways, are driven either by economics or demand or… passion, or whatever it might be. And I think the examples of procurement, government procurement options, we’ve seen that in IPv6 and other things, to be successful. And I think we can see it in other areas as well. So in addition to the universal acceptance, awareness building, and really creating that awareness, I think the other area, and we touched upon this briefly, we have the opening of the next round. We’re still developing some of the policies around that. Some of the policies actually do go towards the internationalized domain name elements or applications that might be coming in in different forms around that. So that work is still underway. And the guidelines for the actual taking of applications is still underway. And when it opens up, hopefully that affords another tool in the kitchen cabinet, if I could put it that way, and another resource and opportunity to contribute towards the broader elements of a global Internet. And I think the terminology of acceptance and co-creation and contributing towards that. So I’ll leave it with that. But really, this has been an invaluable conversation.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much. Len.

Audience:
It was a very fascinating conversation. And I might toss in a couple of other thoughts. One is, and I learned this, I guess, just coming to Japan and trying to figure out how the remote control works or how to get money out of the ATM or even most other things in terms of navigating. But one is, I think we should, and I think it was mentioned earlier, we shouldn’t discount the role of iconography in this whole discussion. there’s been a lot of, especially as an entry point to get either access to the internet or get started somewhere. To me, it’s like driving a car. I mean, I just think about small things like knowing which side of the car the gas tank is on. You know, just little things like that, I think, that have built up as convention over the years. And I think so convention and iconography can be a valuable tool, I think, here. The other one is, as I watched, especially since the, certainly the beginning of the pandemic, of the use of, you know, just not typing anything, but just pointing your phone at something, or even speaking something that at least gets you through some sort of artificial intelligence that says, I recognize this language, I’m gonna convert everything. So I guess my main point is here is, and I know it’s the topic of the conversation, but I think, you know, relying on the domain name system, if you will, and domain names to solve the context problem of language is probably not very scalable in the long run, because there’s gonna be so many other things that we’re gonna have to do with the internet that are gonna rely on that context. So I would make a case for saying, let’s look at the efforts going on in identity management and some of those contexts to be able to help, because we’ll have a lot of technology to throw at this. We’ll have a lot of stuff to be able to say within one or two phrases, I know what language you’re speaking, no matter where you are in the world, and then be able to adapt that. And then the content and everything else gets kind of set, or I arrive, even as an email address, maybe even the email address system relies more on identity management. I gave a talk a long time ago, back when I worked for a telephone company. that we should just forget about using phone numbers at all because my daughter knew none of her friends had phone numbers. She relied on some other context for that through whatever platform she was on. And you gotta realize that people are gonna have more than one presence on the internet, maybe based on their social network or their business network or something else like that. So anyway, it’s just a thought, but I would say that we should look for other ways to take care of this problem other than the domain name system. And I’m not discounting making it a good working domain name system in the context of language and characters, but still I think we shouldn’t get over reliant on that as a solution. So thank you. Hi, Pat Kane with Verisign. So this morning when we started off, what came up was preservation of cultures, preservation of languages. And we’ve drifted into domain names and DNS. And I think the example with the two coming together over the last 20 years is .cat for Catalon. And so when you talk about .cat, they bid for new TLD and they had one policy, which was if your cat linked to a website, you had to have Catalon content on it. Catalon content grew tremendously in that timeframe. So Catalon, 26 characters in their alphabet. They do have the Sidiya on the keyboard so they can do other words in their language. But that’s really the opportunity here. But when we talk about creating a movement for universal awareness, we’re talking about spending a lot of money to solve a problem at the edge of the internet that is thwarted every day by the core of the internet. And that’s the ASCII problem that we have that DNS handles that. What I don’t think we’ve done recently is taken a look at the DNS infrastructure itself. terms of resolution software, what happens at recursive servers, what happens at authoritative servers. I do know that, you know, that years ago when we launched IDNs at Verisign at .com, we did use a wildcard at the authoritative server to interpret UTF-8 and UTF-16 so that we didn’t have to do just ASCII. It worked clunky but it was initial implementation and then we had a wildcard prohibition put in place for a lot of reasons. But have we thought about solving it at the core so that we don’t have these limitations that we have at the edge today or should we?

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Well, just recognizing the time, I’d like to make a few points to conclude and if any of our speakers would like to consider maybe a very brief intervention or a winding up point, please do. But I would just say that this has been a tremendously vibrant and dynamic conversation. I know we aren’t many in this room but that hasn’t limited the kind of diversity of thoughts and perspectives that have been contributed to this conversation. We had intended to focus on the collaboration between different institutions moving forward to promote universal acceptance but we’ve run out of time. I would just say that in the upcoming Council Working Group on Internet at the ITU, there have been multiple submissions from different countries on this very subject, on universal acceptance. So those submissions will be discussed on October 18th. So I think that this discussion was quite timely. And I’ll wrap it up there, but I see Akinori, you would like to say something, and I don’t know if anybody else would like to, too, but let me just say thank you so much to our expert speakers for their time, and thank you also to everybody who’s joined us today, but Akinori, over to you.

Akinori MAEMURA:
Thank you very much. I’m really impressed with this discussion, and I am thinking about it’s quite a multi-stakeholder process to make a digital inclusion, and then, you know, in the part of the setup, the identifiers policy, I can do still a job with the community, the great variety of the community effort, and then many, many language community have been involved in setting the level of generation role, and then I can still do the policies for the new GTAD program, so that’s quite a big effort. And then, as I said, it is really integral part is the platform vendor who cover the multilingual, the IDN and the universal acceptance ready, and then that’s the crucial part, because the platform, the common platform manufacturer, if they are UA ready, then almost all the system are UA ready, then that’s a really crucial part. And then the public policy will encourage a lot of the end user system move forward for the universal acceptance, so that’s really important. So this is a quite everyone need to do their own job for advancing the data inclusion, which is really like a multi-stakeholder approach of the Internet. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. And just one last important point. So the organizers of this session will pore over the transcript and the contents and create a synthesis of the discussion and develop a report. And you can probably anticipate that coming out in maybe December. So we want to take some great care with how we treat the content of this session. So please look for that on the IGF website. All right. Thanks, everybody, and have a great day.