Effective Governance for Open Digital Ecosystems | IGF 2023 Open Forum #65

Audience

In the analysis, multiple speakers highlight key points regarding Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its implications. The first speaker stresses the importance of sustainable DPIs that take into account environmental factors. They assert that the Global Digital Compact (GDC) claims for sustainable DPIs align with the G20 meeting in India, which established a common agenda. The positive sentiment suggests a consensus on the need for sustainable DPIs.

The second speaker focuses on the significance of DPI by design, implementation, and governance. They provide Estonia’s success in digital government and connected government as an example. By adopting DPI by design, Estonia has effectively demonstrated the value of integrating digital technologies into government functions, resulting in positive outcomes. This observation strengthens the argument for the importance of DPI.

On the other hand, the third speaker raises concerns about the potential impact of mass surveillance. Although no supporting facts are provided, the negative sentiment suggests that the speaker believes mass surveillance has detrimental consequences. This viewpoint serves as a cautionary reminder to consider the potential risks associated with DPI, particularly in relation to individual privacy and civil liberties.

The fourth speaker advocates for a specific framework on “human rights by design.” They emphasize aspects such as privacy, freedom of speech, dignity, and autonomy. By unpacking the concept of human rights by design, the speaker highlights the need for clarity and guidelines to ensure DPI does not infringe upon fundamental rights. This argument underscores the necessity to address potential ethical and legal concerns related to DPI.

The fifth speaker argues for safeguards that can potentially halt or reverse harmful systems, specifically mentioning the importance of safeguards for digital identification. They highlight the significance of the ability to reconsider, reevaluate, and reinstate changes to negate any harms associated with DPI. This perspective supports the idea that proactive measures should be in place to mitigate any adverse effects of DPI.

Lastly, the sixth speaker expresses concerns over the right to anonymity and stresses the need for private space to protect civil and political rights. They mention that the right to anonymity is essential for freedom of speech and other civil liberties. This negative sentiment suggests worries about potential infringements on individual rights and the necessity to protect them in the context of DPI.

In conclusion, this analysis presents a comprehensive overview of various perspectives surrounding DPI. The speakers highlight the importance of sustainability, design, governance, human rights, safeguards, and individual rights within the realm of DPI. While positive sentiments indicate consensus on certain aspects, negative sentiments caution against potential risks and encourage the implementation of necessary precautions.

Eileen Donahoe

The analysis explores several key points regarding the role of digital technology in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It highlights the immense potential of digital technology in accelerating the attainment of these goals. However, it raises concerns that only a small percentage (2%) of government forms in the United States have been digitized. This lack of digitization not only leads to significant time wastage for the public but also results in the loss of $140 billion in potential government benefits each year. This underscores the urgency for governments to prioritize the digitization of their public infrastructure.

The discussion also emphasises the need to embed human rights into digital public infrastructure. While there is a strong desire to expand access to digital services, it is crucial to ensure that the most vulnerable and marginalised communities are protected. The risk of inadvertently developing into surveillance states through digitisation must be carefully mitigated.

Furthermore, the analysis underlines the importance of a global multi-stakeholder approach, where governments collaborate with the technical community, civil society, academic experts and the private sector. This approach fosters collective involvement and cooperation in setting digital technology standards and policies. Eileen Donahoe stresses the significance of this approach to enable a smooth transition from domestic to global multi-stakeholder processes. However, it is acknowledged that this transition can be challenging for governments.

To facilitate the multi-stakeholder input processes, it is recommended to use the Human Rights framework as a global standard. The universality and recognisability of human rights frameworks make them an ideal basis for collaboration and adherence to global standards. Governments are more likely to feel comfortable adopting these global standards as they have already committed to upholding human rights.

The analysis further discusses the importance of global open standards in increasing accountability. Global open standards provide a valuable tool for well-intentioned governments, ensuring that the standards deployed are of a consistently higher calibre compared to what would occur if governments were left to their own devices. Through a global digital compact process with follow-up, soft norms can be established, adding pressure and encouraging accountability.

In addition, the analysis supports the building of a mutual learning ecosystem in different regions. It suggests that Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs) should be made more context-sensitive. Building on the progress achieved during the Indian presidency, there is a call for expanding and adapting these principles to new areas. Regular reviews and discussions, guided by a safeguards framework, act as reference points for evaluating the progress and efficacy of DPIs.

Lastly, the analysis emphasises the importance of a cross-disciplinary approach. It highlights the necessity for collaboration between experts in norms, law and technologists to effectively implement human rights by design. A shared language is crucial for enabling effective collaboration and understanding between these different disciplines.

Overall, the analysis underscores the need for robust and safeguarded digital public infrastructure, the importance of a global multi-stakeholder approach, and the significance of embedding human rights principles into digital technology. It also highlights the value of global open standards, mutual learning and a cross-disciplinary approach. These factors collectively foster accountability, context sensitivity and progress in the field of digital technology and its impact on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

Speaker 1

The speakers in the discussion emphasized the significance of digital public infrastructure (DPI) and the successful implementation of DPI in Estonia. They pointed out that Estonia has long been a digital leader, and the philosophical and practical origins of DPI can be traced back to this country. They highlighted the principles of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness as the basis for Estonia’s digital reform. The government of Estonia, in collaboration with the private sector, has worked on digital identity, which is an essential component of DPI.

Trust and collaboration were identified as vital elements for the successful implementation of DPI. The speakers emphasized that the Estonian government and private sector combined resources and contributed equally to DPI, which helped build trust among stakeholders. Equality in contribution and responsibility was deemed crucial for fostering collaboration in DPI projects.

The discussion touched upon the need for governments to focus on fixing fundamental aspects such as data governance and digital authentication before moving on to advanced concepts like artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and blockchain. The speakers argued that many governments and societies are currently discussing advanced concepts without having firmly established the basics. Therefore, DPI serves as a reminder to prioritize the foundational aspects of digitalization.

The importance of sharing and collaboration among governments in the field of digital public infrastructure was emphasized. The speakers noted that while many governments make their tools available, there is a lack of reusing and collaboration. However, some countries, such as Estonia, Finland, and Iceland, have made progress in this area by developing certain digital products collaboratively and making them globally available. The speakers called for a greater push for sharing, reusing, and collaboration among governments to enhance the effectiveness of digital products.

Sustainability and mindset change were identified as challenges in implementing digital public infrastructure. The speakers acknowledged that changes take time and that people can be resistant to change. They also emphasized the importance of continuity as various projects come and go. The example of Internet voting in Estonia was highlighted, as it took several years for it to become popular and widely accepted.

The discussion concluded by highlighting the global nature of guaranteeing privacy, security, and human rights in the digital realm. The speakers stressed that these issues require concerted efforts from both the government and the private sector. Ensuring privacy and security is not solely the responsibility of the government or the private sector. The speakers also emphasized the importance of global movements in addressing these issues.

In conclusion, the discussion shed light on the significance of digital public infrastructure and its implementation in Estonia. The principles of openness, transparency, and inclusiveness were identified as driving forces behind Estonia’s digital reform. Trust, collaboration, and equal responsibility were deemed vital for successful DPI implementation. The need for governments to focus on fundamental aspects before advancing to advanced concepts like AI and blockchain was highlighted, along with the importance of sharing and collaboration among governments. Sustainability, mindset change, and guaranteeing privacy, security, and human rights were identified as challenges that require joint efforts from the government and the private sector.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is defined as society-wide digital capabilities that are essential for citizens, entrepreneurs, and consumers to participate in society and markets. It serves as the foundation for public service delivery in the digital era. DPI does not refer to foundational software or physical infrastructure such as fibre optic cables.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many countries heavily invested in DPI to facilitate faster and prompt response. This shift to digital platforms resulted in the adoption of services like digital ID, payment systems, data exchange systems, and civil registries. However, the speedy implementation sometimes compromised the security, safety, and inclusivity of the systems.

Lea Gimpel advocates for the safe, secure, and inclusive implementation of DPI. Attention needs to be given to avoid risks such as data privacy issues, mass surveillance, and exclusion of vulnerable groups. DPI has an extended risk due to its implementation at population scale, and technologies with societal functions have long-term impacts.

To address these risks, the UN Tech Envoys Office and UNDP launched the Universal DPI Safeguards initiative. It aims to develop safeguards against risks in DPI designs, implementation, and governance.

The movement around DPI focuses on people’s protection and service delivery, emphasizing the approach over technology. Eileen Donahoe advocates for the use of technology to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and expand access to digital services globally. Embedding human rights by design into digital technology is also important in preventing the unconscious drift towards becoming surveillance states.

The United States lags significantly in digitizing government communication and rebuilding its infrastructure. Only 2% of federal government forms have been digitized, resulting in unclaimed government benefits worth $140 billion each year. The implementation of DPI is not solely applicable to low and middle-income countries, high-income countries also need to discuss their approach.

Successful DPI implementation in Estonia highlights the need for DPI standards and the integration of human rights by design. Concerns about potential surveillance risks arise if DPI is not correctly implemented. The speed of DPI implementation often makes implementing safeguards difficult, and the right to anonymity in DPI and Digital ID systems should be ensured.

Sustainability is an important consideration in DPI, as discussed at the G20 meeting in India. Insufficient safeguards in digital ID systems call for DPI safeguards that allow for system stop, reconsideration, or rollback if harm is found. Enforcement is required to ensure compliance with DPI safeguard frameworks. Global open standards increase accountability and add value by monitoring everyone’s system.

The government’s role is crucial in the digital era. It needs to be a partner for citizens and the private sector to build an innovation ecosystem that is crucial for the evolution of digital economies. Existing initiatives like the Global Digital Compact and Open Government Partnership provide an opportunity to create commitment for the DPI Safeguards Initiative.

Cooperation, sharing of technology, and learning are important for effective implementation at scale. Changing mindsets during implementation is crucial for success.

In summary, DPI enables citizens, entrepreneurs, and consumers to participate in society and markets. The Universal DPI Safeguards initiative addresses risks and develops safeguards. The movement around DPI emphasizes people’s protection and service delivery, focusing on the approach over technology. Human rights by design and the use of technology to advance the SDGs are crucial considerations. The United States needs to digitize government communication and infrastructure. High-income countries also need to discuss their approach to DPI. Standards, safeguards, and the right to anonymity are important in DPI implementation. Sustainability, enforcement, and global open standards play crucial roles. Government partnership and cooperation are essential, and existing frameworks provide opportunities for commitment. Effective implementation at scale requires cooperation, technology sharing, and mindset changes.

Robert Opp

The concept of digital public infrastructure should be seen as an approach rather than a technology or set of technologies, with a governance structure and appropriate safeguards. This approach is important for solving immediate problems and ensuring the future success of infrastructure projects. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) aims to complement consultations with ground-level work in three to five countries, testing and applying the emergent framework. They will gather feedback from the field tests to inform the development of safeguards. The UNDP also plans to support countries in implementing the framework and addressing knowledge gaps. Mindset change and incentivizing collaboration are necessary to advance digitalization. Overcoming the current mindset issue requires collective effort and a shift in thinking. Collaboration is crucial for developing scalable ways to implement digitalization. The safeguard initiative is a positive step towards changing mindsets and promoting the implementation and scalability of digital solutions. Sharing and collaboration are crucial for developing and implementing digital solutions. It is important to incentivize people to collaboratively work towards digitalization. The challenge of keeping up with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence requires continuous learning and adaptation. Developing a global approach with safeguards is essential for the success of digitalization efforts. Rolling out this approach quickly with trust and sharing is necessary. In conclusion, the concept of digital public infrastructure as an approach, along with governance structures and safeguards, is important for solving problems and ensuring success. The UNDP’s efforts to complement consultations with ground-level work and support implementation are valuable. Mindset change, collaboration, and safeguards are necessary for digitalization. Sharing and collaboration are key for developing digital solutions. The challenge of emerging technologies like AI requires continuous learning. A global approach with safeguards is crucial, and it should be rolled out quickly with trust and sharing.

Amandeep Singh Gill

Amandeep Singh Gill emphasizes the need for a safeguards framework for digital public infrastructure (DPI) due to the risks and issues related to safety, security, data protection, and societal inclusion/exclusion. It is important to address these concerns to ensure the effective and ethical use of DPIs. Gill advocates for multi-stakeholder participation in building and managing the safeguards framework, including contributions from the private sector and civil society. This collaborative approach ensures diverse perspectives and expertise are considered, leading to more comprehensive and effective solutions.

The foundations of DPI are based on international human rights commitments and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Recognizing the significance of these frameworks, DPIs are designed to align with and support the principles and objectives outlined in these global agendas. By incorporating human rights and SDG frameworks into DPIs, it becomes possible to promote inclusivity, sustainability, and socioeconomic development.

DPIs not only target government services but also play a critical role in boosting the innovation ecosystem by reducing barriers to innovation. By providing an enabling environment and infrastructure, DPIs encourage the development and adoption of new technologies, fostering digital innovation across various sectors. This not only benefits the public sector but also stimulates economic growth and offers new opportunities for businesses, including the emerging Fintech sector.

Promoting a digital economy that includes businesses from different sectors, such as Fintech, is crucial in building robust DPIs. Lowering entry barriers to innovation and increasing demand for digital services and products are central to DPIs. By creating a dynamic national digital economy, DPIs contribute to decent work and economic growth as outlined in SDG 8.

DPIs should also incentivize integration and usage in sectors that may initially not see the need for digital services. For example, it is crucial to demonstrate the benefits of using DPIs in agriculture to farmers who may not immediately recognize the advantages. By showcasing the value and potential of DPI services tailored to their specific needs, farmers can be encouraged to adopt digital solutions, leading to increased productivity and improved agricultural practices.

The G20 presidency offers an opportunity to make the digital development movement more sustainable and contextually relevant in Africa and Latin America. By building on the work conducted during the Indian presidency and collaborating with international partners, it is possible to address the specific challenges and opportunities faced by these regions, ensuring inclusive and equitable digital development.

Regular discussions and soft pressure can be cultivated to improve DPIs. By facilitating ongoing dialogue and regular review of principles and action frameworks, it becomes possible to identify areas for improvement and encourage adherence to established standards. This continual accountability and open communication contribute to the evolution and refinement of DPIs, aligning them with evolving needs and technological advancements.

Strengthening mutual learning ecosystems in various regions is a priority. Promoting cooperative learning environments and exchanging best practices between different regions can help accelerate digital development and enhance the effectiveness of DPIs. The success of the Nordic region in creating a mutual learning ecosystem serves as an example to be emulated in other parts of the world.

An initiative has been launched to unpack the concept of the right to anonymity. Amandeep Singh Gill is open to ideas and assistance in exploring this concept further. This initiative aligns with SDG 16, which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions. Unpacking the right to anonymity is crucial in ensuring the protection of digital rights while maintaining a balanced approach to privacy and security concerns.

In conclusion, Amandeep Singh Gill highlights the importance of implementing a safeguards framework for digital public infrastructure. This framework should address risks and issues related to safety, security, data protection, and societal inclusion/exclusion. Multi-stakeholder participation, aligning with human rights commitments and SDG frameworks, boosting the innovation ecosystem, and promoting a digital economy across sectors are key elements in building robust DPIs. The G20 presidency provides an opportunity to make digital development more sustainable, while continuous discussions and follow-up can drive improvement and accountability. Strengthening mutual learning ecosystems and exploring the concept of the right to anonymity are further steps towards promoting inclusive and ethical digital practices.

Henri Verdier

France has been at the forefront of developing digital public infrastructure (DPI), even before the term was officially coined. Their focus has been on aspects such as digital identity and public APIs. They understand the importance of public service rules, such as neutrality, accessibility, and equal access, in constructing DPI. By incorporating these rules, France aims to create a reliable and fair digital environment.

Notably, France recognizes the significance of the digital commons and the need for a free and neutral internet. They argue that DPI and the digital commons are essential for achieving this goal. While DPI refers to the infrastructure, the digital commons encompass concepts such as free software, open standards, and shared resources. The convergence of DPI and the digital commons has the potential to create a powerful and inclusive digital space.

In contrast to France’s proactive approach, Europe has stopped building public infrastructure since the 1970s. However, France insists that Europe should continue developing public digital infrastructure as digital identity and infrastructure for payment are as crucial in the digital age as roads were a century ago.

France also recognizes the potential for innovation and value creation through the OpenGov movement. They highlight that unleashing innovation in government processes can create significant value. This has been demonstrated in the past with initiatives focused on data and source code, and now with infrastructure development. France believes that the OpenGov movement can serve as a third source for unlocking value in the digital landscape.

Moreover, France acknowledges that public service can be implemented by the private sector, as long as certain rules are respected. They emphasize that while the private sector can finance public services, it should not take all the added value. This approach allows for greater flexibility and efficiency in the provision of public services.

Cooperation and community-building are highly valued by France. They argue that more emphasis should be placed on these aspects, rather than simply sharing code. Good documentation and specific types of codes are considered important details in the pursuit of effective collaboration.

However, France also recognizes the challenges that governments face in implementing digital transformations. They find it difficult to adhere to open standards and build small, reusable pieces of infrastructure. The historical context of digital disruption further complicates these projects. France advocates for a simpler, more efficient, and sustainable approach to digital transformations in government.

Using simple, open, and reusable standards can lead to more inclusive and sustainable infrastructure. An example of this is the case of Tuk-Tuk drivers in Bangalore, who developed a cost-effective solution to call a rickshaw, using Indian rules and leveraging infrastructure such as UPI and bacon. France emphasizes the value of adopting such standards to ensure that infrastructure is accessible and beneficial to all.

While infrastructure is vital, France also recognizes that it alone cannot protect democracy if it is misused for malicious purposes. A strong focus on implementing rules within the infrastructure is insufficient. Additional measures are necessary to safeguard democracy and ensure its integrity.

Efficient enforcement of approaches is key to success. By prioritizing efficiency, implementation and enforcement can be carried out in the most effective manner. This approach helps drive progress and ensures that initiatives are impactful and sustainable.

Lastly, France firmly believes in empowering people, unleashing innovation, and guaranteeing fundamental freedom as the most efficient way to promote economic and social development within a country. They advocate for a holistic approach that considers the importance of technology, innovation, and freedoms in shaping a prosperous and inclusive society.

In conclusion, France’s approach to developing digital public infrastructure is rooted in the principles of public service rules, open standards, and the use of digital commons. They stress the importance of continuing to build public digital infrastructure, advancing the OpenGov movement, and promoting cooperation and community-building. France recognizes the challenges of implementing digital transformations, but also highlights the potential for inclusive and sustainable infrastructure through the use of simple and reusable standards. They underline the need to protect democracy beyond infrastructure and advocate for efficient enforcement. Ultimately, France believes in harnessing the power of innovation and empowering individuals to drive economic and social development.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
Good morning and a warm welcome. Since the room is not full yet, if you want, please also take a seat here at the table with us so that we can have a discussion with you. However, we are going to start now, since it’s already time. My name is Lea Gimpel, I’m with the Digital Public Goods Alliance, where I lead our work on country implementation and artificial intelligence, and I’m your moderator for the session today. And with me, I have Moritz Frommel-Jo, he’s with the UN, with the UN Envoys Office for Technology, who’s co-hosting the session today, and he’s the online moderator. So this session is about the effect of governments of open digital ecosystems, and we are going to talk about how to establish a framework for secure and inclusive digital public infrastructure today. And we have a fantastic panel of esteemed speakers here with us in the room, and I will introduce them in alphabetical order to you. First, we have Aileen Donahoe, the Special Envoy and Coordinator for Digital Freedom of the US Department of State, welcome. Then we have Amandeep Gill, the UN Secretary General’s Tech Envoy, who’s also the co-host of the session, as I said, welcome, Amandeep. We have Nele Liosk, the Digital Ambassador-at-Large from Estonia, thank you, Nele, for being here with us. Then we have Robert Opp, the Chief Digital Officer of the United Nations Development Programme, hi, Rob. And Henri Védier, last but not least, the French Ambassador for Digital Affairs. And before I give the word to my panel, I would like to start by a quick introduction, because the term of digital public infrastructure is not always well-defined, so I think it’s wise to first set the stage and speak about DPI and what we mean by this term for this panel discussion. By DPI, we basically mean society-wide digital capabilities that are essential to participation in society and markets for citizens, entrepreneurs, and consumers, and which are the foundation for public service delivery in the digital area. And this definition basically emphasises the functionality of digital public infrastructure, so it’s really about delivering services, both public and private. So what we don’t mean by this term, really, is foundational software, for instance, that underpins any other software solution, so that is one of the common misunderstandings. And we are also not talking about actual physical infrastructure, such as fibre optic cables, so just to be clear on that. And this kind of digital public infrastructure I was talking about, so digital public infrastructure with society-wide functions, such as digital ID, for instance, payment systems, data exchange systems, and civil registries, they have seen a real boost during the COVID-19 pandemic, because many countries invested in these foundational infrastructures heavily for pandemic response, so for instance, for cashless transfers. And part of this also involved that a lot of attention was given to speedy implementation, and maybe not so much attention was paid to actual, secure, safe, and inclusive implementation of these technologies. And I think the important thing to consider here, really, is that digital public infrastructure with society-wide function really has an extended risk to us, right? If we talk about technology that is implemented at population scale, we have risks such as data privacy issues, mass surveillance, and, for instance, deliberate or accidental exclusion of vulnerable groups. And that’s something that we really need to take care of, and also fix in case there was something implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic that didn’t really consider any of these due to the speediness of implementation and the need to react. And currently, what we see is a lot of momentum around digital public infrastructure, so you might have seen that IGF, it’s a topic that pops up in many of these sessions. And we need to discuss now how to make safeguards into digital public infrastructure design, implementation, as well as the governance of it. Because there’s also path dependency, right? So if we implement digital public infrastructure at population scale now, these kind of technologies will have an impact on people’s lives over many years. So we need to get it right at this very moment. And there’s a window of opportunity to do exactly that. And for this reason, we would like to talk today about the Universal DPI safeguards initiative that was launched by the UN Tech Envoys Office, as well as UNDP just recently, and basically discuss in the session what are the risks and how we can mitigate them, which good practices exist from already existing implementation and the lessons learned around this, as well as about the role of such a global DPI safeguards framework and what role it can play for design implementation and governance in the future of digital public infrastructure. And with that, I would like to pass on the word to my distinguished panel over there. And I would like to invite Amandeep to first tell us a bit more about the safeguards initiative that you recently launched. So why do you think there’s a need for something like this, for such an initiative, and what are your plans?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Thank you very much, Lea. Thank you to you and Moritz for moderating this panel. Very pleased to be here with the distinguished co-panelists. Why is there a need? I think the need arises from the growing interest and the growing consensus on the importance of DPIs. They have proven themselves to be a powerful way to enhance inclusion in the digital space, to drive innovation, to improve government service delivery, reaching the last mile. COVID was the big moment, but it’s been coming for a long time. And we have here on this panel in LA, so Estonia’s experience, the experience of India, many other countries. So it’s been coming for a while, and now there is global recognition. For instance, the G20 understanding on a framework for DPIs. Now, as you put it, before we get too far down this road, because there’ll be path dependencies, it’s important to put together some safeguards to ensure that some of the risks and the problems that we’ve already seen with digital public goods, digital public infrastructure, for instance, safety online, the security, the cyber security aspect, data protection aspect, the aspects related to inclusion or exclusion, the optionality, opt-in, opt-out type of issues, the issues related to buy-in from society, issues related to the legislative framework in which DPIs are placed. So it’s good to have a global standard, a global guidance that helps the players in the DPI ecosystem move forward confidently. We can’t say that you should not have DPIs, because that has its own opportunity cost consequences. For instance, we don’t say, you know, let’s just shut down the digital platforms. They also have billions online, et cetera. But we have to work actively to ensure that they continue to serve everyone, they continue to serve human flourishing, rather than, you know, create problems further down the road. That said, I would very concretely point to the call by the Secretary General in his policy brief on the Global Digital Compact for a safeguards framework on digital public infrastructure. You know, given the, and I’m sure Rob will speak about it, the demand that the UN has been seeing from the ground, the issues that we’ve been kind of facing in country, I think it is time to have this kind of framework, and the Secretary General has given that call. He’s also outlined this problem of fragmentation overall. So if we want to avoid fragmentation in this space, this can be a kind of a unifying baseline, and it can give civil society and other partners a common reference point. So this is the reason why jointly with the UNDP, we’ve launched this initiative. But this initiative won’t be limited to these two UN entities, others will join in. It’s an open call to all those who are involved in the DPI ecosystem, from DPGA, GovStack, to Dial and other important players. Also a call to civil society and private sector, who will be helping build this out and manage the interface between the tech side of it, the governance side of it, and the community side of it. Yesterday, I think even someone said that this is a socio-technical infrastructure we’re talking about. So it’s almost like a socio-legal technical infrastructure we’re talking about. So obviously the path forward has to be multi-stakeholder. Thank you.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
Thank you so much for these initial explanations. You already mentioned UNDP, so I would like to pass on the word to Rob for more about the Safe Grids initiative, why UNDP decided to join, and what have been your takeaways so far from UNDP’s experience in supporting digital public infrastructure implementation?

Robert Opp:
No, exactly. Thanks, Lea. Just building on what Amandeep said, where we are with this whole kind of discussion around digital public infrastructure is we’re essentially in the process of coalescing a movement around that, taking what has been done over the last 10, 15 years, in many cases, in countries like Estonia, India, and others, as Amandeep said, and looking at how can we offer this in a way that will help accelerate digital transformation in countries that are, let’s say, not as well developed in terms of their infrastructure, their digital infrastructure. And what’s really key with the whole concept of digital public infrastructure is that it needs to be seen as an approach rather than a technology or set of technologies. And that approach needs to have the notion of a governance structure around it with the appropriate safeguards. And as you mentioned in your intro, Lea, as the COVID pandemic basically hit countries and countries needed to respond, and as they really mounted their response, it was really clear that the kinds of requests that we received out of countries over time shifted from being very solution-focused to much more thinking about what is the overall ecosystem looking like and how do we shape that. And I think it’s natural that countries, they focus, generally speaking, on trying to solve an immediate problem, and that’s where you get a focus on technology first. And I think what’s exciting about this safeguards initiative is that we have now a chance to embed the thinking around what do you need to, when you’re planning for your ecosystem and you’re trying to solve your problem, you cannot forget that it needs to be accompanied, the technology needs to be accompanied by these kind of set of safeguards that should be in place to protect people, to protect the future success of your infrastructure work. And so on the safeguards initiative, the role of UNDP is to really work with the tech envoy’s office and the convening power that they have and to kind of run the consultations on their side but complement that with what’s happening in the field. And as we prototype and create hypothesis principles and safeguards, we want to test them at the country level. So we’ll be taking three to five countries, looking at the framework as it’s developing, testing that and seeing what it would actually look like on the ground and what do we learn from that, so creating that feedback cycle. And then as the safeguards framework emerges out of the consultations, out of the feedback cycle, really looking at well what would it take, what is it going to take to support countries to be able to actually put these in place and what kind of capacity needs will there be, really trying to understand what are the knowledge gaps that need to be addressed and so that this becomes much more, let’s say, easy to adopt for countries. We can’t just leave it at global principles, we have to really understand how countries are actually going to be able to do this. So that’s what we’re really focusing on, that’s what we’re really looking forward to in all of this. Thanks.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
So in a nutshell, let me just summarize before we move on to the country speakers. It’s about creating a movement around DPI, something that I really like in order to ensure that we protect people and at the same time deliver services. So I really love this notion and as you’ve all heard, it’s an open call for everyone to participate in, so please do so. And what I also really like is this idea of talking about an approach rather than technology because I think a lot of this discussion currently focuses on technological solutions and not so much about the governance aspects of these. And as you’ve all heard, countries are central to this initiative. It’s about developing ideas, it’s about testing in the field and then going back and working with that feedback. So I would like to move on to our country representatives. And first, I have Eileen here with us. The White House recently announced that the US will work on deploying robust and safeguarded digital public infrastructure. How will this approach be reflected in your engagement for DPI that empowers people via technology while also protecting their freedom?

Eileen Donahoe:
Great. First, let me say thank you for including me. I am a real neophyte on this topic and I’ve already learned a lot just from listening to all of you in this room and recently participated in another event with a subset in this room and I feel like I’m excited about this. I have an instinct that it’s really important, but I’m still catching the thread. So I’ll just say that up front. As a human rights advocate, what attracts me to this? I feel like it represents a very innovative combination of using technology to basically advance and jumpstart the SDGs in effect and expanding access to digital services around the world. But also, if done right, embedding human rights by design, as everybody has said. I would emphasize more explicitly human rights by design. And that’s a further conversation about what are the terms we use. Everybody knows that there is a tremendous yearning around the world to expand access to digital services and that we really do need technology to be an accelerant to meeting the SDGs. That’s the aspiration and the hope. It would be terrible if we did that in a way that we were actually making the most marginalized, vulnerable communities more vulnerable. So that is why, as everybody’s emphasizing, the technology and the standards go together simultaneously. And you raised it so well at the top, the tension between speed and that yearning. But if you do it in the wrong way, you’re only making things worse. And I would also add, I’ve hinted at this already, I do believe the international human rights law framework should be the normative foundation for thinking about this. I will admit the hard part is, what does that look like in practice? It’s the how. We know what, the how is the hard part. And I will acknowledge that I was in a room recently with Marianne from Access Now and she raised the point, and she just said it very explicitly, the big risk is surveillance states and this unconscious drift to becoming surveillance states. So that’s the really dark vision of this and that’s why we all have responsibility. On the U.S. side, basically that was, I hadn’t seen it, I looked it up last night, I have it. It is September 22, 2023. So this was after UNGA, so after our last conversation. And what really jumped out at me is this is a vision for the American people, it is domestic. People may be surprised to know the U.S. is really behind on this. I think people would be stunned. And the vision is to transform the way government communicates with the American people and rebuild American infrastructure. Which maybe all governments say that’s what they want to do, but I think people would be stunned at how far we are behind. And a couple of stats jumped out at me, basically only 2% of the federal government in the United States forms have been digitized. And the public spends more than 10.5 billion hours each year completing government paperwork. And about $140 billion in potential government benefits go unclaimed every year. So that gives you a sense of how far behind we are. So in effect, the United States is in this with everybody and has a lot to learn.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
Yeah, I think that’s a very good point, that it’s not only about low and middle income countries, right, but that we are speaking about high income countries and their approach to DPI as well. And I really like this idea of human rights by design, so that’s definitely something that I think we need to discuss. And talking about terms, I want to pass on to Henri, because France is the country that is always speaking about digital commons. And I would like to know from you, Henri, how is this concept of digital commons and DPI overlaps, or how they connect to each other, and where safeguards come in?

Henri Verdier:
Thank you, and thank you for the invitation. I will start with DPI. I was thinking that probably France started developing DPI before we even knew there were DPI. We did develop different level of digital identity. We’ve got France Connect. We are working hard on geographical information, public API, and so on. And this work was probably based on two sources. One was government as a platform, and I can welcome the work of the British Government Digital Service 10 years ago. And the other was a very ancient tradition of public service, with all its rules of neutrality, accessibility, mutability, equal access, and so on. The more we did work on these issues, I will come very briefly to comments. The more we did work on these issues, the more we have seen them as a more universal challenge, because we think now that if we want to preserve an open, free and neutral Internet, and if we want also to be true democracies, so without big states or big tech, we need this small layer of public services that enables everyone to act in the digital economy and to be part of the decision process. That’s why now we consider those challenges are universal and related to democracy. And that’s also why this commitment for DPIs meets our commitments to the digital commons. We can’t stress enough just how important the commons are to the Internet as we know it. Free software, open standards, data, knowledge commons are the very core, the true core of Internet. And these two commitments can easily be linked, so they don’t overlap. It is possible to conceive good IPOs that are not commons, and some commons do not become infrastructures. But when the two ambitions come together, it can be very powerful. And if we, just to finish, if we come back to the question of safety, I think that we cannot conceive a real democracy without public infrastructure. But not every infrastructure will empower democracy. That’s simple. So we need to conceive, and that’s why we welcome this work, we need to conceive a set of rules. Probably we know most of them, but we have to order them, like real transparency, transparent governance, shared governance, security by design, privacy by design, etc. But we need to make a proper work and to share this broadly. Because, again, I finish with this, we cannot, we and not just me, France, we consider that we cannot conceive a fair development of Internet without good public infrastructure, but that not every

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
infrastructure will empower democracy. Thank you so much for these comments. And I, yeah, I really, I think it’s a fair point to say that we, like, in a way we know the rules, we know the principles, right? We talk about these buzzwords, transparency, accountability, and such. But I think there’s a real good point in it that we need to move forward from principles to practice. And do you have experience in implementing DPI? And as you said, I mean, you’ve been implementing DPI without calling it DPI for quite a while. And I think the same is true for Estonia. We talked about this earlier before the session, that what you’re doing, you don’t call it DPI, but it is DPI, what you’re doing. So Nelle, from your experience, as Estonia as a global digital leader, what considerations should be integrated in such a safeguards framework? And how should such a process look like when we develop it over the next couple of months?

Speaker 1:
Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Lea, and thank you for the opportunity to be here. And I believe I will actually summarize or build on what all my good colleagues have already touched upon. But the first is really the notion of the DPI. That is, I would say, a rather new term, but actually standing for some of these important principles in digitalization. So from this point of view, I believe we all have good experiences. It’s not the usual suspect of Estonia and India and many others, but all countries have digitalized their societies to some extent. But to give answer to your question, I believe it might be useful actually to revisit some of these origins of what we call DPI, that is a new movement or a trend, as we have heard. And some of it actually Henry referred to, and this is really, I would say, one of these origins is philosophical, and the other is perhaps more practical. So the philosophical really comes to understanding the role of the government in our society. Is it only to serve the people by providing services? Is it also to act as a partner? Is it to share everything that the government does? So we can say that actually digitalizing, following these important principles that you also mentioned, openness, transparency, inclusiveness, it started really with rebuilding Estonian state in the 90s. It started with freedom of information, it started with privacy issues, it started with security issues, and then it moved to the digital sphere, where we started to talk about interoperability, open standards, and so forth. So I would say that it was really this logical continuation of what we had started to reform in reforming our state. But the other reason, it’s actually very practical, and this really, Estonian government sort of started to realize in the 90s that actually the needs of the government, but also private sector and other partners in digitalization are rather similar. And this came to joining forces and really sharing our resources. So in the 90s, Estonian government, together with the private sector, started to develop, for example, a digital identity that was mentioned, and we do use one digital identity across the government, but also private sector. And this is actually one of these important, or this led actually to one very important precondition for the DPI to work, and this is really the habit of working together and building trust. Because on the one hand, yes, we can build trust by setting principles, having a great legal framework, but it is definitely not enough. All the partners need to feel that they equally contribute, and they equally also take responsibility, and at times also risks. And the last thing we often forget, that in order to make things work, sometimes we must be ready to fail and take responsibility for this. So this would be perhaps some of the takeaways from Estonian side. Thank you so much. Well, I think

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
failing for governments and taking responsibility, that’s definitely a challenge for many still, so that’s probably something we can also learn from Estonia, if there’s anything that you want to share. I really like this notion of, you know, building cooperation and trust, and involving everyone in this effort, right? So as Amandeep explained in his initial statement, it’s a multi-stakeholder initiative. So this idea of a DPI safeguards framework, and it’s really about involving everyone to take part in developing these principles, but also, you know, defining how to move into practice with that. And I would now like to, well, ask you as my panelists to react to what you’ve heard. So Nella already summarized bits of it, but we have a bit of time for a rather open discussion. Before, I will open it also to the audience and ask you to raise your questions, both online as well as here on site. So another 10 minutes for the open discussion among the panelists, and then I will open up, because I already saw a hand over there. So it’s definitely a topic where many questions exist and we need to discuss. But please, first, if any of you want to react to what you’ve heard, please go ahead. And if there’s nothing, I have a range of questions, of course, as we’re prepared.

Henri Verdier:
Maybe I could quote an Indian friend from Bangalore that told me recently, Europe, you did build your prosperity and your independence through public infrastructure, rails, roads, train, water. And then suddenly, you did stop at the end of the 70s, for some ideological reasons. And the economy did continue to evolve. And now, digital identity, infrastructure for payment, are as important as roads a century ago. And it did convince me.

Eileen Donahoe:
So I do have a question. We talked about the tension between speed and standards. Amandeep, you said it right at the top, that, you know, you’re talking about the need for global standards. And that works for me, because I think of the human rights framework as a global standard, as a basis and an anchor for thinking about these things, already universally applicable, and it’s an understood language. However, when I think about it, in the context, even of my own government, and the approach that I just described, it strikes me that the way many governments think about providing public services, pre-digital, is that it’s their job, it’s government providing services. And so I think all governments are, most governments, many governments, hopefully, are learning about multi-stakeholder process and understanding when it comes to digital technology, they need help. And that means including the technical community, civil society, academic experts, etc., private sector. I think there’s been progress there. If you add, then, the global multi-stakeholder approach to governments, that’s a bigger leap. So part of me, I raised this because I think that’s where the human rights framework can help. Because governments will be comfortable that they’ve already signed up for this, and they know what it is, and there’s a sense of trust. Otherwise, I think governments will be reticent to, and even in terms of political discourse domestically, the idea of including a global multi-stakeholder input process might seem challenging to people who haven’t been exposed to global multi-stakeholder process. So that’s one of the areas I see that we really need to help governments sort of jump ahead and collapse this tension between local, domestic and international.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Yes, if I may jump in quickly, I think building on Eileen’s point, I think the foundations are essentially twofold. There is human rights, the international human rights commitments, and there’s the SDGs framework, leaving no one behind the 17 goals, gender equality, even good governance, zero hunger, removing poverty. So those are our foundations. And the opportunity from local to global is that we have next year the Summit of the Future. So the Global Digital Compact is going to be one of the deliverables for that summit. So how can we, when we are translating the vision of the Global Digital Compact on accelerating progress on the SDGs, addressing the digital divide, alongside how can this safeguards framework, this enabler, as Rob put it, for the DPI’s movement overall, how can that be a concrete offering to support that vision and to take it forward? So in a sense, we are going from that agreement among 2021 now in the G20, which is pathbreaking in New Delhi, to a larger framework where you have 193 countries, civil society, private sector coming together to endorse this movement. And my last point is on this, the private sector aspect, because it is not just government services, public services we are talking about. What DPI’s do is they create an innovation ecosystem. They, through this combination of common rails, guardrails, they lower the entry barriers to innovation, linking with Ahi’s point about the digital economy, the importance of a dynamic national digital economy, where you have, yes, citizen facing government services, but you have businesses, whether they are coming from FinTech, etc., who are boosting the demand for digital services and digital products. So there is a supply side paradigm on infrastructure that we are used to. But DPI’s are more complex and more sophisticated, because they play on demand as well. A farmer who really doesn’t have an incentive to connect, you know, can the DPI’s and the services provided on DPI’s, both publicly and privately, can they create that demand for that farm to say, okay, I need to, you know, plug in as well, in an empowered way.

Speaker 1:
Yeah, maybe just to stress some aspects, which I believe are important when we talk about this DPI movement or discourse. And what I really like about the DPI is it actually reminds of the basics. So when we look, for example, at the conversations here over the past days, and generally this year, and I’m sure also next year, it is all about very advanced things, AI, Internet of Things. There was a blockchain buzz a few years back. And at the same time, many of the governments and societies actually that are talking about AI and everything else have not yet actually fixed the very basics, data governance, digital authentication, and so many other things. So I think all the basic public infrastructure, so in this sense, I think DPI has spotted it well that we need to have this base in order to move further. And the second is actually related to the myth that also Amadeep and Henri and others pointed, and it’s really about the role of the private sector. So DPI does not, or good digitalization does not mean that the government is doing everything, but it’s really about sharing what it does, and really making sure that some of these important principles like security and privacy are guaranteed, because this is an obligation that is different from the private sector. So it is a public sector’s task to make sure that the people feel good in this virtual world. And the third one, and this is maybe a call actually also from my side, is really related to sharing and reusing. There are so many governments that are making their tools available, making their source codes available. We see a lot of sharing. We don’t see that much reusing or even doing together. And this comes to the question like why we don’t do that, and it’s probably trust issues, maybe readiness issues. There are different issues, but definitely a mindset issue. So from Estonia, we have a good example together with our great neighbors in Finland and Iceland, where we have come together, we have created a foundation. We make sure that we develop certain digital products together, because we need them. And we also make them available to the world, and also make sure that they are updated to security and other requirements. So I think this is a good example of a DPI safeguard. But definitely I’m calling us to share and use more what others do.

Robert Opp:
Yeah, and actually, Nelia, I was going to pick up on something you said earlier, but also this comment. My reaction, when I listen to these conversations, and in all of our engagement this year as part of the G20, as a knowledge partner, and in all of the other discussions that we have, I’m constantly thinking about how do we take it from, I think, as Amandeep, you said, the 20 or so to the 150, 170, 100, the countries that are out there that haven’t done this or done it in a sort of package, the way that we’re talking about as an approach. And what strikes me is we can get our technology packages, and we can get our standards packages, but there is still a mindset issue. And that will take some time to get people, let’s say, somehow, we have to learn how to incentivize people to share, to work together, change the mindset, and really understand that this is a movement that we’re pushing toward. And I think the safeguards initiative we’re talking about today is a step in the right direction to do that. The implementation and how we scale is what is kind of on my mind constantly. So that my call to the genius that exists in humanity out there is what are the scalable ways to ensure that we’re changing the mindset as we do this?

Henri Verdier:
I can make three brief comments. First to Eileen and Amandeep, yes, you’re right, we have two sources that are the SDGs and human rights, but maybe there is a third one, and you know it very well, Eileen, this is the OpenGov movement. What we did learn 10 years ago is that everything the government does can create much more value if we unleash innovation. We saw this with data, with source code, and now we can see this with infrastructure. And we have a lot of important lessons to learn from this movement. The second point regarding private sector, just to mention, when I did mention the long tradition of public service, public service can be made by private sector. Public service don’t have to be free. The thing is that the public service has to respect some rules and cannot be the man in the middle taking all the added value. It has to be neutral, to be equal access, you can finance it, but you cannot take the added value. So we can easily build it with the private sector. And the third and last point, Nele, you’re right, a lot of people try to share, a few people try to cooperate, and that’s one other way where we can be inspired by the common movements. Because to build community, to work all together, is not the same thing as just to share the code. And you have to think about cooperation, governance, but even if you go into the details, good documentation, certain kind of codes, this is not so easy. You cannot just open your code like this.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
Thank you so much, all of you. I think there’s a lot of appetite for discussion also amongst the panelists, and I think we could go on and on here. I would like to open it to the audience now with their questions. If you want to ask something, please line up at the microphone, and for those of you who are sitting more in this area, we might also pass around the mic if there are questions. Please go ahead, and Moritz, be prepared to also raise some online questions, please. Maybe we collect some questions and then we allocate them among the speakers. Yes, go ahead, please.

Audience:
Thank you. Good morning, distinguished speakers, Lea for bringing them here, everyone. I’m Ale, Costa Barbosa, I’m from Brazil. I’m a fellow at the Weizenmauer Institute in Berlin, and also a coordinator for the Homeless Workers Movement technology sector in Brazil. So I’m representing those who really rely on DPIs, let’s say. And just a quick moment on self-marketing. I had the opportunity to coordinate a research with Laotian in 2019 on identification for development somehow in Latin America. I think it’s really worth it. So it’s indeed a really old discussion, for instance. And recently, we’re about to launch a report on… on digital education in terms of infrastructure and sovereignty held by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which I think should be considered not only as more sector applications. And I also like to hear the fact of geographic information systems being considered DPI somehow for you. But I’d like to hear the GDC, the Global Digital Compact, claims for sustainable DPIs. And taking into account that the last meeting of G20 in India somehow came up with a common agenda. And the following two hosting countries will be Brazil and South Africa. I’d like to hear how can we ensure that DPI will be sustainable, considering the environment, the last mile, if you’re not taking physical infrastructures into account. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I’m Mahesh Perra from Sri Lanka. It’s good to hear that we have been talking about digital government, connected government to DPI. Now, in this journey, I mean, I think Estonia has quite successful in digital government, connected government from the inception. I mean, many countries have failed in the design, in the implementation, as the moderator said about in the governance. I mean, all three stages, we did mistakes and not achieved the expected result. Now, I’m quite pleased to hear that we are talking about DPI standards and DPI safeguard initiatives. I mean, I would like to see if we can talk about DPI by design, DPI by implementation, DPI by governance. I mean, it’s all about standards. It’s about giving standards, giving about certain measures that government and the implementers must follow by the design, by the implementation, and by the governance. I think we have plenty of questions for their later presence, for their feedback. But a couple of things that arise to my mind from listening to you, there’s so much opportunity for bringing up the potential for surveillance for the future. And this is a major concern when we talk about interoperability. Is it off? It was off. But I think that my voice was loud enough and everyone was kind of listening. Over there, Marina was listening over there. Oh, I have a good theater voice. OK, I was saying thank you so much for bringing up the potential for surveillance if we don’t get it right. So we have to think about, as it was mentioned, human rights by design from the stage, from design before implementation. This is a main concern because of the tension that we were mentioning earlier about the speed for implementation. We are really running towards it. And we cannot implement the safeguard at the same time we are implementing the infrastructure. It has to come before. Otherwise, it won’t work. And this comes then to the main concern that we have, which is the concept of human rights by design needs to be unpacked. We need to mention specifically what do we mean by that. And even though we do have, of course, human rights framework for the world, we have all of the declarations, it needs to be said specifically what it means when we talk about privacy, when we talk about freedom of speech, when we talk about rights that we usually do not touch on when we talk about technology, like the right to dignity, the right to autonomy. And all of this is involved because we are touching on very essential aspects of the human experience, basically. So when we build safeguards for these processes, safeguards are saying that we need to have safeguards. It’s not enough. The safeguards need to have a way of being implemented that allows for the systems, if we realize that they are causing harm, the systems to be stopped or even rolled back. And we do not have that in many, many places. I work on digital ID and the systems. The safeguards are about negotiating, maybe, the possibility of an eventual remedy, which is not enough at all. And we do need remedy. But we also need to be thinking about stop and rollback, if needed, to be able to reconsider, re-evaluate, and implement changes. And we had a lot of conversations yesterday around the fact that there is no model of digital ID that just works. And it is constant learning. It’s a process of constant learning in the context. So we need to be open for the infrastructure to be adaptive, to be responsive to what might or might not be working. And the question here, because I swear there is a question, I swear, is, are we giving any thought to the right of anonymity in here? Because I think that we all agree, because this is a standard, an international standard, that the right to anonymity is essential to freedom of speech and, generally, civil and political rights and also rights like autonomy, again. But if we create models that are all-encompassing in a way that they require to be identified at every step in places where we don’t necessarily need to have that amount of information of the person, then where is the space for the people to be private, to hide, to have that space that is needed as human beings? So my question is, we are implementing this infrastructure, yes, for the farmers, right? Because we need them to get the services that they need. But how much information do we need for the farmer?

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
Thank you so much for all of these questions. I make a stop here and quickly summarize. And Moritz, if there’s anything that you can add to this package, please do say so. Just quickly, we had a question around sustainability of digital public infrastructure. We had a question around DPG standards and what it means to implement DPI in a way of human rights by design, and what is behind there, and what about the right of anonymity of people? Is there anything that you can add to this little package of questions? Yeah, there was one question online on the enforceability of the safeguards framework, because what good is a nice standard if we can’t enforce them on the ground? Please go ahead, whoever feels inclined to answer.

Henri Verdier:
OK, so very briefly, you say that sometimes countries have failed. And I totally agree. I don’t know if you know, but before being a diplomat, I was a state CTO for France. So I had to conduct some of the transformation. And the dirty little secret is that governments are not always able to make simple, to make it simple. And to respect open standards, to build small pieces, reusable, to build, to respect agile methodologies is not very usual for governments. I don’t know if you can imagine the state IT for France, for example. I had to disconnect some projects that did cost one billion euros, for example, and that did fail after 15 years of experiments. So, we have to, the dirty little secret is that there is also a digital disruption within the history of IT. And we have to change the way we do develop. That’s not simple, but we can do it. And that’s one important thing. And when we, the more simple we do develop, the more small pieces of clear standards we use, the more it’s easy to make an inclusive and sustainable infrastructure. You did mention homeless workers. In Bangalore, the tuk-tuk, you know, the rickshaw, they did alone using UPI and bacon. They decided to avoid Uber. So they did pay, but that was really inexpensive, maybe 50,000 euros, $50,000. They did develop a solution to call a rickshaw, and they did implement some Indian rules. So, for example, you can bargain, you can negotiate the price. And that’s very interesting because they told me, we are there decades before Uber, and we’ll be there decades after Uber. So, why should we organize ourselves through Uber? So, they decided to have a direct access to a very important infrastructure. Just in one word, I think very often about how can an authoritarian regime use infrastructure? I think that we can implement some securities, and we will. But, in fact, an infrastructure is an infrastructure. And if you have evil purposes, you will use the infrastructure for your evil purposes. That’s the same with trains, with the highway, with everything. So we cannot protect democracy just through while implementing rules in the infrastructure. So we need more.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
I don’t think there is anything to add to what Ami has just said. Maybe our Brazilian friends question about the incoming G20 presidency. So that’s an opportunity to kind of, as Rob put it, make this movement more sustainable and more, in a sense, contextually interesting in Africa, in Latin America. So, building on what has been achieved during the Indian presidency, and Ahi and many others have played a key role in that amazing outcome. So, that needs to be taken to new areas. Those learnings incorporate, as Nelly has said, we need to bring in those learnings. I mean, in the Nordic region, you have this kind of an ecosystem that of mutual learning. So can we build it in other places, make the DPIs work more regional and context-sensitive? And on the point about enforceability that came online, I think what we can do by leveraging the GDC process is to ensure that when there is a regular review and follow-up of the GDC principles, action framework, that there is a regular discussion as part of that on how we are doing on DPIs. So, where this safeguards framework acts as a reference point and there is a regular discussion. And there, obviously, we can create some soft pressure, some normative pressure on those who are falling behind or not living up to that standard.

Eileen Donahoe:
So, I will just underscore several points made by a colleague from Sri Lanka, Anri Amandeep. I’m hearing two, three added reasons that a global open standards are valuable. One is well-intentioned governments who may have failed or would otherwise fail need the help. And so, sharing the knowledge and the know-how is valuable. Second, to Marianne’s point, and Amandeep, global open standards actually increase the likelihood of accountability if standards deployed will be higher than would otherwise happen if governments are left to their own devices. And that applies to well-intentioned governments who do things the wrong way with inadequate standards and less well-intentioned. Amandeep, your last point, though, underscores why or how the global digital compact process itself with follow-up can add not full teeth. I mean, even the international human rights law framework is not fully enforceable, in fact, but the soft norms, that kind of pressure and global open eyeballs on everybody’s systems adds value. So, there’s a real benefit.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
I’m afraid we are running out of time here. Sorry for that. Eileen, you already did a great job in summarising what we’ve been discussing here. Thank you. I would like to add a few quick points as well before I give it over to my panellists again for a quick 30-second key takeaway message from each of you. So, what stuck with me specifically is that the DPI Safeguards Initiative is an opportunity also to reflect in a philosophical way on the role of government. So, what is it actually that governments need to do in the 21st digital era and how can we make sure that they deliver on that, both in terms of public service delivery as well as in being a partner for citizens as well as for the private sector. And this connects quite nicely to this pragmatic approach as well, which I would coin as a society-wide approach that enables everyone to build on top of it, including the private sector, including building an innovation ecosystem, which I think is a very important point in order to also help digital economies to evolve. Secondly, we also talked about vehicles and how to bring on and create commitment for the Safeguards Initiative. And the Global Digital Compact was mentioned as one of these vehicles, but we also discussed the Human Rights Convention as well as all the work that has been already done on the open government partnership and initiatives around this area. I think there’s a lot of legacy work, actually, that we can build on. And thirdly, as a DBGA, of course, I really like this idea of sharing technology, of sharing learnings, and of reusing these and building cooperation around these. And what stuck with me specifically is this idea of changing mindsets while implementing at scale. Thanks, Rob, for this great sentence here. And I think that’s exactly what we need to strive for when we are implementing. These are my key takeaways. Over to you, esteemed panel. What are yours?

Speaker 1:
Yes, I will actually end by responding to some of the questions, which I think were actually very important also to keep in mind when we talk about data public infrastructure. One is related to sustainability. And, you know, terms may come and go, and maybe in five years’ time we don’t talk about DPI anymore, or connected governance, or mobile governance. It’s actually important not to lose what has been done before, because we often see that projects come and go, and sometimes governments give up, civil society gives up. But we need to remember, actually, that changes take time, and actually people are rather conservative. So we see that actually from Estonia, that in order for certain services to be uptaken, some new change to be implemented, we may need six, seven, eight years. The Internet voting, that we still carry out in Estonia. First time we had 0.8% of votes coming via the Internet. Now it’s almost 50% of the voters. And the second one is really about how we can guarantee privacy, security, and now we have also human rights by design. It’s actually not one country’s issue, it is a global issue. And it’s not a government issue, but also private sector, and increasingly private sector issues. So there comes the role of these global movements that we have been talking about.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
Please, a short answer.

Robert Opp:
Okay, well I have many takeaways, but I’ll only, I’ll mention one, I guess. Maybe, no, I’ll mention one. You know, I think what strikes me in this conversation and kind of connecting dots with a lot of other things is although these things take time and people are inherently conservative, we have waves that are coming globally like artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies that will challenge the human ability to keep up. And at the end of the day, governments are a human endeavor, civil society’s human endeavor. And the question then becomes how might we really construct this approach globally with the safeguards and with the scalable packages of human rights by design, privacy by design, the other things that we know are important, how might we do this and roll it out as quickly as possible while creating trust and while creating that sharing. And this is just kind of what keeps me awake at night, kind of what drives us to work on this, which is why the potential is so strong for this approach. I’ll leave it there.

Henri Verdier:
One word. Someone did ask how will you implement or enforce this approach. And I will say we do it because it’s the most efficient way, and we will prove it. To empower the people, to unleash innovation, to guarantee fundamental freedom is the most efficient organization for the economic and social development of a country.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
I’d just say that this is the beginning of a journey, that we just announced the initiative last month, and this is in fact the first official consultation. So going back to your point, Mariana, about some of these granular issues around right to anonymity, unpacking the concept. So we’re at the beginning, and with your help, we’ll be able to do that. Thank you.

Eileen Donahoe:
Exactly that point. Unpacking the concept of human rights by design. What does that look like in practice to do it well? Obviously cross-regional, cross-stakeholder group, but I would underscore cross-disciplinary in the intellectual sense, because it really is about people who understand norms, soft norms, and hard law, how it works, and technologists, and the innovators. And bringing them together with a shared language is also part of the challenge.

Moderator – Lea Gimpel:
So it’s the beginning of a journey. Thank you so much, everyone, my speakers, the audience. If you want to know more about the DPI Safeguards Initiative, they have a website where you can read up on it, and also subscribe to their newsletter if you want to know more about the ongoing consultations. And with that, I would like to end it and wish you all a great day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.