Internet standards and human rights | IGF 2023 WS #460

Colin Perkins

Colin Perkins, an academic with extensive experience in standard development, highlights the primary challenge faced by individuals in participating in this field: funding. Perkins argues that the lack of financial resources presents a significant barrier for those who wish to contribute to standard development. This observation reflects a negative sentiment towards the current state of funding in this area.

To address this issue, Perkins suggests that remote participation, facilitated through video conferencing and email discussions, can be a cost-effective and efficient alternative for those unable to attend standard development events in person. While he acknowledges that remote participation may not be as effective as physical presence, he asserts that it is better than no participation at all. This perspective demonstrates a positive outlook on the potential of remote participation in overcoming the challenges associated with physical presence constraints.

Regarding diversity in standard development organizations (SDOs), Perkins notes that diversity has significantly increased over time. He highlights the shift from 75% of Request for Comments (RFCs) originating from North America 20 years ago to the current figure of 40%. Additionally, Perkins points out that the number of RFCs from Europe and Asia has doubled in the past two decades. However, he acknowledges that participation from South America, Africa, and women remains inadequate. This mixed sentiment underscores the growth of diversity while recognizing the need for further progress in achieving greater inclusivity.

Lastly, Perkins asserts that engagement in standard development requires time, effort, and expertise. He emphasizes that gaining the necessary expertise is not an instantaneous process, underscoring the importance of investing in education and continuous learning. This neutral sentiment highlights the commitment and dedication necessary for effective engagement in standard development.

In summary, Colin Perkins emphasizes the significant funding challenge faced by individuals interested in participating in standard development. He also highlights the potential of remote participation as an alternative for those unable to attend in person, while acknowledging its limitations. Perkins acknowledges the progress in diversity within SDOs but notes the need for increased participation from underrepresented groups. Lastly, he emphasizes the importance of time, effort, and expertise in engaging in standard development. These insights provide valuable considerations for addressing the current limitations and future directions in the field of standard development.

Ignacio Castro

The process of standardization for technical standards is becoming more complex, involving a wider range of stakeholders and taking approximately three years from the initial draft to publication. This increasing complexity is attributed to the participation of a larger number of areas, people, countries, and companies. The expansion of technical standards highlights the need for continuous updates and enhancements to meet the evolving requirements of industries, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

However, although many Internet Standard Bodies are open, accessibility to these standards remains a significant challenge. It has been observed that accessibility is limited to individuals who have a technical background, understand the standards, and have the time and energy to engage with them. This lack of accessibility contradicts the principle that open standards should be accessible to everyone. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities can only be achieved when accessibility is inclusive, enabling everyone to benefit from and contribute to technical standards.

Another hindrance to engaging with technical standard bodies is the requirement of a technical background. While this may seem obvious, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all participants in the standardization process possess the necessary technical expertise. This limitation can potentially exclude valuable perspectives and hinder the development of more inclusive and comprehensive standards. Recognizing and addressing this issue is essential for achieving the collaborative and cooperative goals outlined in SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals, which emphasizes the importance of partnerships.

To address the challenge of accessibility and promote inclusivity within technical standard bodies, further research is needed. One proposed approach is the analysis of standardization processes, which has the potential to bridge the gaps and make standards more accessible to individuals without a technical background. A research group led by an expert in this field is actively examining standardization processes within the International Research Task Force (IRTF). This research aims to provide insights and recommendations for making standard bodies more accessible to a wider audience.

In conclusion, the standardization process for technical standards is becoming more complex, requiring the involvement of more stakeholders and an extended timeframe for development. However, accessibility to these standards remains limited to individuals with a technical background, creating barriers to inclusivity. Engaging with technical standard bodies demands technical expertise, but acknowledging the need for inclusivity without such expertise is crucial. Further research into analyzing standardization processes can contribute to addressing accessibility challenges and making technical standard bodies accessible to all.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar

The discussion focused on the significance of internet standards in shaping our lives and the exercise of human rights in the digital age. It was emphasised that the growing dependence on the internet and digital technologies makes the role of internet standards crucial.

The Office for the Human Rights Commissioner published a report that aimed to provide an understanding of how technical standards intersect with human rights. The report highlighted the need to comprehend the impact of new and emerging technologies on human rights. It encouraged the integration of human rights perspectives in technical standard-setting organisations. The report also underlined the importance of sharing experiences to foster a better understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with engagement in standard-setting forums.

There was a consensus that a wider range of stakeholders should be involved in standards development to enhance inclusivity and comprehensiveness. It was acknowledged that involving diverse perspectives is necessary to ensure that the standards reflect a broader range of interests and considerations.

Challenges faced at standard forums were discussed, and there was an emphasis on finding ways to overcome these challenges to represent diverse perspectives effectively. Moderator Sheetal Kumar appreciated the panel’s input and highlighted the need to address the identified challenges.

One notable observation was that technical standards are deemed complex and difficult to monitor. This highlights the need for improved accessibility and understanding of these standards for a broader audience beyond those who possess technical expertise.

It was recognised that efforts should be made to encourage and engage communities that want to participate in technical standards, even if they do not have a technical background. The session emphasised the importance of fostering collaboration between technical and non-technical communities.

The session also discussed the progress being made to make internet standards more accessible and human rights-oriented. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group were mentioned as organisations that have already started working towards this goal. Recommendations from the OHCHR report, as well as the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, can serve as frameworks to ensure proper human rights due diligence in standards organisations.

Overall, the session recognised the challenges and complexities involved in standards development and implementation. However, there was a consensus on the need for change and a strong desire to implement the shared ideas and recommendations. The session concluded by looking forward to seeing the implementation of these ideas and recommendations to create standards that are more inclusive, responsive to diverse perspectives, and uphold human rights.

Peggy

The landscape of standard-setting bodies in relation to human rights in digital governance processes is characterised by diversity and complexity, presenting various challenges that need to be addressed. One of the key issues lies in the lack of meaningful participation and transparency in the standard-setting processes. This hampers the ability of stakeholders to actively contribute and shape the standards, leading to potential biases and imbalances in their development. Moreover, financial, cultural, and language barriers further exacerbate the problem by excluding certain groups from participating effectively.

Furthermore, there is a pressing need for equal access and inclusion in standard-setting bodies, particularly for civil society, academia, marginalised voices, women, youth, and voices from global majority. Despite the doors being seemingly open, obstacles continue to hinder their engagement in these processes. This indicates that more efforts are required to ensure that these bodies become genuinely inclusive and reflect a broader range of perspectives and experiences. Additionally, it is worth noting that these standard-setting processes are often dominated by large companies due to their greater resources, which can perpetuate power imbalances.

However, there is a positive development in the form of a strong appetite from standard-setting bodies to improve their engagement with communities affected by digital technologies. They recognise that their credibility and effectiveness depend on incorporating the insights and concerns of these communities. This acknowledgement suggests a growing recognition of the importance of inclusive decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the landscape of standard-setting bodies in the context of human rights in digital governance processes presents a complex and diverse picture. The challenges that need to be addressed include the lack of meaningful participation, transparency, financial, cultural, and language barriers, and the dominance of large companies. Nonetheless, there is a growing awareness of the need for equal access and inclusion, and an appetite among standard-setting bodies to engage more effectively with affected communities. These insights highlight the importance of enhancing participation, inclusivity, and transparency within standard-setting processes to ensure the development of fair and effective digital governance standards.

Vanessa Cravo

Standards play a significant role in our lives, impacting how we live and communicate. They shape various aspects of our daily lives, from the products we use to the services we rely on. However, standardization processes are often not representative of all regions, particularly the Global South. This underrepresentation leads to inequalities and hinders the inclusion of diverse perspectives.

Furthermore, the development of standards often fails to consider the needs of every demographic, resulting in potential harm to certain groups. For example, seatbelts that do not prioritize women’s safety can pose risks to female passengers. It is crucial for standards to be inclusive and prioritize the needs and safety of all individuals.

The role of standards has evolved with the emergence of new technologies and changing demands. This evolution necessitates a shift in how we approach processes and organizations to effectively address these changes.

Stakeholder engagement is vital in the standardization process. Engaging all parties, including academia, fosters a more diverse and inclusive discussion. The inclusion of academia in sessions addressing standardization within the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is an important step towards incorporating their expertise and perspectives.

Brazil serves as an example of a country that actively involves diverse stakeholders in its national standardization processes. With an open and plural organization, Brazil encourages discussion and participation from multiple perspectives.

Digital technologies have a significant impact on our lives, and their regulatory standards require comprehensive discussions. The rapid development and adoption of emerging technologies call for proactive and thorough debates to ensure that the standards effectively address associated risks and opportunities.

While some standard organizations strive for openness, it does not guarantee universal engagement in discussions. Openness must be accompanied by active efforts to involve different stakeholders to ensure a truly inclusive standardization process.

It is essential for standard organizations to embed human rights considerations in their processes. Discussions surrounding standards should include a focus on upholding human rights principles to ensure ethical outcomes.

Civil society plays a crucial role in the standardization process, and its engagement with national governments is key to participation in standard organizations. The Philippines and Brazil serve as examples of countries where national delegations provide platforms for civil society engagement.

However, barriers, such as membership fees associated with standard organizations, hinder civil society participation. These fees limit involvement and perpetuate inequalities. Efforts should be made to address these barriers and promote equal participation.

In conclusion, standards have a significant impact on our lives and require an inclusive and diverse approach. Addressing the underrepresentation of the Global South and considering the needs of every demographic are essential to avoid harm. Stakeholder engagement, including academia and civil society, is vital for a comprehensive and equitable standardization process. Openness and the inclusion of human rights considerations should be embedded in the processes of standard organizations. Additionally, barriers that limit civil society participation, such as membership fees, should be addressed to promote equal engagement.

Yog Desai

This analysis explores the critical role of funding in enhancing the participation of the global South in standardization organizations. It emphasizes the need for continuous financial support, rather than one-time contributions, to ensure meaningful engagement. To achieve a well-rounded representation, the interests of the broader community should be considered, rather than solely focusing on government agendas.

The study highlights the importance of physical presence during discussions and decision-making processes within these organizations. This active involvement requires substantial financial backing for travel expenses, accommodation, and related costs. By securing adequate funding, organizations can enable representatives from the global South to contribute significantly and have their voices heard on standardization matters, promoting diverse perspectives and reducing inequalities.

Additionally, the analysis stresses the importance of sourcing funding in line with the interests of the broader community. It points out that certain programs, such as those implemented by the Indian government, often send representatives who primarily prioritize government interests. However, for effective representation, funding decisions should consider the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders, including civil society organizations, academia, and industry.

Moreover, the analysis calls for increased awareness among social science researchers about their role in the standardization domain. By actively engaging with this field, researchers can better understand the actions and impacts of standardization processes on socio-economic aspects. This knowledge can inform policymaking, encourage innovative solutions, and contribute to achieving SDG 9 on Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

In conclusion, this analysis highlights the critical link between funding and increased participation of the global South in standardization organizations. It advocates for continuous financial support and a community-focused approach. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance of social science researchers contributing their expertise to the standardization domain. By addressing these considerations, a more inclusive and equitable standardization landscape can be fostered, supporting the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Eva Ignatuschtschenko

The UK government has a strong track record of engaging in international technical standards, supporting a multi-stakeholder and industry-led system that promotes inclusivity and participation. They have recently embedded standards in the G7 agreements, highlighting their dedication to global cooperation. The government also prioritizes the promotion of human rights within technical standards, recognizing potential infringements on privacy and personal liberties. They emphasize the importance of ethics in developing standards for emerging technologies like AI. Meaningful engagement between human rights experts and standards bodies is crucial, as is investment in organizational development and collaboration. When it is not feasible to involve all civil society organizations directly, working with proxies can ensure their presence. The government supports collective action and knowledge-sharing among organizations to address challenges effectively. By prioritizing these principles, the UK government fosters innovation and progress in the development and implementation of technical standards.

Natam

The analysis explores the issue of inequality in the participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance. It highlights that the limited participation of such organisations is due to the lack of resources and technical capacity. This inequality raises concerns about the inclusivity and representativeness of standard-setting processes.

Data Privacy Brazil emphasizes the need for standard-setting bodies to incorporate discussions on human rights. Their submission to the Human Rights Office call for inputs underscores the importance of integrating human rights considerations into the development of technical standards. By incorporating human rights discussions, standard-setting bodies can ensure that their processes align with principles such as freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination.

On a positive note, advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach has the potential to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations. By involving multiple stakeholders, including CSOs and human rights experts, in the standard-setting processes, a broader range of perspectives and expertise can be integrated. This approach ensures that human rights considerations are taken into account and that the resulting standards are more inclusive and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) acts as a space that provides opportunities for CSOs to participate in international standard-setting processes. It is described as an open and multi-stakeholder platform where discussions on technical and human rights issues can take place. The IGF not only allows CSOs to contribute to the development of standards but also facilitates capacity-building activities that enable participants to deepen their understanding of internet governance issues.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the inequality in the participation of CSOs and human rights experts in standard-setting bodies related to internet governance. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating human rights discussions into the development of technical standards. Advocating for a multi-stakeholder approach is presented as a means to improve dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights considerations. The IGF is identified as a platform that enables CSOs to actively participate and contribute to international standard-setting processes while promoting capacity-building and discussions on technical and human rights issues. This enhanced understanding of the issue provides valuable insights into the need for more inclusive and rights-based approaches in the development of internet governance standards.

Vint Cerf

The summary highlights the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the need to identify standards for the realization of these rights. It emphasizes the importance of accessibility, specifically in terms of online access, for addressing issues related to information and rights. The lack of implementation of standards is also addressed, noting the need for practical examples to guide developers and policymakers. Furthermore, the negative impact of limited accessibility on individuals’ ability to access the justice system is discussed. Overall, the summary emphasizes the importance of standards and accessibility in promoting equal access to information and justice.

Peter Marien

The report raises concerns about certain technical standard proposals that have the potential to undermine the use of the internet while respecting human rights. These proposals, if implemented, could have severe implications for privacy and may even lead to the fragmentation of the internet. This is particularly worrisome as the internet is meant to be a platform that respects fundamental rights as outlined in various charters.

On a positive note, the close cooperation and dialogue between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) are appreciated. This collaboration shows a commitment to addressing the challenges posed by digital standard setting and ensuring that human rights are protected in this context.

The importance of involving various stakeholders in technical environments is highlighted. The complex nature of these environments calls for a diverse range of perspectives and expertise. It is hoped that more stakeholders will gradually be involved in these discussions to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive decision-making process.

Furthermore, the European Commission has announced new cooperation with OHCHR in the field of human rights and standard setting. This demonstrates a commitment to reinforcing the links between human rights and the establishment of standards. This collaboration has the potential to create a positive impact and promote human rights considerations in the development of technical standards.

In conclusion, the report brings attention to the potential risks and challenges associated with certain technical standard proposals. It underscores the need for ongoing collaboration, dialogue, and the involvement of various stakeholders in the decision-making processes related to standard setting. The newly announced cooperation between OHCHR and the European Commission presents an opportunity to strengthen the protection of human rights in this domain.

One noteworthy observation from the analysis is the focus on the Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) and Goal 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). These goals align with the discussions around human rights, standard setting, and the involvement of various stakeholders. This highlights the broader context of the report and its implications for global efforts to achieve sustainable development.

Andrew Campling

The discussion centers around the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). It is reported that only around 10% of members in the IETF are female, highlighting a significant gender disparity within the organization. Additionally, there is underrepresentation in terms of geography, ethnicity, and age, indicating a lack of diversity on multiple axes.

The lack of diversity in standards bodies is viewed negatively as it undermines the development of inclusive and comprehensive standards. Having a limited range of perspectives and experiences poses a risk of overlooking important considerations and requirements. The current situation emphasizes the need for greater representation and inclusion in the decision-making processes of these bodies.

In addition to the gender disparity, there is a noted lack of involvement from governments and their agencies, including the European Commission and European Member States. This results in a narrow viewpoint driving the development of standards, potentially leading to biased or inadequate outcomes. The low engagement of these stakeholders further limits the diversity of perspectives and expertise in shaping internet standards.

To address these issues, it is argued that there is a need to integrate multiple stakeholders into the standards process. By involving a broader range of voices and expertise, the resulting standards can be more comprehensive, inclusive, and representative of the global population. Embedding diversity and inclusion principles into the decision-making processes of standards bodies can lead to better standards that meet the needs of a wide range of users.

It is suggested that better diversity and inclusion would lead to improved standards. By incorporating a wider range of perspectives and experiences, standards can become more robust, adaptable, and responsive to the diverse needs and requirements of users. This aligns with the goals of SDG 5: Gender Equality and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities, which aim to promote equal opportunities and inclusive societies.

In conclusion, the lack of diversity in internet standards bodies, such as the IETF, is a significant concern. The underrepresentation of women, diverse ethnicities, different geographical backgrounds, and various age groups highlights the need for greater diversity and inclusion in these bodies. By integrating multiple stakeholders into the standards process, better standards can be developed that are more inclusive and representative of the global population. Achieving this would not only address the current disparities but also contribute to the goals of gender equality and reduced inequalities.

Jessamine Pacis

CSO participation in standard setting processes is hindered by various challenges, including the resource-intensive nature of these processes and the requirement for long-lasting and consistent engagement. The costs associated with travel, membership, and participation make it difficult for civil society organisations (CSOs) to actively participate in these processes. Additionally, continuous engagement is vital for meaningful participation and influencing outcomes.

On the other hand, government agencies can provide access to standard-setting processes, such as those facilitated by organisations like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). However, there is a significant challenge in terms of inconsistent engagement from government agencies. Fluctuating leadership and changing priorities often lead to varying levels of commitment and involvement, which can impact the effectiveness of CSO participation enabled through government agencies.

To address these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process, it is suggested that a multi-stakeholder approach be adopted. This approach emphasises the involvement of various stakeholders, including CSOs, government agencies, and other relevant actors, in decision-making processes. The recommendation is to commence this multi-stakeholder process at the national level first before expanding it globally.

One reason for starting at the national level is that government interest and commitment to international standards-setting processes can fluctuate over time. By establishing a strong foundation at the national level, the multi-stakeholder approach can better handle any changes in government priorities or leadership. Currently, the Philippines serves as an example, as it has not had a representative in the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) for over a decade. This lack of representation highlights the importance of having consistent engagement and a multi-stakeholder process that can ensure sustained involvement and influence in global standard setting.

In conclusion, CSO participation in standard-setting processes is challenging due to the resource-intensive nature and the need for consistent engagement. While government agencies can enable access to these processes, their level of involvement tends to be inconsistent. Adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, beginning at the national level, can help overcome these challenges and ensure a more inclusive and effective standard-setting process.

Vittorio Bertola

The analysis covers three speakers and their perspectives on various topics.

Vittorio, who was involved in designing the multi-stakeholder model 20-25 years ago, supports the application of this model to standard-setting organizations. This indicates his positive sentiment towards a multi-stakeholder approach.

Concerning the standardisation process for the internet, Vittorio holds a negative sentiment. He believes that the current process is always playing catch-up due to its deployment-first nature. In his view, technology is first invented and deployed on the internet, and only then standardised. This perspective suggests that Vittorio sees the current standardisation process as problematic and in need of improvement.

Turning to the HRPC (Human Rights, Privacy, and Conditions) committee, it is noted that the current perspective is predominantly focused on freedom of expression, with a lack of representation from the Global South. Vittorio argues that in order to address this issue, it is necessary to create more diversity in perspectives within the committee. This highlights the importance of including voices from different regions to ensure a balanced and inclusive approach to human rights.

Overall, the analysis showcases Vittorio’s support for a multi-stakeholder model in standard-setting organizations, his concerns about the deployment-first nature of the standardisation process for the internet, and his belief in the necessity of diversity in perspectives on the HRPC committee. These viewpoints shed light on the need for more inclusive and collaborative approaches in these areas.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Hello, everyone. Good morning. Welcome to this session on Internet Standards and Human Rights. We will get started. I’m sorry that we’re starting a bit late. I was waiting for the panelists to arrive. A very warm welcome to you if you’re joining us online as well. My name is Sheetal Kumar, and I co-lead Global Partners Digital’s engagement in digital governance processes, and we are co-hosting this session with the European Centre for Not-for-Profit Law, ECNL, with the Office of the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, OHCHR, and the European Commission, the Department for International Partnerships. So welcome, welcome. We have just started. Again, welcome to everyone here in the room and online. Just to give a bit of a context, at GPD, we are a human rights organization working to embed human rights in the governance of digital technologies, which includes not only, of course, regulation and policy frameworks, but also technical standards. And I think internet standards are perhaps one of the areas of internet governance or part of the internet that may feel invisible for many, but actually, and unless perhaps you’re working on them, they’re fundamentally shaping, of course, our lives and the exercise of our human rights in the digital age as we become even more dependent on the internet and on digital technologies. And so in this session, we want to discuss and elucidate for you two main things. the connections between Internet standards and human rights, and the challenges and opportunities for stakeholders to engage, or a wider range of stakeholders to engage in standards development. So the Office for the Human Rights Commissioner this year published a report based on consultations with stakeholders on technical standards for new and emerging technologies, and that’s why I’m delighted to start with opening remarks from Peggy Hicks, Director, Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division. As Peggy does have to leave us, I want to make sure that we come to you first before we turn to the other panellists and before I introduce them. So Peggy, over to you. I know that the report is a really important introduction to this issue and provides an overview and an understanding of how technical standards and human rights intersect. That relationship provides a range of recommendations as well. If you can provide, over the next few minutes, an overview of the report, its substance, that will provide a really great context for our discussion here. So over to you, Peggy. Thank you.

Peggy:
Great. Thanks so much. It’s a real pleasure to be here, and thank you for really highlighting this critical issue. I think you’re right that it’s an issue that doesn’t really rise to the top the way that it needs to in terms of the focus, but it’s incredibly important, and I think in the conversations I’ve had here in Kyoto at IGF, the impact of AI developments as well in this area, it was already important, now it’s even more urgent, given the reality that many of the critical decisions around AI may come as a result of the work of technical standards setting bodies. So you referenced the report, and sorry, I just do want to thank, of course, the European Commission, Global Partners Digital, and ECNL for your incredible work in this area in convening us today. You mentioned the report that we did last year. I have with me my colleague, Eugene Kim, who is one of the primary drafters of that effort. We are grateful to the Human Rights Council for giving us a mandate to look at this issue. We had already done enough, but it gave us a real opportunity to look at the full landscape for standard setting and to see what are the challenges within it from a human rights perspective. And the first thing I need to say is that what we found, of course, is that it’s not a landscape that has just one actor or one type of actor. It’s a vast constellation of actors that are very diverse, various differences in terms of the standard setting organizations. They have different size, different working methods, and process seeds. What we found within them, of course, were a number of best practices, but also a number of challenges. And the challenges that we saw related to access, the difficulties with regards to working documents, proposals, meeting minutes, obviously problems with meaningful participation and transparency of working methods, language, technical knowledge, lack of financial and human resources to do some of the work that we’re looking for. One of the things that we focused on was the need for greater transparency and access to standard setting processes, making documentation accessible to the public, addressing the financial and cultural barriers to participation, and, of course, something that I think needs to be thought about much more seriously, including in this IGF forum, the need for inclusion of more diverse voices, including from women, youth, voices from the global majority, and those that have been historically marginalized. When we look at the landscape that I’ve just described, as I said, one of the key things is that we need to recognize that there can’t be a one-size-fits-all approach, that the standard setting bodies themselves are at different places, and we need to sort of look at how to move things forward for the different standard setting bodies. But it’s an urgent endeavor, as I said. What we’re trying to think about is really sort of a two-flank approach. The first flank is to really look at each standard setting body, work with them to see what are some of the best practices, what are the barriers, to access in their own institutions and work with and to put in place policies that are going to make it more uh easier to bring in human rights expertise in a variety of ways including of course civil society engagement as I just said but also from the academic community and and others. Uh and you know breaking down those barriers to access transparency is is a critical piece. The second piece of course though uh we we want the doors to be open but even when the doors are open there are still real obstacles to civil society and academia being able to engage effectively in these bodies. Um it requires these are labor intensive processes that go on for long periods of time. Uh a lot of work being done in person rather than remotely. Um and it requires uh resources and capacity to be able to do it. And the reality is these are bodies that are often dominated by large companies because they’re the ones that have the resources to be there. We need a level playing field and that will require real investment. If we think that civil society and academia have important voices within these fora then we need to find a way to resource it and make it happen as well. So we’re talking about what would it take, what types of funders might be able to better support civil society and academic engagement and and standard setting processes and we’re going to need that piece uh to be put in place as well. Um the good news is I think there’s a real appetite from the standard setting bodies that we talked to. They want to move forward on this. They understand that their credibility and effectiveness depends on better engagement with the communities that are affected by digital technologies. So we think there’s there’s room to move on these issues but to just leave everybody with the thought that it’s it’s an urgent endeavor and one that we need to take action on now. Thanks very much.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thanks Peggy. That was great and I think we’re going to unpack a lot of that this morning. So just to quote from your report from the report um one one line which I think speaks to to to some of what you said. Technical standards reflect the interests values and concerns of those participating in their elaboration and so of course as these standards undergird um the the technologies and the the internet as it evolves um and thus um the the the rights of those who use them it is really important as you said to ensure that that the the engagement in them is is diverse. So I want to come next to um our first panelist um who is Natan Pascoalini who is a researcher at Data Privacy Brazil and is sitting on my on my left here um because you have done research um on exactly this question engagement in internet governance bodies and the and thank you Peggy for for joining us. I know um I know you had to to leave you have to leave. Thank you so much for making the time. Um so Natan this this report uh that you have uh worked on provides um real data and insights into the actual engagement in internet um governance bodies and stand standard setting. Really interested to hear now if you can keep it to three minutes that would be great. The top level insights from your research. Thank you.

Natam:
I’m working with Data Privacy Brazil, which is a non-profit civil society organization that deals with the promotion with the digital rights through a social justice lenses. And I believe that before talking about opportunities to engage, it’s important to highlight some of the challenges that CSOs face when trying to engage within technical standard-setting bodies. In March, we at Data Privacy Brazil submitted a contribution to the Human Rights Office call for inputs, and there we stated the need of such standard bodies to incorporate the discussion of human rights and human rights discussions and frameworks into the development of technical standards. However, to incorporate such discussions and frameworks, it’s necessary to enable the participation of CSOs and human rights experts in those bodies, which is limited, as Peggy said, due to several barriers related, for example, to lack of financial resources and lack of technical capacity building. And historically, these debates between the debates of technical standards and human rights usually occur separately, which impedes the integration of human rights and considerations into technical standard-setting processes. So since there is a lack of dialogue between those two areas, we need to advocate for a stakeholder approach so that it would help to improve the dialogue between standard-setting processes and human rights. It also appeared in this study that you mentioned and that we conducted on data privacy in Brazil. We designed this study with representatives from global southern organizations and we are launching this report today. The document will be available very soon. And this study is called Voices from the Global South, Perspectives on International Engagements and Digital Rights. It was supported by the National Endowment for Democracy and sheds light specifically on the active involvement of a carefully selected group of activists from the global south within international organizations. And going forward to the end, I promise I’m finishing, and in terms of opportunities of engagement, in this report we were able to identify that despite the challenges and barriers in general that CSOs face to engage with international standard-setting bodies, the processes that take place inside the UN, especially the IGF, are still key spaces, especially because the IGF is the only entirely open and multi-stakeholder space, which despite not making a binding decision, it’s conducive to creating capacity building and for technical community actors to bring their discussions to be debated with an open and fruitful space within the scope between human rights and probably and maybe standard-setting processes. So thank you, Chetan.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, I will get this right at some point. So thank you, Natan. And I think what you’ve said also reflects a lot of what the OHCHR report outlined, but it’s very important to have that understanding from civil society as well on the ground trying to engage in these spaces. And I encourage everyone to look at that report that’s just been launched. So I’m now going to come. come over to Ava Ignatyshenko, who is head of Digital Standards and Internet Governance at the UK’s Department for Science, Innovation, and Technology. Ava, the UK has a strategy on standards engagement. How are you engaging on this topic of technical standards, internet standards, and human rights? And what do you think needs to be done to address the challenges we’ve heard, but also take advantage of the appetite and the interest in ensuring more diversity in this space?

Eva Ignatuschtschenko:
Thank you. Oh, it’s actually already on. There you go. And thank you to Global Partners Digital for setting up a session that is really important. And as you say, UK government is really committed to this agenda. And thank you for everybody who made it out this morning. I’m going to talk a little bit about the UK approach to this, and then leave you with three thoughts, which hopefully will spark a bit of discussion later as well. So the UK government, and I feel like I’m repeating myself, but maybe for some of you this is new, has a really long track record of engaging in technical standards internationally. Within that, supporting the multi-stakeholder and industry-led system as it is, ensuring there’s integrity and promoting human rights. So this is not new for us, but we’re very aware of the challenges. And within that, I think the inclusion in the development of standards is not an easy task. In the deployment process of standards, sometimes you see issues. But we have made a huge amount of progress over the last few years. I always like to think I made standards sexy for UK government, and I stand by that. And we’ve also embedded it in the G7 agreements. In 2021, the G7, for the first time, adopted an agreement and partnership on digital technical standards, which has a lot of human rights-relevant commitments of looking at internet protocols in particular, looking at inclusion, looking at standards that have wider societal impact, and how the G7 can engage in that and support the community. And as we already heard from OHCHR, SDOs are aware, standards bodies are aware, and they know it’s not a straightforward task. But there’s more that we need to do, despite the fact that standards bodies have woken up to the challenge. And especially from our perspective, it’s not always in the development of the standard. It often comes to the implementation, the deployment of the standard, where human rights play a role and where human rights abuses might happen. And you can think of a standard like facial recognition that is really important to protect privacy and might unlock your phone with that, but can equally be used by other regimes for mass surveillance. I wanna leave you now with three thoughts, because I’m conscious of time. First one is that we’re not starting with a blank sheet of paper. One of the issues OHCHR has when looking at this problem is there isn’t really any guidelines on human rights and technical standards. However, we do have the UN Principles on Business and Human Rights, and they. give good requirements and good baseline for businesses to consider human rights in their engagement in standards bodies and the development of standards. We should be building on those. Secondly, we really need a meaningful, and I do emphasize that word, meaningful way for human rights experts to engage. It’s a two-way street. Human rights experts need to start paying attention and start educating themselves, but importantly, also standards bodies need to become more open to them. The UK is doing a lot to engage civil society in particular, but also industry experts and coordinate with them on standards, including in the multi-stakeholder advisory group on internet governance in the UK, but also informal networks on organizations like Etsy, ITU, IETF. I’m sorry, I’m not spelling them out. What happens with standards bodies is you spell it out and it’s still, you’re no wiser, so I’m just gonna leave it there. And the last thought I want to leave you with, maybe a bit more provocative, is I really see AI, and I’m sure you’ve not heard anything about AI during this IGF, as an enabler of this discussion, because for the first time, what we’re seeing is that there’s a real recognition that ethics are a key part of what goes into developing technical standards in a new technology, and we hope that that could bring some lessons learned for the future for other technologies. I’ll leave it there. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thanks, thanks, Seva. That was really, really useful, I believe, and I’m excited to pick up some of those points in the open discussion and also invite you all to start thinking about your questions or how you’d like to engage once we’ve heard from our next two speakers. And the next speaker is online, so I hope we can connect to Vanessa Copetti Cravo, who is joining us online. She is Telecommunications Regulation Specialist at the Brazilian National Telecommunications Agency, ANATEL. Vanessa, are you able to unmute yourself and join us on the? Okay, there, we see you there. Excellent. I’m glad it’s working well. and all the standards are ensuring we can connect with you and hear what you have to say and to share about the experience of Anatel and engaging in standards organizations, but also in engaging a wide range of stakeholders in these discussions. Over to you.

Vanessa Cravo:
So thank you very much and good morning, good afternoon, good evening to all. So I think it’s important to highlight that Anatel has the legal mandate in Brazil to represent the country in the international telecommunications organizations and perhaps my experience that is most relevant to the session is the fact that I engage in the ITU, the International Telecommunications Agency for now more than 14 years. So I think it’s a pleasure to have this conversation and this is very relevant and in fact, as we have heard today, this matter become relevant every day that goes by. And why is that? It’s because our world and our lives have changed profoundly with all these technologies and they will continue to do so. We just heard about AI and they will continue to evolve, they will continue to develop. And there was a chase for leadership and this new and emerging technologies and they also have turned the standardization processes, the subject of our inter-new geopolitical battlefields. And this also exacerbate, highlight the disparities in the participation of, in the process and the fora. It’s not surprised that the global South lags behind in participation in these processes. Something also that was highlighted in the report of the Office of United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on this matter. And one of the challenges that Peggy has mentioned before. So at the same time that we recognize the unique representation, we also recognize that the processes define several different aspects of how we live. Communicate, interact. and no matter where or how you live. So, recognize that, but that the different voices are not being considered in shaping their own lives, something also that Sheetal has mentioned in the opening remarks. So, of course that through the history we have seen examples that standards that didn’t take into consideration human rights and one well-known example is the seatbelt that was designed to save men’s lives, but not women’s lives. So, the fact is that now standards have a completely different role in our societies. We live in an interdependent, connectional, digital society which lies upon technical standards, and we cannot wait until we discover that these standards are not designed for everyone and they can jeopardize women, for example, and other vulnerable groups to take some action. So, having said that, I think there is an agreement that the role of standards have completely changed and they demand a change on how we look and we consider these processes in these organizations. So, the real challenge is how to integrate the discussions within the framework and processes of standardization and Peggy also have highlighted quite a few challenges that we need to address. And so, Brazil has some reflections on this point and we have participated in discussions within the ITU framework about this and we see this as, of course, an opportunity for the improving of the working methods and, of course, we also take into consideration the challenges, but I think one very important thing is how to better integrate human rights perspective into the already existing processes. So, we believe that this discussion should be embedded in the cycles of the work of standardization and, for example, when we are talking about ITUT, we are talking of discussing these issues within the telecommunications and standardization sector. So, this is something very important and I think also something that we have seen is that we already seen some movement in this regard within ITU. And so, I think this is for the international perspective that we are looking forward to follow how this is going to evolve within ITU and, of course, engage in this matter and when we look internationally, what we have done in Brazil is we have set a framework structure to try to have a plural participation to ITU and other international organizations that ANATEL represent Brazil in. So, this is an open, a plural organization and we try to foster the discussion, but, of course, internationally we consider this as a challenge because it’s really difficult to engage. We try to engage academia, for example, for the last session of… the security lead group that address standardizations within ITU, we even were able to engage academia in this discussion, so it was the first time that we had a delegation that involved academia for this discussion, so we have seen this improvement as well, but it’s not easy because all the challenges, they also apply nationally, even if I try to engage nationally to build consensus to take this forward, so this will be my opening remarks and thank you very much.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you very much and I think you spoke to some points that have been picked up before, that you picked up on some points from the discussion before that really I think illustrate the opportunities that there are for engaging stakeholders, you provided some examples of how Anatel is doing that and I think show us that we are largely at the beginning of many of these discussions and so for that reason, while there are challenges, there are also opportunities to leverage the interest and the appetite that Peggy spoke of, of ensuring human rights voices and perspectives are represented in standards discussions and forums. So Jessamine Passi, you are program officer at the Foundation for Media Alternatives or FMA in the Philippines and really would be interested to hear from you, picking up on these discussions about how in practice it is, what it is like to engage in these discussions as a civil society organization, if you can share how you have faced some of those challenges in trying to engage in these discussions, bring that human rights perspective and perhaps if you have some recommendations for how things can

Jessamine Pacis:
improve. Thank you. Thank you, thank you Chital and good morning everyone. So I think from the previous discussions, it appears that we’re all in agreement that there is an issue of access in these spaces right and I think that’s great. I don’t want to repeat everything that Peggy and Nathan have already said, because I think the OHHR report and Peggy earlier also summed up the challenges quite well. So, there’s not a lot of CSO participation in standard setting processes because they are very resource intensive. It takes, there are travel costs, there are membership and participation costs, and it takes a lot of time and energy. And I think just one thing that I wanted to highlight is that these are labor intensive, these are resource intensive, because it’s not just enough to participate in these spaces. We have to participate meaningfully. And this means, because like engaging in these processes is not just a one-off thing, right? You have to really continue engagement for a prolonged period of time, and not a lot of CSOs have not only the access to these spaces, but also like the resources to sustain this kind of work and this kind of engagement for a period of time. I think one thing that has worked with FMA in the past and one thing that we’re also trying to do now is being able to access spaces such as the ITU and the ICANN and the IETF through working with the government, specifically our Department of ICT as well as our National Telecommunications Commission, because these agencies are often more able to access these spaces as part of the national delegation. So our previous speakers already mentioned the importance of the multi-stakeholder process, but I think we should also emphasize the fact that this process should also start within the national level, so it’s not important just with the global level, but it has to start with our own countries as well. Of course, there are also challenges with this kind of strategy, working with the government. Of course, there is constantly fluctuating leadership, the officials and the leaders are replaced every once in a while, especially with ministry-level agencies. And in the Philippines, for example, there were some moments in the past when the Department of ICT and the National Telecommunications Commission were active in participating in global standards-setting processes, but again, because the people in the government changed. over time, the agenda changes as well, the priorities change, so the level of engagement also changes over time. I was telling Chital yesterday that currently I think it’s been more than a decade that the Philippines has not had a representative to the ICANN GAC, which reflects the kind of the level of priority and the level of engagement that the government has right now. So yeah, so now the department is in process of coming up with a new digital strategy and new strategic vision for them, so we are, as FMA, as part of civil society, we are trying to reach out to the government to put engagement in these standard-setting processes back on their agenda and in their priorities as well, and open conversations on internet governance and internet fragmentation and related issues with them as well. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. Thank you so much, and as you were speaking, I thought it was interesting that you remarked on the need for that general agenda-setting and prioritization of the issue, which Eva, you shared some considerations from the UK government and the approach of having a strategy and having this sort of, I suppose, more longer-term and more embedded approach, which then provides for that ability, I think, to ensure continuity in engagement despite changes in administration, for example. So that’s one area we can explore in the open discussion, but as I mentioned, we are co-organizing this session with the European Commission and in the Department for International Partnerships in particular, so I wanted to check if any representative wanted to come in at this point and reflect. Yes, please, please do come, and if you want to use that mic, that is absolutely fine. Thank you so much.

Peter Marien:
Thank you very much, Peter Marien, European Commission. international partnerships. Thank you very much indeed for organizing this interesting discussion and exchange of information. So we welcome the report by OHCHR on human rights and digital standard setting and it describes well how some proposals for technical standards can actually turn into standards which undermine the usage of Internet in a way that respects the rights as we see them reflected in the fundamental charters for example the UN Charter on Human Rights. So as you all know there have been standards proposed in the past which in our opinion can also lead to fragmentation of the Internet or you know quite severe implications for privacy. So the report is specifically relevant for the standard setting organizations and we hope that these organizations will take them duly into account. We also appreciate very much the close cooperation the dialogue between OHCHR and the ITU especially the recent changes also in ITU. Now of course it’s important that these high-level I would say commitments exchanges that have taken place but also the recommendations that have been made in the report that these of course trickle down into the actual work at the technical level working groups and hopefully indeed that other stakeholders as has been mentioned here will gradually be able to be involved even more in these sometimes technical and difficult environments difficult access as was explained by by the speakers. So on our side we are happy at the European Commission to contribute to this process to this reinforcement of the links between the human rights and standard settings and we’re actually happy to announce a new cooperation on this field between Commission and OHCHR and also later today we will be announcing this in another session. Maybe I’d like to finish just with it with a question would be interesting if people in the room or on the panel or online would have any information about concrete steps that might already have been taken or are being planned following this

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
report if any. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming and for also being a co-organizer of this of this session. So we can start with your question. I also have another another few questions for those of us here in the room and also online. Do you have experience engaging in technical standard-setting organizations or are you implementing or actioning any of the recommendations in the OHCHR report and how do you see this work going forward? I think we’ve heard a lot of optimism about the opportunities that could it can exist as long as the challenges that we have identified and agreed on that do exist for human rights perspectives and more diverse perspectives to be represented in standards forums are overcome. So do you have further recommendations or ideas for how to overcome those? I think as I said we identified the challenges and there are recommendations in the report but are there any… any other recommendations that you may have based on your experience. So, that is how we will start the open discussion because we’ve got about 15 minutes to hear from you all. The way that, okay, I already see some hands, I’d like to do this is to see whether there are hands. I’ve seen one, I’ve seen, okay, I’ve seen two. And then I’ll take those two questions first and see whether panelists want to respond. And I’ll also keep an eye on the online moderator and whether there’s anything there. But please do feel free to respond to what the panelists have said as well or just bring your own perspectives to the discussion. So, we’ll start with a question or reflection here. Please introduce yourself and then ask your question or share your reflection. Thank you.

Andrew Campling:
Yeah, this is on, good. Good morning, my name’s Andrew Campling. I run a public policy consultancy and certainly get involved with internet standards mainly around the ITF. And from that, I’d reflect that new internet standards and changing to existing ones have absolutely have significant implications for public policy. However, diversity in the standards bodies is a major problem on pretty much every axis. So, for example, in the ITF, it’s about 10% female. It’s equally underrepresented on geographic axes, ethnicity, age. I could go on, you get the right understanding. Part of the problem is, certainly within the ITF, it’s not a multi-stakeholder process. So, it’s purely led by the sort of technical community. Now, that might seem reasonable, but that means that a very narrow point of view is represented by those that do engage in the development of standards. And those few CSOs that are involved are often supported by funding by tech companies themselves represent a pretty narrow segment of civil society. There’s also, by the way, a low involvement. involvement of governments and their agencies, including, dare I say it, the European Commission and European Member States, are almost entirely absent from the discussions, and end users are not even in the room. Because of that lack of diversity, and therefore lack of diversity of thought, that leads to problems with the culture of the community, and also affects the quality of the standards and the type of standards that are actually produced. So we will get better outcomes if we have a more diverse community working on the problems. So in my view, we need to fix this problem if we’re going to make the internet better. We’ve got to find a way to integrate multi-stakeholders into the standards process, and I would suggest one way of doing that is to measure the diversity of the different standards bodies and publish the stats regularly to hold them to account to do better. So I’ll leave that thought with you, but if anyone wants to discuss it after this, happy to do so.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. And if we have anyone here who is doing some of that work, please feel free to share your work, your research. Natan already shared some of that research that is being done, and it would be interesting to hear from others as well. Thanks, Andrew, for that contribution. We have two here. Please go ahead.

Ignacio Castro:
Thank you. My name is Ignacio Castro, and I’m a lecturer in Queen Mary University of London, and I also chair a research group at the IRTF on analyzing standardization processes, in particular ITF and W3C. And what I wanted to say is pretty much related to what the last colleague has said, and the colleague from the European Commission and one of the other speakers. The question is how are we going to resolve the conundrum of the fact that technical standards are complex, they are technical, and that’s unavoidable. And we can be aspirational, and we can desire things to be in one way or the other, but we cannot avoid the fact that at the end of the day, these things are quite complicated. And I can actually tell you that from my research, it’s getting even more complicated. A draft now takes about three years, since the first draft until it’s published. It involves more areas, it involves more people, more countries, and more companies. All this makes things more complicated. Monitoring this is difficult, even if you know about the technical complexities. Many of the Internet of Standard Bodies are open, they are very open, but open doesn’t mean accessible. Accessible is only for those who understand, have the time and the energy, as one of the colleagues has said. And this is something that is quite difficult to challenge. And even though I pretty much agree with what everyone has said, I haven’t heard anything that helps to walk towards a solution. So I’m sorry, I don’t have a good answer. And I think that the work that we are doing in providing analysis is helpful, because as I said, these bodies are open, but they are not accessible. they are not accessible because they are complicated and doing research in this direction, I think it can help. But I think it also takes an effort from other communities that want to engage that acknowledging the fact that they might not have the technical background is necessary. They are not gonna be able to engage with technical people otherwise. Some technical people also needs probably to walk a little bit towards the other side, but the space in the middle, it’s quite wide. And I would really be looking forward to hear how people think that this space can be a bridge.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Okay, thank you for that. I think that work is beginning. It started in some spaces and there are some examples, for example, at the IETF, the Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group has been starting that work. And in the OHCHR report, there are recommendations, for example, that standards organizations put in place adequate human rights due diligence processes. And there are frameworks to support that. I think Eva, you pointed out how the UN guiding principles and business and human rights can also be used as a framework. So those are just some of my reflections. We’re very keen to hear from panelists on the in terms of responding to how, the how, how can we do this better, even if we are just starting out. So Vittoria, you and then if there’s anyone else who wants to come in, please do. But after you, I will come to the panelists who want to respond to those questions, including from Ignacio on what do we do and how do we do it question. Thank you.

Vittorio Bertola:
Yeah, thank you. I’m Vittoria Bertola from Open Exchange. And first, I want to support the two previous comments. I already said a lot of what I wanted to say. And I must say that being one of the people that 20, 25 years ago were involved in designing the multi-stakeholder model coming up with it. First at ICANN, then the IGF, but we overlooked the importance maybe of the standard setting organizations. So maybe this is the time where we have to really do something to make the multi-stakeholder as well. But at the same time, I was a bit surprised. I mean, I came here because of the title. I hadn’t read the report. So the title is about internal standards, but a lot of discussions about the ITU, which doesn’t do internal standards. So I think we should maybe focus on more on the ITF and W3C, the places where. And given the way the internet works, on the internet, the first you invent and deploy technology and then you standardize it. So you’re always catching up. And this is not going to change. So there is a need for an additional effort to be there even before things get to the standardization phase of the process. And this is also something that should be demanded to the industry. But what I wanted to add is that it’s not just a matter of money and bringing people, being able, and bringing people with the good skills, engineers. You need people that understand the technical part. But then there is a mindset problem. I mean, even the HRPC committee, which was mentioned, it does bring a human rights perspective, but it is a very narrow human rights perspective, mostly dominated by, I’d say, freedom of expression from the global north. in the type of human rights perspective you get. There’s not a lot of people from the global south that there are no other human rights. When people come with other, talking about rights of other groups, or like it happened with the children’s rights, for example, they are mostly basically sent away and say, no, we don’t want you, or we don’t care about you. We think that freedom of expression is a top right. And this is widely shared by the engineering community. So there’s also to educate the community to be more open in the view of the human rights they have.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Yes, absolutely. So we have a few points there about, well, enforcing the issue on diversity, suggesting more research is done. A question about the challenge of complexity. How do we deal with that? And some also reflections at the end there. I think to the point, again, that diversity is an issue, and resourcing is a challenge. How do we make those connections happen between the human rights community, making that more diverse as well, ensuring that the human rights perspectives are also diverse. So lots of questions about how do we actually change the situation relating to the challenges. Etta, Ava, Jess, or indeed Vanessa online, do you have any responses to those?

Vanessa Cravo:
Can I go?

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Please do.

Vanessa Cravo:
Sorry. So thank you very much. I think the previous comment was quite interesting. I’m very aware that we have all this discussion about what ITU does or does not regarding its mandate on related to the internet. So I’m not going to get into this conversation. Otherwise you’re gonna need some hours to address this issue. That’s not the point. But the fact is, and the report is on this, and all this digital technology, it’s much broader and all this emerging and new technologies, they are shaping our lives. And if you go to the standardization sector of ITU, and you take a look of the discussions they’re having and the items of study, there is going to produce recommendations and standards you’re going to see that much of discussions applied also to ITU. So there is no wrong here role for ITU in this discussion. But I just wanna make one comment. When usually we are comparing standard organizations, usually one of the biggest questions is regarding openness. And I think the previous three comments were right on the spot. To say that a standardization organization is open doesn’t mean that people can. really engage on that. And you’re going to have a multistakeholder discussion and a multistakeholder standard processes and a process that is going to have all the voices heard and take it to consideration. I think this is quite important that we have very clear in our minds. And this is something that always appear when we are having this conversation. So I think one useful exercise would be also to map all the standard organizations because they have different scopes and different levels of openness and different level of participation. And to map how this discussion of the integration, the need to embed human rights into their processes is being held because we have organizations that are poorly market-led organizations and we have others with different kinds of stakeholders. So I think this could be a useful exercise for us. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Hello, yes, that’s working. Thanks so much, Vanessa. And also for that recommendation for perhaps bringing more clarity and understanding to what is already happening in standards organizations. And I wanted to turn to Eva because I know that you wanted to respond to the questions around what we do and also Vint. Would you like to, would you like to answer? Oh, I’m sorry. I don’t, I didn’t see that. Please do take the mic there or I can hand you this one. Oh, you have one there, great.

Vint Cerf:
How many engineers does it take to turn on a microphone? First of all, this is a very important discussion. I’m going to suggest that at least a thought exercise, I’m not necessarily arguing we should actually do this, but it’s tempting. Imagine that you take Universal Declaration of Human Rights and for each one of the ones that’s articulated, ask ourselves what kinds of standards are needed to realize those rights. There’s a broad category of accessibility and that covers everything for all practical purposes. If you look at today’s world and you ask yourself, how do people find out about things that are rights related? An awful lot of it is online. And if you don’t have access to that online facility or if you don’t have accessibility features, then you are denied access to that information. That’s a big, broad category. And along those lines, just speaking about accessibility, the one thing I have found is that standards don’t necessarily get implemented or they’re not, the people who are trying to implement to the standards don’t necessarily have a lot of intuition about how to do that because they haven’t experienced the use of, for example, screen readers and things like that. So I’m finding that the best way to help engineers and user interface developers develop an intuition for this is to give them examples of what works and what doesn’t work and show them the differences. And after a while, you begin to develop an intuition for what does work and what doesn’t work. There are a lot of places around the world that focus on accessibility and technology for that. And I would urge you to prepare whatever documentation you can out of this session and make that as visible as possible just to draw more attention. Let me just bring up one other thing about justice and the access to it. There have been a number of studies pointing out that in the absence of access to online facilities, including accessibility, people do not have access to the justice system. And so this exercise of going through the declaration might turn out to help us identify where we have gaps and where we could do more work. Thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
For that very, very helpful suggestions for what can be done to advance the understanding of different communities. And I think we can pick those up in the hallways. And I think that’s what’s exciting about this discussion is it’s just starting. So we have two points here. If you can make them quick, we’ll then have to wrap up. But thank you.

Yog Desai:
Hi, Yog Desai, Internet Society Youth Ambassador. I think when it comes to increasing participation, especially from the global South, the biggest barrier is funding because being present in the room is very important. And it’s also not something that’s going to happen if you just send people once. This has to happen again and again because it takes time to socialize into the system. And again, the interest behind the funding also matter because for instance, the Indian government is coming up with a program through which they will. send people to these standardization organizations, but of course the people that they are sending will be representing the interests of the Indian government. So if we want the civil society to be present there, we will need funding that has interests of the broader community in mind. And I want to, well it’s not a question, but I would like, as a social science researcher interested in standardization, I wanted to understand from the room what is the call to action for social science researchers in the standardization domain. Thank you.

Colin Perkins:
Thank you. Please. Hi, my name is Colin Perkins. I work at the University of Glasgow and I’m the chair of the IRTF. I think there’s been a bunch of good points made. I especially agree that funding is a challenge for a number of people to participate in standards development. It’s a challenge I’ve been facing as an academic for many years trying to participate in this area. I think there are practical steps that can be made. Not all SDOs have large membership fees. There are a number of SDOs, ITF included, that provide extensive and very cheap remote participation options. Of course, remote participation is not as effective as being in the room, but it’s a lot better than not being there. And there are people who can and do participate effectively via the video conferencing, via the email discussions, via the various other discussion forums. In the ITF community, we also have groups like the Human Rights Group, Human Rights Protocol Considerations Group, that’s been mentioned, and that has been running for the past decade or so. We’ve got the Research into Standardization, Standards Development Processes Group, which Ignacio, who spoke earlier, chairs, which is looking at the effectiveness of the process. We have a number of ITF-led diversity initiatives to try and improve diversity. These are having some effect. If you look at the ITF, for example, the diversity has increased significantly over time. Twenty years ago, if you look at the RFCs being published, 75% were from North America. Now that’s down to approximately 40%. The number of RFCs being published, the number of standards being published by people from Europe, from Asia, has doubled over the last 20 years. Clearly, we have a way to go, right? Clearly, the number of people from South America, from Africa, is not as high as we would like. The participation from women is not as high as we would like, but there is a recognition of this. I do have to ask you to close here. To close, I think as Ignacio said, engagement requires time and effort. With the best will in the world, developing the necessary expertise takes time.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Yes, and actually, I think that’s one of the key points that we’ve been hearing here, is there are a number of areas where progress is being seen. There are many opportunities, there are many challenges, but at least we know what those challenges are. As a colleague from the European Commission also said, there are efforts to start implementing the recommendations from the report already underway. I wanted to come to Eva very quickly for 30 seconds, and then I’m going to come to Vanessa as well, and then we will wrap up. I know we are over time. Eva.

Eva Ignatuschtschenko:
Thank you. I’m trying to be quick. I think a bit of optimism. We are talking about dozens of standards bodies, hundreds, thousands of working groups, and then standards being developed. However, we believe that the majority of those will not have human rights implications, so we don’t need to worry about all of them possibly being used for human rights breaches. But it’s actually a small proportion of that that we’re worried about, and that’s where we need to engage. So I think the landscape doesn’t… it’s not as scary as it might look from outside. Three points to respond to this point on what sort of practical actions we can take. What we’re doing is we are teaching our own staff members and bringing in technical experts, engineers into government, where you have the resources as an organization, do that. And that sort of solves one of some of the problems raised. Secondly, with the best will in the world and with anything that we can do, all the funding that we throw at it, we will not be able to get all the CSOs in the room. So working together, being able to work through proxies, and we’ve had some really good experiences on people doing that for some encryption standards is really, really important. And I think that’s one of the solutions moving forward. I think if you show up as one individual from a civil society organizations, it’s going to be really hard because of all the reasons that we mentioned in this. But if you work together, you might be able to have a voice and you might be able to share expertise and share that sort of technical knowledge.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. And we had a colleague from Article 19, the civil society organization, also shared the work that they’ve done in mapping standards organizations, which is a particularly useful resource. So it’s called the Internet Standards Almanac. Please do consider looking at that. It’s a great introduction to standards organizations, particularly for civil society organizations looking to engage. Vanessa, I’ll give you 30 seconds.

Vanessa Cravo:
Thank you very much. So just one final comment. One possible way to go for civil society organizations is to look for the delegations of your national government that maybe it’s maybe a room for also to exploit participation and engaging within your national delegations to all this kind of fora we have for Philippines. And also Brazil also is something that we do and many other countries do that. This could be an option of starting engaging and getting to know this forum without having to pay fees, for example, for the ones that demand membership fees and all this kind of barriers. So thank you.

Moderator – Sheetal Kumar:
Thank you. So I wanted to end now with a optimistic note. We do have the report from the Office of the Human Rights Commissioner. We have all of these ideas and we do have, I think it sounds like consensus. Is it rough consensus or is it consensus that there are challenges to engaging in standards organizations, to reflecting a diversity of views and to ensuring human rights perspectives are reflected in standards development and implementation? We agree that that needs to change and there are a set of recommendations both in the report and we’ve heard some in the room here to change that. So I hope that this for many of us has been a start to what will be a path to that change. Please do ensure that you make the connections here with others and online and there is an IETF session happening at one today as well so connecting the dots between these different discussions is going to be important and I look forward to continuing this important discussion and implementing some of the ideas and the recommendations that have come from here. And thank you also to the. panelists who have made the time to be here and also to the co-organizers of this session. I hope that you have a great rest of the IGF and also I really look forward as I said to continuing this discussion with you afterwards. Thank you.