IRPC Human Rights Law and the Global Digital Compact | IGF 2023 #24

10 Oct 2023 06:15h - 07:45h UTC

Table of contents

Disclaimer: It should be noted that the reporting, analysis and chatbot answers are generated automatically by DiploGPT from the official UN transcripts and, in case of just-in-time reporting, the audiovisual recordings on UN Web TV. The accuracy and completeness of the resources and results can therefore not be guaranteed.

Full session report

Helani Galpaya

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is receiving positive feedback for its consistent reference to human rights. However, there is a lack of clarity on how the guiding principles on business and human rights will be implemented within the GDC framework. The non-binding and voluntary nature of these principles has resulted in little visibility on the implementation process.

Furthermore, stakeholders are not effectively brought together in the GDC discussions, hindering progress. Different stakeholder groups, such as businesses and civil societies, have been talking separately rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. The current draft of the synthesized document does not facilitate interaction between these stakeholder groups, exacerbating the issue.

The GDC and the multilateral system also fall short in holding nations accountable for human rights violations. Private companies and state mechanisms are identified as major violators of human rights, and rogue nations are not adequately held accountable for hindering tax negotiations and censoring the internet. This lack of accountability undermines the effectiveness of the GDC and the wider multilateral system in ensuring peace, justice, and strong institutions.

On a positive note, the GDC recognises the interrelation between human rights and socio-economic rights. It highlights that the type of human rights one can engage in depends on socio-economic power. This understanding helps address the issue of inequality and promotes a more holistic approach to human rights.

However, there is a stark divergence between the vision of the GDC and the reality on the ground. Proposed laws and regulations are being introduced that fundamentally hinder rights, despite ongoing GDC discussions. There is a rush to enact these laws, resulting in violations of rights. This inconsistency undermines the credibility and impact of the GDC.

The responsibility for internet usage lies with all actors in the value chain, including consumers. The GDC emphasises the need for educational measures to teach civic responsibility online and to change behaviours. It draws on the example of the environmental protection movement, which has successfully ingrained responsibilities into society. This reinforces the importance of individual responsibility in ensuring a safe and inclusive digital space.

Furthermore, it is vital to teach internet users, especially young ones, about their responsibilities and appropriate civic behaviours online. The permeation and unintentional reach of ideas on the internet highlight the need for individuals to be cautious and mindful of their actions and words online.

Notably, the consultation process for the GDC is considered inclusive compared to other global processes. However, it is acknowledged that this inclusivity is inherently imperfect. Consultation processes often tend to be dominated by privileged individuals, limiting diverse perspectives and hindering the effectiveness of the GDC.

Ground-level action by local agents is seen as essential after the development of a suitable Global Digital Compact. It is important to ensure that nations develop policies that align with the GDC post-formation. This implementation is crucial for translating the principles and objectives of the GDC into tangible actions and outcomes.

In conclusion, while the Global Digital Compact shows promise in its commitment to human rights and the recognition of interrelated socio-economic rights, there are significant challenges that need to be addressed. The lack of clarity on implementation, insufficient stakeholder engagement, and the failure to hold nations accountable for violations all weaken the effectiveness of the GDC. Nonetheless, the responsibility for internet usage lies with all actors, and teaching individuals about their responsibilities online is vital. The consultation process for the GDC is relatively inclusive but can still be improved. Ground-level action is crucial for translating the GDC into meaningful policies and outcomes.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is a collaborative effort between the United Nations, governments, and civil society to address the issue of technology avoidance in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This multi-stakeholder approach aims to bring together various actors to find innovative digital solutions.

The International Rights and Policy Coalition (IRPC) plays a significant role in the GDC, particularly in addressing the gaps of digital inclusion and connectivity for marginalized groups. The IRPC focuses on fostering public and political participation for women, migrants, and refugees. By prioritising digital inclusion, the IRPC aims to reduce inequalities and promote SDG 10 – Reduced Inequalities.

Equating offline and online human rights is crucial, especially concerning freedom of expression, information, and net neutrality. The recognition of these fundamental rights in the digital realm contributes to SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. The goal is to ensure that individuals have the same rights and protections both offline and online.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has a significant impact on various sectors, including financial services and public health. The use of AI in recruitment processes raises concerns about privacy and security. Additionally, the development of synthetic media and deepfakes poses challenges in terms of trust and authenticity. The implications of AI on SDG 3 – Good Health and Wellbeing and SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth need to be carefully considered.

The European Union (EU) Coalition on Internet Governance actively encourages partnerships and youth involvement. They have a partnership with the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance and encourage young people to participate and find opportunities through their email list. This commitment to collaboration and youth engagement aligns with SDG 17 – Partnerships for the Goals and SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

In the context of Raashi Saxena’s event, active audience participation is encouraged through group activities. The audience will be divided into groups of four or five, promoting interaction and engagement. This approach creates an inclusive environment that allows participants to exchange ideas and perspectives.

Overall, the GDC, IRPC, the recognition of offline and online human rights, the implications of AI, the EU Coalition on Internet Governance, and Raashi Saxena’s audience activities all contribute to advancing the SDGs and fostering a more inclusive and innovative digital future.

Moderator – Santosh Babu Sigdel

The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles (DCIRP) is actively working towards ensuring that human rights are effectively upheld in the online space. They have developed a charter on Human Rights and Principles, which has been translated into multiple languages to engage stakeholders on both regional and national levels. Their efforts have resulted in the availability of the charter in 28 languages, allowing for broader accessibility and understanding of human rights in the context of the internet.

The IRPC (Internet Rights and Principles Coalition) advocates for a rights-based approach to internet frameworks. They have been actively involved in various international forums, such as EuroDIG in Finland and the UNESCO Conference in France, as well as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Through their engagement with organizations and volunteers, they have raised awareness about digital rights and have collaborated with various organizations to promote the rights-based approach.

The importance of collaborating with local individuals in the translation process is emphasized by both the DCIRP and IRPC. They highlight the need for human awareness and discretion in using accurate and contextually relevant translations. Local stakeholders discussing and reviewing drafts among themselves helps ensure accuracy and maintain the integrity of the translated content.

Furthermore, the translation of the charter goes beyond language alone; it also aims to build local capacity. Participants are engaged with both the language and the concepts presented in the charter, contributing to a deeper understanding and broader adoption of the Human Rights and Principles it encompasses. This approach promotes inclusivity and empowers local communities to actively participate in the enforcement of these principles.

However, the regulation of misinformation and disinformation online can pose a significant challenge to freedom of speech. Governments may use the idea of responsibility as a pretext to control and restrict legitimate expressions, discussions, and the spread of information. Striking a balance between protecting the public from harmful misinformation and disinformation while safeguarding the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is important.

In South Asian countries, including Nepal, there have been attempts by governments to impose internet regulations under the guise of responsibility. Such actions raise concerns regarding the potential erosion of freedom of speech and expression, highlighting the need to be vigilant and ensure the preservation of these fundamental rights.

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) is an initiative started by the United Nations in 2021 to address digital challenges and promote peace, justice, and strong institutions. However, there is a lack of awareness about the GDC in South Asia and other developing countries. This lack of awareness poses a challenge to the enforceability and effectiveness of the GDC. Broad stakeholder participation is crucial in the design process of the GDC, but stakeholders in South Asia and other developing countries are often not adequately informed about the initiative. An all-inclusive approach that incorporates the perspectives and insights of stakeholders from diverse regions and backgrounds is essential for the GDC to have a meaningful impact.

In conclusion, the work of the DCIRP and IRPC in promoting and upholding human rights in the online space is commendable. Their efforts encompass translation, awareness-raising, capacity-building, and engaging stakeholders to ensure a rights-based approach in internet frameworks. Challenges remain in striking a balance between regulating misinformation and preserving freedom of speech, as well as raising awareness about initiatives such as the Global Digital Compact. Building collaborations and inclusivity in these efforts are important for addressing these challenges and achieving a more equitable and rights-centric digital landscape.

Audience

During the discussion on internet governance and digital rights, various topics were explored. Piu, a member of the EU Coalition on Internet Governance, expressed interest in getting involved in the dynamic coalition and highlighted the importance of young people’s participation in updating chapters and providing translation. This emphasises the need to include diverse perspectives in shaping internet governance policies.

The debate about freedom of expression, both online and offline, raised important considerations about finding a balance between regulation and protecting free expression. The principles of legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality were identified as essential factors in ensuring that governments do not overstep their boundaries when regulating online content. This argument acknowledges the importance of safeguarding both freedom of expression and preventing harm.

Another crucial aspect discussed was the need for a clear delineation of responsibilities between states, businesses, and stakeholders in the online environment. Each stakeholder was recognised as having a role in balancing freedom of expression with the prevention of the spread of harmful content. This underscores the significance of collaboration and cooperation among different actors to maintain a safe and open digital space.

Recognizing the potential of technology to be inclusive for individuals with disabilities, the speakers appreciated the advancements that can create more accessible spaces and opportunities. However, they also highlighted challenges such as regional variations in sign language and the continued struggle for internet accessibility for individuals with hearing impairments. This highlights the ongoing work required to bridge these gaps and ensure true inclusivity in the digital realm.

Elevating community involvement and empowerment emerged as a key theme in the discussion. The voices of people with disabilities often face barriers in being heard, and existing systems can hinder their active participation and expression of needs and opinions. The speakers highlighted the importance of fostering a supportive environment that uplifts and amplifies the voices of individuals with disabilities, advocating for inclusive design, technological advancement, and increased public participation.

The participants also examined the rights of children in the context of the internet, acknowledging both the positive and negative aspects of their exposure online. The need for careful monitoring and regulation to protect children’s cognitive development was emphasized, as unrestricted internet access can have detrimental effects. Additionally, there was a call for stronger mechanisms to prevent exploitation and abuse of children online, as they are often more vulnerable in the digital environment than in the physical world.

The Global Digital Certificate (GDC) solution and its connection to human rights were questioned during the discussion. The participants observed that none of the group members had considered the GDC solution from a human rights perspective. This raises concerns about the potential implications of implementing a global digital certificate system and highlights the importance of assessing its compatibility with fundamental rights and freedoms.

The speakers also criticized government-imposed internet shutdowns as a breach of digital rights. They argued that strong legislation at the national level is necessary to effectively enforce digital rights. The absence of nation-specific legislation was identified as a significant obstacle to protecting and upholding these rights.

To safeguard digital rights, the participants proposed strategic litigation as an effective approach. By utilizing existing rights such as the right to privacy and the right to access information, individuals and organizations can challenge government actions that infringe upon these rights. This highlights the importance of legal strategies and creative approaches in upholding and defending digital rights.

In conclusion, the discussion on internet governance and digital rights delved into various aspects, including the involvement of different stakeholders, the balance between regulation and free expression, the inclusivity of technology for individuals with disabilities, the protection of children’s rights online, and the legal considerations surrounding digital rights. The exploration of these topics provides valuable insights into the complexities and challenges of governing the digital realm while upholding fundamental rights and ensuring inclusivity for all.

Vint Cerf

Vint Cerf, a prominent figure in the field of technology, highlights the importance of considering human responsibilities alongside human rights in the online environment. He argues that online users and providers should be well-informed about their responsibilities and actively fulfil them. Cerf’s stance suggests a shift towards a more holistic approach in creating a safe and responsible online space.

The concept of the social contract, as proposed by philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, is also brought into the discussion. According to Rousseau, individuals agree to relinquish certain freedoms in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights. This notion emphasizes the understanding that, as we enjoy certain rights, we also hold responsibilities for the well-being and security of others.

The correlation between rights and responsibilities is another crucial aspect highlighted in the analysis. It is important to acknowledge that while we demand our rights to be respected, it is also important to recognize and fulfill our responsibilities towards others. This recognition helps establish a balanced and harmonious relationship between individuals and society.

Additionally, the mention of norms as behavior patterns taught by society without the need for enforcement offers an interesting perspective. Norms play a significant role in shaping our understanding of responsibilities and guiding our actions within a social setting. They provide a framework for acceptable behavior and assist in fostering cooperation and cohesion within communities.

In conclusion, the analysis reveals an increasing recognition of the importance of human responsibilities alongside human rights, particularly in the online environment. Vint Cerf’s standpoint, along with the concepts of the social contract and the correlation between rights and responsibilities, encourages individuals to be more aware of their obligations and to contribute to the creation of a responsible and ethical digital space. By understanding and fulfilling our responsibilities, we can build a more inclusive and harmonious society, both online and offline.

Wolfgang Benedek

Wolfgang Benedek raises concerns regarding the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its effectiveness in advancing human rights. Benedek questions the value added by the GDC in terms of progress towards the rights enshrined in the charter and its implementation.

One of Benedek’s main points is the lack of enforcement within the GDC. Despite the commitments made within the compact, Benedek highlights a lack of genuine and effective measures to ensure compliance. This lack of enforcement undermines the potential impact of the GDC in promoting and protecting human rights in the digital sphere.

Furthermore, Benedek emphasizes the challenge of reaching agreement within the GDC. He suggests that the difficulties in achieving consensus on crucial issues hinder substantial progress towards the goals outlined in the charter. This lack of agreement may result from differing perspectives and priorities among the stakeholders involved.

Through these criticisms, Benedek highlights the need for improvements in the implementation and effectiveness of the GDC. His concerns underscore the importance of meaningful enforcement mechanisms and a more inclusive and collaborative decision-making approach. By addressing these issues, the GDC can enhance its ability to promote and uphold digital human rights.

In conclusion, Wolfgang Benedek questions the value of the Global Digital Compact’s progress towards human rights, focusing on two key areas: the lack of enforcement and the challenges of reaching agreement. These criticisms highlight the need for improvements in the implementation and effectiveness of the GDC. By addressing these concerns, the GDC can play a stronger role in advancing human rights in the digital age.

Dennis Redeker

During the conference on internet governance and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), several topics were discussed by the speakers. One important development was the translation of the 10 Principles document of the charter into Japanese by the Dynamic Coalition for the IGF conference in Japan. The aim of this translation was to generate more interest among Japanese stakeholders and promote wider adoption of the Charter. As a next step, a task force is being set up to translate the entire Charter into Japanese, and they are inviting individuals with knowledge in internet governance or international law, or ideally both, to join this initiative.

Additionally, a survey revealed that the majority of internet users believe that technical experts should have the most influence when shaping the GDC. However, this perception doesn’t align with reality. According to the survey, businesses are perceived to have more influence than necessary, while national governments and academics are perceived to have less influence. This highlights the need for more public consultation and input in shaping the GDC, with less reliance on traditional powerholders. It is essential to seek the opinions of citizens, NGOs, and academics to ensure a more inclusive and representative digital governance framework.

The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) plays a significant role in the translation of their charter into different languages. They collaborate with various partners, including universities and student groups, to facilitate the translation process. This not only creates a valuable resource for the community but also helps students gain a better understanding of the implications and context of the charter in their own language. This collaborative effort in translating the charter into different languages provides an instructive experience for students and translators.

Dennis Redeker, an organizer at the conference, is facilitating a group discussion activity to promote engagement and a deeper understanding of the charter. The activity involves grouping audience members and allowing them to discuss specific articles of the charter. Participants are encouraged to choose an article of interest and consider potential challenges that may arise in the next 10 years regarding the associated rights. The aim is to find ways in which the Global Digital Compact can effectively address these challenges.

Dennis Redeker emphasizes the importance of continuing discussions on the relevance of the charter articles not only in the present but also in the future. He encourages participants to share copies of the principles with friends who may be interested, thus spreading awareness about the charter and its importance.

In conclusion, the conference on internet governance and the Global Digital Compact addressed various topics, including the translation of the charter into Japanese, the perception versus reality of stakeholder influence, the role of collaboration in translation efforts, and the need for public consultation. The group discussion activity led by Dennis Redeker aimed to foster engagement and explore challenges and solutions regarding the charter. Overall, it highlighted the significance of inclusive and representative digital governance for a more equitable and sustainable future.

Session transcript

Moderator – Santosh Babu Sigdel:
for being here. I’m moderating the first session of this workshop. English is not my first language, so bear with me. I’m Santosh Sigdel from Nepal. I’m co-chair of this Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principle and executive director of Digital Rights Nepal. So this is a dynamic coalition session, workshop on human rights law and the global digital compact. And in this session, the agenda of the session is we’ll be discussing briefly about the work of the IRPC, setting about the Dynamic Coalition. After that, we’ll be discussing briefly about the digital global compact and the human rights. And after that, there will be short speeches from three of the experts. Three of the experts. And after that, there will be a group session where we’ll be navigating the current human rights challenges or the challenges we might face in next 10 years and how global digital compact can be used as a tool to navigate those challenges in the online spaces. And there will be some recommendation for the stakeholders from our side to address those challenges that we foresee through our group exercise. So that is the outline of this workshop. And regarding this Dynamic Coalition, we started it in 2008. And it is an open network of individual and organization who are making human rights effective in the online space. And this is an open coalition. Anybody can join the coalition by subscribing to the email. And our website for this coalition is internetrightsandprinciple.org. And since 2014. The IRPC coalition is also the steering committee member of the Media and Information Society at the Council of Europe. The charter of the coalition, one of the major outcomes of the dynamic coalition is the Human Rights Charter and Principles, the 10 Internet Rights Principles and the Charter of the Rights and Principles. And it was published in 2018. And one of the major our work is translation, making it available in different languages. And so far, the charter has been translated into 12 languages. And it is available in 28 languages. The charter, the principles are available in 28 languages. Through the charter, we engage with the stakeholder in regional level, at the same time at the national level, country level. And we also collaborate with other dynamic coalition. And we engage with the stakeholder, for example, National Human Rights Commission in different countries. At the same time, we also raise the awareness about the need of implementing the right-based approach while developing and implementing internet framework in country level. So we have been, the translation work is kind of voluntary approach. So there is no dedicated support or funding for that. So we collaborate with the other organization and volunteers for different countries. And Dennis would be saying about the Japanese charter that we recently, last year, we had translated the charter into Nepali. And we had launched it in the IGF Ethiopia in Addis. This year, we have translated the charter into Japanese language. And we have got a copy of the charter in Japanese as well. So Dennis will be talking about the Japanese translation in a while. But before that. I’ll be setting about the work that the DC Dynamic Coalition carried out this year, in 2023. So the Dynamic Coalition officially presented at the EuroDIG in Finland. Similarly, in Africa, we participated in the Ghana SIG and presented the charter. There was a UNESCO Conference on Platform Accountability, sorry, Guideline for the Social Media Governance in France, where we participated and presented the charter. Similarly, there was a similar event in Nepal, where we participated. I represented IRPC at that time. We also engaged this year with the National Human Rights Commission of Nepal and advocated for the implementation of the charter in the local context and emphasizing their role, role of the National Human Rights Commission. Similarly, we audited our website for the accessibility approach, and we improved the accessibility of the IRPC website this year. Similarly, in IGF earlier, we co-organized the Global Digital Compact Southern Perspective Workshop. And similarly, the work of this year, the Japanese translation of the charter, which Dennis will be further explaining about it.

Dennis Redeker:
Absolutely. Thank you so much, Santosh. Indeed, today, and on occasion of the IGF in Japan, we’re launching the Japanese translation of the 10 Principles document. This is the short version, if you will, of the charter. The charter is a document of 25-plus pages. That obviously is a much bigger effort. This 10 Principles document, we got help translating for this conference. And this conference also is the place where we hope that we can garner some more interest in the charter among Japanese stakeholders in order to get more engagement of or coalition with the people in Japan. And so if you know someone, if you’re yourself a Japanese speaker. Feel free to join a task force we’re setting up to translate the Charter in its entirety. As we said, we now have 12 different translations of the Charter. It would be great to have a 13th soon, and that’d be a Japanese version. This is teamwork. It’s not that much time commitment. We look for people who have a grasp of Internet governance or of international law, ideally both. And you can contact me, you know, if you’re here in the room. Contact me, write me a personal message if you’re online. We’re happy to engage, and we hope to launch this then at a Japan IGF or an Asia-Pacific regional IGF or the IGF next year. And that’s already it with the updates from the coalition. Thank you for listening. We’ll distribute those after the session or in between, so you can take a flyer home if you want. There’s also the website on there.

Moderator – Santosh Babu Sigdel:
Thank you, Dennis, for the update. So this was the initial opening of the workshop where we are describing about the DC session and our work. So we are now entering into the main part of the session, talking about the human rights law and global digital compact. So in this main session, there will be three speakers talking about the different different dimension of the global digital compact and human rights law. So to open the session, I request co-chair of the Dynamic Coalition, Rasi, please.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Hi, everyone. I hope you’re doing well. I’m also moderating the session, so I’m going to talk a little bit lightly about the GDC and just give everyone an overview of the events that have happened, how we’ve participated, and then, of course, give it to Helani and Dennis to move forward with our program. So the GDC was agreed upon in the summit of the future, looking at the roadmap. recommendations of digital corporations with United Nations governments, civil society, and looking at a more multi-stakeholder digital technology track. We’ve seen this also in a lot of conversations where the SDGs are very technology avoidant, so maybe this perhaps is a good gap to, at least we look at it as a way to fill it up. And then there was a there was also a decision held at the UN General Assembly that was held on the 22nd and 23rd of September, which would look at opening for comments on, you know, collecting inputs from interested stakeholders that were considered with GDC. We also have Sweden and Rwanda that are looking at appointing as co-facilitators into this process, looking at roadmaps, and from an IRPC point of view, some of the topics that interest us is of course the topic of digital inclusion and connectivity, and of course we have, you know, a few topics in our charter where it directly goes into addressing digital inclusion gaps that are faced by women and migrants and refugees, more looking at marginalized groups and how digital inclusion can also foster and include public participation, political participation, and how involving these groups in digital policymaking processes is important. We also look at the point of human rights online, where how can we equate that the same rights that people have offline are also seen online, looking at cross-cutting issues on freedom of expression, information, net neutrality, and of course also looking at promoting multilingualism and promotion of cultural diversity, and also looking strongly at children’s rights and how they should have agency and looking at ensuring that there is protection of privacy. There’s also one on digital trust and safety looking at artificial intelligence being an integral component on how the pervasive influence on how it could include and influence financial services and how one should have agency on knowing whether AI is used in the process of for example in recruiting, in the public health sector and looking at the ramifications of AI on driving economic growth but looking at it for more privacy concern, safety concern, security concern with the invent of synthetic media, deepfakes but yeah AI also looking at an advanced technology that could look at examples that are more triggering for regulation, having more policy discussions but of course just giving you a little overview and then can have Helani join in.

Helani Galpaya:
Okay right as a sort of a last-minute addition to this panel I’m gonna be look I think the GDC in its sort of current policy draft whatever which is really the only document we have to go on along with everything that was said in the various different consultations. I think it does a good job of referring repeatedly to human rights. It also refers to ongoing instruments sort of you know like guiding principles on business and you know the universal declaration of human rights so it doesn’t try to create a new set of rights I think you know that’s as it should. should be. There’s a lot about misinformation and curbing of that, putting responsibility off platforms, and then also about artificial intelligence. So there’s a huge focus on Article 19, specifically on rights. I think what it doesn’t do, and there’s time to do that, is really think about how those mechanisms are actually going to be implemented, like even the guiding principles on business and human rights. These are not binding. These are voluntary sign-up things. So I’m not quite sure how that process is, and there has been very little visibility on that. So I think that’s kind of important. One of the critiques I made yesterday in a session that Ambassador Gill was there as well was that there has so far been very little, really, to bring the different communities together. Because we’ve been, civil society consultations have been in one side. The businesses have been talking separately amongst themselves, et cetera. And somehow, this synthesized document in its current draft is out. But really, it’s the interaction of these different various stakeholder groups that I think has to be facilitated. But I find a fundamental structural issue in that private companies are not the only violators of human rights. And in fact, state and state mechanisms are a huge violator. And in setting this, as much as it gives way to multi-stakeholder consultation, it’s still set within a multilateral system where nation states are the primary voting base when it comes to key decisions. And that system is completely unable to hold rogue nations to account. People who hinder tax negotiations because they are the biggest earners in terms of tax when it comes to the platform economy, people who filter the internet for billions of people and don’t let their citizens browse what they like or say what they like. People who shut down the internet under the flimsiest of excuses. There is no mechanism to hold nations to account. I mean, this is just a feature of the multilateral system, not of the GDC, by the way, right? But I think that’s a real fundamental shortfall and we do really need to think about this. There’s no point talking about human rights when wars are going on. And there’s no mechanism to really intervene. So what are we talking about the internet? I think the other issue is that human rights are viewed as sort of this, almost this exotic set of rights without really embedding them in the other important set of rights, with our socioeconomic rights. And they’re incredibly intertwined. The GDC talks about the need for connectivity almost as if it’s like a one, zero, you have connectivity, but it’s going to be a moving sort of a continuum. And the kind of human rights you can engage in are really dependent on the kind of socioeconomic power you have. And the internet is vital to that, right? So they’re really interconnected. So I don’t think it really helps today to talk about these two things, the socioeconomic rights versus human rights, as if one is more important than the other. They’re so intertwined and quite important. There’s also, I think my last point is that the GDC is going on in this process, and in a way quite removed from what’s really happening on the ground. Because while this conversation is going on and everyone is waiting for the summit of the future, what’s really going on, for example, in South Asia is that everyone is coming up with laws and regulations that really fundamentally hinder rights. A recent example would be the proposed online safety bill. It’s called the online safety bill. It’s a speech moderation bill in Sri Lanka, right? We can cite many, many examples. Now we have no idea how. these two parallel systems are going to, you know, the GDC envisions this, you know, rights-based human-centric world and yet the underlying layer of laws, which are rushing, by the way, because, you know, everyone is pushing for these, they should be done, but they are completely, you know, removed from any of that GDC discussions and the vision we have for the future. So we’re already going to have a whole set of laws that violate, we already have, and the new ones are also going to violate, you know, speech and many other rights and that connection sort of is not really made and I find that problematic. So, thank you.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Someone’s online or do you want me to comment? Is someone online or do I give them the floor for that? Who is online? Okay, so who? Yeah, we’ll have Wolfgang next. You can go first. If Wolfgang is not ready, I can actually see now. Sorry about that. Wolfgang, are you online? Okay, you can go ahead. Okay, Dennis, go ahead.

Dennis Redeker:
And I think it actually fits quite well here. Now, it’s the academic University of Bremen, Dennis Redeker, University of Bremen, speaking now, but really trying, I’m really trying to focus and to focus my talk and things I brought on this question of who are the potential human rights violators anyways, and you mentioned, Ilana, you mentioned states as one of the main sources potentially, so it’s not just companies obviously, and what I do when I I do research, I ask people about their opinions across the world, largely in the global South and Eastern Europe. So I’m presenting some results here that I think are quite interesting for those who care about the global digital compact consultations and the process. And then they relate, I think, to also what maybe people in these countries think about their governments with relation to making good rules on a global level and their government’s influence on processes at the UN level in this field. Now, it’s a very big challenge for someone who does public opinion research to actually ask the general population about a global digital compact. Because what have average internet users that I ask in terms of knowledge on the consultations and on the process? It’s very difficult. It’s a technical process. Most people will not be very attuned to the topics of global internet and digital governance. So I asked easier questions. I asked people, in your opinion, who should provide the input into writing of the global digital compact? And this is now explained to people who responded to the survey, what the GDC in general is. And I asked them, OK, so if that makes new rules on a global level for digital technologies and so on, who should have an influence on the global digital compact? And then I also asked them, in reality, who do you think actually has an influence in the process? And then lastly, I also asked them, so which are the principles? If you have to, in a very abstract way, have to think about the principles that you care most about, which of those do you want to be seeing as affirmed in the global digital compact? The survey I ran with a couple of colleagues. Among them here are actually Faye Courthouse, I want to point you out, one of the research assistance collaborators here in the room. This is a web-based survey asking internet users about their opinions, recruitment among social media users, the ads that were put out for this and were seen by 31.4 million users. There was a quota sampling conducted. In total, 41 countries, six languages, last year, early this year, and 17,500 people responded. And I asked them, OK, so who do you think the UN should listen to when it listens to different stakeholders? You can’t necessarily read it when you’re in the room here, so I’m going to read it out. The very left bar, about 60%, is technical experts. So internet users think that technical experts should have the most influence on shaping the GDC. Secondly, academics, with about 50%. 45% of the citizens think that citizens should be heard by the UN in the process. Obviously, in the consultations, there were opportunities like that. Then civil society, at about 40 plus percent of the respondents. And national governments, interestingly, although they seem to have a great deal of impact on the GDC, obviously, only 35% of the respondents thought they should be listened to and give input. Businesses, even less so. This is even more interesting. About 18% or so of respondents think that they should be heard on the Global Digital Compact. And I also asked them, OK, so this is what you want, but what do you think actually happens? Well, they think technical experts, they’re being listened to. No question about that. Academics, they’re not listened to enough, and I obviously agree. Citizens are not listened to. That’s what they think, in comparison to what they think, how it should be. NGOs, a little bit less than there should be. National governments are not being listened to. This is what the people out there think. I mean, this is 17,500 people. So they might be wrong. They’re certainly not wrong. Right, I think. But this is the perception. This is the idea what people have when you ask them. These are the general population. And people think that businesses, although they shouldn’t be listened to, they’re actually more listened to than they should be. So this is, I think, quite telling about this question. And it may actually tell you something about what, and this is connecting to the previous talk, what people think about who might be risks for human right-based digital governance. It might be the companies, it might be the states, but not the others. And so please let the others have an influence on this. And then I also asked the question, so this is a very, the topics of the GDC are very complex. You can’t really ask, how should the text be in the end? Please write it down. So I asked people about core principles. I selected some, and I asked them about all these principles, and asked them whether they agreed that is a principle that should definitely be included. Security of children online tops the list. Most people, more than 70% of the respondents think that’s very important, should be included. Security of privacy online, more than 60%. Fighting hate speech online is quite up there on the list. But also protection of intellectual property. But also greater cultural and linguistic diversity online. Network neutrality still makes the list kind of halfway. Right to encryption of data, more innovation, less regulation of digital technology is rather in the, I think, last third of those. Open source software doesn’t really feature up high. Neither does open data. And also those who say there should be no censorship online are only about 20% to 30%. This is probably also a result of conversation. I mean, what does no censorship mean, right? This also means no content moderation, essentially, if you will, of any kind. I have only just one or two slides more. And this is a slide that shows in which countries people tend to say there should be no censorship. online. And these are primarily countries in Eastern Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and not so much in Sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Africa, and Southeast Asia. And those asked about cultural and language rights online, it’s predominantly very strong around the African continent and somehow some places in Latin America. And yeah, maybe that’s just the data. But I think it’s insightful for us to think about the bottom-up view we often talk about. So how are people affected? But I wanted to think about how can we actually talk to people about the GDC and what they think about this in very abstract forms sometimes with these principles. That’s not the same discussion necessarily. But also very concretely, who should be listened to? Because that really is something, if we know how things are going in reality and what people think, that should give us at least some thought. And with that, I’m ending. And hopefully, we have Wolfgang online. Wolfgang.

Wolfgang Benedek:
If you talk about me, I’m Wolfgang Benedek. I’m sitting in Austria. And my regards to everybody. It’s a pleasure to listen to you, to see you here. I was involved in the past in drafting of the charter. So that’s quite some time ago. And I’m very pleased to see what progress has been made in the meantime with regard to the translations of the principles and of the charter itself. But I have to say, I’m not an expert of the GDC. I’m working on artificial intelligence and human rights at the moment. And we have a network of academics, a global network on the internet, and human rights online. And in that respect, I rather wanted to put the question, and this is to what extent in this global regulation, which I think is very much needed. However, on a soft law basis, we can expect some progress with regard to the rights enshrined in our charter, and also with regard to the question of implementation. But as I have listened to the presenters, this actually seems to be the gap, that there is little on enforcement, that is not untypical for such situations, when you need to get agreement. But still, the question is, what is the value added of the GTC in that respect?

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Thanks so much, Wolfgang. And now I will hand it over to Santosh and Dennis for the activity, or do we open it up for questions or comments from our audience? Yeah, we could do that. So I wanted to check if anyone had any questions or comments. And then everyone could raise their hand so that I could pass on the mic.

Vint Cerf:
Thank you very much. It’s Vince Cerf. When I listen to human rights, which I think we all care a great deal about, I begin to wonder about human responsibilities. And I don’t know whether we’ve ever had a charter that speaks to that. But it seems to me in the environment that we’re in, in the online world, that we really do have some shared responsibility in addition to asking for and expecting rights. And I don’t know whether we’ve tried to articulate that, but do you suppose it would be worth our time to try to offer what responsibilities we have as consumers, users, and providers of human rights? and occupiers of this online space.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Is there anyone else that has any comments or questions? You could just raise your hand. Anyone? Yeah, I’ll give it a moment. OK. And then, oh, there’s a mic there. Go ahead.

Audience:
Hello, everyone. This is Piu from the EU Coalition on the Internet Government, a steering committee member. I have been to the Internet Coalition, and I have been present about this chapter during the webinar that was happening in the ASEAN, South Asian network. That is quite interesting. The thing is that I’m curious about how we can engage at this dynamic coalition and how we can get involved. And how do you have a plan to bring the young people to get involved in updating chapter or maybe translation part or something like that? That is what I would like to know.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Yeah. Maybe I can. Yeah, I can respond to that. We’re actually very open with partnerships. We do have a partnership even with, say, the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. A lot of those members also get transformed. I’m an example of that. I was a part of YCIG, and then I transitioned into being a steering committee member and then co-chair. We’re very open to having those conversations. The IRPC emailing list is also good for opportunities on how you can participate. And the IGF is a good place. There are different ways. One is, of course, the Internet Societies Program. But there are a lot of ways in which the country hosts have their own programs on how youth can participate in different sessions and contribute remotely, leading up to the event. and even after, whether it’s a discussion paper or it’s a policy proposal. So I would say the world is your oyster, but you can connect with us after the session and we can see how we can partner together on the charter translation or anything else. I hope that answers your question. Okay.

Dennis Redeker:
Maybe to add, we have some, I mean, you also have worked on the translation project. I’ll give you the mic in a second. Just one other example. It’s often also university students that work on the charter. We had two universities in Padua in Northeastern Italy and Salerno in Southern Italy, two lecturers getting their students involved into the translation of the charter. This was headed by Edoardo Schlester, Dublin City University, really trying to see whether this is worthwhile that obviously as a translation for Italians to read, but also at the same time for the students to think about what it means to translate an English language text into your own language. What does it mean in your context? Because often it’s not just a translation that you can do with automated translation services. Increasingly so maybe, but it really means trade offs as you translate it in another language. It means that you have to understand what it does actually mean. It’s a different term for hate speech maybe or something else. You got to think about these kinds of things, very instructive for everyone I think who engages with translations. But Santosh, you have another example, right?

Moderator – Santosh Babu Sigdel:
Yeah, just to continue with what Dennis said. We collaborated with the local NGO in the case of Nepal, Digital Rights Nepal. So it is necessary that the local people having the grasp of local language are engaged rather than the machines in the local level because the human agency is also important because in the draft translation, they can discuss it with their stakeholders. For example, I’ll give you one example. There is no real translation of the term governance in Nepali. When we talk about internet governance. the real term, real translation is not there. So we had to use internet governance in a romanized way. Because after a long discussion, we argued that any other term would not sufficiently grasp the whole idea of governance. So we’ll continue with the internet governance. So it is necessary that we work with the local community, local stakeholder. And that is not only the translation. Because it is also the part of building capacity of the local stakeholder. Because in the process of translating, you are working with the language of the charter. We are working with the concept of the charter. So that also builds the capacity of the local stakeholder that I felt personally.

Helani Galpaya:
I’m going to try and address this issue of, I think, responsibility. And I’m going to give a very retail level answer. I think responsibility lies with, obviously, all the different actors in the internet value chain. And I think consumers also do have it. I think back at the environmental protection movement. My mother’s generation, it was very normal to go on trips, eat out of plastic wrappers, and just leave that stuff there. We no longer do that. We would never cross the world. Now we are much more conscious about it. That’s a responsibility act that has been grilled into us through primary education, almost, maybe, and the global conversation. It’s also been matched with incentives for good behavior. So I think that’s a big part about it. And maybe sometimes punishment, the other side of incentives. So I do think there is a responsibility. The danger of only having the responsibility conversation is that it puts the responsibility only on individuals. And the language is women should safeguard. yourself on the Internet. That’s not the responsibility conversation, right? We have a civic responsibility because what we say and do on the Internet, unless it’s on a one-on-one message, it usually has externalities. There’s a broadcast function. Our ideas permeate to people who unintentionally come across it. So there is absolutely an externality and a responsibility and I think we need to start very much for retail individuals with sort of young people and how we teach them on what civic behavior online is. Can I just add something to that? So I

Moderator – Santosh Babu Sigdel:
just wanted to relate with the ongoing discourse around the regulation of misinformation, disinformation around the countries and we have seen some cases in the context of South Asia including in Nepal where the government is trying to impose this concept of responsibility towards the citizen that you have to filter the conversation or your expression on the Internet to make sure that there is no propagation of the fake news, so-called fake news or the misinformation or disinformation. So now based on that responsibility they want to frame a law or the legal regime where they can also kind of, they can also control the legitimate expression. So sometimes this responsibility argument is from the point of controlling the Internet that it is coming from that point of view also. I think we should also consider that.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Maybe we could move to our activity. It’s Vince Nerfigan. Just thinking a

Vint Cerf:
little bit about an important document by Rousseau called the social contract and in some sense we agree to give up certain rights in exchange for safety and security for example. In different countries we will choose to give up more or less depending on what we’re comfortable with. There are other things that we call norms and Those are not exactly responsibilities. They are behavior patterns that the society generally teaches us we should adopt, but there’s not an enforcement element. But I do think it’s important for us to recognize that as we demand rights that we also recognize, we have responsibilities that go along with them. Sometimes we don’t often remember that part. Thank you. Sure.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
So my colleagues Dennis and Santosh are now going to take you through an activity. We are looking at banding up the audience into groups of four or five. So maybe we could have a random selection. I could just, I mean, go ahead. So one, two, three, four, five, you could come this way. Five people per group should be fine, right? I think there are enough people in the audience.

Dennis Redeker:
So it takes 20 minutes. Just some people are leaving, because they have to leave. But it takes about 20 minutes, and it’s going to be a discussion within the group. And you get to know new people, hopefully.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Sorry? You have another obligation. You can go ahead. No, it’s fine. Thank you for coming. Sure, sure, sure, sure.

Dennis Redeker:
But for those who are remaining, it’s going to be only 20 minutes in that group. And you get to know your group mates, and that’s a great thing. And we’ll come back together and everything.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
OK, then we’ll pass you on. One, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four, five, six. This group is larger. So three groups. You all could maybe come in closer, if that’s? Yes. So one, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four, five. So you move actually that way with them, and you come in closer. Thank you for staying. Yes. Yes. Thank you.

Dennis Redeker:
So we’re now going to start the group phase. It’s about 20 minutes. We’ll have one group online. After we gave instructions, please go to the breakout room. I think, if I’m correct, we’re going to have a breakout room for you created. Correct? We’ll take lead here. Yeah. Yeah. And for everyone else, the idea for today is to have a look at the charter. This is the charter that we have brought. Unfortunately, only in a very bad copy. It’s the English version, obviously, with other translations. But the idea is to pick one of the articles which is relating to one or several rights and principles. One of the articles of the charter as a group. And to think about the challenges. that this article and the associated right and principle will face in the next 10 years. So think about the most horrible technological developments, political developments that can occur, and think about this in the first step. And then think in a second step about what the Global Digital Compact could do in order to help lower the risk, in order to help address the challenge that you have defined or the challenges that you have defined for the article that you’re focusing on. So there are three steps, essentially. I mean, first, get to know each other. Introduce yourselves to each other. Then pick an article. Think about challenges in the next 10 years. And then think about what you think the international community, through the Global Digital Compact, could do. What should be entailed? What should come out at the Summit of the Future in New York 2024 that would help against those challenges? Are there any questions, either here in the room or online? And afterward, we’ll come together and we’ll quickly discuss what you have come up with and have an overall discussion. Any questions here in the room? No? Then you have 20 minutes. Go.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, and there’s a violence between you two, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? The question is, if the teacher is trying to teach you as well, can you establish an old document, where you can then reaffirm that there’s a violence between you two? for all of your outputs. And towards, as we close, maybe we could have one or two representatives to talk about the outputs of synthesis learnings and looking at the role of stakeholders. So five more minutes. And yeah, enjoy. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Because it’s all well-handled, I can pick up about a half a dozen new regulations coming up at the present time. So I want to speak to the question that it seems like that people want to follow. And the point is that some governments want to use the expertise that’s made a little bit different than what we’ve got online. But when you talk, speak, or anything like that, it’s different, right? Why is it happening in other countries? So it’s also true that because of the frequent extension, the interpreters in the national data are too many ways, right? Even in the US. I mean, of course, because the United States is already a society where the government is helping the private sector. And now, it doesn’t seem to be so. I mean, it’s ridiculous. Now that we see these different kinds of interpreters, which is quite an astounding thing. And that was one reason for having a sharper interpreter, right? To come up with an internet-based interpretation of these rights. And hope that those old interpreters, maybe they still cooperate. Right. But that’s not important. It happens sometimes. We don’t recognize that proportion of the rights that we have to defend what we want to do and work for it. So that’s a possibility. So you really have to figure out the communication and how you can change it. It’s a very nice question. That’s a good question. Yeah. Such a good question. I think it’s a question that is known after you’ve been in some interpretation where people say it’s important. So that’s why. I agree with that. I agree with this whole point. As you are saying that there’s different interpretation of a given right in different institutions. For example, what they can make free speech means in Japan is very different from the US. So freedom of expression is also, you know, no right is an absolute right. In Indian constitution, that will be a freedom of expression. But there are certain limitations to that. Now, looking at the new environment where they’re dealing with misinformation and disinformation, we have a certain sort of regulation in terms of protecting the harm that can be caused by the spread of misinformation. At the same point of time, we have to keep in mind that the governments are not going overboard. They are following the set of principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality in this matter. The reason I’m saying this is that in global South Asia, and especially from the region where I come from, there has been people who have lost their lives in countries like India. like Bangladesh, India, because somebody wrote a hate post about the political community and just spread it like anything. So it’s about speed and scale when it comes to the open and online environment. What the right is there, but we, in India, we know that, OK, if I say something to you, it will take time to spread. So if I spread something on Facebook, that can actually hurt the minorities if I am just putting on some hate-based kind of post. So I’m not going to do that. Sometimes, politics becomes politics. The difference is so much faster. Yeah. It’s so much more. It becomes politics. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, that’s why we need regulation, because we need to ensure that the regulation is not going overboard, and we have to do it proportionally with all the central authorities. The right now, what we see is that when Bangladesh is in the global south, and even in my region, they come up with certain regulations, they say that the purpose is this, that we want to curb the spread of misinformation and disinformation, but then they give such wide exceptions to national security and then say, and you know, some broad conflict, national security, which can be interpreted in a broad way to curb the rights of the fundamental rights of the people. And of course, national security is a government-informed policy. Yeah. That’s because the government will be doing it. It depends. It’s a question, then, about state and scale. Yeah. It depends. It’s a question about state and scale. It’s a chance that we need to address that, and it’s a regulation of self-regulation. We need to ensure that, like, when we are talking about freedom of expression and freedom of speech, we want to know, like, the context. We also know that there is a limitation. We can’t allow this to be. But here, the charter also needs to understand the global nature of the context. Misinformation gets spread very fast because of the conflict on Thailand. So when we are talking about freedom of speech, how to deal and whose responsibility it is to deal with misinformation, how to manage it. So should we mention that, OK, these are the responsibilities of the government, these are the responsibilities of the state, and this is what is expected from us as, you know, right-leaners as well. Because if we leave this challenge, then freedom of expression becomes, you know, redundant in that sense. If we are not controlling this mismanagement of what we speak and what kind of information we receive every night, right? So it’s a tool that’s out there. I think we’re wrapping up now. Do you have someone to inform you a little bit in the… Is that all right? Yeah. He’s watching. Are you fine with that? Yeah. OK. They have also chosen the volunteer. I would like to, I guess, say thank you. Maybe I’ll open up and then they’ll… Yeah. All right. So I’m wondering, I mean, I totally understand the problem. But on the other hand, we’re looking at a lot of other issues as well. It’s quite a big issue that we have to deal with. And we’re thinking about this for a long time. And I’m not sure how to respond to that. But I think that’s what we’re really trying to discuss in the party. And I would like to know how to address those issues and I think… I’m not sure if I completely understand, but…

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Hi, everyone. I, unfortunately, hi. So your five minutes are up. Maybe give you another two minutes. And I’m going to time it this time. Yeah? Can we have group one starting, please? I do believe, who’s group one, Santosh? You are group one. Yes. Yes, so we look forward to getting your inputs. And please introduce yourself. And if you could also talk a little bit about your group, what you discussed.

Audience:
OK, I’ll start by noting that we could not agree on who we report, so we picked two of us. We spoke about the freedom of expression, because that was the most obviously under threat all the time. Noting that a long time there’s been a debate about whether or how it applies online. There have been some people who agree, think that it should not be somehow different online. And of course, there are differences in the scale and speed and so on. But the principle should be the same. Exactly why it has been argued to be different and how it should be interpreted online, that part of why the charter actually was started. How does this apply online from human rights? OK, maybe I’ll hand over to you from this point. So the things that we were discussing in our group is that, of course, that freedom of expression is one of the most essential rights in terms of both in offline world and in the online world. But at the same point of time, we know every rights come up with certain restrictions. No right is an absolute right. Now, in the offline world, there were better ways. is to stop hate speech. So if somebody says which is hate speech or makes some comments which might provoke violence against a particular community, it could be curbed in a better way. Now with the speed and scale in the online world, we see that the spread of misinformation and disinformation. And coming from South Asia and coming from global south, we have seen in Myanmar, in Bangladesh, even in my own country, that OK, somebody writes a hateful post against a minority group, against some indigenous group. It spreads. And even the real physical loss of life takes place. So when we talk about freedom of expression in online world, we also have to be cautious about how to protect and stop the dissemination of misinformation as well. This also means that there should be regulations in that term. But we should also be mindful as civil society that the governments are not going overboard with those regulations in terms of the principles of legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality are followed. And the government should not use this particular thing to curb the actual application of the right. So the things like national security and curbing the spread of misinformation should not be used to curtail the rightful expression. So not all opinions can be labeled as misinformation. Of course, the facts are there. We can differ. And so we can’t say that all the opinions are misinformation. But we need to also find and devise ways so that, OK, these are the responsibilities of states, and these are the responsibilities of businesses. And as responsible stakeholders in the online environment, these are our responsibilities. So I’m not saying that the freedom of expression differs in online and offline world. It’s just that the speed and scale makes it much more difficult to control the spread of disinformation and misinformation. And that can actually. result in loss of life and serious harm to certain communities. Thank you. It’s the final comment. We did not solve all the problems, even though we talked about them.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Okay, can we have group two now? Group two. Yes. You can please introduce yourself.

Audience:
Yeah, I’m Isuru from La Nacia. So this is my group, and so I’m just voicing out what we discussed. So we picked Article 13, which is about rights of persons with disabilities and how this can be a challenge, or how it will be like in the future. That’s what’s our discussion. And so our idea was that technology is getting better and better inclusive, so some of issues it might solve in the future, definitely. But we saw some gaps in areas like, if you take persons with hearing impaired, where you need like a lot of technological involvement, and also if you take like sign language is not kind of a universal language that you find. So there are like regional variations and language variations and all that. So how do you make internet accessible for them is going to be a challenge. Though you have all those technological developments, say I helping you to read your lips and turning it into a sign languages and all that. So the other point we discuss is that you need to have inclusion by design, so we can make all our design. inclusive, and we can provide comments on whatever the things, like the developments out there, and make those, and compel them to make those inclusive. And also, getting community engagement and empowerment is also going to be really important, because if you take persons with disabilities, they have always problems of raising their voices. Because of the system, the majority that follows, sometimes you have to, for example, like for a certain comments, you might have to submit written comments. Or you might have to go to a place, go to a building, and to give your comments. So those things might restrict some of persons with disabilities, like raising their voice. So then you need to avoid those things, and find a way to get their comments on those things as well. And yes, did I miss anything? OK then, thank you. Right.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Thank you so much for your comments. Now we have last, but not the least, group three.

Audience:
Thank you. So hello, everyone. I am from Nepal, and my name is Dakal Ashok. And we are the last group here. And we have talked about rights to children and the internet. And I’m going to present our conclusion here. So first of all, I’d like to say that the children are the future of our nation. And whatever rights we give them today, it brings our nation. And like what brings our nation into 10 years is dependent upon the rights given today to our children. So there might be lots of rights. The children should be exercised, but we should filter them, like there should be a strong filtering system while giving them rights and exercising their rights. Like the rights from the internet, we have given them a proper right to use the internet in their studies. And we have given them the rights, including their freedom of expression and freedom association. But while giving such kind of right today, it might benefit them for those short-term basis only. But in the future, it can go darker and darker if it is not regulated in the right way. For example, we can see that the generative AI, like the ZGBT that children are using right now, it is becoming strong and strong. And we can see that it is becoming dangerous for the children. So if we do not give this kind of right to children, then they say the students are not getting their right. And if we give this kind of right to them, and then their cognitive ability might get destroyed in maybe five or 10 years. And they might fully depend on the kind of the AI. So there are both the positive and negative aspects of giving rights to the children. But what we should, what the government should is what they are giving to their children and what the future of the, what the consequences will it bring. So as it is, we have talk about freedom from exploitation and child abuse. Like in our society, in our school, in our college, in our country, we can see that there is a strong rule which protects children from exploitation and abuse imagery. But in the online area or in the online internet, they are not protected safely. They are exploited more on the internet than in the physical environment. So while giving the freedom from exploitation and child abuse imagery, it is effective for the physical concept only. But in the virtual world, it is not so strong. They might not get the time to exercise its right. So while the government body or any organization try to exercise the freedom from exploitation and child abuse imagery, they should be more specific on the internet aspect, like banning only the website or some kind of activities will not be effective. There should be a strong mechanism. So thank you so much.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Thank you so much for your comments. And now Dennis will ask the online participants.

Dennis Redeker:
I’m already asked the question in chat. Just now, once again, last opportunity. If you want to weigh in from online, please raise your hand, I think. If that’s not the case, I think we can hand back to you, Rashi, for last round of comments. We start with you, you want to start with me? I thought with comments from everyone. I mean, there’s no, many things have been said. We haven’t really talked, I think, about the Global Digital Compact in the solutions phase so much, but if someone wants to bring it back to that, that’s the original thought of the discussion, but I mean, take it from here, sorry.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
That is true. Is there anyone who wants to, or has a counter argument? Do you want to go on, or do you want the mic? You can, yeah, go ahead.

Audience:
My name is Tomoe, I am based in Tallinn, Estonia. I’m from the Tallinn University, and I think it’s interesting that none of the group came up with the solution with the GDC, and that is maybe telling someone something about the impact of the GDC on the international human rights law perspective. I think the lady spoke about the human rights mentioning in the text, but how concretely we can talk about the rights and the legal, legality-connected arguments through the GDC, I think that’s maybe a bit questionable. Thank you.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Thanks so much. Is there anyone else who has any rebuttals, solutions, comments? Maybe comments about what another group said, agreeing, disagreeing. There’s someone from online.

Audience:
Yeah, hi, can I go ahead? Yes, please go ahead. Okay, hi. Hello, everyone. My name is Veronika Panaye. I’m currently a student at the Tel Aviv University. It’s really interesting. I think in my group, we really didn’t have a lot of time to have a conversation, but we focused on the… right, the access to the internet. I know that we’re asked to identify some of the challenges and I spoke from a home perspective, so I’m from Nigeria. And one of the issues that, although we have that right, for me, I’m saying that what we’ve experienced in our country is where we’ve seen instances where government infringes on those rights. So an instance I gave was when the Nigerian government shut down access to Twitter in the country at that time, which is currently X. And although we have the rights to access the internet, we could see that the government could impeach on those rights. And other African countries have experienced, other countries even have experienced internet shutdowns and that is critical. So even if the article states that we have the rights to access the internet and everybody knows that, from my own perspective, I’m seeing that when we don’t have this passed into legislation in the country that we’re in, I’ll speak for my country, Nigeria, when we don’t have this legislation, it’s very, very difficult for enforcement purposes. So I mean, one of the solutions that I speak of is having the laws passed in the country that reflects these principles. Because we have these rights stated in our constitution and with the new interactions with technology, it’s difficult to like enforce. So it’s always good to pass, as in have rights or legislation in the country that passed that. Another way that the Nigerian nonprofit sector and people who are digital rights advocates have been able to like bypass this have been to use strategic litigation to change like the government in instances of breach of certain digital rights. So for us, that has been like a creative way of using present laws. for instance, like right to privacy, right to have access to information, and using those rights to go to the courts to challenge those rights. I hope I’ve been able to make a contribution. Thank you very much.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Thank you so much for your inputs, you were great. Is there anyone else online that would like to give their inputs? And if not, anyone here? If not, I will give it back to the speakers, yeah.

Moderator – Santosh Babu Sigdel:
Before the speakers, just to wait to continue the discussion from where she has started about why we only discussed about the challenges and why there was no discussion about the solutions and what would be the role of the GD, Global Digital Compact in designing the solution. So just wanted to know, in your research, Dennis, you asked about who should be responsible, which stakeholders should be responsible for framing the GDC, or how effective they are in what role they have in framing the GDC, but maybe one question in the Global South or all over, we have to ask, how involved the stakeholders in different levels are in this Global Digital Compact designing process? It started in September 2021, and now we are in October 2023, two years has gone, and they plan to, UN plans to adopt it by the future of the future summit in September 2024. So we have almost 11 months or one year in our hand. But looking at the kind of discourse in South Asia or the developing countries, there is no discussion about the Global Digital Compact. Even the government, they don’t know about it. Stakeholders, civil society, media, they do not know about it. UN organization, they are not talking about the Global Digital Compact. So, what would be the, it would be another charter or another compact without, we are talking about the multilateralism, multistakeholderism, and participation of all the stakeholder, but if the compact is coming like this, without proper consultation or even stakeholder not knowing about you, not knowing about it in the larger framework, so what kind of impact it will have, and the second question is about enforceability that earlier Pahalani mentioned of. We have, for example, this business and human rights guidelines by the UN, and that is normative framework. So, what would be the kind of status of this global digital compact, and how it would be enforced, and what would be the role of different stakeholder in this whole process? If we look at the compact from that perspective, maybe we can have some roles into it, different stakeholder can have some roles into it, and we can design it in a manner that it would be helpful to address the challenges on different human rights on online space that we are discussing now.

Helani Galpaya:
Quick comment, I mean, I think as much as we find fault with it, it has made a lot of effort for consultation. So, I kind of agree, and I’m kind of disagreeing with you. Consultation processes, even at national level, are completely imperfect processes, right? The privileged participate, the knowledgeable people participate, we’ve done water on infrastructure, that’s the nature of consultations. Large amounts of money have been spent. This was a global consultation, and I thought it was much more consultative than many other global processes, actually, right? They did make the effort. it’s never going to be perfect. The only way to make it perfect is to run national level elections on whether we agree on some of the articles in there. So I think it is, by definition, going to be imperfect. And I think it’s still ongoing, meaning the official consultations are over, but there’s still a lot of opportunity to influence. And to me, the sign that there are at least three sessions here at the IGF itself. And for example, I told you the one organized by somebody else, but I happen to be a speaker. All the ambassadors from the host, from the countries that are hosting this, Germany, Kenya, and I forget which other one, and Amandeep Kale came. So there was somebody in the room all the time. So at least there’s the theater of listening, right? I don’t know what actual influence. So I think, I’m just trying to say something very positive about this, because in an imperfect situation, and I think the global mechanisms for actually enforcement are quite tough, because we don’t all live in the EU, because there’s some common understanding and structure where, yes, there’s some room for countries to wiggle around once the common framework is set. We don’t live anywhere in that world, right? So it’s really the next step is, even if we end up with a perfect GDC document, is, I think, at ground level for people like us to make sure that then our nations develop policies that are at least reflective and aligned with that, I think. Right.

Moderator – Raashi Saxena:
Definitely. So now we’re running out of time, so Dennis is gonna close the session for us.

Dennis Redeker:
Thank you so much. Thank you all for coming. I think this was very good to communicate not only your activities, but to be starting a discussion on how articles of the chart are still relevant, also today and in the next 10 years. We do have, obviously, English and Japanese versions of the 10 principles. Take one, take two, take three. Bring them to your friends who might be interested in this. Otherwise, thank you so much for joining. for joining us today, and also online, thank you.

Audience

Speech speed

146 words per minute

Speech length

3764 words

Speech time

1545 secs

Dennis Redeker

Speech speed

178 words per minute

Speech length

2613 words

Speech time

878 secs

Helani Galpaya

Speech speed

173 words per minute

Speech length

1663 words

Speech time

576 secs

Moderator – Raashi Saxena

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

1383 words

Speech time

560 secs

Moderator – Santosh Babu Sigdel

Speech speed

163 words per minute

Speech length

1724 words

Speech time

633 secs

Vint Cerf

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

259 words

Speech time

95 secs

Wolfgang Benedek

Speech speed

144 words per minute

Speech length

241 words

Speech time

100 secs