Multistakeholder platform regulation and the Global South | IGF 2023 Town Hall #170

Audience

The analysis highlights a negative sentiment towards cooperation between authorities, suggesting that it may result in longer response times and decisions that lean towards soft laws rather than hard laws. This indicates that when multiple authorities are involved in decision-making processes, the cooperation required may slow down the overall process, potentially delaying the timely resolution of issues. Additionally, the preference for soft laws over hard laws implies a level of flexibility and compromise that may not always be in the best interest of regulation and enforcement.

On the other hand, the analysis identifies a positive sentiment towards the diverse approaches taken by different countries in addressing global issues. This variation in responses can be attributed to the regional context in which these issues arise. It showcases the importance of considering local factors and tailoring solutions accordingly. By acknowledging and respecting the different approaches taken by various countries, a more comprehensive and effective response to global issues can be achieved.

Despite the challenges associated with cooperation, there is support for the need to collaborate and work together. It is emphasized that finding ways to harmonise responses and regulations is crucial. This highlights the importance of striking a balance between allowing for diverse approaches rooted in regional context while also ensuring alignment and consistency in addressing global challenges. By doing so, synergies can be formed, facilitating more efficient and effective decision-making processes.

It is worth noting that the analysis does not provide specific evidence or supporting facts for the arguments presented. However, it sheds light on the different perspectives and sentiments related to cooperation between authorities, the impact of regional context on addressing global issues, and the necessity of finding mechanisms to harmonise responses and regulations.

In conclusion, the analysis indicates a negative sentiment towards cooperation between authorities, pointing out the potential drawbacks such as slower response times and favoring soft laws. However, it also recognises the positive aspect of diverse approaches taken by different countries in addressing global issues. The need for cooperation is acknowledged, with an emphasis on finding ways to strike a balance between regional context and harmonising responses and regulations. This expanded analysis provides insight into the complexities and challenges faced in achieving effective international cooperation while highlighting the importance of adaptation and collaboration.

Joanne Cunhe

The analysis draws attention to several challenges related to global platform governance and stakeholder participation, particularly focusing on India and the Global South. One major obstacle is the lack of capacity in terms of both financial resources and personnel. This can make it difficult for these regions to actively engage in global discussions and shape decision-making processes.

Another highlighted challenge is the absence of diverse voices in these global discussions. It is crucial to involve groups that are directly affected by or study platform harms in order to ensure comprehensive and inclusive governance. However, these voices are often underrepresented or not fully involved in decision-making processes, limiting their influence.

The sentiment surrounding these challenges is predominantly negative, reflecting the difficulties faced by India and the Global South in effectively participating in global platform governance. These challenges call for greater attention and support to address disparities and provide equal opportunities for participation.

Regarding stakeholder participation in decision-making processes, a significant challenge is achieving meaningful involvement. Different approaches to stakeholder participation in India’s rulemaking have been observed, but stakeholders are often limited in their involvement at the initial stage, especially when operating at the draft bill level. This limitation prevents stakeholders from having a substantial impact on decision-making processes, raising concerns about inclusivity and transparency.

Power dynamics between various stakeholders also play a crucial role in shaping the type of participation observed. The dynamics between civil society and the state, or between the state and platforms, vary greatly across jurisdictions. Understanding these power dynamics and tailoring approaches based on the context becomes essential to ensure fair and equitable participation.

Another important aspect highlighted is the need for tailored approaches to platform regulation in the global majority. Considering specific contexts in different regions is crucial for effectively addressing challenges and nuances associated with platform governance.

While greater collaboration among different stakeholders within civil society is seen as a necessity, there is existing fragmentation that hinders support at global forums. Efforts should be made to address this fragmentation and foster collaborative approaches that can lead to impactful decision-making and partnerships for sustainable development.

In conclusion, the analysis demonstrates the challenges faced by India and the Global South in terms of global platform governance and stakeholder participation. It emphasizes the need for capacity building, diverse voices, and inclusive decision-making processes. Additionally, power dynamics and tailored approaches to specific contexts are crucial factors to consider. Efforts to address these challenges and promote collaboration among stakeholders will be essential for effective governance and achieving sustainable development goals.

Online Moderator

The first question raises the issue of developing national regulations for digital platforms, considering their cross-sector impact. The term “platformization” refers to the widespread presence of platforms across various industries, requiring regulations that can cover a wide range of issues. The question emphasizes the complexity of this task, as it involves addressing the extensive regulatory agenda associated with platform regulation. It is crucial to develop effective national regulations that strike a balance between the benefits of digital platforms and concerns related to competition, privacy, data protection, and user rights.

The second question explores different governance models for regulating digital platforms. It examines the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized model, where the state plays a dominant role, compared to a polycentric model that involves both the state and civil society. The centralized model offers the advantage of clear hierarchical structure and potential efficiency in decision-making. However, it may also lead to concentration of power, reduced inclusivity, and a risk of regulatory capture. On the other hand, the polycentric model promotes multi-stakeholder involvement, diverse perspectives, and potentially reduces the risk of regulatory capture. However, reaching consensus and making decisions efficiently may be more challenging.

Both questions highlight the complexity and importance of addressing these issues comprehensively and inclusively. Considering the cross-sector impact of platforms and adopting governance models that balance state involvement and civil society participation are crucial in shaping effective regulations for digital platforms. Ongoing discussions, research, and collaboration among policymakers, industry leaders, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders are needed to develop regulatory frameworks that encourage innovation, protect user rights, promote fair competition, and ensure a sustainable and inclusive digital ecosystem.

Miriam Wimmer

Platform regulation encompasses a wide range of laws aimed at promoting competition and combating misinformation. The business models of digital platforms present unique challenges in protecting fundamental rights. Data protection authorities naturally play a role in discussions surrounding platform regulation, as digital platforms involve the large-scale processing of data. Furthermore, traditional data protection principles and rights touch upon issues concerning digital platforms.

Brazil supports the concept of multi-stakeholder participation in digital regulation and has implemented a model of multi-stakeholder internet governance. There is an expectation that regulatory bodies dealing with digital issues should have formal consultation mechanisms in place. This supports the idea that involving multiple stakeholders in the regulatory process can lead to more comprehensive and effective outcomes.

However, challenges exist in coordinating and cooperating between public bodies involved in platform regulation, particularly due to budgetary and resource constraints. The creation of new governmental bodies may be limited, which can hinder effective coordination and cooperation. These challenges highlight the need for efficient and effective cooperation between regulatory bodies involved in platform regulation.

Dealing with digital platforms requires the understanding and enforcement of multiple legislations, which necessitates the involvement of different regulators. The institutional setup to address the complexities of digital platforms is very cross-cutting and transversal, thus requiring the collaboration of various regulatory bodies. This highlights the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to platform regulation, involving various stakeholders and regulatory authorities.

A centralized model for platform regulation is deemed unfeasible due to the diverse fields that platforms touch upon, such as labor relations, misinformation, human rights protection, and competition aspects. The complexities of these issues make it impractical to discuss a centralized regulator for the entire digital ecosystem. Instead, a multifaceted approach involving different agencies and stakeholders is required to effectively regulate and address the challenges posed by digital platforms.

Cooperation between different agencies, as well as the involvement of various stakeholders, is necessary for successful platform regulation. However, cooperation does not arise spontaneously; it must be crafted into legislation to ensure its effectiveness and legitimacy. Additionally, public participation is crucial in ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of regulatory decisions. While cooperation and public participation may be time-consuming, they are integral to shaping regulations that address the diverse concerns surrounding digital platforms.

In conclusion, platform regulation involves addressing various legal challenges, promoting competition, and addressing concerns such as misinformation and fundamental rights. The business models and data processing involved in digital platforms necessitate the involvement of data protection authorities. Brazil supports multi-stakeholder participation in digital regulation. However, challenges in coordinating and cooperating between public bodies exist, and the decentralized nature of digital platforms requires multiple regulators. A centralized model is impractical, and cooperation, legislation crafting, and public participation are essential for effective and legitimate platform regulation.

Sunil Abraham

The analysis explores a range of topics, including regulation, open-source projects, emerging technologies, discrimination, 5G standards, AI fairness benchmarks, disability rights, compliance engineering, global compliance, and user empowerment. The discussions provide valuable insights into these subjects, highlighting important considerations and challenges.

One key point discussed is the three layers of the regulatory ecosystem: classical regulation, co-regulation, and self-regulation. The example of the Information Technology Act in India is mentioned, which demonstrates reflexive regulation and provides regulated entities with immunity from liability when complying with state-mandated or self-regulatory standards such as ISO 27001.

The analysis discusses META’s active involvement in open-source projects, AI models, and open datasets. META is shown to have over 1,200 open-source projects and has released 650 open-source AI models and 350 open datasets. This showcases their commitment to open collaboration and innovative solutions.

The need for legislation with multi-stakeholder engagement to regulate emerging technologies is another important argument presented. It is emphasized that good laws are necessary to ensure that regulations remain future-proof and effectively address potential harms caused by emerging technologies. The importance of bottoms-up knowledge building and norm setting in the legislative process is also highlighted.

The role of open-source tools in preventing discrimination is emphasized. META’s Massively Multilingual Speech tool, capable of identifying and processing thousands of languages, is mentioned as a means to ensure inclusivity. The release of the open data set Casual Conversations is also noted, enabling the benchmarking of software to prevent discrimination. This highlights the significance of utilising open-source solutions to promote fairness and reduce inequalities.

Regarding 5G standards, the analysis mentions that the Indian proposal for rural and remote connectivity was not included in the main 5G standard due to a lack of structured resources for participation. This underscores the need for structured resources to facilitate regular participation in relevant international platforms.

The potential consequences of adopting alternative indigenous standards for 5G are discussed. It is argued that such adoption could result in the loss of network effects in hardware manufacturing, highlighting the complexities involved in standardisation decisions.

The analysis emphasizes the importance of multiple benchmarks before implementing mandates for AI fairness. It is mentioned that multiple benchmarks are evolving in this area, encompassing both open and proprietary models. This underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of the technology and its implications before implementing mandates.

The mandate of mature standards for protecting the rights of the marginalized is described as an important argument. Specifically, the need for state-mandated standards such as WCAG to ensure the protection of disabled individuals’ rights is highlighted.

The analysis discusses META’s regulation readiness approach, noting that policy and legal teams within META monitor enacted and proposed laws in different jurisdictions. The aim is to create compliance artifacts that can be applied globally, showcasing the company’s commitment to regulatory compliance.

The challenges posed by conflicting legal obligations in different jurisdictions are highlighted. Such conflicts can hinder global rollouts of certain user rights or features, illustrating the complexities of navigating legal obligations across multiple jurisdictions.

The discussion on new laws requiring corporations to have explicit contact points addresses the potential benefits and challenges associated with these laws. It is mentioned that while these laws can empower users, they can also present challenges in terms of personal criminal liabilities and additional complexities. The Indian IT law is referenced, which requires global corporations to have three individuals stationed in the office who are available to users and government stakeholders. This commitment entails personal criminal liability and presents additional complexity.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into various aspects of regulation, open-source projects, emerging technologies, discrimination, 5G standards, AI fairness benchmarks, disability rights, compliance engineering, global compliance, and user empowerment. The discussions underscore the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, the use of open-source tools to promote inclusivity and fairness, the complexities of standardisation decisions, the need for comprehensive understanding before implementing mandates, the mandate of mature standards for protecting the rights of marginalized individuals, and the challenges and benefits associated with laws requiring corporations to have contact points. Overall, the analysis highlights the complexity and importance of regulatory issues and the need for informed and collaborative approaches to address them.

Marielza Oliveira

The analysis explores various aspects of internet governance and capacity building. One key point highlighted is the significance of multistakeholder engagement in achieving consensus and shared goals. The multistakeholder approach, which involves involving various stakeholders, is deemed the most effective way to build consensus around common goals and values. Multistakeholder initiatives aim to meet expectations by being inclusive, diverse, collaborative, and legitimate.

However, it is acknowledged that the multistakeholder approach needs to adapt to the evolving nature of the internet. Different stakeholders have become dominant in internet governance, and it is argued that the approach should identify which stakeholders should be involved in addressing the diverse challenges faced by the internet today. This necessitates constant evaluation and adjustment to effectively address the complexities of internet governance.

The rise of big tech platforms is also a significant factor in the changing landscape of internet governance. The fast-paced ethos and immense power of these platforms are not always aligned with the pace and authority of other actors, particularly governments. This poses a challenge to the role of governments in internet governance. It is essential to address power imbalances between the private sector and governments to ensure fair and equitable governance of the internet.

Another crucial aspect is the need for capacity building among government and civil society actors. It is noted that many judicial actors have limited understanding of the limitations of technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). In response, UNESCO has initiated training programs for these actors on AI. Additionally, a competency framework for civil servants has been developed to enhance their knowledge and understanding of relevant issues. This capacity building is considered vital to bridge knowledge gaps and empower government and civil society actors to actively participate in internet governance.

Regarding addressing power imbalances in the digital space, the analysis discusses the potential of the Global Digital Compact and emerging internet regulations. The Global Digital Compact presents an opportunity to reimagine the approach to internet governance and establish a fair and inclusive framework. UNESCO’s Internet for Trust guidelines are highlighted as a contribution to this process. These efforts aim to create a more balanced digital space where power imbalances are addressed, and the interests of all stakeholders are considered.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of multistakeholder engagement, adaptability to the changing nature of the internet, addressing power imbalances, and capacity building for effective internet governance. The Global Digital Compact and emerging internet regulations offer avenues to address these challenges and create a more balanced and inclusive digital space.

Renata Ávila

The analysis explores the topic of multi-stakeholder governance and democratic deficits in the internet governance model. Renata Ávila highlights Brazil’s multi-stakeholder model as an exemplary approach to democratic governance of the internet. This model is considered essential for ensuring transparency and inclusivity in decision-making processes related to the internet.

However, it is noted that the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder governance depends on its structure. If not appropriately designed, these governance models can inadvertently validate the opinions of the most powerful actor at the table, potentially undermining the democratic nature of the process.

Another important argument presented is that companies should refrain from exploiting democratic deficits. The analysis suggests that companies should instead adopt a more transparent and open approach, actively sharing information and being proactive in their commitment to multi-stakeholder governance. This would help address concerns related to potential double standards and unfair practices that arise when legislation is lacking or insufficient.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the need to address inequalities and exclusions within the multi-stakeholder model. Two specific areas that need attention are the rural-urban divide and gender divides. The analysis advocates for meaningful civil society participation and emphasizes the importance of internal processes within civil society to reach broader consensus.

The analysis also argues for a bottom-up approach and civil society’s active participation in the design and problem-solving processes. The NetMundial process in Brazil is cited as an example where civil society had a significant role in designing and triggering the problem-solving process, making it a successful model to follow.

It is also suggested that civil society should have access to mechanisms that enable them to activate processes when needed. This would allow civil society to effectively address concerns and ensure that their voices are heard in the decision-making processes.

Collaboration between different actors, including civil society, is seen as a valuable asset for effective policy-making and implementing changes. The analysis gives an example of how civil society facilitated the exchange of practices and cases between antitrust and consumer protection authorities through WhatsApp. By engaging various stakeholders, new insights can be gained, and solutions can be developed collectively.

Transparency is considered the best antidote for addressing concerns related to multi-stakeholder governance. Increased transparency can help build trust among stakeholders and promote accountability. It is noted that South-South cooperation plays a vital role in balancing power dynamics and improving multi-stakeholder models.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of sharing good practices, learning from each other, and holding platforms accountable. By studying platforms and documenting both successful and unsuccessful attempts, improvements can be made, and repetition of errors can be avoided.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of democratic governance in the internet space through multi-stakeholder models. It emphasizes the need for transparency, inclusivity, and meaningful participation from civil society. The analysis also underscores the significance of addressing inequalities and promoting collaboration between various stakeholders. Through these efforts, a more balanced and effective multi-stakeholder governance model can be achieved, ensuring democratic decision-making processes in the internet governance landscape.

Moderator

The speakers in the discussion highlighted the importance of multistakeholderism in the context of internet governance and platform regulation. They emphasized that digital platforms are crucial tools for global communication, but their regulation can be challenging, especially for developing countries. It was noted that regulation models from Europe, which have been successful in their own context, may not be easily adaptable for countries in the Global South due to different states of institutional development.

The speakers also discussed the different approaches that countries take in governing and regulating digital platforms. They noted that diverse government agencies are often involved in the process, such as ENPD, Senacon, and CADI in Brazil. This demonstrates the complexity and multifaceted nature of platform regulation, which requires the involvement of various stakeholders and government departments.

The concept of multistakeholderism was seen as a valuable approach for regulating platforms and promoting internet governance. It was mentioned that multistakeholderism has played a role in strengthening civil society’s participation in platform regulation in Brazil through the engagement of various stakeholders, as evidenced by the participation of CGIBI and the consultation it conducted. The speakers argued that multistakeholderism allows for a broad range of actors to be considered in decision-making, helping to build consensus around shared goals and values.

The speakers acknowledged that implementing successful multistakeholder approaches is not always guaranteed. They pointed out challenges such as power asymmetries and the potential for participants to not be legitimately chosen. However, they also highlighted the potential improvements that could be made, including building awareness and reducing knowledge imbalances.

The discussion also touched upon thechallenges posed by dominant stakeholders, particularly big tech platforms. The speakers noted that the ethos of big tech does not always align with the pace of other actors, and their accountability can be challenged. This highlights the need for effective regulation and governance of these platforms to ensure fairness and protect fundamental rights.

The speakers stated that the adaptation of the multistakeholder approach is necessary to fit the rapidly transforming digital landscape. They emphasized the need to raise awareness around the benefits of multistakeholder approaches and reduce knowledge imbalances among actors involved in platform regulation.

In conclusion, the speakers agreed that inclusive and transparent governance of digital platforms, through the adoption of multistakeholder models, is essential. They recognized the challenges faced by developing countries in adapting existing regulation models and stressed the importance of sharing and adopting successful practices between countries. Additionally, they emphasized the need for cooperation, collaboration, and active involvement of civil society in decision-making processes. Overall, the discussion provided valuable insights into the complexities and dynamics of platform regulation and the importance of multistakeholderism in achieving effective governance.

Moderator:
Welcome, everyone, to our town hall session, Multistakeholder Platform Regulation and the Global South. My name is Henrique Faulhaber. I’m one of the board members of Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGIBR. I represent the private sector there. I will be the moderator of this session, and Juliano will make the online moderation. First, I would like to thank the IGF organization for this space and everyone that’s present here and online. Special thanks to our speakers. You have six speakers. One speaker is here, Ms. Joanne Cunha. She’s a program officer in the Center for Communication Governance and National Law, University of Delhi. And the others are in their respective countries. So you have people from Brazil, Brasilia, Paris, Nigeria. So you have very much those people that are in the late night, late, early morning together with us today. So the first speaker will be Marielle Oliveira. She’s Director of the UNESCO Communication Information Sector Division for Digital Inclusion Policy and Transformation. After her, you have Sunil Abraham. He’s Public Policy Director from Facebook India. And after him, Kadira Elusman. He’s a Senior Program Officer for Paradigm Institute. No, she, in fact, she’s Officer for Paradigm Institute. After you have Miriam Wimmer. She’s Director for the Brazilian Authority on Privacy and Data Security. After you have Joanne. And at the end, you have Renata Afla, who is CEO from Open Knowledge Foundation. We will give eight minutes for each speaker. And after that, we will open for questions for the audience here and also online. As you know, digital platforms have gained significant traction within the internet governance debates as they have become essential tools for global landscape public and private communications. However, a great part of the discussions resolves around the models followed by Europe that, as many point out, are then exported to global south countries. We mean global south countries as developing economies, OK? The name global south may sometimes lead to other questions. So you can understand global south countries as developing countries on this area. But we see that the strong influence of Europe on regulations all over the world, and so-called Brussels effect, affect how regulations are adapted to local regional contents. But countries in the developing economies are in different states, different states of institutional development considering government bureaucracy, civil society organizations, or regional international organizations. So governance arrangements that may work in the global north can fail in Latin America countries, for instance. Therefore, it’s relevant to foster that exchange of experience between global south countries to formulate appropriate regulations to regional reality involving different stakeholders. In this sense, CGIBI, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, carried out a consultation on platform regulation this year. We received more than 1,000 contributions from individuals and organizations of different sectors. You are in the moment of preparing a summary to present to society the main contributions about the theme that could guide CGIBI as to make the recommendations and guidelines for future work on that field. A relevant part of the consultation was precisely on the arrangements necessary for regulating platforms and about the role of multistakeholderism could play on those arrangements. Countries could have different approaches on how to govern and regulate digital platforms. Normally, several government agents are tackling with sub-themes of platform regulation. In Brazil, for instance, we have ENPD, the data protection agents, dealing with data privacy and data protection. We have Senacon from Justice Department dealing with consumer rights. You have CADI, our antitrust agency, dealing with competitive issues, et cetera. So you have, even in government in several countries, in Brazil, for instance, that have distributed a role on the task of regulating the digital platforms. So to put in place the multistakeholder approach to platform governments, our sector should interact with government, with various parts of the government in order to adjust and implement proper process to deal with this no trivial task that is to regulate digital platforms. Even through expectations over multistakeholderism in the global internet government’s realm have been questioned in several policy arenas. In Brazil, multistakeholderism has played a fundamental role in strengthening civil cyber society participation through the means of Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. CGIBA will play a relevant role in the local government’s internet government’s model through multistakeholder participation and has given substantial contribution and active participation in political debates, such as the construction of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights, known as MARC-CIVIL, and the Brazilian General Data Privacy Law, GDPR. Possible due to the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee reputation, multistakeholderism was frequently mentioned in the consultation that we carried this year as a value of platform regulation. In this sense, CGIBA, multistakeholder experiencing, even with the difficulties and possible improvements, can serve as an inspiration for institutional arrangements in platform regulations. Beyond that, national and regional approach aiming to establish a sustainable platform regulation model should also consider the challenge to align then with ongoing international process, such as the UNESCO Guidelines for Regulating Digital Platforms and other task force. This workshop aims to delve into different digital platforms regulations, government’s models, through the exchange of global south and developing economies, practice, and discuss the role of state and non-state stakeholders vis-a-vis the value of internet government multistakeholder model. I hope you have a great conversation, and that each experience presented here might serve as inspiration and improvement for others. Now, I would like to pass the word to our fifth speaker, Ms. Mariela Oliveira from UNESCO. She’s online. Please. Mariela, are you there?

Marielza Oliveira:
Yes, I’m trying to unmute myself. Hello. Hello, everyone. Hello. Thank you very much for inviting me to join this session. It’s really interesting. But let me start by apologizing, because I’ll have to leave before the end of it, because I have another commitment. I have to replace somebody who wasn’t able to participate. So anyways, well, thank you very much again. And you had asked me about the issues of multistakeholderism and how what’s accomplishments are increasing over the last decade, and how the model can adapt to the present situations of the internet, and so on. So let me just start by saying that multistakeholderism is kind of a governance approach that helps policymakers to harness the collective intelligence of communities and a type of participatory democracy that emerged very much because of the increasing complexity of policymaking and the difficulties governance systems were facing in finding sustainable solutions to the various problems that they were facing. Multistakeholder engagement was and continues to be, in our view, the best way to build consensus around a shared set of goals and values, while ensuring that the result is created by taking into account the needs and concerns of a broad range of actors, including government, private sector, and civil society, and even grassroots organizations like women’s groups or youth organizations, technical community, and so on. Most complex policymaking happens at the global level. Global multistakeholder approaches have emerged very much as a complement to multilateral cooperation, since it helps to fill some of the gaps in knowledge and legitimacy that are left when global decisions are taken by a single actor. And digital development is one of the most complex processes because it affects most economic, social, and environmental aspects of our life. And this is why the World Summit on the Information Society created the Internet Governance Forum, specifically as a multistakeholder process to co-develop the principles and norms that shape internet evolution. And beyond the WSIS, various organizations have endorsed the multistakeholder model, including UNESCO, of course, OECD, the Council of Europe, the ITU, the G8, African Union, even the UN General Assembly. And at UNESCO, we advanced this multistakeholder concept by embedding it into UNESCO’s Internet Universality Rome Framework, which proposed four principles on how the internet can support the construction of global knowledge societies, that the internet should be human rights-based, open to all, accessible by all, and multistakeholder-led. And that has already been taken up by over 40 countries, this particular framework. But let me say that one would expect that adding greater expertise, more diversity into decision processes, and encouraging consensus building would always lead to better decisions. But that doesn’t really happen always because multistakeholder initiatives, they don’t necessarily meet expectations every time. An effective multistakeholder approach needs to be inclusive, diverse, collaborative, legitimate, and that doesn’t necessarily happen. You know, for example, the parties involved may not have been legitimately chosen to represent all the interests around a given issue. The time and the resources needed for coordination may be just too much for the actual benefit. Power asymmetries may exist, they exist that prevent the parties from contributing equally, or multistakeholder process is not really linked to a final decision-making process, so that there’s no clarity what’s going to happen once the multistakeholder group arrives at their consensus. And the internet today is very different than when it was created. As it became more and more central to how societies and economies operate, different stakeholders, they started kind of jostling for greater power over its governance. And in addition, the reality of multistakeholder participation is actually challenged by the nature of the internet itself, including the issues of jurisdiction and enforcement, scale, and the pace at which, you know, the digital transformation is taking. So, some stakeholders actually have become too dominant and powerful, particularly big tech platforms, and they have a moving fast ethos that doesn’t really work with the pace of other actors. The relationship between multistakeholder and multilateral governance mechanisms, one at global level and the other at national or regional level, is not very clear yet. And the role of governments is actually challenged by the power of private sector, and they face difficulties in enforcing accountability when harms happen. And so, we need to adapt the multistakeholder approach to today’s internet that really is a platform internet. And for that, I think that there are some things that need to be done. First, the global community needs to really build greater awareness and buy-in on the benefits of multistakeholder approaches. It needs to clearly identify who should be around the table to meet the different internet governance challenges, because they are not the same, and you don’t need everybody around every issue. Cybersecurity issues, for example, may be discussed by a particular group, while digital inclusion may be discussed by a different group, but always multistakeholder and representing different actors that have a stake on the issue. We need to reduce knowledge imbalances by raising capacities of government and civil society actors on frontier technologies. For example, we are training judicial actors on artificial intelligence because we realize that many of them do not understand what the capabilities and the limitations of these technologies are, and have developed a competency framework for civil servants on AI and digital transformation exactly for that. It’s hard for them to sit around the table and argue for certain types of approaches with private sector if they don’t really understand what these technologies are capable of. And the other thing is that we really need to identify relevant and legitimate stakeholders to represent each of the groups and working methods that need to be more transparent and inclusive with participants collaborating on equal footing. And that means better resourcing civil society, academia, etc., to participate. At the global level, for example, we see the difficulties that the IGF itself faces on resourcing. It entirely depends on donations, you know, with a tiny little budget for the secretariat. Global governance on the internet, depending on that, is really insane. And we also need to mostly, you know, the big thing is that we need to clarify how much stakeholderism works with multilateralism, and then what their different roles and mutual accountabilities are. The IGF, for example, is evolving in that direction, has created a leadership panel to engage with the UN Secretary General so that you can build and create a bridge between those two processes. But we still need to account for the power imbalances that have arisen, both within multilateral and multistakeholder processes, with the powerful internet platforms located in a handful of countries. And I’m very hopeful that the Global Digital Compact will offer us a chance to reboot the approach and that the emerging global regulation of internet platforms, such as UNESCO’s Internet for Trust guidelines, will contribute to this process. So, thank you very much for the chance to participate.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mariosa, for your truths. Now, I will invite Mr. Samir Abraham to make his speech. He’s from META. In fact, I would like very much to understand the Indian scenario on this issue of platform regulation. And please, Sunil, the floor is yours.

Sunil Abraham:
Thank you so much for that. And a special thanks to all my friends and colleagues at CGI.br I’m very grateful that they have given me another opportunity to work with them. Also, it’s indeed a privilege to be on the same panel as personal heroes, such as Renata. So, thank you again for that. I’m someone that has been involved in the IGF conversations since 2005. And when I came to Tunis for the second WSIS meeting, I was there as part of civil society. And I was trying to make a documentary film with BBC. At that point, I was also working for the International Open Source Network. And one of the people that I interviewed was Gilberto Gil, who was the Minister of Culture of Brazil at that point on this question of open source. So, very quickly, as Maria Elsa has mentioned, there are three clear layers to the regulatory ecosystem. Classical regulation that emerges from the state. Coregulation, which is when self-regulation meets state regulation. State regulation. And then pure self-regulation, which is called the pure multi-stakeholder model, which we see in organizations like the IETF and so on. Especially the standards-setting organizations. And all of these forms of regulation play a close role with each other. And I’m going to take the example of India to show how this is the case. In our existing IT law, the Information Technology Act, the section for protecting sensitive personal data called 43A is a good example of reflexive regulation. If regulated entities do not comply with the state-mandated standard ISO 27001, then they get the same immunity from liability if they’re able to propose a self-regulatory standard and then comply to it. So, that happened in 2008 with the amendment and in 2012 or 11 with the rules. And then the government lost trust, I think, to some degree in self-regulation. And for quite a period since then, for almost 15 years, there wasn’t very… much new self-regulatory and co-regulatory proposals made. But clearly the Indian government has decided to try again, and when it came to regulating the gaming industry earlier this year and last year, they introduced the very same architecture where the regulated entities were meant to come together, form self-regulatory bodies, introduce norms, then comply with those norms in order to be considered compliant with the law. So how does that old theme of free software and open standards and open data connect to all of this? Here is where I would like to take an example from my current employer. So after spending 25 years in civil society, I’ve spent the last three in the private sector with Meta. So how does that all connect to the work that I’m now doing at Meta? It’s because Meta is not like all the other platforms, and I wouldn’t want to paint all platforms with the very same brush. Meta has more than 1,200 open source projects. Just on AI, we have released 650 open source AI models and another 350 open data sets. So let’s now look at a particular anxiety, and this is the anxiety around algorithmic bias. And let’s take the case study of text-to-speech and speech-to-text technologies. Meta has a tool called Massively Multilingual Speech. It’s an open source tool, and this tool can ID 4,000 languages and do speech-to-text and text-to-speech for 1,100 languages. So how can we be sure that this tool does not discriminate when it comes to gender, when it comes to age, when it comes to sexual orientation, or maybe disability? The way this has been done is Meta has also released an open data set called Casual Conversations, which contains 27,000 hours of people of different identities and with different traits speaking these languages so that the open source software that has been released by Meta, Massively Multilingual Speech, can be benchmarked against the open data set. So what I’m trying to argue is that while there is indeed a requirement for states to legislate and to legislate after doing multi-stakeholder engagement and consultation, there is also this equally important role of bottoms-up knowledge building and norm-setting, and ideally good laws, especially laws in the global south, will have space for all of this. And that is the only way in which we can ensure that regulations remain future-proof and constantly and in a very agile fashion, address the harms that are caused by emerging technologies. Once again, thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts with all of you.

Moderator:
Thanks, Sunil. You have next Miriam Vime, she is Director from Brazilian DPA. Miriam, are you there?

Miriam Wimmer:
I’m here, yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Good night. It’s very late here in Brazil, it’s 11.30pm, but I’d like to say thank you very much for inviting me and for making it possible for me to participate online. I’m truly delighted to join this panel and I’m really sorry not to be able to be with you in Kyoto. I hope you’re having a great time, lots of fun and very productive discussions. Thank you.

Moderator:
I’m curious about your inputs about digital platform regulation interface with data privacy and protection. I would like very much to receive your feedback on how much take-a-headers should apply on this space. And of course, you’re free to talk about the audiences you want.

Miriam Wimmer:
Okay, so thank you very much for the question, Henrique. And I’d like to begin by mentioning that I speak from the perspective of a government stakeholder. I’m currently one of the commissioners at the Brazilian National Data Protection Authority and I’ve been following the debate on internet governance for quite some time now and currently working with data protection. So there’s a very interesting intersection when we discuss platform regulation. And I’d like to begin by highlighting that one of the most important challenges we face when discussing platform regulation is in fact defining the scope of regulation and consequently identifying the institutional actors, be they governmental or non-governmental, that should be put in charge of such regulation. And I think an important point to start off our discussion is to mention that platform regulation may in fact mean many different things, ranging from ex-ante regulation to promote competition in digital markets, to laws aimed at combating disinformation, to rules on labor relations through online platforms, many other things in between. And the term digital platform itself is also very broad, encompassing, just to give a few examples, marketplaces, platforms for renting rooms or calling cars, social media platforms. And of course, these different business models also have different characteristics and maybe raise different challenges in terms of protecting fundamental rights. Another point I think is quite relevant, mentioned by Sunil just now, is that the term regulation is in itself open to many different interpretations. So it includes not only state-centered regulation, which is perhaps the most traditional form of regulation, when you have a governmental agency that may apply administrative sanctions if a formal rule is not complied with, but also many other regulatory arrangements, which include co-regulation and self-regulatory mechanisms, as well as different levels of multi-stakeholder participation and supervision. And here, I think a point that I’d like to make is that Brazil has historically sustained that multi-stakeholderism and multilateralism are not in themselves antagonic. They’re not mutually excluded necessarily. And in the same way, when we discuss regulation of digital platforms, it seems to me that it is possible to conceive models where you have traditional state regulation coexisting with co-regulation or self-regulation at certain levels. So I touch on these preliminary points to call attention to the fact that when we discuss platform regulation in general and the role of data protection authorities in particular, we are potentially discussing many different things, many different approaches, and many different institutional actors that may be involved with this discussion. And regarding data protection authorities in particular, it’s important to note that all these different business models that relate to digital platforms are essentially based on the large-scale processing of data, including and especially personal data. And therefore, to some extent, data protection authorities are already naturally involved or attracted to this discussion. And here, I think it’s valid also to mention that many traditional data protection principles, such as purpose limitation, transparency, data minimization, for instance, as well as several data protection rights, the traditional article rights, access, rectification, cancellation, opposition, already touch upon many of the issues that are raising concerns when you discuss digital platforms nowadays. Also, the approach that many data protection laws bring in terms of the need to carry out risk assessments and have governance programs and transparency requirements already exist in many data protection laws, as is the case in Brazil, although not specifically geared towards digital platforms. So the feeling I had is that while many of our concerns are already somehow related to the field of data protection, of course, other concerns in other fields may be called to act. And in this sense, data protection legislation may not be in itself sufficient, and other existing regulators may come into play. And I think Mariausa or Henrique mentioned antitrust, consumer protection, as well as several other formal governmental bodies. And in fact, there is also discussion of the need to or not to create new regulators. So the issue, I think, at the end of the day is that there is a huge challenge of coordination and cooperation between public bodies, and also the need to assess how multi-stakeholderism can build into this process in order to make it more transparent and more legitimate. Here in Brazil, specifically, this debate on platform regulation, I think, is currently very, very hot. It’s very high in the public agenda. And I would argue that here in our country, it’s been shaped by some factors that are quite specific to our own reality. So the first aspect is that we have a quite complex institutional setup. We are a continental country with over 5,500 municipalities. We have a federal government that is very large, very complex, many ministries, many different agencies, and complex and existing bodies with regulatory competencies that in some sense will touch upon the issue of digital platforms. And here in Brazil, the fact is that it’s not easy to create new governmental bodies. Usually, there are not enough financial resources. There are not enough human resources. And in fact, and this may be a common theme in the countries of the Global South, it’s very difficult to prioritize these issues in countries where often very basic needs of the population are still not properly met. So it happens sometimes that new legislation comes up, but it appears often with insufficient enforcement mechanisms, creating a real challenge in terms of effectiveness. As an example, our Data Protection Authority, ANPD, was created in 2020, while the legislation was already in force for some months, and we had no staff members, no financial resources, and only very recently have we been able to take some important steps in terms of creating a more robust institutional structure. But a second aspect that I think is very particular to Brazil is that we have a very well-known and very consolidated model of multi-stakeholder internet governance based on the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.BR, who is in fact organizing this panel. And over the last decade, considering the experience we had with the CGI, with the Marcos Civil do Internat, which is our civil rights-based framework for the internet, and also with the general data protection legislation, we have almost an implicit requirement that regulation aimed at the digital environment in Brazil should include a very high level of multi-stakeholder participation. This, I think, is very interesting. It’s almost a common expectation that when we discuss regulating the digital environment, all stakeholders should somehow become involved in the discussion. I think it’s a very interesting and very important aspect of our domestic setup here, and this has in fact been true not only for the process leading up to the approval of the Marcos Civil, but also for the process that led to the approval of the general data protection legislation, where we had lots of public consultations, public hearings, and intense negotiations until the very last minute, until the legislation could finally be agreed upon and approved formally by National Congress. Another aspect is that because we have this, I think, this psychological framework where we think that multi-stakeholderism is in fact important when we discuss digital regulation, is that there is also an expectation that regulatory bodies that deal with digital issues should also have formal consultation mechanisms in place. So in the case of the DPA, for instance, we have a legal requirement to carry out regulatory impact assessments, but also public consultations, public hearings. And in fact, we have an advisory board, a consultative committee that is multi-stakeholder, that involves governmental members and different members of society, academia, private sector, and so on, who is responsible for supervising and issuing advice to our DPA in terms of what our priorities should be, what our national policies should look like. So this, I think, is an interesting example, and I feel that one of the lessons we could maybe learn from the Brazilian experience is that when discussing platform regulation, multi-stakeholder participation is practically a de facto requirement to ensure that the legislation, when approved, is considered legitimate and also that it becomes, in fact, effective because of the consensus that is created around the terms that end up being approved. And in this sense, I think Mariela spoke a lot about how the multi-stakeholder model has been evolving, and I fully agree this is a concept that is still a work in progress in many senses. But I do think that what we have learned from the multi-stakeholder governance model to the internet, which also involves understanding the roles and responsibilities of different actors, right? This is certainly a model that could be taken into consideration when discussing platform regulation in general, taking into account also the contribution that existing legislation and existing public organizations can give to facing the challenges that digital platforms raise in our society nowadays. So thank you very much, Henrique. I look forward to the second round.

Moderator:
Thank you, Miriam. So, João, thanks for staying with us today. And maybe you can talk about your research on digital platform, especially in India. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you.

Joanne Cunhe:
Hi, I’m João. I’m from the Center for Communication Governance. We’re an academic center that’s out of a national law university in New Delhi, India. Henrique was just referring to some of the recent platform regulation work that we’re trying to do, given a lot of the work that’s happening in India on platform regulation, where we’re looking at seeing a new regulation that’s going to look at platforms, but also emerging technologies. And some of the things that I wanted to focus also in light of the larger discussion here is the challenges that India and some global south countries generally have when it comes to participating in regulation on platform governance. And a lot of these challenges stem from our challenges with just generally more global processes of coming together in forums and participating at those larger discussions. And I think that that would hold true for a lot of other global majority countries as well. Some of these discussions we’ve been having over the course of the last couple of days, and one of the first things that comes to mind more naturally is the issue of resources in general. To be able to participate in any global discussion or even within our national discussions, the capacity is a huge factor. And I think that that capacity, whether it’s financially being able to access these conversations or even just through personnel, there are a lot of challenges that do not allow a lot of voices from the global majority to be present. And then, of course, as a result, you have a lot of perspectives that are missing out in the conversation. And that’s especially when we’re thinking about the involvement of groups that either represent folks directly impacted from platform harms or even people that are studying the impact of some of these harms. So definitely resources is a huge consideration. And just in terms of personal capacity, I would think that when it comes to actually being in terms of meaningful participation at some of these conversations, at the larger levels especially, there are limits to how much civil society can come in on to be representative and even to engage in meaningful dialogue if you don’t have a lot of the other stakeholders like the technical community, the state representatives. And that kind of burden on civil society sometimes is really hard, especially if that’s not collaborative. And just the point on collaboration is what I wanted to talk next. But just before we get to that, when we think about the representatives from state and from industry or technical communities being involved in participation, something that has come from our research, not related to platform regulation, but an indication of one of the same challenges is that in a project that we’re working on with emerging technologies, specifically blockchain, we’re trying to explore standards development in the blockchain ecosystem. And what has come out quite often in terms of some of these representatives from industry and even government representatives being able to participate at the various standards bodies, forums, is quite difficult for them to do given the financial constraints that it sort of places on them to be able to attend these discussions. So not only is it expensive, but it’s also, it takes a lot of time and you have to have that kind of personnel. But coming back to my point on collaboration, I think that something that in the Indian context is slowly developing, but still at, I would say, not a stage to be able to make that much of a difference is that a civil society is slowly building up collaborations within. We have worked with each other over a very long period of time, but to be able to have that kind of collaboration that we’ve had in specific instances to be able to effectuate movement on regulation is somewhat slower, especially, I would say, and this is a challenge that can be there in some parts of the global south, but having that fragmentation can often make it difficult to have support at general forums that we are having these discussions in. But in India, we’ve seen a couple of instances where this has worked really well when we had our data protection bill being contemplated and it’s been going on for years now. I think we just had the bill come into law and some of the initial responses to the data protection bill had a lot of civil society gathering together to offer joint comments, to push the needle on conversations. Similarly, when we had issues with net neutrality in India, I think around 2014-15, there was huge collaboration within not only civil society, but other stakeholder groups. We had the technical community also come together and collaborate to make that change in saying that we needed net neutrality and then the proposal at that point was not okay. But just that this, because our stakeholder system is still developing and how we collaborate. with each other, we’re still in the process of being multi-stakeholder within this context itself. And to bring that even into global forums is in the process of happening. And something from the way that we work at the organization is that we’re, and this is also true for other organizations in this space, is that we’re trying to be more interdisciplinary, have that multi-stakeholder approach to the way that we even have conversations at a national level, trying to get in, being from a space that’s largely academic and legal oriented to ensure that you have social scientists, you have the technologists in the room when you’re trying to think about how policymaking should happen. Just having those voices, I would say, is something that is slowly, there’s a conscious effort towards it. I think that another linked challenge has been that when it comes to decision-making within the Indian context, there are different approaches to stakeholder participation in policy, in policymaking. For example, when I was talking about net neutrality in India, that was something that we saw, we saw proposals in a different manner, it come out in a different manner. For example, our telecom regulation authority offers the point of participation before an entire bill has sort of come into the public forum, so you have the opportunity to comment on a proposal, you have the opportunity to participate in how the idea is being developed. And there’s also a different approach that sometimes happens where with, say, our Data Protection Act that came out and possibly with the new Digital India Act, is that your point of participation starts at a draft bill, and so the involvement that you have at those beginning stages as stakeholders is somewhat limited, and so that also plays a role in how much you can have that level of stakeholder participation. And just one last thing before I close, is that I think that, and this once again holds true, I think for most contexts in the global majority, is that when you’re thinking about participation in terms of having all of your stakeholders together, it makes a huge difference if the kind of dynamics that are involved, if it’s asymmetric, if it’s between civil society and the state, or the state and platforms, the way that it plays out in each jurisdiction has a huge bearing on how you have that kind of participation in your own context, and having to tailor your approach depending on what works best for your context is extremely important, and I think that’s one of the things we can take away even when we’re thinking about multistakeholder participation at the global, in global processes and discussions, is that ensuring that that diversity and representation is not just, it’s not dominated by certain groups, you have actual representation that is properly diverse, to ensure that those kind of asymmetries, those kind of power dynamics no longer are present, and I think that it takes a lot of, it takes conscious effort to try and create those mechanisms that allow for this, but yes, I wanted to end on the point on power dynamics, because I think that that is something that we can take and learn from our own context, even when we approach more global forums and how the Global South participates at some of these global forums. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Joan. Unfortunately, Ms. Khadija is not online, maybe she has a problem, so our next speaker will be Renata Ivler, she’s CEO from Open Knowledge Foundation. Please, Renata, give your opinions and comments on those issues that we are talking here. The floor is yours.

Renata Ávila:
Thank you so much, I hope that you can hear me well. It is such an honor to be invited to this panel. CGI is an organization that I admire, I consider it a home away from home. It is a place where you feel that, you feel and you sense what can be a democratic governance of the Internet. And now that Brazil is back, as we say outside, we can say from the outside in a more easy way, now that Brazil is back in the multilateral and multilateral arena, I’m coming here with a great hope of what we can achieve with this interaction, multilateral, with the multistakeholder model that Brazil has developed in the processes that Brazil is going to lead in the very near future, including G20. I will tell you a little bit more about those dreams in a minute. But what I want to talk when talking about multistakeholder governance is, I want to talk from the perspective of the place I come from. I want to talk from the perspective of countries with a huge democratic deficit, with brutal inequalities within society, and with a very, very, very weak government hit by austerity measures constantly. And in such context, just to give you an example, we in Guatemala do not even have a privacy and data protection law. It’s 2023 and we don’t even have that law. In such context, something that becomes very, very, very important in this multistakeholder model is for companies to understand the relevance of not taking advantage of the, you know, like taking advantage of democratic deficits, of lack of legislation, just to, you know, go forum shopping and doing whatever they want in some jurisdictions while upholding the very high rights standards, just because the legislation, for example, in the European Union is more sophisticated than the legislation in Guatemala. Something that often is observed from the outside, is observed from civil society in countries like mine is that precisely that makes people using a platform in a different jurisdiction feel very, like, you know, like mistreated and somehow abandoned by a company that applies double standards, higher protection to some users than to others and higher mechanisms of, you know, more efficient mechanisms, just because the legislation in some countries forces companies to do so. And that, I want to highlight it because we have suffered in very complex settings, such as elections in the region, when we see, for example, dedicated offices for the big countries that represent an interesting share of the market for some electoral processes, and a fluid cooperation and dialogue between civil society and the companies. And in other countries, some companies will have like a closed doors meeting with powerful, not necessarily, you know, the most ethical actors, and civil society will have like, you know, a door slammed in the face. And we like, you know, try to like, try to find someone who might know someone inside of the company, and try to go through back channels to make the company aware of a very serious problem. We also have a problem when the government is not the most ethical government in the world. And there’s enough suspicions from the outside that the government is colluding with certain companies to either like, you know, get away with labor, you know, labor violations, or even even more concerning, you know, like with with deals, internal deals to favor, favor, like, the position of the government and enforce it without an adequate law framework. Then I want to also highlight here, the importance when you have a weak government that doesn’t have a dedicated office for or a mechanism for facilitating this multi stakeholder engagement, often what happens is it goes, it goes to the, the organism in charge is often the Ministry of Communications. It’s often like, you know, I don’t know, it’s the automatic default, that it goes to the Ministry of Communications. And it usually, while it might, it might look to the outside that through multi stakeholder processes taking place, what happens is a lot of participation washing, a nice couple of tables, what you would like, you know, invite someone from industry, someone like, you know, like a NOS ARC approach, two from here, two from there, two from there, and a couple of pictures are taken. And then a decision that is affecting a lot of communities not not present at the table is taken without notice. Often missing from table, missing even from the government side is the office of the human rights organism and National Human Rights Office. The ombudsman is not present. They have authorities are not present. Nobody representing the interest of children is present. Nobody is representing the interest of indigenous peoples is present in the case of my country, for example, is very relevant. The the problem when when there’s a not an adequate multi stakeholder model is that this leads to a completely unbalanced while looking from from the outside as participation what it is often the validation of the most powerful actor at the table point of view. I want to refer like very quickly to specific things that different actors in such context could take to to to achieve better multi stakeholder governance. In the in the case of companies, when you are like dealing with a small country, having explicit contact points is incredibly useful as a shortcut of establishing communication between different actors. Personally, I have I have to have had to do it with three countries, finding even the contact person when the company doesn’t have an office in the country, even in moments of emergency when there’s death threats or there’s like very serious situation going on is impossible. So having a specific point of contact in a place that’s accessible to all actors is extremely important. The second is do not do not do the double standard thing. I know that that’s very challenging because I know that the companies have one objective that is profit and that’s it. And sometimes it’s easier not to comply with the highest standard of regulation. But for users, it means a lot. The other thing is try to adopt this approach that you will have to adopt now with the DSA in Europe or have policies, procedures, measures and tools available for people to understand how you are operating in the you are operating your companies. We understand that many of the trade laws protect companies and enable them to be as opaque as possible. But in this context, if you have a commitment to multistakeholderism, you have to be more proactively transparent. And that leads me to academia. You have to open your doors to academics as well to understand really what is going on inside. Access to that data and openness to understand what is going on will provide us with enough information to come at the table and have meaningful participation rather than just performative participation. And the nice picture at the end. For governments, I think that the interagency approach is urgent. It can no longer belong, you know, like to just one unit. It can no longer be an issue of the Ministry of Telecommunications of a technical office somewhere dealing with science and technology. It has to be is an issue that now is central to public law and to the most at the highest level of the institutions that make the government operative for civil society. I think that looking inside, it is also necessary not only have the Internet experts at the table, again, being intergenerational, being intercultural and being aware of the tremendously complex rural-urban divide. And of course, the gender divides is necessary. And having the internal process within civil society to reach broader consensus is also very, very, very, very important. And not to replicate societal exclusions. And then we need to understand that there’s another process that we are seeing as a reaction in many countries of the lack of multistakeholder approaches that are really meaningful. And that is we are seeing more like not only nationally but transnationally the organization of users from different sectors around a platform protesting against the platform. We have seen it with Make Amazon Pay, for example. That’s a very interesting example on when you have a deficit in the governance and participation of people, people will organize and protest against what they see unjust. That said, for countries that are doing it well, the only thing that I can hope is that the model is shared broadly with other countries that need a similar approach. And having a model, a multistakeholder participation, a general frame will be extremely useful for countries, for example, in Latin America and in Africa to replicate. And having a South-South cooperation will become key to be stronger, not only as isolated countries but as regions, to have a better leverage with the legislation that we want and the frames that we want from the companies, but also to increase cooperation and collaboration across academia and across civil society that is meaningful. Yeah, that’s it. I would say the most important part of what I said is being aware that not everything is the EU and not everything is a country as sophisticated as Brazil or India. Let’s look outside and see how we can help.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renata. So, we have time for the debate here. If you have questions here at the audience, please go to the mic, and we also have a couple of questions online. I believe you first respond to our speakers a question that comes online, and after, please go to the mic and make your considerations also in questions. Juliano, do you have something from online?

Online Moderator:
Thank you, Henrique. We have received two questions. I may read them through here. First question is, platform regulation may present a broad regulatory agenda. How to cope with the transversality of the phenomenon of platformization in developing national regulation for digital platform? Second question is, considering the challenges of digital platform regulation governance, what are the pros and cons of a centralized model with more state protagonism in a polycentric model with a more balanced protagonism between state and civil society?

Moderator:
So, all the speakers are free to respond to one of those questions. One of you could exercise on that, please.

Miriam Wimmer:
I could perhaps offer some initial comments, Henrique. So, I think both questions are really interesting, and they discuss the question of the institutional setup to deal with the phenomenon that is very cross-cutting, very transversal, and reflects, in fact, I think in a broader sense, the idea of platformization of everything, government platformization, private business models platformization. And I think both questions are very relevant because they touch upon the idea that multiple regulators may at some point in time be called to act when dealing with digital platforms. And as I mentioned earlier, I think the huge challenge we have is firstly making sure that these different pieces of legislation fit well together in a jigsaw puzzle that creates a coherent picture. And I think this is a challenge not only for the Global South, but also for Europe, for instance, who is discussing DSA, DMA, AIAC, GDPR, and the pieces seem to not be yet quite fully interoperable. And the second issue, then, is how to make sure that in the day-to-day enforcement of legislation, the different regulators are actually speaking to each other and making sure that their approaches are coherent and they are acting under a systematic understanding of the whole legislation applying to the digital scenario, which is huge and cross-cutting, as mentioned. I think the second question raises also an interesting point, when it compares centralized models versus polycentric models involving state and civil society. I would argue that the models, a centralized model for platformization, is actually a very good model. I think the second question raises also an interesting point, when it compares centralized models versus polycentric models involving state and civil society. I would argue that the models, a centralized model for platform regulation does not really seem feasible simply because platforms raise so many questions in so many different fields, such as labor relations, misinformation, human rights protection, competition aspects. So it does seem to me that we, it doesn’t really make sense to discuss a centralized regulator for the entire digital ecosystem. So we would necessarily be discussing the need for multi-agency cooperation and government, which is the point I think Hinata made in her speech previously. And my feeling is that in the same way that we can discuss the compatibility between multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches, we can also discuss models and frameworks that involve both traditional governmental regulation, but also… associated with multi-stakeholder participation. And I think there are many different models we could debate. I think there is a model in place in Brazil, which could certainly be perfected, which involves agencies with advisory boards, with mandatory participation procedures. And here again, I would like to echo what Hemata said. We cannot simply have this, you know, just for show we need meaningful participation. This is in fact a challenge. But I would say that a polycentric model involving different state organizations, but also civil society, seems to me to be more appropriate considering the complexity of the digital environment and the many different aspects that we are aiming to regulate when we discuss platform regulation. Thank you.

Moderator:
Sunil raised his hand and also Hemata. Please, Sunil, make your comments.

Sunil Abraham:
Yeah, thank you so much. I also wanted to connect what both these questions are interrogating with the point that Joanne made earlier. I’d like to recall the case study of the conflict between 5G and 5GI, indigenous standard proposed by both academics and also Indian government entities. As Joanne argued, the lack of structured resources in order to ensure that there is regular participation at fora such as 3GPP, resulted in the Indian proposal that covered rural connectivity and remote connectivity low mobility, large cell. That proposal was not part of the main 5G standard. And then the Indian community decided to fork the standard and have an alternative indigenous standard that would have come with big consequences, especially losing out on the network effects of hardware manufacturing. But fortunately, that story ended well. And the 5G committee accepted the LMLC extension to the standard. The second thing I’d like to say is when I hear questions, as you have read out, I’m always tempted to answer both and. It is almost that we always need everything that is being proposed. And I’ll use two examples. Let’s look at open standards such as WCAG for disability. Ideally, a mature standard like that should be mandated by the state. That is the way we will protect the rights of the disabled. But another inquiry space, as I had just covered in my first intervention, fairness benchmarks for AI models. That is somewhere where multiple benchmarks are evolving. And perhaps we don’t want a mandate at this point because there are some companies pursuing an open model, other companies pursuing a proprietary model. We need fairness benchmarks that work for everybody. And therefore, a mandate at this stage is premature. And therefore, the polycentric vision of governance is much more appropriate. I’ll end my comments there.

Renata Ávila:
Yeah, and I wanted to also respond to the second question. And I also agree with Sunil that it’s both and. And the and, my and is civil society needs access to the problematization and need mechanisms to trigger the multi-stakeholder mechanism. It is usually top down and does not bottom up. And that’s a problem. Like it is only when we need to launch campaigns and we need to make a lot of noise from the side of civil society to finally trigger the mechanism often or wait for the next meeting or so on. And I think that if civil society is enabled to design the process, if some room is given for civil society to design and trigger this process to be activated when discussing a problem or discussing something urgent, discussing something relevant, the multi-stakeholder will be, this polycentric approach will be like more agile, but also the centralized approach will be more agile. I, again, you know, like I remember the robust case of Marco Civil and then the NetMundial process that took place in Brazil. And how did, I remember that I was dividing my day between two spaces. It was the NetMundial, the arena NetMundial when youth was participating, when it was actually something arena NetMundial was a process that was bottom up. It was a process that, okay, if all the countries are like gathering dirt and there’s a lot of noise, very technical, let’s create a space for expression with our own rules showing instead of just telling people how we are making the internet work. And it was quite wonderful to have this coexistence of more creative and open spaces showing how the technology is lived by different parts of the society. And not only the, you know, like the invitation on the meeting with just one spot for one member of the society. So access to problematization, access to the design of the process and a possibility to activate the processes when needed.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renata. We have a question for the audience, Camila.

Audience:
Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. I’m Camila Leite. I’m from the Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense, IDEC. And we’re talking lots about how the challenges are transversal to lots of issues and how it’s important to cooperate. You were talking about cooperation in terms of different stakeholders. So multi-sectorialism between authorities, between different laws and also between different countries. But beyond of this important role of cooperation, we also have some challenges related to cooperation. I’m very supportive of that, but we have to face these challenges. And I know that we have lots of challenges when we’re talking about dynamic markets, when we’re talking about new regulations. But for example, in terms of cooperation between authorities, we can take longer to answer. We might have a decision that might be a soft law than a hard law when needed. And it might be necessary, but it might postpone some important actions. And the regulation might solve that, but the time can be longer. And also between countries, we have these global issues, but sometimes we have different answers in different countries, which might be also a response to the national and to the regional context. But we are talking about global problems. We are talking about a national context. So how can we harmonize that? I know that we don’t have a silver bullet to all of that, but how can we face these challenges related to cooperation? Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you for the question, Camila. Someone from the speakers could respond or comment.

Miriam Wimmer:
I don’t really feel entitled to respond, but I can certainly comment. And I think Camila has a very important point when she states the practical difficulties of cooperation. And I speak in the position of a civil servant who has been working in government for 17 years now almost. And in fact, the truth is that cooperation does not arise spontaneously because people wish to cooperate. It has to be crafted into legislation. There have to be procedures for cooperation to take place. And even when this exists, it’s not always easy. It’s usually hill up. As a regulator, I say we take twice as much time when we have to convince other governmental agencies to reach consensus in a certain position. So it’s not easy, but it is necessary, I think. And I think it’s a bit the same position we have with regard to multistakeholderism and public participation. It takes time. It gives lots of work for regulators to analyze contributions in a substantive manner, not only for show. It makes procedures take longer than they would if we decided in a top-down manner. But it is important to make the end result more legitimate and more effective, in my point of view. So I don’t really have the answer for that, Camila. I think you have an important point, but I don’t see any way around cooperation.

Renata Ávila:
Yeah, very quickly. That sometimes, you know, civil society can be like the secret weapon for that cooperation to happen. Well, it happened with a case on WhatsApp, actually, when WhatsApp wanted, a couple of years ago, to change their policies and, you know, to get lots of people in the Global South to simply accept and update on terms and conditions. It was amazing cooperation among the antitrust and consumer protection authorities behind, you know, behind, it was not very public, but it was happening. And civil society facilitated exchange of practices and exchange of cases that there were, a couple of cases were launched in the EU and in Turkey. And then these authorities shared how the reasoning behind a case of antitrust case in this change of conditions because of dominant position and so on. It was quite amazing to see when we connect, like civil society was like the facilitator for the connection of authorities, of consumer protection and antitrust. And the magic happened because, you know, like they could talk to their peers on a specific case. And that’s also a very important aspect of multi-stakeholder cooperation. Not all the stakeholders need to be invited at the table at the same time, all the times. It can happen, collaboration can happen between actors, not necessarily always involving the same actors in the government and always involving the private sector. We need our time and our space to share without some of the actors and it enables good things to happen.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renata. I have a question. I would like to send you, Abraham, as a person from META. As soon as we have those new regulations on platform on Europe, how you think, how you happen with the META platforms global? Because somehow when we implement some features on the system to comply with European regulation, maybe it will be worthwhile to, that those features should be applied to other geographies. So can you respond about how you think it will happen after the approval in Europe of DSA and DMA? Please, Abraham, if you can answer.

Sunil Abraham:
Thank you so much for that question. So I can shed a little light on how the regulation readiness teams within META operate. What basically happens is there are policy teams and legal teams that keep track of a variety of enacted law and also proposed law across many, many jurisdictions. And when the engineers are analyzing this corpus of laws and obligations, both current and future, their compliance engineering approach is to build for artifacts that can be deployed in multiple jurisdictions. So you’re absolutely right that if a particular user right is enabled, for example, in the GDPR, then that user right is also rolled out in other jurisdictions where that legal obligation may not exist at all. But there are also instances where the legal obligations are conflicting. So for example, there are legal obligations in the Indian context that conflict with legal obligations from other jurisdictions. And then the task before the engineers is to build compliance to both obligations. And in those cases, it is not always possible to roll out something that is specifically there in Europe, across the world. I’ll go back to the point Renato made about having an explicit contact point. This is something that is quite mature within the context of European regulations. In Indian law, especially the IT law, there is a requirement to have three people employed by the global corporation and stationed in the India office. And these three people have to be available both to users, at least one of them has to be, and then the others have to be available to government stakeholders. And this is something, as Renato pointed out, is a obligation that is user empowering. That is definitely the case. But unfortunately, the obligation also comes with personal criminal liability. And the additional complexity in the Indian law makes it much harder for us to automatically sort of homogenize our compliance approach. And therefore, compliance in one jurisdiction often will look different from compliance in another jurisdiction.

Moderator:
Thank you. So we are short in time. So I will ask for our speakers from his final remarks, starting from Maria Elza. Maria Elza, please. Maria Elza is left. We have to leave already. It’s true, of course. So Joanne, you can start with your final comments.

Joanne Cunhe:
Thank you. I think that we’ve covered a lot of different things, a lot of different topics within how we should approach platform regulation in the global majority. Our approaches, of course, have to be extremely tailored to our specific context. And the questions that we had just now, like the speakers have said, there aren’t any clear answers. But I would just say that I think that as we’re currently trying to understand how to regulate for our own context and to see what those nuances are that need to reflect, even in global conversations, I think that it will definitely give us a better sense of what we should expect and what we should rally for when we’re thinking about just platform regulation and general governance in larger conversations. Thank you.

Miriam Wimmer:
Okay, next meeting. One minute for your final comments because we’re short of time. Thank you. I’d just like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. It was really illuminating. I really enjoyed the comments and I look forward to other opportunities. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Zanjou, please, your final comments. Yeah, again, a very quick intervention to say that I agreed with another point that Renato made on transparency being the best antidote for a variety of concerns. And I’d like to point to upgrades to our election ads, to our ads library, which I think is important for civil society and academics to hold us to account.

Renata Ávila:
Thank you. Renato. And last words, South-South cooperation. We have a big imbalance of power here and imperfect multi-stakeholder models in many, many countries. So let’s share the good multi-stakeholder practices regarding platforms and let’s learn from each other and connect not only across different multi-stakeholder bodies in different countries, but as communities of people studying the platforms and people holding the platforms accountable. And let’s share the good results, but also let’s share when we are not successful, the results that that led, like when there’s democratic deficit and a problem is caused locally, we need to document this well. So it’s not repeated elsewhere. And so the big platforms that are like serving many users in many countries can correct promptly with the pressure of more than one jurisdiction.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renato. So thank you for everybody that participate in this fruitful debate. I hope that the debate is, you continue inside IGF and other areas. And I will need to say that CGI-BR is working very hard on that issue, mainly in Brazil with our consultation and next recommendations. And I will keep it informed about the results of our consultation in Brazil. Thank you very much. So we’ll close this session. Thank you.