NRIs MAIN SESSION: DATA GOVERNANCE

Audience

The speakers in the analysis discuss various aspects of data governance and highlight its importance in the current digital era. They emphasize the need for collaboration between countries to improve data infrastructure. The speakers argue that countries should work together with their internet exchange points to enhance data infrastructure. They stress the potential replicable model of data consolidation in Europe, as discussed by Lucien. This model could address the issue of data concentration in few companies, which raises concerns about compatibility with data sovereignty policies.

One of the concerns raised is the potential loss of valuable data due to changes in internet standards. The alterations in internet standards may lead to the loss of traffic trend data, identification of malicious activities, and interoperability of messaging platforms. This emphasizes the need for careful consideration and planning when making changes to internet standards.

The speakers highlight the importance of engagement of data governance and trust bodies in standards organizations. They argue that these entities are usually absent from standards bodies, which are predominantly dominated by technical communities. By participating in standards organizations, data governance and trust bodies can ensure that their perspectives and considerations are integrated into the decision-making process.

The concept and scope of data governance are changing rapidly. More than 100 economies have published their data rules, indicating a shift in how data governance is being approached. The speakers stress the need for international frameworks or norms on data governance and the importance of reaching a consensus on this issue. They argue that global issues require global-level solutions.

Various international platforms and organizations are actively discussing data and data governance, such as IGF, OECD, APEC, and the World Internet Conference. The speakers suggest that regularly collecting outputs from these platforms would be beneficial. This would allow stakeholders to build upon previous discussions and prevent starting from scratch in each new initiative.

The speakers acknowledge the potential risks associated with data governance frameworks. They caution that these frameworks could potentially become tools for censorship and surveillance. It is important to ensure that data governance frameworks uphold individual rights and freedoms while addressing global challenges.

Stakeholder engagement is crucial for effective data governance. The speakers emphasize the need to support civil society organizations and encourage their participation in data governance initiatives. They argue that a diverse range of perspectives is essential for creating inclusive and responsible data governance frameworks.

Trust in the data governance process is vital. The speakers highlight the importance of using data for the benefit of everyone and ensuring responsible data use. They argue that education, awareness, and the development of human-centric technologies are necessary for responsible data governance. They cite examples of countries strengthening data protection laws and regulations and previous discussions on this topic in the IGF and Brazilian IGF.

The development of international data governance standards should follow a multistakeholder approach. The speakers argue that involving various stakeholders in the decision-making process ensures that the standards are comprehensive and inclusive.

Lastly, the speakers address the importance of protecting personal data while maintaining anonymity on the internet. They advocate for a dialogue to find a balance between the need to protect personal data and the value of anonymous data. Understanding who is contacting or possibly attacking is seen as crucial in this context.

In conclusion, the analysis of the speakers’ discussions on data governance highlights the need for collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and trust in creating effective and responsible data governance frameworks. The discussions emphasize the changing nature of data governance, the significance of international frameworks, and the role of education and awareness in achieving responsible data use. The analysis also reveals the potential risks associated with data governance frameworks and the need for a balanced approach to personal data protection and anonymity on the internet.

Liu Chuang

The analysis highlights several key points from the speakers’ discussions on data management and quality. One of the main points emphasized is the importance of data security, accuracy, and timely access. The speakers argue that these factors are crucial for ensuring the reliability and effectiveness of data for various purposes. They highlight the efforts made by China in establishing data centers and making over 10 million accessible data globally in over 100 countries.

Another significant point discussed is the positive impact of open data on local development and society. The speakers present evidence that more than 600,000 village people have benefited from data-driven methodologies and that the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has collaborated with China to transfer Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to the FAO OCOP program. This underscores the potential of open data in driving sustainable development and empowering communities.

The analysis recognizes the challenges and opportunities presented by the era of data-driven technology. While the increasing amount of data available poses challenges, the speakers also highlight the positive potential of this technology. They mention that several countries, including Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, and Papua New Guinea, have already incorporated data-driven technology into their national strategies for agricultural development. This suggests that the widespread adoption of this technology can lead to significant advancements in various sectors and contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The speakers also stress the need for quality data control, professional teams for data management, and public feedback to improve data quality. They discuss the use of frameworks, guidelines, standards, and procedures for quality control and the importance of training programs to address challenges that arise with new data. Additionally, they advocate for public forums to provide opportunities for users to give feedback, thus enhancing data quality.

The analysis further highlights the importance of joint partnerships and collaboration for effective data quality management. The speakers present evidence of collaborations with scientific academies, central governments, and international organizations like the World Data System. They also refer to workshops held in Nairobi to establish data sharing principles, suggesting that managing data quality requires collective efforts and cooperation.

The speakers argue that guidelines, regulations, and international collaborations have proven to be effective in ensuring data control. They mention that a comprehensive set of guidelines and regulations has been established to check data integrity and evaluate different types of data. Additionally, they discuss collaborations with universities in South Africa and Asian countries, as well as their work in developing countries for over 20 years, suggesting that international collaboration can help in creating suitable operational procedures for data control.

Notably, the analysis discusses the role of data platforms as accelerators for data-related projects. It acknowledges that different organizations have different platforms for their projects, and while some projects are short-term, there is a risk of data loss when the project ends. This highlights the need to find solutions to ensure data continuity and accessibility even after the projects are completed.

The analysis further explores the importance of data preservation and availability. It highlights the requirement for members of the International Science Council’s World Data System to keep data long-term, preserved, and protected, and make it available to everyone. This underscores the significance of preserving valuable data and making it accessible for research and decision-making purposes.

The analysis also touches upon the support for data sharing between the government and private sectors, as well as universities. It mentions policies in China that promote data sharing between the government and private sectors, further indicating the recognition of the benefits of collaboration in leveraging data for societal and economic growth.

Finally, the analysis mentions the benefits of increased public data availability for socioeconomic development. While no specific evidence is provided in the analysis, the implication is that making public data more readily accessible can contribute to informed decision-making and foster economic and social progress.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights several important points regarding data management and quality. It stresses the significance of data security, accuracy, and timely access, the positive impact of open data on local development and society, and the challenges and opportunities presented by data-driven technology. It emphasizes the need for quality data control, professional teams for data management, and public feedback for data improvement. It also highlights the importance of joint partnerships, guidelines, and regulations, and international collaboration for effective data quality management. The analysis further acknowledges the role of data platforms as accelerators and explores the importance of data preservation and availability. It supports data sharing between the government and private sectors as well as universities and recognizes the benefits of increased public data availability for socioeconomic development. Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the complexities and potential of data management and quality in the context of achieving the SDGs.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare

The importance of innovative solutions in building trustworthiness on a global scale in the internet has been emphasized. This is due to the complexities involved in addressing the challenges surrounding data security, data protection, and privacy in the digital ecosystem. The discussion acknowledges the difficulties in thinking outside the box and moving the conversation forward to find effective solutions.

On the other hand, it is pointed out that multilateral approaches and government interventions have proven ineffective in achieving substantial results in this area. Despite attempts by the United Nations system to explore these interventions, minimal success has been achieved. This criticism of unsuccessful government interventions and multilateral approaches reveals a gap between the complexities of the issues and the capacity to foster a robust and trusted internet globally.

It is noteworthy that the sentiment in these arguments is neutral to negative. This suggests a level of dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs regarding trustworthiness in the internet and the efforts made by governments and multilateral institutions. The lack of concrete results and the difficulties in finding innovative solutions highlight the urgency of addressing these challenges and the need for alternative approaches.

The analysis provides insights into the ongoing discussions around the trustworthiness of the internet and the complexities and difficulties faced in achieving a secure and trusted digital ecosystem. It calls for a reevaluation of strategies and the exploration of different approaches to effectively address the widening gap between the challenges faced and the desired outcomes.

Lucien Castex

The analysis of the various statements made by the speakers reveals several important points regarding internet and data governance. Firstly, it is crucial to understand the terms in which internet and data governance exist. This includes understanding the concepts of data and trust. The governance of data and the understanding of trust are identified as significant objectives that need to be achieved.

Another key point highlighted in the analysis is the need to strike a balance between cyberspace security and the protection of fundamental liberties and rights. The speakers emphasise that although achieving this equilibrium is often difficult, it is essential.

There is strong support for the legislation in France and the European Union (EU) regarding data protection. The importance of protecting data and the impact of existing legislation, such as the RDoDP (Regulation for Data Protection), are underscored. The speakers also mention emerging technological regulation, specifically in relation to artificial intelligence and new digital services.

Education about the internet and data is identified as a key factor in understanding and taking future actions. Strategies to involve internet and data education in primary, secondary, and lifelong education are emphasised. The importance of understanding these concepts is deemed necessary to be able to effectively respond and engage with the evolving digital landscape.

Transparency and the role of data are strongly supported. The speakers argue that ensuring transparency and the circulation of data are of utmost importance. They highlight the need for legislation against the manipulation of data and the ongoing discussions regarding protecting children online and countering racial hatred.

Legal security and transparency are identified as crucial elements in governing data. The analysis emphasises the need for a legal framework that allows users to understand how their data is being used. It is also noted that a multi-stakeholder approach, allowing for diversity of opinions, is essential for internet governance.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is considered important for ensuring clear transparency in digital resources. The analysis supports the idea of having a liability framework with different stakeholders within the digital value chain.

The analysis also calls for the development of international legal frameworks that are accessible to everyone. The speakers argue that international law should be accessible and that no one should be above the law. This concept is particularly relevant in the context of the digital age and raises important questions regarding the International Digital Pact.

The integration of data governance and AI governance is seen as significant. The speakers highlight that data and artificial intelligence are interconnected, and data plays a crucial role in AI. The need to effectively govern and regulate AI is underscored.

The analysis reveals the importance of global cooperation and partnerships in the digital era. The Global Digital Pact is seen as an opportunity to strengthen international cooperation, which is vital for addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital landscape.

A human-centered approach for AI and emerging technologies is supported. The EU’s search for a human-centered approach for AI and emerging technologies is recognized as a positive step towards ensuring that these technologies align with human values and serve the common good.

Finally, the importance of awareness-raising education and understanding data is highlighted. The speakers stress the need for education on data understanding, digital literacy, and AI education. This education is crucial for individuals to navigate the complex digital environment and make informed decisions.

In conclusion, the analysis of the speakers’ statements on internet and data governance reveals several key points. It highlights the need to understand the terms in which internet and data governance exist and achieve a balance between cyberspace security and the protection of fundamental liberties and rights. The support for legislation, the importance of education about the internet and data, and the emphasis on transparency, legal security, and the role of data are also notable. The analysis further underscores the importance of an open, neutral, and trustworthy internet, a multi-stakeholder approach to governance, the integration of data governance and AI governance, and the development of international legal frameworks. Additionally, the call for a human-centered approach, awareness-raising education, and global cooperation are noteworthy observations.

Judith Hellerstein

The importance of data integrity and governance is highlighted in the discussions. Data integrity refers to the accuracy and consistency of data, while data governance is essential for ensuring reliable data. These aspects are often overlooked in discussions about data quality but are vital for upholding trustworthy and reliable data.

The discussions also emphasize the complexities surrounding data security and protection. Storing data in the cloud and various locations is considered a best practice to prevent data loss. This approach enhances data security and resilience by providing multiple backup copies and reducing the risk of information loss in accidents or hardware failures.

Additionally, there is an advocacy for appropriate data protection legislation and policies. Data is subject to the laws of the country it originates from, regardless of where it is stored. Robust data protection policy and legislation are crucial for safeguarding data sovereignty and individuals’ privacy rights.

The discussions further stress the importance of secure and diverse data storage practices. In-house data storage poses risks, as accidents or incidents can lead to data loss. On the other hand, cloud storage offers features that handle corruptions and downtimes, providing a more secure storage option.

Overall, the points raised in the discussions underscore the significance of data integrity, governance, and protection in maintaining a trustworthy internet and secure data storage practices. They highlight the need for organizations and governments to prioritize these aspects to ensure the availability, authenticity, and security of data. Additionally, the discussions shed light on the need for proper legislation and policies to govern data protection, ensuring that individuals’ data is treated respectfully and in accordance with established laws.

Charles Shaaban

The analysis reveals that data governance and privacy laws are being implemented in various countries, particularly in the Arab region. Inspired by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), many countries in this region have introduced their own data protection laws. These laws are quite similar to the GDPR, reflecting a growing recognition of the need for robust data governance measures.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the increasing importance of data in the economy. Organizations now measure their wealth and value based on the data they collect and own. This data is not only crucial for engagement, growth, and monetization purposes but also plays a significant role in shaping the vertical economy of data itself.

Regarding data privacy, it is emphasised that individuals should have rights over their data. This includes knowing what data is being collected, how it is used, manipulated, analyzed, viewed, reviewed, disputed, and providing consent for its use. Data collected goes beyond bio-data to include habits, behavior, and demographics. To ensure fair usage and balance between the rights of organizations and individuals, data privacy and governance are highlighted as focal areas.

In relation to the Domain Name System (DNS), it is argued that balanced laws and treaties should be established to preserve privacy. The analysis mentions recent developments in Jordan, where a new data privacy law has been issued. The importance of preserving privacy on the DNS is emphasized, while also positing the need for a clear mechanism to address those who infringe on privacy.

Another point raised is the need for a broad definition of DNS abuse. The analysis argues that DNS abuse should not only be limited to cybersquatting but should also encompass deceptive, malicious, or illegal activities. It references the International Trademark Association’s broad definition of DNS abuse, which has been approved by the Inter Board.

The analysis also highlights the significance of balanced privacy laws for artificial intelligence (AI). As AI systems rely on data, it is crucial to ensure a balanced approach that respects privacy. The analysis mentions that many companies are currently prohibited from using meta-tags due to privacy laws.

Furthermore, it is noted that support for data systems should not be limited to the private sector. The analysis suggests that a balanced approach is necessary to ensure that data systems benefit the broader society and public sector as well.

Data safety and backup are also identified as crucial considerations. Emphasis is placed on the importance of keeping data safe from natural disasters and implementing backup systems to prevent data loss.

The analysis points out that both local and international laws have a significant impact on data location. Certain countries’ laws may prevent data from being stored overseas, highlighting the importance of understanding and complying with legal requirements. The decision to trust organizations with data is compared to trusting banks to hold money.

In terms of misinformation, the analysis suggests that it can be more dangerous than ignorance. A quote from George Bernard Shaw is referenced to support this argument. The importance of balance and avoiding the dissemination of misinformation is emphasized, particularly in the context of education and promoting peace and justice.

Finally, the analysis underscores the crucial role of consent when it comes to personal information being available on the internet. It argues that user consent should dictate what personal information is shared and made accessible online.

Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the importance of data governance and privacy laws, highlighting the need for balanced approaches that protect individual rights while also fostering innovation and economic growth. It underscores the significance of data in the modern world and the need to establish frameworks that ensure fair and responsible data practices.

Alison Gilward

The African Union Data Policy Framework is a comprehensive document that takes a rights-based approach to data governance. It addresses both personal and non-personal data and recognizes the importance of balancing privacy rights with economic and broader human rights. The framework also acknowledges the uneven development in access to data-related technologies and aims to bridge these gaps over time.

Trust is a crucial aspect of data governance, and it requires data protection, a secure internet, and legitimacy in the rules and regulations governing data practices. However, trust is difficult to establish in Africa due to limited internet connectivity, which excludes a large portion of the population from participating in the data environment.

In addition to data protection and trust-building, the African Union Data Policy Framework covers various other dimensions of data governance. It emphasizes data access control, quality, and open data, aiming to ensure responsible and beneficial data usage.

Data access and shifting from narrow notions of national sovereignty are important considerations in African data governance. Currently, most of Africa’s data traffic flows outside of the continent, emphasizing the need for increased access to data and collaborative approaches to data sovereignty.

The African Union plays a vital role in implementing a trusted and harmonized data protection framework. It provides training and capacity-building tools for governments, supporting them in adopting and effectively implementing the framework.

The analysis highlights the need to redress the unequal distribution of opportunities posed by data-driven technologies. It calls for a shift from focusing solely on harm mitigation to addressing the inequalities generated by these technologies.

Foundational infrastructures such as broadband, digital, and data infrastructure are essential for establishing a trusted data environment. These infrastructures ensure secure and efficient storage, processing, and sharing of data.

The concept of data sovereignty needs to be reevaluated, considering the practicality and efficiency of each country building its own data warehouses. Collaborative approaches and the use of cloud services can help uphold data sovereignty while promoting efficient data management.

Global collaboration is necessary to enforce data protection and address challenges posed by big tech. This collaboration is especially important in addressing issues such as misinformation and the power of large tech companies.

The analysis argues for a shift from a rights framework to a data justice framework to reduce inequalities and foster an inclusive data environment. It is important to include voices outside of government in the legislation process to ensure public interest and accountability.

Legislation for digital services safety must be carefully crafted to avoid repressive or surveillance controls on freedom of expression. Clear data protection and cybersecurity laws are needed, with safeguards against illegitimate state surveillance.

In conclusion, the African Union Data Policy Framework provides a comprehensive approach to data governance, addressing various dimensions such as data protection, trust-building, access control, and data sovereignty. It emphasizes the role of the African Union in implementing a harmonized data protection framework and calls for a shift to a data justice framework. Foundational infrastructures, global collaboration, and inclusive legislation processes are vital for establishing a trusted and equitable data environment in Africa.

Raul Echeberria

The analysis reveals that Latin American countries have their own data protection laws, which have been influenced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). These laws aim to protect personal data and ensure its privacy and security. It is important to note that most data protection authorities in Latin America operate independently and exhibit a high level of coordination among themselves. This coordination ensures consistency in the enforcement of data protection laws throughout the region.

Additionally, the analysis highlights the significance of the free flow of data in Latin America. Unlike other regions, Latin America does not impose significant restrictions on the movement of information. This unrestricted flow of data is considered essential for supporting various services, facilitating transactions, and promoting economic development. It is argued that legal certainty in data transfer benefits all stakeholders, including businesses, individuals, and governments.

The analysis also emphasizes the need for more inclusive and transparent policy-making in Latin America. With over 30 different jurisdictions, policy-making in the region poses a significant challenge. To address this, the establishment of national and regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) is seen as crucial for promoting open dialogue and considering diverse perspectives.

In terms of legal frameworks, the analysis cautions against blindly adopting policies from other regions. Instead, it advocates for tailoring data protection laws to the specific needs of Latin American countries, including considerations for social, economic, and human development. This approach avoids any potential trade-offs between development and rights.

The analysis further underscores the importance of coordination and dialogue among different countries in Latin America when it comes to data protection. Collaboration is seen as essential for effective implementation and enforcement of data protection laws and regulations throughout the region.

Regarding data localization, the analysis takes a negative stance. It argues against the idea of data localization, highlighting its detrimental effects, particularly for smaller companies and developing nations. Data localization is seen as hindering the free flow of information and impeding economic growth.

An important point raised in the analysis is the call for policymakers to enhance their understanding of how the internet works. This understanding is deemed necessary for informed decision-making and the formulation of effective data protection and trust policies.

Finally, the analysis emphasizes that governments have a responsibility to respect and adhere to laws regarding data management. Governments are expected to set an example by upholding these laws and ensuring that data transfers from the government to private companies comply strictly with the legal frameworks established in their respective countries.

In summary, the analysis highlights the presence of data protection laws in Latin American countries, influenced by the GDPR. It advocates for the free flow of data, inclusive and transparent policy-making, and tailored legal frameworks that consider regional needs. The importance of coordination and dialogue among countries, the negative impact of data localization, the need for policymakers to understand the internet, and the responsibility of governments in data management are all key points emphasized in the analysis.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Good morning. Welcome to the 18th annual IGF meeting of the Internet Governance Forum. Konnichiwa, hello, and as I say in my home countries, South Africa and Zambia, Dumelang and Muli Buwanju. In this dynamic panel, we connect global communities through 160-plus national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGF initiatives. Based on data governance and trust building, we will explore the vital link between reliable Internet and effective data governance. Our discussions will delve into the diverse role of data and societal progress and sustainability. We’ll assess the effectiveness of existing data governance mechanisms and examine the potential benefits of regional frameworks for robust data protection. The panel will analyze the differing impacts of data regulations in the Global South versus the Global North, and explore the feasibility of a global policy paradigm versus local solutions. Additionally, we will unveil practical strategies for enforcing data strategy regulations, as We will look at the culture of sound data and data governance, existing methodologies that can be used to refine data prediction policies, examine the capacity of data governance frameworks, to enhance transparency and accountability in the data ecosystem. We’ll break down what responsible data use is and how it can be used. We’ll look at the culture of sound data and data governance, existing methodologies that can be used to refine data prediction policies, examine the capacity of data governance frameworks, examine the capacity of data governance frameworks to enhance transparency and accountability in the data ecosystem. We’ll break down what responsible data usage looks like in our society and like and values. Last but not least, we’ll also look at discussing the mitigation of internet fragmentation and the challenges associated with that. I’m a co-founder and co-founder and co-founder and CEO of DigiLegal, a consultancy providing regulation, policy, and information technology-based services to both private and public sector clients. I’ve been afforded the privilege to be your on-site moderator for this main session titled data governance and trust for the internet we want. My name is Joanne Nguyen. I’m the current CEO of DigiLegal. I’ve been online as a moderator as Judith from the United States of America. I have this amazing panel in front of me. What I will do to get this show on the road is I will allow my very capable panel to introduce themselves. So, I’m going to start by introducing myself. I’m just going to start with an introduction. I want to ask you from my perspective, what specific mechanisms exist from your region or your locality? And do you believe that they’re working? So, if you could have a name, where you’re from, and do these mechanisms exist, and do you believe that they’re effective?

Charles Shaaban:
Good morning, everyone. Thank you. So, before joining us, I would like to introduce myself to myself. I am a member from Navadでは to answer your question, there are many, of course, laws in the region to tackle the data governance in general, and sometimes data privacy. Maybe it became a more important issue after the GDPR became known for everyone, so many of the countries in the region started having their own laws. But to be even very practical, some of them is mainly laws on the GDPR, so we need to tackle this even in the Arab IGF. So I think the best way to start my presentation is to mention something that in the Arab IGF, we are supposed to have one in February next year, hopefully, so one of the main tracks is regarding data governance again. So I will just read a small paragraph, it mentions what are the descriptions about this track in specific, and I’m happy to know that our coaches of the steering task force of the Arab IGF are here who have helped in that. So the data, the importance of data is on the rise. An organization’s wealth and value is measured today by the data it collects and owns on its users, clients, and individuals. In fact, data today became a vertical economy by itself. This data is used for engagement, growth, and monetization purposes. While it’s acceptable for organizations to benefit from the data they collect on the individuals, it is far more important to protect and preserve the individual’s right regarding the data collected about him or her. This is crucial since the collected data is not only related to the individual’s bio-data, but goes beyond that to include habits, behavior, and demographics. This is done today by almost all organizations interacted with through cyberspace and the Internet. Therefore, individuals have an equal right to know what data is collected about them, how it is used, manipulated, and analyzed. They have the right to view it, review it, dispute it, and provide their consent to it. To address the challenge, data privacy. and data governance became the focal areas to ensure the fair use and balance between rights of organizations and rights of individuals on how their data is used. So as you noticed, even in the Arab IGF, we want to even tackle this more, so hopefully we will have even more rigid laws to answer the questions soon and after the participation of all stakeholders in the region. Thank you.

Alison Gilward:
Good morning, I’m Alison Gilwald from Research ICT Africa. It’s a digital policy and regulatory and governance think tank which is based in Cape Town but operates across the continent. I’m also from the University of Cape Town Nelson Mandela School where we have a doctoral program on digital economy and society. I represent the African IGF proudly and have been asked today to speak particularly about the African Union Data Policy Framework which we are with technical advisors on. But perhaps just to say while we speak about trust is that although there’s been a lot of development around the mechanisms you need in place for trust, these are often on the basis of assumptions around mature markets, mature democracies, rule of law, high levels of human development, so a lot of absorptive capacity and ability to exercise one’s rights, and these conditions don’t necessarily pertain in other parts of the world that we need to create these trusted environments in. So the African Union Data Policy Framework very much acknowledges this environment. It’s a very high-level principle document that has these very aspirational and important rights-based principles in the document, but it also is committed, just so that we can get on and do this, to a progressive realization of these, that we’re actually all in very uneven spaces in development. I should point out that the Data Policy Framework is my much more than a data protection framework. The effects of GDPR on the continent, of course, was that there was extensive roll-out, not always effectively, of data protection mechanisms on the continent, but this document, this framework is far greater than that. It’s about personal and non-personal data, and importantly about creating a trusted environment to unleash the use of non-personal data, particularly within a number of initiatives which I can speak about on the continent. So the data governance framework is comprehensively covered in terms of data access control, quality, open data, those kinds of governance mechanisms that we need to create an effective data economy on the continent, but it’s also prefaced by a very important front-end, first part of this document, which acknowledges the digital readiness and legal and human rights readiness frameworks that we need on the continent. So the first point to make probably is that only a third of Africans are actually connected to the internet, so while we’re trying to create a trusted environment, it’s highly exclusionary currently. So all of these foundational infrastructures, foundational law and enabling law is required, and the document is progressive, I believe, globally progressive in this context in which it acknowledges the importance of inclusion, of equity, and of redress, importantly, in this environment, and the need to create an enabling environment, which covers the kind of checkbox now on data protection and data security, but very importantly speaks about the importance of legitimacy. You don’t simply get – those are necessary conditions for trust, but you don’t get trust simply from data protection and a secure internet. You need to have the legitimacy around the enabling framework so that people actually feel it’s a trusted environment.

Raul Echeberria:
Thank you. Thank you for that, Alison. If we can move on to Raul, same question. If you can just tell us your locality, where you come from, and effectively, what are the mechanisms and are they effective? My name is Raul Echeverria. I’m the Executive Director of Latin American Internet. Association, that is a private sector association in the region, but I’m here representing all the LAC-IGF community, and Latin America is a region that is advanced on providing frameworks, legal frameworks for data protection. It’s important to consider that we have as a reference, we have a reference that is a very solid one that is the Inter-American System for Human Rights and the Inter-American Standards for Human Rights. So all the data protection legal frameworks are inspired or aligned with the protection of the rights according to those standards, and there are solid institutions. Most of the countries have their own laws on data protection, and most of the data protection authorities are independent, and while we don’t have a regional framework, we have a good level of coordination among the authorities and they work together. The data protection laws have been highly inspired in GDPR in the last few years, but even the last ones, like the Brazilian example, I think in my view is an improvement with regard to GDPR. We are seeing now a generation of discussions in most of countries updating their local legal frameworks, because even the countries that were pioneers in this field, their laws are becoming old and they need some updates, and there is a lot of discussion in several countries with regard to that. I think this is crucial. Sometimes we say or we hear that we live in a… in a data-based economy, but it’s not totally true. I think we should say that we live in a data-based society, it’s not only the economy, that data is important for everything, for all the services we receive from public sector or education for many, many areas, and so it’s important to have solid legal frameworks in order to do the management, to have a management of the data that make available a lot of opportunities but in a trusted way. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you for that. Chong, if you could give us a go at that question, where do you come from, what’s happening in your locality, and we’d like to know whether you believe that it’s effective or not.

Lucien Castex:
Hello everyone, konnichiwa, bonjour à toutes et à tous, I will speak in French since I’m representing the French IGF here in Kyoto. Good morning to one and all. I will maybe begin by introducing myself, Lucien Castex, I’m the representative of public affairs and partnerships at the FNIC, and I’m also co-chair of GE France, which is one of the national entities here. Perhaps to introduce what I want to say, I would like to quote the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said that philosophy is a struggle against sorcery involving our intelligence by the means of our language. Today, with the internet and the debates that we have on data governance, we see that to understand internet, or the internet that we want to have, is first and foremost how to determine the terms in which this exists, data of course, the governance of the data, but the notion even of trust, what does that actually mean when we have trust in something. So these are considerable objectives that we have to attain. Now, if we can talk about this as something that we use Because every day, sometimes we use it without even knowing it. But we haven’t yet building it, not only from a technical point of view, but also from a societal point of view, with new uses forever coming to the fore. We need to search and find this equilibrium between cyberspace security, but also the protection of our fundamental liberties and rights. This is often an arduous task, but it nonetheless remains essential. It is at the crossroads of what we all want to do. This is not only the 2030 Agenda, but also the review in 20 years of the World Summit on the Information Society, but also the negotiations that are ongoing on the digital compact. In two words then, in France, but also within the European Union, there are various types of legislation that come to the fore, and they’re currently being negotiated, or almost going to enter into force. The RDoDP, in terms of data protection, which has been up and running for a few years, has already had an impact. Today, when one looks at emerging technological regulation, in particular as concerns artificial intelligence, if we look at new digital services, what happens on this market, and also data governance acts, we are already setting the foundation with this legislation that would allow us to have the participation not only of citizens, but also of states in data governance. Here we see myriad strategies, but one of the most important parts of this is that everyone plays a role, including citizens. And indeed, there are strategies that we see that want to involve this, not only in primary, but secondary education, but all along our lives. And this constitutes a key for all of us to decode what lies ahead of us, because to understand is to take action, and in order to do this, we have to be able to understand what is at stake and understand what this data is. And this, of course, is important for this to be done transparently. We’ve had legislation in France against the manipulation of data in 2018, and we are currently thinking about the way we use data. How do we protect children online, and how do we counter racial hatred? So all of this means that the role of data is essential in this, and the fact that this data can circulate is also of the utmost importance. So this, of course, is important for us, whether we have national or regional… GDPR, we have all of these international fora and national fora all play an important role. We need to continue to have an overall vision that enables all of our cultures and diversity to be represented.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you so much. Contribution. Chuang, if I could ask you to provide us from your perspective, you know, where do we stand from your region or your NRIs, mechanisms from a data governance and trust perspective, and do you believe that these are effective?

Liu Chuang:
Yeah, ladies and gentlemen, that is a very good opportunity for me to share our information to you. I think this, I will focus on the data security, accuracy, and timely. I think for the, I’m from China, my name is Liu Chuang, from Chinese Academy of Sciences and IGF. You know, China is a big country, so many peoples and people in the research and also in the society want to get the data to support sustainable development. How make the data available to innovative discovery and also benefit the society? And I think that the fourth thing is data quality. How to make the high-quality data available? And this is a complicated issue. Scientists, they did a lot of work, research work, but they think this is private, this is intellectual property product. And how to balancing property protection and open shared? So we discussed this for almost 20 years in China. Finally, China make the decision. open scientific data policy. So this is a national data policy and then we established our infrastructure. We established data centers and the collected data. We have the global change research data publishing and the report. It was established nine years ago and we have a serious principles, guidelines, and the policies, standards, and the management procedures. Then up to now, more than 1,000 data sites have been published and more than 10 million accessible data in the whole world in more than 100 countries. So this data center was approved by the World Data System to be a world data center and got a VCS prize in 2018 as an e-science champion. So this product means we need to preview. The data site is put there and so many data, they are confused. Which one is the high quality? Which one can be used to transfer to another users? So this is the key of the data governance. And another big challenge is more and more data. So many. How many data available to not only for research scientists but for the society, for the local people, for the village people? So we start a new program we call the GIS. That means geographical indications, environment, and sustainability. Up to now, 101 partners joined this program and we open data, open knowledge, and open case samples, and then together with the big data and Internet of Things technology, and also in the case engineering examples, together with the systematic management and the geography culture got together. So the cases, 17 cases in China, they are not two years, very successful. More than 600,000 village people through the data driving methodology, and they get benefit. And also customers, and they got good product through the open data and the open knowledge. And FAO just work with us, and we transferred the GIS technology to FAO OCOP program. OCOP means one country, one priority product program. So several countries already use this, free use this technology, and in their national strategy for agriculture development. So such as Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, and several countries in Asia and the Pacific. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to say this is the time, this is the era of the data driving. There are challenges, but opportunities. We have no choice except to make right or suitable framework in the IGF framework, in the global scale, but also in the local, national, and regional scale. We work locally, we’re networking globally. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you so much for that. I think we’ve really had… some really good positions and breakdowns of where you’re from, what we’re working with from a mechanism perspective, and whether they are actually working or not. And I think we ended quite nicely with looking at creating single market-based data governance and trust mechanisms. And I think that will open me up to you, Alison. We’re looking at the African Continental Free Trade Area Agreement and looking at really that single market. What does that mean, and what does that look like from a data perspective to ensure that this is an effective piece of legislation, but also for economic development in Africa, knowing that data is really a crucial perspective for that to be possible? Could you give us your inputs from that perspective?

Alison Gilward:
Thank you so much. I think this is a very important aspect of the African Union Data Policy Framework. I think if we look at other data governance and data protection frameworks, particularly data protection frameworks, they’re very much focused on individualized notions of first-generation rights, particularly privacy rights. And they’re very often in our context not balanced, although some of our data protection regulators are also responsible for access to information, but not often freedom of expression. So I think this balancing of rights, firstly, is not very practiced amongst data protection regulators on the continent. So we have those, firstly, these individualized notions that we’ve taken from GDPR and are very much based on a very legal, contractual, informed consent. So I think one of the things is actually to acknowledge the need, particularly because of these drivers around economic development on the continent and these opportunities offered by the African continental free trade area and the single digital market, is looking at or acknowledging or building into our policy, because I think it is actually critical to trust, that people’s economic and second and third generation rights are also recognized in this process. And so I think if you look at the framework, the issues around ensuring data access, ensuring that on the continent, we shift from very narrow notions of national sovereignty and localization. And I’m not suggesting just open free flows, because I think at the moment, we’ve got about 90% asymmetry in our traffic flows outside the continent. continent, but leveraging that within the continent to ensure that we get these data flows. And for that we need this trusted, harmonised framework. So the work of the African Union at the moment is in the second phase, it’s in the implementation phase. There’s an action plan for governments, there’s a training and capacity building tool governments can use, and it’s happening with the RECs and the training of the RECs, and building the institutions, so supporting the network of data protection regulators as they take on these additional tasks on the continent. But I think the critical issue here is a lot of the focus from current data governance, as I said, assumes that there are lots of other things in place, and is so really focused on what we argue in Africa is a very uneven impact on harms associated with data-driven technologies, but not adequate attention to how we redress the uneven distribution of opportunities, and what we’re trying to do is ensure that countries are more evenly digitally developed, and have these enabling trust environments in order to reap the benefits of a common market, which otherwise is going to be very uneven.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you for that. And I think you really touch on some crucial points about the data flow, ensuring that we don’t have uneven markets, but I think the base and the platform of all of this flow really depends on DNS and aspects around Internet protocols. I’ll open the floor up to you to just maybe explain to our audience and maybe your viewpoints on the relationship between trust, data processing, data governance, and domain name systems.

Charles Shaaban:
Thank you, and this is very important. In fact, taking from what the doctor mentioned now, so anything in the real world should be implemented on the Internet, too. So going back to the DNS, as you know, as many of us know, that DNS, when it started, the domain name system, they used, for example, for the intellectual property part, say, cybersquatting when someone maybe registered a trademark. Now, there are more definitions of what is DNS abuse, as an example. There is the European definition, there is even recently in Jordan they issued a new data privacy law. So this privacy should be again on the DNS. So what we think is suitable maybe is to have a balanced laws and treaties to ensure preservation of the privacy and at the same time include a clear mechanism on how to enable the right holders to reach some needed private data. In other words, just to say it as everybody says, privacy is very important for everyone. We need to preserve it on the DNS at the same time. For example, everybody knows who follows ICANN processes that since more than 20 years they are still discussing what should be there, what shouldn’t be there. Of course, private information, address and so on should be there for sure. Everybody agrees on that. But maybe we need a process how to reach an infringer if the domain name, let’s say, was used in bad faith. And maybe just since I work now with the International Trademark Association, to mention the latest definition of DNS abuse for the benefit of something which was approved recently by the way from the Inter Board and it’s more broad, not only as when I started said it was only cyber squat or something, no, they defined it as any activity that makes or intend to make use of domain name, domain name system, protocol or any digital identifier that are similar in form or function to domain names to carry out deceptive, malicious or illegal activity. So I think this, as we started that, shows that we need to implement what we have in the real world, what’s coming on the digital of course.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Those are very practical points and I think straight to the point and I appreciate that. Thank you for that. I’ve got a really good panel, super lucky. I want to go to Zichong and just speak about, you know, quality control and the research aspect of this. I mean, both speakers have discussed about how important the space is becoming. We’ve discussed the economic side of things. We’ve discussed the DNS side of things and how, you know, there’s that overlap really between personal data and just data in general, you know, and I think we’ll get to the point where we won’t be able to have a really clear distinction because there will really be things So, we have a lot of questions. So, we have a lot of questions about the future of work, the future of how we interact, how we live, and the future is actually we’re living in it right now. So, from a research and control perspective, what are your viewpoints on this particular matter, subject?

Liu Chuang:
Yeah, this is a good question. So, quality, data quality control, we have a framework of principles, guidelines, and standards, procedures, and definitely go to the pre-review. So, we have three steps for the pre-review. First is review, and second is third review. So, definitely. If they’re conflicted, we need another one. So, this is one thing. So, go to the framework of structure, procedures, and then go to the pre-review. So, we have a framework for the pre-review, and then go to the pre-review. So, we have a framework for the pre-review, and then go to the pre-review. Second one, we need a professional team for the reviewer, and that’s for the data management also. So, we have a training programme, and new challenging comes, new data comes, how to deal with this. We have regular meetings, training programme, and not only for the reviewer, but also for the data management. So, I’m very happy that we have a public forum for the users. We got feedback to see what quality they want, whether this is good or not. So, I think this is the key. If the data quality controlled and the data users, we’d be very happy that. When the more and more people to benefit from the data. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you. Thank you. I think we have a lot of good conversations, but, you know, the big bad wolf, for some, hasn’t come up. If we look at economic factors, looking at big tech, looking from a Latin perspective, but I think we can also speak from a developing world perspective as well. So, thank you very much. and global south, when it comes to considerations from an economic perspective, balancing out the issues of trust and a way that we move forward in a manner that is sustainable, according to development of human rights and respect of privacy, what are your viewpoints on that particular matter? I’m very keen to hear what you have to say.

Raul Echeberria:
Thank you. I think that it’s clear that the data needs to flow, because we need the data to be available to make accessible services to favour commercial transactions. So the objective of all the legal frameworks is that we allow the free flow of information in a secure way. So the legal certainty is good for everybody, for all the stakeholders, and I think that we are understanding together different stakeholders, we are understanding that. But Latin America doesn’t have transnational structures like Europe, for example, so we have to deal with, in Latin America and the Caribbean, with more than 30 different jurisdictions. So in order to make the data flow in a way that favours the economic development of the whole region, we have to be very careful with the laws. We have spent a significant time discussing with policy makers, and I think that the national and the regional IGFs are crucial for that, for having an open conversation among all stakeholders. Sometimes policy makers think that they are doing something that goes in the line of protecting rights of the people, and sometimes it could have exactly the opposite effect. And this is why it is important that all stakeholders are involved since the inception of the policies.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
And I think I will stop, for the sake of time. for those considerations. So that takes me. I mean, that takes me to listen. Looking specifically at the legal considerations around this, I know you made mention of WSIS, who, if you think about it, they’ve got the common vision and desire and commitment to build a people-centric, inclusive development for information society, and looking to ensure that these aspects of data governance and trust are adhered to. If we speak about legal considerations and the actual ramifications of antitrust behavior, or behavior that really undermines the aspect of trust, what would you give us, I think, from your NRI, but also from a global perspective, especially being from the EU and being a GDPR expert?

Lucien Castex:
Merci. Thank you very much for this exemplary question. We need to seek and to strike a balance. This is of paramount importance between legal security, as was already mentioned previously, and transparency. These are the very bedrock of achieving security and transparency. And at the end of the day, we need and transparency. And at the end of the day, it allows the user to understand what we’re going to be doing with the data, and also to understand what is the legal framework or the legal frameworks which is applicable to them. At the EU level, as you know, we talk about the decade to 2030. And we see this at the core of many of the agendas. The European Commission, we adopted indicators to follow this digital transformation in the EU and to provide various guidelines to the member states. When we talk about data and the free circulation of data, what is also mentioned, what this also means, it means a digital overhaul, transformation. And in terms of data governance, and I’m going back to your question, this transparency is essential with data that flows. And we need to keep an open and neutral Internet. Within this, it needs to be interoperable, trustworthy. That is at the very core of our vision. Digital is a resource and as well as a challenge. And this 18th IGF here in Kyoto bears witness with all of the wealth of the discussions that we need to have a multi-stakeholder approach, which would enable to have a diversity of opinions in this regard, the cultural diversity, linguistic diversity, as well as ideas are all the more various ways to look at these various governance modalities and these various governments. Finally, when we talk about data, this also means that we need to talk about the similarities between the data and also this open source that is also an essential and we look at all the very specific characteristics. There are gargantuan resources for the Internet. We also need to identify what those solutions are for this world governance. In summary, we need to endow ourselves with the clear data, specifically with GDPR. This means to endow ourselves with clear transparency in terms of these digital resources. We need to have a liability framework with the different stakeholders within the entire value chain, the digital value chain. I think that there at the very core to be able to develop a trustworthy internet. In summary, internet is not very different as I stated about the previous philosopher. It is also the bad and it is also the way that we can move forward and the solution to that problem. Thank you very much.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
You have highlighted transparency, accountability and ensuring that we have a very people-centric approach which I really do believe is the future and is what we progressively aiming to realize at a global scale. So this session is going to really open up the floor now and we’d like to keep this, you know, robust, have as much interaction as possible. So this is going to be the beginning of our first round of Q&A. I would actually like to start with our online questions. If I could see a show of hands on the floor for any questions. I do note one. Any more hands? I do note two, three. Okay, so we’ll start with our online questions and then we will proceed to the floor. Thank you so much. Judith, please take the floor.

Judith Hellerstein:
Thanks so much. We have a question from Chris. He directs his question to the woman from China when she was talking about data quality which has to do with data integrity and he would like to know what will be some of the recommendations when it comes to data integrity and governance because we sometimes forget the great importance of data integrity when having some of these conversations. So I’ll direct that question to Ms. Chan.

Liu Chuang:
Wow, yeah, that’s so happy to everybody, many people the interest in the data quality. So I think that from our experience and we need to work many partners together. Only the scientific academy is not good enough, but we work with governors, with the central government, with the international organizations such as World Data System, the International Science Council, and also work with the CODATA, International Committee on Data for Science. technology, and so on. So then we work together to make the framework, the framework including the principles. So we had a workshop in Nairobi to make the data sharing principles, and then we made the guidelines. We learned from developing countries, OECD guideline, data guideline, and also we made our developing countries. So I have been to the chairperson of the co-data in developing countries for 20 years. So we collected the challenges, and then what could be a suitable operational procedure for the data control. So then we have the standards, we set up a serious regulation rules about how to check, evaluate the table data, spatial data, image data, and so on. So the whole kind of things we discussed with many organizations, and then let this work in China and also suitable in the whole world, especially for the developing countries. For example, we work in South Africa, so with the university, our captain, and also in the Asia country, Mexico University, ECDs, so and I think this is acceptable. So in this way, we make the data control, and publish the data, and the whole kind of data, and so we publish 1,200 data sites. No one can play for this kind of data. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you so much for that. If we could please have the first question on the floor, if you could introduce your name, where you’re from, and your question.

Audience:
Yeah, thank you very much. My name is Alcapulse. I come from the Netherlands. I’m also representing the Netherlands NRI, currently working at KPMG in the Netherlands in the responsible AI practice. And I would like to share a little bit on also the data governance view from our perspective, because this morning there was a session about the origin of the Internet, and also the parallel that we can make with data governance. While the Internet started to grow based on Internet exchange points, we can also do that on the same matter with data. So this morning was a session about the Amsterdam data exchange, and that was a session where it was shown that the same setup as the Internet can be recreated for the data setup in collaboration with Internet exchange points. So in the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Internet exchange is a major party in that, but I really encourage all countries also to collaborate with their Internet exchange point to come up with the same kind of infrastructure to connect all the data silos that we currently have. So my question would be, if there’s anyone interested in learning a bit more about this, please reach out to me, and then we’re happy to discuss any further thoughts about that. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you. Thank you for that. I’m quite certain that the panel will reach out to you. And I think anybody else in the room, we certainly come to these forums and platforms for exchange of knowledge and to see how we can collaborate and grow the ecosystem, so most certainly thank you for that. If we can please go to ‑‑ I’m actually going to go row by row, so you can start, the gentleman behind me, and then we’ll go to the next row. Thank you. Please, if you can introduce yourself, where you’re from, and your question.

Audience:
Giacomo Mazzone from the Italian IGF. My question is, listening to what has been said by Lucien about the European example that is consolidate the framework on data that looks interesting, is this a model that could be replicated? Do you expect that in some of the future, next year, data transfer can be ‑‑ this discussion. So this is another part of the discussion right now, speaking of privacy as a fundamental aspect, this is really part of that because anybody can request access to the media if she has trouble avoiding one. So there are a lot of possibilities for лучшую операцию в dear media have to be Christina from study in Tanzania. Lost audio, sorry about that. I came from the Tanzania IGF, but it is like in Tanzania too, right? like to say that we don’t go in And now you have an issue of data If there is an issue of, you know, data concentrating on a few companies, how do we convince countries not to go the data sovereignty way in terms of their policies? Because they see companies, a handful of companies, you know, have all this data, but we are trying to do them not to go the data sovereignty way. So how do we reconcile these two, you know, different polarisation situations? Thank you. you’re directing it to. Hi, Andrew Campling. I run a public policy and PR consultancy. My question, there’s been a really interesting discussion, but there are changes to Internet standards which can result in the loss of data, especially metadata that’s used to measure traffic trends, identify malicious activity, enable connectivity between different messaging platforms, and for general search, even, dare I say, compliance with legislation and regulation. Now the bodies involved in data governance and trust are largely absent from the standards bodies, which unsurprisingly are dominated by the technical community. So I wonder whether, to aid transparency and accountability, do you agree that we need to enable engagement by those bodies in the standards organizations like the ITF, so that their needs are taken into account when new Internet standards are developed? Thank you. Thank you. So we’re going to take one last

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
question for this round, and then please do give us the opportunity to just have a round of answers, and we’ll certainly give the next set of questions to the next panel. So we’ll start with the first question, and then we’ll have time to take the floor. Please go ahead.

Audience:
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to speak. My name is Xiaobo Yang. I’m from China. Our institution, my organization is Fuxi Institution. It’s a VP of ICANN, and our organization does both policy and technical research. And data governance is one of our main research fields, and we are very active participants in the IGI. IGF process, both in the China IGF community and the UN IGF community. I got two questions. The first is for Alison, maybe I pronounced it right. During the past few days I’ve heard a lot about people are talking about the time changing. I think it’s also the same with the data governance, the scope and the concept of data governance is changing too. Just as you mentioned, it’s not only about data protection, it’s about access, data quality and many others. And we’ve observed that more than 100 economies have published their data rules. And our analysis showed that some articles are similar, such as the principle given individual rights to their personal data, while there are also some critical rules that are different, such as the definition of personal data, just as Lucien just mentioned, the definition of data and the rules for cross-border data flow. And more and more people are realising the importance of international frameworks or norms on data governance, and we might need some consensus on data governance. My question is, from your perspective of view, at present, is it possible for us to make an international norm or framework on data governance, and if yes, at present, what could be included to this consensus? And data governance is part of the GDC, and what are you expecting, the final text of the GDC on data governance? And this is my first question. My second question is to Paul and to Lucien. And now we have a lot of international platforms and organizations such as the IGF, OECD, APEC, the World Internet Conference, they are all talking about data and the data governance. Do you think it’s necessary or is there any mechanism to regularly collect their outputs? And afterward, just as many participants of this meeting have said, we can’t discuss something always from the beginning. We need to move on from where consensus or outcomes have been reached. Do you think, and in addition, do you think the NRIS should play a role in this mechanism or process? That’s my question.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you for those questions. And I do hope that the panel have noted these down. I saw you all jutting down. So perhaps we’ll start with the first question. So we’re going to first have the first round of questions, and then we’ll certainly, when the second round of questions come up, then we’ll take that. I just want to afford the panel the opportunity to answer adequately, and then we’ll open up the Q&A again, the queues, rather. So we’ll go to the A’s now. Go ahead, Raul.

Raul Echeberria:
Okay. So, many comments and interesting questions, but I didn’t answer something that you asked to me in the previous round, when you asked about the balancing approaches for development. I think it’s very timely to comment on that, too, because I don’t think that there should be a trade-off between development and rights. What we need is just to include the… perspective of development, the needs for social, economic and human development as objectives of the legal frameworks. There is a risk when we copy and paste policies from other regions that probably other regions have not exactly the same objectives or needs than a developing region like Latin America or surely I can’t speak about Africa, but I think that this is the same situation. So this is my first point. There were two questions about the GDC and the data, new mechanism. I don’t think that we need a new mechanism. I don’t think that probably the GDC will include something about data protection. I think that it should be at the level of principles. There are different approaches to data protection. I think all of them are valid and probably in the Western world, GDPR is very well known, but it’s not the only approach to data protection. I think that it’s useful to have all those legal frameworks. We need obviously coordination and dialogue among different countries that have different approaches in order to ensure that everything is interoperable. About data sovereignty, it’s a concept that I prefer not to comment on that. I think that we will need much more time for that. There is not a single definition or a common understanding of what data sovereignty means. And definitely I’m against data localization. I think that this is terrible. It’s a very bad idea to impose data localisation, especially for smaller companies and developing countries. We could talk more about that, but for the sake of the time I will just say that this is a bad thing. With regard to the standards, I don’t know if it is necessary that data protection, the people involved in data protection authorities participate in standard bodies. I think that it is really very important that they understand the architecture of the internet, how it works. But not only them, every policymaker with responsibilities on digital issues should understand how the internet works, this is the basic thing, and of course it includes also the people involved in data protection and trust. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you so much for that. So I’m going to do two things. I’m going to open the floor for Alison to answer. I do have opposing views on the GDC’s approach, and perhaps, I don’t know, if Alison, as you answer that, maybe just do walk us through the GDC and data governance and trust as one of the key pillars in really achieving our common agenda, and the core principles that if we think about data protection and privacy come from, I’ll open the floor up to you to do that. And then after that, I would like us to speak about the second question that Raul alluded to, which speaks to data loss and looking at that scope of things. So Alison, if you could please.

Alison Gilward:
Thanks very much. I’ll just address Nazar Urama’s question that I think was relating specifically to Africa, and the person, I’m afraid I didn’t catch their name, from the Fuji Institute who addressed this question specifically, but landed up with the GDC, so hopefully we’ll get there now. I’ll try and be very quick. So thank you very much for the important question around data warehouses and the absence of them and the issues that that raises for data sovereignty and that most of our data is going outside of the continent and being stored outside of the continent, often under not-enforced governance arrangements that ensure reciprocity or, you know, common legal frameworks. In the context of the African Union, because after that I’m going to speak about our own research as opposed to the African Union research, there is an acknowledgement that, as I mentioned, that we need these basic foundational infrastructures. We need the basic broadband infrastructure, we need the digital infrastructure, we need the data infrastructure, and then of course we need the digital ID foundation in order to get these trusted environments so that people can interact, you know, comprehensively and equitably in the environment. So the data infrastructure one is an absolute critical one, and of course it’s dependent on the uneven digital infrastructure that we already have in the continent. But I think what we have tried to move from was a very strong… probably unrealistic notion of data sovereignty and localization that each country, you know, whether its priorities were or could afford it, would be required to keep their own data warehouses, that each would have to build their own data warehouses. There are obviously such enormous benefits in, you know, and cost and other benefits in cloud services that it makes sense to, you know, to do that in virtual environments that you’re only paying for the cost that you need, et cetera, while ensuring that the data is held safely and under the conditions that protect your country’s data subjects. Within the context of the African single digital market, what we are asking for is for the development of these data, kind of data infrastructure across the continent, so that, you know, where it’s already being provided in some parts of the continent, you know, quite significant amounts of data warehousing and storage going on in Southern Africa, for example, that this is made available on the continent and that we have cost-based access to this data amongst Africans that can use this data more effectively and more cost-effectively. So I think it is a critical policy issue that we’ve got to shift our position to some of the realities around Africa so that we can benefit from those data flows that we are wanting, you know, across the continent. And also just acknowledging that, you know, sitting on data that you’re unable to store or process, you know, share, charge for, really doesn’t build data value, you know, public data or commercial value. Just very quickly then to, you know, go to the important questions raised by the person from the Fuji Institute. You know, I think this is exactly the kind of governance issues that we are struggling with now, is around getting some kind of consensus that we absolutely need for global governance. I think a lot of the times we are talking about national and regional, you know, harmonization or establishment of policies that are now evolving with the changing technologies that we have, but in fact, many of the enforcement aspects of this, whether it’s around data protection or misinformation or, you know, a number of things, actually requires global governance. It requires us to globally cooperate to, you know, deal with big tech that has, you know, bigger money and interests than many of our countries, and to collaborate around some sort of normative consensus. Now, of course, the normative consensus that we’ve kind of imagined we have is vulnerable, it’s fragmented. I think how, and I think, I think there’s been some kind of attempts to kind of get us into a false consensus sometimes by shifting language of human rights to people-centered so that we can accommodate that. On the other hand, I do think that there are historically very ignored issues around, you know, other aspects of human rights, as I mentioned, in terms of economic justice and actually shifting it. So if you’ve just got, you know, human rights of privacy, if you’ve got, as we move into AI, you know, ethics by design and these kinds of things, they only—many people in the world do not—firstly, do not have those rights in the analog world, and we’re expecting them to have sort of digital rights in this normative consensus that we are fabricating. But on the other hand, you know, people are unable to exercise those rights because of their economic conditions and their human development conditions, which means we have to address that. And so from Research ICT Africa’s position, not the African Union’s position, in terms of the Global Digital Compact, which is obviously a very important process that’s been underway here with the digital envoy during this week, is to argue that what we need is not just, you know, a data compliance regime around data, which will not redress the kind of inequalities, structural inequalities that the Secretary General is speaking about, but that we need to be looking at data justice. How do we get just outcomes? Because simply, you know, a first-generation rights framework and ethics is not going to require the transformation that we need for inclusion, for equitable participation, and the redress of digital inequality.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you for that. Alison, Charles, if you could take a go at my question.

Charles Shaaban:
Thank you very much. In fact, I’d like to answer what the gentleman asked about when he mentioned some of the data loss, the meta-tags and so on, which is, this is something, as you know now, where the privacy laws, companies cannot use them. But we should always remember that we are going to the AI, and everybody talking about artificial intelligence. data. The data system takes on a percentage decision, cube, to live and not to have human intellectual intelligence and this system depends on the data. So, again, as I mentioned when I talked about the IP, that we need something balanced, so we need balanced laws to what is allowed, what is not allowed, making sure keeping the privacy. At the same time, the data system has to be balanced, so it has to be balanced in a way that it is not limited to the private sector. So, this, again, depends on the country’s law. So, some government entities usually, and even private sector, doesn’t like their data to be in another country, but I think we can, if we go years back, when the banks, let’s say, started, of course, many years back, so you’re thinking, should I put my money in the bank or not? So, it depends on the bank reputation. Is it secure? You know, is it safe? Is it safe to put your money in the bank? Is it safe to put your money in the bank? So, we need our data to be safe, backed up, safe from any even natural disaster, so maybe we want to choose a company that we know that it is good. But, again, we have to go back, again, to the countries in each country, the laws in each country, to make sure that it allows me to put my data somewhere else.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
So, the next slide, please.

Liu Chuang:
So, the next slide is regarding the platform. This is a new tool since the data come. This is actually a platform, it’s an accelerator. So, without a platform, the data doesn’t stay there, and no network together. Some platform is project-based, and the support for certain target, different organization, different project, they have a different platform. This is understandable. And another one is some project is short-term, maybe three years, when the project close, and the platform maybe stay a few years, and then close. This is the risk for the, in this case, maybe the data got lost. So, in this case, why it doesn’t working? Because the application in the States. In this case, so the International Science Council so have the program that, not program, this international organization is called the World Data System. This is the home of the World Data, World Data Site. This requires that the data, the only members of the World Data System should be kept long-term, preservated, and protected, and keep this open, available to everyone. So this is another type of the platform. So I suggest that, so this is a national and regional IGF initiatives can help this, help indicate the risk. Some platform, before they close, they should have them to transfer, migrate to somewhere else, in case the data and the platform technology got lost. Or migrate, maybe technical data format, software updated. So maybe the new one couldn’t access the older system. So need the interactable of the system. So I think this is empty now. We need to do this. Thank you very much for your question, and this is one big challenge also.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you. Absolutely, thank you so much for that. Lucien, if I could give you a go to look at the questions that have been asked in this round and give a very brief input from your end.

Lucien Castex:
Merci beaucoup et merci. Thank you very much, and thank you for all of the questions which were asked. I will try to be as brief, because I can see that we’re coming to the last 15 minutes of the session. So firstly, with regard to the application at an international level of legal standards. In French law, for example, we say that no one is supposed to be above the law. We could. also think about the fact that ignorancia juris non exquisite from Latin, which is an international version of the French. So what do we do? What can we do at an international level in order to understand these laws? Well, first of all, we need to develop frameworks together which are accessible to all, easily understandable from the citizen to the state. And of course, these frameworks have to be developed within international organizations. A certain number of questions raised the issue of the International Digital Pact and the possibility of integrating into this. A number of questions which were asked here specifically with regard to data governance and AI governance. And similarly, what is AI today was machine learning yesterday or computational mathematics yesterday. So here, what we’re really talking about is that one needs the other data is essential for AI and vice versa. And of course today, IE, AI is based today on this data. So this global pact can be seen as an opportunity to strengthen this international cooperation, which has been mentioned by the distinguished Secretary General Guterres. This could perhaps give a due place to the IGF and to regional initiatives, as some of my colleagues mentioned, national initiatives, which would allow a crossing between the discussions taking place here at an international forum and each individual in his or her region or in their country, working closely with citizens to be able to really roll things out on the ground and propose adapted solutions. last word. If I may, the EU, as you know, as part of the digital decade, is looking for a human-centered approach for AI and emerging technologies. A text is currently being redacted, which will address this issue, but also the upcoming entry into force of new cybersecurity frameworks, which are inherently linked with the issue of trust and the individual citizen’s trust of the digital environment, raises the issue of the individual citizen and his or her understanding of what’s at stake. We said at the very opening of the session that perhaps one of the issues where I’d like to conclude, if I may, is the issue of awareness-raising education, understanding what this data is, understanding what we do with data, and understanding when a digital service or an artificial intelligence uses data, how and why it does so. So, that requires transparency and responsibility.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Thank you. I’m going to open the floor again for a set of questions. If you could please keep it brief, do you mention your name, where you’re from, and who you’re directing the question to.

Judith Hellerstein:
We also have an online question. So, we’ll ask the online question first. This question is from Mahamat Habib, who is from the Republic of Chad. And thanks to Lucian for the English translation. He asks, I am wondering if you would be willing to about data collection by government and the use of such data by companies with which states are contracting. And he’s particularly concerned about the cybersecurity ramifications of this. So if one of the panelists can answer that, he would be grateful. Thanks so much.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
So before we do the answering, if we could also take questions from the floor and then we’ll proceed. Please go ahead.

Audience:
I’m Mahe from IGF Sri Lanka, and our statement is like this. The global issues need solutions of global level. And in 2019, Windsor warned about the data governance frameworks could become tools for censorship and surveillance in a BBC interview. And today, it is a coming reality, the GDPR, UK Online Safety Bill, and the Sri Lankan Proposed Safer Internet Bill is carrying such issue to the what we call a good data governance process. So there are a lot of things that we need to do. Meanwhile, the participation and engagement of the stakeholders is the main thing and open and transparent. But meanwhile, we need to support the civil society organizations that are working to create this good data governance in the field. So it’s my proposal that we need to work on that. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Tanara Lauschner. I am the coordinator of the Brazilian IGF. I have a quite brief comment here. I would like to echo the words of my colleagues who spoke about the importance of trust on data governance process. And I would like to emphasize that for this to happen, it is essential that data is used for good, where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from its power, not leaving strong protections aside. Considering this in the context of emerging technologies, responsible data governance is even more important. In the context of emerging technologies, it is important to ensure that data is used for good. This has been vastly discussed in this IGF and other Internet governance forum, such as our Brazilian IGF. Some strategies to ensure this responsibility include reinforced data protection laws and regulations, as Brazil and other countries have done in the past. One of the strategies is the Brazilian General Data Protection Law, LGPD, in the acronym in Portuguese. The other strategy is to promote education and awareness among the population. And development of responsible and human-centric technologies to ensure that data is used for good. In the context of emerging technologies, it is important to have a good stakeholder approach to develop international data governance standards that are balanced and protection individual rights. Thank you very much for this opportunity.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you for that. And we’ve got our last question from the floor. Please announce where you’re from or your name and who you are.

Audience:
I’m from France, and a coordinator of the IGF in France. And I think that it’s important to use the language service that is proposed here. So, as Lucien responded in French, I will also speak French. It’s wonderful that we can use the different languages of the United Nations, and otherwise, diversity of languages will be lost. Now, I’d like to mention something that was mentioned at the beginning of the presentation, which is that there are a lot of values that are at the heart of the Internet, which, of course, must be deliberated in the different IGF regional and national meetings. And I think that it’s also important to highlight that there are a lot of values that are at the heart of the meetings. Here’s my question. How do you see the evolution of the link between the anonymous data and the responsibility to protect people’s personal data and the need to know who is contacting you or, to not say, who is attacking you? Thank you very much.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you for that. If we could have the panel answer the questions. I think we’ll start with you, Charles, and then we’ll flow all the way down to Lucien.

Charles Shaaban:
Thank you. In fact, I thank Sebastian for a very important point he mentioned. Maybe to answer the question, I could start with a word from George Bernard Shaw, I think, that when he said, this information is even more, it’s not the same words, of course, but I mean the meaning, that it is more dangerous than ignorance. So maybe this is what Sebastian meant when he said that we need to be sure how to have really a good balance. Again, I’m using the word balance a lot, I know. But because we don’t want any information which is really a misinformation to be the one that people follow. So I think the best way to tackle this is mainly awareness, as we started. And even the theme of our meeting this year, in general, was mainly to empower users. So we need more learning, more awareness for users to make sure how to get the knowledge needed to know that this is at least correct, or it is just someone just saying anything, or so on. So this is, I think, important. At the same time, of course, maybe we tackle this in the previous question, the most important for what information about me should be on the internet should be with my consent, I think. So this is, I think, the better thing. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
If I could just remind panelists, just to keep it brief, we don’t have a lot of time left. Thank you.

Alison Gilward:
Thanks very much. I really just wanted to respond to the reference to countries working on these safety bills and it was mentioned Sri Lanka and other countries that are working on it. And I suppose it was a point that I was wanting to make earlier about and didn’t around the issues around rule of law and legitimacy, but also the processes by which these mechanisms are put in place. And I think because I’ve been particularly asked to look at the Sri Lankan digital services safety bill that’s being proposed, but it’s also come up in the context of the civil society petitions for better consultation around the UK AI safety laws that are being proposed and also the laws that are being proposed in the US, that we need to really guard against essentially, you know, repressive or surveillance type or controls of freedom of expression that are occurring in the name of safety legislation. And that’s, you know, when often we’re taking legislation or good practice, what we see as good practice from environments where there are human rights frameworks or there are constitutional protections and then we’re putting them into context where these rights don’t exist. We need to really ensure that, you know, the data protection laws are very clear or the cybersecurity laws have very clear safeguards on, you know, illegitimate state surveillance and these kinds of things. And so I think focusing on the safety really is important and bringing people into the process in terms of accountability of the process, but also expertise needed from, you know, outside of government to ensure that these systems are operating in the public interest.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Absolutely. Thank you so much. Raul, if I could ask you to give it a go and keep it brief, please.

Raul Echeberria:
Yes, there was a question about the comment or the concern of how the governments manage the information and probably passing information to private companies. I think that’s very easy. I don’t know to answer from my side. Governments have the same and even more responsibility than others in respecting the laws. So there is no exceptions for them, except I know, I’m aware that some countries can put some justifications to do a different management of the data, but I think in democratic countries and free countries, the governments have exactly the same responsibility than others and should have the same responsibility. or even more than that, and that, I guess, is the situation in Latin America. So if there is a transfer of information from the government to a private company, it should be exactly according to the terms that are established in the legal framework of the country.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you so much. Chuang, if you could give your opinions, and at least answers to the questions that were posed.

Liu Chuang:
The government is a big data holder. The government, and the government funded project data is a big data holder, and very valuable. So make the government data transfer to private sector or to research universities to broader use, that is good. So in China, we had also had this such kind of policy, what kind of government data to what kind of private sectors to use them, and for the people to use them. Then there are some regulations, and some have them licensed to get the data, to use the data, and that’s that. I think this is good, and with more data available, so more and more data publicly available, that would be the benefit of socioeconomic development. Thank you.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you so much, nice and short. I appreciate that. Lysanne, can you follow suit?

Lucien Castex:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much. So I will be brief as well. With regard to data protection, I think that we can, in France, go back to the 60, rather, 78 law on the creation of a commission, and the reflection on the protection of private life, data, and access to that data. In the broader issue of data protection, I think that we can go back to the 60, rather, 78 law on the creation of a commission, governance of data. Well, it has to do with research’s ability to access data and then to understand what was done, because access to data also allows abuse. So, for example, we see in the subject of disinformation, and it’s been regularly discussed in the issue of access of citizens to data, but let me conclude and perhaps something on a more positive note, more transparency and cooperation will only help us to be more efficient in the governance that we are trying to achieve, multi-stakeholder governance. Thank you very much.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you, Lucien. There was a panelist that was meant to join us, but he did give out his inputs to this discussion. I will keep it quite brief. We are running extremely out of time, so the inputs were as follows. It’s hard to think out of the box sometimes and move the discussion forward, and it’s not easy to find practical and innovative solutions to complex challenges we are facing in the arena of trustworthiness of the Internet on a global level. He also added that there’s a widening gap between the complexities surrounding data security, data protection, and privacy, and the capacity for fostering a robust and trusted Internet at a global scale, a global ecosystem level. He further said that multilateral approaches and government interventions have failed over the past years to achieve concrete results in this direction. The United Nations system also explored these interventions severally, but with minimal results, and I think these are really honest, hitting-the-nail-on-the-head inputs. So, our speaker is our colleague from Nigeria, Sagun Ologbile. I hope I’m saying that correctly. These are really crucial inputs. I really do appreciate that. I am going to ask Judith to summarize on behalf of the speakers. I would have loved to give you an opportunity, but Judith, if you could just give us an overview. of the session. If we can keep it under one minute, we are slightly over time.

Judith Hellerstein:
Hi, thanks so much. So, you wanted the overview of… So, there was a lot of comments here on the online about data governance, data protection, how to store data safely, and comments from other ones of, like, making sure the data is not stored in-house, because what happens if there’s a fire in the building? Then you lose all the data. So, there’s really… That is one of the reasons why, when Allison was talking about storing the data in the cloud, and storing the data in different… Either in different locations or in different parts, because you want to make sure that the data is secure. And if you have it all in one place, then you could have accidents. That’s why one of the key best practices is storing the data in different locations. And in the cloud, there is often stored even in different cloud sections, because one cloud could be down or could have a corruption in it. So, that’s… I think this touched about a lot of the issues of data sovereignty. Data sovereignty is really also taken advantage of in your particular law. Just because your data happened to be stored in another country, it’s not under that country’s law. It’s under your law, and it’s under what is in your data protection agreement. And that’s why it’s important to have a good data protection policy and legislation. But I don’t want to take up too much time, but I think that summarized some of the comments and the questions we were having on them. But thanks.

Zanyiwe Nthatisi-Asare:
Thank you so much, and thank you for this very interactive session. I know that we’ve really tried our best to ensure that the opinions, the questions from the floor have been articulated. At the end of the day, we really do promote multi-stakeholderism and ensuring that everybody’s voice from a global perspective is certainly represented, and I think we were represented well today. With your expert opinions and the bodies of work that you have done outside of this stage that have been articulated, we really do thank you on behalf of the IGF community and myself, Zanju Ntatisie Asare. If you could please give my panel a round of applause for the excellent work that they’ve done. I open the floor for you to do so and we will close the floor on that accord. Thank you so much.