Regional perspectives on digital governance | IGF 2023 Open Forum #138

Audience

Sri Lanka has been actively pursuing the digitisation of its nation for the past two decades. To further this effort, a new strategy is being developed. The key areas of focus for this strategy are citizen-centredness, empowering people, strengthening the government, and improving business competitiveness. These pillars reflect the country’s commitment to inclusive growth and efficient governance.

In order to successfully implement this new strategy, there is a need for digital governance and institutional accountability. Digital governance refers to the set of organisations and regulations that will govern the digitisation process. It is important to have clear guidelines, standards, and frameworks in place to ensure that the digitisation efforts are carried out effectively and transparently. This will also help build trust among the citizens and the stakeholders involved.

Moreover, institutional accountability is crucial to monitor and evaluate the progress of the digitisation initiatives. This involves establishing mechanisms to measure the impact and effectiveness of the digital transformation and holding the responsible institutions accountable for their actions and outcomes. By ensuring institutional accountability, Sri Lanka can ensure that its digitisation efforts are aligned with the overall goals and objectives of the country.

Additionally, a panel is discussing the characteristics, effectiveness, and capabilities that an institution should possess for successful digital transformation. These discussions aim to provide insights into the key factors that contribute to the success of digitisation initiatives. By understanding these factors, Sri Lanka can tailor its approach to digital transformation and ensure that the appropriate institutions are equipped with the necessary resources and capabilities to drive the process effectively.

In conclusion, Sri Lanka has made significant strides in digitising the nation over the past 20 years. The new strategy being developed with a focus on citizen-centredness, empowering people, strengthening the government, and improving business competitiveness reflects the country’s commitment to inclusive and efficient growth. To effectively implement this strategy, it is essential to have digital governance and institutional accountability in place. The panel discussions on the characteristics and capabilities required for successful digital transformation provide valuable insights for Sri Lanka’s ongoing efforts in this domain. By incorporating these insights, Sri Lanka can continue its journey towards becoming a digitally empowered nation.

Nibal Idlebi

Several speakers highlighted the importance of regional and national discussions in internet governance and public goods. One such initiative is the creation of the Arab IGF by ESCWA and the League of Arab States, which aims to address regional internet governance issues. Despite the existence of the Arab IGF, it is important to note that internet access is still a major problem in some Arab countries.

Regional discussions play a vital role in making global ideas more relatable for local stakeholders. It is crucial to understand and contextualise these ideas at a regional level before integrating them. This approach ensures that the needs and perspectives of the region are properly considered. ESCWA, in particular, plays a significant role in disseminating ideas, facilitating discussions, and acting as the voice of the region internationally. The organisation collaborates with various stakeholders including professional associations, NGOs, private sector bodies, academia, and government to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach to internet governance.

Issues of legislation, privacy, and cybersecurity are significant in many countries within the Arab region. ESCWA recognises the need to develop a roadmap to enhance internet governance in the region, focusing on these critical areas. The implementation and enforcement of legislation are also key components in enhancing internet governance.

Furthermore, several speakers stressed the importance of discussions regarding national sovereignty and the internet at a national level. It is necessary to mediate these discussions and explain the importance of stakeholder engagement in order to foster mutual understanding and collaboration.

Capacity building was deemed essential in the discussions. ESCWA has worked with numerous countries on legislation, implementation, and enforcement to build the capacity of local stakeholders in managing internet governance effectively.

The speakers also highlighted the importance of active regional discussions and external interventions to facilitate engagement. It was noted that discussions often do not take place at the national level unless there is intervention or an external intermediary involved.

Citizens within the Arab region are raising their voices to demand their rights and freedom of expression on the internet. This growing awareness and activism further underscore the need for effective internet governance.

The adoption and customization of cyber laws from developed regions, such as the EU, were recognised as beneficial in aiding the growth and development of internet governance in the Arab region. It was noted that the laws were not copied as is, but instead, the EU’s long experience in cyber law was relied upon, and there was an exchange of experiences and lessons learned.

Strategy development was identified as a crucial element in effective internet governance. It was emphasised that involving various stakeholders at the national level is essential for the successful implementation of the strategy. Additionally, it was noted that quick results from the strategy increase trust in the government.

To address global challenges, it is important to move from regional to global discussions. The need to make regional and national challenges heard on an international forum was emphasised, as this allows for effective resolution of these challenges.

Overall, the speakers’ messages highlighted the importance of regional and national discussions in internet governance and public goods. From addressing internet access issues to ensuring privacy and cybersecurity, involving stakeholders at various levels is crucial. The adoption and customization of cyber laws from developed regions, along with capacity building efforts, contribute to the growth and development of internet governance. The importance of moving from regional to global discussions was also stressed, as it allows for effective solutions to global challenges.

Jamal Shahin

This analysis examines the role of regional and global governance in addressing global issues and managing the global public good. One key argument is that global issues can be more effectively tackled at the regional level or substantially implemented at the local level. This is exemplified by the collaboration of different economic actors at the regional level, such as the European Union or regional trade associations. Furthermore, an UNU-CRIS project explores global and regional multi-stakeholder institutions as effective instruments for addressing global issues.

Regarding the global public good, the concept of the internet as such is highly contested. While it was widely agreed upon 20 years ago, it is now a subject of debate. There are differing views on its management, with some considering it a global interconnected network, while others reject that idea. The analysis also highlights how the term “digital sovereignty” is used by states to regulate the internet as a global public good. However, different regions interpret and apply this concept differently. For example, the European Union approaches digital sovereignty as managing complex interdependencies, whereas the African Union promotes national strategies through a Fund for Digital Sovereignty.

The value of a regional approach in internet governance and digital strategies is emphasized in the analysis. It argues that a regional perspective adds value to these areas, citing the example of the JIPO project, the Global Internet Policy Observatory, which provided information to all actors about internet governance. Additionally, countries without established frameworks often turn to their former colonial leaders, implementing post-colonialist versions of digital strategies. Thus, a regional approach can help bridge this gap and provide guidance.

Another important point is the role of regional actors in managing the global public good. It suggests that regional actors can mitigate national reactions and manage the global public good through the cascading of norms from the global to local levels. By sharing information through peer review processes, regions can facilitate the adoption of global norms. This approach is evident in the practices of entities like the European Union and the OECD, which engage in peer reviews and share common interests and challenges.

Capacity building and two-way dialogue are also highlighted as crucial elements. Peer review processes contribute to the development of common capacity building structures and foster collaboration between countries to solve problems. The analysis emphasizes the importance of a two-way dialogue, with regions shaping, but also being shaped by, the global level.

The analysis concludes by advocating for the multi-stakeholder model in governance. This model has proven to be worthy of consideration at the global level. It encourages participation in the multi-stakeholder framework, particularly at the regional level, for addressing regional issues. The inclusion of different stakeholders is seen as a key approach for achieving peaceful, just, and strong institutions.

In summary, this analysis explores the role of regional and global governance in addressing global issues and managing the global public good. It highlights the effectiveness of addressing global issues at the regional or local level, the contested nature of the internet as a global public good, the varying interpretations of digital sovereignty across regions, and the value of a regional approach in internet governance. The role of regional actors in managing the global public good through cascading norms, facilitating the adoption of global norms through peer review processes, and fostering capacity building and two-way dialogue is underscored. Finally, the importance of the multi-stakeholder model, especially at the regional level, for addressing regional issues is emphasized.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen

The African Union’s digital transformation agenda aims to address the growing digital divide in Africa. This divide refers to the disparity in access to digital technologies and the internet between developed and developing countries, as well as within countries themselves. To tackle this issue, the African Union plans to establish a continental fund specifically for supporting digital infrastructure. By investing in and improving the digital infrastructure across the continent, the African Union aims to bridge the gap and ensure equal access to digital technologies for all African countries.

Multi-stakeholder involvement and contextualization are identified as key factors in addressing common problems in different countries. It is important to involve various stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and local communities, in developing strategies and solutions that are tailored to the specific needs and circumstances of each country. This approach ensures that the measures taken are effective and sustainable, taking into account the different contexts.

Successful integration and coordination also require consensus on objectives and practices. Collaboration, consensus-building, and a shared commitment to the desired outcomes are essential for integration and coordination efforts to be successful. Without consensus on objectives and practices, it can be challenging to achieve integration and coordination.

There is strong support for multi-stakeholder involvement and co-creation mechanisms as effective strategies for digital governance on a global scale. By involving citizens’ associations dealing with the diaspora and designing portals that simplify lives, these strategies become more inclusive and representative of diverse perspectives and needs. This approach ensures that the strategies and action plans developed are comprehensive and responsive to the demands and requirements of different stakeholders.

Data governance and interoperability frameworks are essential for successful digital transformation. In federalized countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, China, and even regions within the European Union, there is a need to align data processes and ensure efficient data exchanges at international, national, and regional levels. Having a clear framework in place ensures that data exchanges are efficient, secure, and consistent across different jurisdictions.

The significance of citizens’ data rights and data sovereignty in social security is also emphasized. Recognizing and protecting citizens’ data rights and data sovereignty is crucial for ensuring privacy, security, and trust in digital systems.

A standard framework is required to facilitate data exchanges. From China to Denmark and even the influence of the European Union on national legislation, the need for a standard framework is evident. This framework enables smooth cross-border or inter-organizational data exchanges, promoting collaboration and interoperability between different entities.

Unfortunately, local and regional authorities are often overlooked in national digital strategies, and their crucial role in infrastructure rollout and the establishment of electronic service standards is forgotten. Including regional and local authorities in the consultation process is essential to ensure comprehensive and inclusive digital strategies that reflect the needs and realities of different regions and communities.

The mandate and recognition of that mandate are identified as crucial aspects of digital governance. A compliance mechanism is necessary to ensure accountability and effective implementation of digital governance initiatives.

Regional cross-border governance is deemed vital due to the fact that regions and cities have neighbors on the other side, rather than just capital cities. Collaboration and coordination between neighboring regions and cities are crucial for addressing mutual challenges, sharing resources, and promoting regional development.

Cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums are seen as essential for aligning stakeholders in digital governance. By bringing together various stakeholders, a collaborative approach can be fostered, ensuring that all stakeholders are working towards the same objectives and that their efforts are coordinated and complementary. Achieving alignment through cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums contributes to effective and inclusive digital governance.

In conclusion, the African Union’s digital transformation agenda, multi-stakeholder involvement, consensus on objectives and practices, data governance and interoperability frameworks, citizens’ data rights and data sovereignty, standard frameworks for data exchanges, the role of regional and local authorities, the mandate and recognition in digital governance, regional cross-border governance, and cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums all play crucial roles in shaping effective digital governance strategies and policies. These elements contribute to bridging the digital divide, promoting inclusive digital access and opportunities, and ensuring privacy, security, and trust in the digital realm.

Luis Barbosa

The given information highlights the importance of regional and international efforts in addressing global challenges and issues. It emphasizes the need for individual context to be taken into account alongside these efforts. Building trust among stakeholders is seen as essential for achieving integration or coordination at the regional level. Multiple stakeholders’ involvement is necessary for global-level thinking and causal integration. Consensualized objectives and practices, as well as motivating citizens and civil societies, are also important factors. International organizations are encouraged to focus on three dimensions, representation, synergy, and pedagogy, to counter national-based discourse. Digital sovereignty in Africa is viewed as an extension of national sovereignty, with an emphasis on local ownership and control over data sets. However, there is skepticism towards data localization in smaller African states, suggesting that a more citizen-oriented approach to digital sovereignty might be more beneficial. The involvement of stakeholders beyond governments is emphasized for effective digital governance implementation. The connection between digital governance and broader development objectives is highlighted, along with the importance of understanding and adapting to regional differences. Successful cooperation relies on multi-stakeholder dialogues and aligning discourse with development objectives. International organizations play a supportive role in designing and implementing national strategies for digital governance. A clear government mandate, political will, and technical capacity are crucial for effective governance. The involvement of multiple stakeholders in the entire process of strategy development and implementation is advocated. Academia’s involvement and capacity building at regional and continental levels are seen as important. Additionally, more global action is needed to address problems faced by vulnerable people, displaced people, and refugees. Overall, the summary covers the key points and keywords from the given information, reflecting the main analysis accurately.

Nadia Tjahja

Nadia Tjahja initiated the session by discussing regional perspectives on digital governance. She introduced three speakers who would contribute to the discussion: Nibal Idlebi from UNESCWA, Luis Barbosa from UNU-EGOV, and Jamal Shahin.

Following the introductions, three key questions were presented to guide the session. The first question focused on the contribution of the United Nations (UN) and regional commissions in managing global public good. This inquiry aimed to explore how these institutions play a role in ensuring the welfare of the international community in the digital realm.

The second question centered around the influence of regional actors in shaping the discourse on digital sovereignty. This was an opportunity to examine the impact of regional perspectives and initiatives in defining and defending the rights and control of digital resources within their respective regions.

Lastly, the session aimed to explore the differences among global discourses on cooperation. By considering various viewpoints and approaches towards cooperation in the digital space, the goal was to gain insights into the diverse perspectives and strategies employed by different countries and regions.

It is worth noting that the sentiment surrounding this session was neutral, indicating a balanced and open-minded approach to discussing these complex subjects. The arguments presented by the speakers and the evidence they provided would further elucidate the topics and potentially lead to a better understanding of regional perspectives on digital governance.

In conclusion, the session on regional perspectives on digital governance was initiated by Nadia Tjahja. The introduction of speakers and the formulation of key questions framed the subsequent discussions on the contribution of the UN and regional commissions to managing global public good, the influence of regional actors in shaping discourse on digital sovereignty, and the differences among global discourses on cooperation. The session proved to be a valuable platform for exploring and comprehending the multi-faceted nature of digital governance on a regional scale.

Nadia Tjahja:
Good morning, everyone, and welcome to this session on the regional perspectives on digital governance. I am Nadia Tjahja, and I’m very happy to welcome our currently three speakers, Nibal Idlebi from UNESCWA who’s joining us online, Luis Barbosa from UNU‑EGOV, and Jamal Shahin, to my left. I’m happy to introduce our online moderator Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen so if you are online, please do not hesitate to ask any questions so we can have an active discussion about today’s session. In today’s session, we would like to address three key questions: How can you and regional commissions and other regional actors contribute towards managing the global public good? The second question that we would like to address is what ways do regional actors make it, the discourse and policy to national reactions or so‑called digital sovereignty. And lastly, what differences exist between global discourses on cooperation and action and beyond. If you have any questions, doubts, solutions, please do come up and ask us a question online or ask us a question by coming up to the microphones in the room. We are very happy for you to join the discussion. We are keen to listen to the input from the wider global audience. So we’ll start with question 1, and then we’ll ask Jamal Shahin to start preparing his first thoughts towards this. How can regional commissions and other regional actors contribute towards managing this global public good? Perhaps you can give a little bit of an introduction to how we can look at this concept of global public good. Jamal.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, we are happy to be here and participating in this open forum. In the open forum, I should be brief and I’ve already taken up my two minutes, but in the spirit of this, I would like to rather just raise a few minutes and then pass the baton on to my colleagues. So we ask the question about governing global public good, and I want to get to that, that kind of unpacking that concept later on, but maybe I could start by saying that the intention behind this panel and the discussion that we’re having here is to really try and address how global issues can be addressed more successfully at the regional level or can be substantively implemented at the local level. We talked about UN region conventions and we’re happy that Nadia is on the core to share her ideas on this. In addition to the UN regional ‑‑ you have the Internet registries. You have also economic actors that work at the regional level such as the European Union or different regional trade associations that work together And I think that’s one of the things, you know, the beauty of the diversity of this idea of regional plays in there. At UNU-CRIS, which is where both Nadia and myself work, we have been working on a project that’s been financed by the Free University of Brussels, where we look at global and regional multi-stakeholder institutions, and we look specifically at those kinds of institutions that engage with different actors, or a multitude of actors, rather than looking very much at the diplomatic or the economic framing themselves. And in that, we actually tried to develop, or one of the things that we tried to do was also look at how norms, principles, and practices flow from the global level to the regional level, and we termed this cascading governance, and we look at how these ideas that are transmitted at the global level can be pushed through. Some scholars have termed this following through on policy, or following the policy, let’s say. This allows for specific flavors of those global norms to emerge in the regional setting. And that is one of the things that we’re seeing in the contemporary global situation, where we’re seeing that global norms sometimes don’t really hit the floor running when it comes to different national implementations, and so we think that using regional commissions as a kind of translator of these global norms can help there. I think there’s a few caveats that we need to add to this idea. So regions must share common interests and values, and they must be able to adopt, and the actors that play within those regions must be able to adopt those flavors of global norms in similar ways. And I said I’d get back to the global public good issue. We’re talking about global public goods, and the IGF has shown, just walking around and participating in some of the panels today, you realize that the notion of the internet as a global public good is actually quite contested. We don’t have the same kind of feeling that we maybe had 20 years ago in this space. And so I think that that’s one of the things we also need to address when looking at how regions actually interact with internet governance and the sphere of the digital in general. We do know that the notion of a global interconnected network is a global public good, right? And that needs to be, you know, we need to make sure that we’re clear in what we’re actually trying to govern, or what we’re actually trying to cascade in our governance mechanisms. I think that Nubal and Luis will have lots more to say about this framing and how that actually plays out in different regional and national settings, and I’ve spent five minutes talking, so I’ll be quiet now. Thanks a lot.

Nadia Tjahja:
Well, thank you for sharing your kind of opening insights regarding this question, and I would like to move to Luis Barbosa. Please, could you share your remarks?

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Sure. Okay. Okay. Good morning. Thank you very much. Yes, it’s a pleasure to be here. Of course, at Winnie the Pooh, we have a more practical experience. We have not this kind of more conceptualized projects, but I will start to say that there was a well-known mantra from the 70s, think globally, act locally, if you remember, that although it was coined for a very different purpose, it still makes sense in this context. Actually, there are a number of fundamental issues and global challenges that require to be articulated at the broader, even continental level, and I will focus, it’s a pity that Mactar has not shown up until now, but I think the African case is particularly significant because Africa is witnessing an ever-increasing digital divide and sufficient digital infrastructures often targeted by predatory private interests from the West or from China or both. And actually, the fact that the African Union digital transformation agenda has put one of its main objectives to have a continental fund, an investment for supporting the digital infrastructure, and that IGF Africa this year has made again the same kind of statement is a message very clear for us. At UNU-EGOV, we have some experience, we mainly work with countries, but we have also some experience in trying to work at a more regional, interconnected level. Some years ago, we managed a big project within the Africa Lusophone countries, and some, at a later stage I can share some lessons learned from that process, and this year we launched what we call the West Africa Digital Governance Forum, that was a way to try to bring countries on the same table, try to discuss some pressing issues, and mainly to foster synergies and discuss what strategies can be drawn at that more integrated level. Just two remarks, and I will end up for now. First is that although this regional, continental, international level is really very important, one of the lessons learned that we have is that even if countries share a number of common problems and common concerns, they need to be addressed in different ways, in different countries, in different contexts, and this contextualization is something that cannot be swept under the carpet when we discuss an integration level. Multi-stakeholder involvement in concrete, contextualized scenarios with appropriate co-creation mechanisms for strategies and action plans is something that is very essential and that should be taken into account if you want to think at a more global level. And the second issue is that actually, I think, but Nabil certainly has much more interesting things to say, but I think casual integration, or even before integration, any sort of coordination efforts are often difficult to achieve, and they require consensualized objectives and more than that, consensualized practices. Not only on the macro-political level, of course, political will, the occurrence of policies, all this is very important, but also at the level of motivating citizens and the civil society in the different countries for that, so that strategies, processes, policies can be validated, motivated, and we can build trust around these things. And trust is actually something that actually moves people. For example, in Capeford, we worked with a cross-border issue, more than that is the diaspora problem in Capeford, that goes to Europe, that goes to other African countries, even to the States. And so we tried to motivate the design of portals of service that somehow allow these people to have their lives simplified. And the presence of the citizens’ associations dealing with diaspora and their involvement

Luis Barbosa:
in the process at different levels, in Portugal, in Capeford, even in the States, was very important for the success of this initiative. So I will do these two remarks. Things require a clear political but also social or civic will to go around, and anything we do should be articulated with the context, the concrete context of the countries involved. Thank you very much.

Nadia Tjahja:
It’s important to be able to share these kind of also practical examples of how things are working on the ground and kind of the feelings that we’re kind of engaging with, that it’s not always about the manner in which we design concepts and ideas and how we have these perspectives, but also learn from lived experiences. And this is why I would like to go to our online speaker, Nibal Idlebi from UNESCO. Please, I would love to hear your remarks.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Sorry, there seemed to be a small problem with Nibal picking up the connection. We are trying to let her into the forum. She was there. She’s there, but she’s not picking up. So it seems our online speaker isn’t available right now.

Nadia Tjahja:
So I just wanted to encourage all the people who just joined us here in the room and also for those who are joining us online, we are looking at three questions here today. And if you have any comments or thoughts or doubts or even perhaps solutions or what you want to see for the future, we do encourage you to come and join perhaps at the table or at the microphones so that we can have a little bit of a discussion about these three questions. So the first question that we started with was how UN regional commissions and other regional actors can contribute towards managing the global public good. And we already heard from Jamal Shaheen from UNU-CRIS and Luis Barbosa from UNU-IGAV. But then we will also look at question two. So to examine the ways in which regional actors can mitigate the current shift in discourse and policy toward national reactions, so-called digital sovereignty. Perhaps we’ll go into this second part, and perhaps you could even bridge between the two questions. Jamal Shaheen, please. Thanks.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, Nadia. Okay. So, yeah. The ways in which regional actors can mitigate this shift towards the national reaction. Well, we heard from Luis that actually these national implementations are actually quite crucial. So the lived experiences, as you mentioned, Nadia, and the kind of the national way of implementing this is actually very important. But I would want to make an argument for actually this kind of, as I mentioned before, this cascading, so this bringing down of the different norms from the global to the local via the regional. One of the reasons why I think this also has a very important role to play in the discussions that we have is that although we talk about the internet or the connected digital network as a global public good, there are many instances in which national states or national actors are actually taking it upon themselves to manage this global public good in different ways. And it can actually be on different layers in the internet field.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Nibal should be with us now. Yes.

Nibal Idlebi:
Good morning. Good morning. Okay. There is a problem in the video, but I mean, I’m here. Good morning, everyone. And I’m really happy that we are here. I mean, it’s early in the morning in Beirut, but I mean, I’m here. Thank you for including ESCOA in this discussion. And I would like to say that in fact, the regional aspect in the public good and especially in internet and internet governance, it is really very important. And ESCOA, we have been working on this aspect since a very long time, in fact. And we have noticed the importance of the regional aspect as compared also to international. Let me say how we maybe you are aware or some people who are listening are aware that ESCOA together with the League of Arab States, we have created what we call Arab IGF, which is really a regional platform for discussing all issues related to internet governance. And in this regard, we have noticed the importance to discuss, to disseminate, to promote the global idea at regional level. It was really, I mean, very important because people, many people and or many stakeholders in the national level are not aware about some concept or they feel far away from the international discussion or the global discussion in this regard. Therefore, I believe the first and the most maybe the first role in this regard was really to disseminate the idea, to discuss the idea, to explain some idea which are taking place at a global level and that, I mean, need to be, first of all, to be explained and then to be contextualized, I would say, considering the regional perspective, the regional social dimension and the political dimension, in some cases, to reflect on how this will be integrated, how it can be integrated. Then, I mean, then the prioritization at the regional level also, it is really very important aspect that we discovered that maybe some challenges or some idea that are taking place and maybe they have a high priority at international level, they might be different at regional level because maybe some basics are not yet well established at regional level and, in this case, in the Arab region because Esquire is working at the Arab region level. Then the prioritization, it is really very important also and to see what matters for the region considering the level of development, although sometimes we have, we witnessed some issue because the region itself, it’s not harmonized in terms of development in many area, I mean, in technology and in some other area as well. Then it is really, this prioritization is really important and it is important to reflect it at a global level. I would say that the regional dimension is important for two ways, for taking, I mean, the global and making contextualization at the regional level, but also to be the voice of the region in the international forum and to make the voice of regional aspect be heard at a global level because the matters might be different and might be, might reflect other dimension that might not be really at the, in the international dimension are discussed well, I mean. For example, one of the issue that we have identified in our last Internet Governance Forum, it was the access, I mean, meaningful access to Internet, I mean, and this may be the access, it is not really a problem in Europe or in the Western countries, while it is still a problem, a major problem in the, in some Arab country, not all, in some Arab country. I will not spend too much time, but in addition then, I mean, in addition to what I have said, then I believe the regional commission, and in this case, ESCWA, we have made also, I mean, a kind of roadmap for the public good and for the Internet, for the Arab region roadmap on how to enhance the Internet governance and how to tackle all the issue that are discussed at the international forum. Then, for example, legislation was very important, for example, privacy, even cyber security is very important, then, because it is still maybe not well, quite mature in many countries in the region. Then, this, I believe, to start, I mean, as the first dimension, I repeat, dissemination, promotion, and also discussion prioritization is really very important and explaining. The discussion with the international, with the regional stakeholder, I would say that ESCWA doesn’t work alone. We are interacting with all regional stakeholders, with all regional associations, either professional or NGO, or even private sector association, or academia sometimes, and, of course, with the government, which are the main stakeholders, but we include all other stakeholders, including youth, I mean, some association for youth. I think I will stop here for now, and I will return back to other aspects later on.

Nadia Tjahja:
Well, thank you very much for your insights, and I find it very important what you raised regarding these two ways. The first one providing the context in which these concepts and ideas are on a regional level, but also representing the voice of that region, and it’s admirable what you’re doing with the Arab IGF, and what you were saying about the roadmap we would love if you could leave us the link in the Zoom chat, and also send that to us so that we can add that to the IGF webpage so that people can actually learn what is this roadmap, and what your region have you found will allow us to progress towards a more inclusive future. But then, I would like to go into question two. The question two looked at examining the ways in which regional agencies, factors can mitigate the current shift in discourse and policy toward national reactions, so-called digital sovereignty. And I would like to return to Jamal Shaheen to make any further comments, if he wishes.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, Nadia. Yeah, maybe just bouncing off something that Nibal said, I’d like to emphasize the importance of the two-way street. It’s not just about disseminating global or filtering global norms, but it’s also about ensuring that regional interests do get brought up to the fore. Maybe if I go back to this issue of digital sovereignty, of course, this is a term that’s been used in the past couple of years around the IGF, around different fora, to actually try and show how states themselves can actually build their own approaches to understanding how to regulate the global public good that we’re talking about. And here you see that there are tensions inherent in a kind of model that links the global with the local. So we think global and work locally, but if we do too much work locally, then the global may be forgotten, and then we forget to think globally. We don’t forget to think. But in that sense, the regional as a kind of filter can actually show that international cooperation does work. And I would be very interested also to see how the different regions learn from each other. So, I mean, Nibal, you are the representative of all of the regions, and you actually mentioned that you do work with different stakeholders, and I assume and I know that you work with ECHA, with ECLAC, and so on and so forth. Would be really interesting to actually find out how those interactions work in order to actually nuance the discussions that we have on digital sovereignty. Maybe one thing I could add, and this is linked to, Sophie’s just walked into the room, so I have to reference her now, I can’t plagiarize, but she’d already mentioned to me something about the different ways in which this concept is actually used in regions. So you have regions like the European Union, which thinks of digital sovereignty as being about managing complex interdependencies, or managing interdependence. And then you have in the African Union, you have the Fund for Digital Sovereignty, which is actually promoting national strategies in this area, but that’s a regional organization doing that. So you also see this concept being brought up in different ways as well, according to different regions.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. I was wondering if, Luis, if you would like to provide any further insights regarding this question.

Luis Barbosa:
Yeah. I’m thinking again about what Nibal was saying. I think there is a path that international organizations can do with three different dimensions. One is exactly the representative, the voice thing that Nibal was pointing out, which is very important. The other, I think, is synergetic. The success of this kind of, I mean, the way that we can somehow contradict the modern national-based discourse is to address this kind of key neighbors of digitalization that are essential for people, infrastructure, connectivity, mobile payments across countries, cross-border problems, all these kind of issues. And the other is pedagogical, if I can use this term, in the sense that, for example, take going into question two, digital sovereignty in Africa is typically framed as an extension of national sovereignty, OK, and with firm roots in this political conception that comes from the Chinese model, if I can say so. And this is, yeah, of course, there is also an economic dimension. They try to protect the value chain, their own value chain, all these kind of things. And this is very clear from all the documents from African Union, from, for example, Rwanda’s national strategy, or South Africa policy in data and cloud. This is very clear that the stress on self-economic, self-determination, ensuring local ownership and control over data sets. But we all know that this has different interpretations, for example, data localization is very important in all these strategies, and for countries as well, is a coin with a double face. Because often, it represents the will of, OK, we own our own data, we are protecting our citizens. Or maybe you are just having an easier way to spy on our citizens. So does it make sense to discuss data localization in small African states by themselves? Could we do some pedagogical way of going a little bit further, optimizing resources, and mainly try to put in action a more civic, citizen-oriented way of understanding what digital sovereignty means? I think that all these three dimensions, the representative, the pedagogical, and the synergetic should be taken into account as a way of going around the more national-based, exclusively nation-based discourse that is dominant in, at least when we talk with ministers and national agencies.

Nadia Tjahja:
So we find ourselves with more questions to our question. And that only makes it more interesting, and therefore, I would like to ask Nibal, if you would like to shed more insights regarding the work within your regions.

Nibal Idlebi:
Yeah, OK. Thank you. Thank you very much. And thank you for the active discussion. I mean, exactly, we have maybe more discussion, more questions than answers. This is the era that we are living in. However, I would like, I mean, to return back to this national sovereignty and in the context of internet and so on. I believe there is, what is interesting at the national level is really also to make, to activate the discussion at national level among the different stakeholders. And this is something that doesn’t happen all the time, naturally, let us say, because the terms that some aspects are, some of them are taboo still in some countries. I mean, then there is, I mean, the need for, to activate the discussion among the stakeholder. And this is really very important. And we notice that sometimes there is reluctance at the beginning, but then later on, people, the government and other stakeholders are quite well engaged if in a way there is some insistence on this regard, or there is some, how to say, that you need to mediate the discussion and to explain, as I mentioned earlier. And this is really very important because we notice the importance of this. I believe another dimension maybe that is maybe even in our context was important is to build capacity, to capacity building. Some capacity building are very important because people need to understand maybe some aspects in a better way. For example, we worked with many countries at the legislation level and the implementation and the enforcement of legislation that is really needed in some cases. Then I believe then the discussion with the high-level decision-maker is really very important to provide some justification or maybe sometimes explanation of this, what is taking place at international level. Putting the stakeholders together, I mean, and making them interacting together, it is not easy sometimes. And this is where sometimes where the regional commission or some other regional stakeholder might play a very important role because sometimes we notice that discussion doesn’t take place at national level unless there is intervention, external intervention, let us say, or external intermediator to have the discussion taking place. Sometimes there is a need for some guidance to have this discussion. And then this is what I would say at this stage, and I believe in the Arab region, based on some study that we have made, some discussion, the forum that we discussed, then there were a lot of better awareness, let us say, among different stakeholders and among citizens on these aspects that are really important. And some NGOs or some citizens, they are raising more their voices towards to get some rights and to have their rights on the Internet in a better way, especially in terms of freedom and the Internet, the access to Internet and the freedom of expression and, of course, cyber security or the related topics. And I will stop here for the time being, not to monopolize the discussion.

Nadia Tjahja:
Well, we’re very glad to hear your thoughts and ideas. And it’s a clear request and a clear need for a more meaningful participation. And I believe also that Jamal wanted to provide further input or further reflections. It’s a discussion, and we also welcome members of the audiences. If you have any thoughts, ideas, questions, or perhaps solutions that you would like to see for the future, then you are very welcome to come up to the microphone or to leave a question in the chat. So in the meantime, Jamal, please go ahead.

Jamal Shahin:
Maybe I just wanted to bounce off some of the things that have been said. And thanks very much. One of the things that I think also the added value of the regional approach is that in some parts of the world, between 2015 and 2017, I was working on a project with the European Commission called JIPO, the Global Internet Policy Observatory, which you won’t have heard about. But this observatory was set up with the idea of providing information to all actors, all actors around the world who wanted to find out about Internet governance, questions that were being discussed at the global level. And one of the reasons for this was that many countries that maybe don’t have an established framework for understanding or leading or guiding in these areas would tend to go back to their imperial, their colonial leaders, right, and would then implement a kind of, yeah, post-colonialist version of a digital strategy that had been implemented in the former colonial country, the former colonial master. So there was some sort of neo-colonialism, in a sense, emerging, where countries were taking on the flavors not of their region, which is, you know, what we’re seeing now with ESCO, there is a sort of regional specificity, but taking on maybe, well, often, always, a European type of digital strategy, which maybe doesn’t fit with the culture and the engagement actions there. So that’s something I wanted to raise, that regional actors can actually bring together the regions to actually enable them to work together. And I think that’s what Nibal has been saying, what you were referring to, Louis, as well, in your comment.

Nibal Idlebi:
If I may?

Nadia Tjahja:
Please, do go ahead.

Nibal Idlebi:
I mean, there is another, yeah, I mean, thank you, Jamal. And I would raise another dimension that there is this regional aspect where we, in a way, interacted with other region, and in a way, we copied or we borrowed some of their output in order to bring it to the region, for example. I mean, this is something that sometimes helps a lot. I mean, I would like to say something that we made in the, I was active for a long time in cyber legislation. And I would say that we really took benefit of all the cyber laws that took place in the European Union. And that was, I mean, enacted. I mean, it was drafted and prepared for the EU. And really, we were, it was very good, I mean, material to rely on and to have the experience of EU to be copied or to be customized. I would not say that it is copied as it is. It is never as it is. But it has taken benefit of this experience, long experience in cyber law. For example, we did, we were enabled to customize it or to have some lesson learned from it, and to customize it to the Arab region. I mean, here in this regard, and we have, in fact, in this regard, some collaboration with ECA, not ECA or some stakeholder in Africa, who have some sub-regional activity in this regard, and where it was also interesting to exchange experience and to exchange even some lesson learned. Just this is what I want to say, to add.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. And with this, I would like to actually go into the next question so that we have a little bit of time to have a discussion about this. So the third question looks to reflect upon the differences between global discourses on cooperation and practical implementation at various levels from local to regional and beyond. And perhaps we’ll start with Luis. Perhaps you could elaborate a little bit about UNU-ECAF’s thoughts and ideas and the study on cooperation.

Luis Barbosa:
True, true. I’d like to stress two aspects that to me are very essential in having success in going ahead with cooperation and with the integration of experiences. One is, and this was very clear, for example, from our experience with the Digital Governance West Africa Forum, the need to involve other stakeholders rather than governments themselves. This has to be a dialogue with multiple voices. And often, this kind of stakeholders coming from the civil society, from the economical, cultural, social ecosystem, make a very interesting contribution in fostering synergies and in easing the discourse. And the other is the need to articulate this debate, and this was also very clear, for example, in that experience with the Lusophone African countries, to frame this debate or to articulate this debate with very clear and broader development objectives in terms of promoting a digital economy ecosystem and having people motivated from there. Yeah, this said, of course, there are several ways of addressing that question and of doing what, taking this path. And we, yeah, certainly different regions have different ways and multiple ways to articulate different forms of governance across different sectors in a more vertical or horizontal way. We had a project, not at that level of regional integration, but we conduct a study, actually, Morten, who is here, conducted this study on the different models in different countries, in Asia, in Europe, in America, around the organization, the digital transformation of social security that may bring some insights on how this can be, at least how these things articulate at different paths. I don’t know, but I suggest that Morten can say something about that in that perspective.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
Thank you, Luis. It’s an interesting issue, particularly around the specific elements of governance. So, obviously, classical example is data governance. We want an interoperability framework. We want our legal and regulatory framework on a domestic level. But we see even in, particularly in federalized countries like Australia, Canada, Brazil, China, where we were actually supporting the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security on this specific issue, bring some additional complexity that we also see on regional levels, levels of autonomy, my data or the data sovereignty issue, as in it is my data as a nation, it is my data as an organization. And we sometimes forget when we talk about this data governance or sovereignty that, well, actually, isn’t that what citizens sometimes tell government, that it’s not government’s data, it’s my data, it’s data on me, my family, my income. So, these elements play out. But what we saw very clearly is it’s not just about what we’re already talking about, about the governance model, about the frameworks, about the legal and regulatory systems and standards, so we can map up the data. It goes to skills, formal internal processes about what do we do if we think the data is maybe incorrect? How do we do that formally? How do we report back to the sister agency or the country next door where we get the data and say, sorry, but, you know, Jamal, you don’t look 130 years old, and sorry, Morten. Why did you have an income of 23 billion last year? That seems a bit odd. What is the process for fixing that so we don’t have errors? Because errors are both bad service, it’s also bad for decision making, and politically it’s also sensitive because there’s nothing worse than telling an old lady that she can’t get a pension because she’s earning 33 billion euros when in fact she’s earning 2,300. So those are the type of things that came out very clearly in social security, particularly on the inter-organizational exchange or even national regional exchange. And then when you see pilots like the Spaniards exchanging data with Uruguay on social security, we see it in a European context or an African context. These elements become even more prevalent and complex because we’re not suddenly talking about national partners, we’re talking about cross-border partners. Or we talk about federal countries where provinces and state have levels of autonomy, so central government cannot necessarily specify or mandate a certain approach. There need to be that flexibility within the framework. So these are some of the things that came out in some very diverse cases from China to Denmark and even looking at the EU influence on national legislation on this topic in countries like Denmark and France, where it’s very clear that although the national approaches are different, they are aligning to what is thought as being the approach for the region at large. And that then allows that my local regional central government data can be exchanged in a meaningful way with a country somewhere else in the region because we have a common framework or a common reference frame about certain things.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you. Thank you for these examples. And I would invite a member of the audience to join us at the microphone if you could share your name and your affiliation.

Audience:
Good morning. I’m Mahesh Pera from Sri Lanka. So I have a question for the esteemed panel. I mean, this is the topic on digital governance. So from Sri Lanka, we have been trying to digitalize the nation for the last 20 years. Now we have almost drafted a new strategy because citizen in the front, as you said, I mean, it must be all about citizen-centricness. Citizen has the control. As you said, I mean, how do you empower the people? How do you strengthen the government? How do you improve competitiveness in businesses? I mean, it’s all about this strategy, digitalization of the national strategies. Now the question I have for the esteemed panel is, I mean, now we had one institution who is accountable for this regional transformation, which is not so successful over the last 20 years. Now when it comes to drafting a new strategy, this strategy must be governed by a set of organizations. So what sort of characteristics, so what sort of teeth and muscles this particular institution must entail? I would like to hear different perspectives from the esteemed panel. Thank you.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much for your question. Perhaps I’ll first turn to Nibal online for your first remarks regarding the questions that were raised.

Nibal Idlebi:
I believe this is really very important question, I believe. And it is really for many countries, I mean, struggling even with this, I mean. I believe that such a strategy, whenever the strategy should be really done in, formulated in a way, in collective way, and or discussed in collective way before its adoption. This is one of the lesson that we have learned and when we involve the stakeholder, different stakeholder at national level for the discussion about any future action that you are doing, especially strategy, it is very important to involve them from the beginning and to have them on board. Maybe they will not draft like you, but I mean, like the government, for example, but I mean, at least they interact with you, they give their idea. And then thereby in later on in the future for the implementation of such a strategy will be much bigger, I mean, and their involvement will be much bigger than the involvement of all the stakeholder from the beginning, from the start and to have some interaction with them regularly. This is done, I mean, this is first and I believe there is in such for to have in a way trust in the government, in the public, in this strategy and in its implementation. We have witnessed, we have noticed that whenever there is a kind of a quick wins in the implementation of the strategy or in the implementation of this transformation, then if there is a quick wins where people see the result of this strategy, they can, how to say, they trust the government much more and they believe in this and they will be more cooperative with that. I believe having a kind of committee or a kind of committee for looking after the implementation at national level, not only from the government, I mean, to have a kind of multi-stakeholder committee where many partner at national level are involved in this committee, they will to supervise or to follow at least supervise the implementation. It will be, it is really very important and it gives some credibility to the government as well as in that process. This is my two cents for that to answer this question.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. Perhaps I will move to Luis.

Luis Barbosa:
Thank you for your question. Actually, we have a long experience in supporting member states in designing and implementing national strategies for digital governance. We are not a consultancy company, as you know, but we have this mandate of supporting member states in that direction. And your precise question on the, who is going to take care of this? This is crucial, I think. In terms of, of course, different countries have different suggestions, different models. There are national agencies, other commissions, strategy committees, whatever. What I think is very important is to have a clear mandate for whatever commission or committee is going to go ahead with this. A clear mandate, strengthened by clear political will from government and with technical capacity as well, because often you get some stakeholders that are more the political representatives of different sectors. And this does not go. The other two points that I would like to emphasize, Nibal has already talked. The first one is absolutely crucial. The involvement of multiple stakeholders in designing, not only in designing, but also in implementing and monitoring the strategy. I used to say with, in some of the countries that we have been supporting, that often the process of thinking about the strategy, designing it, is even more important than the final document itself. Because it is able to put people in dialogue, to build trust, and to motivate institutions. So we have some elements of our experience that I’ll be happy to share with you at a later stage. Yeah, there was some other aspect that I intended to mention, but actually I forgot for the moment.

Morten Meyerhoff Nielsen:
If I may, I think if I put my former Danish civil servants hat on, working for the Agency for Digitization, I agree with what Luis is saying, but want to add an important detail. One thing that many countries forget, in the consultation process, is including regional and local authorities. In some countries, local authorities have a very small service delivery role. It may just be fixing potholes and a few garbage collection things, which are nonetheless essential things in a smart, sustainable city and community context. And often we see, even with infrastructure rollout, such as data distribution, electronic service standards, local and regional authorities are utterly forgotten in the national strategies. So there are also internal stakeholders. On the mandate, it doesn’t matter if it’s the Ministry of Sport that has the mandate for digital, or if it’s the Agency for Digitization, the name doesn’t matter. It’s the mandate and the recognition of that mandate. And that requires that there is actually a compliance mechanism. There’s a carrot and a stick. Many government agencies, particularly large, traditionally powerful ministries, tend to run circles around newly established agencies for digitization, et cetera. So where you position it is, again, not relevant. It’s the mandate and the strength of that carrot and that stick that comes with that mandate. So the cross-governmental entities and collaboration forums are extremely important to get all the ducks lined up in a row. I think German Councilor Kohl said about EU integration, it doesn’t matter how big or how small the ships are, as long as they have the same port of destination in mind, and we all get there at some stage. So that’s the same with digitization. So that’s really important things, particularly also when we talk about regional cross-border governance, because regions and cities are the ones that have neighbors across on the other side. It’s not the capital city.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. As we start going into the final moments of our session, I would like to ask Jamal, if you could highlight the praxis between the global public good, digital sovereignty, and cooperation.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks, Nadia. I will try. And I will use the discussion that we’ve had a bit just now. And thank you very much for your question. I’ll try and incorporate some responses in here as well. I think one of the things that we’ve realized here is that regional cooperation works as a kind of two-way mechanism between the national level and the global level. So reflecting on how we can filter global norms and global practices, or global norms rather, and how we can use the national practices to influence or to shape those global norms as well. And I see that as being one of the key issues here, that sovereignty in the United Nations system, for example, is something that everybody recognizes, right? So sovereignty itself is kind of interconnected, just like the global public good, we’re trying to, at least conceptually, it is. And one of the other things that comes out of these questions about the regional and the global, and the shift towards digital transformation, in a sense that you were talking about, is that regions can help with capitalizing on experiences that have taken place elsewhere. So I think a lot of the issues where regions can help, and I know this is how I think ESQA also does work, is on the peer review basis. This is something that the European Union has also done. The OECD, okay, well, it’s not a territorial regional group. The OECD does this, they carry out peer review processes, allowing like-minded states, or states that have common issues, to actually share information. And that has been done at the WSIS level, right? But this is a massive exercise, right? When trying to manage that at the WSIS level. The regional level can actually help facilitate that because they can actually bring this stuff forward. And these countries that work together, that live together, do actually share common interests, and common challenges as well. So see that as being very important. Also, that peer review process, a corollary of that, is the common capacity building structures that then emerge. And I think that’s very important to raise here, that countries, you know, this is the essence, I was born in Europe, and I’m now, again, a European citizen. But that we realized that we needed to work together because we could not solve the problems around the world. So that kind of common frameworks actually do actually help in that sense. And then that kind of calls into your pedagogical issues that I think you raised. Okay, I’ll stop there, because I need to.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. So during this session, we looked at these theoretical concepts of global public good, digital sovereignty, and cooperation, but then also brought that into practical experience and examples, kind of understanding, and allowing us to comprehend how that actually works in practice and the lived experiences of people. Nibal mentioned the roadmap that was created, and we hope that that will be shared and you can find it on the IGF website. But also, I encourage for you to join all the newsletters to stay up to date on kind of developments that are happening and how you can contribute to projects. But as we enter this last minute of our session, I would like to ask each of the speakers to perhaps give one key takeaway and one action point from this session that allows us to think about how do we move forward from here. One key takeaway and one action point. Perhaps we start with Nibal online.

Nibal Idlebi:
Sorry for that. I think the most important thing that I would like to say that it is sometimes forgotten is that really that from regional to go to global, that regional actor or to be the voice of the region and to make here the challenges, the national and regional challenges to get them to the international forum. I think it is very important to stress on that.

Luis Barbosa:
Thank you very much. Perhaps Luis? Two very concrete things. One, to involve academia in this process. We have been making efforts to build networks of universities, to build capacity, but also to discuss these issues at a regional level, the continental level, from the point of view of academia. And the second is more than a challenge. I think there are a number of emerging, I mean, not emerging because they have been there for a while, problems, but cross-cutting problems related with vulnerable people, displaced people, refugees that actually require a more global action. And this is a challenge, I think, for this level of integration we are discussing.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. And Jamal?

Jamal Shahin:
I’m stressing now because I’ve got minus one minute. The key takeaway that I got is that it’s really this two-way dialogue, regions shaping but being shaped, right? And the key call to action is, I really wanna pick up on what was said about participation in this framework. I think that the multi-stakeholderism, the multi-stakeholder model has been proven to be worthy of consideration at the global level. This kind of issue at the regional level might be also very interesting to look at. Thank you.

Nadia Tjahja:
Thank you very much. So hereby, I would like to close this session and thank all the speakers joining here on-site and online, of course, the audience that are here and online, but also the staff here in Kyoto that are working really hard to make sure that this session is running smoothly, and of course, the captioners that make sure that these transcripts become available on the IGF website for the people who would like to learn more about this topic but were not able to attend in person. So thank you to the captioners and perhaps any translators that have been working here with us today. So I wish you all a really, really lovely final day of the IGF, and I look forward to seeing you the next time. Thank you very much. Thank you.