Day 0 Event #1 IGF LAC Space

Summary

This discussion focused on various aspects of internet governance and digital issues in Latin America and the Caribbean. Representatives from regional organizations like ICANN, LACNIC, and Internet Society shared updates on their work in areas such as policy development, technical training, and promoting multi-stakeholder participation. Key themes included efforts to strengthen regional cooperation, address cybersecurity challenges, and increase internet access and digital skills.

The session also featured presentations from researchers on topics including online child protection, indigenous youth and technology adoption, and cybersecurity policies in Brazil. These studies highlighted issues such as the risks of online grooming in gaming platforms, disparities in internet access between urban and rural indigenous communities, and the need for clearer cybersecurity frameworks.

Additionally, researchers presented work on combating misinformation through AI-assisted fact-checking tools for journalists, as well as the adoption of AI in judicial systems. The discussions emphasized the importance of responsible AI implementation that respects human rights and maintains human oversight.

Throughout the session, participants stressed the value of multi-stakeholder dialogue and regional cooperation in addressing internet governance challenges. They also noted the evolving nature of digital issues, with new topics emerging alongside longstanding concerns. The discussion underscored the ongoing need for spaces that facilitate cross-sector collaboration and knowledge sharing on internet policy in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Updates from various Latin American and Caribbean internet governance organizations on their recent activities and initiatives

– Reflections on current global internet governance processes like WSIS+20, IGF, and the Global Digital Compact

– Presentations of research projects on topics like online child protection, indigenous youth and technology, cybersecurity policy in Brazil, and AI tools for journalism and the judicial sector

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to provide a space for Latin American and Caribbean internet governance stakeholders to share updates, discuss regional perspectives on global processes, and highlight relevant research being conducted in the region. It aimed to foster collaboration and knowledge-sharing among regional actors.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and collaborative. Speakers shared updates and research findings in a professional manner. There was an underlying sense of enthusiasm about regional cooperation and contributions to global internet governance dialogues. The tone became slightly more academic during the research presentations but remained accessible overall.

Speakers

– LITO IBARRA: Moderator

– FEDERICA TORTORELLA: Co-host

– LIDIA ANCHAMORO: Part of Colnodo, Colombian organization; Participates in IGF Secretariat

– OLGA CAVALLI: Organizer of South School on Internet Governance

– RODRIGO DE LA PARRA: ICANN Latin America representative

– SEBASTIAN BELAGAMBA: Internet Society representative

– BASILIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ: LAC-ISP representative

– ROCIO DE LA FUENTE: LAC-TLD representative

– LIA SOLIS: LACNIC representative

– MARIA FERNANDA MARTINEZ: CETIS representative

– PAULA OTEGUY: LACNIC representative, moderator for research presentations

Additional speakers:

– JOSE ROJAS: Lawyer, expert on civil crime, researcher on child grooming

– CAMILO ARATIA: Sociologist from Bolivia, researcher on indigenous youth and technology

– THAIS AGUIAR: Lawyer from Brazil, researcher on cybersecurity policies

– SOLEDAD ARENGUEZ: Expert in new technologies and education, researcher on Trust Editor project

– MARIA PILAR CHORENZ: Doctor in law and social rights, expert on technology and rights, researcher on AI adoption in judicial sector

Internet Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue

This session focused on the Latin America and Caribbean Internet Governance Forum (LAC IGF) space, a regional initiative that brings together diverse stakeholders to discuss internet governance issues. As explained by moderator Lito Ibarra and co-host Federica Tortorella, the LAC IGF aims to foster collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and multi-stakeholder dialogue on internet governance in the region.

LAC IGF Structure and Purpose

The LAC IGF serves as a platform for discussing regional perspectives on global internet governance processes and highlighting relevant research. It operates through a multi-stakeholder model, involving participants from government, civil society, the private sector, and the technical community. The forum’s structure includes a steering committee and working groups focused on various aspects of internet governance.

Regional Organizational Updates

Representatives from key regional internet governance organizations provided updates on their recent activities:

1. Lidia Anchamoro (IGF Latin America and Caribbean Secretariat): Implementing new statutes and collaborating with Colnodo on various initiatives.

2. Olga Cavalli (South School on Internet Governance): Organizing the 17th edition in Mexico and celebrating their WSIS prize and champion status.

3. Rodrigo de la Parra (ICANN Latin America): Focusing on increasing regional participation in policy development processes and reaffirming multi-stakeholder principles.

4. Sebastian Belagamba (Internet Society): Implementing a new 5-year strategic plan and addressing challenges related to the WSIS+20 review and IGF mandate renewal.

5. Basilio Rodriguez Perez (LAC-ISP): Advocating for 6 GHz frequency allocation for Wi-Fi and expressing concerns about “fair share” proposals impacting network neutrality for small ISPs.

6. Lito Ibarra (LAC-IX): Deploying new infrastructure across 34 internet exchange points in the region.

7. Paula Oteguy (LACNIC): Supporting local internet governance initiatives through programs like FRIDA and detailing the LIDRES program for developing internet governance leaders.

8. Rocio de la Fuente (LAC-TLD): Developing a single server for domain name queries to improve efficiency and reduce costs for ccTLDs in the region.

LIDRES Program

Paula Oteguy introduced the LIDRES program, an initiative by LACNIC to develop internet governance leaders in Latin America and the Caribbean. The program aims to strengthen regional participation in global internet governance discussions and foster local expertise.

Research Presentations on Internet Governance Issues

The session featured presentations from researchers on various internet governance topics relevant to Latin America:

1. José Rojas: Presented research on child grooming risks in online gaming environments, highlighting the paradox between real-world and online safety practices for children. His study emphasized the need for better education and awareness about online risks in gaming platforms.

2. Camilo Aratia: Shared findings on technological appropriation among indigenous youth in Bolivia, revealing significant disparities in internet access between urban and rural indigenous communities. His research employed ethnographic methods to understand how limited access affects digital literacy and cultural practices.

3. Thais Aguiar: Discussed the evolution of cybersecurity policies and frameworks in Brazil, focusing on the complex governance structure involving multiple stakeholders. Her research analyzed policy documents and interviewed key actors to map the cybersecurity ecosystem in Brazil.

4. Soledad Arenguez: Presented on the development of an AI tool called Trust Editor for detecting misinformation in news articles. Her work involved collaboration with computer scientists and journalists to create and test the tool’s effectiveness in identifying false or misleading information.

5. Maria Pilar Chorenz: Explored the adoption of generative AI in judicial systems in Argentina, raising questions about the implications of AI in legal decision-making. Her research methodology included surveys and interviews with legal professionals to gauge attitudes and concerns about AI integration in the justice system.

Conclusion

The LAC IGF space continues to play a crucial role in facilitating dialogue and collaboration on internet governance issues in Latin America and the Caribbean. This session demonstrated the diverse range of activities undertaken by regional organizations and the depth of research being conducted on topics ranging from cybersecurity to digital inclusion. By bringing together various stakeholders and perspectives, the LAC IGF contributes to a more inclusive and informed approach to addressing the complex challenges of internet governance in the region.

FEDERICA TORTORELLA: Perfecto, listo, ya. Pueden dejar de hacerme, pueden sacarme como anfitrión. Muchísimas gracias, Lito.

LITO IBARRA: Perfecto, lo digo ahora, ahora. Okay, you can… Ya, ¿comenzamos?

FEDERICA TORTORELLA: Sí, ya comenzamos y le doy la palabra a Federica. Gracias.

LITO IBARRA: Hola. Hola, buenas tardes. ¿Me escuchan aquí todos en la sala? Lito speaking. Hello everyone. Can you hear me in the room? Thank you. Can you hear me on Zoom as well? We can hear you as well. Thank you very much. So, let’s begin with today’s session with the LAG space. We have interpretation into English and into Spanish. If anyone needs interpretation into Spanish or into English, you can choose the language of your preference on Zoom. We had a technical issue, that’s why we started a few minutes later, but now it’s been solved, so you can choose, as I said, the language of your preference, either Spanish or English. So, welcome to this space that traditionally takes place in international events where we try to catch up with everything that Latin American and Caribbean organizations do, these organizations that we operate in the region. So, for today’s program, today’s agenda, we have several issues. We have Federica Tortorella in Zoom. You can see her on the screen. And Rocío de la Fuente from LAG-TLD. will be co-hosts online of this session. Without further ado, we will start. We will have three main spaces. One for the reports of the organizations of the region. Each organization has three minutes each for their presentation. We will try to stick to our schedule. Then we will have a second round with some organizations of the region, who will answer to the reflections of the organizations regarding the main current processes, the GLC, the WSIS, the S20, the IGF, and so on and so forth. And also the reports on recent research on internet governance that are relevant for the region. Federica, would you like to say something?

FEDERICA TORTORELLA: Federica speaking. Thank you, Lito, for the support. Greetings, everyone. Thank you for being here in this eighth edition of IGF Lackspace. As Lito said, I would like to remind the dynamics of the session. First of all, we will have the regional organizations and two rounds of questions of three minutes each. So we ask you to please stick to the agenda so that we can deal with all the topics. And on the second part of the session, we will have our researchers, those who are part of the leaders program, who will share with us their findings and their research and projects. Lito, would you like to take the floor once again, or would you like me to continue, Lito speaking? Unless you need to add something, I can call upon people to participate, following the agenda you provided. If you see that I’m missing something, please do not hesitate to interrupt me. So we will call Lidia. Lidia, please go ahead. Please turn on the mic.

LIDIA ANCHAMORO: Can you hear me? This is Lidia speaking. Thank you, everyone. It’s a pleasure for me to see you here in Rialde. And those of you who are here online, I am Lidia Anchamorro. I am part of Colnodo, which is a Colombian organization. And I also participate in the Secretariat of IGF. From Colnodo, we accompany processes such as the Colombian Table of Internet Governance that participated in 11 editions of the forum, and who has the participation of different sections or sectors of the organization, of society, and to discuss, to create, or to draft documents, and to make recommendations to the government, and everything regarding digital policies. And based on this experience in 2023, we applied to become the Secretariat of IGF. We were chosen by the stakeholders of IGF. This is what I will share with you today. This year, we organized the 17th edition of the forum. This edition took place in Santiago de Chile. Last year, we had the 16th edition in Bogotá. And it was like the reactivation after the pandemic of these in-person events. We had organized these events in a virtual manner for three years. So it was a real challenge to foster once again the gathering and the interest of people to participate in debates of the multi-sector, cross-section debates of IGF. We had several sessions in a room where the program committee proposed some panels that took place with the participation of different organizations. And the challenge for this year was to implement the new status of IGF. These new statutes were adopted in 2021. They were adopted after a consultation process that was organized with the Latin American community. And the goal was to specify in a more clear manner the roles of the different bodies of IGF. The bodies established in these statutes were the Committee of Massive Stakeholders, that is to say the strategic committee, the Committee for the Selection of Workshops, a secretariat that, until that time, was organized by LACNIC. From the beginning of LACNIC IGF, it was organized by ACNIC until 2023, where the application process was opened, where Cornado was assigned as a secretariat. With this new structure and And with these roles more clearly defined in the structure, the idea was to strengthen the levels of representation and participation of the different actors. And throughout this year, we have implemented these groups. This is Federica, Lilian speaking. I’m sorry, this is Federica speaking. So this is Lilian speaking. I will try to discuss the workshops later on.

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking. We have just three minutes, OK? So I will give the floor to Olga Cavalli.

OLGA CAVALLI: Can you hear me? This is Olga Cavalli speaking. Thank you. Thank you for inviting us. And thank you for being here. I will do my best for you to hear me properly. In our school, we are organizing the 17th edition in Mexico in the second week of May, from the 6th to the 9th of May. The program has evolved and grown throughout the years. It started with a week of training. And now it’s a six-month program. It has a prior course of two months, virtually. And then we have a course in a hybrid format. And then we have signed an agreement with the University of Mendoza, where I studied. And I got my diploma of engineer, where the evaluation of the first two weeks, after this first evaluation, they are able to do research. And then they can get a diploma of internet governance. We’ve had already four cohorts of this course of studies. We have trained 8,000 fellows, and this training is for free. And they also can have a right to accommodation and food, the different meals. We’ve received the WSIS prize and also the WSIS champion for the impact on internet training. We’ve had 50 scholars or fellows that had accommodation and meals. We had more than 100 speakers from all over the world, and fellows were from Latin America in person. And virtual fellows participated from all over the world, from North America, Asia, Europe, among others. And we have also organized the eighth edition of internet governance that is a three-day training that is similar to the one organized in a hybrid manner. And it took place last month in November. And I think that my three minutes are up. Thank you, Lito.

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking. Thank you, Olga. Thank you for sticking to the three minutes. We will give the floor to Aiken with Rodrigo de la Parra, who is connected online. Please, go ahead.

RODRIGO DE LA PARRA: Rodrigo de la Parra speaking. Thank you, Lito. Good afternoon. Greetings, everyone. Greetings to those of you who are in person and to those of you who are connected online. Congratulations. Thank you for organizing this space. It’s very important to keep updated regarding the work of the organizations and what we do regarding internet governance and its importance all over the world and the importance of the IGF. As you know, this work is always carried out in a very coordinated manner and with an amazing capability. And I can, the Latin American and Caribbean team, continue to work in two main issues. The first one is to foster a greater participation of actors of the region of Latin America and the Caribbean in the development process of policies of ICANN. This work goes on, and many activities are organized in our in-person meetings that this year took place in three different places in the world, as you know, San Juan, Kigali, and Istanbul, where we met with LAG Space, where we had the participation of different of our colleagues that are working in ICANN. And something that is very important that I would like to make focus on is that we centered many of our efforts in training at the technical level of those actors that are involved in the operation of TNS in the region. We have to remember that part of the internet governance organization lies in the activities. And I think that we’ve had a very good result that these activities helped us understand, from the operational point of view, how internet can be interoperable and that can be safe. So thank you for this opportunity. We will go on working. in this Light of Thoughts next year, and I hope to meet you all real soon. Thank you very much.

LITO IBARRA: Okay, let’s now go with ISOC. Sebastián is speaking. Thank you,

SEBASTIAN BELAGAMBA: Litos. I am Sebastián Belagamba. And let me tell you that this is a very particular year for our organization because we have a five-year strategic plan and we are starting to implement our strategic plan next year. So let me share with you some news on our strategic plan and the work we will do with the community. Our strategy was defined in March this year. The Internet Society Board approved the strategy based on two main challenges that were identified at one point in time. One of them is global inequality. We understand there is an issue of global inequality we need to address and the lack of trust on the Internet. People lack trust on the Internet. These two challenges are big issues that we can address. I mean, global inequality. We need to see how we can connect people, those that are not connected to the Internet. And we also need to see how we can improve connectivity to countries that are already connected. We need to make that connection more efficient. These two global challenges are being translated into our strategic goals that we have set for next year. One of them is that people all over the world may have access to a resilient and affordable Internet. And secondly, people need to have a safe and robust internet experience. They need to feel protected on their daily life. These are the two main goals we have for this next five-year plan. And implementation will be related to some programs. I am circulating a PowerPoint presentation where you’ll see more details on these programs. And I would like to invite you all to visit our website where you’ll see our strategic plan, our five-year strategic plan, and the implementation of our strategic plan during 2026.

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking. Thank you so much, Sebastian. And thanks for sticking to the time. We are okay with the time and the agenda. Now we will give the floor to Esteban Lezcano. He will be speaking on behalf of LAC-ISP. Esteban, please go ahead.

ESTEBAN LEZCANO: Thank you, Lito. This is Esteban Lezcano speaking. And Basilio will be the one presenting today.

BASILIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ: Basilio speaking. Good afternoon, everyone. LAC-ISP is a ISP organization from Latin America. We are an association of Latin American and Caribbean ISPs. And we work on the development of the ISP market. We work on different regulatory asymmetries for ISPs to be able to provide their services, their network maintenance services, particularly to those regions that are underserved. In Brazil, thanks to these regulatory asymmetries, we can say that ISPs cover 52% of the market. in fixed and white band in Brazil. We have two main issues in Latin America that we need to advocate for. One of them is the frequency of six gigahertz for Wi-Fi. This is really important for small ISPs to be able to deliver their services with quality. This frequency needs to be used outdoor in order to improve the service in case areas may not be able to use a wireless service. There is another issue we’re facing and this is the talks and the discussions we see from some regulators and the free share. We are against the idea of free share, because this has nothing to do, this has nothing of fear. This implies a huge risk for the whole Internet. Impacting on the network neutrality, and this will lead to issues for small ISPs. In South Korea, they started to charge for content, and this cannot be applied in Latin America or in the thousands of thousands of ISPs we have in Latin America. I am almost finishing my intervention. So, this would be a task or something that will cause huge problems to ISPs and Latin America.

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking. Thank you, Basilio, and thanks, LAC-ISP, and now Lito Ibarra, this is me, will speak about LAC-IX. So, LAC-IX is the Latin American, the Caribbean organization for internet exchange points. In case you don’t know, an exchange point is where the local traffic of a country is being exchanged among providers in order to minimize the time and the cost and the delay in communications. The IX, or exchange points, are growing with the passing of time, they are part of the internet critical infrastructure to weather with the DNS. This is part of the internet critical infrastructure. In the case of LAC-IX, we’re deploying new infrastructures, LAC-IX, once at the end of the year to update its database, and this year we had four new exchange points and we are now 34 traffic exchange points in the regions that are part of LAC-IX. These are members of our organization, they are not the total amount, but they are part of the organization. We are still working with other organizations, particularly with the Internet Society, LACNIC, and other technical organizations in the region, and we are also articulating and working together with the technical community. We have a general assembly in the LACNIC event at the beginning of the year, in May, and we hold a virtual meeting throughout the year. This is really relevant for participants. We held four training sessions for technicians. Bear in mind that these exchange points are looking for CDNs. These are copies of contents from large Internet content providers in order to provide a more efficient access to users. They also work with technicians. There are working groups. There are some working groups. One of them is a public policy working group, and there is another working group that follows up the LACNIC policy development process, which as you know, is open and public. They report on any policy proposal on the critical infrastructure of the Internet, particularly affecting IXPs. And we have communications on LinkedIn and in our websites for our members and those of you who are interested. And this is the end of my intervention. Now, I would like to give the floor to Alai, Raúl Echeverria. Are you connected?

ROCIO DE LA FUENTE: Rocio speaking. We don’t see Raúl online, but he can take the floor at the end of the session.

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking. Okay, now we are now going to give the floor to LACNIC, Lia Solis. Please go ahead.

LIA SOLIS: Lia speaking. Hello, can you hear me? Okay, good morning, everyone. Let me begin with my intervention. LACNIC is the Caribbean and Latin American network of operators. This is a non-for-profit organization and it is based in Montevideo, Uruguay. And we have been operating for 14 years now. Our mission is to gather… operators together. I mean, technical people operating the networks, helping us to communicate, and we’re aiming at being a reference association. Our mission is to strengthen the relationships among operators all around the region by fostering knowledge and by promoting the work of our working groups. We want to foster discussions, exchange information, collaborate with our community. Our organization culture is based on volunteers. We have more than 50 people working with volunteers and in an inclusive manner. As for our structure, we have a committee, a program committee, asking for technical proposals that are related to the internet operation, and we have a board, working groups, and the community. The next year, we are working on different programs. We held webinars and interviews to our members of the community. We have podcasts recorded. These are sort of talks and discussions for technicians to be able to get information, and we also published relevant content, and we spread that content through our discussion list. We also have alliances with the different organizations, such as the Internet Society, LACNIC, ICANN, among others, and we also try to strengthen our institutional image, and we would like to position our organization as a technical organization. We have an annual event in the LACNIC meeting. and we hold an event in each of the countries. This year, we’re working within the framework of strengthening the technical community, on creating a training or a working group, and we deliver trainings on IPv6, security, peering, among other topics. In our working groups, we have the participation of the Latin American and the Caribbean region in the ITF. And I think this is the end of my intervention. Thank you.

LITO IBARRA: Thank you, Lia, for this report. Now, I would like to give the floor to the CETIS. Fernanda Martinez is here, Fernanda speaking.

MARIA FERNANDA MARTINEZ: Thank you, Lito. CETIS is the Center for Study of Technology and Society at the University of San Andres. This is an interdisciplinary and academic center. The goal of our center is to promote and train people on different topics related to internet policies. We were able to cover our goals this year. We have three programs, and we hold two events throughout the years. We participated in 19 events. We had over 450 people participating in different events. And I will share with you the annual report of our activities, but I will give you a very brief summary in the link that I will be posting in the chat. This year, we are happy because one of our most important reports have been published. We have been working on this report throughout 2020 and 2021. This is the universality indicator report. This is a project that is led by UNESCO. And the goal of this project is to map, to do a mapping of each of the countries based on five internet-related access, rights, openness, multi-stakeholderism, gender, access. It is a very relevant report, and even though some elements may have changed, the methodology being used is really useful, because we can map the situation in each of the countries. And this is also very relevant, because we believe that in order to create public policies, we need to base ourselves on evidence. So this report covers one of the aspects that is very relevant for us, and this is the creation of evidence in order to translate that evidence, or to provide the evidence to decision makers in order for them to be able to craft policies that are robust. The approach is really enlightening, because it is based on the recommendations that were required, and the report includes an advisory board. It is a multi-stakeholder body, and this gave us the opportunity to have a very relevant dialogue with the stakeholders in the ecosystem, particularly in Argentina, meaning the private sector, public sector, civil society, and we were able to draft some recommendations based on each of these areas, and we highly recommend reading this report. I will end my intervention now, and there is another very interesting project, and I will talk about it in my second intervention. It’s a pleasure for me to be able to participate here. And thanks again, Lito.

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking. Thank you, Fernanda. Let’s move to LACNIC. We will give the floor to Paula Oteguy. Thank you, Paula.

PAULA OTEGUY: Paula Oteguy speaking. Thank you, Lito. Greetings, everyone. Good morning, good afternoon for those of you who are in Riyadh. It’s a pleasure to present on behalf of LACNIC the work that we’ve been doing in this space, in the LAC IGF, in the IGF NAC space. So I would like to comment on the support program to analyze these local programs, local support, to tell you a little bit what it’s about, and also to seize this opportunity to emphasize the importance and the relevance of these initiatives in the stakeholder model. This program provides support to the internet governance initiatives in our region for them to organize their events. And it’s organized and it’s addressed to regional, national initiatives, and also young people’s initiatives at the local level, and also internet governance schools. For you to get to know a little bit what it’s about, this support is translated mainly in funds for the organization and for the implementation and execution of these spaces. And also, as long as the initiative requires it, a webinar with up to 500 participants, and also the possibility for LACNIC experts to contribute and to cooperate with the topics of the agenda of those initiatives. Participating actively in panels and discussions with experts and technical experts. dealing with cyber security, DNS security, among other topics. And some numbers for you to get to know are 2024, we supported 10 local initiatives in the region, two youth initiatives at the local level. Here, I’d like to mention that they are emerging in the region, these youth initiatives at the country level. And also, we supported like IGF in its 17th edition, and youth IGF, and internet governance schools, highly recognized, and also the virtual schools by internet governance, and a recent initiative of the Chilean University for Internet Governance and International Relationships. In order to apply for this support, you have to visit our website in the opportunity section. Therein, you will find internet governance, and there is a form that you need to complete, and we will contact you in order to make this support possible. Yes, I’m nearly finished. I’d just like to highlight the role of IRs, and their importance in the multi-stakeholder model.

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking, thank you, Paula. We will close this section with the LAC-TLD presentation in charge of Rocio de la Fuente.

ROCIO DE LA FUENTE: Rocio de la Fuente speaking, thank you, Lito. Thank you for your support in the in-person event, and also everyone for participating in another edition of the IGF LAC space. I’d like to tell you the progress we’ve made in the single server user that enables to make a unique. consultation of a domain name under multiple ccTLDs of countries and territories in the region. In this manner, we provide an additional channel to make consultations for the regions that are available for registration and those already registered. For those already registered, it enables to add direct users to the websites of ccTLDs to make consultation of the available information. This year that is operating in a beta model with a lot of effort of ccTLDs, so we invite you all to use it and to diffuse it there. It’s used because it’s a way to promote the use of the domain names in the region. I’d like to take this opportunity as well to tell you about the efforts or rather the activities and the events we’ve been developing with other organizations, with the technical community in the last two years and mainly in the last year where our goal was to strengthen the relationship with other actors of the ecosystem and also with governmental bodies. I think that these efforts are very effective because it’s enabled to gather different organizations among others and other ICANN organizations. We’re very happy with its work and our will is to go on consolidating this technical community as a sector. I would like to give Federica the floor for this last minute that I have left. Federica,

FEDERICA TORTORELLA: you have the floor. Federica speaking. Greetings, everyone. I’d like to tell you some information as Rocio said. Thanks to this session, we have built a repository at the regional level and the idea is to consolidate in a single document the information. The main information regarding the organizations in the region that deal with internet governance issues. So we invite you to look at this repository. And for those of you who would like to contribute, you are most welcome to do so. We will share the link in the chat. You can write to me or to Rocio, and we will tell you how you can cooperate. The main idea is to consolidate the information so that it is easily accessible to know which are the organizations that are there and what are they doing. That will be it on my side. Dito, you have the floor.

DITO: Thank you very much, Dito, speaking. Thank you for sticking to your three minutes. Yes, we will be waiting for that link. I think that it’s very, very useful for many of us because we’ve heard a lot of information and we’ve made notes. But I think that it’s a great initiative to have this information online. Thank you very much. Let’s move to the next round of Black Space. The question was to share the reflections on the organization you belong to relating to the processes that are taking place. And we have five organizations, rather six organizations, sorry, that are registered. And you have three minutes each. We will start with Internet Society. Sebastian, please.

SEBASTIAN BELAGAMBA: Sebastian speaking, I know that three minutes is not a long time. But just to give you an idea, I think that we’re going through a very important year for internet governance. Next year, the mandate for IGF will be ended, and the WSIS mandate, not only IGF, which is the mechanism that we have to gather all this information, but also the elements regarding to WSIS, lines of action, and so on and so forth, that emerged in 2005 in Tunis. We had a mandate for 10 years that was renewed in 2015, and now in 2025, we will reach the end of the mandate. This is in parallel to other events. The global digital compact was approved last year that has some contact points with the lines of action of WSIS, and we need to understand at the intergovernmental process how they interact. It’s not very clear how the implementation of GDC will be, and which will be the review of WSIS plus 20, and how the line of actions of both the WSIS and these lines of action will interact if that is the case. So what’s important is to bear this in mind, and all of this is included in the agenda to be discussed in the next 12 months. We, as a community devoted to internet governance, either directly or indirectly, we have to have a position and a line of action. So in the next few months and the next few weeks, we have to define this coordinated action. I think that the most important thing to highlight is that for those of us who are part of the technical community of the internet, we are trying to have a coordination, a collaboration, a position that is maybe not a single position, but a consolidated one, at least in the context of the internet. in order to submit a productive proposal to have an efficient product emerging out of these processes. So it’s a year full of challenges. Thank you very much.

LITO IBARRA: This is Lito. We will give the floor to Rodrigo de la Parra with ICANN Latin America. You have three minutes, please.

RODRIGO DE LA PARRA: Rodrigo de la Parra speaking. Thank you, Lito. Yes, of course, the challenge to share in these three minutes so many thoughts about these processes that are so different. But these three processes show us this opportunity to reaffirm the principles that we agreed upon throughout the crisis process. When discussing in the internet governance and everything that’s been going on in this process that has the participation and the consensus of the multi-stakeholder model. In order to reaffirm these principles and the bodies that have been created around this consensus, internet mundial or world net has been a process that reminded us of these processes. And the global digital compact has many reaffirmation principles of these main principles regarding internet governance. So I think there are some implementation challenges. And it’s very important, as Sebastian said, we need to be coordinated in order to verify that any implementation made throughout or around these topics is based on these principles. So we have WSIS plus 20. Next year, I think that in our region, we can prove that the examples of collaboration that we have, such as taxes, that some important cases of how we’ve been working in the last few years, not only in the technical community, but how we have integrated ourselves in a very practical and very effective manner with other sectors, such as the governmental sector and different organizations, intergovernmental organizations at the regional level. So it’s a huge task as a region, I believe. We need to foster this collaborative mindset in the region. So once again, thank you for this opportunity,

LITO IBARRA: Lito speaking. Thank you, Rodrigo. So Sebastián and Rodrigo have defined a context, the context we are in, and also the one that we will have next year. It’s been a very critical year with big changes. And I think that many of us like that in that meeting with CISPLAS 20, the decision of going on with IGF was taken, undertaken, and to have a greater budget to go with these debates that take place at the global level. We need to think about something in the Latin American region. Again, as the Secretary will discuss this, we have some examples at the regional level. And we also have to see which are the national examples of the IGF. If in a very pessimistic scenario, the IGF would change, would be suspended by a decision of the states. the countries and the regional events wouldn’t have to be suspended as well. We have developed a culture and an environment in which we can go on discussing these topics at the national and the regional level. Of course, we’ll have to have more financing. This is always a challenge. But the machine is running. So I think that this is a process that we have copied, so to speak, from the summits of the OASIS of 2003 and 2005. But we can contribute with Latin America and Caribbean flavor. And we have to go on with these efforts. We have a very important community of events, of people in the region, in our countries, some stronger or with more capabilities than others. But we can go on supporting ourselves. This is in the event that the IGF was suspended or was provided a different form. But as Rodrigo and Sebastian said, we have to be very, we have to be very, we have to pay attention to what happens to this. I believe that we have, likely, we have a very strong and solid ecosystem of these organizations at the regional level. Many of them in the House of the Internet in Montevideo, they are physically there. But we can go on working in this manner. Thank you very much. Let’s give the floor to Olga Cavalli. Thank you.

OLGA CAVALLI: Olga speaking. I will be doing a retweet to Sebastian, Rodrigo, and other colleagues. What can you tell me about the South School of Internet Governance and the IGF? Well, this was our place. This is where we were born. What we should do as parts of different processes to strengthen ourselves. We need to be very engaging, we need to be diverse, and this takes time, resources. But we also need to be inclusive. The most important example was the IGF this year, and I would like to highlight Lillian’s role. She has been key because we were able to reinvigorate a space based on a very intense work of coordination. This is an example to replicate, and something that I said at the ICANN meeting because I had a similar question, and this is that we need to understand that stakeholders are different, and being on an equal footing doesn’t mean that we are the same. Governments do have their own process, if they need to take their own decisions, they have their own responsibilities, but we need to work together anyway, and that is our responsibility. Reinforcing the space has to do with this. Since the mandate of the IGF was renewed, in the school we expect to have an IGF, and we are a very collaborative community, and we know that we can work together, but the school is always open to offer the space. Thank you Olga, you have one minute left, but now we will give the floor to Lillian Chamorro from Colnado. And like IGF, I think there is an open flying mic.

LILLIAN CHAMORRO: Lillian speaking. To close this idea and to open the next idea, let me add the following. In this IGF edition, we have 99 proposals from different Latin American countries and from different organizations to, you know, be here. We selected 15 sessions were really high quality. This was a very complex process. Recommendations were being made and defining the sessions was a very dynamic process as well. We have over 120 panelists from different countries, over 300 face-to-face participants. All sessions were streamlined. And when it comes to the second question, we need to make the most of these platforms and we need to make the most of what all we have done in Latin America and the Caribbean region. We need to add our own flavor, as Lito said, and this is what we do at the LAC IGF. We give our own flavor to internet governance. Internet governance is not only crafted in these spaces because we meet everyone from all over the world, but governance is also crafted in our local spaces and these regional governance spaces are being, you know, discussed at a national regional space. This is where realities, problems, and even good aspects are being reflected. I love seeing the IGF in El Salvador because they had a rock session, a heavy metal music session. And this is what we have in Latin America, you know, we need to show ourselves as we are, you know, we need to participate in the WSIS, in the GDC. We need to show what we do, the power we have, and how we can help to, you know, relate those spaces. We are addressing topics that are important for the GDC and these topics are being discussed in our communities. They are part of our regional processes. We also need to understand that the discussion doesn’t need to be technology-centered. We need to center ourselves on technology, but on human aspects and environmental aspects, because this is something that we need to take into account in our region. We have the Amazonia, we have other regions and things to take care of, and this needs to be done in our discussions. IEGF has been a great platform for working with different ecosystems and stakeholders, but it is also an opportunity to create synergies, to show what we are doing. I think that we have been appropriating this ecosystem, and we have new opportunities to strengthen our spaces and to give our flavor to these spaces in order to work together. We are learning, really, a lot. I am always learning from the communities I work with, and I think we can replicate this in other discussion spaces.

LITO IBARRA: Thank you, Lillian. And to close this second block of the LAC-ISPs, I would like to give the floor to the LAC-ISP representative. Basilio, please go ahead.

BASILIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ: Thank you so much. At LAC-ISP, we are always aware and participating in different discussions such as the IEGF, NETMundial and WSIS discussions. And this is thanks to the support we receive in order to participate in those spaces. The multi-stakeholder mechanism of Internet is really important for us. Internet itself will not make sense without the whole mechanism that was created. throughout time. And I like what Lito said on the possibility of not continuing with the IGF or with having a local IGF. And this is what we have to do. We need to focus and work to keep this multistakeholder model and this multistakeholder mechanism. But we also need

LITO IBARRA: to work as required. Thank you, Lito speaking. Thank you, Basilio. So we will now close this second block of the LAG space. And we have a third block or a third session. And we will now hear from researchers from CETI and LACNIC. So now I would like to give the floor to Paula Oteguyi. She is online and she will be the moderator of this part of the session. Paula,

PAULA OTEGUY: please go ahead. Paula Oteguy speaking. Thank you very much, Lito. We will now begin with the second part of the session. This is a space we started three years ago and we would like to keep on promoting the space. The idea is to share research projects that are relevant to our region on the internet development. So this space will be devoted to researchers from the LIDRES project in LACNIC and researchers supported by CETI will be now presenting us an overview of all the work they have been doing so far. Having said this, we will start with LACNIC and the LIDRES program and then we will give the floor to the CETI representative. The LIDRES program in LACNIC supports researchers, and with a particular overview, and this is on local projects, that is a period of time of three months, they have the support of well-known mentors in our regions, and the results of the researchers, and from LACNIC we support researchers, little, sorry, but

ESTEBAN LEZCANO: we are hearing you. Can you hear me okay? Esteban is speaking. Yes, Paula, we are hearing you.

PAULA OTEGUY: Please go ahead. Paula is speaking. So, as I said, the results of the research are of the ownership of the authors, but we help with the promotion of these results. There will be three presenters today, from last year, from the researchers being carried out last year. They will have eight minutes each, so I would kindly ask our presenters to stick to their time, and I would like to introduce José Alberto Rojas from Peru. He is a lawyer, an expert on civil crime, and he will be introducing a research on child grooming, on online gaming, and protection of children in Latin America. José, if you are there, you have the floor.

JOSE ROJAS: José Rojas speaking. Thank you, everyone. Today I have the honor of introducing an investigation on child grooming and online gaming. One of the most concerning aspects of cybercrime is this. This research aims at describing this phenomenon and offering recommendations that could be useful for educators, parents, legislators, and for the industry itself. Grooming… is known as sexual-related proposals to children or adolescents, either face-to-face or by using technology and communication technologies. This is a problem that is well-known, but it has new dimensions when we speak about gaming. To give you a different overview, let’s think about this paradox. We teach children not to talk to strangers outside, but in the digital world, they talk to strangers without knowing who is the person behind avatars or usernames. Online gaming are essential spaces for socializing, but they also represent a very risky environment. Platforms such as Minecraft, Roblox, or Fortnite gather young people together, and they’re always interacting. Part of the research that was carried out in Chile reveals that 82 percent of children recognize the risk of sexual harassment online, but 40 percent of these children do have permission from their parents to play on virtual spaces with strangers. They do not have supervision, and they have the consent of their parents to be able to interact in these video games with people they don’t really know. This gives us an idea of the risk and the supervision techniques. When it comes to grooming and video games, where this is facilitated due to the fact that groomers may adopt false identities, the interaction in chats and using real-time communications or tools, allow groomers to establish trust relationships very quickly. One of the main issues and something we saw in each of the researches is the You know, the sending of gifts or virtual coins. These are being used as manipulation tools. The main goal of this research is to see how grooming operates in online gaming and the implications it has in Latin America. So after this research, I set up the specific goals for this research, and this is to identify the most vulnerable platforms and video games, to analyze the behavior patterns of groomers in this environment, to assess the level of risk and the knowledge about this risk among parents and educators, and to provide measures to mitigate the issue. So this research provides a qualitative and quantitative analysis. We gather different cases based on different interviews, and we also interviewed digital experts. We analyzed the legislation in Latin America to see the effectiveness to fight against grooming in online gaming. One of the main findings of this research is that 180 cases were reported in Roblox and other platforms, and this report was done before law enforcement agencies. I consulted with law enforcement agencies in different Latin American countries, and this is being detailed in the research. The platforms that are most vulnerable, those platforms that have the option of online and real-time chat, I mean, the use of avatars are widely used among groomers, and the lack of knowledge among parents is also important to take into account. During the COVID pandemic, there was an increase of this risk, The cultural acceptance of these video games is something that we saw in our research in Chile. When it comes to victims, miners said that they experienced anxiety, fear, social isolation, among other situations. Sometimes these experiences create problems in the long term. And some of the examples that we gathered, particularly we had one example in Peru that gave rise to the investigation, is something that happened in 2023. There was a first judgment. There was a man contacting children through a platform and they asked him for pictures. In Argentina, there was one adolescent that was manipulated by a video game platform. And then he was contacted via WhatsApp and he was requested to provide sexual related content. During the pandemic, grooming reports increased 81%. And this has to do with the time that the miners spend online. Among the proposals that are being delivered in the research, we have strengthening digital education, creating campaigns for parents and educators in order to prevent grooming, teaching miners to recognize risky or suspectful behaviors online. And it is important to foster the multi-stakeholder participation and to engage governance and child protection organizations to design the protection measures and create agreements among countries to prosecute cases. Also to promote innovation, such as the use of artificial intelligence to moderate content and to identify. behavioral patterns to improve verification and parental control features on platforms and it is also important to promote laws in Latin America allowing the real prosecution of grooming in all its shapes. One of the biggest issues that we realized in our research is that there are no concrete or proper protocols for grooming online. The support on video gaming or the video gaming support areas were the ones addressing these issues but they were not able to share information when the criminal investigation started. So in order to finish my intervention let me add the following. Grooming in online gaming is a growing threat and it requires a coordinated answer. My research aims at providing over a shed light on you know this aspect but to promote protection. The protection of children in online environments is a collective action involving families, governments, companies and the society as a whole. Thank you so much for your attention.

PAULA OTEGUY: Paula Oteguy speaking. Thank you Jose. Thank you for sticking to the time. Congratulations for that and for sharing the main findings of your investigation. It’s very of your research is very important to note vulnerabilities regarding this topic and the recommendations of your research are of high value to all of us. So thank you very much. We will go on with our next researcher Camilo Aratia who is a sociologist from Bolivia who is online with us. His research is called of young indigenous people and technological appropriation. Camilo, welcome.

CAMILO ARATIA: Camilo speaking. Good morning, good afternoon, depending on where you are connecting yourself from. I’d like to start by introducing this topic of Peters. And let me tell you what this investigation is about. My research is related to the appropriation of technology in young population that identifies itself as indigenous. I tried to understand the framework of what we understand by technological appropriation and the model that involves four aspects, access, accessibility, learning, transformation. And by understanding this, technological appropriation should move forward these stages so that we can say, OK, we have technological appropriation regarding these young people. We will have to analyze first which is the access to technology, how they’re learning, once they have access, how they have integrated this. Because we cannot forget that mostly regarding self-identified indigenous populations, we have to understand how this is integrated in their culture. And also transformation. How much has technology transformed their perception as indigenous people, their communities, but also in a more broader sense. That is what we are talking about when we talk about technological appropriation. Based on this, I interviewed a lot of young indigenous peoples. I participated in focus groups, not in all the territory of Bolivia, but in some specific regions. I worked with Aymara, with Quechua young people, with young people from African communities, from Afros and from Chiquitano communities, and also with Chaqueños young people. Chaqueño is not one of the indigenous peoples from Bolivia, but in the Bolivian Chaco, which is in the border with Argentina, there are 20 indigenous peoples that live there. So they identify themselves as Chaqueños. They have roots in these indigenous peoples. And when we did the focus group, we included them there because they identify themselves as indigenous people. So the first point was to understand that young indigenous peoples, at least in Bolivia, many of them inhabit almost urban spaces. There are not isolated populations regarding technology. So in this sense, we asked them about accessibility, taking this into account. There are many interesting answers. Depending on the population and the geographical location where the research was carried out, we had very different realities. For instance, regarding internet access, by meaning not only that the cables exist, but that we have devices to connect to the internet, or that in schools or local… regional governments and in their communities, they do have access to the internet. So in those spaces, which are more urban spaces with a larger population, such as the Madras, Zacqueños, and Afros, they have a good connection, a good access to the internet. But the connection was not a broadband, but rather a mobile connection. That is to say that they were connected to the internet, but most of its use was with mobile devices or mobile data. So they depended of the three companies that we have in Bolivia to connect themselves to the internet. But there was a huge contrast with the lowlands, with the Chiquitanos young people who lived in a community between Concepción de Bolivia and the border with Brazil, which is next to the Amazonian territory. Internet access was scarce. There we have the first contrast. There’s just Intel, one of the telecommunication companies. They could not choose, because if they had another company as a server, they wouldn’t have access to the internet. And internet was invoiced by the hour. And what they told me is that they didn’t have internet in their houses or in their homes. They had to go to some places in their town, in their village. And they needed to go to a more urban region in order to connect to internet. That is the first. The first impression that we have, these young people that identify themselves as Aboriginal people, they have different possibilities of accessing the Internet. So when we started asking about the learning, such as more focused on a digital area such as Chattopadhyay, for instance, they didn’t have this in mind, they couldn’t have access to this because they had more basic problems for accessing Internet. And there we could see the difference between those who lived in the capital city and those who lived in more isolated or rural areas. This is one of the first differences that was very interesting to study. We could have discussed about Chattopadhyay and the Internet, but their access was more limited to it. Regarding the transformation in this community and in the integration, there were many answers that they tried to integrate, that many of the people that are connected are trying to understand that it is a reality that it is here to stay. There was a collective of Aymaras and Afros people in Coroy, in La Paz, they were devoted to artistic activities, and they have a new technology law in their community, and they discussed problems such as digital violence and grooming, and there was a notion, a broader notion of all these matters in those spaces that were more isolated. The reality was different, but there is an effort to integrate technology in all these processes. They saw technology as a bridge. That is what they told us. Something interesting as well is that in the Aymara community, technology was a boom throughout the pandemics because it was their connection to civilization and that created an interest in migrating to urban areas in order for them to study. Because many of these young people, they cannot study these technological courses of study in their communities. That is why they want to move to the city in order to do this. And regarding transformation, it was very complicated because to see that technology as a transformation element in these communities, this is not yet very visible in their cases. I think that this is the most difficult aspect to understand when we discussed about artificial technology and all of this.

PAULA OTEGUY: Paula Oteguy speaking. Sorry to interrupt you. You need to wrap up.

CAMILO ARATIA: OK, Camilo speaking. The conclusion would be that indigenous peoples that live in rural areas or small urban areas, they still have problems accessing technology because in many cases, there is no network, but rather mobile data. So we are still in these preliminary stages. Thank you very much.

PAULA OTEGUY: Paula Oteguy speaking. Thank you, Camilo, for sharing your research and your conclusions. This enables us to know these specific perspectives and points of view. Thank you very much. In order to close up research from the leaders program, I will give the floor to Thais Aguiar, who is a lawyer from Brazil and a researcher in digital topics. And her research is called cybernetic policy, security policies in Brazil, where we come from and where are we going.

THAIS AGUIAR: Thais speaking, first of all, greetings, everyone. Thank you very much for this opportunity to present my research next to these very interesting researchers. And I am very happy to participate in this forum. I would like to thank Paula and my tutor, and also those of you who participate in the leaders program. It’s an honor for me to present my research that wants to analyze the regulatory framework of cyber security in the country. The goal was to research on the gaps and the progresses in Brazil for the implementation of these policies. Regarding methodology, it is a qualitative study, exploratory and documentary one that analyzes public policies and case studies throughout the COVID. And they tried to see which is the history of cybersecurity policies in Brazil and the future thereof. So this is a very brief resume. And I invite you to a brief review. And I invite you to read the whole work on the internet. Where do we come from? In the last few decades, the appearance of internet society has been a great change for Brazil. There is a challenge of the promotion in a way that promotes the use of technology in a secure manner, in a safe manner, in order to preserve internet in an open manner and a safe manner to promote human rights. And the path of Brazilian cybersecurity is marked by a complex evolution of bodies and with a need to balance individual rights and cybersecurity. This is a very complex study that involves a lot of bodies and actors. And this structure of cybersecurity and internet governance has many challenges, such as the need of a greater clarity of notions and the cooperation of the different bodies. In 1995, we had the Committee of Internet Management that promoted the multi-stakeholder model and served as a model to different bodies, not only in the country, but also at the worldwide level. In 2015, we had the Committee of Internet Management that promoted the multi-stakeholder model and served as a model to different bodies, not only in the country, but also at the worldwide level. In 2015, we had the Committee of Internet Management that promoted the multi-stakeholder model There were several bodies like NIC.ER among others, and there are many findings around the states. We have the Committee of Cybersecurity, and also, as I said before, we need more clarity and cooperation among the stakeholders. And there are several events that gave shape to cybersecurity in the country, such as the World Cup of FIFA 2014, the U.K. Olympic Games in 2016 in Rio, and the increase of cyber threats. And these events needed more participation from the bodies that needed to guarantee cybersecurity and also to include cybersecurity in fundamental rights. Brazil has a history of multistakeholder governance in spite of the challenges, and in my research there is the approval of the National Strategy of Cybersecurity in 2020, and this strategy has its main goal to strengthen cybersecurity in the country with a multi-sector approach that involves the civil society and the public-private sector. And the INSC reaches a mature model of cybersecurity with different aspects, such as political one, and there are also some limitations and threats. transparency problems, and securitization of the cyberspace. So when we reached the conclusion that where do we come from and where are we heading, Brazil faces the need to have a more solid cybersecurity framework, more effective one, by promoting the cooperation among the stakeholders. That is to say that we need to have a unified and effective strategy to protect infrastructure services and individuals in the digital space. Policies need to have evidence-based approaches and to involve technical aspects of the public and private sectors and the civil society ones so that the values are in line with democratic values and to respect fundamental rights. Brazil has to seize its experience in a massive stakeholder model in order to have a sovereign nation, digitally speaking, and to protect, at the same time, individual rights and to promote an inclusive and safe environment, digital environment. Brazil has the possibility to become a leader in this sense and also to guarantee cybersecurity for it to become an example in the region by improving public policies and having a more solid, massive stakeholder model to have a sovereign digital nation. Thank you for your time.

PAULA OTEGUY: Thank you very much, Thais. Without a doubt, the issue of cyber security in front of big companies is a complex one. Cyber security faces huge and complex challenges. You mentioned some of them, namely cooperation among different institutions and organizations. So I invite you all to have a look at all these researches that we have. sharing today. I will be posting the link on the chat for you to be able to access these researches. I would like to thank especially the presenters and for representing a group of 16 great researchers that we had in our 2023 edition. And now I would like to give the floor to Fernanda.

MARIA FERNANDA MARTINEZ: Fernanda speaking. Thank you, Paula. Let me echo your comments on congratulating the presenters for their researches. I will read the researches later on and congratulations on these leaders or leaders programs for incentivating research in Latin America and the Caribbean. Now I will introduce the next two researchers. They’re going to share with us their findings. On the one hand, we have Soledad and Pilar Llorenz. And let me say that the idea of this space is to introduce some of the SETI’s investigations or researches, but also to, you know, add new researchers. And we do have at SETI’s different researchers ongoing, but we would like to bring colleagues and we would like to introduce these colleagues to this so important space as it is the IGS. So, Soledad Arenguez will be presenting first. She’s an expert in new technologies and education. She’s a graduate and postgraduate. a teacher in different universities in Argentina and she’s an expert on technologies and education. She’s also coordinator of the communication department in the USCA and she’s also researcher on the misinformation on social media and media literacy. Today she will be sharing with us the progress of her research on the Trust Editor. Soledad, please go ahead. Soledad speaking,

SOLEDAD ARENGUEZ: thank you so much for the introduction. It’s a pleasure to be part of this LAG Space session and to speak about our work on the Trust Editor. Let me tell you what we are from the project. This is an organization that was born in Argentina. We are committed to fighting against misinformation and we want to have an ecosystem based on information we can trust. We have different initiatives ongoing such as media literacy and the development of ideas, products and solutions. One of the solutions we have been working on is a Trust Editor. What is this Trust Editor about? We know we are facing an issue and this is a trust crisis that media are undergoing and this is not the case only in Argentina. This is a worldwide issue because there is a situation of news disconnection and we also need to add fake news and misinformation. Misinformation is not new but it has new dimensions and new complexities based on the advancements that we see on media. So based on this situation and the quick proliferation of these new pieces of misinformation, we see new challenges and challenges being posted by artificial intelligence. This is affecting journalism and communication media because there is no time to check or verify information. So having said all this, the question of how we can face misinformation from media led us to create our Trust Editor prototype. So what is this development about? This is a prototype that uses artificial intelligence to be able to detect inconsistencies in news, in different posts before they are being published. And the idea is to alert editors for them to be able to adjust the information before posting or publishing that piece of information. The goal is to be able to intervene timely, that is, to work in the pre-banking section in order to avoid sharing misinformation or to generate information with fake news or false information. The solution is focused on two key aspects. On the one hand, the idea is to reduce the possibilities of sharing fake news, taking artificial intelligence as one of the tools. And then I will add on that. and to increase trust on media and the news being posted, reducing biases and polarization. This is a project that is part of the LEAP project and with the support of Trusting News. This is an organization working on the creation of indicators to raise or increase trust in the media. This prototype aims at working with a CFS. That is to say, to work with publishers of media agencies and help editors in the news making process. Let me give you some background information. We have the journalist. We have the edition unit. Journalists start producing or drafting their article. They add this information to the SCF. They have the, this is already working. We have the trust editor working. So when the post is sent to editors, the system gets activated. So you can read the article and you can get some indicators. This is what we call quality indicators. And when I say quality, I know that this concept may be quite complex. And what do I mean by this? Why are we emphasizing this complexity? Well, we have a group of publishers. I’ve been working with the publishers, group, editors, and journalists in order to understand what makes an article trustworthy. And let me give you an example. This has to give, or the article needs to cite the sources or the voices of authorities. Let’s say if we have, for example, an article providing diversity in the sources they are citing. So this has been created together with professionals to be able to create these indicators. The development is now in Spanish. We would like to escalate the project and to start working in the pre-banking space. This is going to be integrated. There is a user-friendly visual interface. So in the text, you can identify in colors the inconsistencies or the paragraph or phrases that need to be improved. And this can be analyzed based on a dashboard. In a nutshell, let me also add with you in the chat the presentation for you to see the demonstration and how this dashboard would look like and work with one particular article as an example. But the trust editor identifies, and we are working on the other indicators. But this is training we need to carry out. And the trust editor is being trained to identify, for example. in this case, adjectives or entities, because what we want to see is how these inconsistencies are being reduced and translated into certain indicators. So we work with the sources, the expressions that are being used, for example. So this editor will analyze this trust editor, and that is the name, the reason of the name. This trust editor will analyze the companies that are being mentioned, people, the entities, the times these names appear, because these may lead to certain bias, the adjectives that are being used, the amount of adjectives, and words or terms that are allowing us to differentiate between information and opinion. This is an ongoing project. We want to help publishers. That’s why trust editor will deliver red flags for the human eye, for journalists to be able to review the information. This is not automatized. I mean, this is not to eliminate journalists, but we want to strengthen the task of the journalist. We want to show the red flags. The editor will be checking any indicator or any red flag. And this will give rise or room to improvement. Thank you so much for the time, and we expect to have further news in future sessions.

PAULA OTEGUY: Thank you, Soledad. This is really interesting. Please share the information in the chat so that we can check that information when it is published. And very important to highlight that the human eye is there. There is a human revision behind this tool. Now I’m going to give the floor. to Maria Pilar Chorenz. She’s a doctor in law and social rights, expert on technology and rights. She’s a professor in Cordoba and CETI’s researcher. She will talk about her research on support on judicial sectors in the responsible adoption of generative artificial intelligence. And she’s going to speak about some cases of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico. And Pilar is leading the research in Argentina. Pilar, please go ahead.

MARIA PILAR CHORENZ: Pilar speaking. Thank you, everyone. And thanks those of you who are still in this session. All presentations have been really interesting. Today, I will very briefly summarize all the findings we have seen throughout the year in terms of the generative AI adoption, particularly in the judicial sector of Argentina, because that is my area of expertise. But the framework of this project is led by CETI. And the idea is to understand why the different judicial branches in Latin America are adopting artificial intelligence tools, particularly in the decision-making processes. The question is, are these branches opened to these processes, or are they using these processes explicitly? What are the risks that are being associated to the use of these tools? Judges, legal operators are taking other elements into account. Is this tool being used only for adopting certain measures and not for final decisions? So, the idea of this project, as Fernanda said before, is to get evidence for us to be able to provide this evidence to the legal ecosystem in order to develop certain products allowing us to use generative artificial intelligence and this implementation needs to be done in a responsible manner, taking into account respect for human rights and other legal standards. The source of this project has to do with interviews and the document analysis and the idea is to understand how legal operators and the judicial ecosystem embraces the use of generative artificial intelligence and related tools in decision making. Argentina has a federal system and therefore we have different jurisdictions with different realities in terms of resources and in terms of the different cases they manage. For example, only four jurisdictions manage 60% of the cases that take place in the country. This is quite important to take into account because it has a direct impact on the legal system at the time of implementing these tools. The legal branches that have adopted these tools are not the ones with the highest amount of cases but are the ones that have a low volume of cases and this calls our attention. because this does not solve the issues that all jurisdictions have. All jurisdictions have something in common in the country, and this is that there is low trust or a perception of low trust in the judicial sector. That is to say, the society does not trust in the judicial system because they believe that justice is slow and that decisions are not fair. So the judicial operators see this as a way of improving the delivery of justice. So the emergence of generative AI tools created interest among operators, legal operators, because they were able to adopt resolutions or make decisions or even draft resolutions in a short time, and this was translated into an improvement in the amount of cases they could address. In this context, there are no specific use cases in Argentina implementing generative AI. We can identify three large universes where this tool is being tested. One is those having the support of the superior courts. We have the province of San Luis, San Juan and Rio Negro. They have their own protocol for the use of AI tools. There is a second use that is the one supported by academic institutions and by some state-based institutions. This is a program being developed. throughout the country and the idea is to identify the use that all legal operators are doing with these tools. There are no published results, so we cannot really assess the impact of the tool in this context. And the larger universe has to do with the individual uses that the legal operators are making, let’s say judges or other legal operators, in order to facilitate some task. In this case, we speak about judgment summaries, the summary of cases, looking for some case law element. And there is one particular case where a judge is mentioning the use of AI in a specific resolution, but it has no public repercussions. So, it leads me to analyze the reactions. There is no institutionalized reaction, there is no standpoint from the vast associations. There is an expecting position, if you will, from the legal branch and from the representatives of the ecosystem, and they are expecting to see what these tools will cause. However, there are some consensus that we see in the interviews, and this is that the use and the introduction of AI is a fact and the judicial branch has to embrace this and adapt to its use. There is some consensus, legal actors do understand that there are some tasks, for example, the summary of case law or a judgment are tasks that can be done by artificial intelligence. However, this can be used by using other tools and not necessarily using AI. But they know that in the legal practice and in decision-making, these tools should not be used because there are certain responsibilities that need to be met by those making decisions. And these functional responsibilities have to do with data protection and the way in which those personal data are being protected and managed in legal processes. Human control is another element that needs to be taken into account when working on resolutions or when using these tools. And there is consensus on the fact that the personnel needs to be trained in order to use generative AI. To wrap up, so far we have seen that most of the respondents believe that there is a need to give up the tolerance that they have in terms of some processes and that they need to adapt generative AI, but the lack of regulation may lead to some issues when using these tools. The multi-stakeholder dialogue is also necessary when discussing the use of generative AI. artificial intelligence, and data management is another aspect to be taken into account.

MARIA FERNANDA MARTINEZ: Thank you very much. The idea is that this research is published in March, will be published in mid-March in the CETI website. This is Fernanda Martinez speaking. Before listening to Federica for the close-up, I’d like to thank all researchers for their researches and the large scope of themes that are under the umbrella of internet governance. If we thought about it 10 years ago, the themes that we discussed at the time are still being discussed. Many of them are still being discussed. Are there many new topics? Today, the academia discusses with the technical aspects or with the technical experts, and there is a dialogue across different sectors and across the different professionals with very different backgrounds, and this is very, very enriching. And going back to the question regarding the second section and the first part, it shows how invigorating and how vital these dialogues are among the different sectors in practice, in the field. Then we will see what happens with those spaces, with those sectors, but I think that this is a way to see the very, very rich dialogue that takes place among the different sectors. And something that we say at the CETI is when we start an activity or a project that needs continuity is that it’s difficult to get it started. But once that space disappears, there is something about that debate that goes away as well. So I am calling you to maintain and to keep up these dialogue spaces. Because afterwards, it’s very hard to have them back. Federica, you have the floor.

FEDERICA TORTORELLA: Federica speaking. Yes, thank you. Thank you very much to all researchers and the regional organization, to our remote participants. Thank you to our interpreters to help us with this very valuable task. With this, we close this edition of the LAC space of IGF and see you in Norway very soon. Thank you very much. Have a wonderful rest of the day. Thank you. Bye, everyone. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dito. Thank you, Dito. Bye, everyone.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

speakers

RODRIGO DE LA PARRA

SEBASTIAN BELAGAMBA

LITO IBARRA

LILLIAN CHAMORRO

arguments

Need to reaffirm multi-stakeholder principles in global processes

Challenges of WSIS+20 review and IGF mandate renewal

Importance of regional examples of collaboration

Opportunity to showcase Latin American internet governance model

summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of maintaining and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, both at regional and global levels.

Need for regional cooperation and knowledge sharing

speakers

OLGA CAVALLI

RODRIGO DE LA PARRA

PAULA OTEGUY

LITO IBARRA

arguments

South School on Internet Governance organizing 17th edition in Mexico

ICANN Latin America focusing on regional policy development participation

LACNIC supporting local internet governance initiatives

LAC-IX deploying new internet exchange point infrastructure

summary

Several speakers highlighted initiatives aimed at fostering regional cooperation, knowledge sharing, and capacity building in various aspects of internet governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of improving internet access and infrastructure in the region, albeit through different approaches.

speakers

SEBASTIAN BELAGAMBA

BASILIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ

arguments

Internet Society implementing new 5-year strategic plan

LAC-ISP advocating for 6 GHz frequency for Wi-Fi

Both researchers focused on using technology to address online risks and improve trust in digital environments, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and news consumers.

speakers

JOSE ROJAS

SOLEDAD ARENGUEZ

arguments

Child grooming risks in online gaming environments

Development of AI tool to detect misinformation in news articles

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of cultural elements in internet governance discussions

speakers

LILLIAN CHAMORRO

CAMILO ARATIA

arguments

Opportunity to showcase Latin American internet governance model

Technological appropriation among indigenous youth in Bolivia

explanation

Both speakers, despite focusing on different aspects of internet governance, highlighted the importance of integrating local cultural elements into discussions and research on internet governance in Latin America.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of the multi-stakeholder model, regional cooperation in internet governance, and the need to address both infrastructure development and sociocultural aspects of internet use in Latin America.

Consensus level

There was a moderate to high level of consensus among speakers on the importance of regional collaboration and the multi-stakeholder approach. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for continued cooperation in addressing internet governance challenges in Latin America. However, speakers also presented diverse research topics and organizational focuses, indicating a rich and varied approach to internet governance issues in the region.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to internet regulation and governance

speakers

BASILIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ

RODRIGO DE LA PARRA

arguments

LAC-ISP expresses concerns about “fair share” proposals, arguing they could negatively impact network neutrality. They believe such proposals could cause significant problems for small ISPs in Latin America.

Need to reaffirm multi-stakeholder principles in global processes

summary

While LAC-ISP emphasizes concerns about specific regulatory proposals like ‘fair share’, ICANN focuses on broader multi-stakeholder principles in global processes. This indicates a difference in approach to internet governance, with LAC-ISP focusing on specific industry concerns and ICANN emphasizing broader governance principles.

Unexpected Differences

Focus of technological development efforts

speakers

BASILIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ

ROCIO DE LA FUENTE

arguments

LAC-ISP advocating for 6 GHz frequency for Wi-Fi

LAC-TLD developing single server for domain name queries

explanation

While both speakers represent technical organizations, their focus on technological development differs unexpectedly. LAC-ISP is advocating for specific frequency allocation for Wi-Fi, while LAC-TLD is developing a centralized domain name query system. This highlights the diverse technical priorities within the region’s internet governance ecosystem.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around specific regulatory approaches, priorities in technological development, and the focus of multi-stakeholder involvement in global processes.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there are differences in specific approaches and priorities, there seems to be a general consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder involvement and regional cooperation in internet governance. These differences reflect the diverse interests and perspectives within the Latin American internet governance ecosystem, which could lead to rich discussions and potentially comprehensive solutions that address various stakeholder needs.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder involvement in global internet governance processes. However, they differ in their specific approaches: Sebastian Belagamba focuses on the challenges of WSIS+20 review and IGF mandate renewal, Rodrigo de la Parra emphasizes reaffirming existing principles, while Lillian Chamorro suggests showcasing the Latin American model as a unique contribution.

speakers

SEBASTIAN BELAGAMBA

RODRIGO DE LA PARRA

LILLIAN CHAMORRO

arguments

Challenges of WSIS+20 review and IGF mandate renewal

Need to reaffirm multi-stakeholder principles in global processes

Opportunity to showcase Latin American internet governance model

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of improving internet access and infrastructure in the region, albeit through different approaches.

speakers

SEBASTIAN BELAGAMBA

BASILIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ

arguments

Internet Society implementing new 5-year strategic plan

LAC-ISP advocating for 6 GHz frequency for Wi-Fi

Both researchers focused on using technology to address online risks and improve trust in digital environments, particularly for vulnerable groups like children and news consumers.

speakers

JOSE ROJAS

SOLEDAD ARENGUEZ

arguments

Child grooming risks in online gaming environments

Development of AI tool to detect misinformation in news articles

Key Takeaways

Regional internet governance organizations in Latin America and the Caribbean are actively working on various initiatives to strengthen internet governance in the region

There are ongoing challenges and opportunities related to global internet governance processes like WSIS+20 review and IGF mandate renewal

Research on internet governance issues in Latin America covers a wide range of topics, from child online protection to AI adoption in judicial systems

Multi-stakeholder collaboration and dialogue remain crucial for addressing internet governance challenges in the region

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue promoting and supporting local and regional internet governance initiatives

Prepare for upcoming global internet governance processes like WSIS+20 review

Further develop and implement tools to combat misinformation and enhance cybersecurity

Expand research on emerging technologies and their impact on internet governance

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively address the digital divide, particularly for indigenous communities

Balancing cybersecurity needs with protection of individual rights and freedoms

Regulatory frameworks for emerging technologies like generative AI in various sectors

Long-term sustainability of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model

Suggested Compromises

Adopting a balanced approach to AI implementation in judicial systems, maintaining human oversight

Developing region-specific solutions for internet governance challenges while aligning with global principles

Fostering collaboration between technical experts and policymakers to address complex internet governance issues

We teach children not to talk to strangers outside, but in the digital world, they talk to strangers without knowing who is the person behind avatars or usernames.

speaker

José Rojas

reason

This comment highlights the paradox between real-world and online safety practices for children, drawing attention to a critical issue in online child protection.

impact

It set the stage for a deeper discussion on the risks of online gaming platforms and the need for better digital education and protection measures for children.

There were several bodies like NIC.ER among others, and there are many findings around the states. We have the Committee of Cybersecurity, and also, as I said before, we need more clarity and cooperation among the stakeholders.

speaker

Thais Aguiar

reason

This comment emphasizes the complexity of cybersecurity governance and the need for better coordination among various stakeholders.

impact

It led to a discussion on the challenges of implementing effective cybersecurity policies and the importance of multi-stakeholder cooperation.

The idea is to understand how legal operators and the judicial ecosystem embraces the use of generative artificial intelligence and related tools in decision making.

speaker

Maria Pilar Chorenz

reason

This comment introduces the important topic of AI adoption in the judicial system, raising questions about its implications for legal decision-making.

impact

It sparked a discussion on the potential benefits and risks of using AI in the judicial sector, as well as the need for responsible implementation and human oversight.

Internet access was scarce. There we have the first contrast. There’s just Intel, one of the telecommunication companies. They could not choose, because if they had another company as a server, they wouldn’t have access to the internet.

speaker

Camilo Aratia

reason

This comment highlights the stark digital divide that exists even within a single country, particularly affecting indigenous communities.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include issues of digital inequality and the challenges of technological appropriation in marginalized communities.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting critical issues in internet governance across various domains – from child online safety to cybersecurity policy, AI in judicial systems, and digital inequality. They broadened the scope of the conversation beyond technical aspects to include social, legal, and ethical considerations. The comments also emphasized the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation and context-specific approaches in addressing these complex challenges.

How can the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance be preserved and strengthened at national and regional levels if the global IGF were to be suspended or significantly changed?

speaker

Lito Ibarra

explanation

This is important to ensure continued dialogue and collaboration on internet governance issues in Latin America and the Caribbean, even if global structures change.

What are the specific implementation challenges for the Global Digital Compact and how can they be addressed while maintaining core internet governance principles?

speaker

Rodrigo de la Parra

explanation

Understanding these challenges is crucial for effectively implementing the GDC while preserving the multi-stakeholder model and other key principles.

How can Latin American and Caribbean countries better coordinate their positions and contributions to global internet governance processes like WSIS+20?

speaker

Rodrigo de la Parra

explanation

Improved regional coordination could strengthen the voice and influence of LAC countries in shaping global internet governance.

What are the most effective strategies for improving digital literacy and awareness of online risks like grooming among parents, educators, and children in Latin America?

speaker

José Rojas

explanation

This is critical for protecting children from online exploitation and ensuring safe use of technology.

How can policies and infrastructure development be tailored to address the significant disparities in internet access and use between urban and rural indigenous communities?

speaker

Camilo Aratia

explanation

Addressing these disparities is essential for ensuring equitable digital inclusion of indigenous populations.

What are the best practices for fostering cooperation and clear role definition among the various institutions involved in Brazil’s cybersecurity framework?

speaker

Thais Aguiar

explanation

Improving institutional cooperation is key to developing a more effective and cohesive national cybersecurity strategy.

How can the Trust Editor tool be further developed and implemented to effectively combat misinformation while respecting journalistic integrity and freedom of expression?

speaker

Soledad Arenguez

explanation

Balancing technological solutions for misinformation with fundamental press freedoms is crucial for maintaining trust in media.

What ethical guidelines and regulatory frameworks are needed to ensure responsible adoption of generative AI in judicial decision-making processes across Latin America?

speaker

Maria Pilar Chorenz

explanation

Developing appropriate guidelines is essential to harness the benefits of AI in the justice system while protecting rights and maintaining public trust.