Day 0 Event #191 High-Level Launch: Advancing Internet Universality 2.0

Summary

This discussion focused on UNESCO’s revised Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) and their role in shaping global digital governance. The panel, comprising experts from various sectors, explored how the updated IUIs can contribute to evidence-based policymaking and address digital inequalities. Key points included the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in implementing the indicators and the need for adaptability to different national contexts.

Panelists emphasized that the IUIs are not meant for ranking countries but rather as a tool for self-assessment and improvement. The revised framework aims to be more streamlined and user-friendly, with fewer questions and indicators. It also incorporates new elements such as environmental sustainability and artificial intelligence considerations.

Challenges in implementing the IUIs were discussed, including data availability issues and the need for meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement. The importance of addressing the digital divide, particularly in developing countries and small island nations, was highlighted. Panelists also stressed the need for the indicators to evolve with technological advancements and emerging governance challenges.

The discussion touched on the role of the private sector in internet governance and the need for accountability in digital development. The potential of the IUIs to uncover issues related to Universal Service and Access Funds was also mentioned. Overall, participants agreed on the value of the IUIs in fostering inclusive digital transformation and informing national and regional internet governance frameworks.

In conclusion, the panel emphasized the transformative potential of the IUIs in shaping an inclusive, rights-respecting, and sustainable digital future. The importance of continued collaboration and adaptation of the framework to address evolving digital challenges was underscored.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The revised UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) framework and its importance for assessing national digital environments

– Challenges in implementing the IUIs, especially for developing countries and small island nations

– The need for multi-stakeholder collaboration and evidence-based policymaking in internet governance

– The role of the private sector and governments in advancing internet access and digital transformation

– Emerging issues like AI that need to be considered in future iterations of the framework

The overall purpose of the discussion was to launch and promote UNESCO’s revised Internet Universality Indicators framework, explaining its importance as a tool for countries to assess their digital environments and develop evidence-based policies for inclusive and sustainable digital transformation.

The tone of the discussion was largely positive and congratulatory, with panelists praising UNESCO’s work on the revised framework. There was a sense of collaboration and shared purpose among the diverse group of stakeholders represented. The tone became more reflective and forward-looking towards the end as participants considered future challenges and opportunities for implementing the IUIs.

Speakers

– Camila Gonzalez: Facilitator/moderator of the session

– David Souter: Managing Director of ICT for Development Associates in the UK, lead researcher and author of the Internet Universality Indicators

– Vinton Cerf: Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google, member of the IGF Leadership Panel

– Anriet Esterhuysen: From South Africa, facilitator of the session, works with the Association for Progressive Communications

– Tawfik Jelassi: Assistant Director General for Communications and Information at UNESCO

– Alexandre Barbosa: Head of the Center of Studies for Information and Communication Technologies in Brazil (CETIC.br)

– Jennifer Bachus: Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy for the US

– Tenanoia Veronica Simona: Chief Executive Officer of Tuvalu Telecommunications Corporation

– Alla Abdulaal: Chief Digital Economy Foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization, based in Saudi Arabia

Additional speakers:

– Jose Fissa: Coordinator of chat with IGF, attending as a reporter

– Aziz Hilali: Professor and former co-chair of ISOC Morocco

– Avice: From Cameroon, representing civil society

UNESCO’s Revised Internet Universality Indicators: A Framework for Global Digital Governance

The discussion focused on UNESCO’s revised Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) and their role in shaping global digital governance. A diverse panel of experts explored how the updated IUIs can contribute to evidence-based policymaking and address digital inequalities worldwide.

Key Features of the Revised IUIs

Tawfik Jelassi, UNESCO’s Assistant Director General for Communications and Information, highlighted that the revised IUIs are more streamlined, accessible, and future-ready. The framework has been updated to address new challenges, including environmental risks and artificial intelligence (AI) considerations. The number of indicators has been reduced from 303 to 125, and questions from 109 to 21, making the framework more user-friendly.

Jelassi introduced the ROAMx framework, which forms the core of the IUIs:

– R: Rights-based approach

– O: Openness

– A: Accessibility

– M: Multi-stakeholder participation

– x: Cross-cutting indicators (including gender equality, children’s rights, sustainable development, and trust and security)

David Souter, the lead researcher and author of the IUIs, emphasized that the revised framework aims to be more practical and easier to implement. Importantly, Jelassi clarified that the IUIs are not intended for ranking countries but rather as a tool for self-assessment and improvement.

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Implementation

A recurring theme was the critical importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in implementing the IUIs and fostering sustainable internet governance. Alexandre Barbosa, Head of CETIC.br in Brazil, shared Brazil’s experience with multi-stakeholder governance, highlighting its success in areas such as domain name management and cybersecurity incident response.

Jennifer Bachus, from the US Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy, emphasized the need for meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, cautioning against tokenistic involvement and stressing the importance of diverse perspectives. Vinton Cerf, Vice President at Google, highlighted the vital role of the private sector in internet implementation and advocated for partnerships with governments.

Challenges in Implementing IUIs

The panel acknowledged several challenges in implementing the IUIs, particularly for developing countries and small island nations:

1. Infrastructure and Capacity Building: Tenanoia Veronica Simona, CEO of Tuvalu Telecommunications Corporation, highlighted the unique challenges faced by small island nations, including high costs of undersea cables, limited infrastructure, and vulnerability to natural disasters. She emphasized the need for affordable satellite solutions and international support.

2. Data Availability: Alexandre Barbosa noted that data availability and quality remain key challenges in many countries, potentially hindering comprehensive assessments.

3. Digital Divide: Aziz Hilali, representing ISOC Morocco, emphasized that the digital divide remains a significant issue, especially in Africa and Arab regions. Tawfik Jelassi later expanded on the multiple dimensions of the digital divide, including access, skills, and content.

4. Affordability: Tenanoia Veronica Simona stressed that the affordability of internet access is a major concern in small island nations.

5. Universal Service and Access Funds: An audience member raised the issue of ineffective Universal Service and Access Funds in many countries. David Souter acknowledged this challenge and suggested that the IUIs could help assess the effectiveness of such funds.

Practical Applications and Impacts of IUIs

Speakers shared examples of how the IUIs have been applied:

– Argentina used the indicators to inform its national digital agenda.

– Senegal incorporated the IUIs into its national digital strategy.

– Brazil leveraged the framework to enhance its multi-stakeholder governance model.

Alaa Abdulaal from the Digital Cooperation Organization highlighted the potential of the IUIs to foster digital cooperation among member states and promote inclusive digital transformation.

Future of IUIs and Global Digital Governance

The discussion touched on the future evolution of the IUIs and their role in global digital governance:

1. Emerging Technologies: Vinton Cerf suggested that the IUIs can help address emerging challenges like AI governance. He mentioned initiatives like the Measurement Lab and Broadband Coalition as relevant to the IUIs’ goals.

2. Balancing Approaches: Jennifer Bachus emphasized the need to strengthen both multilateral and multi-stakeholder efforts in digital governance.

3. Regional Cooperation: Alexandre Barbosa noted that the IUIs could facilitate regional and international cooperation on digital issues, particularly in light of the upcoming WSIS+20 review.

4. Accountability: David Souter raised thought-provoking questions about assessing accountability in complex AI systems, highlighting a significant challenge for future revisions of the IUIs and society as a whole.

Conclusion and Next Steps

The discussion concluded with a strong emphasis on the transformative potential of the IUIs in shaping an inclusive, rights-respecting, and sustainable digital future. Key takeaways included:

1. Encouragement for countries to conduct national digital assessments using the revised IUIs.

2. The need for stakeholders to work on improving data availability and quality for effective implementation.

3. A plan for UNESCO to showcase early results from the implementation of revised IUIs at the next Internet Governance Forum in Norway (May/June 2025).

Tawfik Jelassi closed by reiterating UNESCO’s commitment to addressing all dimensions of the digital divide and ensuring that no one is left behind in the digital age.

It’s worth noting that the session experienced some technical difficulties, which occasionally affected the flow of discussion but did not significantly impede the overall exchange of ideas and information.

DAVID SOUTER: I’m not sure exactly who’s going to kick off the meeting on the site. You’ll find your seat. I’m just trying to get water. You can speak. I’ll follow the order. Yes, we ran about 15 minutes late in the IGFSA meeting, but mostly because of technical problems. So, let me switch it off. I’ve not been following anything this morning. How’s it been going? The opening is tomorrow, isn’t it? The formal opening?

VINTON CERF: That’s right. But there are quite a few meetings today. Of course, here I’m in Washington, D.C., where it’s 06.48 and still dark. Indeed.

DAVID SOUTER: I’m in London, where it’s just coming up to noon. This is only the second of these I’ve missed, actually. But I’m doing the 20-year review for CSGD at the moment. I’m drafting that. Wow. It doesn’t make sense to me to be at both. Anyway, I think I can’t have two U.N. contracts simultaneously.

VINTON CERF: Yes, that’s a challenge. We haven’t figured out how to clone people. However, there’s a science fiction book, I’ll put it in the chat, that actually speaks to that. So, if you happen to want to read about people cloning, that’s an interesting book. I’m guessing we’re… Is our conversation live in the room, or not? That’s a good question, and I don’t know the answer to that. Be discreet.

DAVID SOUTER: Yes. There are people coming into the room, I see.

VINTON CERF: I’m not sure what the mix is of people in person and people online for this meeting. It was about… In the last IGF in Japan, it was… 6,000 in-person and 3,000 remote, I think.

DAVID SOUTER: Yeah, but I mean, I think the problem with those figures is always the extent to which you have people who only come for the opening session.

VINTON CERF: Yeah, correct. Oh, well, that’s a good point.

DAVID SOUTER: We need local people who want to clear for them. I wonder if that’s a typo on the screen where it says height-level launch instead of high-level launch. I think it is. UW is not a reference to the international, but to the world, American radical group from the, what, 1930s that Woody Guthrie was associated with?

VINTON CERF: Oh, yeah, the Wobblies. Indeed. Do you remember the Wobblies? That was all about. Well, that’s weird. So this is an interesting development. If I remember right, the first time UNESCO showed up visibly in an IGF was in Kyoto last year. They’ve always been there.

DAVID SOUTER: I’m thinking back to when I drafted the first IRISA years ago. I think we probably presented them then as well. And Guy Berger used to be there. I used to see Guy Berger at IGF meetings in the past when he was running this art of UNESCO.

VINTON CERF: OK, maybe it wasn’t just as visible. For some reason, it became quite visible. In Kyoto, I think, partly because of the debate about, yeah, there were questions about multi-stakeholder versus multi-lateral and things like that. Okay, they’re asking us to mute. Okay. There’s another one. Oh, there’s another one. Okay. I think good afternoon.

ANRIET ESTERHUISEN: You can hear me. Thanks very much to our tech team, and welcome everyone to this session. We’re about to start. Apologies that we are a little bit late. So my name is Anriet Esterhuisen. I am from South Africa. I am very proud to be facilitating this high-level session, which is also unveiling the UNESCO’s Advanced Internet Universality Indicators. I work with the Association for Progressive Communications as a consultant, and sometimes with other organizations as well. So before we start on this momentous occasion, there’s a lot of work that’s gone into this process, I just wanted to introduce you to our high-level panel. And we’re very honored here to have, and he’ll be our opening speaker, Mr. Taufik Jelassie, who’s the Assistant Director General for Communications and Information at UNESCO. And as I think many of you would know, UNESCO has really been one of the lead UN agencies in the World Summit on Information Society, but also in participating in shaping the IGF. After Mr. Jelassie, we’ll have Mr. Alexander Barbosa, who’s the head of the Center of Studies for Information and Communication Technologies in Brazil, CETIC.br, a very important role that they have played in the revision of the UNESCO Indicator. indicators. We’ll then have online, and if I can just get confirmation, is David online? I’m very happy to welcome Dr. David Souter, who’s the Managing Director of ICT for Development Associates in the UK. And David has been the lead researcher and author in the first version of the Internet Universality Indicators, and now also with the revision. Next we’ll have Ms. Jennifer Bachers, who has just arrived. Welcome, Jennifer. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary from the Bureau of Cyberspace and Digital Policy for the US. Online joining us as well will be Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist at Google. Vint, another lead person who’s been in this space, and a member of the IGF Leadership Panel, in fact the chair of the IGF Leadership Panel. After Vint, we’ll have Ms. Tenanoya Veronica Simona over there, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Tuvalu Telecommunications Corporation. And then, last but not least, next to me, Alaa, Chief Digital, Alaa Abdullalal, and Chief of Digital Economy Foresight at the Digital Cooperation Organization, based in Saudi Arabia, but the Digital Cooperation Organization, I think you work in 16 different countries around the world. So, welcome to our panel. And now, to get us started and to add some welcoming remarks to this high-level session, on behalf of UNESCO, I’m going to give the floor to Mr. Jelassi. And I think, Mr. Jelassi, if you can also tell us, after you’ve made the welcoming remarks, why is UNESCO doing this work on the IUIs?

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you very much, Henriette. Distinguished panelists, esteemed participants, colleagues, and France. Good afternoon to all of you. Can you hear me? Apparently, you can. Excellent. Sorry for being a few minutes late. I just arrived from Paris. So, this is fresh from the oven, whatever I’m going to say. I’m very pleased to welcome you to this session, which is very important for us, since we are going to unveil the revised Internet Universality Indicators of UNESCO. And we’ll tell you more about it, including answering your question, Henriette, why we embarked on this effort a couple of years ago. For UNESCO, this initiative reaffirms our vision of a digital future which is anchored in human rights, in openness, in accessibility, and in ensuring a multi-stakeholder participation. This milestone would not have been possible without the invaluable contributions of many individuals and organizations, which I would like now to recognize. First, the Brazilian Network Information Center, NIC.br, and its Regional Center for Studies on the Development of the Information Society, that is CETIC.br. Their expertise has been very valuable for us at UNESCO. And I would like to acknowledge here Mr. Alexander Barbosa, who is in charge, who is the head of CETIC. He’s seated on my left. And also Mr. Fabio Senni, who is in the audience, and who was seconded to us at UNESCO for quite a long period of time to specifically work on the revised Internet Universality Indicators. I would like also to acknowledge the contribution of David Souter, who was the architect of the initial version of the indicators and is now, is it working? Okay. And also was very much involved in the revised framework. I would like also to acknowledge the contribution of the IUI Steering Committee and Dynamic Coalition, which both provided us with valuable guidance to ensure that the revised framework of the indicators addresses today’s challenges. I would like also to thank our host country, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for making this session possible and for their hospitality at this year’s IGF. And finally I would like to acknowledge the IGF Secretariat for its enduring partnership, which has been a cornerstone of UNESCO initiatives, including the IUI framework and its revision. Ladies and gentlemen, as we know, the Internet has democratized access to information, has involved people from all over the world, and for us it’s a way of implementing the principle of leaving no one behind. However, as we know, in spite of the democratization of access to information, the Internet created some disparities, not only between countries, but within countries as well, and has introduced new challenges, among which, of course, the digital divide, but not only. As the UN Secretary General, Mr. Antonio Guterres, reminded us He said, the future of digital must be human-centered. We all share this statement, this principle, and as we’ll see in a few minutes, the revised IUI indicators wholeheartedly embrace this principle. I mentioned the ROAMx framework which encapsulates this vision and the pillars of the ROAMx for those who may not be very familiar with it. The R in ROAM stands for Human Rights Based Approach and this includes, of course, freedom of expression, data privacy, dignity, gender equality. The O of the framework stands for openness, ensuring that information flows freely, without barriers and without silos. The A stands for Accessibility, as I said, very much to ensure an equitable internet access. And the M stands for Multi-Stakeholder Participation in order to foster transparent and inclusive decision-making. I said it’s ROAMx, the X stands for cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, trust, security, sustainable development and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence. You may know that to date, over 40 countries worldwide have used the UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators to conduct national assessments and the latest, I would say, Argentina, Senegal. And I would like to mention here the impact of these national digital assessments using our framework and the Romex indicators. In Argentina, as an example, the findings from the assessment have empowered the IUI research team to draft a proposed law aiming at addressing critical gaps in the country’s data protection framework. So again, this is one of the tangible outcomes of the IUI-based national digital assessment. In Senegal, the assessment facilitated the implementation of the country’s 2025 digital strategy and its high-speed national plan. Now to answer Amria’s question, why did we revise the framework, obviously we wanted to make the framework relevant, to make it adaptive, future-ready, we wanted to integrate key insights and lessons that we have learned from the 40 implementations around the world. This is very important for us, but we also wanted the revised indicators to enhance accessibility and ease of use to accelerate stakeholder adoption and implementation of the Romex. Let me just conclude here by saying that the revised framework also is aligned with the Global Digital Compact and the Pact of the Future, which were adopted, as you know, last summer, and the revised framework is now more streamlined with 63% fewer questions to answer in the survey and 56% fewer indicators to use. This makes the revised framework both comprehensive and accessible. I think I’ll stop here, Ariet, and give you the floor back. Thank you very much, Tawfiq. I do want to ask you one follow-up question, but particularly because I think we might have people in the room who are not that familiar with the indicators. But if I am from a country in the global south, we have very little bandwidth, very little internet access. Should we be worried about using the indicators? Will we find ourselves in some kind of ranking, where we would perhaps look as if we are not performing well? Is that something I should be scared of, or is that not something that the indicators will do? That is not something that the indicators will do, for a simple reason. UNESCO has been around for 80 years, has never done any comparative studies nor rankings of member states. So we are not in the business of rankings. The indicators are meant to be a guidance to our member states to conduct a national digital assessment, but not to compare countries, and certainly not to rank them.

AUDIENCE: Thanks so much for emphasizing that. I think it’s one of the reasons why the indicators are not just a powerful tool, but an empowering tool. David, are you ready? Are you online? Can you hear me? David, can you tell us, is David able to speak? I just want to check that I can hear you. Excellent, good. David, what is new in this revised internet universality framework? Taufik outlined very clearly why it was done, and also that it’s going to be much easier to use. But from your perspective, what is new? What do you feel are the key trends and challenges that was identified across the global IUI assessment process that informed this revision?

DAVID SOUTER: OK, so let me say something first about some issues, and then also something about the experience of research. and using the IOIs over the last eight years or so. I’m currently working on the 20-year review of the World Summit for the UN’s Commission on Science and Technology for Development. So that means I’m very conscious of the pace and the extent of change we’ve seen in digital development over the last 20 years, but particularly the acceleration of that growth in pace and extent of change in the last eight years or so since the original IOIs were published. And it was always intended that the first framework would be revised in time in line with what was happening in the digital environment and with the experience of researchers. So in this last eight years, we’ve seen really dramatic changes in each part of the Romex framework, from new trends, new challenges, which needed to be addressed within the indicators and the questions that frame them. So the enjoyment of rights online, for example, that’s been profoundly affected by issues concerned with information integrity or with platform regulation, the exploitation of personal data. The openness of the internet and open technology and resources has been amplified by the way in which technology and services have diversified. What we mean by access, the A in the framework, is much more concerned now with affordable connectivity and usage and, indeed, with impact of new technologies. And I think the multi-stakeholder context has also become much more diverse because digital resources now have great impact in every area of our economy, societies, and cultures, every aspect of sustainable development, and require input from those whose expertise lies not in digital resources themselves, but in those other areas of public policy and life. Much more attention is being paid now than was the case 10 years ago to gender equity, children’s rights. opportunities in welfare too, I think have been greatly enhanced by, the discussion of them has been greatly enhanced by General Comment 25 to the Children’s Rights Convention. So all of these are themes to which we’ve responded in the IUI revision, bringing them more to the fore. The ATG mentioned two trends in particular that we have especially sought to address, which, because they have greatly increased in importance, we’ve given them much more substance in the new framework. One of those is environmental risks. The environmental problems associated with digital development, as well as opportunities, are now much better understood than they were, concerned with energy consumption, with climate change, with waste, and that’s led to a much greater understanding of the need for a more circular approach to the literal economy. So that’s now incorporated within the X category in a way that it wasn’t before. And also there, one, artificial intelligence and other frontier technologies present great opportunities for digital development. They also present serious new challenges of governance arising from uncertainty and risk, which needs to be assessed within any thinking about the national internet environment. So all of those elements feature in the evolution of digital policies. They feature in the Pact for the Future, in the Global Digital Compact. They will feature in the BUSES First 20 review and the review of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2030. And clearly, they needed to feature in the IUIs as well. I could just say something as well about why we revised the structure in response to experience. I think it’s important that the framework is used to analyse the national internet environment, not just to tick boxes about particular indicators. And it’s important that it leads to recommendations that are feasible and can be put into practice by governments and other stakeholders, rather than simply speculating on what would be desirable in a perfect environment. So we’ve given more prominence to a couple of things. in the framework too, specific questions that should be addressed in the work of the research teams and of their multistakeholder advisory boards. The reports which are generated from these studies, they should respond to these specific questions above all, they should assess how the indicators relate to them, and they should make recommendations for ways in which the recommended supports can be advanced through changes that can practically be made to the national internet environment. And the other point, as David, you mentioned, is this was a substantial framework. Sorry, David, can you just pause? There’s interference, is everyone else hearing the interference as well? David, just pause a second, I just want to ask our tech support to check into that. Is it fixed, the interference? Great. It’s Vint Cerf and I’m not hearing any interference on the Zoom link. Thanks Vint, it’s obviously just those of us in the room. David, try again. Can you speak, David? Okay, there’s still interference. Try now, David. I’m afraid the noise is still there. I’m just asking if we can have, maybe there’s a phone or a mic, if that mic can be off. It’s crackling as well. David, try again. Okay, we still have interference. issue here and Tatevic can I ask you to just check with our tech team if they can fix this problem and David I think you should continue and I just apologize to everyone in the room for the noise on the line but hopefully it will be fixed please go ahead at least the remote participants are on not experiencing it go ahead David so those are the two main aspects that we felt from the experience of researchers needed to be amended they’re not particularly surprising I hope that they make the tools even more effective than they’ve been in the past so that’s all that I was going to say and there’s something more about the way the revision was done and about how the indicators can most effectively be used and I will pause I will stop there and hope that the rest is fine

Camila Gonzalez: thanks David and I’m happy to report that the interference on the on the reception has gone as well so and I reserve the right to come back not to cross-examine you but to ask you another question at a later stage but now let’s move on to to Alexander Barbosa from CETEC and what do you I mean in your experience Alexander you were involved in the initial development you’ve applied the indicators in Brazil and you’ve been part of the revision process. How do you feel that the revised IUIs can transform and advance national internet development and governance, particularly from the perspective of evidence-based policymaking and coming up with those kind of tailored policy recommendations, like the example Taufik gave us from Argentina? Tell us more.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you very much, Andrette, and good afternoon, everyone. Well, let me start by thanking Mr. ADG Taufik Jalassi for inviting me to this panel. And it was an honor for me to be part of the steering committee of the Internet Universality Indicators. And I have to tell you, Taufik, that your leadership and also Cedric’s and Taufik’s was really instrumental for this revision. It was one year of hard work of many actors revising this BROMEX framework and the set of Internet Universality Indicators. But if you allow me, I would like to go back in history to 2013 in the IGF in Bali, Indonesia, when UNESCO, along with NIC.br and LACNIC, we decided to fund a paper on the concept of Internet Universality. And after that year, we had into 2014 the NetMundial in Brazil, and we at NIC.br conducted two national and regional consultation to refine the concept and the framework. And after that, in 2015, we have conducted the first pilot of the indicators that gave us insights for the last revision. And David was really amazing by revising it. revising and putting all those indicators together, and the conceptual framework and everything. And in 2019, UNESCO published the first IUI report with the data from Brazil. So it was a real honor for us. And since then, many countries, as you said, ADG, more than 40 countries have published already a national assessment. And this gave us a lot of insights for this revision. And now going to your questions, Henriette, I would like to highlight four key points in my personal opinion that’s on the importance on how the revised UIS can transform and advance national internet development and governance. And I would like to emphasize the following points. First, I think that it was already been said by Henriette, internet universality indicators empower countries to adopt evidence-based policymaking by providing actionable data and diagnostic tool. This is the most powerful thing. We are not talking about ranking, but about assessment. And governments can identify gaps and strength in their internet ecosystem, ranging from digital inclusion to data protection and so many other aspects and dimensions of these ecosystems. And of course, allows a country to develop policies that directly address these findings from those national assessments. For instance, just to give you an example, the indicators can highlight disparities in internet access among marginalized groups or region, prompting target interventions to bridge the digital divide. I would say that more than that, the assessments offer a structured approach to evaluate the impact of policies over time, enabling continuous refinement and empowerment. So I think this is the first key important aspect on the how. The second point, in my opinion, is that the indicators facilitate tailored policy recommendations by aligning national priorities with international frameworks like the Sustainable Development Goals. This is a very important aspect. The revised IUI integrates lessons from global applications, as was already mentioned. A huge number of countries have already applied this assessment, and those lessons learned ensure their relevance across diverse contexts. And we, in this revision, took into consideration the past experience of those countries made in the assessment. And I would say that this adaptability allows policymakers to customize their use, whether focusing on enhancing data privacy laws, or fostering innovation, or promoting digital literacy. So one example from my country, Brazil, the application of this assessment in the country was able to flag very important aspects of this ecosystem. I’m not going into the detail, but for instance, the need to improve rural internet access. We had a long debate on community networks, and how to bridge the gap in rural areas, and also the establishment of the legal framework for personal data protection. And after this assessment, three years later, Brazil approved the national law on personal data protection. Another important point… on the how, is that the IUI strengthens multi-stakeholder collaboration as a cornerstone of sustainable Internet governance. So the multi-stakeholder dimension is really a key aspect of this framework. And by doing so, representatives from civil society, academia, private sector, government, this framework really fosters consensus-driven strategies that reflect diverse perspectives and interests. This is a very important point. And this multi-stakeholder approach ensures that policies are not only inclusive, but also rooted in practical and cross-sectoral expertise. And finally, my last point is that the IUI serves as a catalyst for regional and international cooperation. We have been seeing this in Latin America. We have helped many countries in the region to conduct their national assessment and collaboration was key in this regard. And countries can share best practices and align their strategy with global standards, fostering a collective effort to address shared challenges. For instance, the indicators can help neighboring countries in Latin America develop a harmonized approach to close the digital gaps, and more recently, to adopt best practices to measure the new concept of meaningful connectivity. This is really a key aspect that I would like to highlight. So in conclusion, I would say that the revised IUI offers an invaluable roadmap for advancing regional Internet development and governance. And by supporting evidence-based policymaking and providing tailored recommendations, the framework empowers… countries to create a more inclusive, rights-respecting and resilient digital ecosystem. So it was really a great pleasure to work with all of you in the steering committee and to produce this new revised version that we have some copies here, so for those willing to have a physical copy you can take after the panel. Thank you so much. Thanks Alexandre. Just a follow-up question on this. Now

Camila Gonzalez: UNESCO and CETIC consulted very widely in the process of this revision, so this was not a desk-based exercise, it was based on talking to people that have used the indicators and also getting input from others. Are there any particular insights or regional perspectives that you came across in the revision process that influenced this redesign of the indicators? Is there anything that stood out for you from the consultation process? Yes, it is important to mention that besides conducting a new round of consultations we also, UNESCO, sent out a survey for those countries that had already conducted the assessment and the result of this survey was very insightful for the process, because one issue was that the questionnaire, the number of indicators was too long, so it was an opportunity to review this set of questions and indicators. And more than that, in the X dimension we were able to really consider new dimensions like sustainable development, gender, so this was a really insightful process and as UNESCO is a very transparent type of organization, we took into account their voice from regions and from countries. Thanks very much for that, Alexandre. I’m just checking, I also have the Zoom on my phone here, so I’m also checking what’s happening online. But now that you’ve heard more about the indicators and about the revision, are there any questions or comments? And I also want to invite all the other panelists, including those online, if you have any additional remarks or questions in this first segment before we move on to our next part. The next part of the session is going to really look at the future of the IUIs and how we see the IUIs playing a key role in global digital governance. But the floor is now open. If you’re in the room, raise your hand. If you’re online, raise your virtual hand. I see… I don’t see the online hands. Tatevic, is there someone online? I can’t hear you, I’m afraid. Who’s there? It’s a question for David. So, David, can you… I’m sure you’ve read it, but I’m going to read it out for everyone in the room. And for David Souter, it’s from Susanna Naranjo. In your view, how do the IUIs stay adaptable to future technological and policy challenges while maintaining their core principles? David, are you happy to take that on?

DAVID SOUTER: Yes, sure. I think… So, one of the things is that, as I said at the beginning, it was always the intention to revise these indicators after a number of years in order to respond specifically to developments that were taking place. The developments that take place within the digital sector are particularly problematic because they’re very difficult to anticipate. If you look back at the World Summit 20 years ago, there was very little said then about mobility because that was not seen at the time as being a particularly important dimension of the future development of the digital world, of the information society. Well, clearly, that was one of the most stark. And many of the technologies and services we have now, but most of them really, were simply not anticipated at that time. So, these changes are dramatic and there needs to be a response to them. I think I’d say two things. This isn’t meant to be a rigid framework. It is meant to be a framework that is for the use of people within their particular environments. And so, the… teams and the multi-stakeholder advisory boards that assist them in each country should be thinking about what is specifically important to their country, how do these questions relate to their country. The meaning of that is different within every country as it is and it’s also gained adaptation that one might need here is twofold. I think every few years, maybe five years, maybe a little longer, it’s important for UNESCO to reflect on these indicators again and how they might evolve, perhaps next time after the SDG review in 2030, but it’s also important for those dealing with them, those using them in individual countries to think of the adaptations that are needed to interpret those principles and those questions for their own country and their own time.

AUDIENCE: Thanks for that, David. Is there bad audio again? Is it better? Great. I do have a question and you know and I want you to it’s it’s I can anyone on the panel can can respond to that David yourself as well and what about data sources? Have you found that in some of the countries where the indicators have been applied that actually getting the data to respond to those questions and analyze, do the kind of analysis that you’re talking about, has that been a challenge and and if it has been a challenge, how has that evolved over time and and what have you found as effective ways of responding to that challenge? So I’m not sure David or Alexandra if you want to to respond to that. David, Alexandra is going to respond first and then you can add. Thank you for this question. This is a key issue in the assessment. We need data availability. And we know that in many countries we still have a data gap for many indicators. In case of Brazil, we have the privilege of having a very rich data sets for many, many years. But what we have been seeing in countries that when the data is not available, countries have to go to more official type of data source from the International Telecommunication Union or World Bank or OECD, which is a secondary data source. And of course, in terms of collecting primary data, the interviews that we have conducted with the key actors in these ecosystems from different segments, not only government, of course, but academia, private sector and civil society, is really key. So it is very important that the multi-stakeholder advisory board really have the domain and can lead the data collection, not only using already existing data sets, but also going through new data collections. David, did you want to add on data?

DAVID SOUTER: Yes, I will. I think it’s one of the ironies, isn’t it, of the digital revolution, that we have, in fact, inadequate data to assess how the digital revolution is actually going. I think, so, I mean, firstly, one of the reasons why there were so many indicators in the first framework is actually addressing this particular problem. It was trying to give options that researchers could use within the particular question that they were looking at to find evidence. And essentially, the data that aren’t in there, adequate in many different contexts, and therefore researchers have to make the best use of what is available. That includes using assessments which are qualitative rather than quantitative, so considering the authoritative sources which might be available, the expertise which might be available, to fill in those gaps as credibly as possible. And also I think at the end of the day it’s really important among the recommendations that are coming out of these responses, coming out of these reports, that a part of that, some of those recommendations are about the ways in which the data gathering, data analysis framework needs to be improved within the countries, because good data are essential for good policymaking. Thanks,

Camila Gonzalez: thanks for that, David. Vint, I’m very happy to see a hand in our virtual room. You have the floor.

VINTON CERF: Thank you so much, Annemarie. I just wanted to draw attention to two activities in the US that might be of interest with regard to metrics. One of them is called the Measurement Lab. It’s part of an organization called Code for Science and Society. Google is one of the members among many. It’s a data collection effort to create open source data of performance of the Internet. There is continued development of new measurement tools and metrics in order to understand the quality of service that’s provided. For a long time bandwidth was the big kahuna, but now people are worried about latency and other things. So I would urge people to have a look at the Measurement Lab or MLab online to see whether there’s open data there they could find useful and also perhaps participate. The second activity is called the Broadband Coalition at the Marconi Society, and that’s a regular meeting. people who are concerned about getting broadband access in the rural parts of the U.S. into operation. And many of you will be aware of a major $42 billion effort to make broadband Internet access available in the rural parts of the U.S. So I just draw those attention I draw these to your attention because they are very much relevant to the metrics that you’ve been developing.

Camila Gonzalez: Thanks for Vint. And those are really good examples as well because I think it illustrates how the multi-stakeholder approach that the indicators deploy allows you to source metrics from your national statistical agencies but also metrics that are generated by other stakeholder groups or other sectors. And I don’t see any hands in the room. No one wants to ask a question. Is it too noisy here? And I don’t see any other hands online. So is there a question in the chat? No, I think we’ve covered everything so far. So let’s move on to the second part of our session and listen to more of our fantastic speakers. Just to look a bit more towards the future now and the role of the IUIs in this evolving landscape of global digital governance. Jennifer, I’m going to start with you. What is your view? How do you think evidence-based policy can inform the development of national digital policies to address tech inequalities and governance challenges? And I’m going to add a little bit of a more provocative question as well if I’m allowed to. Do you feel that evidence-based policy always comes naturally to governments or is there also sometimes a process there too that has to be undertaken in a collaborative, consultative way just to demonstrate and convince policymakers of the value of evidence-based policy?

Jennifer Bachus: I think this is working, yes. So my team gave me a great answer but I’m gonna riff a little on your question and thanks for including us here today and you know as since the US rejoined UNESCO we have really been thrilled to be collaborating and working with you and your colleagues on a whole range of issues that we find incredibly important. So I should say I have been in the US government for I’m coming up on 27 years and let me tell you this question around data-driven policymaking has taken off probably in the last 15 to 20 years but it’s really challenging. I think you’ve got to start with the idea that what’s the metric you use right I like to give the example I was I don’t know 20 years ago or so I was working in our embassy in Vietnam as the econ and labor officer and we were supposed to determine whether or not you know what was the metric we’re gonna use on the state of labor relations in Vietnam and they said okay well if you have more demonstrations more labor actions is that a good thing or a bad thing and I’m an economic person so I was like more labor actions means it’s a bad thing because it means that labor feels unhappy and the political officers were like no it’s a good thing because it means they can go and they can demonstrate and they can have their their point of view heard. So in many worlds actually trying to figure out how to judge these issues is really difficult as policymakers. Now luckily for us on some of these issues it’s actually quite easy what percent of the population is connected that one I feel like is pretty is pretty good but there are always going to be indicators that are probably going to be a little bit more fraught on what you’re trying to achieve right so I think first of all we should all strive for data-driven decision-making it’s something the US government has really embraced over the last 20 years but we also need to recognize that there’s going to be there’s going to be some tensions between you know, what data are we looking for? Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? How can we continue to try to strive towards reaching these outcomes that we want? Because the thing is, again, I am clearly a career bureaucrat. I haven’t worked in the private sector, but having worked with lots of bosses who have, they always say to me like, okay, but like, I got to get to understand what the return on investment is. If I’m going to spend X amount of money to connect it, am I getting my money’s worth? Like, where is the return on investment and how can we demonstrate our share, which is as taxpayers, that it is worth it? We are going in and out, I apologize for that. I promise it’s not me. I know. I do want to spend a couple of other things on some of the ideas they have written in here. So, you know, we think it’s incredibly important to have an affirmative vision for how digital technologies are working together. Part of the affirmative vision is the idea of connecting the unconnected, of trying to bring digital development to the world and doing so in a multi-stakeholder point of view. And I think, I also was very much struck by Vince’s comment about the indicators that can come from the private sector. We, the US government, can say we believe we have this percent of the population connected, but we need to double track that if you’re talking about the US approach, by talking to US telecommunications providers and US civil society and others who are going to say, well, you think it’s this percent, but you’re missing, you’ve got this over here on the left, and you need to look at that. We think about trying to analyze. You need to get as many data sources as possible and then recognize that sometimes those data sources are, in fact, going to disagree with each other, and then you have to figure out a way to reconcile them. Now, all of that is messy and time-consuming. but I think does have to be our ultimate goal as we look at these indicators. So, hopefully I answered your question. I think I missed a lot of things that my team wanted me to say, so if you come back around, I’ll see what I was supposed to say.

Camila Gonzalez: I will definitely come back around to you. And thanks for that response, because I think you really cut to why this is so challenging, and I don’t think we should pretend that it’s not. But Vin, do you want to build on that, actually? Jennifer talked about the perspective, the value that the private sector brings to this kind of process. What do you see as the role that tech companies, and specifically, but the private sector at large, can bring to this approach, advancing these kind of principles, but also addressing this issue of data-driven, evidence-based policymaking?

VINTON CERF: So, first of all, data-driven policymaking is really smart. I mean, any business model that you want to put together, really needs to be based on data, otherwise you’re just flying blind. So I’m a huge fan of data collection and analysis. In Google, of course, we believe that numbers count, and gathering data to guide our policies is absolutely essential. So I’m a big fan of measurement, and I’d like to congratulate UNESCO on its further evolution of the IUI framework. I wanted to just make a comment about metrics for a second, because it’s one thing to measure things like data rates and latency and so on, but there are some other very important things that determine whether something’s useful or not. One of them is availability. Is it reliably there all the time when you need it? Can you actually afford it, which is a major issue? And is it fit for purpose? That is to say, do its parametric performance values actually serve the applications that the users want? And I would argue that, as you… move around the world you find people using different applications requiring different kinds of performance. Reliability and resilience are equally important because if it’s not there when you need it, then it doesn’t serve your needs. And I would include one other possible metric. I’m not sure how you would do this, but I wonder if accountability is an important component of the utility of the Internet. We know that there are harmful behaviors on the net and we wonder about how to hold parties accountable. I have no idea whether that’s a metric that you can measure, but it certainly is something that should be concerned about. Am I assuming that we’re moving into my more general presentation, Henriette, or am I just responding to your immediate question?

Camila Gonzalez: I think that, you know, I think you’re responding to my immediate question, but I think if you have time, now would be a good time if you wanted to make some broader inputs as well. So please go ahead. I do want to come back though. I’m going to, while you do that, I’m going to alert David and Alexandra to your question about accountability. And Vint has just, I think, put a very important challenge on the table. Can you measure accountability? How do you measure it? It, of course, has many dimensions, but perhaps you can think about it and after Vint has gone again, you can come back and tell us the extent to which the indicators at present tries to and deal with this question of accountability. But back to you, Vint.

VINTON CERF: Thank you so much, Henriette. So I will continue more broadly. I want to talk a bit about private sector because that’s where a great deal of the Internet access is implemented. Certainly at Google, we invest very heavily in international subsea cable networks, our land-based cable networks, and of course our data centers and all of the communications that are required to support them, plus interconnection to the public Internet. in order to allow users to get to our data and computing capabilities. So we make, as do others in the private sector, major investments that enable people to make use of the Internet and the kinds of applications that it can support. Certainly another element here in terms of metrics and investment is Internet exchange points that allow the various networks of the Internet to interconnect efficiently with each other. And I’m sure many of the countries that are concerned about connectivity have made a point of at least measuring, if not also investing, in Internet exchange points to facilitate interconnection and resilience. There are other ways in which the private sector can contribute. One of them is open source, and we’re big fans of that at Google. Much of our software is available through open source, and it is an enabler for others to take advantage of that work and to build upon it. We also provide broad platforms like large language models for artificial intelligence and machine learning applications that, again, let other people build on top of those frontier models. We’re also big fans of open research, that is to say sharing what we’ve discovered and what we’ve learned. We’re also very active, as you know, in the Internet Governance Forum and the national and regional Internet Governance Forums because those are places where information about the metrics that you have developed can be disseminated and perhaps also feedback can be obtained from the measurements that are made. We’re active in standards as well, and I think those are other equally enabling mechanisms that make the Internet more useful for everyone. I could go on and on here, but I won’t. I will say, though, that… And with regard to accessibility, this is a space where the private sector has made significant contributions, not only at Google where we’re very focused on captions and translation of languages from one to another. Others have made significant investments, Microsoft and Apple, for example, in terms of accessibility. These are really fundamental to making the Internet useful for everyone, which of course is one of UNESCO’s primary objectives. I will say, however, that I don’t quite know what to say about artificial intelligence and the IUIs. I think we’re not clear yet what to measure about an artificial intelligence application to tell us whether it’s working well or not. So there’s still some, I think, work to be done to figure out how we assess artificial intelligence. And if it becomes increasingly central to the applications that we all use, I suspect that there has to be some further discussion within the UNESCO context about how we measure the utility and safety of the artificial intelligence applications that are emerging. So I’ll stop there. I’m sure you’ve got other questions and more for the rest of the panel.

Camila Gonzalez: Thanks for that, Vint. And I think if I recall actually what the revision of the IUIs does, it’s actually, it’s not overly ambitious. I think it’s actually asking countries to assess, are they at least talking about the challenges related to AI? So rather than having a finite measuring framework there, I think it is actually just giving those country teams the opportunity to have that conversation that you just opened. But now I want to move to Tenanoia from Tuvalu, from the Tuvalu Telecoms Corporation, because Tuvalu has applied the indicators. And I want to ask you, what are the challenges, particularly for a small island developing state which already has so many internet-related challenges? What challenges do you feel you face in internet governance? Reflecting on your experience… of applying the IUIs in Tuvalu. Can the framework provide solutions? Do you think it can? Do you feel it has? Just give us your insights based on your

Tenanoia Veronica Simona: experience. Thank you so much for the for the question. I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for the opportunity to participate and include our small Pacific Island countries in this assessment and it’s it’s it’s really great to have the people from UNESCO visit our small island state. Thank you. Looking at Tuvalu’s digital development journey really it reflects both the aspirations and challenges of small island nation in advancing IUIs within a unique socio-economic and geographic context. So let me just give you a little bit of the Tuvalu digital development journey. Our journey is forward-looking towards digital transformation. It’s shaped basically by the geographic isolation, limited infrastructure, vulnerability to climate change, and I think David mentioned that as well. But despite these challenges Tuvalu has enhanced and embraced a digital digitalization as part of its digital nation initiative. And the initiative really involves building digital twins, deploying modern telecommunication infrastructure, and and also implementing service like you know we are very disadvantaged from fintech solutions. It really aims to enhance connectivity and foster economic inclusion from our perspective. But I think this development reflects a commitment to more like leveraging digital tools like this, frameworks, to overcome the structural limitation and strengthen governance, education, and public service delivery. Coming to the question of challenge, small island nations like Tuvalu face very, very unique challenges in internet governance, which I would like to highlight a few. One of which is the big challenge is infrastructure constraints, in a sense that high cost of undersea cables, and I’m happy to say that my nation Tuvalu just landed the first submarine cable just a couple of days ago, and I thank the help from giant companies like Google, Vint, and your team for getting us connected to the entire world. And also with these challenges, the constraint of limited capacity for fiber deployment, given that the structure and geographic landscape of our islands are very remote and isolated, so the deployments can be very costly. And we, before that cable land, we depend 100% on satellite connectivity, so we are left out from the opportunity, you know, on advancement in technology. One of the other limitation that I think we highlighted in the assessment that we did is, because we are very small economies, we struggle to attract private investment in digital infrastructure, and we really rely heavily on development aids. The other important challenge that I want to highlight is capacity building. We have very limited technical expertise because of our isolated islands, and we are very far from the world with advanced technology, and given that we are now connected to the internet through cable, this will enable us, you know, to get those capacity built at the very rapid rate. One of the major challenge in the Pacific Island countries is the fragmented and underdeveloped regulatory frameworks, which makes it very difficult to ensure… things like cyber security, data protection, and basically competition. The other factor that really takes into account when it comes to internet governance is the environmental risks. We are very vulnerable as small island state to natural disasters because it disrupts connectivity and also it strains our ability to recover from those disasters. And so bridging the digital divide in remote islands and remote communities, ensuring affordable internet access, it’s still remain more like a persistent issue. So your question, the next part of your question asks if we consider this as a solution for the IUI framework. Well it provides, it offers quite a number of solutions from the perspective of assessment and benchmarking because it identifies the gaps in how we access the infrastructure, the skills and content of how we prioritize our interventions and also localize solutions. And I think adapting to global best practices to the specific needs and reality of small island nation is very important because we can contextualize what we need. From a policy guidance perspective, I think the framework really offers their governance, like a recommending governance structure that foster equitable access, I would say, and sustainability and resilience. Coming back to capacity building, I think this framework kind of give, like highlights the need for partnerships and training our programs to build that technical expertise at the local context, at the local level. My last point that I wanted to, like, the framework offers is the facilitating of collaboration in terms of funding availability, given our small context with international, say, donors and development agency, because it addresses the financial constraint that we have as small Pacific Island countries. Thank you.

Camila Gonzalez: Thanks, Thien-Hanoi. I think those are really good responses, because I would imagine that when you face so many different challenges, going through this national process, which allows, or also perhaps forces you to… I can’t hear myself, but I assume it’s working. And I think I really… I think what you said there is that it… And I think this is… I would… I mean, I’ve been close enough to the IUIs to say this is part of their design, that the IUIs are designed in such a way that you build to do the measurement and the analysis can also evolve into partnerships for collaboration around addressing those challenges. And I think you’ve just said that so well. I want to move on now to Alain. You work in digital cooperation for digital inclusion in 16 different countries. You haven’t used the IUIs yet, but you’re engaging with it now, and you’re thinking about it. How do you, at this point, see the IUIs facilitating and supporting the kind of multi-stakeholder collaboration that you’re already working with in those 16 countries?

ALLA ABDULAAL: Hello, everyone. Thank you. I’m very honored to be here on this panel. And I would like, first of all, to congratulate UNESCO for the launch of the new IUI. I think it’s a very amazing step to have that reviewed because we are in an era where everything is accelerating very quickly, and digitalization is affecting and impacting the transformation of countries. So it is very important always to stop, reflect, and engage, and always update all the measurements and frameworks that we are building. The digital cooperation organization, I think what we are trying to achieve through the IUIs and what is really aligned with what UNESCO, as an organization, is trying to do is to bridge the digital divide, to have a framework that will help and support countries to assess where they stand, to understand their current state, and build actionable solutions and plans. And even us as a digital cooperation organization, we have recently launched our digital economy navigator, which focuses on the digital economy from a maturity perspective. Again, we are moving towards using the same approach, which is a database of different indicators. It’s very aligned with what UNESCO is trying to do with the IUIs. I really see the point where it’s very important for us when we are trying to build collaboration is to have the right data in place, to have it built upon those different indicators. And this is why I believe with this framework that even the new one with the IOIs, I think it will really provide targeted plans for countries, not only to understand where they are, but even to, and it was mentioned by one of the panelists, to look at what is the return of investment, to measure what is being really impacted. So when you sit there and start creating initiatives or even change policies that are based on data, this will really help you measure how much you are progressing, because it’s not just random. It’s not just putting plans in place, but actually building those plans on existing data, on a unified framework, where not only one country is looking at it, but a list of countries having the same direction, having the same vision that they want to accomplish. And then, also, it’s very important, which is mentioned, share the lessons and the experience between those countries, again, based on a well-established framework. For all the countries to have that unified vision is a very, I believe, it’s an accomplishment by itself. And not only from a country perspective, but as we mentioned, it’s a stakeholder, a multi-stakeholder aspect. To have also the academia, to have the private sector, to have governments, all of them, looking at the digital divide in the same way, trying to bridge it, trying to address it. This is really a step forward to accelerate that evolution and transformation that we are trying to achieve. It is the right way, it is the fastest way, and I believe it’s the only impactful way for us to move forward. Thank you very much.

Camila Gonzalez: Thanks very much, Hala. And, in fact, as a taxpayer, I consider tax as my form of investment in the public sector, and I ask that question, too. You know, what return of investment do we get from our taxes? So, I think that that approach is as important, perhaps even more so, with public sector investment. And I want to go back to you, Jennifer, seeing as you’re a self-confessed government official. How do you see… I mean, we talk a lot about the multi-stakeholder approach. approach in the IUIs and in the IGF. But do you feel that there’s also a need to strengthen multilateral efforts to use tools such as the IUIs which adopt the multi-stakeholder approach? Do you think there’s enough of a understanding within the intergovernmental space about the value of tools such as this to address these emerging global governance and digital governance challenges? Thanks for the question. I think the reality is is that multilateralism dominate most of our work. I mean, let’s be clear, having negotiated the global digital compact, even though we injected multi-stakeholderism into it, in it and the global digital compact did reinforce the role of multi-stakeholderism, multilateralism is continuing to have a leading role in these issues. And I guess I’m more worried about multi-stakeholderism than I am about multilateralism. I’m worried about, and I looked back notes and it wasn’t in there, but it sparked my mind with the idea of the rights-based, open, accessible to all and nurtured by multi-stakeholder participation. It’s a question of how you evaluate the stakeholder participation. If you consult, is that multi-stakeholder participation? Talk to one civil society organization, is that multi-stakeholder participation? And I think we really need to, when you talk about the quality of data, the reality is you need to be consulting with multiple companies, multiple civil society, multiple academia, and multiple tech communities. And I think that. One of the things we need to think about, and sorry to have ignored your multilateral question because I think that we spend a lot of time on it, but I think the definitions around multi-stakeholderism in a way that’s actually meaningful is something that’s incredibly important and to make sure that the data is not just one company. Because what we find regularly is talking to big tech, we’ll get a different answer than talking to, let’s say, small tech, and talking to civil society based in rural areas is different than talking to civil society based in urban areas. Also, quantity, but a quality, says otherwise, you’re gonna make policies that are not the best and that are potentially not lamentable. So I think, for me, I think a lot about this because I am a government democrat. I am not an expert in the way technology works. I need as many experts as I can to say, well, you think if you write this thing, it’s gonna have an outcome, but in fact, yeah, it’s not working. But anyway, hopefully you get my point. Sorry, I am just sorry, Jennifer. Is the audio cutting out for other people as well? Not just for me. So our tech people in the back of the room, the audio from speakers in the room is not working fantastically. I don’t know if it’s the mic or whatever. But Jennifer, I’m so glad you said that. Do you think it’s the mic there? Good. So we need to give you another mic. We’ll hear now. I’m very glad you emphasized that because I think if we wanna use this multi-stakeholder approach, we cannot just use it at a tokenistic level. We’ve gotta be intentional about it, deliberative, acknowledge that there’s diversity. So I think that’s really important. And I think there’s the, in fact, we, I think, launched our open consultation. process for this updated internet universality indicators during NetMundial Plus 10 in Sao Paulo earlier this year. And one of the outcomes of that process is that both the multilateral and the multi-stakeholder internet governance processes need to get better and be more intentional and inclusive.

AUDIENCE: But Ale, you wanted to come in on this issue as well, so please go ahead and we’ll check your mic. Can everyone hear me? Yes, I think I can be heard. So, yeah, I totally agree with what Jennifer was mentioning, the specifics. Is it on? Yes. I can’t hear you. Can you hear me? Go ahead. I can’t hear you, but it’s fine. So I totally agree with what she has said, because again, it’s not only about one country perspective if we are talking about… It impacts also the multilateral aspect, because it’s not only from one country perspective rather than looking at different countries, different regions, different situations, different level of maturities of different aspects, different sectors. And then we are talking about, as you have mentioned, are we talking about big tech companies? Are we talking about SMEs, small, medium enterprises, a different perspective coming from academia, researchers, think tanks? They all provide their own right angle of how to tackle different transformation challenges that different countries are facing. And I believe we should try, even from an international organization’s work together, to bring everyone on the table through different consultations on different regions, different layers. Again, I believe this is the only way that we can really help in providing that unified direction for different countries to really all to be on the, let’s say, not the same level, but at least we are all talking on the same foundation and being in the same era, not having third of the world unconnected or 2.6 million of people are not connected and the other are connected and talking about a different age of transformation.

Camila Gonzalez: Thanks. In Africa, it’s under 40% at the moment. your hand. I also want to invite other people in the room to speak and ask questions. And also if someone, okay I’ve noted your hand, and Vint asked a question in the Zoom chat about whether low-earth-orbit satellites are being used for Pacific Islands. So if anybody wants to volunteer to respond to that, either from the room or online, please go ahead. Jennifer, you have an answer. I mean the answer is yes they are, and it depends what you’re trying to do whether LEOs are going to be sufficient to connect the unconnected. And this is, you know, we worked a lot on the Tuvalu, and I will turn to you, but recognizing that what you can do for a population the size of Tuvalu with low-earth-orbit satellites is nothing compared to what you can do with an undersea cable. But I also want to add another thing. What was really interesting was when we started to talk to ambassadors, U.S. Chief Submission about AI, we had a number of ambassadors who said, you guys are talking about a conversation that really is about a small number of countries, when in fact, and these were particularly in developing countries, ambassadors are like, we don’t even have connected populations. So you’re like, so it’s like there’s almost two different conversations happening in different areas. And so it’s a little bit of like, you can’t forget that you still have the unconnected. You need to have them in the room. You can’t just say, we’re going to run and have another complete conversation about AI, when we can’t even you know, talk about having, you know, meaningful access to information and connectivity. So that is, I think, your point about getting everybody in the room, because otherwise you can’t have a conversation that feels like only part of the world is participating in it. And I don’t speak for Tuvalu, but I think that you probably have similar points. Do you want to respond? Go ahead. Yeah, so in now part of the world, Leo, yes, it’s playing a very important role in connecting our remote areas. The question is, is it affordable? for a standard local person in that remote area to get connected to this LEO solution. You know, it’s a brilliant, it’s a very good solution, but there’s always a question of affordability and how we can sustain that in the context of small island nation. And it’s something that people in my country, I would say, still facing that affordability issue and challenges. Thanks for that. And Vint, I’m going to come to you. I’ve seen your hand. But I have two people in the room that are eager to speak, so I’m going to give them the floor. We’ll start over there. And then, can I ask someone to help with moving the mic? This is the mic that works. And just introduce yourself and be brief. Thank you so much.

JOSE FISSA: Hi, everyone. My name is Dr. José Fissa Hadidban. I coordinate the chat with IGF, and I’m here attending this session as a reporter. I would like to thank UNESCO for giving me this chance. And if I’m here attending IGF, it’s because of UNESCO. So thanks a lot to UNESCO team for that. I think I would like also to appreciate, I mean, the framework, revise it. But situations, I mean, in my country and indicators are quite different. And for me to understand clearly the position of the co-facilitators, I have a question. If you could please specify, how can the advanced second generation Internet universality indicators, ROMEx framework contribute to shaping an inclusive, right-respecting and sustainable digital future? And what specific strategies should a stakeholder, such as government, civil society, private sector and academia, adopt to integrate these indicators into national and regional Internet governance framework?

Camila Gonzalez: effectively. Thank you so much. Thanks very much for that question and I think maybe Taufik you can also come to that your closing remarks perhaps and that address that. Aziz let’s have your question and then Aviz just introduce yourself and be brief and then we’ll have Vint. Aziz you are next.

AZIZ HILALI: Thank you. We can hear you. You hear me? Yes. Thank you Henriette. I am Aziz Hilali, I am professor and former co-chair of ISOC Morocco and member of different IJF locally and regionally and I would like to come back to the special importance of indicators particularly in the Arab region where digital transformation is happening but in different speeds or different ways. More than half of I think we are in the Arab region less than 500 million people in 23 countries of the region are connected to the Internet. However there are still significant digital gaps. Internet penetration in the region remains below than the global average which is 65%. The same in African region. This indicator I think importance is they can act as a compass to guide public policies toward fire and sustainable solution aligned with the substantial development goals SDG. In this context I want to highlight the importance of including these indicators in the national and and regional strategies, for example, I want just to give North Africa as example, with its challenges, such as weak infrastructure and inequal access could benefit from more accommodation based on reliable data to reduce digital divides. So, this effort must involve stakeholders, as most speakers said in this session, we have to integrate these indicators into stakeholder strategies is very crucial for building an internet that is inclusive, openness and the respect of human rights, thank you.

Camila Gonzalez: Thanks Aziz, I think yes, I think we always talk about a holistic and I think what the indicators give us is a way of applying that. We’ll have a question from Avice, do you want to, you don’t have a question. Sorry, I couldn’t, I can’t hear, maybe give him the. Thank you very much, I’m Avice from Cameroon, it is a concerning question, I’m asking myself for civil society as I’m from civil society, we want to involve in the assessment and as you know, there is some data coming from the government, specifically in this point from the use of the Universal Asset Fund, which is very quiet, some country are not really, let’s say, they don’t want to give the information about this point and as you know, the use of the Universal Fund give lot of data for what are being implemented in the field. So I don’t know if there is some advice when coming on this point, please. Good, I think that’s a very good question and I’m going to ask any panelist who’s got experience of this and who understands the indicators to talk about whether the process will reveal whether there are concerns about our Universal Access Funds. I know, I have learned from looking at the indicators. is how different countries are actually approaching universal access funds deployment differently. But Vint, let’s have your question, and then we’ll go into a round of responses. I see David is ready to tell us about accountability. Vint, if that wasn’t an old hand, please go ahead.

VINTON CERF: It’s not an old hand. I am an old hand, but that’s a different story. So am I. Yeah. I just wanted to draw attention to the fact that multi-stakeholder practices are vitally important here. It’s certainly true that member states have a great deal to do with policy, and international policy in particular. But with regard to internet and its implementation, it’s fair to say that the bulk of the implementation is done in the private sector. And so there is a natural partnership that should arise out of government and the private sector, to say nothing about the influence of the civil society and the technology community with regard to either utility or implementation of the internet. So I just want to overemphasize the importance of this collaborative component for connectivity, as well as all the other metrics that go along with the IUI. Thanks. Thanks, Vint. I can’t resist saying this, though. If the private sector was doing a better job, we wouldn’t have lower than 40% internet penetration in Africa. But that’s really a challenge to the mobile sector, not to Google.

Camila Gonzalez: So let’s just hear what David. David, you can respond to the accountability question. So please go ahead. And then I’m going to ask other panelists to respond to other questions. Is that you need to leave quite soon, so I’ll give you first. Yes, how does the indicators, do they help us address that issue of accountability that Vint raised earlier? Please go ahead.

DAVID SOUTER: So I would say. Accountability is a very fundamental question to anything around this, and it’s really to do with the relationship between technology and human society, both governments and businesses as well. And it’s very much related to power structures, so the extent to which you are capable of assessing accountability really does depend a lot on what the power structures within a society enable you to look at and what sort of data are available. In this framework here, there are quite a lot of places where the IUI indicators are asking you to look first at what the state law, regulation and so on, so what is the formal requirement, and then secondly at how that is enforced in practice or what is actually happening in practice. So that is about, that second part of that question is to do with accountability, and in assessing it, I’d say, well first, quantitative evidence is often lacking, but also not always going to be the best source. However, a great deal more openness from digital businesses here might be helpful, there’s too much keeping of information confidential for commercial reasons, or supposed commercial reasons, I’ve noticed this particularly with the area of working in the environment. There’s a need for critical assessment of what quantitative information is available by researchers, but also there’s a need to look at this qualitative evidence that I said before, what do serious observers, academics, serious journalists, researchers in genuine think tanks, that sort of thing, what are they saying? And in terms of accountability again, I’d say, and I think the framework does address this, it’s not just about what governments are doing, it’s also about the power of other actors within the digital environment, including government. including business markets. And I suppose two other quick points. Firstly on evidence-based policymaking and one of the problems we have here is that not everybody believes in evidence-based policymaking and actually quite a lot of governments believe in evidence-based policymaking as we’re seeing. So that’s a challenge here. In terms of AI that’s going to be particularly difficult in the context where assessing accountability. How do you assess accountability if those who are running systems themselves aren’t really capable of understanding why particular decisions are being made? So I think with AI we reach another level of difficulty in assessing accountability which is a challenge for the next revision of the IUIs but it’s also actually a much bigger challenge I think for society as a whole.

Camila Gonzalez: And David thanks very much for that and before I move on to the next, well let me actually ask Alaa to speak and then I’ll come back to you on Universal Service Funds. Do you have some

ALLA ABDULAAL: closing remarks before you leave? Yes so first of all again we congratulate UNESCO and I really want to emphasize on the transformative potential of such frameworks like the IOIs and their vital role that they really play in shaping an evidence-based policy and action plans and having a good multi-stakeholder collaboration and bridging the digital divide. As the digital landscape is really evolving very quickly as the digital cooperation organization we really are committed to support these efforts by enabling our member states to leverage such tools like the IOIs and also our digital economy navigator to achieve their inclusive and sustainable digital transformation journey. We believe that as our name, we are the Digital Cooperation Organization, we believe in the importance of cooperation. And this is why we are very happy to be in such a panel beside the UNESCO and to have that multilateral and multi-stakeholder conversation. And we believe that this is the right approach to work together, to share our experience, to make sure that no one is left behind and that we have a prosperous future for all.

Camila Gonzalez: Thank you. Thanks very much. And I know you have to go, but thanks for joining our panel. And David, will applying the IUIs help a country team unpack some of the challenges around how the Universal Service and Access Fund is defined, deployed and contributing to meaningful access? Is that covered by the indicators? David, are you still there or are you muted? I lost the connectivity and you came back at the end saying something about…

DAVID SOUTER: My question is that I know that you have built in the revised IUIs, there’s now additional focus on meaningful connectivity. So the question that we had from the floor was, would applying the indicators help at a national level that multi-stakeholder group of implementers of the indicators be able to unpack whether it is using its Universal Access or Service Fund effectively, whether there are issues with how it’s defined, whether it’s being used for, let’s say, local access or community networks. Is that a topic that will be surfaced by applying the IUIs? I mean, okay, so the indicators that… you know they one of the things that’s important about them is then not overwhelmingly specific and so the issues that are raised in terms of meaningful connectivity in one country will differ from those that are raised in another and what the indicators do is give to the researchers to identify what is important within their individual country and then to focus on that so the answer to your question is yes it does and it doesn’t need to identify that in a you know it’s a very specific way in order in order for that to be the case it’s something that the researchers and the multi-stakeholder advisory boards should direct their work towards in those countries where that is a particularly important question thanks very much for that david and i

Camila Gonzalez: also know that it can also reveal if a regulator is finding it difficult to get data from operators which is often the case the iui process will also most likely reveal that too but but let’s have some some final remarks um from the the panel i put and i hear myself cutting out but um alexander let’s start with you and then we’ll we’ll we’ll go on to to you and then to jennifer and then taufik will will close for us any reactions or responses to the questions or additional points that you want to make

Alexandre Barbosa: thank you very much uh and yet well um i would like to comment on the multi-stakeholder dialogue that we’re having here just to mention that in brazil we have a very well established multi-stakeholder internet governance model in which the government coordinate the whole structure and i would say that it is um not so my multi-stakeholder dialogue platform in which Which we have different voices, and I agree with Jennifer, which voices are we hearing. But what I want to say, that although this is a well-structured governance model, we do have so many opportunities of dialoguing with the society, like the National Internet Governance Forum, all different areas that is taken into consideration in this dialogue, like culture, digital inclusion, gender, meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence. So in those specific areas, we invite different voices so that we can take into consideration into the policy design those aspects. And besides that, I’m responsible for a data production center related to measuring the adoption and impact of ICTs in different areas of society, and in that particular case, we do have also expert groups that support our measurement activities. So we do have government, academia, civil society, private sector, that guide us in terms of how to measure and what to measure, based on which methodology. So I would say that the Brazilian model is really solid enough that provides the government very important, insightful for policy design. And just to mention three important influential dialogues that we have. I guess that most of you may know the Brazilian Act on the Internet Bill of Rights, that we call in Portuguese, Marcos Civil da Internet. It was based on a very important dialogue that took place into the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Also, we had the private, when we had the personal data protection. Act approved. It was previously based on the dialogue that we had, multi-holder dialogue. Also in terms of digital inclusion policies or digital abilities along with the Minister of Education in Brazil. So this is a really important process and I agree that a hundred percent evidence-based policy is really difficult to have because the policy design and the process is quite complex. But I would say that in the last 20 years, based on this dialogue on the Brazilian International Committee, we did make progress in that regard. And I would like to finish by saying that also the Brazilian government counts on this structure, on this multi-holder structure, to help in very important and critical actions like the G20. We have just finished the presidency of the G20, in which the Brazilian International Committee took a very active role in several areas in terms of digital economy. So we work very closely with the government in terms of artificial intelligence and meaningful connectivity. And just to finish, I would like to say that since the first assessment that we had in 2015, using the first generation IOI, I would say that today we are not discussing digital inclusion by the fact of being or not being connected, but the meaningful connectivity which brings a huge number of dimensions like digital skills, affordability, safety, use of the internet. So this is a result of this process. And I hope, Taufique, that we will be able to once again pioneer by adopting the second generation. this framework, which is so important. So maybe in the next IGF we will be able to give some results of this second generation. And once again I think that this is a very important moment because we have recently approved the PACT for the future and also the upcoming WSIS plus 20 review and Romex is a very important model. And just to finish I would like to say that the new title of this publication is advanced inclusive digital transformation with the Romex indicators. Romex is a key pillar in all this discussion of the global digital compact and WSIS plus 20 review. So once again congratulations to UNESCO and to your leadership for providing this very important and relevant framework.

Camila Gonzalez: Thanks very much Alexander. Tena Noya, do you want to add anything? Yep, thank you for the second opportunity. I think I will acknowledge the the role of MAP, the multi-stakeholder advisory body board, because there are key benefits out of this arrangement and one of which is the the board really brings out the, you know, together the government, civil society, private sector and community representation. Because it ensures the diverse voice of you know of the people and also enhancing that credibility. It gives you know stakeholders involvement, foster trust and buy-ins from various groups. And I think members contributed technical expertise as well as in size into best practices. which, for me, enhance the quality of assessment and recommendation from this. And the last one I wanted to say is that, you know, when it comes to a table, when we did the consultation, multi-stakeholders with various sectors, sometimes there’s conflict of resolution, and I think that the Board really brings that, you know, helps mediate that kind of competing interest and align the objectives to what we believe it should contextualize to the context of the nation. So, and again, I would like to echo the same sentiment from other speakers congratulating UNESCO for the launching of the new framework. Thank you. Thanks, Tena Noya. Jennifer. Thanks for that, and again, to echo the comments of the rest of the panelists, congratulations on this. I think it’s so critically important that we continue to discuss ways to try to evaluate and understand how connectivity is taking place. I think, you know, that the U.S. government has really upped its game on connectivity, on engagement with UNESCO, on engagement with a multi-stakeholder community. We’re proud in our organization to have been a critical element of this, and also through the launching of the U.S. International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy, which talks about all of these things in it. But I think to conclude, I just want to say how excited I am to continue to work with this group and with others to really advance our digital future, one that’s based on retrospecting technology, one that’s based on bringing all the voices into it, because ultimately, if we’re going to achieve our goals for connectivity and for meaningful access to information, we’re going to need to do it together in a way that really is based on this idea of data and collaboration. communication. So thanks. Thanks, Jennifer. Vint, did you have any further comments? David, anything more from you? Vint says audio. The Zoom participants say that the audio is cutting out for them. And I think let’s move on then to asking Taufik to make some closing remarks for us. And I think I have to add, before you start, my congratulations to you as well, to UNESCO, to CETEC and to everyone who’s been part of this process.

Tawfik Jelassi: Thank you very much, Henriette. Let me first comment on the last two, maybe a couple of recent remarks made by Jennifer first regarding the collaboration here. We very much enjoyed having the US back to UNESCO since July 2023. We look forward to continued collaboration with the US in spite of changing administration at the White House. And you mentioned the field of communication and information, which has many themes there. Freedom of expression, protection of journalists, media development, multilingualism online, caring for minorities, including indigenous peoples, and so on and so forth. So we have many common topics of great interest and would like to continue the work that we have reinitiated a bit over the years since US came back to UNESCO. And also I want to comment on what you said, Alexander. You said that maybe in the next IGF 2025 you can showcase some early results from the implementation of the revised internet universality indicators. This is a great goal, we should definitely do that, because the point is not just to prove the concepts, it’s to prove the value of our work, of the ROAMX framework. However, this creates of course momentum, and as we know the next IGF is not one year away from today, it’s just six months away from today. So we need to be ready by May 2025, so in June 2025 in Norway, at IGF, we can showcase, we can share with interested parties the first set of results and to what extent the revised framework was impactful. Let me also thank everybody in the panel, but online and physically in the room, but also our participants. I see that I was told we have a few minutes left, I’ll be brief. So I would like to thank the panelists online and in the room, I would like to thank the audience as well for coming to this session, this is very important for us, and the discussion and the multiple perspectives we heard from the US, from Brazil, from Tuvalu, from the Digital Cooperation Organization, and for their field, I think the different testimonies clearly show the relevance of the ROAMX frameworks and the indicators, also they emphasize the challenges and the specificities of different contexts around the world. I think this reminds us also that we need to have a truly inclusive collective effort if we want to build the digital future that you aspire towards, and open, safe, secure, but also multi-stakeholder and human rights anchored. I think a number of speakers, including Jennifer, insisted on the multi-stakeholder dimension, in addition of course to… the multilateral role of international organizations, but I think we all agree that the work has to be not only anchored but remain respectful of human rights. And let me say again to conclude that the revised framework that we presented today and that book, booklet or book, which is here in physical form but we have it also available online and soon in multiple languages. I think this shows that what we did was not just revising a framework, it’s more than that. I think it was a bold step towards ensuring that the internet remains a force for equity, for sustainability and for human development. I think for sure our work and those who will be implementing the revised framework will foster our partnership going forward. A number of you mentioned the digital divide that is still today unacceptably high. I think this work of national digital assessment using our indicators is a step towards putting in place the right national digital strategy among others to reduce the digital divide. And as we know it’s multiple divides. It’s digital, it’s informational, it’s knowledge divide, it’s a gender divide as well. So it’s only through collective efforts and partnership that we can tackle these divides and the common goal of all of us is we should not leave anyone behind or anyone out of the new digital era, the new digital age in which we live today. And thank you Henriette for your excellent moderation of this panel.

Camila Gonzalez: And thanks to everyone. I see that the remote participants are also complaining. I would like one last word to thank the UNESCO team. I see Cedric Warhol is here. I see Tatavic as well, and colleagues who are in Paris, who maybe are not with us in the room here. I want to also say a big thank you to all of you for making it ready for IGF24. Thanks Tafik. A massive amount of work to make it ready for this launch. So thanks to everyone. Apologies for the difficulties with the audience. Thanks to our tech team. I know you did your best. And thanks very much everyone for joining us.

Agreement Points

Importance of revised Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs)

Tawfik Jelassi

Alexandre Barbosa

DAVID SOUTER

IUIs revised to be more relevant, adaptive and future-ready

IUIs empower countries to adopt evidence-based policymaking

Revised IUIs address new challenges like environmental risks and AI

The speakers agree on the significance of the revised IUIs in addressing current digital challenges, promoting evidence-based policymaking, and incorporating new issues like environmental risks and AI governance.

Multi-stakeholder approach in implementing IUIs

Alexandre Barbosa

Jennifer Bachus

Tenanoia Veronica Simona

VINTON CERF

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key for sustainable internet governance

Need for meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, not just tokenistic

Multi-stakeholder advisory boards bring diverse voices and expertise

Private sector plays vital role in internet implementation and should partner with government

The speakers emphasize the importance of genuine multi-stakeholder collaboration in implementing the IUIs, involving diverse voices from government, civil society, private sector, and academia.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the improved accessibility and applicability of the revised IUIs, emphasizing their alignment with global frameworks like the SDGs and their potential to inform tailored policy recommendations.

Tawfik Jelassi

Alexandre Barbosa

Revised IUIs are more streamlined and accessible

IUIs facilitate tailored policy recommendations aligned with SDGs

Both speakers stress the need for the IUIs to remain flexible and adaptable to address future technological developments, particularly in emerging areas like AI governance.

DAVID SOUTER

VINTON CERF

IUIs should remain adaptable to future technological and policy challenges

IUIs can help address emerging challenges like AI governance

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges faced by small island nations in implementing IUIs

Tenanoia Veronica Simona

AZIZ HILALI

Small island nations face unique infrastructure and capacity building challenges

Digital divide remains a significant issue, especially in Africa and Arab regions

While representing different regions, both speakers highlight similar challenges in implementing IUIs, particularly related to infrastructure constraints and the persistent digital divide. This unexpected consensus underscores the global nature of these challenges.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the importance of the revised IUIs, the need for meaningful multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the recognition of persistent challenges in implementing digital policies, particularly in developing regions.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the value and potential of the revised IUIs. This consensus suggests broad support for the framework and its implementation across diverse stakeholders and regions. However, there is also agreement on the need to address ongoing challenges, particularly in developing countries and small island nations, indicating that while the IUIs are seen as valuable, their successful implementation may require additional support and resources in certain contexts.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were limited, with most speakers generally aligned on the importance of the IUIs and multi-stakeholder approaches. The primary difference emerged around the role and effectiveness of the private sector in internet implementation.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most participants shared similar views on the importance of the Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) and the need for multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance. The few differences that emerged were more about emphasis and specific implementation strategies rather than fundamental disagreements. This general alignment suggests a strong consensus on the value of the IUIs and collaborative approaches to digital governance, which could facilitate smoother implementation and adoption of these frameworks globally.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation in internet governance. However, Jennifer Bachus emphasizes the need for meaningful participation from multiple stakeholders, while Alexandre Barbosa focuses more on the collaborative aspect for sustainable governance without explicitly addressing the depth of participation.

Jennifer Bachus

Alexandre Barbosa

Need for meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, not just tokenistic

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is key for sustainable internet governance

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the improved accessibility and applicability of the revised IUIs, emphasizing their alignment with global frameworks like the SDGs and their potential to inform tailored policy recommendations.

Tawfik Jelassi

Alexandre Barbosa

Revised IUIs are more streamlined and accessible

IUIs facilitate tailored policy recommendations aligned with SDGs

Both speakers stress the need for the IUIs to remain flexible and adaptable to address future technological developments, particularly in emerging areas like AI governance.

DAVID SOUTER

VINTON CERF

IUIs should remain adaptable to future technological and policy challenges

IUIs can help address emerging challenges like AI governance

Key Takeaways

UNESCO’s revised Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) are more streamlined, accessible, and address new challenges like environmental risks and AI

IUIs empower countries to adopt evidence-based policymaking and facilitate tailored policy recommendations aligned with SDGs

A meaningful multi-stakeholder approach is crucial for effective implementation of IUIs and sustainable internet governance

Developing countries, especially small island nations, face unique challenges in implementing IUIs, including infrastructure limitations and capacity building needs

The digital divide remains a significant issue globally, particularly in Africa and Arab regions

IUIs can play a key role in shaping global digital governance and fostering international cooperation on digital issues

Resolutions and Action Items

UNESCO to showcase early results from the implementation of revised IUIs at the next IGF in Norway (May/June 2025)

Countries encouraged to conduct national digital assessments using the revised IUIs

Stakeholders to work on improving data availability and quality for effective implementation of IUIs

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively measure and ensure accountability in the digital ecosystem, especially with emerging technologies like AI

Addressing the affordability of internet access, particularly in small island nations and developing countries

Balancing multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches in global digital governance

How to effectively include diverse voices and perspectives in the multi-stakeholder process

Suggested Compromises

Using a combination of quantitative data and qualitative assessments from experts to overcome data limitations in some countries

Adapting the IUI framework to specific country contexts while maintaining core principles

Balancing the need for comprehensive assessments with making the IUI process more streamlined and accessible

UNESCO has been around for 80 years, has never done any comparative studies nor rankings of member states. So we are not in the business of rankings. The indicators are meant to be a guidance to our member states to conduct a national digital assessment, but not to compare countries, and certainly not to rank them.

speaker

Tawfik Jelassi

reason

This comment clarifies a key aspect of the Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) framework, emphasizing its purpose as a tool for self-assessment rather than comparison or ranking. This is crucial for understanding the intent and proper use of the framework.

impact

It addressed potential concerns about the IUIs being used to create unfavorable comparisons between countries, potentially encouraging more countries to adopt and use the framework without fear of negative repercussions.

I think we really need to, when you talk about the quality of data, the reality is you need to be consulting with multiple companies, multiple civil society, multiple academia, and multiple tech communities.

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

reason

This comment highlights the importance of diverse and comprehensive stakeholder engagement in the data collection and assessment process, emphasizing the need for a truly multi-stakeholder approach.

impact

It sparked a discussion about the definition and implementation of multi-stakeholderism, leading to a deeper examination of how to ensure meaningful participation from various sectors.

How do you assess accountability if those who are running systems themselves aren’t really capable of understanding why particular decisions are being made? So I think with AI we reach another level of difficulty in assessing accountability which is a challenge for the next revision of the IUIs but it’s also actually a much bigger challenge I think for society as a whole.

speaker

David Souter

reason

This comment introduces the complex challenge of accountability in AI systems, highlighting a significant gap in current assessment frameworks and pointing to future challenges.

impact

It broadened the discussion to include considerations of emerging technologies and their implications for internet governance and assessment frameworks, prompting thoughts on how the IUIs might need to evolve in the future.

Small island nations like Tuvalu face very, very unique challenges in internet governance, which I would like to highlight a few. One of which is the big challenge is infrastructure constraints, in a sense that high cost of undersea cables, and I’m happy to say that my nation Tuvalu just landed the first submarine cable just a couple of days ago.

speaker

Tenanoia Veronica Simona

reason

This comment brings attention to the specific challenges faced by small island nations, providing a concrete example of how different contexts require different approaches to internet development and governance.

impact

It highlighted the importance of considering diverse national contexts when applying the IUIs, leading to a discussion on how the framework can be adapted to different situations and needs.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing the non-comparative nature of the IUIs, the importance of genuine multi-stakeholder engagement, the need to consider emerging technologies like AI, and the necessity of adapting the framework to diverse national contexts. They collectively deepened the conversation about the purpose, implementation, and future evolution of the IUIs, while also highlighting the complex challenges in internet governance across different global contexts.

How can the accountability of digital technologies and services be measured?

speaker

Vinton Cerf

explanation

Accountability is crucial for ensuring responsible development and use of digital technologies, but measuring it presents challenges.

How can the revised Internet Universality Indicators framework address the challenges posed by artificial intelligence?

speaker

Vinton Cerf and David Souter

explanation

AI presents new governance challenges and uncertainties that need to be assessed within national internet environments.

How can the affordability of low-earth-orbit satellite internet solutions for remote areas be improved?

speaker

Tenanoia Veronica Simona

explanation

While LEO satellites offer connectivity solutions for remote areas, affordability remains a challenge for many users in small island nations.

How can the revised Internet Universality Indicators be integrated into national and regional Internet governance frameworks?

speaker

Jose Fissa

explanation

Understanding specific strategies for different stakeholders to integrate these indicators is crucial for their effective implementation.

How can the indicators help address issues related to the use and transparency of Universal Access Funds?

speaker

Avice

explanation

Access to information about Universal Access Funds is important for comprehensive assessments, but some countries are reluctant to share this data.

How can the multi-stakeholder approach be implemented more effectively to ensure diverse and meaningful participation?

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

explanation

Ensuring genuine multi-stakeholder participation, beyond tokenistic involvement, is crucial for developing effective policies and assessments.