Open Forum #77 ROAMX Indicators: Advancing Inclusive Digital Transformation

Summary

This discussion focused on UNESCO’s revised Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) and their role in advancing inclusive digital transformation. The speakers highlighted the importance of these indicators in guiding national digital assessments and informing policy decisions across 40 countries worldwide. The revised IUIs aim to address emerging challenges such as environmental impact, gender equality, and artificial intelligence while making the assessment process more user-friendly.

Key themes emerged around the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, ownership, and trust-building in implementing the IUIs effectively. Speakers emphasized the need for awareness-raising, capacity building, and stakeholder engagement throughout the assessment process. Challenges in implementation were discussed, including political will, fragmented internet governance frameworks, and limited resources in some countries.

The discussion highlighted the particular relevance of IUIs for small island developing states (SIDS), addressing their unique challenges and cultural contexts. Speakers from Pacific island nations stressed the importance of community engagement, cultural relevance, and building local technical expertise. The potential of IUIs to strengthen digital development strategies in SIDS by facilitating regional cooperation and knowledge sharing was emphasized.

Overall, the discussion underscored the value of the IUIs as a tool for fostering inclusive digital transformation, with a focus on human rights, openness, and accessibility. The speakers agreed on the need for continued collaboration, innovative approaches to implementation, and regular monitoring of progress to maximize the impact of the IUIs across diverse global contexts.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The revised UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) and their role in advancing inclusive digital transformation

– Challenges and lessons learned from implementing IUIs in different countries and regions

– The importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and local ownership in implementing IUIs

– Particular challenges and considerations for small island developing states (SIDS)

– Using IUIs to inform policy and drive digital development strategies

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to introduce the revised UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators and explore how they can be effectively implemented to advance inclusive digital transformation across diverse contexts, with a focus on multi-stakeholder approaches and addressing emerging challenges.

Tone:

The overall tone was informative and collaborative. Speakers shared experiences and insights in a constructive manner, emphasizing shared challenges and opportunities for cooperation. The tone remained consistent throughout, with all participants contributing to a forward-looking dialogue on improving digital ecosystems globally.

Speakers

– Moderator: Moderator of the discussion

– Tatevik Grigoryan: Coordinator of the IUI work at UNESCO

– Fabio Senne: ICT survey project coordinator and senior specialist at CETIC NIC.br

– Najib Mokni: Implemented IUI assessments in Tunisia and several African countries

– Tenanoia Simona: CEO at Tuvalu Telecommunications Corporation

– Seluvaia Kauvaka: Consultant on ICT, cyber security and IT management, co-led IUI assessment in Tonga

– Alexandre Barbosa: Head of the Regional Center for Studies on the Development of Information Society (CETIC.br)

UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators: Advancing Inclusive Digital Transformation

This discussion focused on UNESCO’s revised Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) and their role in advancing inclusive digital transformation globally. The speakers, representing diverse backgrounds and regions, explored the implementation, challenges, and potential of IUIs across various contexts, with particular emphasis on developing countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).

Revision and Purpose of IUIs

UNESCO recently revised the IUI framework, reducing the number of questions and adding new themes such as environmental impact, gender equality, and artificial intelligence. The UNESCO Assistant Director-General (ADG) emphasised that IUIs are not intended for ranking or comparing countries, but rather to provide guidance for national digital assessments. The ultimate goal is to identify gaps through digital assessment and develop actions to remedy shortcomings within a multi-stakeholder framework.

Tatevik Grigoryan, Coordinator of IUI work at UNESCO, highlighted that the IUI framework helps countries identify gaps and inform policy decisions. This sentiment was echoed by Seluvaia Kauvaka, a consultant from Tonga, who described IUIs as a toolkit for measuring digital economy progress. The overarching aim, as noted by the Moderator, is to reduce inequalities and bridge the digital divide.

Implementation Experiences and Challenges

Speakers identified several challenges in implementing IUIs across different regions:

1. Political Will: Najib Mokni emphasised the need for political will and high-level commitment, noting that without this, advancement in implementation is difficult in many countries.

2. Trust: Mokni also highlighted that a lack of trust between stakeholders can hinder engagement in the IUI process.

3. Language Barriers: Seluvaia Kauvaka pointed out the challenge of communicating technical concepts locally, particularly in translating international terminology into local languages.

4. Resource Constraints: Tenanoia Simona noted the limited resources and capacity in small island nations, which can impede comprehensive implementation of IUIs.

5. Fragmentation: Mokni mentioned the fragmentation of internet governance frameworks as a challenge in some countries.

6. Shrinking Civic Spaces: The reduction of civic spaces in certain regions was identified as an obstacle to inclusive implementation.

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Local Ownership

A recurring theme throughout the discussion was the critical importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration and local ownership in implementing IUIs effectively. Najib Mokni stressed that the IUI process fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration and requires shared ownership among all stakeholders. Fabio Senne emphasised the engagement of diverse stakeholders throughout the assessment process and highlighted the importance of creating a network of implementing countries for collaboration.

Relevance for Small Island Developing States (SIDS)

The discussion highlighted the particular relevance of IUIs for SIDS, addressing their unique challenges and cultural contexts. Tenanoia Simona emphasised that IUIs help address the specific challenges faced by SIDS and can enhance environmental preparedness for climate-vulnerable nations. She also mentioned Tuvalu’s recent achievement of landing its first submarine cable and the country’s ambition to become the first digital nation, as noted by the moderator.

Seluvaia Kauvaka added that the IUI framework enables sharing of best practices across the SIDS region, facilitating knowledge transfer and collaboration. Additionally, the indicators help identify areas needing investment in SIDS, supporting targeted development efforts.

Regional Perspectives and Future Directions

Fabio Senne highlighted the importance of addressing specific regional challenges, particularly in the Global South, including persistent digital divides across rural areas and genders, as well as gaps in media and information literacy. Najib Mokni emphasized the potential of ICT and artificial intelligence for structural transformation in Africa and other developing countries.

The discussion identified several areas for future focus:

1. Monitoring and Evaluation: Developing performance indicators to monitor the implementation of IUI recommendations.

2. Regular Reviews: Implementing regular updates of IUI assessments to reflect ongoing changes in the digital landscape.

3. Environmental Impacts: Exploring how digital transformation initiatives can address climate change challenges, particularly in vulnerable SIDS.

4. Advanced Technologies: Effectively implementing new indicators on environmental impacts and advanced digital technologies.

5. Capacity Building: Addressing resource constraints and building local capacity for IUI implementation.

Conclusion

The discussion underscored the value of UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators as a tool for fostering inclusive digital transformation, with a focus on human rights, openness, and accessibility. The moderator’s closing remarks emphasized the main indicators moving forward: empowering people, safeguarding rights, and fostering collaboration. While challenges remain, particularly in implementation and addressing diverse regional needs, there was broad consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, local ownership, and ongoing adaptation of the IUI framework to meet evolving digital challenges.

The session concluded with an acknowledgment of Alexandre Barbosa’s presence and special thanks to CETIC, NIC.br, and CETIC.br for their instrumental role in the IUI process, highlighting the collaborative nature of this global initiative.

Moderator: Good afternoon to all of you, and thank you for coming to this session which we are organizing on the revised ROM-X indicators, the Internet Universality Indicators, and their contribution to advancing inclusive digital transformation. As Tatevic mentioned, we had on Sunday afternoon a panel which launched officially the new indicators. This is for us very important, and I want first, before I proceed, to show you how the report looks like, and if you don’t have your own copy, we brought with us a number of copies, so you can take your copy, but if you are traveling, this will add weight to your luggage, therefore you can connect to the UNESCO website and you can find the same report in English, but it will be soon available in many languages. So before I proceed, I want to thank some major contributors to this work, starting of course with the Brazilian Network Information Center, NIC.br, but also the Regional Center for Studies on the Development of the Information Society, CETIC.br, and we’ll hear from a member of CETIC, Fabio Seni, who is here seated to my left. I tried to increase a bit his stress level before the session by saying, you are going to be a main speaker. He said, no, don’t call me a main speaker. One of the speakers in the session, and he has first-hand knowledge, he has contributed to this work. I believe this revised version is very important, because it does include to the earlier version, which we put into action back in 2019, it does include the new issues that were not incorporated then, such as environmental impact, gender equality. but also emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. So these are important developments that have happened since the initial version was put together. And I’m glad that we believe this is more relevant. Hopefully the set of indicators, which are both quantitative and qualitative, are more useful, more value-adding to each member state. And let me here clarify something that I was asked about. These indicators lead to national digital assessments by countries around the world. And the initial set of indicators were used by 40 countries around the world. So that’s our base, and hopefully now we’ll have more countries involved. But this is not about coming up with a comparative study, and it is not about ranking countries along these criteria and these indicators. UNESCO is not in the business of rankings, nor of making comparisons about countries. UNESCO has been around for 80 years, that’s eight zero. We provide guidances, this is a guidance, hopefully to inform policy makers and decision makers at government level, but also in a multi-stakeholder approach to define the gaps they see through this digital assessment and then to come up with the actions which will remedy to these gaps or will overcome the shortcomings. This is the purpose of these guidelines, and I think as we proceed, you should take them or consider them in this context. I mentioned 40 implementations worldwide, and let me give you some specificities here. We had 17 countries from Africa who have implemented the UNESCO Internet Universality Indicators. It’s the leading contingent, Africa. 12 countries in Asia Pacific, five countries in Latin America, and the Caribbean. Arabian, three countries in Europe, and three countries in Arab states. So it’s definitely the five corners of the world, but we hope, of course, to have more member states embracing this. We had seven small island-developing states, which we call SIDs, seven SIDs, who have also completed their assessment. And I must say that the feedback we received and the lessons learned from these 40 implementations of the indicators and their related national digital assessments, the learnings have informed us in revising the indicators to know what worked best, what maybe needed to be revised, revisited. And I know the new set of indicators contain fewer, much fewer questions, to make it easier, simpler, more comprehensive for the parties to carry out these assessments. So again, it’s a guidance for national digital assessment, as I said, towards a digital strategy. And I want to mention here a region like the South Pacific, where these indicators have informed key priorities and supported the achievement or advancing on the achievement towards the sustainable development goals. These are among our objectives, how to reduce inequalities, how to bridge the digital divide, and how to foster economic development in each one of the countries where these were used. Now, when I mentioned digital divide, I mean, the statistic that I’m sure many of you, if not all of you, are aware of, we have 93% of high-income populations connected online, and we have only 27% in low-income countries connected online. So I see the gap between 93% in developed economies. and only 27% in developing economies. That’s the type of digital gap that we talk about. And, of course, how we can go forward, not only UNESCO brings a modest brick to the construction of a more equitable digital future, but we need to work together, so we call for more partnerships, more collaboration across different stakeholders, governments, civil society, academic research institutions, the technical community. This is very, very important if you want to achieve trust, inclusion, but also prosperity, since we all know that digital technologies are not only an important lever, but sometimes a unique lever for value creation and value adding. Thank you for being here. And now that I warmed up the audience, I think it’s time for the speakers to take it forward.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thank you very much, IDG, for your welcoming remarks and also highlighting some of the key and important issues that we’re facing and the statistics or facts that IUIs have and are trying to address. I know, IDG, that you will need to leave soon to your next meeting. Thank you so much for joining us. Welcome, people. We’ll carry on with the discussion, and I want to mention that we have key people here. Okay, Fabio, you look alone. I’ll move towards you so that you’re not lonely. Also with the gender balance. Yes, I think we have good gender balance. So we have key people here. We have Fabio Sene, who works for the CETIC NIC.br. Fabio is an ICT survey project coordinator, and he’s a senior specialist who has helped us throughout the IUI, not only for the revision, as IDG was mentioning, but CETIC was the one to pilot the first IUI assessment in Brazil, and they have been instrumental in supporting and giving technical guidance to countries who are implementing the IUIs. We have my colleague, Nejib Mokni, who is bringing the experience of the Arab states where he implemented the IUIs and also Africa, where he still did the IUIs, so I’ll allow him to elaborate. And I think the first time in the past few years we have two representatives from the South Pacific, and I’m very proud and happy that we’ve completed the assessments in five South Pacific countries, and we had the first ever regional, sub-regional report on the internet development for the South Pacific, which highlighted, which did not do any ranking, as IDG said, or comparison, but it looked at common trends and learning experiences and showcased the sub-regional priorities, which can help the governments and other stakeholder groups to better advance their digital strategies, digital policies, and actions, but also to help guide other international organizations and key donors to prioritize their support when it comes to the region. So this is the panel of the speaker, and before we go to the speakers, I just wanted to give a few very quick facts as a moderator. I would not normally do it, but just to say why UNESCO is doing what it’s doing on ROMEX indicators. The simple answer is because UNESCO has the mandate to ensure the free flow of ideas. And Romex focuses, while it has indicators on technical aspects, infrastructures, infrastructure, it mainly focuses on the contents on human rights online, open educational resources online, openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder participation while also addressing cross-cutting issues such as gender equality online, safety and security, and a few of recent themes were advanced technologies such as AI and the environmental impact of the internet. So, okay, it’s not working, but these are the core principles. This is UNESCO’s position on the internet. As I mentioned, the core principles that the internet should be based on, and these are the principles that were endorsed by UNESCO’s General Conference. And while revising the indicators, as ADG said, we had the aim to gather the lessons learned and try and make revisions to ensure that it’s easier to implement. The indicators are easier to implement, faster to conduct the assessment, and also take into consideration the ongoing processes around the digital transformation. And here it’s highlighted. Here are how the assessments look like. These are so far the published assessments, but of course we have many more which you could… Here, ADG mentioned the countries. You can see the division, distribution. I will not talk about all of this for the sake of time, but I hope Fabio will mention a few of these things. But as ADG said, if you’re interested, you’re more than welcome to contact me. I’m coordinating the IUI work at UNESCO. And of course, you’re more than welcome to join our dynamic coalition and visit our website for further information and to read some of the reports. Now I would like to give the floor to Fabio. Fabio Setik, as I said, has been keen supporting us throughout this pathway of implementing the IUIs and also revising the IUIs. I would like to invite you to speak about how do the revised indicators tackle the challenges, the emerging challenges, and address the gaps that were identified during the revision process since you conducted all these interviews and surveys and consultations with countries that implemented, but also with the wider public.

Fabio Senne: Thank you very much, Tatavik. Thank you all for participating. It’s a pleasure to be here. For us at Setik, it was, we participate in the… the process of IY since the very beginning. So we were one of the first countries that conducted the methodology and also pilot this back in 2018, 19. And then we were invited as a category to UNESCO Center to participate in this process of revision. Regarding your question, Tatavic, I think the process was designed by UNESCO and SETIC participated in the process as a highly collaborative and inclusive process. So we try to not only ensure that the multiple sectors participate in the consultations, but also from a regional perspective. So we try to consider regional perspectives in this. So several open consultations were conducted along with a survey, including all those. We try to speak with all these 40 countries that participated and tried to have feedbacks from the research teams on how they implemented the indicators. So I think this approach was critical in developing the new version. And the challenge here is to have indicators that are globally relevant and are still relevant in the new context, but also adaptable, flexible to a wide range of socioeconomic and cultural and political contexts that we have for different countries. So I would like to highlight at least two of this process. First, from a multi-stakeholder perspective, I think we try to engage different governments, civil society, and also the private sector in the process. As that we had a few open consultations on very strategic multi-stakeholder events, such as the NET Mundial that happened in Sao Paulo in April this year, and also the WSIS Forum that happened in Geneva. then counting on open consultations on the matter. Sorry, are you listening? And during this forum, we have, for instance, from the private sector, a lot of worry and concerns about emerging technology and also market trends that were considered in the case. Is it going? While civil society, for instance, highlighted lots of intentions of investigating more the digital inequalities and human rights processes online. So we have to combine all these interplays and viewpoints to the review IOI. So it was considered in the process. From a regional perspective, I think it was also interesting to understand that we had to address specific challenges that we have in each region. For instance, from the global south, and we have lots of comments regarding still how to face the digital divides, the rural divides, the gender divides, and all the gaps in media information literacy in those countries. So I think we came out with more indicators that uses more or less the framework of the meaningful connectivity or how to have a connectivity that really is useful to change people’s lives, especially in the global south. While in countries that the connectivity was higher, we had more discussion on trust, security, and human rights. And we also benefit from the UNESCO discussion on information integrity or the governance of digital platforms to be also incorporated in this process. And this feedback was fundamental. We have lots of lessons from the 40 countries that already implemented. the process, so we interviewed all these countries. And it’s interesting to say that the indicators were relevant in very different countries, being from G20 big economies, such as Germany, Argentina, and Brazil, but also to, as we said, in small islands and other countries, the indicators has proven to be very relevant. And in the end, I think we came out with a model that is more user-friendly also. So we received this feedback from the field that we needed to have indicators that are more easy to implement, and questions that are more straightforward to be comprehensive in the process. So I do think that these are the main, to say in a few words, the main issues. And then I can comment more on different aspects of it. Thank you.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thank you so much, Fabio. I hope we will indeed have time to have your impactful comments on the different aspects. But now I would like to move to Nejib. Nejib, you implemented the IUI assessments in Tunisia in three countries, in Central Africa, in Cameroon, in Burundi, in the two Congos, actually. So it’s four countries in Africa. And I think we’ve had very successful collaboration there from different stakeholders. But I wanted to invite you to actually speak about while we had effective communication with different stakeholders, what were the main barriers? So what were the success? And what were the lessons learned in terms of the main barriers to effective collaboration between all these different stakeholders, government, civil society, and the private sector in Africa? And what are the barriers in this collaboration for Africa’s internet policy development? And from your experience, how can this be overcome through multi-stakeholder approach, bearing in mind that we put so much emphasis not only on the findings of the assessment, but also on the process, which is truly multi-stakeholder and cooperative throughout the assessment process, which then leads to multi-stakeholder cooperation in implementing. the recommendations. Please, Nejib.

Nejib Mokni: Thank you so much for the question. Let me first of all congratulate all of us for this second generation of IOIs. I was pleased to support the first generation since the consultations, so since the adoption process of the IOIs and then their implementations in at least three or four countries. It was difficult also to implement them in other countries. We tried a lot, so that’s why there is a lot of challenges, but there is a lot of lessons learned we can share also. So, I think that integrating the IOIs into, and IOIs is the Internet Universality Integrator, sorry, at UNESCO we like to use acronyms, into regional and national framework policy making processes can of course enhance effectiveness and inclusivity of Internet governance and so on. And here we are not discussing the relevance of those IOIs, but how we can use this framework to change the reality, to improve the policies and so on. So, I think there is a keyword here, the ownership by all the stakeholders. This is very important at the national and the regional levels. So, we have to work with all the stakeholders, they need to be aware about this framework and the importance of this framework. It’s not a ranking in countries and this is not very clear for many governments. So, we have to work with governments, of course, civil society, academia, regulators, media, private sector, regional organizations and NGOs and the ownership of these IOIs. is very important. The process should be led by those actors and they need to understand this framework and the objective and the purpose of the assessment and then they could contribute to its implementation. So, this needs a lot of actions. The first one is the awareness raising, capacity building and the public awareness campaigns. It’s very important and even before conducting the assessments, because there is a need to understand this framework and its implications. So, before even conducting assessment, it’s very important to organize information sessions, workshops, training workshops, etc. The second key element for this ownership is the stakeholders engagement. And the stakeholders engagement is the engagement of all the stakeholders during the whole process, not at the beginning or during. So, it’s not easy to maintain this dynamic and create this dynamic among stakeholders and maintain it during one year or two years to prepare the assessment, conduct the data collection and analysis and develop the recommendations and, of course, implementing the recommendations and I’ll talk about that later. So, this is very important and we need to agree on the role of each actor before, during and at the implementation phase of the recommendations as well. So, it’s important to do this mapping at the regional but especially at the national levels with all concerned stakeholders and under each domain and area, the right, the openness, access, etc. It’s very important because we don’t have specialists on all of those fields, so it’s very important that we work with all of them and together during the whole process. The third key element for this ownership and I mean for a successful implementation is, and this is the most important component, the assessments, the data collection, analysis and recommendations. This is very important and we need to think about an innovative approach to better involve stakeholders at this phase. And we have also to showcase, I mean, transformative impact after this assessment is developed. So of this assessment and it’s important also to monitor the implementation of the recommendation in a participatory and inclusive manner as well. This is very important and this leads to the other element, the monitoring and evaluation. This is very important. It should be based on the performance indicators for each component of the Rome X indicators to track progress and measure outcomes. And also we need regular reviews because we did some assessment under the previous generation and in the meantime there is improvements and developments. So it’s important that we do a kind of regular review or updates of the assessment to reflect change and development and improvement. And it’s very important for the national counterparts because it’s also a kind of recognition about their efforts that they are following this framework and they are advancing. And I think the regional cooperation is very important to exchange best practices when we see, for example, the success stories, etc. It’s very important for implementation of IUI. We have to think also about some fora, for example annual IUI forum or regional forums. Also IGF could be a platform to enhance this regional cooperation and this

Tatevik Grigoryan: annual follow-up. Thank you so much. Thank you very much Naajiba. Actually I have a follow-up question but very briefly you mentioned you drew up on your experience in five countries actually. I wanted to ask you when it comes to the challenges of multi-stakeholder cooperation do you see patterns of challenges that are relevant to any country or the challenges in each country are rather unique? What’s your take on this? Yeah there is some, I mean

Nejib Mokni: we can find both. So we have some shared challenges or challenges where we find everywhere. The first one is the political will of course because if we don’t have this high level commitment, the political commitment on that we cannot advance on the implementation and this is I mean the case of many most countries. I try to implement the IUI there and there is for example another common barrier or challenge is the effective collaboration between partners and also the lack of trust. So and the lack of trust between partners, I mean it’s leading to reluctance of engagement I mean of actors and we have also sometimes a problem of a weak communication between actors. We have in some countries we have many very limited resources and also sometimes the impact of civil society or the I mean there is the role of civil society sometimes it’s very limited and sometimes also we find the kind of a shrinking civic space so it’s also very difficult to identify all the concerned actors and to work with them. So and this limits the scope of the assessment and also the data collection and everything. Of course another challenge it’s also common is the fragmentation of the internet governance framework. So you have I mean pieces of and here and this is very difficult for the data collection. So the lack of comprehensive frameworks and processes for internet governance can also complicate the collaboration effort. So those are the main it’s I mean it depends on the context of the of the country but we found those challenges I mean with difference of course but we found them

Tatevik Grigoryan: in all countries. Thank you. Thank you very much Nejib and now we’ll go to another region to the South Pacific. actually where I had the pleasure and honor to visit to conclude the IUI assessments and see the strong willpower and cooperative approach to changing the country and driving the digital transformation forward. And Tenanoia Simonas, CEO at Tuvalu Telecommunications Corporation. Tuvalu, Noja, you’ve been instrumental in not only in driving the IUI assessment forward but in driving the digital transformation in Tuvalu forward. And by the way congratulations on this huge achievement of finally having the undersea cable shipped to Tuvalu. This is a huge achievement and I know you’ve had an instrumental input in this. I wanted to invite you to speak about the relevance, first of all relevance of IUIs for small countries like Tuvalu and islands like Tuvalu. But also I wanted to ask you to reflect on your experience of implementing the IUI assessments and talk a little bit about how governments from the perspective of telco, how could the governments better engage with all these diverse stakeholders, telecoms, private sector, civil society and all the other essential actors to collaboratively create a more inclusive digital ecosystem and drive this digital transformation. Thank you.

Tenanoia Simona: Thank you so much Tatevik. Thanks for those kind words. Tuvalu just landed its first submarine cable I think four days ago and it is a milestone in a historic moment for our country. And coming back to your question, I mean government in a small Pacific island countries, government is very important and we need to engage government with private sector and other stakeholders because it is critical for building more, like you said, more inclusive and sustainable digital economy ecosystem in the Pacific. And I would like to take you into how we see the IUI framework strategizing and guiding government in a few points I want to mention. Some of the points was echoed by our other speakers which is a very important point when it comes to share ownership because share ownership of digital development goals can really build that trust between stakeholders and get that working together. The other thing that I wanted to highlight here, a strategy that I feel because we are a small Pacific Island countries, we are communal base. Community is very strong in our countries and engaging local community and civil society is very, very important and government should collaborate with civil society organizations and to make sure and ensure that digital initiative really address local needs. By saying how to engage, you have to engage community leaders. Government can improve digital literacy from a very the grassroot level accessibility and take into account we value our cultures and traditions so it’s very important that we have that cultural relevance in this approach. The other point that I really want to mention is how to prioritize capacity building and skill development. We are very small in size and we depend so much on partnership and private sector bringing that training programs and knowledge sharing opportunities to build our local technical expertise because of our remoteness and we are very far from developed countries and building capacity is a challenge and I think on day zero I talked a little bit on the challenges. In the Pacific, we have very, very unique challenges and I mentioned a couple of them and I think we need to prioritize how we can build that capacity and skills development and the role of the government in that is very important. The other last point I want to mention, I want to I will leave others to my colleague, Selu. The other strategy that I feel that government should do is to drive innovation through local businesses. Government can really encourage entrepreneurship in SMEs, small and medium enterprises. I think the way to do that is to do startup friendly digital ecosystem because our small Pacific Island countries, as I said, it’s communal based and we are very friendly. So building that kind of a startup friendly digital ecosystem can really, the adoption will be very, very fast, I will say. And one of the, an example that I will say, we just developed a mobile money solution just recently and from experience and from experience from other countries they said that it will take a long time to adopt a mobile app in such context. But in the case of Tuvalu, because we, our approach is different and we like to do it in a more friendly way because that trust is very, it’s very much in our community. So we promote that kind of inclusion and economic participation in that context. Thank you.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Very much, Noia, you mentioned this mobile money solutions. I hope I’ll have time to come back to you to also inquire a little bit about this Tuvalu’s ambition and project on becoming the first digital nation country, which is related to unfortunate environmental impact, which impacts small islands a lot. And Tuvalu is one of them, which is at risk, but perhaps you could think about that to say a few points. Well, in the meantime, I would like to give the floor to Selu. Selu, I would like to actually build on what Noya said about the values. So it was very interesting for me to see that, for example, some small island nations, countries have values listed or defined in their constitution. But I just wanted overall to talk about the polarities of the SEADs, small island developing countries when it comes to the… Can you hear me? Yeah, I can. Sorry. Sorry, it’s weird. So I just wanted you to… We know that there are particularities about different digital challenges and also particularities of values, cultures for SEADs. I wanted to see your perspective on how do you think ROMEX indicators can help strengthen the digital development strategies for SEADs, taking into consideration the particularities and values, diverse challenges. Thank you.

Selu Kauvaka: Thank you, Tatevic. Maloilele, I’m kind of struggling here. It’s 2 a.m. in Tonga, so I’ll keep it short and sweet. Firstly, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to share today. Just a little, because two of us is from the same region, so I’ll just share quite a few from the experience of implementing the IUI’s assessment in Tonga. I was part of the team on the ground in Tonga conducting this assessment, this national assessment for Tonga, and from a civil society organization, we conducted this IUI in Tonga. So a few… pointers from there. We identified it as a toolkit for measuring Tonga’s digital economy, playing a crucial role in strengthening and identifying where Tonga is digitally. Another indicator that we pinpointed was internet access at its weakest. This was a data-driven tool, so it was something that we highlighted and it was good to share. As mentioned by Noya, it’s community-based, so it was something good to share amongst Tonga to know and identify areas that we need to invest more in. The IOI was specifically awesome because it was data-driven and that was a bit difficult from a CSO conducting the IOIs. One thing that we learned was, though challenging for us to conduct this being a civil society, but government support was very crucial. Amongst all this, there is the multi-stakeholder advisory board and to make government share, that will push everything easier for us. From Small Islands Developing State and Tonga, the biggest thing that FROMEX can indicate is to share progress across the region, share best practices, advocate and monitor so that we could align. Most of us in this region are very familiar with risks. Earlier along the year, Tonga had volcanic eruptions. This morning, there’s a big tsunami earthquake in Vanuatu. So I think climate change and all that, these are risks that us in the small island developing states face every day. So cross-cutting and bringing Romex indicators into our region, we can easily just share best practices instead of Tonga doing their own and Tuvalu doing their own. Since we are kind of very familiar, very same, we can share and advocate more on this. Two more points. In my experience in implementing this IUI and having digital inclusion initiatives, as mentioned by the speakers earlier, is the multi-stakeholder approach inquires and tailors solutions to our region. So solutions are tailored specifically for us in the region. For example, us in Tonga, we found some success, big success in involving community. So when you go down to grass level and involving community directly, you can shape technology policies there. And you can also deliver and conduct more around digital literacy, online safety and connectivity. Just two challenges besides all this that I wanted to highlight during this program for us is, one, the digital divide and the challenge in aligning policies in our region with the fast-moving technology changes due to the gap around there. And one thing that was not mentioned was we found it quite difficult. conducting this assessment and indicators and interviews the language, trying to indicate to the local communities in the Tongan language from a context that is mostly tech language or mostly international language, we had a little challenge there around interpreting to community level in Tongan. Thank you.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thank you very much, Selu. Selu, as she mentioned, she’s from the civil society. She’s a consultant on ICT, cyber security and IT management and she co-led the assessment in Tonga. Actually, I would have wanted to reflect on the implementation of the recommendations, but because of time, I think we’ve got only six minutes left and I wanted to give the floor to each of the speakers to say one minute, any remarks, final remarks you have. Please, let’s start with Fabio.

Fabio Senne: Thank you, Tatevic. No, just to say that I really like what my colleagues mentioned about, first about ownership and collaboration. I think these are two key words that I want to remind when using this. This is not for ranking or for just classifying countries, but how to create a conversation, a conversation that is based on sound principles. This is why it’s good to have UNESCO on board establishing main principles such as human rights, openness and accessibility among stakeholders. I think now the process and I would like to see the next steps in the countries that already implemented to see, for instance, these new indicators on environmental impacts, on digital adversity. advanced digital technologies can be very impactful for the new assessments. And finally, I think I really liked also this comment on how to create a network of implementing countries and collaboration between countries. I think this is not planned in the beginning of the process, but naturally it came out as a key tool, and I think we have international fora and other spaces to keep this as a key as a collaborative of different stakeholders and researchers that implemented the indicators. So thank you very much.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thank you very much, Fabio and Nejib.

Nejib Mokni: Thank you so much. Maybe I will, it’s relevant for Africa countries, but also most of developed countries. I think ICT and artificial intelligence, they are among the most promising sectors, I mean, structure transformation in Africa and other developed countries in terms of employability and in terms of contribution of their funding and creating, and of course, the know-how of young, etc. So it’s very important to use the AUI framework, but it’s time to think about innovative approach and TOR for all those stakeholders to conduct this, to implement. And to discuss there and build the trust through the engagement of all those sectors before conducting the assessment, and after also the assessment is done to implement the framework, the recommendations, and we need a framework for the implementation with the performance indicators. It’s very important to monitor and so we can also re-evaluate and update those evaluations. It will be easier for us to monitor this. Thank you so much.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thank you so much, Nejib. Noia, please.

Tenanoia Simona: Yeah, I will just have a few remarks. It’s just that, you know, Leveraging the revised frameworks emphasize on resilience, affordability, and inclusion, and small island nations like Tuvalu and other Pacific island countries can address this in digital divides and enhance environmental preparedness because we are very, very vulnerable to climate change. I think the multi-stakeholder approach should combine with international cooperation to ensure that the small island developing states navigate the path for digital development journey more sustainably and inclusive in a way. So I think I’m thankful to the UNESCO for bringing that over to our South Pacific islands. Thanks.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thank you so much, Noya. These are all points that we could talk about for an extended period of time, but we have only one minute left. Thank you. I think just ending for me is the main indicator moving forward for all of us here is empowering people, safeguarding rights, and fostering collaboration. Malo. Thank you so much to all of you for the discussion and excellent points raised. I hope we can carry forward the conversation and continue the conversation, including through our dynamic coalition. Unfortunately, our time is up and I have to conclude by showing again our new indicator framework. And I must say that you discussed different challenges, new challenges and technologies, and in the revised indicators, enhanced indicators, we took this into consideration, like Fabio said, and it’s not coincident that it is now more inclusive of these challenges and it’s now internet universality, advancing inclusive digital transformation with Romex indicators. So thank you so much again and I should I would like to thank once again to all of you, but also special thanks to CETIC, nick.br and CETIC.br for being with UNESCO throughout all these years, through the inception of the original indicators and also through the implementation of the indicators and of course for the revision for the instrumental role. I would like to acknowledge the presence of Alexandre Barbosa here, who is the head of the regional studies on the development of information CETIC.br, UNESCO category two institute and Fabio, of course, for our years of work, which has been a delight. With this, I would like to thank the audience for coming and I’m truly sorry we didn’t have time for questions. You can catch us in the corridors now if you have any questions or any remarks to make, but thank you so very much for coming and being with us. Thank you so much.

Agreement Points

IUIs as a guidance tool for national digital assessments

Moderator

Tatevik Grigoryan

Seluvaia Kauvaka

IUIs provide guidance for national digital assessments, not for ranking countries

IUIs framework helps identify gaps and inform policy decisions

IUIs serve as a toolkit for measuring digital economy progress

The speakers agree that IUIs serve as a guidance tool for countries to assess their digital development, identify gaps, and inform policy decisions without ranking or comparing countries.

Importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration

Najib Mokni

Seluvaia Kauvaka

Tenanoia Simona

Fabio Senne

IUIs process fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration

Multi-stakeholder collaboration tailors solutions to regional needs

Importance of involving local communities and civil society

Engagement of diverse stakeholders throughout the assessment process

The speakers emphasize the crucial role of multi-stakeholder collaboration in implementing IUIs effectively and addressing specific regional needs.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of shared ownership and collaboration among stakeholders to ensure effective implementation of IUIs and tailored solutions for regional needs.

Najib Mokni

Seluvaia Kauvaka

Need for shared ownership among all stakeholders

Multi-stakeholder collaboration tailors solutions to regional needs

Both speakers emphasize the relevance of IUIs for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in addressing their unique challenges, including environmental preparedness and digital development.

Seluvaia Kauvaka

Tenanoia Simona

IUIs help address unique challenges faced by SIDS

IUIs can enhance environmental preparedness for climate-vulnerable nations

Unexpected Consensus

Language barriers in implementing IUIs

Seluvaia Kauvaka

Language barriers in communicating technical concepts locally

While not explicitly mentioned by other speakers, Seluvaia Kauvaka’s point about language barriers in communicating technical concepts locally is an unexpected but significant challenge in implementing IUIs, especially in diverse linguistic regions.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agree on the importance of IUIs as a guidance tool for national digital assessments, the significance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the relevance of IUIs for addressing unique challenges faced by Small Island Developing States.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers on the core purposes and benefits of IUIs. This consensus suggests a strong foundation for implementing IUIs across different regions, particularly in developing countries and SIDS. However, there are also shared concerns about challenges in implementation, such as limited resources and capacity, which may require additional support and strategies to address.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were related to the specific challenges faced in implementing IUIs and the focus of multi-stakeholder collaboration.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers agreed on the overall importance and benefits of IUIs, but had different perspectives on implementation challenges and priorities based on their regional experiences. These differences do not significantly impact the overall support for IUIs but highlight the need for flexible implementation strategies that can be adapted to different contexts.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agreed on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, but they emphasized different aspects. Nejib Mokni focused on shared ownership, Tenanoia Simona stressed the involvement of local communities, and Seluvaia Kauvaka highlighted tailoring solutions to regional needs.

Najib Mokni

Tenanoia Simona

Seluvaia Kauvaka

Need for shared ownership among all stakeholders

Importance of involving local communities and civil society

Multi-stakeholder collaboration tailors solutions to regional needs

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers highlight the importance of shared ownership and collaboration among stakeholders to ensure effective implementation of IUIs and tailored solutions for regional needs.

Najib Mokni

Seluvaia Kauvaka

Need for shared ownership among all stakeholders

Multi-stakeholder collaboration tailors solutions to regional needs

Both speakers emphasize the relevance of IUIs for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) in addressing their unique challenges, including environmental preparedness and digital development.

Seluvaia Kauvaka

Tenanoia Simona

IUIs help address unique challenges faced by SIDS

IUIs can enhance environmental preparedness for climate-vulnerable nations

Key Takeaways

UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators (IUIs) provide guidance for national digital assessments without ranking countries

IUIs aim to reduce digital inequalities and foster inclusive development

The IUI assessment process promotes multi-stakeholder collaboration

IUIs are particularly relevant for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to address unique challenges

Challenges in implementing IUIs include lack of political will, limited trust between stakeholders, and resource constraints

Multi-stakeholder engagement and shared ownership are crucial for successful IUI implementation

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue to promote and implement the revised IUI framework across more countries

Foster regional cooperation and knowledge sharing among countries that have implemented IUIs

Develop performance indicators to monitor the implementation of IUI recommendations

Consider organizing annual or regional IUI forums to enhance collaboration

Unresolved Issues

Specific strategies for overcoming language barriers when communicating technical concepts locally

Detailed plans for addressing the digital divide in developing countries

Methods for aligning rapidly changing technology with policy development in SIDS

Suggested Compromises

Balancing global relevance of indicators with flexibility for diverse socioeconomic and cultural contexts

Combining multi-stakeholder approaches with international cooperation to support SIDS in digital development

UNESCO is not in the business of rankings, nor of making comparisons about countries. UNESCO has been around for 80 years, that’s eight zero. We provide guidances, this is a guidance, hopefully to inform policy makers and decision makers at government level, but also in a multi-stakeholder approach to define the gaps they see through this digital assessment and then to come up with the actions which will remedy to these gaps or will overcome the shortcomings.

speaker

UNESCO ADG

reason

This comment clarifies the purpose and approach of the UNESCO indicators, emphasizing guidance over ranking.

impact

It set the tone for the discussion by emphasizing collaboration and improvement rather than competition between countries.

From a regional perspective, I think it was also interesting to understand that we had to address specific challenges that we have in each region. For instance, from the global south, and we have lots of comments regarding still how to face the digital divides, the rural divides, the gender divides, and all the gaps in media information literacy in those countries.

speaker

Fabio Senne

reason

This insight highlights the importance of regional context in addressing digital challenges.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider how the indicators need to be flexible and adaptable to different regional contexts.

The first one is the political will of course because if we don’t have this high level commitment, the political commitment on that we cannot advance on the implementation and this is I mean the case of many most countries.

speaker

Najib Mokni

reason

This comment identifies a crucial factor in the successful implementation of digital strategies.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider political and governance aspects of digital transformation, not just technical ones.

Community is very strong in our countries and engaging local community and civil society is very, very important and government should collaborate with civil society organizations and to make sure and ensure that digital initiative really address local needs.

speaker

Tenanoia Simona

reason

This insight emphasizes the importance of community engagement in small island nations.

impact

It introduced a new perspective on the role of community and cultural context in digital development strategies.

From Small Islands Developing State and Tonga, the biggest thing that FROMEX can indicate is to share progress across the region, share best practices, advocate and monitor so that we could align.

speaker

Seluvaia Kauvaka

reason

This comment highlights the potential for regional collaboration among small island states.

impact

It expanded the discussion to consider how the indicators could facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration between similar countries.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by emphasizing several important themes: the non-competitive nature of the UNESCO indicators, the need for regional and cultural contextualization, the importance of political will and community engagement, and the potential for regional collaboration. They moved the conversation beyond technical aspects of digital transformation to consider broader societal, political, and cultural factors that influence the success of digital initiatives.

How can the implementation of IUI recommendations be monitored and evaluated?

speaker

Najib Mokni

explanation

Monitoring and evaluation is important to track progress, measure outcomes, and ensure the effectiveness of the IUI framework.

How can regular reviews and updates of IUI assessments be conducted to reflect ongoing changes and developments?

speaker

Najib Mokni

explanation

Regular reviews are necessary to keep the assessments current and recognize countries’ efforts in following the framework.

How can regional cooperation and best practice sharing be enhanced for IUI implementation?

speaker

Najib Mokni

explanation

Regional cooperation can improve the effectiveness of IUI implementation across countries.

How can Tuvalu’s project on becoming the first digital nation country address environmental impacts?

speaker

Tatevik Grigoryan

explanation

This relates to the unique challenges faced by small island nations due to climate change and their digital transformation efforts.

How can the language barrier be addressed when conducting IUI assessments in local communities?

speaker

Seluvaia Kauvaka

explanation

Interpreting technical and international language into local languages is crucial for effective communication and implementation of the IUI framework.

How can a network of implementing countries be created to foster collaboration?

speaker

Fabio Senne

explanation

A collaborative network could enhance the sharing of experiences and best practices among countries implementing the IUI framework.

How can the new indicators on environmental impacts and advanced digital technologies be effectively implemented in countries that have already conducted assessments?

speaker

Fabio Senne

explanation

Understanding the impact of these new indicators is important for countries that have previously implemented the IUI framework.