WS #278 Digital Solidarity & Rights-Based Capacity Building

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the concept of digital solidarity and its implementation in global digital policy. Jennifer Bachus from the U.S. State Department introduced digital solidarity as a framework for international cooperation on digital issues, emphasizing human rights and multi-stakeholder approaches. Panelists from various sectors discussed the opportunities and challenges of digital solidarity.

Key themes included the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the need to balance digital sovereignty with international cooperation, and the role of the UN and other international forums in promoting digital rights. Panelists highlighted the importance of inclusive infrastructure, data privacy, and cybersecurity in advancing digital solidarity. They also stressed the need for capacity building and support for civil society organizations in developing countries.

The discussion touched on upcoming international processes, including the WSIS+20 review and the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Panelists emphasized the need to strengthen these mechanisms and ensure they remain inclusive and rights-respecting. The conversation also addressed challenges such as internet shutdowns, surveillance, and the potential misuse of cybercrime legislation.

Participants debated the hosting of international forums like the IGF in countries with problematic human rights records. They also discussed the impact of sanctions on international technical cooperation in cybersecurity. The panel concluded with a call for continued dialogue and collaboration to advance digital solidarity and address emerging challenges in the digital sphere.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The concept of digital solidarity and how it relates to digital sovereignty

– The importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and collaboration in digital governance

– Challenges and opportunities for operationalizing digital solidarity, especially in developing countries

– The role of the IGF, WSIS, and other multilateral processes in advancing digital cooperation

– Balancing cybersecurity needs with human rights and privacy concerns

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore the concept of digital solidarity, its importance in global digital governance, and how it can be operationalized through multi-stakeholder collaboration and international processes.

Tone:

The overall tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with panelists offering constructive ideas and acknowledging challenges. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital divides and governance issues. The tone became slightly more critical during audience questions, but remained respectful and focused on problem-solving.

Speakers

– Jennifer Bachus: Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

– Nashilongo Gervasius: Public interest technology expert, media and communications lecturer at Namibia University of Science and Technology, founding president and board member of the Internet Society Namibia chapter

– Jason Pielemeier: Executive Director at Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

– Robert Opp: Chief Digital Officer at UNDP (United Nations Development Programme)

– Susan Mwape: Founder and Executive Director of Common Cause Zambia

Additional speakers:

– Barbara: From Nepal (audience member)

– Alexander Savnin: From Russian Federation, civil society representative (audience member)

– Hala Rasheed: Public policy and human rights expert representing Alnahda Society (audience member)

Digital Solidarity in Global Digital Policy: A Comprehensive Overview

This panel discussion, moderated by Jennifer Bachus from the U.S. State Department, explored the concept of digital solidarity and its implementation in global digital policy. The panel brought together experts from government, civil society, and international organizations, including Jason Pielemeier (participating remotely), Nashilongo Gervasius, Robert Opp, and Susan Mwape.

Defining Digital Solidarity

Jennifer Bachus presented digital solidarity as a concept embraced by the US government, rooted in the International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy launched in May. This approach promotes cooperation while respecting rights, contrasting with digital sovereignty approaches that can potentially undermine economic and security objectives.

Nashilongo Gervasius, a lecturer and member of the Internet Society Namibia chapter, emphasized that digital solidarity should align with both global and regional ambitions, suggesting a nuanced approach to sovereignty concerns.

Multi-stakeholder Approaches and Collaboration

A key theme throughout the discussion was the critical role of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing digital challenges. Jason Pielemeier emphasized that multi-stakeholderism is at the core of digital solidarity, allowing diverse actors to come together and be “stronger than the sum of their parts”.

Robert Opp highlighted UNDP’s role in creating spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues, focusing on digital policies and strategies, use of technology, and capacity building. Susan Mwape stressed the important role that civil society plays in multi-stakeholder engagement and provided examples of how citizens can participate in promoting digital solidarity, such as advocacy campaigns and supporting ethical digital platforms.

Challenges in Implementing Digital Policies

The discussion revealed several challenges in implementing digital policies, particularly in developing countries:

1. Resource constraints in enforcement

2. Potential risks to privacy posed by cybercrime conventions

3. The impact of sanctions on technical cooperation and solidarity

4. The need to consider local context and ongoing reforms in policy dialogues

Internet Governance Forums and Processes

The panel devoted significant attention to the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other multilateral processes. There was broad agreement on the need to renew and strengthen the IGF mandate. Robert Opp suggested that both the IGF and WSIS processes need to become more mainstream and integrated with other global issues.

The discussion also revealed tensions surrounding the IGF, particularly regarding host country selection. Jason Pielemeier shared that his organization chose not to attend the current IGF in person due to concerns about the host government’s human rights record, sparking a debate about the benefits and risks of holding such forums in countries with problematic human rights situations.

Balancing Digital Sovereignty and Solidarity

The discussion highlighted the need to balance cybersecurity needs with human rights and privacy concerns. Jason Pielemeier raised concerns about the potential misuse of cybercrime legislation, while audience members emphasized the challenges faced by developing countries in enforcing digital policies.

Infrastructure and Capacity Building

Susan Mwape emphasized that infrastructure and data privacy are key components of digital solidarity. Jennifer Bachus acknowledged the challenges posed by lack of connectivity or digital capacity, linking these issues to the broader goal of achieving sustainable development. Robert Opp shared insights on how the COVID-19 pandemic prompted a shift from techno-optimism to a more holistic, rights-centered approach to digital solutions in development contexts.

Future Directions and Initiatives

Jennifer Bachus highlighted several US government initiatives:

1. A focus on responsible AI development and governance

2. Efforts to address the proliferation of commercial spyware

3. A $3 million initiative to build capacity for international stakeholders to engage in multilateral processes, especially related to AI

Conclusion

The panel concluded with a call for continued dialogue and collaboration to advance digital solidarity. Key outcomes included support for renewing the IGF mandate, agreement to hold a virtual reunion in early 2025, and acknowledgment of the need to address unresolved issues such as balancing digital sovereignty with solidarity, potential misuse of cybercrime conventions, and mitigating the impact of sanctions on technical cooperation.

The discussion underscored the complexity of achieving digital solidarity in a diverse global context, highlighting the need for ongoing dialogue, compromise, and innovative approaches to advance shared goals in digital governance. Jennifer Bachus emphasized the US government’s openness to feedback and criticism, reinforcing the collaborative spirit of the discussion.

Jennifer Bachus: Okay. Let’s go. Okay. Channel 2. Okay. Good morning. It’s very tough to be in the morning, although I don’t know, Jason, must be the middle of the night for you. So thanks for joining us in the middle of the night. So excited everyone here. For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Jennifer Bacchus. I am the number two in the State Department and Cyberspace and Digital Policy Bureau. We propose this workshop because we believe in the critical importance of digital solidarity, working together to address digital policy in a rights respecting manner. For this workshop, we’re going to start with introductory remarks and then have three rounds of questions and then we’ll finish with some audience questions. Before we get into the introductory remarks, I’m going to try to do my best to introduce our panelists here. My apologies if I missed the parts of your bio you’re the most proud of, please correct me. First of all, I’m so excited to introduce and oh, I should also say I’m really terrible with pronouncing names. So again, my apologies. Nacholongo Gervasius, I hope is correct, who is a public interest technology with extensive experience in our field, a media and communications lecturer at Namibia University of Science and Technology and the founding president and board member of the Internet Society Namibia chapter. There’s a whole bunch of other stuff here, which hopefully she will talk about as we go through this workshop. Remotely, we have Jason Peelmeyer, and again, thank you for joining us remotely, who leads the Global Network Initiative, which is a dynamic multi-stakeholder human rights collaboration which builds on consensus for the advancement of freedom of expression and privacy among technology companies, academics, human rights, and press freedom groups. He previously served as the deputy director and policy director and is now the executive director and had previous experience working at the State Department. and so seems to understand sort of those of us that are at the State Department. Very pleased and excited to have Robert Opp, who’s the Chief Digital Officer at UNDP. He is, for those of you who don’t know UNDP, but I really hope you do know UNDP, it’s the Global Sustainable Development Organization which works across 170 countries with more than 17,000 staff, which is actually a very close description of the State Department. We were talking about our similarities there. He is leading the agency’s digital transformation, which is an organization-wide effort to harness the power of new technology to improve the lives of those for this behind. And last, but really not least, is Suzanne Mwappe, who is Founder and Executive Director of Common Cause Zambia which is an organization that seeks to promote citizens’ participation in various government processes, leveraging technology to enhance public accountability and resource tracking. And really excited to have all of you here today and having been able to engage with all of you separately in various situations, I know you are gonna be amazing panelists here today. Because I’ve decided to play both the role of moderator and speaker, congratulations to all of you here for getting to hear me do both. I will start with my brief opening remarks, which are mostly to sort of situate us in our vision on digital solidarity and what it means to the United States and how we’re working to advance this concept. You know, digital solidarity is a concept that had been out there a little bit, but which we really fully embraced when we published the US International Cyberspace and Digital Policy Strategy back in May of this past year at RSA, which is a cybersecurity conference, and our Secretary of State launched it. We believe through digital solidarity that it’s the idea that we have a willingness to work together on shared goals, stand together, help partners build capacity and provide mutual. support. My colleague Stuart here has excerpts from our strategy. If you want to know more about this, I will try to go through some of it, but we did not bring our printed strategies with us, but he is a one pager for those of you who want to understand it and see the excerpts. Essentially, it’s about framing partnerships, building like-minded coalitions, people around the world can use technologies to achieve a more secure, resilient, inclusive, and prosperous digital future. We have through digital solidarity, of course, a never-ending firm commitment to multi-stakeholder, race-based, interoperable approaches to Internet governance, digital policy processes, and the design, development, and use of emerging technology. Simply put, digital solidarity is rooted in working together to seize the promise of technology while countering the risks. I think we all recognize the urgency of us promoting digital solidarity. There are just too many stakeholders that cannot fulfill that promise, so we need to really come together to do so. We recognize the lack of connectivity or digital capacity, and I know all of you are working on this, and these things can hinder the ability to fully participate in the digital economy and challenges our collective ability to achieve the sustainable development goal. Having attended one and participated in another panel, there was a lot of talk this week about connecting the unconnected, and I think we’re all coming together around this idea. We also recognize the huge financing gap to achieve the sustainable development goals. The financing gap right now, I think you all know, is estimated at around $4 trillion. It’s a lot of money. Cyber threats, which is another issue that my office focuses on by criminals and other bad actors, such as ransomware attacks. It’s another thing we have to continue to push back against, and we are pleased to also host a side event on the Counter Ransomware Initiative. We of course see authoritarian governments who continue to increase efforts to undermine the multi-stakeholder rights-based approach to Internet governance and digital policy processes, including across multilateral fora, recognizing where we are here today, which of course puts at risk the future of an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet. We know that various actors are increasingly misusing technologies, especially emerging technologies and ways that undermine the development goals of emerging economies and human rights and democracy. But we always like to be a little bit optimistic in our organization, which is why we have the concept of digital solidarity. And we know that many people here today are seized with the urgency of building these international coalitions to build digital and cyber capacities to counter those threats and harness the benefits of technology. And to this end, the United States does and will continue to support a global, multi-stakeholder, rights-respecting approach to Internet governance, digital policy processes, like the WSIS Plus 20 Review, which has been the point of many conversations this week, and emerging technologies such as AI. We recognize, as I said, governments can’t do it alone. We need a broad array of stakeholders who help us by using their expertise to inform and drive action on these issues and participate meaningfully in various fora, such as this one. Thank you very much for your long travels here, as well as working closely with allies and partners to ensure digital technologies are designed, developed, and used in a responsible and rights-respecting manner. I just wanted to say, and this came up in a discussion we had yesterday, the U.S. Department of State and USAID are working very closely together with leading tech companies, as well as civil society, academia, and partner governments to ensure as many people as possible can benefit from safe, secure, and trustworthy emerging technologies. I will also here note work we’re doing on AI, and I do have a handout as well on our AI programs for those of you that are interested. Over the past few years, we’re very proud that our foreign assistance budgets for these issues has more than tripled, still not enough, but in my opinion, every year you just keep trying to do a little bit more and a little bit better. So we’ve already been engaged with over 140 countries around the world and are now poised to dramatically increase our bilateral and multilateral cooperation. We’re going to get into examples later because I really feel like I’ve been speaking for way too long, but I’m going to try to turn to our panelists now. So I will start with our first panelist, Nashilongo. Can you please, why don’t you give us your opening remarks, please? Thanks.

Nashilongo Gervasius: Thank you very much for being here and I appreciate the putting together of this panel and thank you, Ms. Bachos, for leading this conversation. I think in my very first introduction is really recognizing the importance of partnership, the importance of collaboration, particularly for many of the things that we face in an increasingly digitalized world. From engaging policy matters, whether it’s a local, regional or global level, from dealing with real issues that faces society and this is where, you know, places us as civil societies, but also academia in dealing with issues of skilling, in issues of cyber crime and cyber security issues at local level. So many of these things are increasingly becoming an issue that one cannot deal with by themselves, even just at local level. these networks of collaborators, of supporters, of partners who are able to provide the necessary funding to assist us to carry out necessary research that produces the evidence to compel policymaking at local level, but also helps us into getting in the rooms like this, that many of our partners and our collaborators at local level can only dream to be. I think we might not have this term, solidarity, as broadly as the US government has made it intentional to embrace at local level, at regional level, but I think it is an important concept. It is an important approach to be working together for all of us, I think. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that. Next, actually, I’m going to go to Jason. Thanks again for being with us at this ungodly, probably early, late hour for you.

Jason Pielemeier: Thanks, Pia Spokas. Can you hear me okay? Wonderful. Well, thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be part of this panel. It is either very early or very late here, and I hope I can manage to stay engaged. I hope you’ll forgive me if I have a few yawns over the course of the panel, but I’m really interested to hear from the other panelists and to be a part of this conversation. Just to quickly introduce myself, I’m Jason Pielmeier. I’m the Executive Director of the Global Network Initiative, GNI, which is the world’s leading multi-stakeholder initiative committed to fostering respect for freedom of expression and privacy in the technology sector. GNI brings together over 100 members, including academics, civil society organizations, and investors, and tech companies from around the world to work together. And our members do that by sharing information about challenges to freedom of expression and privacy stemming from overbroad government regulations, policies, and demands, and working to support each other in pushing back on those scenarios. And we do this in four primary ways. First, through policy engagement. So we speak collectively on behalf of our broad membership to illustrate how diverse stakeholders from disparate regions, often critical of one another in other spaces, can nevertheless share common positions on a remarkably broad range of topics, from telecom regulations to AI safety. Second, we foster safe spaces for learning across our membership, through which companies can confidentially share insights into the challenges they face in different jurisdictions. And civil society and others can present research and recommendations to help companies understand risks and make more responsible decisions. Third, we facilitate a unique accountability process through which our member companies’ efforts to implement the GNI principles and implementation guidelines, which we refer to collectively as our GNI framework. So information is shared about how they implement that framework in a regular manner, and those efforts are independently reviewed and assessed. And these assessments allow companies to share, again confidentially, non-public information about their internal policies, structures, and systems, as well as the kinds of challenges they face in upholding their responsibility to respect free expression and privacy rights in the face of government pressures and demands. And finally, we work to share insights and good practices, as well as recommendations gleaned from. these internal member-facing processes with our outside partners, including governments, multilateral bodies, and other companies that are not yet members. So that’s a little bit about how we work. And at the core of all of that is this concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea that different actors with different backgrounds and expertise can come together and be stronger than the sum of their parts.

Robert Opp: Okay. Thank you. Well, it’s a pleasure to be here. As Jennifer said, I’m Robert Opp. I come from the United Nations Development Program and I’m Chief Digital Officer there. And maybe just as sort of a little bit of overview of our work, we are, as Jennifer said, the UN Development Arm and present in 170 countries worldwide. I think our digital work has definitely accelerated over the last several years, particularly in the wake of the COVID pandemic when countries around the world really started to accelerate their own digital transformation, building their digital infrastructure kinds of efforts. And that has meant that we as a United Nations Development Organization need to look at what that actually means in terms of choices made every day by governments and communities and others when it comes to embracing technology. And I think it’s, I would say and characterize that prior to the COVID pandemic, a large parts of the development community, and we’re talking about, I’m talking about the conventional mainstream development community, were rather techno-optimist and looking at digital solutions as, well, I’ll sprinkle an app here and I’ll put a database there and this will result in magical development results. But COVID really was an inflection point for us in the understanding of how we need to move from being very solutions and oriented and somewhat fragmented into being more holistic and strategic in the way we use digital solutions. But very importantly, moving from that moment of techno-optimism into an understanding of the risks and the importance of putting people’s rights at the center of whatever we do in technical or digital solutions. And so as we work with countries around the world, we find that the work that we get requested to support with breaks down into three big areas. Digital policies and strategies, where countries are looking to see how they can better support and govern the use of digital solutions. So that might mean data protection laws, privacy laws and strategies, et cetera. And misinformation, information integrity, that sort of thing. Also in the second area of requests is around the use of technology. So this is where the kind of technologies like digital public infrastructure, digital identity, digital payments platforms, and things like that. Countries request support in those. And then the third area is capacity building, where it’s building the competence and capacity to be able to leverage those systems and those platforms. In all of that, our starting point is the individual person and that person’s rights. And in our digital strategy, we have a set of seven guiding principles. The very first one is that we put human rights at the center of what we do in digital. And so when we talk about digital solidarity, we talk about digital rights, this is absolutely fundamental for us. And I would just sort of finish by saying, when we work with countries, we often see that they’re in a big rush to put in place digital platforms and solutions, because we know how urgent these things are. We know how quickly technology is evolving. We feel that we need to get ahead with the right kind of advice when it comes to best practices, sharing lessons learned, cooperation mechanisms between other countries, or regional cooperation mechanisms. Countries tend to make the choices that are in favor of inclusion and rights, but they need the right frameworks, the right learnings, the right practices shared among them. And so that’s one of the fundamental elements for us that we look at as a UN organization.

Susan Mwape: All right, so thank you very much for having me on this panel. As a way of introduction, Common Cause Zambia is an organization that was established in 2013, and our role is to promote citizens’ participation in governance processes, and so we do this through providing empowerment programs, building capacity, and also just trying to provide tools that citizens can use to hold their leaders accountable. We have a wide range of programs that we undertake, starting from research in terms of our technology program, research around policy, research around the state of digital rights in the country, and also internet freedom. We also do capacity building. We undertake advocacy work as an organization, but also collectively at national level and also international level. So over the years, we’ve built different levels of stakeholder engagement. We have what we call a cyber network, which is a membership of organizations that work at community level, so we’re looking at community organizations, community-based media, community radio stations, and traditional leaders as well, because they play a very significant role. We do this to try and just bridge the digital divide that exists in the face of the reality of where technology is taking us. So we don’t do this on our own. We collaborate with the government in doing this, our IT regulator. We carry law enforcement agencies with us into the communities, and we found that it is very effective. And as much as we talk about the digital divide, there are serious issues that happen in these communities, and we’ve noticed that they have been able to hold, for instance, law enforcement officers accountable on issues of fraud and things like that, that involve things like mobile money, which is very popular now. We also engage at national level. We co-established a digital rights network, and it’s a multi-stakeholder platform that brings together different organizations to the table where we assess issues of policy and various issues, and we fight collective causes. I will talk a bit more about some of the work that we have done, but basically that is what Common Cause Zambia does. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks to all of you. So, we’re going to go to an interactive discussion now in what’s a little unconventional. I am posing myself questions. We were jokingly saying that I might just like jump seats to say when I’m the moderator. Not the moderator, but we’ve decided that’s maybe a little too interactive for this hour of the morning. And so, the question I got was actually partially came from the panelists because the question boy, the question is essentially what do I say to those who advocate for digital sovereignty or data sovereignty instead of digital solidarity and are these concepts mutually exclusive? I think I want to start by just underscoring the commitment of the United States to a positive and economic benefits that come from preserving openness while protecting privacy, promoting safety and mitigating harms. And I thought, Robert, your comments on this question about guardrails is really incredibly important and we believe that you can both have digital solidarity and guardrails. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, but what we see when we hear talk of digital sovereignty and protect, it’s mostly oftentimes an idea of protectionism. The idea of blocking access to markets, unduly preventing cross-border data flows, preferencing domestic manufacturers and service providers. And we see this as potentially undermining what is critically important when it comes to interoperability, security and market access. So we see the rise of this digital sovereignty or data localization narrative, including what we’ll acknowledge from partners, very close partners and allies, has a potential to undermine key economic and cybersecurity objectives. And essentially, the possibility to limit the potential of economic, social, and individual exchanges that the growing digital economy and cyberspace make possible. So, you know, over the last two and a half years, there’s been a lot of discussion about Ukraine, and I will, you know, even though this is not, we’re not currently sitting in Europe, I’m going to start by talking about Ukraine in terms of the value of digital solidarity. Just before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Ukrainian government changed its laws to allow government data to be stored on the cloud. They had refused to do so before, so to be clear, we had lots of engagements with them, but they felt like their data was going to be more secure if they could look at the servers. It’s a very common thing. If I can see it, I feel like it’s more secure. But in reality, this does, in many cases, undermine cybersecurity. And because of this very last-minute change, U.S. cloud service providers were able to safely and securely store Ukrainian data abroad. This protected the data from Russia’s brutal attacks. It allowed the government to continue serving its people, regardless of where they ended up in Europe and around the world. When governments erect barriers to the free flow of data, for example, or fail to take advantage of global cloud services for the sake of protectionism, it has demonstrably increased costs, slows innovation, and weakens cybersecurity. We need to continue to make sure that data can flow seamlessly and securely across borders because this is critically important as the backbone of our digital economy. We recognize the very, very real concerns that many countries have over the affordable and sustainable digital investments, the lack of which, ultimately, we know can undermine their sovereignty. But solutions proposed, such as data localization, network usage fees, other market access barriers, ultimately, as I said, can undermine economic and security objectives. These false solutions essentially contribute to that. to this idea that you have increased control, but in reality, they often cause real damage. There are other better ways to address these concerns. We in the United States have embraced the Global Cross-Border Privacy Rules, CBPR. It’s a mouthful. It’s a system which has certifications that can ensure privacy protections that travel with the data while at the same time facilitating cross-border data flows, crucial to supporting digital trade, international transactions, and other critical business deeds. The Global CBPR Forum demonstrates that countries can come together to protect privacy and democratic principles while fostering economic openness, interoperability, and integration. I think it’s also worth noting that oftentimes, some of the narratives around digital sovereignty are really an idea of localizing data so that governments can have better access to that data, ultimately to undermine the privacy of their citizens. We have been engaging with UNDP on digital public infrastructure, and we really strongly support the UNDP-led Universal DPR Safeguards Framework, which is designed to promote the protection of members of vulnerable groups online, including children, protect privacy and human rights, multi-stakeholderism, and fair competition, and to guard against cybersecurity vulnerabilities because, again, it’s great to talk about DPI, but if you don’t have those safeguards, DPI, again, creates potential vectors for inappropriate access to information. So we think that there is a middle ground where you can have protectionism, you can have protection, safeguards, but you don’t need to sacrifice digital solidarity, the idea that we’re going to work together and that we need to work together to advance digital safeguards and tools that mitigate the potential harms and ensure technology is. developed, used, and governed consistently with human rights and democratic values. And we’ve developed so many tools to do this in the past year, which includes, of course, as always, promoting the multi-stakeholder rights respecting approaches, including related to AI and information integrity. Some of those tools will be in a capacity building toolkit. We will share in the workshop report that results from the session. And with that, I’m going to, every once in a while, so for those of you in the room, I did learn this yesterday. You’ve got to point your little thing at one of the lights. If you didn’t know that, that’s my little, yeah, that one too. But every once, oh, just that one. So every once in a while, I lose my mic. So anyway, so now you get the question, which is, as a civil society leader, how do you think about the opportunities and challenges of stakeholder collaboration? How can we foster more effective collaboration across different stakeholders and groups? And please. This one, right?

Nashilongo Gervasius: So thank you again, Ms. Bacos, for this new level of engagement. So in terms of collaboration, I think, once again, there’s so many opportunities for many organizations like ours, who works closely with grassroots organizations. But again, engaging across all levels, at national level, from policy and implementation. We find a lot of challenges in making meaningful contributions or even finding meaningful ways in enforcing policies across sectors. But the opportunities are key. Many of these to engage in core issues at different levels. finding common grounds, but there are also key challenges as I’ve mentioned before in creating meaningful collaboration and even participation once again. Issues of accessing stakeholder platform in another, but also resource accessibility and limitation is the other. In many of the engagements that we have, we find in siloed by the fact that technologies, so private sector in engaging in platforms like this, for instance. I don’t know, maybe by observation, I haven’t seen many people from your usual tech in these platforms, your Meta, your Google and many of these platforms in really finding, getting together and answering those questions together. But I also wanted to really engage on the issue of digital sovereignty, issues of, whether this is mutually exclusive or not. I mean, we recognize, for instance, from the African Union and this is maybe something that’s a bit more closer to home for African civil societies. The AU has a digital transformation strategy, 2020, 2020, 2030. The prioritize digitally enabled socioeconomic development to stimulate job creation and poverty and reducing inequalities just amongst others and also dealing with issues of delivery of goods and services and that’s how the AFDTA, for instance, becomes a bit more relevant. And this could be controversial if you, the concept of sovereignty. need balance in terms of engagement of with issues of access and issues of control, right? With that, that doesn’t mean it cannot operate or cannot be aligned to solidarity, like you can have one and you can still have the others because the common goals are broader issues that affect everybody globally, issues of privacy, that’s a human rights issue, cuts across with whatever market that we have. And so, yes? This is much better, right? Okay, there is a real concern that over affordable and sustainable digital investments, this in itself can undermine issues of sovereignty altogether. And I think for many of the African countries in the African region, and I don’t want to speak for everyone, is investment in infrastructures that we are addressing within the UNDP and DPIs, that control of whether it’s the infrastructure itself or the data hidden over those infrastructure, can pose serious challenges that filters into cyber crime, cyberware that can tend to go beyond the control of any nation, but also provides more opportunities, right? Opportunities such as data that to us, particularly if, sorry, but. It’s a microphone, yeah, just hold the microphone. Yeah, that’s, again, on data, we’re looking, how do we find values of that kind of data at local level where we can entrust researchers, innovators, to use this, particularly if it is, you know, accrued through public funding means to be innovated and find solutions for local challenges, for instance. And many of these initiatives, so still requires investment, requires support, and that can also be enhanced through this digital solidarity concept that we are talking about, yes. Let me, and come.

Jennifer Bachus: I’m gonna turn to Jason online. So here’s your question. As the leader of a multi-stakeholder organization, what does the multi-stakeholder approach offer for digital solidarity, and where can multi-stakeholder approaches be strengthened? I’d appreciate your thoughts on that.

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, thanks. So the cyberspace and digital policy strategy that the State Department has put out talks about digital solidarity as recognizing that all who use digital technologies in a rights-respecting manner are more secure, resilient, self-determining, and prosperous when they work together to shape the international environment and innovate at the technological edge. And it goes on to note that the State Department can’t accomplish its objectives in this strategy without strong partnerships with the private sector, civil society. and technical communities. So I think the strategy acknowledges both the core importance of international and human rights as a framework for bringing disparate actors together, both different countries, multilaterally and bilaterally, as well as different stakeholders in different kinds of multistakeholder spaces and processes. And really what the sort of the fuel that allows, I think, digital solidarity to work, and that allows this kind of collaboration across countries and across stakeholders is trust. So trust is really the kind of critical ingredient. And trust is something that, as the famous sort of adage goes, is difficult to build and very easy to lose, right? So the US government over years, going back to my time at the State Department, has pretty consistently tried to articulate approach to international tech policy that centers human rights and brings in diverse stakeholders. And we’ve done a lot through financial support, done a lot through our multilateral engagement, including things like the Freedom Online Coalition, but there’ve been many bumps in the road as well. It’s not a straight line, it’s not a linear process. And I think that the challenges are only in some ways getting, the barriers are getting higher, the challenges are getting more intractable, as you were alluding to in your remarks, Peter S. Baucus. It’s really great to see the State Department kind of doubling down and recommitting to this kind of approach. And I think there’s a real thirst and a desire among many other governments and states, as well as other non-state actors for this kind of approach rooted in human rights and this concept of solidarity. I want to just note a process that I was privileged to take part of earlier this year, the NetMundial plus 10 process. So NetMundial was a conference that was organized a decade ago by the government of Brazil and its Internet Steering Committee to bring together a really diverse range of stakeholders in Sao Paulo to talk about the importance of multi-stakeholderism. And this was in the wake of Edward Snowden and his revelations at a moment of pretty low trust. And notwithstanding that sort of atmosphere and context, NetMundial, I think, was seen by many as a very successful moment where the multi-stakeholder community really was able to assert itself and put forward some important principles for how Internet governance can be most effectively carried out. And so fast forward to 10 years later, as the sort of multilateral community, international community, is preparing for the WSIS plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact was being negotiated, many of the same actors who organized NetMundial came back together and organized a reprisal in Sao Paulo in April. And I was a civil society representative on the high level expert group. for the NetMundial Plus 10 conference. And it was really just, I wasn’t a part of that process. And I was actually in the State Department 10 years ago when the original NetMundial took place. So it was really interesting to be on the civil society side and see how that process worked, the sort of very diverse views across not only civil society but other stakeholder groups that nevertheless coalesced around, I think, a very strong outcome document. At the core of this NetMundial Plus 10 outcome document which builds on the original NetMundial document are a set of guidelines referred to as the Sao Paulo Multi-Stakeholder Guidelines. And I just kind of very quickly talk through some of the key guidelines because I think they really underscore how trust can be built and how multi-stakeholder processes should work. The first of them reminds us all that we need to be mindful of power asymmetries between diverse stakeholders. In particular, I think we need to pay attention to the resource constraints that were mentioned earlier that can keep people from being able to effectively participate in civil society. In particular, I think often feels like they are under-resourced compared to governments, compared to the private sector. The second guideline focuses on informed and deliberative discussion. So really making sure that there is equal access to information and that there’s open space for deliberation. The third focuses on treating stakeholders fairly and equitably. The fourth centers the rule of law and respect for international human rights principles. The fifth talks about the value of linguistic diversity and the need to respect that and enable that. The sixth. focuses on the shared responsibility to uphold accountability and transparency across these kinds of processes. We often see actors nodding towards concepts of accountability and transparency, but really meaningfully building them into these processes is critical, especially for those moments when trust is tested. I won’t go through the rest just because there are 13 of them total, but you get a sense from the ones I’ve talked about of kind of the level of granularity and detail that are in these principles. They’re really born out of extensive experience that stakeholders in the technical community and academia and civil society and the private sector, whether through standard setting bodies or governance bodies have learned and crystallized. And I really wanna recommend those principles as sort of a playbook whereby different actors, whether at the national level, regionally, or internationally can use these principles to help build multi-stakeholderism and foster trust so that digital solidarity can prosper and sort of be the force that helps us push back against these more sovereignty-focused or kind of self-interested or national interest-focused approaches.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks. So Robert, from your point of view, what are the advantages and opportunities or challenges of using the UN in multilateral fora?

Robert Opp: Yeah, well, Jason has done a beautiful job of describing the kind of elements of multi-stakeholderism that are so important for what we’re talking about here, ensuring a rights-based approach to digital solutions, et cetera. And I think we have a bit of, we have opportunities and we have challenges, as your question puts out there. On the one hand, we have a multilateral system that has just delivered a global digital compact that puts rights at the center, has quite strong language about the need for cooperation. It even has language in there about multi-stakeholderism, but it is a multilateral or an intergovernmental agreement. And there were some struggles on how best to incorporate multi-stakeholderism into that process and some dissatisfaction on the parts of some groups that it wasn’t a more multi-stakeholder-oriented process slash agreement. But it is the intergovernmental system that we have, the truly global one, and that has sent a strong signal in certain directions. I think it’s also fair to say, though, that the multilateral system delivers in the form of the WSIS Forum and the IGF in particular a very large and inclusive multi-stakeholder platform that has been going for 20 years. And so I do think that this shows the UN can create some space and the multilateral system can create space for multi-stakeholder dialogues. And I do think that it’s important that we maintain those spaces as we go forward. It’s probably more important than ever that we continue this tradition that started 20 years ago of ensuring that voices of individuals, people, civil society, private sector and others to be able to come together and talk about our digital future. That should continue. And I think the UN does make it possible to have those kinds of platforms in place. So I think I don’t need to say more than that. I mean, I think there’s more that we could do on the kind of intergovernmental side. And sometimes when we do these agreements, and I know that there’s a lot of goodwill to make that possible. So there’s more room to go, but we need to preserve what we have and make it better as well.

Jennifer Bachus: Susan, as the founder of Common Cause Zambia, which seeks to promote citizen participation, how do you suggest citizens participate in this concept?

Susan Mwape: Thank you very much. I think that there are so many ways in which citizens can participate in promoting digital solidarity. And I think that it’s a range of… Part of the efforts that citizens can undertake have already been… Okay. Part of that has already… We have seen it in other platforms, but I would point to advocacy and awareness campaigns. Citizens can do a lot of that to ensure that they promote the concept, using social media platforms to raise awareness. We have seen that happen in Zambia. I’ll give you an example of 2021 when we were going towards elections and young people, the youth of Zambia were dissatisfied with how government was conducting government business. And so they decided to hold a protest and then the government threatened to break their bones and not permit them because they needed to get a permit, a police permit to do that, but the government would not let them. So they opted to do their protest online. So we woke up on that day to maximum police presence on the ground, chasing after these young people who once threatened, had told their colleagues to stand down and decided to hold the protest in the bush and just live stream it. The impact of that was that they had more than 12,000 people that viewed that stream. They had… more outreach, more impact, and also there was a lot of solidarity around that. So in as much as they were getting their message across, they were able to use digital platforms to get their message across. Another strategy that citizens can use is also supporting digital rights and privacy, and this can be done through joining different movements. We’ve seen that there’s a lot of effectiveness in working collaboratively. A very quick example that comes to mind for me is the Keep It On campaign led by Access Now, which is a global campaign of different organizations that push back against internet shutdowns, and it has really, really created a lot of impact in the sense that it provides an opportunity for global communities to understand what’s going on, but also be able to lend a voice and provide that solidarity to push back against internet shutdowns. I would also look to supporting just ethical digital platforms, and I think that we all talk about using digital platforms in so many ways, but supporting ethical platforms is one way in which I think we can also stand up against bad practices that exist and also just push back on the platforms that do not serve the needs of citizens. So I think these are some of the ways that we can do that.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that. So I think the next question that we’ll all answer, so I’ll just put it out there, is how can we more effectively operationalize this concept in 2025? What are some examples of practical approaches and tools? I know we’re running a little behind, so I’m going to run pretty quickly through some of those that we in the U.S. government are using and some of the work that we’re doing. Well, to start with, we have done a lot on cyberspace security, working on approaches to cybersecurity. We are working on law enforcement collaboration to build secure and resilient ICT infrastructure and governance and effective incident detection and response, recognizing that all of this needs to be in line with international law and reinforce arms of responsible state behavior in cyberspace. On AI, there’s just so much going on in this space. I could probably spend an entire panel on that. And I’m sure there’s been more than one panel on AI this week. We did launch the partnership for global inclusivity on AI, which I, again, I have some paperwork on if people are interested, which is bringing together the Department of State and some of the largest tech companies, galvanizing more than $100 million to help unlock AI’s potential. We established a group of friends of AI for sustainable development with our co-chair, Morocco. We are gathering to share best practices, figuring out ways to collaborate. With USAID, we launched an AI for development funders collaborative and an AI and global development playbook. Just a second on commercial spyware, which is an issue that we have also tackled very significantly in 2024, and which will continue in 2025. Really, it’s a whole of government strategy, which includes things like regulating the US government’s use of commercial spyware through an executive order, promoting accountability, using economic sanctions, export controls, visa restrictions, and then working diplomatically with partner countries to address this. And I would just say that as we undertook GDC, and again, I think was recognized that there are many complaints for the multi-stakeholder community on GDC, but we in the US government really thought it was important to engage with civil society, with the multi-stakeholder community, including from the global South. to promote multi-stakeholderism. We had lots of civil society roundtables. We did what we tend to do and we used these, we implemented these consultations into what we were gonna do. And I know we’re gonna talk about WSIS Plus 20, so I will leave our sort of forward-looking work on WSIS Plus 20 to the next question and I will hand it over to you.

Nashilongo Gervasius: Yes, so in amplifying operationalization of digital solidarities 2025, we should be looking at raising common voices on key issues. I think Susan have mentioned issues of standing up against repressive regimes and shutting down the internet, for instance. So how do we collaborate? How do we stand together when countries where communities that we join in partnership through digital solidarity is faced with issues of surveillance, for instance, you know, issues of internet shutdown. So really that requires a lot of coordination. So I see, we’re seeing digital solidarity being operationalized through collaboration, standing together, creating regional harmonization report, if that it is, whether it is coming through the regional forums, such as the regional IGF or the sub-regional IGFs and getting to platforms like this. The other is also creating evidence and this is possibly one of my favorites, really getting down and creating knowledge by researching and providing those evidences and bringing them to platforms like this, whether it is the IGF, whether it is. to the YSS and actually saying, look, this is actually what it is. This is actually how it look like at local level. But also capacity building, right? We appreciate opportunities like this because once we get down at home, you really go with a different perspective. You really go with a bit more informed voice that is able to tell private sector, that is able to convince your law enforcement to say, you know what, this concept of smart city, as you find it as effective for your law enforcement purposes, this is a contravention of human rights. You are putting people at risk. And so capacity building, I think, remains very key. And also, I mean, we faced with so many issues related to surveillance. I am possibly happy to be engaging with one of the projects that we are doing through the Digital Rights Network for Africa, a project led by the University of California, I think Alvin’s School of Law, where we are really researching how surveillance is taking shape within Africa and how that is seen by government, but also how civil society and all the other stakeholders at local level are engaging with that. And really, again, comprehensively looking at issues of digital rights, asking currently with the support through the solidarity, asking that human rights online must be recognized as true human rights, whether this is constitutionally or through other means. We should also be able to work together through other existing mechanisms. I think the UPR, yesterday we had that. a quick conversation, and we just found out that everybody amongst many of our colleagues are involved in the UPR mechanism or the assessments at local level. And many of us have been able to effectively do so because we’ve got partners, a lot of solidarity colleagues that stands with us and say, look, we know that many of the time, government when they are putting that report together from themselves, they decide who gets in the room. But we found ways and means to create our own reviews, particularly on digital rights. I think this was the case with the Internet Society during our last review and really presented. And we also found that even government was very receptive to come and say, look, we know you looked at human rights, issues of vulnerable communities, but this is what we’re looking at from a digital rights perspective, issues of privacy, freedom of expression online, access to information, just amongst others, and making sure that we’ve got the right frameworks that are human rights, respecting and making sure that they put people first. So there’s a lot of work that we possibly foresee ourselves 2025 and even beyond. Again, it requires all of us, and it requires partners who knows better, possibly who are better resourced, and to help us carry and bring our voices at platforms like this. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that. Smart cities is another topic, which, yeah, I have the same surveillance concerns. And I think there are very good things that can come out of smart cities, but we should all be a little concerned about them. So very glad to hear you’re raising your voice on that issue as well. Over to you, Jason.

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, thanks. So, yeah, I really wanna echo Narsilingo. and Susan’s comments earlier as well about the way in which these interconnecting technologies can both enable free expression and freedom of association, can enable connectivity where it didn’t exist before, can promote voice where it may have been stifled, but also how when they’re misused, these technologies can be very, very dangerous to those who are trying to raise their voices and to call governments to account. So in that context, I think it’s important to note, and referencing also my earlier comments about trust, that I think the IGF itself is a really great sort of enabler of digital solidarity. And it’s not just this conference that’s happening right now, it’s the national and regional level IGFs that Narsha Nandga referred to, it’s the intersessional work, the dynamic coalitions, the policy networks. I mean, this is a sort of process, a community that’s been built over decades, and it’s incredibly valuable. It brings so much expertise, a tremendous repository of knowledge and experience together. But for those same reasons, it’s important to recognize that hosting the IGF in countries where those same human rights that we’ve been referring to are systematically repressed creates a real challenge. I am not with you in person because my board made a decision that we would not attend this IGF in person as an organization. organization, because we had real concerns about safety and security, as well as concerns about the human rights track record of the host government. And so we put out a statement that indicates our ongoing support for the IGF and the IGF community, but also raises concerns about the hosting decisions that the IGF and the broader UN have made, and the need to ensure that IGF is hosted in countries where the community feels safe, where there is trust, and where we can have these robust conversations without fear of reprisals, without fear of unwarranted surveillance, without fear of censorship. So I think, you know, this is an incredible mechanism that is available to the community. It is a medium for building trust and fostering digital solidarity. But we have to take care of this resource that is the IGF, and that means having some difficult conversations. And those conversations are going to come up in the forthcoming WSIS process, which includes, of course, the question of renewal and the mandate of the IGF. So I really hope that we can use that process not only to extend the mandate, but to strengthen the IGF, including how decisions about hosting are made going forward.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks. Over to you, Robert.

Robert Opp: Yeah. Sure. I would – I want to talk about two different levels, now I’m doing – I don’t know what’s going on with the microphone. I think we are in an unprecedented time right now of the technical ability for the exchange of information, data, the need for greater data as we look at artificial intelligence systems. There’s a – you know, there’s parts of the Global Digital Compact that talk about data governance. At a technical level, I think we need to be thinking more than ever about cross-border flows of data, information, interoperability of systems, and so on. And this is, you know, again, a bit behind that, you know, UNDP’s interest in the space of digital public infrastructure on how can we really create greater economic and social prosperity coming out of the use of these digital platforms. which then of course have to be accompanied by the policy level, policy legal protections level that has a very careful focus on people’s rights. Because as we said, and I don’t wanna be repetitive, but I think it’s worth emphasizing that we should not be in the space. And as a UN agency, we are not in the space of offering technology support to countries without the accompanying governance mechanisms, policies, legal protections, et cetera. Because as Jason says, and other panelists have been saying, they present that risk. So in 2025, our intention is to continue to pursue the benefits of interoperability, of data availability and interoperability, better data governance that takes a global and a global cooperation approach, but doing that in a safe way that really puts people’s rights at the heart of it.

Jennifer Bachus: And over to you.

Susan Mwape: Thank you. And for me, I think it’s to talk about looking forward to how we can make operationalize digital solidarity. And so I just had a few things about that. I think, first of all, there was a lot of talk from Jason and yourself, Jennifer, around DPI. And so I think that building inclusive infrastructure to access technology will be helpful. We’ve talked a lot about the digital divide and how things are moving forward, but until we have infrastructure that is inclusive of those that have been left behind, this whole journey is going to be challenged because after all, solidarity is best with as many numbers as you can without leaving anyone behind. So infrastructure is very important. Also strengthening data privacy and security issues. Now, Sholongo talked about safe cities. We have a number of countries that are struggling with bad laws, data protection laws, nonexistent in some countries. So that is also something that is of great importance for us to move forward with. I think that we also… need to begin to think of platform designs for solidarity as well, where we can do this in a more open space. Robert raised a very valuable concern around, for instance, hosting of the IGF, and so when we think about those that are unable to travel, then, you know, if we have platforms that enable them to effectively participate, it is helpful. I think when we talk about cost of internet, for instance, I come from Zambia, a country that has one of the highest costs where data is concerned, so not many people would be able to participate in an event like this. We are struggling with issues of load shedding, endless hours, and so that creates a barrier in itself. Finally, I know that we are running out of time. I think there’s also need for support to NGOs, civil society, and also other stakeholders to look at how we can also bring the private sector on board, maybe providing incentives for things like corporate social responsibility that supports digital solidarity. Thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks for that, and public-private partnership is absolutely at a cornerstone of what the U.S. also works around the idea of public-private partnership because it’s absolutely accurate that the amount of resources the U.S. government is ever going to be able to put into this is going to be dwarfed by the amount of private sector resources, and I’m always really heartened when I talk to a lot of tech companies and I hear about the academies they have, the work they’re doing, and I think getting the word out on that can continuing to promote that, continuing to support that, which I try to do whenever I meet with them. And I think that I will say, and not just because you both come from Africa, but I’ve had the opportunity to travel through Africa and seen really impressive work with a wide range and also not because you’re both women, but particularly focused on bridging the gender digital divide. And in some of the cases, it’s so interestingly the way they’ve thought out things like transportation, childcare, food, because it’s great to say, we’re gonna empower you, we’re gonna train you. It’s another thing to say, we’re gonna do it in a way that’s gonna work in the circumstances that you live in. And that is, I think, incredibly important to understand that if you, for cost reasons, have to locate the thing you’re doing in a rural, a place that’s not in the center, get people there, right? What do you do if the people participating in the program get pregnant? Can you figure out a way? They go on parental leave, they have to be home, or they have to be home for their children. I mean, it’s just thinking through all these elements, it’s really complicated. And the best programs are the ones where it’s the private sector has come together with civil society who says, well, you need to think about this thing in our country. And I think that’s incredibly powerful. And again, I now went off, and we’re supposed to talk a little bit because we find ourselves situated between GDC and WSIS, and the question of the extension of the IGF mandate and what all this means. And I personally have listened to lots of conversations. I acknowledge, as I’ve acknowledged to many of you already, I’m not the expert on these things in the US government. Luckily, I have experts on all of these processes. And just to say, we will continue, the US government will continue to support IGF, we will continue to support multi-stakeholder approaches, internet governance, and. We know that this is a particularly pivotal year for IGF as we look at WSIS plus 20. I also was given the opportunity by my team to announce that we recently launched a three million dollar initiative to build the capacity of international stakeholders including civil society and governments of developing countries to engage more meaningfully in multilateral development and governance processes particularly related to AI because this is a demand again that we keep hearing and we hope that this could potentially include facilitating greater engagement in the IGF in Norway which it’s gonna not be cheap let’s be clear as well as the WSIS plus 20 review and the GDC implementation. I’m happy to say more on that and you know also to note that I’ve had the opportunity to meet with some of you that we’ve supported in traveling around the world to various events including interestingly Jason, Tenet Mundial plus 10, the UN General Assembly and of course this week. So in early 2025 after the IGF virtual workshop report report comes out we would like to host a virtual reunion of this panel to just follow up and see how things are going because it’s great to meet here but it’s also even better if we continue to meet and build on these engagements. So I will turn it to you all for your thoughts as we continue to look to some of these multilateral processes what you’re thinking about.

Nashilongo Gervasius: Thank you. Again appreciating just this engagement in the nature that it’s taking we appreciate the US government’s commitment for funding and making sure realize many of the efforts taking place locally but also participation again in platforms like that. With that also just recognizing that as we engage on this concept of digital solidarity and the support that the U.S. government is, for instance, able to put forth, it’s a recognition that many different countries are at very different levels of development or even engagement on digital issues. I think many of the countries are already thinking about how do we review our policies on cybersecurity, for instance, making sure that it is aligned to the UN Treaty on Cybercrime, but yet you also have countries that just do not have laws or policies in place. So we have many of those challenges of alignment and I hope that the digital solidarity provides us opportunities for sharing lessons learned, for ensuring that policies at some level reflects the ambitions, whether this is the global ambitions, but also the regional ambitions, for instance, again, the Malabo Convention and many others, the LOME declarations of this year that looks at cybercrime, for instance. So we have those challenges that as we move forward, we use these platforms to align interest, but also aligns policies and other framework emerging requirements. And then there is, from a GDC perspective, and I think this is something that you’ve mentioned is, we hope that WSIS and maybe IGF20 would really shape the clear reporting mechanisms for the GDC. It seems very ambition looks good to have, but maybe a bit more broader and does not give us specificity in terms of how do we deliver or how do we focus and say, this is what we have delivered on this particular. And then, of course, we had, I think I mentioned from Robert, on issues of cross-border flow, and I really appreciate the UNDP effort, as you’ve mentioned, making sure that in promoting platforms and in promoting sort of channels where this data is saved or is distributed, we’re also promoting safe containment of this data, that it does not lead to putting people at risk, whether this is your usual human rights defenders, but also just ordinary citizens. So much work that we see ourselves working, and this platform, I think, will help us with that. It also goes with the issues of interoperability, that, again, we faced in many of the countries, we have systems that don’t work, that don’t talk to each other. Why isn’t your ID, national ID system, talks to your election system, and really solve many of the issues that come with credibility of elections, and make it very seamless in processes like that? But so is the health sector. So many, and I think the UNDP’s effort through digital infrastructure, I think that is helping. Maybe this conversation from UNDP, I think I only saw those conversations happening in Namibia only this year, and as a person that has been engaging maybe through the little and limited means, I’m asking, but why are we studying only now? Particularly because, again, really aligning those efforts, what’s happening locally, but also what is happening globally. happening globally. And I think as in my closing here, is really the support that we need in the policymaking process. I think I’m repeating, I’m finding myself at the danger of repeating myself really supporting the policymaking processes, but also churning out easier mechanisms for civil societies, but also other stakeholders to really say, but this policy is legitimate, this policy puts people first, this policy respects human rights, just amongst us. Yes, thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Over to you, Jason.

Jason Pielemeier: Thanks. Yeah, I’ll try and be brief. I know we’re running out of time. Yeah, I wanted to highlight something Nashi Lango referenced, which is the UN Cybercrime Convention, which is poised to be finalized this month and creates a framework that intends to enhance and facilitate more collaboration to address cybercrime. And that is certainly a good thing. We know that cybercrime is a scourge that needs to be addressed. However, we have been pretty consistent as GNI and many of our members, both private sector and civil society in pointing out some of the real potential challenges that this convention could pose by creating a sort of sanctioning system that allows for countries to put pressure on private companies and their employees domestically to require them to hand over data, to violate user privacy. for countries to continue the types of digital transnational repression that we are increasingly seeing around the world. And so there’s going to be a lot of work that needs to be done, including under the framework of digital solidarity to ensure that the Cybercrime Convention is used appropriately and not misused. As GNI, we are very committed to continuing to help civil society and private sector actors come together with rights-respecting governments to kind of shepherd this process, hopefully in a more rights-respecting manner. With WSIS plus 20, we are engaged and very hopeful that, as Nashilango said, that WSIS can remain sort of the central mechanism for, and the WSIS Action Lines can continue to provide the type of sort of framework that is needed to ensure more collaboration, more access and support for those who are falling behind the digital divide, as well as to renew the mandate of the IGF, and the Net Mundial plus 10 outcome document that I referenced earlier calls for a 10-year renewal of the IGF to sort of give it the sustainability and predictability that it needs as we continue to deal with all kinds of new technological challenges and opportunities. It also calls for strengthened funding and resourcing for the IGF, including improving the process for selecting host countries going forward, which I mentioned earlier. So the WSIS conversation will be an important one, and we really think GDC needs to be a process that supports and feeds into WSIS and doesn’t duplicate, doesn’t create sort of new separate tracks for similar conversations, which would allow for potential conflicts and also duplication of the burden for those of us who are trying to participate meaningfully in these various processes. So yeah, lots of important processes and conversations to be had in 2025. And we’re very much as GNI looking forward to participating them together with many of you.

Jennifer Bachus: Thanks, Jason. And we look forward to working with you on issues around the Cybercrime Convention because we also recognize the potential for misuse of the convention and are guarding against it as well as these questions of the future of IGF and I will say you’ve done admirably in the middle of the night and I think you get all your points. Congrats for that and with that I’ll turn to Robert.

Robert Opp: Yeah, I would agree with that. So it sounds like we all believe IGF, WSIS should be strengthened. I have a slightly different take on the whole evolution of this, which is 20 years ago when WSIS and IGF were first created, let’s face it, ICT for development was a bit of a niche community. And just as digital has become more mainstream in our lives, if you look at just the use of personal devices and all of the kinds of issues that are coming around that, I think IGF and WSIS need to be expanded and strengthened in a direction that makes it more mainstream. In a good way, not in a bad way, if I can put it that way. I think that we need to see more integration with some of the other issues that we have out there. Environmental sustainability is one of them that I find missing here. There’s some issues around children and gender violence and things that are somewhat here but not super well represented. So I think that this is the path for us because these issues are. absolutely crucial to the lives of everyone. And if you look at the number of connected people worldwide and the trajectory of that, it’s more important than ever that we’re seeing this as such a central platform.

Susan Mwape: All right, so I think for me, I will just conclude by saying, looking forward, I would be of the view that multi-stakeholderism is a very important aspect to digital solidarity. And it is my hope that we will be able to localize these concepts to the lowest level, because when we talk about digital solidarity, it means different things to different people. And so we have to find a way of ensuring that it’s interpreted as much as possible and taken forward. I really hope that the mandate of the IGF also will be renewed because I think that the IGF is one of those platforms that is really, really relevant and very important and being a platform that provides a multi-stakeholder engagement and people have a chance to lend their voice to all these different conversation that happen at local and international level. So that would be my hope, and I think that would be my parting words, thank you.

Jennifer Bachus: Great, I happen to know there are a couple of questions in the room. So what we’re gonna do, because I think we have three minutes, is at least get those questions down. We will do our best to answer them. And if we don’t get all the way through the answers, we promise to engage with you after the session. So anyone who wants to ask a question, we’re gonna have them all asked at the same time and then we’ll do our best.

Audience: This is Barbara, I’m from Nepal for the record. I have a question. We talked about digital solidarity and also we talked about digital sovereignty. In most of the case, In particular, developing countries where resources is very limited and the enforcement is very tough, especially to digital platform providers. So they talk about digital sovereignty because law enforcement are facing very tough times while enforcing cybercrime issues and other similar criminal cases or economic crime as well. So where we can find the solution about the digital sovereignty issue, comparing digital solidarity, avoiding strict legislation on data localization, they talked about. So what could be the alternative way for the governance model of that kind of situation? Thank you. Well, more bit notes, but also questions. Alexander Savnin from Russian Federation, not representing government, more than civil society and operations. I will turn to Jason and say, this process was created in Tunisia, which was really authoritarian country and democratic forces and organizations was used to meet people, to build capacity and to build solidarity then. As citizen of Russian Federation in opposition to my government, I really said that IGF have been moved to Norway. I’ve expected a lot of hopes for such organizations, such people, even state department to come and to talk to people. So please say my blames to your board and to board of other organizations. But again, if I criticize my government, it doesn’t mean I will not criticize or ask questions to US government. Because when we are talking in solidarity, we also, okay, the most solidarity in cybersecurity is built on technical community. People are working together and so on and so on. And I would like to criticize or ask question to US government. your sanctions are actually breaking solidarity. The latest question that’s few Russian-based or Linux kernel supporters was removed and it’s actually broke solidarity. One of them actually lives in the United States for years and work for Amazon. But again, some kind of sanctions. Another kind of example, especially related to cyber security, is that sanctions actually economical measures which is imposed before, even before what you call brutal attack. And as a Russian citizen based in Russian Federation have to call special military operation. Russian cyber security, huge cyber security companies, Kaspersky and positive technologies was sanctions and actually removed from all this processes of communications between technical community. And this actually, well, I don’t believe that I’m saying this, but well, I have to notice that not only Russian government breaks solidarity on cyber security and not joining Budapest conventions. And I definitely understand why they don’t do this. But also, well, some small thing, governments including United States may also. So please answer what could be done to improve or stop breaking technical solidarity even by this good looking measures. Thank you. Yeah. Hi everyone. So I’ll try to keep it brief. I just have a comment. My name is Hala Rasheed. I’m a public policy and human rights expert representing another society. So a little bit of context as to Saudi civil society. It’s a 60 year old women’s non-governmental nonprofit with UN ECOSOC consultative status. And we also lead the Saudi delegation to the W20. I appreciate Jason’s remarks about the IGF being hosted in Saudi Arabia, but I do have some comments. For these dialogues to achieve their objectives, it is essential to approach them with. an open mind and a clear understanding of the current legal frameworks, enacted policy reform and local context. Let us ensure that historical inaccuracies and biases do not cloud our judgment going into 2025. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Bachus: So, well, you can hear me, I’ve lost my mic or my ability to hear. I just wanna say, look, we were talking on our way in today and of course the United States government is always ready and willing to take any feedback. I understand the IGF, right after Snowden was quite complicated for the US government, but we show up, we listen, we try to respond. That’s what we’re here to do. We will not pretend that everything we do is perfect. If we don’t hear the feedback, we make bad policy. So I would say, I recognize your points and it is important. On the question of the non-responsiveness of platforms, look, it’s something I personally hear all the time. We push them very hard to be more responsive, but criminalizing speech, as you know, is of course at the same time, very problematic. I don’t know if they really wanna shoo us out, I don’t wanna give the opportunity to at least a couple of words if they feel obliged.

Robert Opp: Hello, super quickly, just on your situation as well, digital sovereignty does not equal cybersecurity. What I mean is we can’t assume that acting in ways that we think are protective is actually safer.

Jennifer Bachus: Before we get kicked out of the room, thank you to all of you for your participation. Thank you to the panelists. And please, if you haven’t read our strategy, I encourage you to. Thank you for your participation and we look forward to continuing these conversations. And thank you, Jason, from the other side of the world. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder approaches

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Susan Mwape

Robert Opp

Nashilongo Gervasius

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical for addressing digital challenges

Civil society plays important role in multi-stakeholder engagement

UN/UNDP can create spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues

Multi-stakeholder approaches need to consider power asymmetries

All speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in addressing digital challenges and promoting digital solidarity. They agreed that collaboration across different sectors and stakeholders is crucial for effective governance and policy-making in the digital realm.

Renewal and strengthening of IGF

Jason Pielemeier

Susan Mwape

Robert Opp

IGF mandate should be renewed and strengthened

IGF provides important platform for multi-stakeholder engagement

IGF and WSIS need to become more mainstream and integrated

These speakers agreed on the importance of renewing and strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) mandate. They view IGF as a crucial platform for multi-stakeholder engagement and believe it should be expanded to address a broader range of issues.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concerns about how certain approaches to digital sovereignty or cybercrime prevention could potentially undermine privacy, security, and economic objectives.

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Cybercrime convention poses potential risks to privacy

Both speakers emphasized the importance of considering local and regional contexts in implementing digital solidarity, particularly in terms of infrastructure development and policy alignment.

Susan Mwape

Nashilongo Gervasius

Infrastructure and data privacy are key for digital solidarity

Digital solidarity should align with regional and global ambitions

Unexpected Consensus

Challenges in implementing digital policies

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Audience members

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Cybercrime convention poses potential risks to privacy

Developing countries face resource constraints in enforcement

Sanctions can undermine technical cooperation and solidarity

Despite representing different perspectives (government, civil society, and audience), there was an unexpected consensus on the complexities and potential negative consequences of implementing certain digital policies. This highlights a shared recognition of the challenges in balancing security, privacy, and economic interests in the digital realm.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement centered around the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, the need to strengthen and renew the IGF mandate, and the recognition of challenges in implementing digital policies. There was also consensus on the need to balance digital sovereignty concerns with international cooperation and human rights considerations.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was moderately high, particularly on the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement and the need for inclusive digital development. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complexities in digital governance and the need for collaborative approaches. However, there were also areas of divergence, particularly in how to balance national interests with global cooperation, indicating that while there is agreement on broad principles, the specifics of implementation remain contentious.

Different Viewpoints

Digital sovereignty vs. digital solidarity

Jennifer Bachus

Nashilongo Gervasius

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Digital solidarity should align with regional and global ambitions

Jennifer Bachus argues that digital sovereignty often leads to protectionism and undermines economic and security objectives, while Nashilongo Gervasius suggests that digital solidarity should align with both global and regional ambitions, implying a more balanced approach to sovereignty concerns.

Hosting of Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Jason Pielemeier

Alexander Savnin (Audience)

Hosting decisions for IGF need careful consideration

IGF should be held in countries with human rights concerns to promote dialogue

Jason Pielemeier expresses concerns about hosting IGF in countries with poor human rights records, while Alexander Savnin argues that holding IGF in such countries can be beneficial for building capacity and solidarity.

Unexpected Differences

Impact of sanctions on digital solidarity

Jennifer Bachus

Alexander Savnin (Audience)

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights

Sanctions can undermine technical cooperation and solidarity

While Jennifer Bachus promotes digital solidarity as a means of cooperation, Alexander Savnin unexpectedly raises the issue of US sanctions undermining technical solidarity in cybersecurity, which was not directly addressed by the panelists.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the balance between digital sovereignty and solidarity, the approach to hosting international forums like IGF, and the practical implementation of digital solidarity principles in the face of geopolitical realities.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of digital solidarity and multi-stakeholder approaches, there are significant differences in how these concepts should be implemented and balanced against national interests and human rights concerns. These disagreements highlight the complexity of achieving digital solidarity in a diverse global context and suggest that further dialogue and compromise will be necessary to advance shared goals in digital governance.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the importance of digital solidarity and multi-stakeholder approaches, but they emphasize different aspects: Jennifer Bachus focuses on rights-respecting cooperation, Jason Pielemeier on trust-building, Susan Mwape on infrastructure and privacy, and Robert Opp on the UN’s role in facilitating dialogues.

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Susan Mwape

Robert Opp

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights

Digital solidarity requires trust-building across stakeholders

Infrastructure and data privacy are key for digital solidarity

UN/UNDP can create spaces for multi-stakeholder dialogues

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers expressed concerns about how certain approaches to digital sovereignty or cybercrime prevention could potentially undermine privacy, security, and economic objectives.

Jennifer Bachus

Jason Pielemeier

Digital sovereignty can undermine economic and security objectives

Cybercrime convention poses potential risks to privacy

Both speakers emphasized the importance of considering local and regional contexts in implementing digital solidarity, particularly in terms of infrastructure development and policy alignment.

Susan Mwape

Nashilongo Gervasius

Infrastructure and data privacy are key for digital solidarity

Digital solidarity should align with regional and global ambitions

Key Takeaways

Digital solidarity promotes cooperation while respecting rights and is seen as preferable to digital sovereignty approaches

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical for addressing digital challenges and fostering digital solidarity

Internet governance forums like IGF need to be strengthened and made more inclusive

There are challenges in implementing digital policies, especially for developing countries with resource constraints

Trust-building across stakeholders is essential for digital solidarity

Resolutions and Action Items

The US government announced a $3 million initiative to build capacity for international stakeholders to engage in multilateral processes, especially related to AI

The panel agreed to hold a virtual reunion in early 2025 to follow up on progress

Participants expressed support for renewing and strengthening the IGF mandate

Unresolved Issues

How to balance digital sovereignty concerns (e.g. law enforcement needs) with digital solidarity approaches

How to address potential misuse of the UN Cybercrime Convention

How to make IGF and WSIS processes more inclusive and representative

How to mitigate the impact of sanctions on technical cooperation and solidarity

Suggested Compromises

Implementing digital policies with strong safeguards and human rights protections

Strengthening IGF while improving the process for selecting host countries

Integrating digital governance discussions with other key issues like environmental sustainability

We believe through digital solidarity that it’s the idea that we have a willingness to work together on shared goals, stand together, help partners build capacity and provide mutual support.

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

reason

This comment introduces and defines the key concept of ‘digital solidarity’ that frames the entire discussion.

impact

It set the tone for the conversation and provided a framework for the other panelists to discuss collaboration and partnership in the digital space.

We recognize the lack of connectivity or digital capacity, and I know all of you are working on this, and these things can hinder the ability to fully participate in the digital economy and challenges our collective ability to achieve the sustainable development goal.

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

reason

This comment highlights a critical challenge in achieving digital solidarity and links it to broader development goals.

impact

It prompted discussion of specific challenges and inequalities in digital access and capacity throughout the conversation.

We need to continue to push back against, and we are pleased to also host a side event on the Counter Ransomware Initiative. We of course see authoritarian governments who continue to increase efforts to undermine the multi-stakeholder rights-based approach to Internet governance and digital policy processes, including across multilateral fora, recognizing where we are here today, which of course puts at risk the future of an open, interoperable, secure, and reliable Internet.

speaker

Jennifer Bachus

reason

This comment introduces the tension between digital solidarity and authoritarian approaches to internet governance.

impact

It sparked discussion about the challenges of maintaining open internet governance in the face of authoritarian pressures.

I think we might not have this term, solidarity, as broadly as the US government has made it intentional to embrace at local level, at regional level, but I think it is an important concept. It is an important approach to be working together for all of us, I think.

speaker

Nashilongo Gervasius

reason

This comment provides a perspective from outside the US on the concept of digital solidarity.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider how digital solidarity is understood and implemented in different contexts globally.

And at the core of all of that is this concept of multi-stakeholderism, the idea that different actors with different backgrounds and expertise can come together and be stronger than the sum of their parts.

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of multi-stakeholderism as central to digital solidarity.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering how different stakeholders can collaborate effectively in digital governance.

But COVID really was an inflection point for us in the understanding of how we need to move from being very solutions and oriented and somewhat fragmented into being more holistic and strategic in the way we use digital solutions. But very importantly, moving from that moment of techno-optimism into an understanding of the risks and the importance of putting people’s rights at the center of whatever we do in technical or digital solutions.

speaker

Robert Opp

reason

This comment highlights a significant shift in thinking about digital solutions in development contexts.

impact

It prompted discussion about the need for rights-based approaches and consideration of risks in digital development.

I am not with you in person because my board made a decision that we would not attend this IGF in person as an organization, because we had real concerns about safety and security, as well as concerns about the human rights track record of the host government.

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

reason

This comment raises important issues about the tension between promoting digital solidarity and concerns about human rights in host countries.

impact

It sparked discussion about the challenges of hosting international forums in countries with problematic human rights records.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by introducing and defining the concept of digital solidarity, highlighting challenges in achieving it (such as digital divides and authoritarian pressures), emphasizing the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, and raising critical questions about how to balance promoting digital solidarity with concerns about human rights. The discussion evolved from defining broad concepts to exploring specific challenges and tensions in implementing digital solidarity in practice.

How can we address the challenges of digital sovereignty while promoting digital solidarity?

speaker

Barbara from Nepal

explanation

This is important to find a balance between law enforcement needs in developing countries and avoiding strict data localization laws that could hinder digital solidarity.

How can the IGF process be made more inclusive for people from countries with authoritarian governments?

speaker

Alexander Savnin

explanation

This is important to ensure the IGF can continue to serve as a platform for building capacity and solidarity in challenging political environments.

How can US sanctions be adjusted to avoid breaking technical solidarity in cybersecurity?

speaker

Alexander Savnin

explanation

This is important to maintain global cooperation on cybersecurity issues despite political tensions.

How can we ensure dialogues about digital rights and governance take into account current legal frameworks, policy reforms, and local context in different countries?

speaker

Hala Rasheed

explanation

This is important to have more productive and accurate discussions about digital rights and governance globally.

How can the IGF and WSIS processes be expanded and strengthened to address more mainstream issues?

speaker

Robert Opp

explanation

This is important to ensure these processes remain relevant and address crucial issues like environmental sustainability and gender violence in the digital context.

How can we localize the concept of digital solidarity to make it meaningful at the lowest levels?

speaker

Susan Mwape

explanation

This is important to ensure that digital solidarity is understood and implemented effectively in diverse local contexts.

How can we improve the process for selecting host countries for the IGF?

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

explanation

This is important to ensure the safety and inclusivity of the IGF for all participants.

How can we ensure that the Global Digital Compact (GDC) supports and feeds into the WSIS process without creating duplication?

speaker

Jason Pielemeier

explanation

This is important to avoid conflicting processes and reduce the burden on participants trying to engage in multiple forums.