WS #75 An Open and Democratic Internet in the Digitization Era

Summary

This discussion focused on fostering an open and democratic internet in the digitalization era, with an emphasis on improving digital governance. Speakers from various backgrounds explored how to maintain transparency, accountability, and user privacy while preventing monopolistic control by tech giants and internet fragmentation.

Key points included the importance of multi-stakeholder governance models and personal digital sovereignty. Speakers emphasized the need for raising awareness about internet infrastructure and open standards among users. The role of regulation was discussed, with examples like GDPR highlighted as attempts to protect user privacy, though potential unintended consequences were noted.

Participants stressed the importance of international cooperation, particularly between developed and developing countries, to harmonize standards and practices. The need for flexible, adaptable regulations that can keep pace with technological change was emphasized. Speakers also discussed the importance of impact assessments and dialogue between technical communities and policymakers.

Digital literacy programs, especially those targeting girls and women, were proposed as crucial for empowering citizens to participate in discussions about internet governance. The importance of protecting and enforcing open standards and digital commons was highlighted, with suggestions for government support and financing of such initiatives.

Overall, the discussion underscored the complex challenges in maintaining an open, fair, and accessible digital ecosystem, emphasizing the need for collaboration between various stakeholders to address these issues effectively.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of open standards and a multi-stakeholder model for internet governance

– Balancing innovation with regulation and privacy protection

– Challenges of fragmentation and monopolistic control by tech giants

– Need for digital literacy and awareness among users

– Role of different stakeholders in supporting an open and fair digital ecosystem

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how to foster open digital architectures that support transparency and accountability while addressing challenges like privacy erosion and internet fragmentation. The speakers aimed to identify actionable steps different stakeholders can take to promote a democratic and accessible internet.

The tone of the discussion was largely collaborative and solution-oriented. Speakers built on each other’s points and offered perspectives from their diverse backgrounds in technology, law, policy, and government. There was a sense of urgency about the need to protect open standards and digital commons, but also optimism about potential solutions if stakeholders work together. The tone became more action-focused towards the end as speakers proposed concrete steps different groups could take.

Speakers

– MODERATOR: Session moderator

– Edmon Chung: CEO of DotAsia organization

– Henry Verdier: Ambassador for Digital Affairs, French Ministry of Defense and Foreign Affairs

– Paola Galvez: Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

– Amrita Choudhury: Director of CCEI

– Nur Adlin Hanisah Shahul Ikram: Data privacy specialist at the National Islamic University, Malaysia

– Barkha Manral: Online moderator

Fostering an Open and Democratic Internet in the Digital Era

This discussion brought together experts from various backgrounds to explore how to maintain an open and democratic internet in the face of rapid digitalisation. The speakers focused on improving digital governance while addressing challenges such as transparency, accountability, user privacy, monopolistic control by tech giants, and internet fragmentation.

Key Themes and Discussions

1. Importance of Open Standards and Historical Context

There was strong consensus among speakers on the critical role of open standards in fostering innovation and interoperability on the internet. Henry Verdier emphasised that open standards are foundational to technological innovation, providing historical context with the example of the telegraph and the creation of the ITU. He highlighted specific examples of open standards such as TCP/IP, the web, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Linux, MySQL, and Apache. Paola Galvez noted their importance in preventing lock-in to proprietary systems. Edmon Chung stressed the need to protect open standards from neglect in favour of closed ecosystems, while Amrita Choudhury added that open standards should incorporate human rights and privacy considerations.

However, challenges to open digital architecture were identified. These included monopolistic control by tech giants, the risk of internet fragmentation into isolated ecosystems, security concerns compared to proprietary technologies, and a lack of funding and incentives for open systems development.

2. Multi-stakeholder Governance Model

Speakers advocated for a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance. Edmon Chung reframed the concept of democracy in this context, moving away from traditional voting models to a more inclusive, participatory approach. He emphasised that the multi-stakeholder model allows diverse groups to participate equally, specifically highlighting the importance of including youth and the technical community. Amrita Choudhury highlighted the need for dialogue between technical communities and policymakers, while Paula Jervis stressed the importance of public participation in regulatory processes.

3. Personal Digital Sovereignty

Edmon Chung emphasized the importance of personal digital sovereignty in his opening remarks. This concept underscores the need for individuals to have control over their digital identities and data, which is crucial in maintaining an open and democratic internet.

4. Balancing Regulation and Innovation

The discussion acknowledged the complex challenge of balancing innovation with regulation and privacy protection. Nur Adlin called for flexible, adaptable regulations to keep pace with technological change, mentioning the OECD recommendation for agile regulation governance. Amrita Choudhury emphasised the importance of impact assessments to avoid unintended consequences of regulation. Paula Jervis argued for technology-neutral and future-proof regulations.

Henry Verdier suggested imposing data portability and interoperability by default in public policies. Edmon Chung noted that the IETF now includes human rights and privacy considerations in protocol discussions, demonstrating a shift towards incorporating these concerns into technical standards.

5. Digital Literacy and Awareness

Speakers unanimously agreed on the critical need for improved digital literacy and awareness among users. Henry Verdier stressed the importance of raising awareness about how internet infrastructure works, including the need to educate friends and family about the distinction between internet infrastructure and specific companies or platforms. Paola Galvez emphasised the need for digital literacy programmes, especially for underrepresented groups such as girls and women. Edmon Chung argued that users need a better understanding of underlying technologies, while Nur Adlin highlighted academia’s role in researching ethical frameworks and offering digital literacy programmes.

Amrita Choudhury made a thought-provoking comment about the practical aspects of accessibility and usability, especially in developing countries. She emphasised the need for services to be easy to use, available in multiple languages, and mobile-friendly.

6. International Cooperation and Global Perspectives

The discussion underscored the importance of international cooperation in harmonising standards and practices. Paola Galvez mentioned the Council of Europe AI Convention and the UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI as examples of international standards. She also emphasized the importance of fostering international cooperation between developing and developed countries.

Nur Adlin provided concrete examples of how data privacy laws are evolving globally, including in non-Western countries. She mentioned the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s personal data protection law and Malaysia’s recent amendment to its data privacy law. This highlighted the dynamic nature of digital governance across different regions and the need for flexible, adaptable regulations that can accommodate diverse global contexts.

Edmon Chung identified improving collaboration between global multi-stakeholder models and local multilateral systems in internet governance as a critical issue for the coming years. This would help prevent unintended consequences of local legislation on global internet standards.

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

Despite the productive discussion, several issues remained unresolved:

1. How to effectively balance open standards with security concerns.

2. Specific ways to prevent fragmentation of the internet into isolated ecosystems.

3. How to increase funding and incentives for open systems development.

4. Methods to harmonise global multi-stakeholder models with local/regional regulations.

The speakers suggested some approaches to address these challenges, including flexible regulations that can keep pace with technological change while still protecting user rights, technology-neutral regulatory frameworks, and creating digital public infrastructure and goods with government support to complement market-driven development. Henry Verdier proposed creating a foundation to finance open standards, digital commons, and public goods as a potential solution to support these initiatives.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the complex challenges in maintaining an open, fair, and accessible digital ecosystem. It emphasised the need for collaboration between various stakeholders to address these issues effectively, while also recognising the importance of adapting approaches to diverse global contexts and rapidly evolving technologies.

MODERATOR: As we are running, like, is we are like, for the 8 minute. So, hello, everyone, I can send thank you for joining. So, I will send you a credit to internet in the digitalization error. Session, which is organized by the. Into our backup. I’m not well, so. An area, so from the net mission. Asia, so where can anyone and also. This session is about the. Open center, look at the Internet and. As we may know that that Internet is a foundation of the. This is our emerging technology and is open to all. And interoperate people rely on their open protocol. In this short, we are, we are going to be focused on be serving and upholding the foundational principles of the Internet by maintaining user centric. Passport is and advocating for the continued and influence of the open standard. Our goal is to advance the transformation of the Internet into the close. And, um, and to the ecosystem. So, in this discussion, we are going to raise tools. It’s a, it’s a by nation of the crucial issue. That car impasse open nature of the Internet. So, we are going to begin by addressing the challenges. Post by the open standard in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. In this session, we are going to have the speaker. Henry, but here. He’s an ambassador for the Dissident Affairs, French Ministry of Defense and Foreign Affairs. And Paolo Gervais, founder and director of the Indoneia Lab, and Amrita Choudhury, who’s the director of the CCEI, and Edmond Cha, CEO of the DotAsia organization, and Adeline Hanissa, data privacy specialist at the National Islamic University, Malaysia. So, first of all, I would like to welcome to the speaker the very beginning question for the opening remarks of them. So, the first question will be like, how can we restore the diplomacy of open digital architecture that support the transparency and accountability while also preventing the erosion of the user privacy, public state control by test giants, and the fragmentation of the internet into the isolated ecosystem? So, I would like to welcome and invite the speaker to respond to this question based on your expertise. So, Edmond, would you like to go first for giving the opening remark in response to that question?

Edmon Chung: Sorry, is it? If you’re asking for me, sure. I guess it’s me, because the audio is coming through a little bit shaky. I guess, hello, everyone. This is Edmond. I think, first of all, I think the topic itself is… is very timely. In fact, maybe slightly overdue. This is something that is very important in terms of how we look at democratizing the governance of different platforms and how we utilize the internet in an open and interoperable way. So I was just going to give a little bit of an introduction and then come back to Pio’s question about the first policy question. First of all, I guess one of the things that I find quite encouraging, especially in the development of the internet governance ecosystem, especially with the protocol side, is the IETF, or the Internet Engineering Task Force. In the last couple of years, I kind of reconnected with the Internet Engineering Task Force, the IETF. But before that, actually, I was participating all the way through about 2014, and human rights considerations, privacy considerations, were almost unheard of. Last year, in 2023, I started re-engaging in the IETF discussion, and to my surprise, and actually pleasantly surprised, when we talk about protocol these days, actually beyond what we call the security considerations or even internationalization considerations, human rights and privacy is now a feature prominently in protocol discussions as well, and I think that’s a very healthy development. And when we talk about as this, the way that this session frames it in terms of a democratic approach, we’re really not talking about what somebody, you know, what may people point to democracy is in terms of voting and a bit more antagonistic kind of a campaigning and voting, but a democratic approach for the internet governance aspect, in my mind is much more participatory. And also what we have come to to to treasure and call a multi stakeholder model. And when we talk about multi stakeholder, of course, stakeholders include youth and the technical community, which makes the biggest difference, because even in multilateral forums, there would be multi stakeholder kind of consultation. But a lot of times it’s much more focused on civil society and the industry. But when we talk about a multi stakeholder and democratic model, we’re talking about youth and technical community, being able to participate in an equal footing. And I think that’s the major difference here. Now, back to Pio’s opening question about the issue of privacy platforms and fragmentation of the ecosystems. I think they kind of come hand in hand. And in essence, an open digital architecture, I think it’s not only built on interoperability between systems and between jurisdictions. One of the kind of a high interest topic these days is is about digital sovereignty. A lot of times when we talk about digital sovereignty, we talk about, or countries or governments like to talk about data localization, much more in terms of digital sovereignty, a national digital sovereignty. But I think when we think about digital architecture and we really want to address privacy and we really want to address issues about multinational platforms, we need to deal with digital sovereignty in a personal level, whether we have personal digital sovereignty. And I think for countries, governments who really want to support privacy and support data, quote unquote, localization, you have to take it to another level for personal to be able to have ownership, the ability to move data and the ability to withdraw consent about their own personal data. And that I think is the key aspect because privacy by design doesn’t mean confidentiality of the data. It means that the platforms do not keep data at all from the start to begin with. And that’s what I think personal digital sovereignty is about. I will stop you for pause here because I’ve taken enough time, but I understand that there are a couple of points, but I want to start with the note that multi-stakeholder model is really comes hand in hand with number of the issues we have today and that digital sovereignty, we need to dig down to the level of personal digital sovereignty.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Edmond. As you mentioned, like the multi-stakeholder model is quite important even for the open and digital architecture, which can support to the transparencies and accountability. And so I… I would like to ask Mr. Henry, from the government perspective, how do you see how to foster the deployments of the Open Digital Architects that can support the transparencies and accountability?

Henry Verdier: Thank you for the invitation. Thank you for this very important topic. That’s the question, I feel. So I’m very happy to be there. Maybe I could start with a very funny story that I discovered recently. In 1865, that’s a while, the French emperor, Napoleon III, discovered this new technology, the telegraph. And they thought, wow, that’s a very promising technology. How can we be sure that there will be a resource for peace and prosperity in commerce? For them, commerce was a source of peace. And they said, we should be sure that we’ll find a way to be sure that we can send international telegraphs, telegrams. So they did convene an international conference in Paris, 1865, and they did decide to develop together open standards for telegrams. And to enforce this, they did install the first ever international organization, the ITU. At this time, it was the International Telegraph Union. It became the International Telecommunication Union. So that’s a long story. And I want to share with us, maybe we know this, but we have to recall it. This story of open standards is the story of Internet and everything good that did happen. You could not conceive the Internet revolution and now the AI revolution without TCP, IP, the web, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Linux, MySQL, Apache, and whatsoever. The real story of Internet revolution is this one, that the story of open standards. The question is not, should we protect them or do they matter? The question is, why does other actors don’t recognize this importance? Why do most of our co-citizens make a confusion between big tech companies and public actors like states and these Internets? That’s not just, I totally agree with what Edmond said, the multi-stakeholder governance is at most important, but that’s not enough. For me, the question is a good balance between common and enclosure and how to protect the common and the commons. For this, I just share with you a few ideas, but the open standard, they are not directly attacked because everyone is using them, so they are not directly attacked, they are just neglected. They are neglected in a time of intense competition and a movement on re-enclosure because to find a business model, the most easy is to capture your customers and to constrain them to remain in your small enclosure. So the question is, how to do politics without being politicized? Because the question is really politic, that’s about how do we want to live together, and it’s not politicized because it’s not right or left or this party or this party. And that’s an important question. Sorry, sadly, I don’t have the answer, but I just have a few ideas. First, because you are the youth of the world, and I’m an old veteran of this, I started my first internet company in 1995. I remember at this time, more people knew how those… stuff did work. And now most of our contemporaries, my daughters for example, they don’t pay attention. They say I’m in internet when they are in TikTok or Facebook. So first we have to raise the awareness of our friends and families and to re-explain that there is something named internet, there is something named the web, there is something else that is a company, etc. Probably we can afford to have different policies. I think that most people make the confusion. For example, they told me the GDPR, so the European regulation on privacy, is fragmentizing the internet. I said no, the internet is an infrastructure, like roads, and I try to regulate companies like cars. So I can on one hand protect the open, decentralized, free, distributed, unique internet, and on the other hand ask for some accountability and responsibility to companies. You have to understand this. We have to say to our friends and colleagues, don’t be passive consumers. Pay attention, be skeptical, try to understand how it works. So I will finish with this because we have three minutes. But my point is that this is about politics. We have to raise the level of awareness, we have to explain again and again, and we have to have a clear view that this revolution would not have been possible without an important set of open standards, and that the power of this time did just use it. Maybe they did hack this. They are not the owner of this, and we have the right to reclaim and to protest and to say, no, you are just using our infrastructure. Please respect it.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Mr. Henry. for giving the lots of ideas that we, as a young person, we have to think about how we should be navigate with the open internet and also the other challenges. So I would like to ask to the parlor, how do you see as a young person regarding the accountability and transparency of open architecture? Maybe we can think about from the privacy perspectives or yeah, the floor is here.

Paula Jervis: Thanks so much. Well, let me first give why I do believe the open standards are so key. And this comes from a perspective from a lawyer. My background is in law. I’m actually here, I’m happy to hear diverse perspectives, Edmond, Mr. Henry that are experts on the technical part, but I’ve been working in technology policy for the past 12 years from the private, the government sector and now as an independent consultant with civil society organization. And I’ve always seen open standards as key and core of interoperable internet. So these two ideas, I really believe that it allows for innovations without exclusivity and showing that no one is locked into proprietary systems. And on the other side, I can truly see the power and the potential on transparency. I’ve worked in public procurement solution in my country and with Columbia, and later I can explain this use case, but I truly believe that using open standards, open source tools, standardized data really help enhance transparency in governments and also reduce barriers for a small business for instance. But the other part is how it promotes inclusion. My whole career I’ve tried to bridge the digital gender gap. Today during the opening ceremony we’ve heard from the different excellencies and authorities how important is this and how this gap is increasing rather than bridging. And I do believe that open standards make it easier to create tools that are accessible to everyone and that can help girls, women get into this digital era promoting open standards with a gender lens. I can speak more about this later. Now going to your question Fiyo about privacy and how we can foster the development of open digital structures supporting these principles. So this may not come as a surprise but as a lawyer I truly believe that we need to approve regulation or regulatory frameworks that can be really implemented. And that means having multi-stakeholder discussions that bring legitimate regulation because I’ve seen many cases in Latin America. I am from Peru and I can tell how sometimes these regulations are approved without the appropriate discussion in Congress. And when it’s time to implement it’s very hard. This is one thing. Second, to encourage the adoption of privacy by design principles. So many times I’ve heard countries that do not have data protection laws and that’s a problem and issue that should be tackled because data protection regulation is a must to prevent the erosion of users’ privacy. But even though we do not have this, I truly believe that private sector and civil society can work hand in hand so that this principle of privacy by design can be implemented. design can be from the very beginning of any development of technology. Ensure that all the companies with the data are protected, really embed strong safeguards to protect the user data. I may be running out of time so I’ll last but not least just my only point that I would like to add, the importance of fostering international cooperation between developing countries and developed countries. It is really important to collaborate across borders, to harmonize the standards practices, to ensure the global flow of information without compromising local privacy norms and also to set international standards that can help also because we want our economies to prosper and this can be an idea for it to follow for instance the Council of Europe AI Convention which is the first one of its kind, the UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI. So that’s for now, thank you for the invitation, sorry for saying this lastly. Thank you Paula for your intervention,

MODERATOR: like you highlight about the importance of the international cooperation. You know like yesterday there was a session talking about privacy and data related to for using especially the data coming from the global south and they talk about how the people from the global south are using the internet and even the data from the global south are also using for the developing the AI and its related evolution. So that is what we can see that we also need to foster the international cooperation for making sure that those who are those people around the world need to be respectful of on their data and privacy with that way. So I will call to our last speaker, Amrita, how do you see that the accountability and transparency in your opinion is?

Amrita Choudhury: Thank you. And thank you for having me. And let me tell you, I’m not a technologist. I just work on policy. So I will be looking at it from a socio-political lens. If you want to actually foster an open digital architecture system, which actually supports transparency and accountability, and I think this is what most governments and even civil society are asking from companies today, I think even the open standards has to kind of, I would not say work hard, but at least look at certain aspects. For example, at times the security of the systems is a concern. And that’s where many of the monopolistic technologies get an edge, that they have the security standards upgraded, et cetera. But I agree with most of the panelists. Like for example, concepts like human rights by design and privacy by design should be enshrined in any kind of technology which is open standard or even proprietary for it to work, because I think those are fundamental things which any platform of any kind should have it. In terms of erosion of privacy, that’s a huge concern globally. We see the number of data breaches. We see the antitrust issues which are coming up daily in different countries without consent. Children’s data, et cetera, is used. So I think any kind of platform, and obviously we do think that when you have an open architecture where people build upon it with software, with other technologies, these would be considered. I think there should be more discussion. It should not be just technical people there. The other relevant stakeholders, I would not say multi-stakeholder, but I would say the actors who are important need to be there, not for tokenism, but actually when things are being built, they can give their perspective. Look, have you considered these issues that these things are there, that the systems don’t have biases. We have been talking about AI. We do talk about data sets of global South going, but there are biases, there are racial biases. Are we kind of taking those into consideration? How transparent and accountable are those systems on how it is being used? So I think those things are important. In terms of when you have issues about, the second aspect which you had is monopolistic control of tech giants. I think first we have to agree that the systems work. It is easy for everyone to use. They understand the pulse of people. We cannot deny a Google or a Facebook or a Meta giving those services which everyone can use. So if you want to have those kinds of services given to people, it has to be easy to use. It has to be in different languages so that different people can use it, not only English. And it has to be very easily usable. For example, if you are in a developing country, it has to be mobile friendly. 90% of the people use it in mobile, but if you’re building systems for laptops, it’s not going to work. So you have to look at the practicality. And for that, you need funding. And I think if governments or even foundations can put in a lot more money or give them incentives to work, I think it can help to support the open data or open systems of people who are building upon it, even technologists who are working on it. And these are my perspectives. You know, they may differ, but I think having regulations to encourage them would help. And if you’re talking… about fragmentation of the internet into isolated ecosystem, again, all fragmentation is not bad. You may argue that, one may argue that even IPv6 has fragmented, but it is also a different technology, right? Because when you want to go to IPv6, you have to change your infrastructure, your equipments. And that’s why many, even ISPs are not investing in it. And Henry mentioned GDPR is also considered a fragmenter, but was it necessary to protect the data privacy of Europeans? I guess so. So not all fragmentation is bad. And countries and nations would obviously want to protect their interests. We’ve seen a lot of things, right? We’ve seen the Snowden revelations, we have seen other things, and there are countries who are snooping on the others too, nation states and bad actors. So one may want to protect their interest, but you have to see the cost at which you are protecting. Is it really going to help you and the others in the long run, or is it going to harm? So I think it’s a very thin line. I may be saying a controversial statement, but it needs to be seen what kind of fragmentation are we talking about. So I’ll end it at that.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Arita. Mostly when we are talking about the fragmentation, it’s why we have various definition of the fragmentation as well, right? So you also highlight about how it is, how we can seize the fragmentation in some what way and how we can make sure the accountability and transparency and even talking about the assessings platform like the Google service and the other kind of like this. So I’ve actually, I’m Peter, is not the last speaker. My apology. We also have a data specialist, Niu Ai-Ling. So I would like to give the floor. to her stick to the five minute as we are running out of that. We are about to run out of the time. So Eileen, how do you see about this matter in your prospective? Eileen, the floor is yours. Can you unmute yourself? Technician, could you please have to unmute to the link? Hello, Technician. Hi. Hi, everyone.

Nur Adlin: Can you hear me? Okay. Okay. Assalamualaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Good day. Good day. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It’s an honor to be here today among such distinguished experts and missionaries. I am Dr. Nur Adelina Hanissa. And my academic and professional journey has focused on the intricate relationship between law, technology, and innovation. As a legal scholar specializing in data privacy, I have dedicated my career to exploring how we can leverage the transformative power of digital technologies while safeguarding fundamental principles such as privacy, fairness, and inclusivity. In my work, I aim to bridge the gap between technological advancement and regulatory framework, emphasizing fostering trust and accountability in our rapidly evolving digital ecosystem. Today, I am excited to discuss a topic that is central to these efforts, an open and democratic internet in the digitization era, improving digital governance. for the Internet B1. The digital age presents us with immense opportunity but also challenges that require thoughtful and collaborative solutions. By balancing innovation and responsibility, I believe we can build a digital future that is fair, inclusive and resilient for everyone. We can foster a digital architecture while addressing these pressing challenges using a multifaceted approach and multi-stakeholder collaboration, including governments, the private sector, academia and civil society. I would like to emphasize more on the significant role of regulation in ensuring accountability, creating uniform standards, curbing monopolies and having a balanced approach. The EU GDPR is a good example of comprehensive data protection regulation. According to the EU Commission, the GDPR aims to give citizens back control over their data and simplify the regulatory environment for businesses. Moreover, GDPR has established itself as a benchmark for other countries to follow. GDPR enhances transparency, safeguards privacy rights of EU citizens and aligns with open standards like ISO 27001 and W3C standards that promote principles like data portability and interoperability, which help mitigate monopolistic control. These harmonious regulations help reduce the complexity and compliance and prevent fragmentation. Data privacy laws are emerging and being amended as we speak. For example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s personal data protection law came into force last year and became fully enforceable in September this year. Another example is my country, Malaysia. Just amended its data privacy law this year. year, introducing updates including mandatory data breach notification and rights to data portability. The UN trade and development reported that 137 out of 194 countries have data privacy laws. Regulations need to be flexible and updated to reflect the technological advancement. This adaptability ensures that regulation will not become obsolete in the face of rapid technological change. Robust regulation must be accompanied by effective enforcement to ensure the organization’s compliance. When it comes to compliance, there is no one-size-fits-all solution for each organization to address its unique circumstances. Even in a country without data privacy regulations, since privacy practices almost have similar templates, tech companies can voluntarily adopt self-imposed best practices like implementing privacy by design, such as encryption, anonymization, and data minimization to foster trust and innovation. A common misconception is that strong regulations stifle innovation. However, research has proven otherwise. An overly rigid or outdated regulation can hinder innovation, particularly for smaller players. The OECD, in its recommendation for agile regulation, governance to harness innovation has provided guidance to countries on how to adapt regulatory framework and institutions to challenges and opportunity of innovation to enable better governance outcomes. So the key of this regulation is the balancing between the innovation and regulation. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, Lynn. You mentioned about the current example, and even though the GDPR is, you know, from the… Global North side, there are also the core issues that you mentioned about, these can be the reference that we can practice, but in the Global South as well, why having like a flexible regulation and adopting the policy by referring to the standards. Thank you for mentioning about this, and I have to pass the floor to our online moderator for the next part of our session, Barkha, the floor is yours.

Barkha Manral: Thank you, thank you for passing on. So it’s a very good answer we get from the speaker. So we have a connecting, not so connecting, but he has a connecting questions, which can be around for the session, but I would like to request every speaker to stick to two minutes because we are lacking from the time. So the question is, how can open standards be enhanced to better accommodate the pace of technological change and foster agility and responsiveness in addressing emerging challenges and opportunities? So as Noor was the last one to speak, so I would like to pass the floor to Noor and if she can just quickly sums it up in two minutes.

Nur Adlin: Yeah, thank you very much, Barkha, actually, I already mentioned before, in order to ensure the agility of the regulation, they must consider all the factors, and it must be not be rigidly audited. It must be updated from time to time, that’s all from me, thank you.

Barkha Manral: Thank you. Thank you for so quick and small answer. You had just completed in like two seconds only, thank you for that. Then I will request Edmond to like highlight whatever his answer for this question is.

Edmon Chung: Sure, thank you, well, I guess I touched on that a little bit. But I would add that the protocols development or the open standards. development, whether it is in IETF or other parts of the internet governance ecosystem, I think itself needs to improve in terms of evolving the governance processes and to more agile ability to address. But I think the one of the things that is really critical in the next few years is how the global multistakeholder model works with the local multilateral systems that have legislations and so on. I think I agree with Henry earlier very much that whereas the standards are not under threat right now, it’s largely neglected. And that is reflective of some of the local legislations as well or regional. When we look at GDPR, I don’t think on its own, it creates any kind of fragmentation. It’s actually a very genuine, in my mind, it’s a genuine attempt to bring privacy to the forefront. But what it did unintentionally was that what was legislated for a higher user level for privacy actually had a impact on domain registrations, for example, where the who is information and the registration information is suddenly disappeared. And that is the kind of threat that fragmentation brings. And that comes back to, I think, one of the key issues is how do we work? How does the local legislation work to complement the global multistakeholder model whereby the technical community and civil society and the academia are all participatory in the agenda setting as well as decision making process and then inform the local legislation so that the two of them don’t step over each other? I think that is what the internet governance ecosystem really need to figure out in the next few years, which addresses the issue of the pace of technical change and the agility in the standards development process. Okay, thank you.

Barkha Manral: Thank you, Edmund. So, I would ask the same questions to Amrita, although she already informed that she’s not a technical person, but still when we talk about the challenges and opportunities in any emerging technology, we still consider and always consider the policy makers. So, I would like Amrita to answer this.

Amrita Choudhury: Thanks, Barkha. If you’re sayingthat how can open standards be enhanced to better accommodate the pace of technology, I think more dialogue between the technical communities who are into standard making and also those who are using these standards to build up within the countries, they may not have the same technical expertise. So, having more dialogues on that amongst the different actors or the people who would be impacted. Impact assessment is important and I’m taking it from what Edmund has cited as an example that many times the unintended impact of a regulation is not part of all this. So, better impact assessment would be something. Obviously, when you are using open standards, et cetera, some things, you know, the scalability of the technologies which are being made is something which needs to be looked at. The security, many times, you know, you have scale to something else, but then there may be hidden costs for developers and I’m talking from those who use these standards later. The compliance and enforcement parts later on, I think those are certain things which come to me at the top of the mind which needs to be looked at. Thank you.

Barkha Manral: Thank you, Anita. So, I would like Paola to answer it.

Paula Jervis: So, yes, well, I think, first, know your neutral frameworks, and I could cite as an example, the Council of Europe AI Convention on AI, the rule of law and human rights. Yesterday on the session of Ambassador Baron Barrett mentioned how difficult it was to find a regulatory framework that is technology neutral, right, that can be future-proofing, that’s the word he used. And I found that very, very important, because how to design these standards that apply to technologies that keep changing. I mean, we’ve seen AI doing some, performing some actions in 2022, and now, well, I don’t know what will happen next year, right? So, flexibility implementation is a must, in my opinion, allow for variability in how these standards are applied. But this comes with a dynamic, and I would say temporal, if not annual, or not as much annual feedback loops, right? For instance, for this Council of Europe Convention, for instance, they have created this group that will review the document along the time, because if it must be updated, it should be. So, I truly believe that this could be nice solutions, and I cannot avoid mentioning digital literacy, because we cannot forget the citizens that are the ones being impacted by these technologies. When I was working in the government of Peru, I created a program called Digital Girls Peru, and once again, I need to repeat on the gender gap. So, creating digital literacy programs is a must, and it’s possible, and that’s why I mentioned it, because I know people from governments and private sector are hearing. So, we need to invest in programs that are targeted to girls and women, because we need them to understand how these open standards, how these technologies are working. are part of this discussion as well and nowadays that and I see this question in enhancing democratic and citizen engagement nowadays and especially in Peru all the regulation must be under a public participation process but how can this public participation process be effective if our citizens do not understand what is being regulated discussed or even created in the standards right so this is a leg I would say that is fundamental for the future of internet thank you. Thank you Paula for the brief and answering the previous

Barkha Manral: question at the same time so coming to Henry as propolis somewhere linked with the digital world and I find that Henry’s fault is somewhere about digital affairs so I would like to update discussion that how can digital affairs still contribute and still manage the balance between the open standards and making it the private at the same time to better accommodate the technological pace and changes we are facing as by age or by the years we are passing down.

Henry Verdier: Thank you. Thank you. I think that one conclusion of this exchange is that we have to enforce open standards and digital commons developing them and promoting them is not enough we need to do more and that’s for diplomats but also for ministry for civil society for companies and for other ministries for example and that’s very important we have to use it and to contribute when I was in charge of the French IT department I did pass an executive order if I may to say that public servants have the right and the duty to contribute to open source because they were not sure to have the right then we have to pay attention to protect when we regulate or when we legislate. I give the point to Edmond I know very well the controversy and the UBIS. I have also the French seat at the ICANN. I can tell you that we could have fine solutions, but a lot of people wanted to sell those data and didn’t really look for solutions. The French law, for example, we have very old GDPR for 40 years, but a lot of very personal data has to be public. If you run for an election, for example, you have to tell it publicly. So we could have decided to say some important data necessary for global security has to be online. It was really possible, but you have to think about this when you prepare the law. Probably we should in every public policies impose data portability and interoperability by default. So it would be a great service to open standards. We have to go further and to finance a bit, and with Jonas here, we try to convince Europe to launch a foundation to finance open standards, digital commons, and public goods. And that’s my last point, I think, inspired by the Indian example, that at some point you have to contribute and that digital public infrastructure and public goods matters. We cannot just wait and see and expect that the market will fix everything. We have to inject some resources in this ecosystem. That’s all.

Barkha Manral: Okay, thank you for the answers. So we will now like to open the floor for the Q&A part. So if anyone has any questions, they can raise their hand in the Zoom chat, and for the on-site, you can take care of. You can tell if there are any questions, we can take of them. Otherwise, I will like to tell the Zoom people if they can ask their question. technical team there.

MODERATOR: I think there’s a comment on that, so I’m sure we can go through it. Okay.

Barkha Manral: In that case, so there’s a question from Aviran Kanduria. So it’s an open question for all the speakers, whoever wants to answer it. The question states that, what actionable steps can different stakeholder groups implement right away to support an open, fair, and accessible digital ecosystem? I would appreciate if each of the speakers could address this from the perspective of their respective stakeholder group, and you can answer. Dakini is asking the same question to every speaker, and we would like that each of the speakers get the chance to speak on this particular question. So let’s start with Edwin.

MODERATOR: Sure. Sorry.

Barkha Manral: We only have five minutes, so let’s stick to one minute.

Edmon Chung: Yeah, I’ll be very quick. I mean, I think in response to the question from the technical community, I actually agree very much with what Henry mentioned earlier. Nowadays, users don’t know enough of the underlying technology, like even the domain name system or how email works or how HTTP works. People need to be a little bit more aware in order to address issues like barriers of entry that is created by walled gardens, what we call privately owned public spaces like Facebook. How do we deal with that to redefine some of the how things are implemented in a more open manner to address the interoperability of the digital ecosystem? So I think from the technical community’s perspective, I think a lot of the platforms in the drive to quote unquote make things easier for newcomers are actually, kind of trapping us into walled gardens where barriers of entries are struck up and that needs to be reversed. And people needs to actually, I believe in the future where people’s digital literacy actually is increased and is able to operate the internet in the way that we want more.

Barkha Manral: Fio, if any of the audience speaker would like to answer it. Like we have lack of time and we want to cover it. Go ahead.

Henry Verdier: Do you hear me? And that’s my conclusion. I see another question. I don’t see the question anymore. But the question was about how to implement human rights et cetera, within protocols. I just want to say that you won’t find a technical answer to a particular problem. So we need also to do politics. We need to stand for human rights, free speech, et cetera, everywhere. And not expect, because this would be the technosolutionist mistake.

Nur Adlin: From my perspective, thank you for the question, Aviral. I really love this question because it really meet a collective effort to make it worse. For the perspective of government, they need to implement enforce inclusive policies and laws. And for the private sector, they need to adopt some best practices for human rights. privacy by design, even though it depends on their uniqueness of their circumstances, it is more into art, not based on a science. So it depends on their own creativity. For the civil society, they need to advocate their users’ rights, raise awareness to inclusion, and collaborate with policymakers to shape equitable governance. And for the academia, they need to research ethical frameworks and offering accessible digital literacy programs to empower marginalized communities. I think together we can build a digital future and internet that we want. Thank you.

Barkha Manral: Okay, then I will request Averil to take a group photo, and from there, Fiyu can help us.

MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone. We would like to have a group photo, so please stay tuned to our moderator and speaker, and also organizer. Thank you. Averil, have you taken the picture? Oh, thank you. Thank you, everyone. Thank you, speakers, for joining the session

Barkha Manral: and putting up your points. Thank you.

MODERATOR: Thank you, everyone.

Agreement Points

Importance of open standards for the Internet

Henry Verdier

Paola Galvez

Edmon Chung

Amrita Choudhury

Open standards are foundational to the Internet and technological innovation

Open standards promote interoperability and prevent lock-in to proprietary systems

Open standards need to be protected and not neglected in favor of closed ecosystems

Open standards should incorporate human rights and privacy considerations

All speakers emphasized the crucial role of open standards in fostering innovation, interoperability, and protecting user rights in the digital ecosystem.

Need for flexible and adaptable regulations

Nur Adlin

Paola Galvez

Amrita Choudhury

Need for flexible, adaptable regulations to keep pace with technological change

Regulations should be technology-neutral and future-proof

Importance of impact assessments to avoid unintended consequences of regulation

Speakers agreed on the necessity of creating flexible, technology-neutral regulations that can adapt to rapid technological changes while avoiding unintended negative consequences.

Importance of digital literacy and awareness

Henry Verdier

Paola Galvez

Edmon Chung

Nur Adlin

Need to raise awareness about how Internet infrastructure works

Importance of digital literacy programs, especially for underrepresented groups

Users need better understanding of underlying technologies

Academia’s role in researching ethical frameworks and offering digital literacy programs

Speakers collectively emphasized the critical need for improved digital literacy and awareness among users, particularly focusing on underrepresented groups and the role of various stakeholders in promoting this understanding.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers advocated for a multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance, emphasizing the importance of inclusive dialogue and participation from diverse groups in shaping policies and standards.

Edmon Chung

Amrita Choudhury

Paola Galvez

Multi-stakeholder model allows diverse groups to participate equally

Need for dialogue between technical communities and policymakers

Importance of public participation in regulatory processes

Unexpected Consensus

Government’s active role in promoting open standards

Henry Verdier

Nur Adlin

Government role in enforcing open standards and digital commons

Regulations like GDPR can serve as benchmarks for data protection

Despite coming from different perspectives (government and academia), both speakers agreed on the positive role governments can play in promoting and enforcing open standards and data protection, which is somewhat unexpected given the often-criticized role of government intervention in technology.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the importance of open standards, the need for flexible and adaptive regulations, the significance of digital literacy, and the value of multi-stakeholder governance in the digital ecosystem.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on core principles, suggesting a shared vision for an open, inclusive, and user-centric digital future. This consensus implies a strong foundation for collaborative efforts in addressing challenges in internet governance and digital policy-making.

Different Viewpoints

Impact of regulations on internet fragmentation

Henry Verdier

Amrita Choudhury

Henry mentioned GDPR is also considered a fragmenter, but was it necessary to protect the data privacy of Europeans? I guess so.

Regulations like GDPR can serve as benchmarks for data protection

While Henry Verdier views GDPR as potentially fragmenting the internet, Amrita Choudhury sees it as a positive benchmark for data protection.

Unexpected Differences

Perception of internet fragmentation

MODERATOR

Amrita Choudhury

Fragmentation of the Internet into isolated ecosystems is a concern

Not all fragmentation is bad. You may argue that even IPv6 has fragmented, but it is also a different technology, right?

While the moderator presents fragmentation as a concern, Amrita Choudhury unexpectedly argues that not all fragmentation is negative, citing technological advancements like IPv6 as an example of beneficial fragmentation.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the impact of regulations on internet fragmentation, the approach to incorporating human rights and privacy into digital systems, and the perception of internet fragmentation itself.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there are some differing viewpoints, particularly on the effects of regulation and the nature of internet fragmentation, there is general agreement on the importance of open standards, privacy protection, and multi-stakeholder governance. These differences highlight the complexity of balancing various interests in internet governance and the need for continued dialogue among stakeholders.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of incorporating human rights and privacy into digital systems, but differ on the approach. Choudhury emphasizes embedding these principles directly into open standards, while Adlin focuses on flexible regulations to achieve the same goal.

Amrita Choudhury

Nur Adlin

Open standards should incorporate human rights and privacy considerations

Need for flexible, adaptable regulations to keep pace with technological change

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers advocated for a multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance, emphasizing the importance of inclusive dialogue and participation from diverse groups in shaping policies and standards.

Edmon Chung

Amrita Choudhury

Paula Jervis

Multi-stakeholder model allows diverse groups to participate equally

Need for dialogue between technical communities and policymakers

Importance of public participation in regulatory processes

Key Takeaways

Open standards are foundational to the Internet and technological innovation, promoting interoperability and preventing lock-in to proprietary systems

There are challenges to open digital architecture including monopolistic control by tech giants and potential fragmentation of the Internet

Regulations need to balance innovation with protection of user rights and privacy

A multi-stakeholder governance model is important for inclusive Internet governance

Digital literacy and awareness programs are needed to help users understand Internet infrastructure and technologies

Resolutions and Action Items

Governments should implement and enforce inclusive policies and laws related to digital governance

Private sector companies should adopt best practices for human rights and privacy by design

Civil society groups should advocate for users’ rights and collaborate with policymakers

Academia should research ethical frameworks and offer digital literacy programs

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively balance open standards with security concerns

Specific ways to prevent fragmentation of the Internet into isolated ecosystems

How to increase funding and incentives for open systems development

Methods to harmonize global multi-stakeholder models with local/regional regulations

Suggested Compromises

Flexible, adaptable regulations that can keep pace with technological change while still protecting user rights

Technology-neutral regulatory frameworks that can be future-proofed

Balancing innovation with regulation through impact assessments and stakeholder dialogue

Creating digital public infrastructure and goods with government support to complement market-driven development

When we talk about as this, the way that this session frames it in terms of a democratic approach, we’re really not talking about what somebody, you know, what may people point to democracy is in terms of voting and a bit more antagonistic kind of a campaigning and voting, but a democratic approach for the internet governance aspect, in my mind is much more participatory. And also what we have come to to to treasure and call a multi stakeholder model.

speaker

Edmon Chung

reason

This comment reframes the concept of democracy in internet governance, moving away from traditional voting models to a more inclusive, participatory approach. It introduces the multi-stakeholder model as a key concept.

impact

This set the tone for the discussion, emphasizing the importance of diverse stakeholder participation in internet governance. It led to further exploration of how different groups can contribute to an open and fair digital ecosystem.

The real story of Internet revolution is this one, that the story of open standards. The question is not, should we protect them or do they matter? The question is, why does other actors don’t recognize this importance?

speaker

Henry Verdier

reason

This comment shifts the focus from whether open standards are important to why their importance is not widely recognized. It challenges participants to think about the broader context and perception of open standards.

impact

This comment deepened the discussion by highlighting the need for greater awareness and recognition of open standards’ role in the internet’s development. It led to conversations about raising awareness and educating the public about internet infrastructure.

So if you want to have those kinds of services given to people, it has to be easy to use. It has to be in different languages so that different people can use it, not only English. And it has to be very easily usable. For example, if you are in a developing country, it has to be mobile friendly.

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

reason

This comment brings attention to the practical aspects of accessibility and usability, especially in developing countries. It highlights the importance of considering diverse user needs in technology development.

impact

This comment broadened the discussion to include considerations of accessibility and inclusivity in technology design. It led to further exploration of how to make open standards and technologies more accessible to diverse global users.

Data privacy laws are emerging and being amended as we speak. For example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s personal data protection law came into force last year and became fully enforceable in September this year. Another example is my country, Malaysia. Just amended its data privacy law this year.

speaker

Nur Adlin

reason

This comment provides concrete examples of how data privacy laws are evolving globally, including in non-Western countries. It illustrates the dynamic nature of digital governance across different regions.

impact

This comment added depth to the discussion by providing specific examples of how different countries are addressing data privacy. It led to a more nuanced conversation about the global landscape of digital governance and the need for flexible, adaptable regulations.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by broadening its scope from technical aspects of open standards to include considerations of governance models, public awareness, accessibility, and global regulatory trends. They encouraged a more holistic view of digital governance that considers diverse stakeholders, practical implementation challenges, and the need for ongoing adaptation to technological changes. The discussion evolved from focusing solely on the importance of open standards to exploring how to make them more widely recognized, accessible, and adaptable to diverse global contexts.

How can we improve digital literacy and awareness about the underlying technologies of the internet?

speaker

Edmon Chung and Henry Verdier

explanation

Both speakers emphasized the importance of users understanding how internet technologies work to address issues like walled gardens and barriers to entry.

How can we balance innovation and regulation in the rapidly evolving technological landscape?

speaker

Nur Adlin Hanissa

explanation

The speaker highlighted the need for flexible regulations that can adapt to technological advancements while still protecting user rights.

How can we better integrate human rights considerations into internet protocols and standards?

speaker

Henry Verdier

explanation

The speaker mentioned this as an important area that requires both technical and political approaches.

How can we address the digital gender gap through open standards and digital literacy programs?

speaker

Paula Jervis

explanation

The speaker emphasized the need for targeted programs to increase digital literacy among girls and women.

How can we improve the collaboration between global multistakeholder models and local multilateral systems in internet governance?

speaker

Edmon Chung

explanation

The speaker identified this as a critical issue for the next few years to prevent unintended consequences of local legislation on global internet standards.

How can we better assess and mitigate the unintended impacts of regulations on open standards and internet technologies?

speaker

Amrita Choudhury

explanation

The speaker suggested that better impact assessments are needed to understand the full effects of new regulations on the internet ecosystem.

How can we develop and implement technology-neutral regulatory frameworks that are future-proof?

speaker

Paula Jervis

explanation

The speaker highlighted the challenge of creating regulations that can apply to rapidly changing technologies.

How can we create and fund a foundation to finance open standards, digital commons, and public goods?

speaker

Henry Verdier

explanation

The speaker suggested this as a potential solution to support and enforce open standards and digital commons.