Day 0 Event #150 Digital Rights in Partnership Strategies for Impact

Summary

This discussion focused on digital rights and partnerships, examining strategies for protecting human rights in online environments through cross-sector collaboration. The panel, moderated by Peggy Hicks from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, brought together representatives from civil society, tech companies, multi-stakeholder organizations, and the European Commission to address challenges in safeguarding digital human rights.

Ian Barber from Global Partners Digital highlighted significant challenges facing civil society organizations, including funding crises, capacity issues, and the erosion of multi-stakeholder governance approaches. He emphasized that civil society organizations are struggling to meaningfully engage in policy processes while facing resource constraints and burnout. Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative discussed how GNI has successfully expanded its membership globally, bringing diverse perspectives from over 100 organizations across all continents to address tech governance challenges collaboratively.

Alex Walden from Google outlined the technical and operational challenges companies face in content moderation, particularly balancing harm prevention with freedom of expression at scale. She emphasized the importance of stakeholder engagement through forums like IGF and organizations like GNI to incorporate civil society feedback into company policies. Esteve Sanz from the European Commission described the EU’s comprehensive approach to digital rights, including the Digital Services Act and efforts to address the gap between international commitments and actual practice regarding digital repression.

The panelists acknowledged the tension between human rights considerations and competing priorities like national security and economic innovation. However, they argued that these concerns are not mutually exclusive and that human rights approaches can actually reinforce security and innovation goals. The discussion concluded with examples of successful collaborative initiatives and emphasized the critical importance of transparency, accountability mechanisms, and continued multi-stakeholder engagement in protecting digital rights globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Challenges facing civil society in digital rights advocacy**: Including funding crises, capacity issues, burnout, and the erosion of multi-stakeholder approaches in governance processes, particularly affecting organizations in the Global South who are already under-resourced.

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration models and their effectiveness**: Discussion of how organizations like the Global Network Initiative (GNI) work to integrate diverse perspectives from civil society, companies, academics, and investors, with emphasis on expanding global representation beyond North America and Europe.

– **Technical and operational challenges for tech companies**: Balancing the prevention of online harms while respecting human rights, particularly freedom of expression, dealing with issues of scale, speed of content moderation, and navigating complex regulatory environments across different jurisdictions.

– **International cooperation and regulatory frameworks**: The European Union’s approach to digital rights through legislation like the Digital Services Act, the gap between diplomatic commitments and real-world implementation of digital rights protections, and the role of international processes like WSIS+20.

– **Accountability mechanisms and transparency in digital rights partnerships**: Discussion of how to ensure accountability in cross-sector partnerships, particularly when working in the Global South, including the need for transparency, ongoing engagement, and effective watchdog functions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to foster cross-sector collaboration between civil society, tech companies, governments, and international organizations to strengthen human rights protection in online environments. The panel sought to identify challenges, share good practices, and explore strategies for more effective partnerships in addressing digital rights issues globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional and collaborative tone throughout, though it acknowledged serious challenges in the field. While panelists expressed concerns about “digital depression” and the gap between commitments and reality, the conversation remained constructive and solution-oriented. There was a notable effort to balance realism about current difficulties with optimism about the potential for meaningful collaboration and the continued importance of defending digital rights. The tone became slightly more hopeful toward the end as panelists shared specific examples of successful initiatives and partnerships.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Peggy Hicks** – Works with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva

– **Alex Walden** – Global Policy Lead for Human Rights and Freedom of Expression at Google

– **Ian Barber** – Legal and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital

– **Esteve Sanz** – Head of Sector for Internet Governance and Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue at the European Commission

– **Jason Pielemeier** – Executive Director of the Global Network Initiative

– **Audience** – Alejandro from Access Now (asked a question during the Q&A session)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Digital Rights and Partnerships: A Comprehensive Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Peggy Hicks from the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, brought together key stakeholders to examine strategies for protecting human rights in online environments through cross-sector collaboration. The conversation featured Ian Barber from Global Partners Digital, Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative, Alex Walden from Google (joining from Oslo), and Esteve Sanz from the European Commission.

Peggy Hicks opened by highlighting OHCHR’s recent work in digital rights, including a Brazil judiciary event and a MENA region study examining how digital technology affects human rights defenders. She noted Norway’s resolution calling for assessment of risks faced by human rights defenders through digital technology, setting the stage for a discussion on practical strategies for strengthening partnerships across sectors whilst addressing systemic challenges threatening effective digital rights advocacy.

The discussion took place against a backdrop of increasing digital repression worldwide, funding challenges for civil society organisations, and growing tensions between human rights considerations and competing priorities such as national security and economic innovation.

## The False Dichotomy: Human Rights vs. Security and Innovation

A central theme throughout the discussion was challenging the perceived tension between human rights considerations and other priorities. Alex Walden from Google articulated this position most clearly, arguing that “in order to achieve national security interests, in order to focus on ongoing innovation and have competition in the market, we have to ensure that human rights is integrated across those conversations and remains a priority… we have to do all of them at the same time.”

Ian Barber supported this perspective, arguing that human rights approaches and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing rather than opposing concepts. This reframing challenges the prevailing narrative that positions human rights as an obstacle to security or innovation, and offers a strategic approach to addressing the funding crisis facing civil society organisations.

Esteve Sanz demonstrated this integrated approach through the EU’s legislative process for the Digital Services Act, which he described as “complex, almost miraculous” in successfully balancing multiple concerns using the Charter of Fundamental Rights as a framework. This example provided concrete evidence that comprehensive regulatory approaches can address multiple priorities simultaneously without sacrificing fundamental rights protections.

## Civil Society Challenges and the Funding Crisis

Ian Barber presented a sobering assessment of the challenges facing civil society organisations in digital rights advocacy. He identified what he termed a “narrative crisis,” where funding has increasingly shifted away from human rights approaches towards national security and economic impact priorities. This shift has created significant capacity issues for civil society organisations, leading to layoffs, burnout, and insufficient expertise to participate effectively in policy forums.

Barber emphasised that these challenges are particularly acute for organisations in the Global South, which were already under-resourced and now face even greater difficulties in meaningfully engaging with policy processes. The proliferation of forums and processes has created an additional burden, making it difficult for under-resourced organisations to keep up and participate meaningfully across multiple venues.

The civil society representative argued that effective collaboration requires moving beyond tokenistic engagement to genuine power-sharing arrangements. He stressed that “the most impactful forms [of collaboration] are going to be those that truly shift power and resources back to civil society,” challenging other panellists to consider concrete accountability mechanisms rather than remaining at the level of aspirational statements about partnership.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Models and Global Engagement

Jason Pielemeier from the Global Network Initiative provided a contrasting perspective, highlighting successful examples of expanding multi-stakeholder engagement globally. He described GNI’s intentional growth from its original North American and European focus to encompass over 100 members across four constituencies (companies, civil society organisations, academics, and investors) representing all continents.

Pielemeier acknowledged the emotional toll of working in digital rights, coining the term “digital depression” to complement discussions of digital repression. Despite these challenges, he maintained an optimistic perspective, arguing that “the Internet is still an incredibly vibrant and critical space, especially when you compare it to offline mediums for free expression and freedom of association and assembly.”

He also noted the misappropriation of language in policy discussions, specifically mentioning how the phrase “fork in the road” was being used inappropriately in some contexts. The GNI representative emphasised the importance of creating concrete forums that bring stakeholders together around specific, tangible issues rather than abstract discussions.

Importantly, Pielemeier highlighted ongoing collaboration between GNI and Global Partners Digital on WSIS engagement, including workshops in nine countries to involve wider stakeholders in World Summit on the Information Society input processes, demonstrating practical approaches to global engagement.

## Technology Company Perspectives and Operational Challenges

Alex Walden outlined the complex technical and operational challenges that technology companies face in balancing harm prevention with human rights protection. She emphasised the particular difficulty of respecting freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination whilst preventing online harms at the scale and speed required by modern digital platforms.

Walden highlighted the challenge of content moderation, which increasingly requires AI assistance whilst maintaining human oversight for context-sensitive content. She stressed the importance of regulatory safe harbours that enable effective content moderation and policy iteration, noting that the complex regulatory environment across different jurisdictions creates significant operational challenges.

The Google representative described regional stakeholder meetings designed to ensure that feedback reaches both policy-drafting and product-building teams within companies. She specifically mentioned the Rights and Risk Forum held in Brussels the previous month as an example of creating transparent conversations between stakeholders using concrete regulatory artefacts, demonstrating practical approaches to multi-stakeholder engagement around specific policy challenges.

## European Union Regulatory Approaches and Global Diplomacy

Esteve Sanz from the European Commission provided insights into the EU’s comprehensive approach to digital rights protection through both legislative frameworks and international diplomacy. He described the EU’s focus on securing global agreements such as the Global Digital Compact and the Declaration for the Future of the Internet to commit states to respect digital rights internationally.

However, Sanz also presented a sobering assessment of current trends, noting that “we are in a new stage where the Internet is not only controlled, but it’s used for control, and what we see is a very depressing trajectory.” He identified a concerning gap between diplomatic achievements in securing commitments from powerful global actors and the reality of increasing digital repression on the ground.

Sanz mentioned an April conference on “governance of Web 4.0” that resulted in important principles, and described the EU’s public diplomacy efforts, including calling out internet shutdowns and funding projects like protectdefenders.eu to provide urgent support for human rights defenders.

The European Commission representative highlighted the Digital Services Act as a model for balancing human rights considerations with regulatory requirements, specifically noting its application to Very Large Online Platforms and Very Large Online Search Services. He emphasised the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review as a critical opportunity, describing it as a “fork in the road” for determining future internet governance directions.

## Accountability Mechanisms and Transparency

The discussion of accountability mechanisms was significantly shaped by a question from Alejandro of Access Now, who asked about accountability mechanisms for partnerships, especially when working in the Global South where it’s easy for Global North actors to disengage. This question forced panellists to move beyond aspirational statements to concrete mechanisms for ensuring sustained commitment.

The panellists identified several approaches to accountability, though they acknowledged that current mechanisms remain insufficient. Pielemeier described GNI’s independent assessment process for companies, which includes detailed reviews of internal systems and policies, whilst noting that similar accountability mechanisms for state actors remain limited to “naming and shaming” through bodies like the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Barber emphasised civil society’s watchdog role in bringing issues to light through transparency and ongoing iterative processes, arguing that transparency is fundamental to meaningful accountability. Walden pointed to the Digital Services Act as a beginning model for public risk assessments that provide accountability in regulatory settings, though she noted that the effectiveness of these new tools remains to be evaluated.

The discussion revealed consensus that transparency is fundamental to accountability across all sectors, whether through public reporting, independent assessments, or open dialogue. However, the panellists acknowledged that more tangible legal processes and structural supports are needed to ensure accountability, particularly in international partnerships involving Global South organisations.

## Global Engagement Challenges and Resource Distribution

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in ensuring truly global engagement in digital rights protection, particularly in meaningfully including voices from the Global South. Barber described the coordination challenges facing under-resourced organisations, whilst Pielemeier outlined the intentional work required to build global membership and ensure diverse perspectives in governance processes.

The panellists acknowledged that the proliferation of forums and processes, whilst potentially offering more opportunities for engagement, can create overwhelming burdens for under-resourced organisations. This creates a paradox where efforts to increase inclusivity may inadvertently exclude those with the greatest resource constraints.

The discussion revealed ongoing questions about how to scale multi-stakeholder approaches and ensure they reach beyond well-resourced organisations based in major policy centres, with no clear solutions emerging for addressing these structural challenges.

## Future Directions and Critical Junctures

The panellists identified the WSIS Plus 20 review as a critical juncture for determining future directions in internet governance, with the potential to either build on multi-stakeholder human rights values or move in directions that could further marginalise civil society voices. This process represents both an opportunity and a risk for the digital rights community.

Several concrete initiatives were highlighted as ongoing work, including the Global Digital Rights Coalition’s coordination efforts, continued Rights and Risk Forums for discussing regulatory implementation, and various EU diplomatic initiatives. However, the panellists acknowledged that these efforts, whilst valuable, remain insufficient to address the scale of challenges facing digital rights protection globally.

The discussion revealed particular concern about maintaining the internet’s role as a space for freedom whilst addressing legitimate security and innovation concerns. This balance requires continued collaboration across sectors, but the structural challenges facing such collaboration—including funding constraints, capacity limitations, and power imbalances—remain largely unresolved.

## Conclusion

This discussion revealed both the complexity of challenges facing digital rights protection and the potential for meaningful collaboration across sectors when properly structured and resourced. The panellists demonstrated strong consensus on core principles, including the importance of transparency, the need for genuine rather than tokenistic multi-stakeholder engagement, and the concerning gap between international commitments and actual implementation of digital rights protections.

However, the conversation also highlighted significant structural challenges that threaten the sustainability of current approaches, particularly the funding crisis facing civil society organisations and the erosion of inclusive governance mechanisms. The panellists’ emphasis on moving beyond symbolic engagement to genuine power-sharing arrangements reflects a mature understanding of what effective collaboration requires, even as they acknowledged the difficulty of achieving such arrangements in practice.

The discussion balanced realism about current challenges with constructive approaches for moving forward, rejecting the false dichotomy between human rights and other priorities in favour of integrated approaches that treat these concerns as mutually reinforcing. This framework offers promise for future collaboration, though significant work remains to translate it into sustainable practice that addresses the structural inequalities and resource constraints that currently limit effective global engagement in digital rights protection.

Peggy Hicks: Thanks everybody. Please take seats. I’m hoping that you can all hear me through your microphones or through the headsets. It’s all good. Wonderful. You’ll see we’re missing one of our panelists, but we decided to start off because we want to have as much time as possible for you all to hear from our wonderful panelists today and then also to have a chance to open up for your questions and comments as well. This event is focusing on digital rights and partnerships, strategies for impact, and we’re really looking today to have a really open conversation about the intersection of online experiences and fundamental human rights. We want to highlight the challenges that are faced by civil society, tech companies, and enforcement agencies in protecting these rights within what we all know is a complex and borderless online environment. We need to recognize, of course, that each of us come to this issue from a different place, that states are the ones that have the legal obligations to take action, that companies have a duty to respect human rights under the UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and civil society, of course, is there to keep everybody else honest on both of those obligations, one hopes. So we are going to have a chance to talk a little bit about some of the collaborative projects that are going on in this place, some of the good practices that are happening, and obviously the idea today is to really foster more cross-sector collaboration to strengthen human rights protection and online environments so that we all have a better sense of what we’ve learned, what we’re currently doing, and what we can do more. My name’s Peggy Hicks. I work with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, and we, too, have been working in this space and trying to figure out what we can contribute. We had a recent event, for example, in Brazil, working with the judiciary on social media regulation. We’ve done a study within the MENA region, focusing on the experiences. And in particular, the idea within that document that we’re looking for a smart mix of mandatory measures and policy incentives that states can put in place that means that they’ll meet not only their obligations to respect human rights, but that they are doing what they need to regulate the space so that companies are also contributing to a more human rights protective environment. We have a project that we’ll probably hear a little bit about during this call, looking at the, which we call the BTEC project, that encourages cross-stakeholder, cross-sector multi-stakeholder engagement, and it’s focused on really trying to work with companies to answer some of the tough questions we see, including around AI and content moderation. And it remains a challenge to figure out how to do this, especially since we’re working with some of the largest companies. One of the big questions is how we make this experience more global, how we engage more with small and medium enterprises. And right now, for example, we have a track that’s focusing on how do we deal with investors within the tech space as well. We have found though, through our discussion with the companies, that the work together with them actually has strengthened the way that they work amongst each other, but also that we learn and have a privileged position through what we learn to be able to bring some of what’s happening within the companies to a more general audience, for which we’re very grateful. We’re also, of course, working with the International Institutions in this space including the UN Human Rights Council and some of the things that come out of that body and I’ll do a shout out now to our host of Norway for a resolution that they passed recently which is important that for example calls on us to assess the risks faced by human rights defenders through digital technology and do work on that issue. So we’re working across these different platforms with our trusted partners to try to have this type of conversation that we’re having today and we’re looking forward to doing it in more depth with you and in order to do that I’m super privileged to have with us a wonderful panel. I guarantee that the panel will not be composed only of men when Alex Walden from Google arrives soon so if anybody’s taking screenshots hold up we’ve got Alex coming soon so we’ll be a bit more balanced but today we’re very fortunate to have with us and I’ll present to you briefly now Jason Pielemeier who we’ve worked with very closely as the Executive Director of the Global Network Initiative and Barber to my right is the Legal and Advocacy Lead at Global Partners Digital and Esteve Sanz is the Head of Sector for Internet Governance and Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue at the European Commission. So you’ll see they come from very different perspectives as well I think so it’ll be really great to have their different contributions. Alex Walden who will join us as I mentioned is the Global Policy Lead for Human Rights and Freedom of Expression at Google. So we’re going to jump right into the conversation and I’m going to turn to you Len Manriquez first and ask you from the perspective of civil society what specific challenges do civil society organizations face in advocating for and protecting online human rights when confronted with these pressing issues. Please.

Ian Barber: Sure thanks Peggy. Good morning I hope you guys can all hear me okay. To answer your question there are a number of challenges that civil society is facing right now especially in the past few years it seems are advocating or pursuing for things along the lines of national security or kind of an economic impact, kind of looking for impact investment. So it’s reflecting kind of a narrative crisis I think I believe for the human rights based approach that needs a kind of a bit of a rethink at this point for us. And this has kind of impacts not just on civil society in the global north but particularly civil society in the global majority which are already you know less well resourced and able to make an impact so I think that’s critical to acknowledge. And this leads to I think some serious capacity issues so of course with lack of funding there’s less of an ability for civil society across the globe to be able to make an impact. We’re seeing this is resulting in layoffs you know burnout and also not having the expertise then to be able to come into these forums and spaces and be able to effectively advocate. We know that there’s been a proliferation of forums and processes in the past few years. It’s quite difficult to keep up with even kind of the standard ones we’ve had around for a while. One’s based in Geneva, UPR focused, one’s treaty based but now you know the UN Cybercrime Convention, the AHC, we have WSIS, we have AI governance efforts at this point. So keeping on top of all these things to be able to have them well resourced with your team is quite difficult and I think those are kind of the central things we’re seeing. And then another big one is also this general erosion I think or challenging of this multi-stakeholder approach to governance or policymaking. So whether it’s at the national level or the regional level or the global level. their CSOs are kind of not able to meaningfully engage and be a part of the decision-making process or be able to input and there’s kind of a lack or a closing of mechanisms that are inclusive and transparent for civil society to be able to engage and this is problematic because we’re seeing then these state-led processes or an increasingly tendency toward states-led processes that then don’t then include the expertise and the advocacy points of civil society, including those that are most impacted, including those that are on the ground and have the knowledge that’s needed to make effective decisions and frameworks. So I think that’s kind of a high-level point. It could go on for a long time, but I think I’ll stop there.

Peggy Hicks: Great. No, I think you’ve hit on many of the points that we’re going to dive into deeper during the conversation and you know, I want to say just on that last point you made, this idea that when civil society isn’t able to put their input, I really want to emphasize that that’s not just a disadvantage to civil society who wants to have their voice heard, but to the process itself and it and it itself is weakened by the lack of the expertise that civil society, a real experience that civil society can bring in. You’ve hit on some of the things that I think everybody is going to want to come back to eventually as well on the the main challenges that we see in the space, which unfortunately are shared I’m sure by all of us on the panel and many of you in the audience as well. But I’ll turn now to Jason and obviously for those that don’t know the Global Network Initiative, although I think most people at IGF do, it represents a unique coalition of civil society, academic, investor, and private stake sector stakeholders. And we’d like to hear more, Jason, about how GNI ensures that diverse perspectives and priorities from all these members are effectively integrated into your strategies for online and human rights protection and maybe give us a concrete example of successful collaborative efforts that you’ve engaged in. Thanks. Yeah, and welcome to Alex who’s joining us. Already introduced you, Alex, so you’re you’re with us.

Jason Pielemeier: Thanks so much, Peggy. It’s a pleasure to be here, I’m really glad to be a part of this panel, to be here in Norway, to be back at the IGF. So, hi to everyone in the audience, both in person and virtually. So, I appreciate the opportunity to share a bit more about the Global Network Initiative, GNI, and how we work, and how we try to create space for and amplify the voices in particular of a really diverse range of stakeholders. As people may know, GNI is a multi-stakeholder organization, so our membership falls into four categories. We call them constituencies, so we have academic members, we have companies, including Google, we have civil society organizations, including Global Partners Digital, and we have investors as members. So, it’s a very big tent, but it wasn’t always that way. When GNI started about 17 years ago, it was a relatively small set of mostly North American and some European organizations. But today, we have over 100 members from every populated continent, and we’ve really made some significant strides to put the global in Global Network Initiative. And that’s been very intentional. We’ve worked really hard over the last decade to reach out to organizations of all types in all kinds of different regions to be very conscious of the issues that we focus on, the spaces that we curate, the events that we attend, in order to really demonstrate our desire to be a part of a truly global conversation and to bring a diverse range of voices into those conversations. So, it hasn’t been straightforward or necessarily easy. to to grow the network the way we have but we’ve been we think quite successful and really appreciate the sort of range of intelligence and viewpoints and experiences that new members have brought into GNI and so that’s you know that’s really part of what we are about is trying to you know build this this space this trusted coalition of organizations that can come together and address difficult challenges in the in the tech governance realm and we we bring work bring our members together in various ways we we do learning sessions we we have a bespoke accountability process for our companies and we’ve made efforts to expand the opportunities for members from across the world to participate in those assessments that we conduct we also try and go out into the world attend other events like the IGF but also regional forums like the forum up for internet freedom in Africa the digital rights and inclusion forum regional IGFs all over the world and hold sessions with our with our members and with other stakeholders and partners in those settings as well in terms of an example I mean I think I guess you know one example of how we’ve grown the network in a way that I think hopefully is having impacts in jurisdictions outside of North America and Europe is the work that we did to bring MTN the South African telecommunications company into GNI MTN has been on a journey for several years now and I think it has worked with a range of actors including I think the BTEC project to understand their responsibilities under the UN guiding principles and other frameworks and to really build out their own approach to human rights. So they’ve developed a really robust human rights statement. They joined GNI in 2022. Their transparency report has gotten much deeper and much more detailed. I encourage folks to take a look at that as an example of a really good technology company transparency report. And they are now going through their first GNI assessment. And that has created a lot of opportunity for them to kind of look inward at their systems and policies and understand better the risks related to their business operations, the jurisdictions that they’re operating in, and to get important feedback from a wide range of stakeholders through GNI. So I’ll stop there. I’m happy to talk more about any of that as we go through the rest of the panel.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Thanks, Jason. And it’s really good to hear about the growth and the way that you’ve been able to do it. I think Len Manriquez had already raised the difficulty and sometimes there’s a commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach, but actually bringing everybody into the room is one of the challenges and doing it in a meaningful way. So your experience in doing that is really good to hear about. I think we’ll need to come back a bit more on some of the challenges, including in terms of some of the disincentives for companies to do it. But we’re going to actually turn to Alex now who’s got very direct experience with, you know, these challenges that companies face in navigating the space. So Alex, if we could hear from you a bit about the significant technical or operational challenges that Google faces in mitigating online harms while simultaneously respecting freedom of expression, including in response to national context and government requests. And after that, you get two questions. The second is how you’re also working to to incorporate feedback from civil society organizations and human rights experts into your policies and practices. Thanks, Alex.

Alex Walden: Thank you. Thanks for the question. And thanks for bearing with me on my travel from Oslo to Lillstrom. It’s a good question and I appreciate the framing because really the challenge is about how do you do, how do you prevent online harms while you are respecting human rights, in particular freedom of expression, privacy, and non-discrimination. So just to censor is not what’s difficult. What’s difficult is to ensure that you’re respecting rights while you are trying to take a tailored approach to removing content that is harmful. So in particular, the two things I want to flag are one, sort of the speed and scale. That is sort of a policy challenge and it’s also obviously a very kind of operational challenge. The amount of content that we have being uploaded to our products every day means that the volume is high and we need to figure out ways to address that at scale. And so we’re using, obviously there are human moderators that participate in that process, especially for content where that requires human kind of context to understand. But we use AI and we’re increasingly using AI to help us do that faster. So again, scale is always, and you’ll hear all the companies say this, scale is a challenge. And so figuring out how to address that scale in a responsible way remains an ongoing challenge that we are always sort of iterating on how to do better. The other piece is really the complex regulatory environment, which means that a few things. One, we need safe harbors in order to do this work effectively to make sure that we are able to implement content moderation practices that are effective and kind of iterate on our policies. And so one is safe harbors and ensuring that we have regulatory. work? In terms of how we engage stakeholders and take feedback, there’s a few things I’d say. On the largest scale, it’s important for companies to show up to venues where our stakeholders are so that we can participate in conversations with them and make sure that we’re hearing from them in that context. So things like IGF, venues like RightsCon, showing up there and being part of the conversation and hearing what the concerns are from stakeholders, those sort of being present is an important thing for us to do at those large venues. Then it’s about being part of organizations where sort of more curated versions of that conversation is taking place. So GNI is an important, being a member of GNI and engaging in GNI is a really important way in which we do that as Google, a place where we have core stakeholders that are talking about these issues and the trade-offs all the time. And then specifically, just Google as an individual company, we have programs in place, part of the human rights program as well as along with our trust and safety colleagues ensuring that we are doing regional stakeholder meetings and stakeholder meetings with our sort of global colleagues as well to make sure that we’re hearing directly from experts in the field about what’s happening in their region, what their experience is with our products, how things are working or are not working and ensuring that that feedback is going directly to the teams that are drafting our policies, enforcing our policies and building our products.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks very much Alex. I mean I think this area of stakeholder engagement and what works and what doesn’t is one of those that we have to keep iterating and improving on. We did a BTEC paper on this that people might want to refer to with sort of the five key principles but one of the things we found talking to all of you is that there are good practices and there are ways to improve and that I think there’s still a lot of work to be done. But we need to move over and I’m really glad to have with us another perspective coming from the European Commission, SFS. We’d really like to hear about sort of how does international cooperation play in the European Commission strategy to protect online human rights especially with countries and regions outside the EU and how that might contribute to the WSIS plus 20 process and how you’re looking at the EU’s role in this important space. Thanks.

Esteve Sanz: Thank you so much Peggy. I am very glad to be in this panel, the European voice in the panel. We, digital and human rights are an absolute priority for the EU. We’ve been working on it for a long long time. We have focused especially on getting agreements at the global level including the global digital compact, the declaration for the future of the internet etc that really commit states and critical actors to respect the digital human rights, not censor the internet, not doing internet shutdowns etc. a very important achievement that we did in the Global Digital Compact that commits states in the UN not to shut down the Internet. At the same time there is a gap here. We have done a lot of analysis also, engaged academics and civil society to help us understand what’s going on in the ground when it comes to states using the Internet for control. I think that we are in a new stage where the Internet is not only controlled, but it’s used for control, and what we see is a very depressing trajectory. So there is this gap that is very puzzling between the diplomatic achievements that we have managed to do in committing global actors, very powerful global actors, to respect fundamental freedoms online and what’s going on in reality. So this is very damaging, this is a diagnostic that we have on the table. We have engaged in several funding exercises, we have the Global Initiative for the Future of the Internet that has a project that we call Internet Accountability Compass that will help us precisely analyze this gap, what we are committing into and what’s really going on in terms of digital repression. This is extremely important for us. Every time that we engage on human rights and digital dialogues with countries, we bring up digital depression, that’s very important for us. When there is a big event, an Internet shutdown, we engage in public diplomacy as well, in Iran, in Jordan, so we have callouts for Internet shutdowns there. And there is a lot of investment as well, so we have, for example, projects like protectdefenders.eu which provides funding in case of urgent need for journalists and other civil society actors. We work a lot with you, Peggy, so we have a lot of funding and projects in common, one on Internet shutdowns, several funding projects that really aim at empowering OHCHR. to play a critical role in this in this field and so yes this is all going on we are very much aware of the funding situation there are a lot of internal discussions within the EU how we can step up our role in that area because we feel that this is it’s going to be really dramatic if we don’t act soon of course discussions related to funding are always extremely delicate in any public administration and it’s not difficult but I can assure you that we have achieved some successes already and more funding will be flowing whether the EU can cover all the funding that it’s being extracted from from those organizations it’s of course an open question but it has really sent a signal that the EU should step up I would say so on the wishes on the wishes plus 20 review this is I mean this is very important it links with what I was explaining at the beginning that we have actually achieved a lot of things when it comes to UN discussions about states committing to defend digital rights etc but then when we see it’s a bit puzzling wishes plus 20 review will double up on those efforts so what EU member states have have discussed and this is how we will go to the negotiations of the outcome document is to really take stock of the rise of digital authoritarianism this has been presented by our ambassador to the to the UN already so acknowledging the digital authoritarianism is on the rise and this has we has to be acknowledged and then based on that propose what we aim what we what we hope will be unprecedented language at the UN level in the wishes plus 20 resolution on digital human rights so this language it’s a still object of discussions internal discussions will probably publish an on paper with that language that again we hope it’s not part of any UN resolution because the challenges are so high that we need to move up. Part of that language will be for sure going much more concretely into statements that protect journalists, civil society, etc. from digital repression. But that’s our aim, it’s a public aim, it’s very ambitious, it’s very difficult to achieve and pull off, but we of course count on like-minded partners and stakeholders who will need to be participating very intensively in the WSIS plus 20 resolution to do that. We think that the context is really the good one, so that we can achieve at least that. But again, the reality might be different than whatever the outcome document of WSIS declares, so important to bear in mind that gap.

Peggy Hicks: Oh thank you Esteve. It’s really interesting to hear your comments about the disconnect between where we get to in terms of international commitments and what we see in the world, and I think we feel that on the financial side as well, where the demand for action, for work in this area just grows exponentially, but we are facing some of the challenges that you mentioned. I want to look back just quickly to Len Manriquez, and then I’m going to have a question for everybody, and then we’re coming directly to you all quickly. Len Manriquez, I wanted to ask you, you know, when you look at collaboration from a civil society perspective, what is civil society looking for? What does it need from governments, tech companies, and other stakeholders in order to advance human rights protection? Where have you seen good collaboration happening?

Ian Barber: Great. Well, I just want to say that there’s a lot of great collaboration already on the table from these individuals and from their remarks, so I just want to acknowledge that. But also, I think at the end of the day, the most impactful forms are going to be those that truly shift power and resources back to civil society and allow them to engage. So from governance, we’ve already alluded to this, it’s ensuring that those policy processes, whether it’s national, regional, or global, that they’re actually inclusive, they’re bringing in those voices, that there’s input that’s received, there’s acknowledgement, and there’s a feedback loop as well. So that’s key. I think also funding we’ve hit on already is a key metric, and also kind of recommitting to human rights obligations themselves, of course, when things do happen. from companies I think that you know they can really operationalize their their commitments through transparency and access that can come in a variety of forms and come to access to data it can be on their impact assessments could be enforcement practices also can be this kind of iterative multi-stakeholder engagement with you know groups that are in different regions that are more at risk those are going to be key as well and I think they kind of lead to this co-design and co-development of policy and governance and frameworks that we want to see and I think for more multi-stakeholder coalitions like GNI and again these things are already very much being done is there’s there’s definitely a collaboration deficit that I’m seeing so there’s a recognition that we have challenges but really there’s not always structural support then to address them so what you need to do is then champion equity in partnerships as Jason was alluded to it’s bringing in voices from the global majority of the Global South and civil society as co-leaders better than engaging advocacy setting not just you know kind of tokenism it’s facilitating access to knowledge and sharing that so that engagement can be effective and realized and it also there’s a need to do this to kind of like build a gap of trust I think among stakeholders across different areas because without it we’re going to have a situation where the structures and don’t support everyone and there’s no final effective impact and it’s again this symbolic means of doing things so I think that’s kind of a cross response there but yeah yeah.

Peggy Hicks: That’s great and I think it’s really important to make that point that it’s it’s got to be intentional you have to put the resources and effort into it if you’re going to really make things work in a more global way like like Jason talked about with with GNI so before I turn to the audience I do want to ask one sort of lightning round question of all of you because you started off the end by noting that we’re sort of we’re navigating this human rights field in the midst of of two really oppressive almost pressures from both the the securitization side where all that matters is is you know the cyber crime convention as we showed, you know, looking and David Kaye was just talking about how we make exceptions for anything that may be, you know, relevant from the national security side. And then I think even more prevalent now is this rationale around the competition, innovation, economic side where anything that stands in the way and human rights are sometimes seen as obstacles or barriers to come over means that companies and other stakeholders, including governments seem somewhat less invested in answering some of the questions we’re asking today than they have been for me at least at prior IGFs. So I wondered how you’re looking at that and when you get that type of pressure that, you know, why should we focus on doing it the multi-stakeholder way and bringing in civil society and why does it matter to make sure that we’re building in human rights within the digital tech work that we do given that we have these competing tensions around national security and the need for greater competition and and effective innovation. You know, give me, you know, your 30-second answer to that that you use, which I’m sure comes up quite frequently in everybody’s lines of work. So maybe just to go this way, start with you, Alex.

Alex Walden: Never comes up for me. No, no, never. I think, you know, you just hit on these things that are sort of part of my internal and external conversations every day. From my perspective and what I say to my colleagues inside the company and my stakeholders outside is we have to be able to focus on, we have to figure out how to and to focus on all these things at the same time. In order to achieve national security interests, in order to focus on ongoing innovation and have competition in the market, we have to ensure that human rights is integrated across those conversations and remains a priority. States have a duty to uphold their obligations to human rights and so it is imperative that they in those conversations about regulation, about how they use AI as part of their public sector, ensure that they’re upholding sort of that obligation. And companies also have a duty to do that too. But I think sort of there’s a role for everyone and it is imperative that governments do it first in order to sort of set the stage for all of the other actors to be able to show up and do their part. Companies are providing technology to governments for national security purposes. And we need to know that governments are thinking about their human rights obligations in the context of when they’re procuring that. So I think there’s a lot of good guidance out there. BTEC has done some of it already in thinking about procurement and how companies should be thinking about their human rights obligations. But really like we have to do all of them at the same time.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks Alex. Ian?

Ian Barber: Yeah, I think just building on what Alex said for me when I’m speaking to governments or any other stakeholder, I kind of challenge them to say that, actually I don’t think human rights approaches and outcomes and security or whatnot are even potentially even opposing things. They can be very much mutually reinforcing concepts and they can support one another. So to kind of fold them in is kind of a creative way sometimes to Trojan horse to get kind of this funding, which is essential. And I think that really what it comes down to is then as well as that you do need as a final point, civil society in the room to bring that expertise, to bring the knowledge and the know-how to be able to arrive at these solutions. So it’s kind of challenging and rejigging the narrative and then also ensuring that those people are at the table.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks. Jason?

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, I mean, I guess two things. One, taking a step back, I just had sort of an interesting kind of mental moment because when you were talking, you said digital repression and I heard digital depression. And I think that’s because of the comments that we heard initially from Ian and just generally how a lot of us are feeling these days, which I want to acknowledge is real. So we’re dealing with both digital repression and digital depression. But I think it’s really important to remind ourselves. and the Internet is still an incredibly vibrant and critical space, especially when you compare it to offline mediums for free expression and freedom of association and assembly. And that’s something we sometimes forget. We can look at the annual Freedom in the Net reports, which are excellent, and see this trend towards declining freedom. And it’s real. And we have to acknowledge it. But if you compare offline and online realities for people in even and maybe especially the most repressed places on earth, there’s a real reason why they cling to the social media spaces, the open Internet that they are able to access, whether it’s finding cracks through the repressive laws in their country or using anti-censorship technologies to get access to the open Internet. And we don’t have to look far and just look at the example of Iran today to see that reality. So I want to just kind of infuse that sort of optimism or hope that, you know, there is still something worth fighting for. There’s a reason why it’s important to have these important statements from governments, even if they’re not always living up to them in practice. There’s a reason why we continue to get together in these multistakeholder settings to talk about what we can do, even if it’s easier sometimes to sort of give in to cynicism and digital depression. So not an answer to your question, but something that I feel like we needed to kind of just remind ourselves of.

Peggy Hicks: Very helpful. Esteve.

Esteve Sanz: Every time that there is a legislation that deals with digital in the EU, we strive, of course, to find the right balance between security, between all these elements. The legislative process in the EU, it’s a complex one. The parliament is involved, civil society, there are a lot of consultations, a council, the commission, there is a proposal. So it’s a very complex, almost miraculous way of doing legislation. that yields something like the Digital Services Act which is perhaps the cornerstone of our digital regulation right now, that as you well know it’s a null of society approach, that’s what we call it. The legislation itself has pieces that are aimed at involving civil society into the process of governance of the platforms themselves, there are transparency provisions, users can complain about takedowns of content etc. So this, the balance that we found in the legislative process when it comes to the Digital Services Act, we think it’s extremely valuable, of course we are pitching it to our partners globally bearing in mind that each region, each country has its own approach, but so far I think that we have managed to find that approach, that is something very important for us in the EU legislative system which is the Charter of Fundamental Rights. So whatever legislation we put on the table, whatever proposal it’s on the table, it needs to comply with the Charter and having that Charter as the ultimate element that frames everything that we do in the EU but especially on digital has been very valuable because in the end it shows us a path towards finding that balance correctly.

Peggy Hicks: Wonderful, thanks so much. So I’m gonna jump quickly now to our audience to see if any of you have any, we’ve provoked any thoughts from any of you that you’d like to put on the table or any questions for our panel here. I’m not exactly sure how the tech here works, it looks like there’s microphones alongside, I think you probably need to go to one of those, if anybody will give me a thumbs up that that’s how we’re supposed to do it. Yes, okay I see movement, looking forward to hearing the comment of the gentleman, nope he’s just leaving, bye. Anybody want to come in? Trust me we can keep the conversation going amongst ourselves, I know these guys but happy to hear from you. I know it’s a little awkward to have to get out of your chairs. All right, I’ll come back to you all. So I think Jason did something good, which is, I think it is one of those spaces where it’s important for us to look for good examples and to put ideas on the table that we think are things that we want to see replicated. So if you had to just give me an idea of an incentive or something that you think you want to see more of that you’ve seen, you know, either in a particular context in which you’ve worked, give me some good examples that we can leave our audience with today. Alex, can I start with you?

Alex Walden: Yeah, I mean, I think, well, one thing I’ll flag just because maybe it’s top of mind and recent, and because it hits on some of the DSA things too, is I think we, GNI and DTSP, who’s another organization that works with companies around risk assessment and harms issues, convened a risks and rights forum in Brussels last month. And that was an opportunity for all of the companies who are members of GNI and DTSP, who are also VLOPs and VLOSSs under the DSA, to come together and have conversations about the assessments that are now public and all the information that’s in that. And so to really kind of, we have a lot of actual sort of artifacts that we can discuss and talk about the challenges and what people want to see more of from companies. And so I think FORA, where we have a lot of sort of material that we can talk through and have really like open, transparent conversation between civil society and companies, it’s like, that was a really, I think it’s a really excellent example of how we can kind of, we have a piece of regulation where it’s in action and talking amongst the stakeholders about what’s working, what’s not, and how we can improve. So that’s just a recent one that I think is really pressing, especially for companies in particular.

Peggy Hicks: Great. No, I think that’s really an important point, Alex. And to me, it also gives rise to something that I often think. in this space, which is that evidence base, that idea of going beyond the general conversation to really talk about some specific case studies, something went wrong, putting what went wrong on the table sometimes and unpacking it and figuring out how to do better is really important. And I know within our work where we do peer review amongst companies similarly situated, we have some really, really frank and useful conversations that can push things forward. But you can’t do that if you stay at the, you know, 10,000 feet level. Ian?

Ian Barber: Yeah, I think I want to mention the kind of precedent of modalities and process and procedure that we’ve seen. So in the AHC, the negotiations, the UN Cybercrime Convention, in both a formal and informal way, there’s kind of evidence, even if the final output wasn’t what we would have been looking for, that you can use this kind of existing basis moving forward in other forums. So the modalities of the AHC was a bit more open for civil society and others to engage and provide input and have that be taken in and speak for the UN, which is great. And then also informally, there’s a brain trust organization group that was working with companies across the stakeholder lines to kind of advance our central aim. So I think that those two examples have been used then in other UN processes and forums to kind of replicate it to then build in a more multi-stakeholder approach to things, which I think is excellent. And also a selfless plug, which is GPD is now working for the WSIS Review, coordinating the Global Digital Rights Coalition, working with CSOs in the Global North and Global South, which you’ve seen as good practice, and other stakeholders. So we’ll be doing that moving forward. So another positive note to hopefully end on.

Peggy Hicks: Great, thanks. I’m going to skip over you, Jason. I’m going to go to Esteve, because you already put yours on the table. I’ll give you another chance, though.

Esteve Sanz: In April, we organized a global multi-stakeholder conference on what we call the governance of Web 4.0, which is essentially the impact of AI, quantum, et cetera, on the internet. So that global impact of those very powerful technologies, blockchain. and others into the global internet, not the governance itself of these technologies. This was a very well attended and very intense conference and there was a very prominent human rights angle. And what emerged from that is actually a series of principles that were object of consensus or rough consensus among the conference participants that basically set the ground so that we can continue being optimist in the context of this future internet, which is the stakes are much higher. What you can do with AI in terms of repression is massive. What you can do with AI in terms of freedom of speech and liberation and analysis of bureaucratic processes so that you empower citizens, etc., it’s also massive. So what we set up after that conference were this series of principles that set the ground to while we see the future internet emerging, if we want to continue seeing the internet because this is not a given, the internet, it’s what we make out of it, right? If we want to make that space to continue to be a tool for self-expression and for freedom and for democracy, etc., these are the principles that we think we should follow. So this was very, you know, it leaves us with a lot of optimism because it was relatively easy to, of course not every stakeholder was in that table, but it was relatively easy to come up with a series of principles that would chart a good path. So this is also impacting our position in the WSIS Plus 10D negotiations. We will bring up these higher stakes when it comes to these very powerful technologies impacting the internet, that if we don’t set things right, then things can go massively wrong very easily. And we hope that this is acknowledged in the UN context as well.

Peggy Hicks: Great. Back to you, Jason.

Jason Pielemeier: Yeah, maybe just mention one other collaboration across this table. The Rights and Risk Forum and the work we’re doing on the Digital Services Act and also trying to think about how we continue to… ensure that not just the risk assessments under the DSA, but those under the Online Safety Act and other digital regulations remain consistent with the UN guiding principles and broader international human rights frameworks, but also we’ve been working recently with GPD to empower civil society voices from the global majority to be more engaged in the WSIS process precisely so that we can support the kinds of initiatives that it sounds like the EU is eager to put forward and make sure that these are not just seen as sort of Western approaches that that don’t resonate and have support across the world. So just today, I think we’ll be publishing a series of reports from the partners in in nine different countries. We’ve done workshops at lightning pace over the last two months around the world with civil society actors in these different countries to help inform a wider audience and involve a wider group of stakeholders in the input processes to WSIS. Obviously that work will continue over the next several months until the end of this year when the WSIS process concludes. But I think it’s really important to emphasize WSIS as I mean here being here at the IGF as a just as such a critical moment for this community given that all of these new technologies are creating opportunities for governance to go in different directions and that direction could learn from and build on and incorporate the sort of multi-stakeholder human rights based values that we have successfully collectively pioneered as a community or they could go in a different direction. And so it’s it’s really a fork in the road. Not a phrase that I like to use anymore given the way it’s been misappropriated, but I think it’s a it’s a critical time for us to be here together at the IGF and really appreciate all of the panelists here sort of speaking about how we can continue to work towards that WSIS outcome that will sort of reinvigorate the multi-stakeholder

Peggy Hicks: And you jumped ahead again, which I think is really good. It shows we’re on the same track, because the next thing I wanted to ask, and I don’t see anybody lined up at the mic yet. Maybe somebody back there. Please come over and do it. I’ll throw out my question, too, and I’ll let you all choose. A number of you have focused on the difficulty sometimes in making sure that both the resources and the engagement is happening as effectively outside of Europe and a global north context, and figuring out how more can be done, both to reap the benefits of digital technology, but also to make sure that the tools and resources needed to have the types of conversations and engagement that we need in places without as many resources, how we can better make sure that that is happening. So I wanted to get your thoughts on that, but turning to our colleague here first. Please.

Audience: Thank you. Alejandro from Access Now, and I think very related to that comment is, what are the accountability mechanisms for these type of partnerships, especially when you’re working in the global south and it’s very easy for global north actors to disengage when these type of partnerships are happening? In your experiences, what are those accountability mechanisms that we can create?

Peggy Hicks: Great question. Thank you very much. So I will maybe just, Jason, you want to start on that one, if you’re doing quite a bit?

Jason Pielemeier: Sure. So I think accountability can take a lot of different forms, to Alejandro’s question. I think there are, you know, in GNI, for instance, we have an accountability mechanism that is built in to hold companies to the commitments that they make. And that’s a process that involves sort of very detailed review of internal company systems and policies. independent assessors. And as I mentioned at the beginning, we’ve been working really hard to sort of build more opportunities for a wider group of GNI members to be a part of those conversations. I think at the sort of multilateral level, the question of accountability has always been a somewhat vexing one. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights does a really important, plays a very important role in calling out where states fall short of their commitments. But more tangible legal processes are lacking in many contexts. We do have, obviously, committees related to different treaty bodies that can produce reviews. We have the universal periodic review. We have the special mandates. So it’s not a barren field, but it is also one that is not, that still could be sowed with, I think, more seeds. I don’t know. I’ll stop trying to torture that analogy. And I think for some of these other spaces, whether it’s the IGF itself as a venue for collaboration or the WSIS process, the Global Digital Compact, yeah, it’s an open question, right? How do we ensure that not just the states that are producing the final text, but the other stakeholders who are committing themselves and involving themselves in those processes continue to carry them out? Part of it involves being at places like the IGF, where we can continue to sort of stand on stages and have to answer to audiences about what we’ve done since we’ve made these commitments. Part of it involves, I think, funding and being able to have support for watchdogs like Access Now and others in civil society. So it’s going to take a lot of different tools, but I think at least in this space, you know, we have forums and venues like this, which we sometimes take for granted, but I think we need to double down and reinvest in.

Peggy Hicks: Great, Esteve you want to say few words on accountability side?

Esteve Sanz: If you don’t get journalists, civil society activists, etc. to call out those abuses,

it’s going to get very difficult at the global level to trace that. Because, again, we are having this legitimacy gap between what is written, the safeguards, etc., and what we see in practice. And there is a fundamental problem of complexity and transparency that either you engage the multi-stakeholder community to tackle that, or we will simply not know.

Peggy Hicks: And I think that’s a lead-in for you, Len Manriquez, to both look at the accountability question from a civil society side and the role that it plays.

Ian Barber: Yeah, I mean, civil society can play a key role and, as was noted, serving as kind of a watchdog or an observer, even. And one that can then bring the issues or problems to light to the broader community, I think, is a central component and one that’s kind of overlooked, in a way. And I think that when you’re speaking about accountability in general, a lot of this comes down to transparency, openness, and decision-making in the processes and what’s been done in moving forward. And this should not just be a one-off event, as has been alluded to. It should be done in an iterative and ongoing way and in different manners. So I’ll keep it short and sweet.

Peggy Hicks: And, Alex, on your side, the company side?

Alex Walden: Yeah, I mean, I think, at least for GNI companies, Jason hit on a key piece for us, which is the independent assessment that we have as members of GNI. And so that’s a key way in which we are looking to ensure that we have accountability for our commitment to principles, the GNI principles in particular. And then, obviously, being transparent about our commitment to the UNGPs and how that manifests across our products. That looks like qualitative transparency about what our policies are, quantitative transparency about how we’re implementing them, enforcement measures, etc. And that’s not just for global majority, that’s the entire world and how we’re enforcing that. Obviously, we have the Digital Services Act in Europe. And so that is a sort of beginning entree of what sort of a risk assessment, a report that becomes public can look like. And so I think we’re all learning about what the value of something like that is for the purposes of accountability in a regulatory setting as well.

Peggy Hicks: Yeah, no, I think that’s a really good point. And thanks so much for the question, because I think it’s one where we really are learning now. And I think that’s an important thing to say, how useful are some of these tools going to be? Do they provide the value that we need? I think Len Manriquez’s point about the transparency pieces is absolutely crucial that without transparency, we don’t get to accountability very easily. But I’m sure there’s more we can do, and I’m sure Access Now will help us to figure it out. So thanks so much for the comment. And I’m getting the signal that we’re going to have to draw the session to a close. In doing so, I really want to thank those that are responsible for the organizing of it, which was not my office, but Christina Herrera from Google and Erlinson from ADAPT, who brought us all together today. We’re very glad to have a chance to talk through these issues with you. I hope you come away from it with some good ideas on potential collaboration, comments that you want to follow up on in the course of IGF going forward. And obviously, feel free to reach out to any of the panelists to get more information on some of those good practices that we’ve discussed. Thanks so much for joining us today. Exploring the Fascinating Minds of Octopuses Subscribe to our YouTube channel for more videos on Fascinating Minds of Octopuses!

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder engagement requires intentional effort and resources to be truly global and inclusive

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Ian Barber
– Alex Walden

Arguments

GNI’s intentional growth from North American/European focus to over 100 global members across four constituencies

Need for civil society to be co-leaders rather than token participants, with structural support for effective engagement

Importance of showing up at venues where stakeholders are present and being part of curated conversations through organizations like GNI

Summary

All speakers agree that meaningful multi-stakeholder collaboration cannot happen by accident – it requires deliberate investment of time, resources, and structural changes to move beyond tokenism to genuine partnership, particularly in engaging voices from the Global South.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Transparency is fundamental to accountability in digital rights protection

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Alex Walden
– Jason Pielemeier
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Civil society’s watchdog role in bringing issues to light through transparency and ongoing iterative processes

Digital Services Act as beginning model for public risk assessments providing accountability in regulatory settings

GNI’s independent assessment process for companies with detailed review of internal systems and policies

Importance of moving beyond high-level discussions to evidence-based case studies for meaningful progress

Summary

All speakers emphasize that transparency – whether through public reporting, independent assessments, or open dialogue – is essential for holding both companies and governments accountable for their digital rights commitments.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

There is a concerning gap between international commitments on digital rights and actual implementation

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Jason Pielemeier
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Gap between diplomatic achievements in securing commitments and reality of digital repression on the ground

Role of OHCHR and treaty bodies in calling out state failures, though more tangible legal processes are needed

Erosion of multi-stakeholder approach with closing mechanisms for inclusive and transparent civil society engagement

Summary

Speakers acknowledge a troubling disconnect between formal international agreements and diplomatic commitments on digital rights versus the reality of increasing digital repression and exclusion of civil society from governance processes.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reject the false dichotomy between human rights and security/innovation, arguing instead that these objectives can and should be pursued simultaneously as mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities.

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Need to focus on human rights, national security, and innovation simultaneously rather than treating them as competing priorities

Human rights approaches and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing rather than opposing concepts

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating concrete forums and processes that bring stakeholders together around specific, tangible issues rather than abstract discussions, whether through regulatory compliance or global governance processes.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Alex Walden

Arguments

Rights and Risk Forum in Brussels as example of transparent conversation between stakeholders using concrete regulatory artifacts

Series of workshops in nine countries to involve wider stakeholders in WSIS input processes

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers argue that excluding civil society from policy processes is not just unfair to civil society organizations, but fundamentally weakens the quality and effectiveness of the policy-making process itself by removing essential expertise and perspectives.

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Erosion of multi-stakeholder approach with closing mechanisms for inclusive and transparent civil society engagement

Civil society exclusion weakens policy processes themselves, not just disadvantages civil society

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

Optimism about internet’s continued value despite digital repression trends

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Internet remains vibrant space for freedom compared to offline mediums, especially in repressed contexts like Iran

EU’s legislative process through Digital Services Act demonstrates successful balance using Charter of Fundamental Rights as framework

Explanation

Despite acknowledging serious challenges with digital repression and the gap between commitments and reality, both speakers maintain optimism about the internet’s fundamental value and the possibility of achieving proper balance through appropriate governance frameworks. This is unexpected given the generally pessimistic tone about current trends.

Topics

Human rights | Freedom of expression

Companies and civil society agreeing on need for regulatory safe harbors

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Complex regulatory environment requiring safe harbors for effective content moderation and policy iteration

Narrative crisis with funding shifting toward national security and economic impact rather than human rights approaches

Explanation

It’s somewhat unexpected that both a company representative and civil society advocate would implicitly agree on the need for regulatory safe harbors, as civil society often pushes for stronger regulation while companies typically seek regulatory flexibility. Their shared concern about the current regulatory environment suggests common ground on the need for balanced approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on several key issues: the need for genuine (not tokenistic) multi-stakeholder engagement, the fundamental importance of transparency for accountability, and the concerning gap between international commitments and actual protection of digital rights. They also share concerns about the erosion of inclusive governance processes and the challenges facing civil society organizations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with speakers from different sectors (government, civil society, private sector, international organization) largely agreeing on both problems and solutions. This suggests a mature understanding of digital rights issues across stakeholder groups, though the consensus also highlights the urgency of addressing systemic challenges in funding, inclusion, and accountability mechanisms. The agreement across diverse perspectives strengthens the legitimacy of calls for more resources and structural changes to support effective digital rights protection.

Different viewpoints

Approach to addressing funding crisis in civil society

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Narrative crisis with funding shifting toward national security and economic impact rather than human rights approaches

EU’s public diplomacy efforts calling out internet shutdowns and funding projects like protectdefenders.eu for urgent support

Summary

Ian Barber identifies a fundamental narrative crisis where funding is shifting away from human rights approaches, while Esteve Sanz presents the EU’s approach of maintaining funding for human rights work alongside security concerns, suggesting different perspectives on whether the shift is inevitable or can be countered

Topics

Human rights | Development

Scale of multi-stakeholder engagement challenges

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Ian Barber

Arguments

GNI’s intentional growth from North American/European focus to over 100 global members across four constituencies

Proliferation of forums and processes making it difficult for under-resourced organizations to keep up and participate meaningfully

Summary

Jason presents GNI’s expansion as a success story of inclusive growth, while Ian emphasizes how the proliferation of forums creates overwhelming burdens for under-resourced organizations, representing different views on whether expanding engagement opportunities helps or hinders effective participation

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Optimism vs. pessimism about digital rights trajectory

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Internet remains vibrant space for freedom compared to offline mediums, especially in repressed contexts like Iran

Gap between diplomatic achievements in securing commitments and reality of digital repression on the ground

Explanation

This represents an unexpected philosophical divide where Jason emphasizes reasons for optimism about the internet’s continued value for freedom, while Esteve presents a more pessimistic assessment of digital repression trends, despite both working toward similar goals

Topics

Human rights | Freedom of expression

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of direct disagreement among speakers, with most conflicts being subtle differences in emphasis, approach, or perspective rather than fundamental opposition. The main areas of disagreement centered on funding approaches, engagement strategies, and assessment of current trends.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely shared common goals and values around digital rights protection, but differed on tactical approaches, resource allocation strategies, and assessment of progress. These disagreements are constructive and reflect different organizational perspectives and experiences rather than fundamental ideological divisions. The implications are positive – the disagreements suggest a healthy diversity of approaches within a shared framework, which could lead to more comprehensive and effective strategies if properly coordinated.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers reject the false dichotomy between human rights and security/innovation, arguing instead that these objectives can and should be pursued simultaneously as mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities.

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Ian Barber

Arguments

Need to focus on human rights, national security, and innovation simultaneously rather than treating them as competing priorities

Human rights approaches and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing rather than opposing concepts

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating concrete forums and processes that bring stakeholders together around specific, tangible issues rather than abstract discussions, whether through regulatory compliance or global governance processes.

Speakers

– Jason Pielemeier
– Alex Walden

Arguments

Rights and Risk Forum in Brussels as example of transparent conversation between stakeholders using concrete regulatory artifacts

Series of workshops in nine countries to involve wider stakeholders in WSIS input processes

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers argue that excluding civil society from policy processes is not just unfair to civil society organizations, but fundamentally weakens the quality and effectiveness of the policy-making process itself by removing essential expertise and perspectives.

Speakers

– Ian Barber
– Peggy Hicks

Arguments

Erosion of multi-stakeholder approach with closing mechanisms for inclusive and transparent civil society engagement

Civil society exclusion weakens policy processes themselves, not just disadvantages civil society

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

Civil society faces a narrative crisis with funding shifting from human rights approaches to national security and economic impact priorities, leading to capacity issues and reduced ability to participate effectively in digital rights advocacy

Multi-stakeholder collaboration requires intentional effort and resources to be truly global and inclusive, moving beyond tokenism to meaningful co-leadership roles for civil society organizations

Tech companies face significant challenges balancing online harm prevention with human rights protection, particularly around speed/scale issues and complex regulatory environments

There is a concerning gap between international diplomatic achievements in securing digital rights commitments and the reality of increasing digital repression on the ground

Human rights, national security, and innovation can be mutually reinforcing rather than competing priorities when properly integrated into policy frameworks

Transparency is fundamental to accountability, with new models like the Digital Services Act providing examples of public risk assessments and stakeholder engagement

The internet remains a vital space for freedom of expression compared to offline alternatives, particularly in repressive contexts, making continued protection efforts essential

WSIS Plus 20 represents a critical fork in the road for determining whether future internet governance will build on multi-stakeholder human rights values or move in a different direction

Resolutions and action items

Global Partners Digital is coordinating the Global Digital Rights Coalition for the WSIS Review, working with civil society organizations globally

GNI and partners published reports from workshops in nine countries to inform wider stakeholder input into the WSIS process

EU will propose unprecedented language on digital human rights in the WSIS Plus 20 resolution, acknowledging the rise of digital authoritarianism

Continued Rights and Risk Forums will be held to discuss Digital Services Act implementation and other regulatory frameworks with concrete examples

EU’s Internet Accountability Compass project will analyze the gap between digital rights commitments and actual digital repression practices

Unresolved issues

How to adequately fund civil society organizations globally to maintain their capacity for digital rights advocacy

How to make multi-stakeholder engagement more effective and truly global, particularly including voices from the Global South

How to bridge the gap between international commitments on digital rights and actual state practices of digital repression

What specific accountability mechanisms can be developed for partnerships working in the Global South to prevent disengagement by Global North actors

How to scale successful collaboration models like GNI to include more small and medium enterprises

How to effectively integrate investor engagement in tech governance and human rights protection

How to maintain the open internet’s role as a space for freedom while addressing legitimate security and innovation concerns

Suggested compromises

Using human rights approaches as a way to ‘Trojan horse’ funding by demonstrating how human rights and security outcomes can be mutually reinforcing

Developing a ‘smart mix’ of mandatory measures and policy incentives that allows states to meet human rights obligations while enabling appropriate regulation

Creating iterative, ongoing engagement processes rather than one-off events to build trust and ensure sustained collaboration

Establishing safe harbors for companies to enable effective content moderation while maintaining human rights protections

Using existing successful process modalities from forums like the AHC negotiations as templates for more inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches in other venues

I think that we are in a new stage where the Internet is not only controlled, but it’s used for control, and what we see is a very depressing trajectory. So there is this gap that is very puzzling between the diplomatic achievements that we have managed to do in committing global actors, very powerful global actors, to respect fundamental freedoms online and what’s going on in reality.

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between the internet being ‘controlled’ versus being ‘used for control’ – a subtle but profound distinction that highlights how digital infrastructure has become a tool of oppression rather than just being restricted. It also identifies the core paradox of digital rights work: the gap between international commitments and ground reality.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple panelists referencing this ‘gap’ between commitments and reality. It shifted the conversation from focusing solely on policy solutions to acknowledging the fundamental disconnect between diplomatic achievements and actual implementation, adding a layer of realism and urgency to the discussion.

So we’re dealing with both digital repression and digital depression. But I think it’s really important to remind ourselves… the Internet is still an incredibly vibrant and critical space, especially when you compare it to offline mediums for free expression and freedom of association and assembly.

Speaker

Jason Pielemeier

Reason

This comment is particularly insightful because it acknowledges the emotional toll of working in digital rights (‘digital depression’ – a play on Esteve’s ‘digital repression’) while providing crucial perspective. It challenges the prevailing pessimism by recontextualizing online spaces relative to offline alternatives, especially in repressive contexts.

Impact

This comment served as a pivotal moment that injected much-needed optimism into what had become a rather somber discussion about funding cuts, capacity issues, and rising authoritarianism. It reframed the conversation from one of defeat to one of continued purpose, reminding participants why their work matters and providing emotional grounding for the remainder of the discussion.

At the end of the day, the most impactful forms [of collaboration] are going to be those that truly shift power and resources back to civil society and allow them to engage… it’s not always structural support then to address them… it’s again this symbolic means of doing things.

Speaker

Ian Barber

Reason

This comment cuts through the diplomatic language often used in multi-stakeholder discussions to identify the core issue: the difference between symbolic inclusion and actual power-sharing. It challenges other panelists to move beyond tokenistic engagement to meaningful structural change.

Impact

This observation forced other panelists to be more specific about their collaboration efforts and accountability mechanisms. It elevated the discussion from general statements about ‘multi-stakeholder engagement’ to concrete questions about power dynamics, resource allocation, and genuine partnership, leading to more substantive responses about actual practices and challenges.

In order to achieve national security interests, in order to focus on ongoing innovation and have competition in the market, we have to ensure that human rights is integrated across those conversations and remains a priority… we have to do all of them at the same time.

Speaker

Alex Walden

Reason

This comment directly addresses one of the session’s central tensions by rejecting the false choice between human rights and other priorities. Instead of accepting trade-offs, it argues for integration – a more sophisticated approach that acknowledges complexity while maintaining principles.

Impact

This response helped shift the framing away from human rights as an obstacle to innovation/security toward human rights as an integral component of sustainable solutions. It influenced subsequent speakers to also reject the either/or framing and think more holistically about how different priorities can be mutually reinforcing rather than competing.

What are the accountability mechanisms for these type of partnerships, especially when you’re working in the global south and it’s very easy for global north actors to disengage when these type of partnerships are happening?

Speaker

Alejandro (Access Now)

Reason

This question from the audience cuts to the heart of power imbalances in international digital rights work. It challenges the panel’s discussion of partnerships by highlighting the structural inequalities that make such partnerships fragile and potentially exploitative.

Impact

This question forced all panelists to grapple with concrete accountability mechanisms rather than staying at the level of aspirational statements. It brought the discussion full circle to Ian Barber’s earlier points about power and resources, and prompted more specific responses about transparency, ongoing engagement, and structural supports for meaningful partnership.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and reframes that prevented the conversation from remaining at a superficial level. Esteve’s observation about the gap between commitments and reality established a sobering foundation that ran throughout the session. Jason’s ‘digital depression’ comment provided crucial emotional and strategic reframing that prevented despair from overwhelming the discussion. Ian’s focus on power dynamics challenged other participants to move beyond tokenistic approaches, while Alex’s integration argument offered a path forward that doesn’t sacrifice principles. Finally, Alejandro’s accountability question from the audience brought concrete urgency to abstract discussions of partnership. Together, these comments created a discussion that was both realistic about challenges and constructive about solutions, balancing acknowledgment of systemic problems with practical approaches for moving forward. The interplay between these perspectives created a more nuanced and actionable conversation than would have emerged from purely optimistic or pessimistic framings alone.

How to make cross-stakeholder engagement more global and better engage with small and medium enterprises

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of expanding beyond large companies to include smaller tech enterprises in human rights discussions and ensuring global representation rather than just North American/European perspectives

How to deal with investors within the tech space for human rights protection

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

There’s a need to understand how to engage financial stakeholders who influence tech companies to prioritize human rights considerations in their investment decisions

How to assess the risks faced by human rights defenders through digital technology

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

This was mentioned as part of a UN Human Rights Council resolution calling for specific work to understand and address threats to human rights defenders in digital spaces

How to bridge the gap between diplomatic achievements in human rights commitments and reality on the ground

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Explanation

There’s a puzzling disconnect between global actors committing to respect fundamental freedoms online and the actual rise in digital repression that needs to be analyzed and addressed

How to ensure regulatory frameworks provide adequate safe harbors for effective content moderation

Speaker

Alex Walden

Explanation

Companies need clear legal protections to implement responsible content moderation practices while respecting human rights, but the complex regulatory environment makes this challenging

How to maintain human rights focus amid competing pressures from national security and economic competition narratives

Speaker

Peggy Hicks

Explanation

There’s a concerning trend where human rights considerations are being deprioritized in favor of security concerns and economic competitiveness, requiring strategies to maintain their importance

What accountability mechanisms can be created for partnerships working in the Global South to prevent disengagement by Global North actors

Speaker

Alejandro (Access Now)

Explanation

This addresses the need for structural safeguards to ensure sustained commitment and prevent abandonment of collaborative efforts in resource-constrained regions

How to better support civil society capacity building given funding challenges and proliferation of forums

Speaker

Ian Barber

Explanation

Civil society organizations face resource constraints while needing to engage across an increasing number of policy processes, requiring strategic approaches to capacity building and engagement

How to evaluate the effectiveness of new transparency and risk assessment tools like those under the Digital Services Act

Speaker

Alex Walden

Explanation

As new regulatory frameworks create public accountability mechanisms, there’s a need to assess whether these tools provide meaningful value for human rights protection