Nri Collaborative Session Data Governance for the Public Good Through Local Solutions to Global Challenges

Summary

This discussion focused on local data governance for global public good, featuring panelists from various National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) who explored how communities can effectively manage data while protecting individual rights and promoting inclusion. Ahmed Fraag emphasized that data governance requires multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities, stressing the need for frameworks that balance innovation with privacy protection. Una Wang from Singapore IGF addressed the challenge of building multilingual AI systems, highlighting how thousands of languages risk digital extinction and proposing community-driven approaches through decentralized autonomous language organizations (LanguageDAOs) that allow communities to own and monetize their linguistic data.

Chelsea Horne from USA IGF discussed mechanisms for helping people understand and manage data permissions, advocating for user-friendly interfaces, granular consent systems, and standardized privacy tools while avoiding deceptive “dark patterns.” Beatriz Costa Barbosa from Brazil IGF shared Brazil’s successful multi-stakeholder approach to developing data protection laws, including constitutional amendments and ongoing public consultations that adapt global standards to local contexts. Nancy Kanasa from Pacific IGF highlighted the need for indigenous data sovereignty and breaking down data silos between institutions, emphasizing how digital exclusion undermines vulnerable communities.

The discussion revealed common challenges across regions, including limited digital literacy, infrastructure gaps, and the need for locally relevant governance frameworks. Participants stressed the importance of community engagement, capacity building, and regional cooperation among NRIs. The session concluded with calls for continued collaboration between NRIs to develop inclusive data governance approaches that respect local values while meeting global standards for fairness and accountability.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder Data Governance Frameworks**: The need for collaborative approaches involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities to create responsible data governance that balances innovation with protection against misuse.

– **Multilingual Data Inclusion and Community Sovereignty**: Addressing the digital divide for underrepresented languages (7,000+ languages vs. 100 covered by current systems) through community-driven approaches like LanguageDAO, where language communities control and monetize their linguistic data.

– **User Empowerment in Data Permissions**: Implementing user-friendly mechanisms for data consent management, including granular consent options, just-in-time notifications, and standardized privacy interfaces that avoid “dark patterns” while preventing information overload.

– **Regional Adaptation of Global Standards**: How countries, particularly in the Global South, can adapt international data protection frameworks (like GDPR) to local contexts, infrastructure limitations, and cultural values, as demonstrated by Brazil’s experience with LGPD.

– **Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Digital Infrastructure**: Addressing data silos, building local capacity, and ensuring marginalized communities (especially Pacific Island nations and rural populations) aren’t left behind in digital transformation while maintaining control over their data.

## Overall Purpose:

This session aimed to explore how National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) can develop locally relevant data governance frameworks that serve the global public good, with particular focus on empowering underrepresented communities and regions in the Global South.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by knowledge-sharing and mutual learning among practitioners. Speakers demonstrated genuine concern for digital inclusion and equity, with the tone becoming increasingly solution-oriented as panelists shared practical experiences and concrete recommendations. The atmosphere was respectful and encouraging, with participants actively building on each other’s insights rather than debating opposing viewpoints.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ahmed Fraag** – Expert in regulatory frameworks and data governance

– **Tijani Ben Jemaa** – Participant asking questions about Web3 and blockchain technology

– **Aicha Jeridi** – Online session moderator

– **Nancy Kanasa** – Representative from Pacific IGF, works with the government of Papua New Guinea

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including Mohammad Abdulhakonu (Secretary General, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum), Abdelgeril Basharbon (National Coordinator, IGF Chad), and Kosi Amesinu (from Benin)

– **Poncelet Ileleji** – Session moderator

– **Chelsea Horne** – Representative from USA IGF, expert in data permissions and privacy mechanisms

– **Beatriz Costa Barbosa** – Representative from Brazilian IGF, member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (civil society representative)

– **Una Wang** – Co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum, founder and CEO of LingoAI, private sector representative

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mohammad Abdulhakonu** – Secretary General, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum

– **Abdelgeril Basharbon** – National Coordinator, IGF Chad

– **Kosi Amesinu** – Representative from Benin

– **Yeng-Chu Chen** – Participant who asked questions about regional data agreements and commented on Bhutan’s electronic identity system

# Local Data Governance for Global Public Good: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This National and Regional Internet Governance Initiatives (NRIs) session brought together representatives from Singapore, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, and the United States to discuss data governance challenges and solutions. The session was moderated by Poncelet Ileleji with Aicha Jeridi serving as online moderator. Participants included audience members from Bangladesh, Chad, and Benin who contributed questions and perspectives throughout the discussion.

The session featured practical experiences from different regions, with speakers sharing specific examples of data governance implementation, challenges with digital inclusion, and approaches to balancing innovation with protection. Key topics included multilingual data inclusion, user empowerment in data permissions, regional adaptation of global standards, and infrastructure development needs.

## Key Speakers and Their Contributions

### Ahmed Fraag – Regulatory Frameworks Perspective

Ahmed Fraag emphasized that data governance represents a critical priority due to artificial intelligence and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data. He noted that “Responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation.”

Fraag highlighted that effective data governance necessitates multi-stakeholder collaboration involving governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. He mentioned Egypt’s data protection law from 2020 as an example of recent regulatory developments.

### Una Wang – Singapore IGF and LingoAI

Una Wang, co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum (recently recognized by UN IGF in January) and founder and CEO of LingoAI, addressed linguistic diversity in digital systems. She presented statistics showing that while over 7,000 languages exist globally, current speech recognition systems cover only 100 languages at most.

Wang proposed community-driven solutions through decentralized autonomous language organizations (LanguageDAOs), explaining that “It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty… Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions.” She clarified the distinction between Web3.0 (defined in 2006 as “the web of data”) and Web3 blockchain applications, noting her use of blockchain specifically for global payments in the LanguageDAO system.

### Beatriz Costa Barbosa – Brazilian Internet Governance Forum

Beatriz Costa Barbosa drew upon Brazil’s 30+ years of experience with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. She highlighted Brazil’s data protection law (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados – LGPD) passed in 2018, which adopted a principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation. She noted that data protection became a constitutional right in Brazil through constitutional amendment.

Costa Barbosa emphasized that public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws, and stressed the importance of countries building their own public infrastructure rather than relying solely on global technology companies.

### Nancy Kanasa – Papua New Guinea Government

Nancy Kanasa from Papua New Guinea government provided insights into Pacific Island challenges, noting that “building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey.”

She shared specific examples including VAT certificate delays in Papua New Guinea and Fiji’s e-bus ticketing system, highlighting how digital exclusion undermines vulnerable communities. Kanasa emphasized the need for indigenous data sovereignty and breaking down data silos between institutions.

### Chelsea Horne – USA IGF

Chelsea Horne addressed user experience and data permissions, advocating for user-friendly interfaces that clearly explain data collection and use. She emphasized that “any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy.”

Horne proposed standardized consent language and icons to reduce cognitive load while empowering users with granular consent mechanisms that allow specific permissions for different data uses.

## Major Discussion Points and Areas of Agreement

### Multi-stakeholder Collaboration

All speakers agreed that effective data governance requires meaningful engagement across governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. This consensus emerged consistently across different technical and regulatory approaches.

### Community-driven Approaches

Speakers emphasized that effective data governance must be community-driven and adapted to local contexts. Wang’s sovereignty-focused approach, Kanasa’s emphasis on cultural adaptation, and Costa Barbosa’s experience with public participation all reinforced this principle.

### Balancing Innovation with Protection

Participants agreed that data governance should enable innovation and public good while maintaining strong protections. This balance was reflected in discussions of principle-based regulatory frameworks and ecosystem-building approaches.

## Points of Disagreement and Unresolved Issues

### Web3 Technology Implementation

A disagreement emerged between Una Wang and Tijani Ben Jemaa regarding Web3 technology. Wang advocated for Web3 as a decentralized data ownership solution, while Ben Jemaa raised concerns about blockchain’s energy consumption, asking “How can Web3 projects based on blockchain technology be feasible if the energy consumption issue of blockchain is not solved?”

### Infrastructure Development Approaches

A significant tension arose regarding global technology companies’ role in local infrastructure. Kosi Amesinu from Benin suggested engaging companies like Meta and TikTok to build local data centers, emphasizing that infrastructure is needed before meaningful data governance.

Costa Barbosa strongly disagreed, stating: “I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta to build data centres in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty.”

### Implementation Mechanisms

Several issues remained unresolved, including specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful consent in low digital literacy environments, funding for local data infrastructure in developing countries, and standardization versus localization in regional frameworks.

## Audience Participation and Questions

### Bangladesh Perspective

Mohammad Abdulhakonu from Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum asked about designing context-sensitive data governance frameworks that uphold global standards while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels.

### Chad’s Communication Challenge

Abdelgeril Basharbon from IGF Chad asked about communicating data protection laws to communities who use social media but are unaware of data protection regulations, highlighting the need for awareness-building in local languages.

### Benin’s Infrastructure Focus

Kosi Amesinu from Benin emphasized that data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented, leading to the infrastructure development debate.

### Regional Cooperation Question

Yeng-Chu Chen raised questions about designing regional data agreements that support cooperation without creating trade barriers.

## Practical Recommendations

Based on the discussion, several concrete recommendations emerged:

### Capacity Building

– Organize workshops on data protection awareness in local languages

– Target rural and marginalized communities specifically

– Develop experience-sharing programs between countries with implemented frameworks and those developing them

### Infrastructure Development

– Invest in building public data infrastructure

– Consider hybrid approaches that balance sovereignty with practical needs

– Address infrastructure as a prerequisite to policy frameworks

### Regional Cooperation

– Establish mechanisms for policy coordination

– Develop cross-border data sharing agreements

– Build regional consciousness around data governance challenges

### Implementation Approaches

– Adopt principle-based rather than prescriptive regulatory frameworks

– Create phased implementation strategies for gradual capacity building

– Develop standardized consent mechanisms that don’t burden users

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated the complexity of implementing data governance frameworks that serve diverse communities while addressing practical constraints. While significant challenges remain around infrastructure, capacity building, and balancing global standards with local contexts, the discussion revealed strong consensus on fundamental principles of community empowerment, multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the need for locally adapted solutions.

The role of National and Regional Internet Governance Forums in facilitating these discussions emerged as crucial, with the session itself representing months of collaborative planning between multiple NRIs. As moderator Poncelet Ileleji noted in closing, the session exemplified the value of NRI cooperation in addressing shared challenges while respecting diverse regional contexts and needs.

Poncelet Ileleji: So I will start off with Ahmed to discuss about data in terms of regulatory frameworks and how it looks at it. Over to you, Ahmed. Thank you, Poncelet, and thank you all for attending this session.

Ahmed Fraag: It’s really, I’m proud to be part of this important discussion, and I think we all agree that data governance became a critical priority as we witnessed the growing influence of artificial intelligence and emerging technology, the demand of responsible, transparent, and right-based use of data is greater than ever. These technologies rely heavily on a massive amount of data, making it essential to establish a strong governance framework that protects privacy, builds trust, and promotes digital justice. Without sound of data governance, we risk deepening digital divide and enabling the misuse of data in ways that can harm individuals and communities. When we talk about data governance frameworks, we should not forget the importance of multi-stakeholders’ collaboration efforts. Engaging governments, the private sector, civil society, and technical community is essential as well. The opening consultation, especially when dealing with emerging and complex issues such as AI regulation, is very important. Also it’s very important to share best practice of success stories regionally and globally, ensuring innovative approaches and technology to enhance data governance. I’m confident that responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation. As AI and digital technology continue to advance, we have to ensure that our governance frameworks evolve accordingly. This issue requires a balanced approach, one that is flexible, enough to encourage innovation and make use of data for public good, but also strict enough to protect personal data and prevent misuse. Back to you, thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Ahmed. I think that last statement to prevent data misuse is very key. I’m not going to waste time. We’ll move to the second question because we have a lot of things to cover here. So over to you, Una, who will be talking about building multilingual systems and how to navigate the tension between data inclusion and data protection. Over to you, Una.

Una Wang: Okay, thank you, Poncelet. Good morning, everyone. My name is Una. I’m the co-founding member of Singapore Internet Governance Forum and the founder and CEO of LingoAI. Today, I’m the representative of the private sector here and it’s a pleasure to join the panel today. So yesterday, I attended the three powerful workshops in the junior languages in the digital age. And one thing is very clear, is that each nation representative deeply cares about their languages not being left behind in the digital and AI era. So there’s a growing awareness that if a language isn’t represented in the digital system, it risks disappearing entirely from future global conversations. So many of the world’s languages are in danger of disappearing and the limitations of a current speech, recognition, and gender. generation technology will only accelerate this trend. We want to make it easier for people to access information and use devices in their preferred languages, and collecting the audio data for thousands of languages was first a challenge because the largest existing speech data sites cover 100 languages at most. So there are currently over 7,000 languages being spoken around the world today. There are more dialects which are often not represented in the training data, even for high-resource languages such as English. So this can lead to undesirable biases in the performance of these models. So from a private sector perspective, Lingo.ai is an AI and data economy platform designed to unlock the value of under-represented language data. So we try to address this by building systems where communities are in control. We take a bottom-up, community-driven approach to build the multilingual AI systems. So one of our core frameworks is something we call LanguageDAO, a decentralized autonomous language organization for each language group. So through this LanguageDAO, speakers of the language can own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data. Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions. It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty. So the platform we support is based on the personal online data storage inspired by the decentralized technologies such as the social link data protocol. This means individuals and the communities can store their data locally and even on personal devices and authorize access to specific organizations. the data remain owned by the people, not by the centralized platforms. So the ownership isn’t enough. We should provide the infrastructure and the connections. We also make data liquid and useful, helping community connect with organizations that need diverse language data for AI, education, accessibility, and more. And this way, we turn data into opportunity, responsibly and transparently, even the monetization opportunity. So we have learned the checkbox, and ultimately the conflict between data inclusion and data protection is real, but it’s not unsolvable. So what need is community-driven governance, open tools, and the deep collaboration between multi-stakeholders. And this is my message.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Thank you very much, Una. You really rounded it up about the need for inclusion and the need for it to be driven by the community in terms of languages. Without much ado, I’m going to hand over now to Chelsea from the USA IGF. She’ll be addressing the question on how can mechanisms be implemented to make it easier for people to understand and manage the permissions they grant for the use of their data. You know, those permissions for the use of their data is very key. So over to you, Chelsea.

Chelsea Horne: Thank you very much for this fantastic question. And thank you to the organizing committee for putting together this important panel with such esteemed colleagues. I really love this question because it brings together so many of the critical issues of data governance in a seemingly simple question or issue. So these issues are responsibility, design, privacy and security, safety, trust, consent, control, and choice, all within one simple premise of design. mechanisms. It is important to ensure that any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy. This is part of building in privacy and security measures by design. From there, making data permissions understandable and manageable is key to empowering individuals. There are several approaches to accomplish this. User friendly interfaces, designing intuitive and visually engaging privacy dashboards and settings that are clearly, accessibly, and succinctly designed are important and that as long as they address these few key details such as who is collecting what data and why, so that means for what purpose, and how it will be used. Privacy friendly choices and defaults are also important to address. To be conscious to avoid what’s now being called dark patterns, those are those deceptive and confusing structures that may nudge users towards choices they may not otherwise have made. Some other options in these user friendly facing mechanisms. Granular consent mechanisms. Moving beyond this all-or-nothing consent framework to allow users to grant specific permissions for different types of data use, so for analytics, personalized ads, or sharing with third parties. The challenge here with granular consent mechanisms is that while it offers more nuanced choice and control, it comes at the cost of information overload. Then we have just-in-time notifications, providing contextual notifications at the point of data collection or use, explaining the implications of granting or denying a specific permission. Now this can help with the clarity of data collection, but also can create additional friction as users navigate through an interface. And finally another option to consider are standardized consent language and icons, developing standardized, easily recognizable icons, simplified language for common data permissions like nutrition labels that we see on food, and some standard localized defaults can all help to reduce cognitive load and information overload, all while aiming to empower people with information and choice. So to sum up, the design, development, and deployment of these mechanisms to empower people is a balancing act between responsibility, trust, resilience, and safety, and it’s critical that we get it right. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Chelsea. You just spoke of a topic that is very interesting and very passionate, and everybody should take congestant of the fact that a lot of use of our data is basically in fine prints, and I think you have covered all the areas that people need to take note of regarding use of their data and what permissions to seek. Without much ado, I’m going to move on to Beatriz, a colleague from the Brazilian NRI. Beatriz will be speaking on how to develop and implement a multi-stakeholder data governance process that is quickly responsive to new technologies’ challenges, and of course, one of those new technologies’ challenges we are all dealing with is AI. Over to you, Beatriz.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: This is the first one you’re supposed to turn on. Oh, I didn’t know. I’m so sorry. Thank you. So good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for the invitation for the Brazilian IGF to be here. I’m a member of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which organizes the Brazilian IGF. I’m a member of the board as one of the civil society representatives, and I would like to share with you a little bit about the long-standing tradition that we have. So, the first question is, what is the role of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which is a global organization that Brazil has in promoting public participation in debates across various policy areas. Regarding digital issues, this tradition is reflected in the stakeholder model endorsed by our Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, that it has more than 30 years of work, and which is why it is a key part of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, in Portuguese, has contributed to key Internet development process in the country, including the Internet, the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet, and the Brazilian General Data Protection Law, LGPD. Discussions around both laws began in parallel in the early 2010s through public consultations, already adopting a multistakeholder approach. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, as you know, our data protection law contains characteristics tailored to the Brazilian context. It’s important to highlight that multistakeholder discussions promoted by the CGI, such as the Privacy and Data Protection Seminar, and the Brazilian IGF, held for over 15 years, played a significant role in shaping the discussions regarding the law. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, as you know, has provided a space for the consolidation of a national community engaged in these topics with representatives from various stakeholders. Inspired by the European General Data Protection Regulation, the Brazilian law adopts a principle-based structure that enables adaptability in its implementation. To support the practical application of the law in different contexts, the Brazilian Data Protection Committee elected BIA was instrumental in constructing this approach. It has been involved in employing a of the Brazilian data protection authority. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. In addition, the Brazilian data protection authority has made efforts to include public participation in its rule-making and regulatory process. These efforts include open calls for contributions and public consultations to capture society’s perspectives on various topics under discussion. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. The Brazilian data protection authority has a strong governmental views in developing personal data governance in Brazil. Within the national data protection authority structure, the national council for personal data protection and privacy, it’s worth mentioning. This consultative body supports the authority’s work by conducting studies, organizing public hearings and promoting data protection awareness. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing the law. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to promoting data protection awareness in the private sector besides labor unions and the CGI.BR itself. We have a seat at this council. Brazil is also in the process of developing, as you mentioned before, developing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence regulation. This framework is designed to be implemented by the Brazilian government, as well as the national data protection authority, as the coordination authority, and a set of sectoral regulators. Such system would also include a permanent council for regulatory cooperation in AI responsible for dialogue with regulators in civil society. And also a committee of AI experts and scientists. The Brazilian data protection authority is committed to implementing a regulatory framework for artificial intelligence regulation in the private sector besides labor unions and the CGI.BR itself. This framework is designed to be implemented by the Brazilian government, as the coordination authority, and a set of sectoral regulators in civil society. Such system would also include a permanent council for regulatory cooperation in AI responsible for dialogue with regulators in civil society. the framework in the European GDPR and the Brazil data protection law, others are still under development, so principles such as those in Sao Paulo guidelines, the Net Mundial Plus 10 event that deals especially with the multi-stakeholder issue, can be essential in supporting the fair, accountable and responsible implementation of such frameworks. The guidelines emphasize the key elements such as ensuring balanced access to information for informed decision making, respect for human rights and diversity in governance process, continuous stakeholder capacity building, cooperation and oversight among governance mechanisms and a focus on delivering tangible and applicable outcomes. So I’ll be happy to go a little bit further on this topic if we have time later on. Thank you very much.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much Beatriz, I think it does show the work that this CGI.br is doing in terms of stakeholder engagement in regards to data protection that covers a lot of aspects and the way you go about it dealing with the community. Without much ado, our last panelist for this session before we go into the online questions from online and to you, our audience here, is Nancy Kanasa from the Pacific IGF. She will be speaking how can the Pacific and Global South network develop resilient and inclusive data governance frameworks that uphold indigenous data sovereignty. You know, when we’re talking of indigenous data sovereignty, we have to know we’re also dealing with those people who in a way… this discourse sometimes feel marginalized. Over to you, Nancy.

Nancy Kanasa: Good morning, everyone. I’m Nancy Kanassa from the Pacific, KGF. I work with the government of Papua New Guinea. I would like to take this opportunity to be speaking here. I’m here not only as a practitioner working on the real-world data governance challenges in Papua New Guinea, but also as a representative of government effort across the Pacific region. Our nation share common culture values, institutional landscape, and technological challenges which shape our collective approach to data governance. My response reflects the Pacific context grounded in living experience and the realities of government-led initiative to support sustainable development amid global technological shift. One of the persistent challenges we face across the Pacific is the fragmentation of data systems, often referred to as data silos. This fragmentation – sorry, this silo exists between government agencies, civil society, academia, and communities, limiting every actor’s ability to share knowledge, coordinate response, and make informed decisions. But it is not just the silo themselves. We also face a deeper issue, the lack of strategic thinking and structured process to address them. In many cases, data governance efforts are reactive rather than proactive and without a clear strategy. It’s difficult to align institutions, build trust, or create systems that are resilient and inclusive. In Papua New Guinea, for example, the lack of coordinated data systems and strategies planning, as lead to delays in issuing VAT certificate, a basic but essential service. Without streamlined data sharing between departments, families face long wait times and administrative barriers. Similarly, in Fiji, the e-bus ticketing system has exposed gap in digital inclusion. Elderly citizens, rural communities, and those unfamiliar with digital tools often struggle to access or use the system effectively. This example highlights how digital inclusion and system barriers can prevent citizens from accessing essential service. They also underscore a greater need for public involvement and oversight in our digital system of design and government. So I return to the question again, and in our case, the Pacific developed resilient and inclusive data governance framework that upholds indigenous data sovereignty. Breaking down these silos is essential. It requires trust, collaboration, and culturally grounded approach that respect local knowledge systems while enabling interoperability and innovation. Without strong institutional coordination, trust-building mechanism, and policies that reflect our Pacific values and indigenous knowledge system, it became difficult to create governance framework that are both inclusive and resilient. As global technological shift accelerate, it is increasingly important for Pacific nations to align with international standards, especially in areas like data privacy, cybersecurity, digital inclusion, and now artificial intelligence. One key answer is awareness and capacity building in a global space where we can bring it back to be done in a way that is retailable and contextualize the local realities. Digital frameworks and tools are valuable, but they must be adapted to fit culture, institution, and infrastructural context of Pacific nations to truly solve the issue we face in our countries. This is why government participation in global platforms such as the Internet Governance Forum is so critical for us. From my view, from the government, a department where we are mandated to make policies and technical implementation. The IGF provided space for dialogue, learning, awareness of what we are doing, and influence where our passive voice can be heard. Our unique challenges can be understood and our priorities can be shaped global norms. One key benefit of engaging in such forum is the opportunity to build partnership and access resource that support the development of inclusive, locally grounded, and globally connected data governance framework. Building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey. It requires leadership, strategic thinking, and a commitment to ensure that no one is left behind in the digital age. When digital infrastructure excludes vulnerable groups, it undermines the principle of data as a global public good. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Nancy. It’s good we have a speaker speaking from a government point of view, from lessons and implementation frameworks, focusing on indigenous data sovereignty from the Pacific IGF. And now, we are lucky, and thank you, speakers, for keeping the time very good, so we will have a good engagement with our audience here, which I’m sure represents different NRIs and other practitioners. I will now hand over to Aicha, who is moderating the online session on questions online, and then we’ll move over to the audience. From the audience, if you’re asking any question, please say your name and your representation and who you’re addressing the question to. If it’s a general question, then I’ll call on any of the… of our distinguished speakers here to answer it. Over to you, Aicha.

Aicha Jeridi: Thank you, Poncelet. Good morning, everyone. So in terms of comments and reaction online, we didn’t receive any comments yet. The only comment is from Weddybeck, who was thanking Chelsea for her intervention. So we are yet to receive any other reaction. The session is still on, so we can receive other reactions or interventions. So over to you, Poncelet.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Aicha, for that. So over to you, audience. Please, let’s get your questions coming in.

Audience: Thank you, moderator. This is Mohammad Abdulhakonu, Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum. I am a Secretary General. My question is, given the limited adoption of comprehensive data protection laws in the Global South, how can we design contest sensitive data governance framework that upload global standard of fairness and accountability while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels, especially in countries like Bangladesh?

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Thank you very much for that question. Any other one? That question, I will let Beatriz from Brazil answer it, because they really have a good process we can all learn from.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: Sir, thank you very much. I’m not pretty aware of the context of Bangladesh, but I can share a little bit what happened in Brazil during the process regarding the data protection development in Brazil, the data protection bill. We, as I mentioned before, we try to foster a very collaborative process, because even if we were inspired by the European General Data Protection Regulation at that time, it was necessary to adapt the context and these global standards, as you mentioned, to our reality, a reality of a country of 220 million people, many of them that don’t have digital literacy, that give our IDs everywhere to have discounts in prices of supermarkets and other sales in magazines, and then the idea was to take advantage of the development of the bill to raise awareness of people on the importance of this topic, and right now, the Brazilian data protection law was approved in 2018, so we have seven years of implementation of the law in Brazil, we still have many people that are not aware at all of their rights regarding personal data protection, but we are moving forward, and one of the things that is important to bring this awareness to the population is the debates that we try to organize at the CGI.br, and also the Brazilian authority has promoted some seminars and public hearings and consultations to involve the Brazilian population in this debate, because if we deal with this topic, thinking that the data protection topic is something for experts or for scientists or for only digital rights civil society organizations, we’re not going to achieve our goal that the Brazilian population feels that they have a right to that. In this process, one of the strategies that the Brazilian civil society managed to put in place was to include the data protection right in the list of civil rights in our constitution. This was a consequence of the bill after the bill was approved in 2018. 2018, and three years later, a Brazilian parliamentarian that was very much connected to the civil society movement decided to propose an amendment to the Brazilian constitution, and now, besides the data protection law, it is inscripted in our constitution that data protection is a right to every citizen, so it was necessary to give more visibility to this process in Brazil, and I think that after that, the Brazilian population started worrying about being worried and being alert at the time regarding their rights, but we still have a long way to fulfil this goal, is that every citizen knows that he has a right to protect, to have his personal data protected, not only by the government, but also by the private companies, but I think that engaging civil society all the time in this process, and not only treating this as something that is related to the government, has helped us to adapt the global standards to our context, and to deal with the daily problems that the Brazilian population suffers.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Beatriz, for that brilliant intervention. I’ll call out to Aicha, who wants to intervene on this topic. Aicha?

Aicha Jeridi: Yes, so we have an intervention, a reaction from the floor. It’s Mr. Tijani Ben Jemaa, who wants to intervene. Mr. Tijani, please reactivate your mic. The floor is yours.

Tijani Ben Jemaa: Thank you very much, Aicha, and thank you all for this wonderful session. I have a question to Una. You spoke about the ownership of the data by the users themselves, but by these big companies that are collecting our data, using them, even without our consent. So we talk about the ownership and the control of the data by the users. I think you are thinking about Web3. That is a project that Henry and other people are working on. I asked Henry in a previous session, since this Web3 project is based on blockchain technology and blockchain technology consumes very, very huge quantity of energy, how this project can be feasible if we don’t solve this issue of energy consumption? Thank you.

Aicha Jeridi: Thank you, Tijani. Una, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Una Wang: Yeah. Thank you for the question. I think you have heard about the panel regarding Henry, who is one of my co-founder of Singapore Internet Governance Forum. And yeah, so a lot of people have the same concerns or the questions with you, like the Web3 is about blockchain or crypto. So this is something that is wrong because Web3.0 has already defined in 2006, it’s called the web of data. So the Sir Tim Berners-Lee who has invented HTTP have already defined what is Web3.0. It’s nothing related to the blockchain or crypto. So blockchain, like Bitcoin, has the value of the personal sovereignty of the finance. That’s a finance value representative. And if you are thinking about Web3.0, you should have data. decentralize the protocol, and you have the right side about the value, how you can monetize those personal data. Because we are talking about community-driven empowerment, it’s related to how we can let the community have the motivation to contribute and have the awareness about how they can get their data back. Now we are in the Web 2.0. Web 2.0 means all the websites, all the infrastructure built on TCP, IP, and HTTP. That leads to the data flow to the centralized platform, such as Meta or Twitter. So every people, we don’t have our own data ownership. That means in the era of the AI, the Chattopadhyay has used the public data size, about three trillion tokens, for training the AI system, and they are using our knowledge. They don’t give our benefit. And you don’t have your rights to know how they use your data. So in the Web 3.0, that is totally different because a lot of people have already got actions on that, such as Henry and I, and also the team, Bernice Lee, who invented the solid social link data, which is a decentralized protocol for all the users to own their data by the personal online pod. That means you can deploy this pod on your local device, on your local PC, on your local phone, or you can choose the different, like the cloud host service, like AWS or any other. But this is going to have the privacy preservation, and you are going to control. whether you want to authorize the organization or not. So we are building that in this way, called Web 3.0, it’s called a web of data, and people have the rights to share all the data, to know who are going to use and how to use, and whether you want to give the money to me, because I share the data, I share the value to the organization who wants to use my data. So we are using the different protocols, and also we are, of course, we have to use blockchain, because for the global payment, each country’s people have the rights to got the different, like their currency, this is more complex when you’re going to send the money to the different people. So the blockchain, like tokens, is one of the value of the backup datas. So you’re going to know what is Web 3.0, and what is Web 3.0. Web 3.0 is wrongly defined by Gavin Wood, because he is in the blockchain and the crypto, and he defined himself as the Web 3.0 father, of the father of the Web 3.0, but it’s totally different. So I think everyone should have the awareness, like what is the real Web 3.0, and we should get our data back in the AI era, because in the future, if you want to have a safe AI, or personal AI agent, you have to got your data back, and you have to deploy a small language model on your local device, combined with your personal data size. Yeah, so hopefully I answer your question. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Una. We’ll try to keep it short. We have 20 minutes, and I want to. use five minutes to take questions, then any other questions from the audience, then we go into last words, especially this is a focus on NRIs, and in those last words, I will start with Chelsea.

Aicha Jeridi: Yeah, we have a question from the floor from Mr. Yeng-Chu Chen. It’s a question and a comment. I’ll start by the question. So the question to all the panelists, how can we design regional data agreements to support cooperation without turning them into non-tariff or technical barriers to trade? This was the question, and all the panelists, feel free to answer. And then he commented, Bhutan use electronic identity system on blockchain. I guess it’s to react to the last intervention from the panelists. Every Bhutanese can own their data and the data ownership. That was all from the floor. Now we move to the question that he asked. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: So who wants to take that question? Or I’ll put you on the spot. Okay. I’ll hand the question over to Nancy.

Nancy Kanasa: So one of the ways I could think of is invest in infrastructure and digital literacy and create a probably regional data council for policy coordination and current cross-border data sharing agreement with safeguards.

Poncelet Ileleji: Okay. Beatriz.

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: No, just to add something that after the Brazilian data protection law was approved in 2018, I know that many Brazilian parliamentarians that were involved in the process of designing the law started traveling a lot in the region to talk to other parliamentary members or governments or authorities or regulators, or even with the civil society movement and organizations to share. what happened in Brazil, and mentioning the participatory process that we have when designing the bill. So I think that this kind of, it’s not a scholarship, but some kind of promoting exchanges among bodies and authorities and civil society members and representatives I think this is interesting to help building a regional context, because in Brazil, I mean, Brazil has many differences regarding our neighbors, but there are many things that are quite similar, and for sure I think that is the same in your region. Then we can take advantage of the mistakes and of the problems that we face during the development of the bill and in the implementation of the law that other countries may avoid if we share these experiences. So I think that would be, I think the idea of having councils together in different countries is a super interesting process, but even starting exchange and experience, and that’s why IGF is so important for that, because we’re exchanging experience here from all over the world. So I think it’s important to help build this regional consciousness regarding the importance of data protection.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much. Aicha, any?

Aicha Jeridi: No, no comments.

Poncelet Ileleji: Anybody from the audience? I’ll go to five. Five, four, okay.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Abdelgeril Basharbon, so I’m coming from Chad, the national coordinator of IGF Chad. So I think that it is a great session, because this session talks about data governance. I think that is very key. I think that in Chad we are thinking now how to work, because in Chad the data protection… The protection act is managed by the National Cyber Security Agency. It’s under the Ministry of Security, not Ministry of ICT. Because last year, during the IGF, we talked a lot about that. People don’t know, the citizens don’t know that we have this kind of act. I think that we need to communicate more on that. So I think that for this year, we need to see how, not for the annual meeting, but how to do some workshop focused on that. And the local languages, we need to go like in village. Some cities that we see, because most of social media is used by people of rural area. Because they are using satellite, this is what we are seeing. So I think that they have WhatsApp group, that administrators don’t know how to deal. They don’t know the data protection act. So I think that this kind of thing that has been analysed, we need to go close to them, to marginalise people, people of rural area, to talk to them. If you do bad things, you can be an injustice on the court. So we need to tell them on that. I think that this is one of our focus this year. And we need to collaborate with other NRIs who have experience on that, and to impact our people. So, thank you so much.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Bashir. From the chat IGF, I think that sums up a lot on how we need to collaborate more as NRIs in this field of local data governance for global public good. Are there any other questions from the audience?

Audience: Kosi Amesinu from Benin. Firstly, this is a very good session. We were talking about data, local data, but we don’t have data centre. Where do I put the data? Where do I put it? We need data centre first, green data centre. And now, process to access to our data locally is very important. Let’s talk to Meta, TikTok, all of them, to come and build data center in Africa, put our data locally in our language also, if it’s possible, and let us check, use our data to train our internet, intelligent artificial process. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, Kosi. I think you said it all about localization of having data centers built into digital sovereignty. I will now call on Chelsea to give her closing remarks. And as NRIs, what we can do in our communities, remember this is an NRI session, and we are at the bottom of the ladder within the internet governance initiatives, and I think this is a very important topic for all of us, and I would like Chelsea to give her closing comments. Thank you.

Chelsea Horne: Thank you very much, Poncelet, for such a wonderful session. From IGF USA, this is a very exciting session because it gives us lots of energy and ideas for our regional IGF later this year. So we’re very excited to continue the dialogue, and I think that one of the most important things is similar themes here to global IGF, which is the multi-stakeholder dialogue, and to make sure that we are bringing members from all different elements of the multi-stakeholder community, and having that meaningful stakeholder engagement is absolutely crucial for fostering both public trust, transparency towards these data governance and internet governance frameworks, and making sure that they are both robust and legitimate. So that’s something that we are going to be working on in particular, is having the continuing dialogue. hosting, and promoting these multi-stakeholder dialogues. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Chelsea. Nancy, your closing remarks?

Nancy Kanasa: From the PIRC-IGF, I think I would say that having ethical and human-centric governing approach like digital inclusion and also safeguard against exploitation is coming from the Pacific Island. You know, we are kind of like left behind in most of the things that we think that we are doing in regard to digital transformation.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Beatriz?

Beatriz Costa Barbosa: Yeah, we already have our Brazilian IGF this year before coming to Norway. And the topic of data governance and data protection is always present in the workshops that are proposed for our internet governance community in Brazil, which is very active and participative. And we are facing, I think, a new challenge in Brazil that something I think that is a topic that many other countries from the global south also discusses has to do with the question that our colleague from the BNAM mentioned, that has to do with digital sovereignty. I’m sorry. We are fostering from the civil society perspective a discussion and debating in Brazil that has to do with how do we control our data? How do we guarantee that data treatment is made in Brazil, respecting human rights in general, but also for our development? So one of the things that I would mention to the final comment that our colleague said here is that I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta. to build data centers in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty, and in a world that we are only sharing our data with global companies in a future that is not that far from us, and now we’re going to face many, many big problems. So we are fostering discussions in Brazil. I think that we have at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee a working group that works with data protection as well. As I mentioned before, we had a seat in the Brazilian Council for Data Protection that is connected to the Brazilian authority, so we’ll keep moving on the discussion and happy always to share this with you. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you. Una?

Una Wang: Yeah, I totally agree with the panelists. So this is the first time I came to the IGF, and Singapore Internet Governance is quite new. We just are recognized by the UN IGF this year in January, so I attended different workshops and the conference. I saw the similar problems that encountered with the previous what we have been solving is that the audience just raised the questions. They don’t have the data center, and that means the centralized social media platform or any internet infrastructure cannot cover global salespeople’s data, and also they don’t have the rights to share or be represented in this current AI era. So we we really encourage every people from global source to see the new protocols that we don’t have to learn from the current like centralized platform, like you’re building your own data center or you’re collecting the data in a centralized way. You can do something that’s quite fascinating and use the frontier technologies to see you have the data ownership and you build your own data by your own protocol. That means no one can access unless you authorize your consent. So you can help those AI companies to train based on your own data size and some other peoples also can do this in this similar way. At the same time, you have the own data value and you will have monetize your own data. That’s the best way that can bring the wealth to the global source people by using your own local data and you can accumulate your own data size day by day. And in the future, you are the one who control the data and you are building your own value in the future. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you, Una. Ahmed, closing words.

Ahmed Fraag: Thank you again. I think in the North African IGF in the recent years, many countries of the North African have started to ignite the strategic value of the data governance. Egypt, for example, has taken concrete steps to establish a legal institutional foundation for data governance. And the personal data protection law has been released in 2020 after public and community consultation. Also, the National Digital Strategy of Egypt includes the strong components of data governance. And I think my final words will be, it is very important to be ready and continue enhancing the frameworks. based on the updates on technology we saw every day. And then, so we have to be flexible, not strike on the current frameworks. No, no, we have to be ready and continue our enhancement in this framework. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji: Thank you very much, all my panelists. And before I close this session, as I said, this Local Data Governance for Global Public Good session was organized, is an NRI session, and was organized by NRIs. It took a lot, months of planning. So I want to thank all the NRIs that planned this, Singapore IGF, IGF USA, IGF Brazil, Zambia Youth IGF, the Gambia IGF, Portugal IGF, Colombia Youth IGF, Brazil IGF, I’ve said it before, Japan IGF, Lebanon IGF, Benin Youth IGF, Colombia IGF, and Argentina IGF. And I also want to thank my brilliant panelists. I know today’s the end of the session, but please feel free to contact them. These are experts in this field. We have two government representatives. We have an academic who is from the USA IGF. We also have Una, who just started the Singapore IGF. And it’s good we have new, we have old, and we have Brazil, who we learn a lot from within what they are doing. Aicha, thank you very much for the online moderation. And can we give a round of applause for our panelists? Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective data governance

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa
– Chelsea Horne

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community is essential

Brazilian Internet Steering Committee has 30+ years experience in multistakeholder approach for data governance

Mechanisms must not force undue burden on people to manage their own data security and privacy

Summary

All speakers agree that effective data governance requires meaningful engagement across all stakeholder groups including governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities. They emphasize that collaborative approaches are fundamental to building trust and legitimacy in governance frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Data governance frameworks must balance innovation with protection

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Chelsea Horne
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Responsible data governance creates ecosystems where data serves people and supports innovation while protecting personal data

Standardized consent language and icons can reduce cognitive load while empowering users with choice

Brazil’s data protection law adopted principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation

Summary

Speakers consistently argue that data governance should not be overly restrictive but should enable innovation and public good while maintaining strong protections for personal data and user rights.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Community-driven approaches and local contextualization are crucial

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Bottom-up governance ensures communities control what data to share and how it’s used

Digital frameworks must be adapted to fit cultural, institutional, and infrastructural contexts of Pacific nations

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Summary

All speakers emphasize that effective data governance must be community-driven and adapted to local contexts, respecting cultural values and institutional realities rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of inclusion and preventing marginalization in digital systems. Una focuses on linguistic inclusion while Nancy addresses broader digital inclusion, but both argue that exclusion from digital systems leads to permanent disadvantage.

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Languages not represented in digital systems risk disappearing from future global conversations

Building resilient data governance requires leadership, strategic thinking, and commitment to inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for user empowerment and control over data, emphasizing transparency and user agency. Chelsea focuses on interface design for informed consent while Una proposes decentralized ownership models.

Speakers

– Chelsea Horne
– Una Wang

Arguments

User-friendly interfaces should clearly explain who collects what data, why, and how it will be used

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing data governance challenges in the context of rapidly advancing technology, and the importance of ensuring all voices are represented in global governance discussions.

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data governance is critical priority due to AI and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data

Government participation in global platforms like IGF is critical for Pacific voices to be heard

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Need for local infrastructure before meaningful data governance

Speakers

– Audience
– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Over 7,000 languages exist globally but current speech recognition covers only 100 languages at most

Pacific nations face fragmentation of data systems creating silos between government agencies and communities

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus between audience members and panelists that infrastructure limitations are a fundamental barrier to effective data governance. This practical concern bridged different perspectives and highlighted that technical infrastructure is prerequisite to policy frameworks.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Data monetization and community benefit sharing

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Brazil’s data protection law adopted principle-based structure enabling adaptability in implementation

Explanation

Unexpected alignment emerged between Una’s commercial approach to data monetization and Beatriz’s regulatory framework perspective, both recognizing that communities should benefit from their data contributions rather than only large platforms profiting.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around multi-stakeholder collaboration, community-driven governance, balancing innovation with protection, and the need for local contextualization. Speakers consistently emphasized inclusion, transparency, and user empowerment across different technical and regulatory approaches.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with complementary rather than conflicting approaches. The agreement spans technical, regulatory, and community perspectives, suggesting robust foundation for collaborative action on data governance frameworks that serve global public good while respecting local contexts and community sovereignty.

Different viewpoints

Definition and implementation of Web3 technology

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Tijani Ben Jemaa

Arguments

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Blockchain technology for Web3 raises concerns about energy consumption feasibility

Summary

Una advocates for Web3 as a decentralized data ownership solution using blockchain for global payments, while Tijani questions the feasibility due to massive energy consumption. Una clarifies that Web3.0 is about data decentralization (not crypto), but still acknowledges using blockchain for payments.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Approach to building local data infrastructure

Speakers

– Audience (Benin)
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Summary

The Benin representative emphasizes the need for physical infrastructure (data centers) first, suggesting engagement with big tech companies, while Beatriz advocates for building public infrastructure and government-led initiatives for digital sovereignty rather than relying on global companies.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Role of global tech companies in local data governance

Speakers

– Audience (Benin)
– Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Arguments

Data centers and local infrastructure are needed before meaningful data governance can be implemented

Public participation through consultations and hearings is crucial for developing contextually appropriate laws

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was disagreement on whether to invite global companies (Meta, TikTok) to build local infrastructure versus building independent public infrastructure. This reveals a fundamental tension between pragmatic infrastructure needs and digital sovereignty concerns that wasn’t anticipated as a major point of contention.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts arising around implementation approaches rather than fundamental principles. Key areas of tension included: technical solutions vs. institutional approaches, reliance on global companies vs. digital sovereignty, and infrastructure-first vs. governance-first priorities.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of inclusive, community-driven data governance but differed on pathways to achieve these goals. The disagreements reflect practical challenges of implementing data governance in diverse contexts rather than fundamental philosophical differences. This suggests potential for collaborative solutions that combine different approaches rather than requiring choosing between competing visions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of inclusion and preventing marginalization in digital systems. Una focuses on linguistic inclusion while Nancy addresses broader digital inclusion, but both argue that exclusion from digital systems leads to permanent disadvantage.

Speakers

– Una Wang
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Languages not represented in digital systems risk disappearing from future global conversations

Building resilient data governance requires leadership, strategic thinking, and commitment to inclusion

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Development

Both speakers advocate for user empowerment and control over data, emphasizing transparency and user agency. Chelsea focuses on interface design for informed consent while Una proposes decentralized ownership models.

Speakers

– Chelsea Horne
– Una Wang

Arguments

User-friendly interfaces should clearly explain who collects what data, why, and how it will be used

Community-driven approach through LanguageDAO allows speakers to own, govern, and monetize their linguistic data

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the urgency of addressing data governance challenges in the context of rapidly advancing technology, and the importance of ensuring all voices are represented in global governance discussions.

Speakers

– Ahmed Fraag
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data governance is critical priority due to AI and emerging technologies requiring responsible, transparent, rights-based use of data

Government participation in global platforms like IGF is critical for Pacific voices to be heard

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Key takeaways

Data governance requires multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, civil society, and technical communities to be effective

Community-driven approaches are essential for inclusive data governance, particularly for linguistic diversity and indigenous data sovereignty

User empowerment through clear, granular consent mechanisms and user-friendly interfaces is crucial for meaningful data control

Regional cooperation and experience sharing among countries, especially in the Global South, can help develop context-sensitive frameworks

Digital infrastructure, including local data centers and improved digital literacy, are prerequisites for effective data governance implementation

Principle-based legal frameworks that allow for adaptability are more effective than rigid regulatory structures

Public participation through consultations and hearings is essential for developing legitimate and contextually appropriate data protection laws

National and Regional Internet Governance Forums (NRIs/IGFs) play a critical role in facilitating dialogue and knowledge sharing on data governance issues

Resolutions and action items

NRIs should organize workshops focused on data protection awareness in local languages, particularly targeting rural and marginalized communities

Countries should invest in building public data infrastructure rather than relying solely on global companies for data centers

Regional data councils should be established to support policy coordination and cross-border data sharing agreements

NRIs should continue facilitating multi-stakeholder dialogues on data governance at national and regional levels

Experience sharing programs should be developed between countries that have implemented data protection laws and those developing frameworks

Capacity building initiatives should be implemented to improve digital literacy and awareness of data protection rights

Unresolved issues

How to balance innovation encouragement with strict data protection without creating trade barriers

Energy consumption concerns related to blockchain-based decentralized data systems remain unaddressed

Specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful consent in low digital literacy environments need further development

Technical implementation details for community-controlled data governance systems require more exploration

Funding and resource allocation for building local data infrastructure in developing countries remains unclear

Standardization of regional data governance frameworks while respecting local contexts needs further discussion

Suggested compromises

Adopt principle-based rather than prescriptive regulatory frameworks to allow flexibility while maintaining protection standards

Implement granular consent mechanisms that balance user control with usability to avoid information overload

Develop hybrid approaches that combine global standards with local adaptations for context-sensitive implementation

Create phased implementation strategies that allow for gradual capacity building while establishing basic protections

Balance centralized and decentralized approaches by building public infrastructure while enabling community control

Use standardized icons and simplified language for data permissions while allowing for local customization

Responsible data governance is not about regulation, it’s not just about data regulation. It is about creating an ecosystem where data-served people empower communities and support innovation.

Speaker

Ahmed Fraag

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by shifting focus from restrictive regulatory approaches to empowerment-based governance. It introduces the concept of data governance as ecosystem building rather than mere compliance, which is particularly insightful for Global South contexts where innovation and development are crucial.

Impact

This comment set the foundational tone for the entire discussion, establishing that the session would focus on empowerment rather than restriction. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize community-driven approaches and positive uses of data governance.

It’s not just about inclusion, it’s about sovereignty… Each community decides what data to share, how it’s used, and under what conditions.

Speaker

Una Wang

Reason

This comment introduces the critical distinction between mere inclusion and true sovereignty, challenging the common assumption that simply including more languages or communities in digital systems is sufficient. The concept of community-controlled data governance through LanguageDAO represents a paradigm shift from top-down to bottom-up data governance.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical inclusion to fundamental questions of power and control. It introduced the concept of decentralized autonomous organizations for language communities, which influenced later discussions about indigenous data sovereignty and community empowerment.

It is important to ensure that any mechanisms implemented do not force undue burden of responsibility on people to manage their own data security and privacy. This is part of building in privacy and security measures by design.

Speaker

Chelsea Horne

Reason

This comment addresses a critical paradox in data governance – how to empower users without overwhelming them. It challenges the common approach of shifting responsibility to individuals and instead advocates for systemic design solutions, which is particularly relevant for contexts with varying digital literacy levels.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from user empowerment to user protection, introducing the concept of ‘privacy by design’ and influencing the conversation toward balanced approaches that don’t burden users while still providing them with meaningful control.

Building resilient and inclusive data governance in the Pacific is not just a technical goal. It is a social, cultural, and institutional journey.

Speaker

Nancy Kanasa

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes data governance from a technical implementation challenge to a holistic transformation process. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of technical, social, and cultural factors, which is crucial for understanding why technical solutions alone often fail in diverse cultural contexts.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of the discussion beyond technical frameworks to encompass cultural and institutional dimensions. It reinforced the importance of context-sensitive approaches and influenced the conversation toward more holistic, culturally-grounded solutions.

I would encourage you not only to invite TikTok or Meta to build data centers in your country, but for your country, your companies, your government, to build a public infrastructure to deal with the data from the dependent citizens, because this is important for your digital sovereignty.

Speaker

Beatriz Costa Barbosa

Reason

This comment challenges the common assumption that partnering with global tech companies is the solution to data localization needs. It introduces the concept of public digital infrastructure as an alternative to corporate dependency, which is a provocative stance on digital sovereignty and national autonomy.

Impact

This comment responded directly to an audience question about data centers and shifted the conversation from corporate partnerships to public infrastructure development. It reinforced themes of sovereignty and self-determination that had been building throughout the discussion.

Web3.0 has already defined in 2006, it’s called the web of data… It’s nothing related to the blockchain or crypto… blockchain, like Bitcoin, has the value of the personal sovereignty of the finance.

Speaker

Una Wang

Reason

This comment corrects a fundamental misconception about Web3.0, distinguishing between the original concept of a ‘web of data’ and the blockchain-centric interpretation. This clarification is crucial for understanding decentralized data governance approaches and challenges common assumptions about emerging technologies.

Impact

This comment directly addressed technical confusion raised by an audience member and provided important clarification that helped ground the discussion in accurate technical understanding. It demonstrated the importance of precise terminology in data governance discussions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed the discussion from a conventional regulatory-focused conversation to a more nuanced exploration of empowerment-based, community-driven data governance. The comments built upon each other to establish several key themes: the shift from regulation to ecosystem building, the importance of sovereignty over mere inclusion, the need for systemic rather than individual solutions, the cultural and institutional dimensions of governance, and the importance of public infrastructure over corporate dependency. The discussion evolved from abstract policy concepts to concrete, contextual solutions that acknowledge the diverse needs and capabilities of Global South communities. The interplay between these insights created a comprehensive framework for understanding data governance as a multifaceted challenge requiring technical, social, cultural, and institutional solutions rather than purely regulatory approaches.

How can we design context-sensitive data governance frameworks that uphold global standards of fairness and accountability while respecting local values, infrastructure limitations, and digital literacy levels, especially in countries like Bangladesh?

Speaker

Mohammad Abdulhakonu (Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of adapting global data protection standards to local contexts in the Global South, considering limited resources and varying digital literacy levels.

How can Web3 projects based on blockchain technology be feasible if the energy consumption issue of blockchain is not solved?

Speaker

Tijani Ben Jemaa

Explanation

This raises concerns about the environmental sustainability of blockchain-based solutions for data ownership and governance.

How can we design regional data agreements to support cooperation without turning them into non-tariff or technical barriers to trade?

Speaker

Yeng-Chu Chen

Explanation

This addresses the balance between regional data cooperation and avoiding protectionist measures that could hinder international trade.

How can NRIs effectively communicate data protection laws to rural and marginalized communities who use social media but are unaware of data protection regulations?

Speaker

Abdelgeril Basharbon (IGF Chad)

Explanation

This highlights the need for grassroots education and awareness campaigns about data rights in local languages and contexts.

How can African countries establish local data centers and negotiate with global tech companies to store African data locally while maintaining data sovereignty?

Speaker

Kosi Amesinu (Benin)

Explanation

This addresses the infrastructure requirements for data localization and digital sovereignty in Africa.

How can countries build public infrastructure for data governance rather than relying solely on global companies for data centers and storage?

Speaker

Beatriz Costa Barbosa (implied from her response)

Explanation

This explores the concept of public digital infrastructure as an alternative to private sector dominance in data storage and processing.

How can data governance frameworks remain flexible and adaptive to rapidly evolving technologies while maintaining regulatory effectiveness?

Speaker

Ahmed Fraag

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of creating regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with technological advancement without becoming obsolete.

How can Pacific Island nations overcome data fragmentation and silos between government agencies, civil society, and communities?

Speaker

Nancy Kanasa (Pacific IGF)

Explanation

This addresses specific challenges in small island developing states regarding institutional coordination and data sharing.