Open Forum #34 How Do Technical Standards Shape Connectivity and Inclusion

Summary

This discussion, hosted by the Freedom Online Coalition at the Internet Governance Forum, focused on how technical standards can shape connectivity and digital inclusion, particularly examining barriers to participation in global standard-setting processes. The panel brought together experts from government, civil society, academia, and the private sector to explore how technical standardization can better align with human rights principles and contribute to bridging the digital divide.

Divine Agbeti from Ghana’s Cybersecurity Authority highlighted how open and interoperable standards have enabled financial inclusion across Africa, citing mobile money applications that allowed 80% of Ghana’s adult population to access digital financial services. Natalie Turkova emphasized that technical standards, while seeming abstract, directly affect how people connect and communicate online, yet end-users are typically excluded from standard-setting discussions due to barriers like lack of awareness, membership fees, technical language, and closed-door processes.

Stephanie Borg Psaila presented research mapping specific barriers across different standard-setting bodies like ITU, IETF, and ICANN, noting issues ranging from prohibitive membership costs to language limitations and geographic accessibility of meetings. Rose Payne discussed the critical role of standards in securing undersea cable infrastructure, which carries 95-99% of transnational data, while highlighting the disconnect between technical and geopolitical approaches to cable governance.

Alex Walden from Google emphasized the private sector’s role in investing in connectivity infrastructure while advocating for human rights-based approaches and inclusive stakeholder participation. However, audience members from the technical community challenged the panel’s framing, arguing that the distinction between “technical community” and “civil society” creates false barriers and that standard-setting processes are more open than portrayed. The discussion concluded with three main takeaways: addressing various participation barriers, building capacity across stakeholder groups, and grounding all discussions in international human rights law to ensure meaningful inclusion in technical standard-setting processes.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Barriers to Inclusive Participation in Technical Standards Setting**: The discussion extensively covered obstacles preventing diverse stakeholder engagement, including high membership fees, language barriers (predominantly English-only processes), lack of awareness about ongoing discussions, and technical jargon that intimidates non-technical participants. These barriers particularly affect civil society organizations, end-users, and participants from the Global South.

– **The Critical Role of Technical Standards in Bridging Digital Divides**: Panelists highlighted how open and interoperable standards enable connectivity and inclusion, with concrete examples like mobile money systems in Ghana and across Africa (M-PESA) that brought financial services to previously unbanked populations, demonstrating standards’ real-world impact on digital inclusion.

– **Human Rights Integration in Technical Standards Development**: The conversation emphasized the need to align technical standardization with international human rights law from the outset of development processes, rather than attempting to address rights concerns after standards are already established. The Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement was referenced as a framework for this alignment.

– **Infrastructure Security and International Cooperation**: Significant focus was placed on subsea cables as critical infrastructure carrying 95-99% of transnational data, discussing the importance of technical standards for their security and reliability, while acknowledging the limitations of technical solutions in addressing geopolitical threats and the need for international legal frameworks.

– **Bridging Communication Gaps Between Stakeholder Communities**: The discussion revealed tensions between different communities (technical experts, civil society, government, private sector) and the need for better translation of technical concepts to end-users, as well as the importance of recognizing that technical experts can also be civil society members who care about human rights impacts.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how technical standards can be made more inclusive, transparent, and aligned with human rights principles to bridge digital divides and ensure equitable access to digital services globally. The session sought to identify concrete strategies for improving stakeholder participation in standards-setting processes and examine how these standards impact connectivity, security, and inclusion, particularly for underserved communities.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion began with a collaborative and constructive tone, with panelists building on each other’s points and offering practical solutions to identified problems. However, the tone shifted notably during the Q&A portion when audience members from the technical community expressed disappointment and frustration with what they perceived as oversimplified characterizations of standards bodies and an “us versus them” mentality between technical and civil society communities. The panelists responded diplomatically to these criticisms, acknowledging the feedback while defending their work to bridge divides. Despite this tension, the session concluded on a constructive note with actionable takeaways and a commitment to continued dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Laura O Brien** – Senior International Counsel at Access Now, session moderator

– **Rasmus Lumi** – Director General, Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

– **Divine Agbeti** – Director General of Cybersecurity Authority of Ghana

– **Stephanie Borg Psaila** – Director for Digital Policy of Diplo Foundation

– **Natalie Turkova** – At-Large Advisory Committee ICANN and Founder and Chair of IGF CETSEA

– **Alex Walden** – Global Head of Human Rights, Google

– **Rose Payne** – Policy and Advocacy Lead from Global Partners Digital

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during Q&A

**Additional speakers:**

– **Israel Rosas** – Internet Society representative who spoke during the Q&A session

– **Harold** (last name not provided) – Audience member who identified as a technologist and civil society member, criticized the panel composition

– **Colin Perkins** – University of Glasgow, former IEB member and long-time IETF participant

# Technical Standards and Digital Inclusion: Bridging Participation Gaps in Global Standard-Setting Processes

## Executive Summary

This discussion, hosted by the Freedom Online Coalition at the Internet Governance Forum, examined how technical standards shape connectivity and digital inclusion, focusing on barriers to diverse stakeholder participation in global standard-setting processes. The panel brought together representatives from government, civil society, academia, and the private sector to explore strategies for aligning technical standardisation with human rights principles.

The session revealed both consensus on fundamental challenges and notable disagreements regarding the characterisation of barriers between technical and civil society communities. While panellists agreed on the importance of inclusive participation, the discussion was challenged by audience members from the technical community who questioned the panel’s framing and composition.

## Opening Framework and Context

Laura O’Brien, Senior International Counsel at Access Now and session moderator, established the discussion’s foundation by referencing the Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement on technical standards and human rights. This framework positioned technical standards as governance instruments that embed values and directly impact human rights, connectivity, and digital inclusion.

Rasmus Lumi, Director General of Estonia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, provided opening remarks establishing the central challenge: “These standards are the backbone of global connectivity… But this infrastructure is only as strong and as just as the processes behind it. Too often, standard-setting bodies… operate without sufficient input from the global south, from the civil society, or marginalised communities.”

## Panel Presentations

### Real-World Impact of Standards

Divine Agbeti, Director General of Ghana’s Cybersecurity Authority, provided concrete examples of how technical standards enable digital inclusion. He highlighted that open and interoperable standards enabled mobile money applications that brought 80% of Ghana’s adult population into digital financial services. He shared a personal example of being able to transfer money from Norway to his mother in Ghana and between different account types, demonstrating practical connectivity benefits.

Agbeti emphasized that these standards enabled local adaptation, including support for African languages in digital platforms, showing how technical standardisation contributes to both financial and cultural inclusion.

### Mapping Barriers to Participation

Natalie Turkova, representing ICANN’s At-Large Advisory Committee and founder of IGF CETSEA, analyzed how technical standards directly affect how people connect and communicate online. Drawing on her background in psychology and media studies, she described her gradual entry into the technical field and identified key barriers excluding end-users from standard-setting:

– Lack of awareness about ongoing standards discussions

– Financial barriers preventing civil society participation

– Technical language complexity creating accessibility challenges

– Closed-door processes without transparent public engagement

Stephanie Borg Psaila, Director for Digital Policy at Diplo Foundation, presented research from the CAID project mapping specific barriers across different standard-setting bodies including ITU, IETF, and ICANN. She noted that barriers vary significantly between organisations and operate on multiple levels, including language barriers that exclude both non-native English speakers and regular users intimidated by technical complexity.

### Critical Infrastructure Challenges

Rose Payne, Policy and Advocacy Lead from Global Partners Digital, focused on subsea cables carrying 95% to 99% of transnational data. Drawing on research from an Internet Society fellowship, she explained how technical standards are vital for cable security and reliability but have limitations when facing malicious actors and deliberate cable cutting.

Payne identified a disconnect between how governments approach subsea cables as geopolitical challenges and how technical communities view geopolitical considerations. She noted that international legal frameworks like UNCLOS require updating for modern cable protection needs.

### Private Sector Perspectives

Alex Walden, Global Head of Human Rights at Google, articulated the private sector’s role in both investing in connectivity infrastructure and advocating for inclusive stakeholder participation. He emphasized that companies should implement human rights frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles throughout standards development and use their access to advocate for civil society inclusion.

## Q&A Discussion and Critical Feedback

The discussion took a significant turn when Harold, an audience member identifying as both a technologist and civil society member, challenged the panel’s approach. He expressed disappointment that a panel about technical standards “did not include a single person who actually works with technical standards.”

Harold argued against the distinction between technical community and civil society, stating: “So this false distinction between the technical community that doesn’t care and the civil society that cares about all the right things but happens to not understand this is false.” He contended that technologists are also part of civil society and care about human rights impacts.

Colin Perkins from the University of Glasgow, a former IESG member and IETF participant, reinforced this critique by expressing concern about “grouping together the various standards bodies and acting as if they all behave somewhat the same.” He encouraged more focused criticism that would be actionable for people developing standards.

The panellists responded diplomatically while defending their work. Rose Payne acknowledged the feedback, emphasizing the need for translation between technical and policy communities. Natalie Turkova accepted the criticism constructively, noting the importance of bidirectional capacity building between civil society and technical communities.

## Solutions and Recommendations

Despite tensions, the discussion produced concrete recommendations:

**Institutional Reforms:**

– Create dedicated seats for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

– Implement graduated membership fee structures for civil society organisations

– Provide real-time interpretation in multiple languages

**Accessibility Improvements:**

– Enable virtual participation and hybrid modalities

– Distribute meeting locations strategically to avoid excluding developing region participants

– Form youth panels and include vulnerable groups in standards discussions

**Collaboration Opportunities:**

Israel Rosas from the Internet Society offered to strengthen cooperation with the Freedom Online Coalition for ITU sector conferences including WTDC and plenipotentiary conferences.

## Main Takeaways

Laura O’Brien concluded the discussion with three main takeaways:

1. **Addressing Diverse Participation Barriers**: Recognition that barriers are multifaceted, requiring targeted solutions addressing financial, linguistic, geographic, and procedural obstacles.

2. **Building Capacity Across Stakeholder Groups**: Acknowledgment that effective inclusion requires mutual capacity building rather than one-directional advocacy.

3. **Grounding Discussions in International Human Rights Law**: Consensus that human rights frameworks should guide technical standards development from the outset.

## Conclusion

This discussion highlighted both the challenges and possibilities in making technical standard-setting more inclusive and rights-respecting. While significant disagreements emerged regarding the characterisation of barriers and appropriate approaches, the session demonstrated the importance of including actual standards practitioners alongside civil society advocates, government representatives, and private sector actors in these conversations.

The evolution from initial presentations through critical interventions to collaborative problem-solving illustrated the complexity of multi-stakeholder approaches to technical governance. The session established a foundation for continued dialogue while revealing the need for more nuanced understanding of how different standards bodies operate and how various stakeholder communities can contribute expertise within human rights frameworks.

Laura O Brien: the IGF, we’re very grateful for you all for joining on this very early time start, to the Freedom Online Coalition’s event on how technical standards can shape connectivity and inclusion. My name is Laura O’Brien, I’m Senior International Counsel at Access Now, and I’ll be the moderator for the session today, and I’m joined by an esteemed group of panelists who are very expert on this topic. To start us off today, I will hand the floor over to Rasmus Lumi, Director General, Department of International Organizations and Human Rights, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, to do welcoming remarks. Over to you, Rasmus.

Rasmus Lumi: Thank you very much, and welcome everyone to this morning session here, which addresses a critical yet often overlooked pillar of our digital world, which is the technical standards. These standards are the backbone of global connectivity, enabling data to move seamlessly across borders, ensuring the interoperability of our networks, and supporting the expansion of affordable digital services. From undersea cables to data transmission protocols, standards underpin the various systems that make the internet work. But this infrastructure is only as strong and as just as the processes behind it. Too often, standard-setting bodies like ITU, IETF, and others operate without sufficient input from the global south, from the civil society, or marginalized communities. This lack of inclusivity risks reinforcing the digital divide, and leaving critical voices out of decisions that shape our joint future. We need open, transparent, and multi-stakeholder models for setting standards, too. Models that reflect the full diversity of the global digital community. In its joint statement of 2024, the Freedom Online Coalition, which Estonia is leading this year, has emphasized the importance of a rights-based, inclusive approach to digital policy. And at the same time, Estonia’s own leadership in digital governance shows what’s possible when innovation is paired with openness and accountability. As we navigate complex issues, cybersecurity, infrastructure, resilience, emerging technologies like quantum communications, we must ensure that standards evolve, not just to meet technical needs, but to align with broader goals like human rights, sustainable development, and global cooperation. Let’s use this space today to explore how we can make standard-setting more equitable, more collaborative, and more future-ready. By doing so, we can help build a digital ecosystem that is not only connected, but also inclusive, secure, and truly global. Thank you.

Laura O Brien: Thank you very much, Rasmus. Our session today will delve into how open and interoperable standards can bridge digital divides, enhance connectivity, and ensure affordable access to vital digital services in underserved regions. We’ll be focusing on the critical role of standards in global communication infrastructure, such as undersea cables, data transmission, network compatibility, and cybersecurity. We will explore how emerging technologies demand adaptive, resilient frameworks. Despite their crucial impact, international standing-setting bodies such as the ITU, IETF, IEEE, W3C, frequently operate with limited stakeholder engagement. Our discussion today will highlight the barriers to inclusive participation and propose concrete strategies to foster greater transparency, accessibility, and representation. We will also examine how aligning technical standardization with human rights, digital inclusion, and the sustainable development goals can support key WSIS action lines, driving a more equitable and secure digital future. Through expert insights and collaborative dialogue, this panel aims to chart actionable pathways towards making standard-setting processes more open, collective, and representative, building a global digital ecosystem that works for everyone. In terms of the format, we’ll do one round of questions from the panelists, and then we’ll open the discussion for more of a Q&A from you all. We’ll then conclude with the three main takeaways from this session and any other closing remarks from the panelists here today. I’d like to start off by introducing our esteemed panel. First, to my right, I have Mr. Devine Abegti, and I apologize for any mispronunciation of names, the Director General of Cybersecurity Authority of Ghana. Pleasure to have you. I also have Stephanie Vorge-Sila, Director for Digital Policy of Diplo Foundation. Great to have you here. And then immediate left, I have Natalie Turkova, At-Large Advisory Committee ICANN and Founder and Chair of IGF CETSEA. And then on my very far right, Alex Walden, Global Head of Human Rights, Google. And finally, but last but not least, Rose Payne, Policy and Advocacy Lead from Global Partners Digital. So I think we’ll just dive right into it with my first question to Mr. Devine. How can open and interoperable technical standards help bridge the digital divide, particularly in underserved regions and among marginalized communities?

Divine Agbeti: Thank you very much. Actually, I’m honored to represent Ghana at this important roundtable on the role of technical standards in shaping a more inclusive, secure, and interoperable digital future. As a nation at the heart of Africa’s digital transformation journey, Ghana sees technical standards as governance instruments that impact rights, inclusion, and sustainable development. So firstly, open and interoperable technical standards are foundational to bridging the digital divide. They lower the cost of connectivity and technology adoption, especially in underserved communities. And we have seen this a lot throughout the country, and I’ll come to that, especially in our financial inclusion activities. This competition, by allowing multiple vendors to interoperate, reducing locking and also promoting affordability in that aspect, and it also enables local innovation and adaptation, such as African language support in mobile applications and digital platforms. So for some time now, in our financial institutions in Ghana, many years ago, we only had the traditional banks, for example, and that cuts away about 80 percent of the population who were peasant farmers, market women, and tradesmen who never had access to bank accounts or never thought there’s a need for that. But then the incident of technologies and interoperability came in, and locally we’re able to develop mobile applications and introduce what we call the mobile money applications. And interestingly, it’s not only in Ghana, it’s across the continent. So when you go even to East Africa, you have M-Pesa, which is there, and we work with the mobile networks to establish this. In that aspect, everyone is able to put in a smaller quote and they’re able to transfer money. You can walk to a vendor and then put money into your own mobile wallet and also transfer money to people across the country. So as a result, especially in the mobile money, it has enabled over 80 percent of the adult population to access basic digital financial services. And by avoiding the vendor proprietary limitations, interoperability has become. driver of the financial inclusion in Ghana and today I can gladly say that even me in person I don’t see the need to walk into a bank. I sit even right here in Norway and I’m able to transfer money to my mother who is right in the village and also be able to transfer from the mobile wallet account to my brother’s bank account no matter where he is. So these are the way technical standards can help support digital inclusion. Thank you very much. It’s very

Laura O Brien: helpful to have the perspective not only from Ghana but to see the regional and bringing in the financial institutions. That’s very very helpful to kick us off on this discussion today. My next question is to Natalie. What are the main barriers to inclusive participation in global standard setting processes and how can these be addressed to ensure more diverse

Natalie Turkova: stakeholder engagement? Thank you so much. So if I would look at this for the lens of someone who is focusing on end-users within the various roles that I have in the community and focusing on the interest of the end-users, well I would say it’s very important to mention that these standards, technical standards might sound distant or very abstract to many of these people but they actually do shape the way we all connect, the way we are all online, we communicate and also access all the opportunity that we have. So this is very important to start with so that standards really do affect all of us, everyone, but the everyone isn’t usually in the room when everything is being said and done and talked about. So historically we can see that technical standard setting has been mainly let’s say motivated and being done by engineers, industry, government agencies and so environments that are just not traditionally open or even accessible even if you really want to for everyday users or just public interest advocates and we can just talk about the main barriers right but I would say the main thing is of course the lack of awareness because typically you’re not invited, there’s no advertisement where all these discussions are being held so there’s no increased participation or opportunities for the end-user communities and much of the work is just being done behind a closed door and of course once something goes wrong then we start to take these discussions again as an open thing, try to resolve what was being done wrongly however then of course it’s harder to somehow change it so there is now the growing recognition how the standards are just not neutral and they can just embed values or affect human rights in a way that we just don’t think about because we don’t even invite these people who can pinpoint and tell us in advance that well this is actually not the right decision, it’s not the right way to go but then once this is all being said and done it’s just way too complicated to go back and change it so definitely if I want to be positive about this and I want to not just to make the points of the negative things in order to change and maybe overcome these barriers I would suggest strongly that we try and do our maximum to have all these important conversations and be more open to different stakeholders back when we are having all these initial discussions so that also the process is much smoother and of course eventually cheaper so to provide some space and open seats for those who advocate for end-users who know well the realm of human rights and can really help us overcome these obstacles at the very beginning. These can be observing roles or specifically design seats for these type of people and stakeholders and then of course all these processes tend to be let’s say very technical so I just want to mention the language barrier we don’t usually think about so me mainly in my day job apart from all this which I love to do, I’m an academic and I know that sometimes we forget that the language we use can create this big barrier to the normal, normal I don’t like to use the word but like the regular end-user, my grandma and you know I also want her to understand what is being done, why these things look the way they look, how come these findings can actually affect her in her everyday life even though it doesn’t seem possible and so that also being able to translate what is being discussed on also the technical standard setting level to everyday end-users is very crucial otherwise even if we invite them but they’re intimidated because they just don’t understand, they don’t want to feel just dumb and they should not be in the room because they’re not engineers then eventually even if we open these seats they will just not come so also take a step back and try to be more open, more

Laura O Brien: inclusive by design as we as we discuss all these things. Thank you so much. Yes thank you Natalie, I think that was helpful to get kind of more of the historic perspective and then also highlighting some of the main barriers such as the lack of awareness, the fact that these settings are very strongly technical and the need to center and advocate for the end-users so I really appreciated that. Perhaps I could piggyback off a little bit more on this what could be the solutions. I know you offered a little bit of perspective on that in terms of the observing rules but to inclusive participation in global standard processes and how can we address these to ensure more diverse stakeholder engagement. Thank you so much so of course apart from the dedicated

Natalie Turkova: seats or specific roles that we can set up for them then another thing is that usually to be part of such communities or just the committees themselves sometimes you do have to pay a certain fee like a membership fee to even enter the environment and be able to meaningfully participate so of course if there is a financial barrier as well this should be something I would suggest we reconsider especially for those from civil society and that usually do face the barriers when it comes to finances and this is usually the main issue so of course I would I would also advocate for this thing and then focusing on also some form of vulnerable end-users such as the youth as well we can see in many organizations they are now forming youth panels also bringing these perspectives of the generation that will be affected by all the standards that we just adapt now these days so also bringing these people to the same room and trying to discuss with them what they see as challenging or maybe they already have some some fears and sometimes I when I have these conversations with young people or vulnerable groups of end-users such as people with disabilities and then of course all these groups can merge right we tend to forget that so we can even have young people with disabilities and or people from regions where connectivity is just a real issue and these people have some additional obstacles additional barriers so just bringing them in without creating again the barrier of language the barrier of membership fees and and all these that could really help then of course just being able to promote when these things are happening also maybe enable some form of virtual participation sometimes we can see that once let’s say a first draft is being adopted then it can be open for public comments or for comments from all these that could be just in these specific roles seated at the table so that could be something that could be very helpful eventually and then of course just overall raise some awareness and try and bridge the sphere of very technical and sometimes very hard to grasp documents to the end-users when it comes to explaining what does it mean how these things can actually affect them providing example so focusing more on the knowledge enhancements well I think all these together in a very naive situation in a utopian perspective that would be the ideal recipe to overcome some of the obstacles that we see today

Laura O Brien: yes thank you Natalie I appreciate how you took the focus more broadly on the end-users and narrowed it down to you know the youth persons with disabilities looking more about the vulnerability aspects and of course we’re all you know facing you know many barriers in terms of access to processes from a financial perspective but also I think there’s ways of overcoming that and I appreciate your option on the virtual participation you know we’ve seen that work really well in different hybrid modalities and it’s good way to make sure that we’re engaging with stakeholders from all over and to and to bring them into these processes so thank you next I’ll turn over to Stephanie in what ways can technical standardization and maybe with respect to digital technologies communication infrastructure data transmission network compatibility and security which is quite a bit be better aligned with international human rights law and contribute to digital inclusion and advance the sustainable development goals.

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Thank you, Laura. I will answer the question actually by rewording it. So I would say that technical standardization can contribute to digital inclusion and advancing the SDGs by being better aligned to international human rights law. So I’ve turned that a little bit around. And building on what Divine said, there are multiple everyday examples of how technical standards are bridging the digital divide. Divine mentioned the M-PESA and the financial related solutions. There’s the Aadhaar in India, which also is a very similar example. So the Aadhaar has enabled millions to access banking and social welfare. And through the Know Your Customer, the APA standard, it has reduced the onboarding costs for financial services. Another example is the use of TV white space standards in some countries in Africa. And that has enabled broadband delivery to rural areas using the unused spectrum. And another example, building also on what Natalie has said, it’s accessibility standards. So for instance, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines that have made web content more inclusive for persons with disabilities. I’m just taking three examples, but there are many, many, many more. But obviously, we need to ensure that these technical standards are aligned with human rights law. And I will be stating the obvious, so standards should not enable surveillance, exclusion, data misuse, etc. And to prevent these harms, the discussion needs to take place from the outset. So I would say that that is one of the key points to make. If the discussion does not take place on the outset, as Natalie said, then it’s very difficult to solve. I’m also reflecting a little bit on what Natalie just said regarding the solutions. Diplo Foundation, we’re the lead partner in a project, it’s called CAID, Civil Alliances for Digital Empowerment. And one of the things that we’ve done is we’ve mapped the barriers for inclusion, for participation, focusing on civil society from the global majority. But we went a little bit deeper in the sense that we looked at some of the main standardization fora, and we said, all right, in each of these fora, what are the specific barriers? So we went a little bit granular to identify, for instance, what are the issues at the ITU? What are the issues at the ITF, at ICANN? Some of the issues are the same. Some are quite specific to these fora. So what we really believe and are working on is for there to be finally some structural changes coming from the top that will finally solve issues for civil society participation. And you mentioned the membership fees. It’s a non-starter for CSOs, right? So how can we even begin to say that we need to hear civil society voices when the door is shut for civil society? So certain barriers are literally, they’re a non-starter for CSOs, let alone being able to speak the same language, understand, etc. But what we’re also saying is that we’re trying not to approach it in a, let’s say, naive way. So there are aspects that civil society need also to look at to be able to, let’s say, help themselves, help their cause. And one of the issues that we are working on, one of the aspects is on helping civil society, helping end users, helping communities understand why they need to be in the room. And these are the examples I mentioned, the examples Divine mentioned. These are the everyday things that matter, right? So CSOs, civil society organizations, they also need to be made aware that their contribution is essential because what is being decided and what is being developed and later implemented in some of these spaces that we’re mentioning affect them directly on an everyday level. So I’ll stop there.

Laura O Brien: Thank you, Laura. Yes, thank you very much, Stephanie. That was very helpful and I think, if you can, maybe elaborate more on some of the issues that you mentioned specifically within the ITU, within IETF, would you be able to do that? Yes, of course. So we have the mapping study

Stephanie Borg Psaila: published on the CAID website, so I’ll be happy to share the URL after the session where we have a CAID booth here. Essentially, there are issues that are quite similar, right? But for instance, for the ITU, there’s the famous membership cost, right? You have to be a sectoral member to participate. There are some, let’s say, not exceptions, but other stakeholder groups are able to access ITU discussions. Why not civil society, right? So, to me, it doesn’t make sense that you have huge, huge membership fees for CSOs and the exclusion, the exceptions, right? They are still very, very difficult to, let’s say, tap into, right? Because of the conditions attached with them. Within ICANN, there are perhaps the decisions on where the face-to-face meetings are held. What we’re suggesting is that the location takes into account, for instance, small island states, which are, for instance, in the Pacific, in regions which normally are rendered automatically inaccessible because of the huge traveling costs, etc. So, perhaps a change in how the rotation takes place. At the IETF, one of the main challenges is the language, because the IETF discussions are predominantly in English, right? So, how about real-time interpretation, right? And we’re not saying 1,000 different languages, right? We had a lightning session the other day. We looked at the languages that, I’m seeing a couple of people smiling, probably they were part of the session, but we had this experiment, right, of finding which languages are perhaps the most common, rather than English. In the whole space where we organized this lightning session, only, I think, one or two persons were English native speakers, right? So, English was their mother tongue. For the rest of the participants, it was not, right? So, again, interpretation to enable, for instance, there are huge, huge communities in Latin America which are very much interested in the work of the IETF, but the language is a barrier. So, why not include Spanish, right, in real-time interpretation? So, it’s granular issues like this that the mapping has identified. in a very granular way.

Laura O Brien: Thank you, Stephanie. I think this mapping exercise and looking at the specific bodies is very helpful for us to all understand the specific issues within each body and ways to address that. And bringing back to the international human rights law aspect of the question and the discussion today, I think the joint statement from the Freedom Online Coalition that Rasmus mentioned in the beginning on technical standards and human rights in the context of digital technologies could be really influential in trying to address and bridge those barriers. Having a bunch of FOC governments committing to these principles from a human rights perspective is really helpful in advancing moving forward. So thank you for all those suggestions. My next is over to Rose. What role do technical standards play in ensuring the security, reliability, and interoperability of critical infrastructure like subsea cables, which is an increasingly interesting topic? And how can international cooperation and multi-stakeholder partnerships strengthen their governance?

Rose Payne: Great. Thank you so much. I’m so glad to have a chance to be here with you all. Just before I move on to subsea cables, I’ll give you a bit of info to kind of place me. So my name is Rose Payne. I work for an organization called Global Partners Digital. We work to ensure that laws, norms, and standards that govern technology are first of all rights respecting, but also created in an open, inclusive, and transparent manner. So as a part of that work, we’ve worked in multi-stakeholder venues like ICANN, in multilateral venues like ITU. And I’m so glad to hear what Stephanie and Natalie have already said because we’ve actually run projects to bring global majority civil society into technical standards setting bodies previously. And I think just to pick up on what Devine said as well, I actually got into this field first of all through the kind of financial inclusion as a lever for digital inclusion field. So I’m always really happy when someone mentions mobile money. Bringing those kinds of organizations into technical standards setting bodies also helps from actually a technical point of view because they can bring the point of view of end users who are in low resource, low connectivity environments who also may be using older technology. In addition, as we’ve already heard, the role of kind of human rights organizations specifically is that they can help unpack the impact of protocols or standards on the end user and on the functioning of the open, safe internet. And I actually, to bring it back to the technical community, that does actually drive adoption ultimately. So I think that’s beneficial for everyone. So just before I move on to subsidy cables, I just want to note that while some of what I say aligns with GPD’s focus on human rights, actually I’m mostly drawing on research which I’ve done previously, including through a fellowship for the Internet Society. So technical standards are obviously really vitally important for subsidy cables. So they need to withstand a really harsh environment. They’re obviously under the sea and they’re vital to the functioning of our societies. They carry some 95% to 99% of all transnational data. They’re built and owned often by a consortia of different companies and they need to make land in at least two countries if they’re connecting, if they’re transnational, and to at least one landing station where they connect with terrestrial networks. All these points of interconnection are what make the standards so important. Their position is also necessarily a matter of public record. Ships or people carrying out seabed activities need to know where they are so that they can avoid damaging them. So this kind of combined criticality and vulnerability makes standards really, really important. I want to give, again, a shout-out to, I believe, Laura, that you might be involved in a body at the UN. So there’s a joint statement on cables which was released before that. The European Commission has also released a recommendation. And I think that both of these highlighted the value of working with trusted suppliers in a tense geopolitical environment. And I think it’s really worth highlighting the role of standards in not only increasing interoperability but also in raising trust, not in the least because they obviously increase reliability. But I think that question of trust also kind of reveals the limits of technical standards, if you like. One of the main threats to cables is actually cable cutting. I would like to highlight that it seems that that has been rare. Deliberate malicious actors cutting cables seems to be rare. But it is quite difficult to establish malicious intent because, you know, ships may not – there may be commercial ships that have been near a cable when they’ve been cut. I think that it won’t be news to anyone to say that geopolitical tensions are, however, raising this risk. I do want to give a shout-out here again to technical standards that can help gather the information needed to support resilience and feed information into people who are trying to protect cables. And I’m particularly thinking here about geospatial data standards that help to bring together different types of data which can be used to actually understand risks, if not in real time, in a timely manner. But, yes, while I think technical standards are a critical foundation, there is a limit to their effectiveness when it comes to malicious actors in this area. And I think that that’s where the question of multistakeholder partnerships and international cooperation comes in. At the limits of effectiveness for technical standards, you hope that policies provide protection. I think, you know, a lot of these cables are fundamentally international. That means we need international legal frameworks direct to their protection. However, those frameworks, when it comes to cables, are quite out of date. The UN, the UNCLOS, was made a long time ago. There have been a lot of efforts to update it. And, sorry, UNCLOS is the UN framework which governs the kind of international seabed. And, yeah, while those kind of attempts to update that framework have been a little bit slow, I think that, Laura, I’m not sure if you are involved in the international advisory. No, apologies. Maybe it’s someone else. Sorry. But, yeah, there is an international advisory body for submarine cable resilience which was established in 2024. But, yeah, so I think that there is a bit of a policy gap. I think that also because cables are owned and operated by the private sector but are critical infrastructure for many countries, this means that while the responsibility for repair may fall on the private sector, the responsibility for protection, for trying to prevent cable cutting, is a little bit less clear. Countries are trying to overcome this by forming smaller alliances. I think NATO has set up an undersea infrastructure coordination cell. Navies are working together to try and prevent or at least track cable cutting. But it’s just a really huge challenge. So I suppose my point here is that we need cooperation not only between technical standards-setting bodies but also across governments, private sector actors, and civil society. We really can’t afford to get it wrong because a single damaged cable, depending on where you are in the network, because some countries really are quite poorly connected. They may only have one cable which connects them to the global internet. Tonga has experienced, for example, repeated complete blackouts due to primarily natural disasters. Repairs are often very expensive and slow, which means that countries can remain offline for quite a long time. And I think that in the situation that we’re in today where subsea cables are essentially the foundation for exercising a lot of rights, such as freedom of expression, access to information, right to privacy, through access to the internet, that is a serious, serious problem. To go back to that question of language, I think having sat in some meetings where people are discussing technical standards related to cables, there is really a fundamental disconnection between the way that governments talk about them as this kind of geopolitical challenge and the way that technical standards that everybody is discussing, the kind of protection of cables, where in a way geopolitics is seen as something which kind of gets in the way of their work. So I think, again, that kind of work of translation between different communities which are involved in the protection and governance of cables is really, really important.

Laura O Brien: important. Thanks. Yes, thank you very much, Rose. It’s very helpful to have, to narrow in specifically on the undersea cable topic, especially, you know, that data, that statistic that’s always mentioned about the 90 to 95 percent of transnational data comes from undersea cables is always something that stands out, and I think you really got to the issue about the trust component in this space, in this discussion that we’re having, and I really also appreciated that you mentioned, you know, the, you brought up UNCLOS and the international legal frameworks with relation to undersea cables. While I’m not a part of the body that you mentioned, I have been doing my own research on this topic, having previously worked in the realm of international law of the sea, but I do think, yeah, the point that you also concluded on about the disconnect between governments and the way they talk about subsea cables and the technical standards and seeing geopolitics as a way that they want to shy away from, I think, is something that we need to delve in, especially from the human rights perspective that you also highlighted. So, thank you very much for those insights. Finally, I want to turn to Alex. We’ve heard a lot from, you know, civil society perspective, perspective academia, but the private sector has a huge role in this, and I think you will offer some very insightful insights on how ways that the private sector work with civil society and other stakeholders to ensure that there is this human rights-based approach throughout all the stages of the standard development process. So,

Alex Walden: over to you. Yeah, and thanks so much for including us in this conversation today. It’s one of the topics I love most because I think, actually, it’s one of the topics where we have so much alignment across stakeholder groups. Obviously, as folks have pointed out, there are lots of areas for improvement, but I think we generally have a lot of alignment about the need for continued investment and focus here. So, maybe I’m going to do a lot of underscoring what other colleagues have said and sort of plus one-ing, but maybe just to highlight a few things. I think the importance of the role of the private sector, most importantly, is to continue to invest in connectivity and infrastructure and interoperability among those things. And so, that is something that we are doing heavily. Obviously, Google is a major investor in particular in subsea cables around the world, looking to ensure that there is increased connectivity everywhere from Japan, Australia, new cables in sub-Saharan Africa, et cetera. So, that’s very important to us sort of philosophically and then, obviously, for our business. And so, that is, I think, a really important area of alignment where the private sector is very much aligned with governments and civil society and communities in wanting to ensure that we’re bringing connectivity to everyone everywhere. The sort of important second piece related to that is to ensure that we are committed to human rights and implementing human rights frameworks in the ways that we are thinking about doing all of that work. And so, for us, we are involved in places like the Freedom Online Coalition, in the Global Network Initiative, and have commitments to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And those are important baselines for understanding how we should think about sort of the high-level principles and then also, you know, more granular ways we should be thinking about how human rights impacts might be – there might be human rights impacts as outcomes of some of the technical standards and the ways we’re thinking about expanding connectivity. So, ensuring that we are thinking about human rights in the context of all this work that we’re doing. And sort of maybe separate but related point is ensuring that we’re engaging with stakeholders throughout that process. There, you know, I think we are always talking about how technical standard – there’s a lot of, I think, framing that that work is neutral. And, of course, it is not. There are always ways in which there can be rights-related impacts, positive or negative. And so, we need to ensure that it is not just folks who are technologists in those conversations, not just governments and companies, but that we have rights experts at the table helping all of us understand what the potential externalities of any standards might be. And so, the last thing I’ll say on this is maybe just that I think companies, as we are also wanting to ensure that we have a seat at the table for these conversations because we have sort of an obvious and important role in investing and innovating, is making sure that we are always advocating for our colleagues in civil society and human rights experts in particular to be at the table and advocating to decrease barriers to entry for all of the stakeholder groups that others have been talking about. So, I’ll stop there. I’m looking forward to others’ comments. But I think that’s, you know, as we have a seat at the table, it’s important for us to reinforce the importance of rights and the importance of all of our expert colleagues being at the table

Laura O Brien: to contribute. Yes, thank you very much, Alex. I think it’s helpful to understand the private sector perspective, linking it back to the work that you’re doing with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. And we do appreciate when companies try to advocate for civil society and for others to be at the table. It’s really important that we keep doing that in these spaces especially. That concludes the round of questions with the panelists. So, I’d like to open the floor to anyone in the room. If you have any questions, I also understand that we have those online. So, if you’re online, feel free to submit a question and we’ll have a way of

Audience: getting it back to the panels. Okay. Hi, I’m going to be brief. I’m Israel Rosas with the Internet Society. I think this topic is super relevant. I won’t touch on anything about standard bodies, standardization bodies, but particularly on the work related to the ITU sector conferences. We understand that there is a barrier to participate there. And that’s why we are trying to work with our community to try to be this link between the information happening in these regional preparatory meetings. For instance, last year we did an effort for the World Telecommunications Standardization Assembly. Our colleagues are attending the regional preparatory meetings, debriefing the community, taking the input from the community, and trying to be this bridge. We are doing the same for this year’s World Telecommunication Development Conference. My invitation at this point, more than a question, is an invitation to strengthen the collaboration with the Freedom Online Coalition, with different organizations. If you’re interested in getting involved in the world, in the work related to WTDC this year, to the plenipotentiary conferences next year, the WTPF, all these sector conferences, we would really love to work together because we know that we need to bridge that gap regarding the work in the ITU. Either with our chapters or directly with the organization, we are really happy to collaborate with you and we can explore further ways after this session. Thank you. Anyone want to quickly comment

Stephanie Borg Psaila: on that? I just want to say that one of the chapters is in fact one of the Internet Society chapters, in fact a partner in the project that we are leading. So happy to take the conversation

Audience: forward. Yes, and please introduce yourself. Speaking as an individual and having trouble with this thing. Anyway, I’m somewhat disappointed with this panel. One is because you managed to put together a panel about how do technical standards shape connectivity inclusion, and did not include a single person who actually works with technical standards, as far as I can tell. So this is one of the fallacies that I’ve seen multiple times in the attempts to so-called bring human rights into the technical bodies, that civil society groups seem to have this idea that they can affect things by standing outside and shouting in. We let us in, let us in. Except that, well, the door is open. You’re not listening. And as a technologist, I mean, I’m a bash technologist. I’m part of civil society. I’m part of the people who care about human rights impacts, because I am a member of civil society. So this false distinction between the technical community that doesn’t care and the civil society that cares about all the right things but happens to not understand this is false. This is not something that is good for progress. So it might be that we should focus on ensuring that the technologists can know about the civil society impact, of course. But don’t expect that being outside and shouting in will help.

Rose Payne: Rose? Thank you. Sorry, I’m going to take this off because I can hear myself echoing. Thank you. I completely appreciate your point. I will just say that what I was trying to mention, albeit very briefly, is that actually we have taken civil society into these bodies. We found there are challenges. I’m not going to pretend there aren’t challenges. I think we’ve touched on them quite extensively, but we’re not saying that they weren’t welcomed. We’re just saying that there are challenges in relating the different languages. Of course, civil society, who specialise in human rights, hold a completely different area of expertise to technical experts who are actually working with standards. Finding a way to communicate across those communities is a bit of a challenge sometimes. A lot of it is about capacity building on the civil society side, but perhaps, just to pick on what you said, we should also be doing capacity building to try and publicise more about what we’re trying to do, to try and talk more about how we can actually be helpful to your work. So I take that on board.

Stephanie Borg Psaila: Can I add to that? Actually, some language we are trying to avoid is precisely describing civil society as on the outside shouting in, right? Because that language in itself is already a barrier. But building on what Rose said, and I agree with Rose completely, it’s the distinction between technical community and civil society. I mean, it’s a natural almost distinction. Why? Because the work that we do every day, if I’m not working in standards, right? I can’t call myself a technical person, right? And it’s the same vice versa, right? So the categories, right? I think they’re very much connected to the work we do on an everyday basis. And it’s only natural that I call myself, for instance, a lawyer if I’m working on laws, right? I think one of the main issues is understanding each other, right? Again, it’s not a matter of people who care and people who don’t. We all care. Maybe about different things, and what people like at the forefront of projects, for instance, bringing CSOs closer to these conversations and helping the people leading these conversations understand civil society. We’re trying to act as bridges, right? To literally pull down the walls. A lot has been done already. And in the mapping report, far from being a compilation of barriers or this has to happen, we’ve outlined also some of the really, really good practices that are happening in some of the organizations I mentioned. So at the ITU, ICANN, IETF, there are definitely good examples to be modeled across the board. So we bring those out also. And it’s those models that we… We know that some of the models work. So, for instance, real-time interpretation. We have that here at the IGF, right? We know it works, and it is because these spaces are already implementing some of the issues that we’re saying, okay, why don’t you try this issue? Because it has helped people to get together and to understand each other more. So definitely not trying to… The compartmentalization beyond what is natural, that we are, I think, trying to avoid. But definitely what you said taken on board, absolutely.

Laura O Brien: I know Natalie wanted to come in as well.

Natalie Turkova: I just have a little comment. Thank you so much for saying what you were saying. And I totally agree. I don’t like these distinctions, because at the end of the day, we are all using the internet as end users, right? So just being in these boxes makes no sense. And honestly, I’m a perfect example of a person who has completely random background, having a psychology degree and a media studies degree. But then just organically being interested in some of the aspects that I was researching, I was like, oh, actually, I need to understand the internet more and come more on different aspects of the issue, understanding the technicalities. I was low-key and slowly educating myself and eventually started whispering outside and be like, can you let me in? I actually have some ideas, but I also need to learn from you inside. And I’m one of those people who somehow managed to get in, but I can name and highlight these obstacles that I faced. So I just want to say that it’s definitely possible to be inside, as you used the metaphor, to be in the room, but it can still be quite bumpy road. So I’m more than happy to be here. And I feel like we all can agree that it is definitely possible. It is the way it should be, but still it is not the smoothest way. So I would say this is just my comment for you. But thank you so much for saying that.

Audience: I know we’re almost five minutes at time, so I want the next question, please. Hi, my name is Colin Perkins from the University of Glasgow. I’m a former IEB member and a long-time IETF participant. Just to echo that previous point, I would note that the process for a technical person coming to a venue like this is also somewhat bumpy at times. I’d also, I think, echo Harold’s comments that it is a little disappointing, given the large number of people from the leadership of these various standards bodies that you were talking about who are at this meeting, that none of them are included in this panel. Thank you for the interesting debate. You’re certainly raising some interesting questions. I certainly agree about the need for inclusion of people from a broader range of backgrounds in the various standards development bodies. On the IETF side, I know the IETF has spent considerable effort to try and improve inclusivity. For example, it’s been providing remote participation in various forms since, I believe, 1992. So there is some effort going in here. I am, however, concerned that this panel is grouping together the various standards bodies and acting as if they all behave somewhat the same. The models for participation and the membership fees or lack thereof in the different standards bodies vary tremendously. The ability to access the final standards, the work-in-progress documents, the ability for anybody to participate in the meetings or not participate in the meetings is wildly different across these bodies. There are certainly some valid criticisms here. I do not doubt that. But there are also perhaps some overly broad statements that have been made which are not representative of all the standards bodies. I would encourage you to focus your criticism such that it is actionable and the people developing the standards, the people running the standards bodies, can actually help address the problems rather than making overly broad statements.

Laura O Brien: Thank you. Thank you. I notice that we’re at time, so I would like to take this opportunity to highlight three of the main takeaways that I’ve noticed from this discussion today. The first involves the barriers. We discussed language barriers, membership fees, the lack of transparency, but I think the Q&A portion also highlighted the understanding each other and including each other and bearing in mind how these barriers are different across different various bodies. So I appreciate the last comment and acknowledge that they’re different in various settings. The second is to build capacity amongst stakeholders. And again, this I think was very highlighted in the discussion, amongst government, civil society, technical community and the private sector. We’re disconnected on many fronts and I think the geopolitical context that we’re in does not help in understanding different perspectives and bringing those to the forefront. And of course, in order to ensure that there’s access and meaningful inclusion and participation of all stakeholders, we must ground discussions in international human rights law and centre international human rights. And I think on a final takeaway, I want to highlight the Freedom Online Coalition’s joint statement from 2024 that Rasmus mentioned in the introduction was very instrumental in bringing together those standards, so I believe we should be using that in these processes. And I want to thank you all for joining the discussion today, for listening to the panelists. I want to thank the panelists for their engagement and their expertise on this topic and look forward to future discussions. Thank you.

Agreement points

Technical standards are not neutral and embed values that affect human rights and everyday users

Speakers

– Natalie Turkova
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

Technical standards are not neutral and embed values that affect human rights and everyday users

Technical standardization should be aligned with international human rights law from the outset to prevent surveillance and exclusion

Summary

Both speakers agree that technical standards inherently embed values and can have significant human rights impacts, requiring proactive consideration of these effects rather than treating standards as neutral technical decisions

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Financial barriers and membership fees exclude civil society from meaningful participation

Speakers

– Natalie Turkova
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

High membership fees create financial barriers that prevent civil society organizations from participating

Implement structural changes from the top of standards organizations to address systemic barriers

Summary

Both speakers identify membership fees as a fundamental barrier that prevents civil society organizations from participating in standards bodies, requiring structural changes to address these financial obstacles

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Language barriers significantly limit participation in technical standards processes

Speakers

– Natalie Turkova
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

Technical language and complexity intimidate regular end-users and create accessibility challenges

Language barriers, particularly English-only discussions, exclude non-native speakers from meaningful participation

Summary

Both speakers recognize that language creates multiple barriers – both the technical complexity of the language used and the dominance of English in discussions – that prevent broader participation

Topics

Infrastructure | Sociocultural | Development

Standards play a crucial role in bridging the digital divide through practical applications

Speakers

– Divine Agbeti
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

Open and interoperable standards lower costs and promote competition, enabling financial inclusion through mobile money systems

TV white space standards enable broadband delivery to rural areas using unused spectrum

Summary

Both speakers provide concrete examples of how technical standards have successfully bridged digital divides, particularly in developing regions through innovative applications like mobile money and rural broadband

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Private sector should advocate for civil society inclusion in standards processes

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

Private sector should advocate for civil society inclusion and decreased barriers to entry in standards bodies

Implement structural changes from the top of standards organizations to address systemic barriers

Summary

Both speakers agree that those with existing access to standards bodies (private sector) should use their position to advocate for broader inclusion and structural changes to remove barriers for civil society

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for specific mechanisms to include diverse stakeholders and bridge communication gaps between different communities involved in standards development

Speakers

– Natalie Turkova
– Stephanie Borg Psaila
– Rose Payne

Arguments

Create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

Provide real-time interpretation in multiple languages, particularly Spanish for Latin American communities

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for integrating established human rights frameworks and principles into standards development processes to ensure positive outcomes for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Stephanie Borg Psaila
– Alex Walden

Arguments

Standards should contribute to digital inclusion and sustainable development goals through rights-based approaches

Private sector must implement human rights frameworks like UN Guiding Principles throughout standards development

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Development

All three speakers recognize that geographical and logistical barriers significantly limit participation and propose various solutions including virtual participation and strategic meeting locations

Speakers

– Natalie Turkova
– Stephanie Borg Psaila
– Rose Payne

Arguments

Enable virtual participation and hybrid modalities to increase accessibility across regions

Location of meetings in inaccessible regions automatically excludes participants from small island states and developing countries

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Private sector as advocate for civil society inclusion

Speakers

– Alex Walden
– Stephanie Borg Psaila
– Natalie Turkova

Arguments

Private sector should advocate for civil society inclusion and decreased barriers to entry in standards bodies

Implement structural changes from the top of standards organizations to address systemic barriers

Create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

Explanation

It’s unexpected to see such strong alignment between private sector and civil society representatives on the need for companies to actively advocate for civil society inclusion, suggesting a recognition that diverse participation benefits all stakeholders including business interests

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Technical community and civil society are not fundamentally opposed groups

Speakers

– Audience
– Natalie Turkova
– Rose Payne

Arguments

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Technical standards are not neutral and embed values that affect human rights and everyday users

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Explanation

The consensus that the technical/civil society divide is artificial and counterproductive is unexpected, as it challenges common assumptions about these communities having fundamentally different priorities and approaches

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers on the fundamental challenges facing inclusive participation in technical standards setting, including financial barriers, language obstacles, and the need for human rights integration. Speakers also agree on practical solutions like virtual participation, dedicated seats for civil society, and the importance of translation between communities.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive disagreement mainly around implementation approaches rather than fundamental principles. This suggests a mature understanding of the issues and readiness for collaborative action, though the challenge remains in translating this consensus into concrete institutional changes within standards bodies.

Different viewpoints

Approach to civil society inclusion in technical standards bodies

Speakers

– Audience (Harold)
– Natalie Turkova
– Rose Payne
– Stephanie Borg Psaila

Arguments

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Lack of awareness and closed-door processes exclude end-users and civil society from standards discussions

High membership fees create financial barriers that prevent civil society organizations from participating

Technical language and complexity intimidate regular end-users and create accessibility challenges

Summary

Harold (audience member) argued that the distinction between technical community and civil society is false and counterproductive, stating that technologists are also part of civil society and care about human rights. He criticized the approach of ‘standing outside and shouting in’ rather than recognizing that ‘the door is open.’ The panelists, however, maintained that there are real structural barriers (fees, language, processes) that need to be addressed to enable meaningful participation.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Fundamental framing of the inclusion problem in technical standards

Speakers

– Audience (Harold)
– Panel speakers

Arguments

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Lack of awareness and closed-door processes exclude end-users and civil society from standards discussions

Explanation

The disagreement was unexpected because Harold, as a technologist, challenged the entire premise of the panel discussion. Rather than debating specific solutions to inclusion barriers, he questioned whether the barriers actually exist as described, arguing that the technical community already includes people who care about human rights and that the ‘door is open.’ This fundamental disagreement about problem definition was surprising given that the panel was focused on solutions.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Representation and expertise on the panel itself

Speakers

– Audience (Harold)
– Audience (Colin Perkins)
– Panel moderator

Arguments

False distinction between technical community and civil society creates unnecessary divisions when both groups care about human rights

Explanation

Both audience members criticized the panel for discussing technical standards without including actual technical standards practitioners, despite many being present at the IGF meeting. This meta-disagreement about the panel’s composition was unexpected as it challenged the legitimacy of the discussion itself rather than engaging with the proposed solutions.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed a fundamental tension between those who see structural barriers to civil society participation in technical standards bodies and those who believe the barriers are more perceived than real. While panelists largely agreed on the importance of inclusion and human rights integration, they disagreed on specific mechanisms and approaches.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements were not about whether inclusion is important, but about whether current exclusion is systemic or self-imposed, and what solutions are most effective. The audience pushback suggests that the technical community may be more open to collaboration than civil society representatives believe, but there may be communication gaps preventing effective engagement. This has important implications for how inclusion efforts should be designed and implemented.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasize the need for specific mechanisms to include diverse stakeholders and bridge communication gaps between different communities involved in standards development

Speakers

– Natalie Turkova
– Stephanie Borg Psaila
– Rose Payne

Arguments

Create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

Provide real-time interpretation in multiple languages, particularly Spanish for Latin American communities

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers advocate for integrating established human rights frameworks and principles into standards development processes to ensure positive outcomes for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Stephanie Borg Psaila
– Alex Walden

Arguments

Standards should contribute to digital inclusion and sustainable development goals through rights-based approaches

Private sector must implement human rights frameworks like UN Guiding Principles throughout standards development

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Development

All three speakers recognize that geographical and logistical barriers significantly limit participation and propose various solutions including virtual participation and strategic meeting locations

Speakers

– Natalie Turkova
– Stephanie Borg Psaila
– Rose Payne

Arguments

Enable virtual participation and hybrid modalities to increase accessibility across regions

Location of meetings in inaccessible regions automatically excludes participants from small island states and developing countries

Translation between technical and policy communities is crucial for effective collaboration

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Technical standards are not neutral and significantly impact human rights, digital inclusion, and everyday users’ access to digital services

Major barriers to inclusive participation include high membership fees, language barriers (particularly English-only discussions), lack of awareness, technical complexity, and inaccessible meeting locations

Open and interoperable standards successfully bridge digital divides, as demonstrated by mobile money systems in Africa that enabled 80% financial inclusion

Standards development must integrate human rights considerations from the outset rather than attempting to address issues after implementation

Subsea cables carrying 95-99% of transnational data require robust technical standards for security and reliability, but face limitations against malicious actors

Different standards bodies (ITU, IETF, ICANN, IEEE, W3C) have varying participation models and barriers that require targeted, specific solutions rather than broad generalizations

Private sector has responsibility to advocate for civil society inclusion while investing in connectivity infrastructure and implementing human rights frameworks

Capacity building and translation between technical and policy communities is essential for effective multi-stakeholder collaboration

Resolutions and action items

Internet Society offered to strengthen collaboration with Freedom Online Coalition and other organizations for ITU sector conferences including WTDC and plenipotentiary conferences

Diplo Foundation’s CAID project published granular mapping of barriers in specific standards bodies with actionable solutions

Recommendation to use Freedom Online Coalition’s 2024 joint statement on technical standards and human rights as framework for future processes

Proposal to implement real-time interpretation in multiple languages, particularly Spanish for Latin American participation

Suggestion to create dedicated seats and observing roles for end-user advocates and human rights experts in standards bodies

Call for structural changes from top of standards organizations to address systemic participation barriers

Unresolved issues

How to effectively bridge the disconnect between government geopolitical discussions and technical standards communities regarding critical infrastructure

Updating outdated international legal frameworks like UNCLOS for modern subsea cable protection needs

Addressing the fundamental tension between technical expertise requirements and inclusive participation goals

Resolving financial sustainability of providing interpretation, virtual participation, and other accessibility measures across different standards bodies

Determining optimal balance between technical neutrality and human rights integration in standards development

Clarifying responsibility allocation between private sector and governments for protecting critical infrastructure like subsea cables

Suggested compromises

Hybrid participation models combining in-person and virtual attendance to increase accessibility while maintaining technical depth

Graduated membership fee structures or exemptions for civil society organizations from developing countries

Capacity building programs that work bidirectionally – helping civil society understand technical work while helping technologists understand human rights impacts

Translation and bridge-building roles for organizations like Internet Society chapters to connect communities with standards bodies

Focus on specific, actionable criticisms tailored to individual standards bodies rather than broad generalizations

Recognition that both technical community and civil society contain diverse perspectives and expertise that should be valued equally

Actually, I’m somewhat disappointed with this panel. One is because you managed to put together a panel about how do technical standards shape connectivity inclusion, and did not include a single person who actually works with technical standards… So this false distinction between the technical community that doesn’t care and the civil society that cares about all the right things but happens to not understand this is false.

Speaker

Audience member (speaking as individual)

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenged the panel’s composition and underlying assumptions about the divide between technical and civil society communities. It exposed a critical blind spot in how the discussion was framed and forced participants to confront whether they were perpetuating the very divisions they claimed to want to bridge.

Impact

This comment created a significant turning point in the discussion, shifting from theoretical solutions to confronting real structural issues in how these conversations are organized. It prompted immediate defensive but thoughtful responses from multiple panelists, leading to more nuanced acknowledgments of the complexity of bridging communities and the need for mutual capacity building rather than one-directional inclusion.

I think technical standardization can contribute to digital inclusion and advancing the SDGs by being better aligned to international human rights law. So I’ve turned that a little bit around… If the discussion does not take place on the outset, as Natalie said, then it’s very difficult to solve.

Speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Reason

This reframing was intellectually significant because it inverted the typical approach of trying to retrofit human rights considerations into technical standards. Instead, it positioned human rights law as the foundational framework that should guide technical standardization from the beginning, representing a paradigm shift in thinking.

Impact

This reframing elevated the entire discussion by providing a concrete methodological approach rather than just aspirational goals. It connected abstract human rights principles to practical technical implementation and reinforced the theme that prevention is better than remediation, influencing how other panelists discussed timing and process design.

But it’s just a really huge challenge. So I suppose my point here is that we need cooperation not only between technical standards-setting bodies but also across governments, private sector actors, and civil society. We really can’t afford to get it wrong because a single damaged cable… can remain offline for quite a long time.

Speaker

Rose Payne

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it demonstrated the real-world stakes of technical standards through the concrete example of subsea cables. It showed how technical decisions have immediate human rights implications and highlighted the limits of technical solutions when facing geopolitical challenges.

Impact

This grounded the entire discussion in tangible consequences, moving beyond abstract principles to show why inclusive standard-setting matters for real people. It also introduced the critical insight about the disconnect between how governments and technical communities approach the same infrastructure challenges, adding a new dimension to the inclusion discussion.

These standards are the backbone of global connectivity… But this infrastructure is only as strong and as just as the processes behind it. Too often, standard-setting bodies… operate without sufficient input from the global south, from the civil society, or marginalized communities.

Speaker

Rasmus Lumi

Reason

This opening comment was thought-provoking because it immediately established the paradox at the heart of the discussion: universal infrastructure built through exclusive processes. It framed technical standards not as neutral tools but as governance instruments that embed values and power structures.

Impact

This framing set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing that technical standards are inherently political and justice-oriented issues. It provided the conceptual foundation that allowed subsequent speakers to discuss barriers, exclusion, and human rights impacts as central rather than peripheral concerns.

I am, however, concerned that this panel is grouping together the various standards bodies and acting as if they all behave somewhat the same… I would encourage you to focus your criticism such that it is actionable and the people developing the standards… can actually help address the problems rather than making overly broad statements.

Speaker

Colin Perkins (University of Glasgow, former IESG member)

Reason

This comment provided crucial nuance by challenging the panel’s tendency to generalize across different standards bodies. It represented the voice of someone with deep technical expertise pointing out that solutions must be tailored to specific organizational contexts rather than applied broadly.

Impact

This comment reinforced the earlier critique about including technical voices and pushed the discussion toward more precise, actionable recommendations. It validated the complexity of the challenge while demanding more sophisticated analysis, ultimately strengthening the conversation by requiring greater specificity and practical focus.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed what could have been a superficial discussion about inclusion into a more complex examination of power, expertise, and institutional design. The critical interventions from audience members with technical expertise forced the panelists to confront their own assumptions and move beyond generic solutions toward more nuanced understanding. The discussion evolved from presenting civil society as external advocates seeking entry, to recognizing the artificial nature of community boundaries and the need for mutual capacity building. The concrete examples (mobile money, subsea cables) grounded abstract principles in real-world consequences, while the methodological insights about timing and process design provided actionable frameworks. Ultimately, these comments elevated the discussion from advocacy to analysis, creating a more honest and productive dialogue about the genuine challenges of making technical standard-setting more inclusive and rights-respecting.

How can we strengthen collaboration between the Freedom Online Coalition and organizations like the Internet Society for ITU sector conferences (WTDC, plenipotentiary conferences, WTPF)?

Speaker

Israel Rosas (Internet Society)

Explanation

This represents a concrete opportunity to bridge the participation gap in ITU processes by leveraging existing networks and expertise to facilitate civil society engagement in upcoming conferences.

How can we better include actual technical standards practitioners in discussions about human rights impacts of technical standards?

Speaker

Audience member (speaking as individual)

Explanation

This highlights a fundamental gap in the composition of panels discussing technical standards, suggesting that meaningful progress requires direct participation from those who actually develop the standards.

How can we develop more effective capacity building programs that work bidirectionally – helping civil society understand technical processes while helping technical communities understand human rights impacts?

Speaker

Rose Payne and Stephanie Borg Psaila (in response to audience feedback)

Explanation

This addresses the need for mutual understanding and communication across different expert communities rather than one-way advocacy.

How can we develop more nuanced, body-specific approaches to addressing barriers rather than making overly broad generalizations about all standards bodies?

Speaker

Colin Perkins (University of Glasgow/former IESG member)

Explanation

This calls for more targeted and actionable criticism that recognizes the significant differences in participation models, fees, and accessibility across different standards organizations.

How can we better bridge the disconnect between how governments discuss subsea cables as geopolitical challenges versus how technical communities view geopolitics as interference in their work?

Speaker

Rose Payne

Explanation

This represents a critical communication gap that affects the governance and protection of critical infrastructure, requiring translation between different stakeholder perspectives.

What specific structural changes need to come from the top of standards organizations to meaningfully address civil society participation barriers?

Speaker

Stephanie Borg Psaila

Explanation

This points to the need for systematic organizational reform rather than ad-hoc solutions, requiring research into what governance changes would be most effective.

How can we better publicize and communicate what civil society organizations are trying to achieve in technical standards bodies to increase understanding and collaboration?

Speaker

Rose Payne (in response to audience feedback)

Explanation

This addresses the need for better outreach and communication about civil society’s role and contributions to technical standards development.