IGF2024

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the role of AI in enhancing trust and improving governance, particularly in the public sector. The panelists, representing Meta, OECD, and Oracle, explored how AI can reshape government services and build public trust. They emphasized the importance of open-source AI approaches to democratize access and foster innovation, especially in developing countries. The discussion highlighted the potential of AI to streamline government processes, from passport renewals to tax services, while also addressing concerns about data sovereignty and privacy.

The panelists stressed the need for harmonized global regulations to avoid fragmentation and ensure interoperability across jurisdictions. They discussed various regulatory approaches, including the EU AI Act and more principle-based frameworks in other regions. The importance of public-private partnerships was underscored, with examples of how governments can leverage private sector expertise and startup innovation to implement AI solutions effectively.

Key challenges addressed included building trust in AI technologies, ensuring data protection, and balancing innovation with regulation. The panelists shared examples of AI applications in healthcare, agriculture, and public safety, demonstrating the transformative potential of AI in improving public services. They also touched on the importance of education and transparency in AI adoption to build public trust.

The discussion concluded with an emphasis on the critical role of partnerships between governments, private sector companies, and startups in driving responsible AI innovation and implementation in the public sector. Overall, the panel highlighted the significant potential of AI to enhance government efficiency and public trust, while acknowledging the need for careful consideration of ethical and regulatory frameworks.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The role of AI in improving government services and public trust

– The importance of open source AI and data sovereignty

– Regulatory approaches to AI, including the EU AI Act

– Public-private partnerships and startup involvement in AI innovation

– Challenges around data sharing and trust in AI implementation

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how AI can be leveraged responsibly by governments to improve public services and build trust, while addressing challenges around regulation, data privacy, and partnerships.

Tone:

The tone was largely optimistic and solution-oriented, with panelists highlighting the potential benefits of AI for government services while acknowledging challenges. There was a collaborative spirit, with panelists building on each other’s points. The tone remained consistent throughout, maintaining a balance of enthusiasm for AI’s potential and pragmatism about implementation challenges.

Speakers

– Brandon Soloski: Center for Corporate Diplomacy at Meridian International

– Sarim Aziz: Director for Public Policy for South and Central Asia at Meta

– Lucia Russo: Economist and Policy Analyst at the OECD, focused on digital economy and policy division

– Pellerin Matis: Vice President of Global Government Affairs at Oracle

Additional speakers:

– Anil Pura: Audience member from Nepal

AI for Responsible Governance: Enhancing Trust and Improving Public Services

This panel discussion, moderated by Brandon Soloski from the World Economic Forum, featured representatives from Meta, OECD, and Oracle exploring the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in enhancing trust and improving governance, with a particular focus on the public sector. The panelists included Sarim Aziz, Head of Public Policy for Asia Pacific at Meta; Lucia Russo, Head of Unit for Digital Government and Data at OECD; and Pellerin Matis, Senior Director for Public Sector Strategy at Oracle.

Setting the Context: Trust in Government and Technology

Brandon Soloski opened the discussion by referencing the Edelman Trust Barometer, which showed a significant trust deficit in government institutions globally. He also mentioned an IBM Institute for Business Value survey indicating that while 50% of government executives believe AI and automation will have a positive impact on their workforce, only 20% have taken action to implement these technologies.

Key Themes and Discussions

1. AI’s Potential to Enhance Government Efficiency and Services

The speakers unanimously agreed on AI’s significant potential to improve government efficiency and service delivery. Lucia Russo from the OECD emphasized AI’s capacity to enhance government responsiveness, while Pellerin Matis of Oracle provided concrete examples of AI applications:

– Healthcare: Improving delivery, hospital management, and patient care

– Citizen Services: More efficient passport renewal and document processing

– Agriculture: Enhanced monitoring and resource management

– Public Safety: Improved surveillance and emergency response systems

– Legal and Legislative Work: AI-assisted document processing and analysis

Sarim Aziz from Meta highlighted AI’s potential in streamlining government operations across multiple domains.

2. Building Trust in AI for Government Use

A central theme was the importance of building public trust in AI technologies for government applications. The speakers proposed several approaches:

– Sovereign AI and Cloud Infrastructure: Pellerin Matis advocated for dedicated cloud infrastructure to protect government data.

– Open Source AI: Sarim Aziz argued that open source AI increases transparency and accessibility, potentially fostering greater trust and ensuring global participation.

– Public-Private Partnerships: Lucia Russo stressed the importance of collaboration between governments and the private sector, citing Egypt as an example of successful partnership.

– Education and Transparency: Brandon Soloski highlighted the need for AI education and clear communication of benefits to increase public trust.

3. AI Regulation and Policy Approaches

The discussion touched on various regulatory approaches to AI:

– Global Harmonization: Pellerin Matis emphasized the need for harmonized global AI regulations to avoid fragmentation.

– Risk-Based Approaches: Lucia Russo advocated for risk-based and evidence-based regulatory approaches, mentioning the OECD’s work on AI governance principles.

– Principle-Based Regulation: Sarim Aziz noted that many Asia-Pacific countries are adopting principle-based rather than prescriptive AI regulations.

– G7 Hiroshima Process: The panel discussed the ongoing efforts to develop international AI governance frameworks.

4. Challenges in Government AI Adoption

Key challenges identified included:

– Legacy IT Systems: Pellerin Matis pointed out that outdated infrastructure and data silos hinder government AI adoption, citing Singapore’s efforts to overcome these challenges.

– Data Privacy and Security: Audience members raised concerns about data protection impacting trust in AI implementation.

– Digital Divide: The need to ensure equitable access to AI benefits across countries was highlighted as an unresolved issue.

5. The Evolving Nature of AI

Pellerin Matis provided perspective on the current AI landscape, noting the significant leap forward represented by technologies like ChatGPT:

“What’s new with ChatGPT and generative AI is not AI itself… What’s new is that it’s now accessible to everyone.”

6. Open Source AI and Global Accessibility

Sarim Aziz made a strong case for open source AI as a means to ensure global participation and accessibility:

“We need to fundamentally change the way, the path forward needs to be an open source one that has wide acceptance, that is accessible to all countries… to ensure that nobody gets left behind, to ensure that people in this part of the world and other parts of the world have a part in their conversation.”

Conclusion and Future Considerations

The panel discussion highlighted AI’s potential to enhance government efficiency and public trust while acknowledging the need for careful consideration of ethical and regulatory frameworks. The speakers emphasized the critical role of partnerships between governments, private sector companies, and startups in driving responsible AI innovation and implementation in the public sector.

Several areas for further exploration were identified:

1. Strategies for overcoming trust issues in data sharing between government and private sector

2. Balancing innovation with data privacy and security concerns in government AI adoption

3. Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to AI benefits across countries

4. Exploring AI applications in emerging and frontier markets

5. Ensuring interoperability across various AI regulatory frameworks

As governments continue to explore and implement AI solutions, addressing these challenges will be crucial for realizing the full potential of AI in improving public services and building trust in governance.

Brandon Soloski: Okay, that’s interesting. I hear a little bit of a delay. Good idea. All right. Good afternoon, early afternoon, everyone. I’m not sure if folks in the room are able to hear me. Welcome, everyone. My name is Brandon Soloski. Welcome again to our session today on revitalizing trust, harnessing AI for responsible governance. Again, my name is Brandon Soloski I am with the Center for Corporate Diplomacy at Meridian International. It’s a pleasure today to be in the intersection that we are at right now. And I’m very fortunate to be joined by some distinguished panelists who will be joining me today to talk about this pressing issue. To my left, Sarim Aziz, Director for Public Policy for South and Central Asia of Meta is joining me. In addition, over across the way from me is Lusa Russo, Economist and Policy Analyst at the OECD, focused on digital economy and policy division. And across my way, we have Matisse Pellerin, Vice President of Global Government Affairs at Oracle. Before we go ahead and begin, we’ll go ahead and just provide some quick introductions to our work, our companies, just to give you a little bit of a flavor of where we’re coming from as we dive into the subject today. I’ll turn it over to Sarim.

Sarim Aziz: Thank you, Brandon. And thanks, everybody, for being here on this really important discussion. So yeah, my name is Sarim. I’ve been at Meta for over eight years. I actually did not start on the policy side. I’ve been on the technology side of working on AI and mobile applications for most of my career. I’ve only worked in tech. But yeah, more increasingly… you know, we found that even though MEDA has been working on the app for over 10 years, actually, that this conversation has definitely, you know, gone up to the next level. So excited to be here and, you know, add to the discussion.

Brandon Soloski: Lucia?

Lucia Russo: Thank you, and good morning, good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to be here. Thank you for the invitation. I’m Lucia Russo, as it was said, at the OECD. At the OECD, we have a division that works on international AI governance. So it started years ago with the adoption of the OECD principles that are basically a guide for policymakers and stakeholders on how to foster trustworthy, innovative AI. And since then, we’ve been working to advance this work with our member states and beyond. We have also work that touches upon different sectors. And today we’ll talk about the public sector and, yeah, and then other domains. But I’ll stop here.

Sarim Aziz: Hi, good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be with you today in Riyadh.

Pellerin Matis: Thank you very much for the invitation. So I’m Mathis Perrin. I’m the Global Vice President for Government Affairs at Oracle. I joined Oracle 2019, so almost six years ago. And my main job is to manage government affairs for Oracle outside the U.S. So in that job, I work a lot with government officials to see how technologies can help them be more efficient and support government public services around the world. For the one who don’t really know Oracle, probably you know the brand, you know the logo, but you don’t know what we do. It’s very common. So Oracle, we are a cloud infrastructure and a cloud application company. So we provide technology for private sector, for governments to manage their daily operations. So it can go from HR, payroll, but also customer experience. And you will find lots of our technologies in lots of sectors, including health care, e-government, financial services, and much more. So we have a very large portfolio and are very happy to join this discussion because AI is something very important now that we are investing a lot in that field. And in addition to our cloud infrastructure, AI technology is becoming much more important now.

Brandon Soloski: Thank you again, Serena, Malucia, and Mathis. Really excited to dig into our topic today, but before I go ahead and begin, there’s a couple of things I wanted to talk about in terms of trust. I work at the Center for Corporate Diplomacy at Meridian International. At the Center for Corporate Diplomacy, we are trying to provide the private sector with the experience, the tools, and the insights to navigate geopolitical issues, to understand matters related to trade, over-the-horizon policy matters that impact business. We do that by providing insights to our partners almost on a weekly basis, whether that be a foreign visiting minister or ambassador. The relationships that the private sector now has with the foreign diplomatic community, with governments, is now more important than ever. For the private sector, they are the new diplomats. They are part of the diplomatic community, and this is a new age that we are in at Meridian that we often refer to as open diplomacy. And one of the reasons this is so pertinent right now as well is when it comes to trust. trust. One of the things I wanted to highlight, and I don’t know if anyone ever follows the Global Advisory Edelman Trust Barometer Index. So Edelman, a public relations advisory firm, every year puts out a trust barometer index. They survey over 30 countries, thousands of participants all over the world. And what they found, I found, was quite curious to this conversation as well. The private sector is now the most trusted institution in the world, followed by the nonprofit sector, followed by governments, followed by media. There’s been times in my working life where I know that’s been completely reversed, where the private sector was not the most trusted institution. But we’ve seen quite an uptick over the past years, and that’s starting to ebb a little bit in terms of how high trust in the private sector is, but it’s still front and center. The private sector really is leading the way with diplomacy when talking about AI, when talking about governments, when talking about the possibilities that exist within this new infrastructure that we are now building out. So one of the things we’re going to talk about today, just on that topic of trust, there’s so much potential with AI, from potholes, navigating taxes, to getting your passport renewed, some of the most tedious things that we all deal with. The ability and the opportunity that AI presents is truly tremendous. But at the same time, I refer to that element of trust, 66% of global respondents right now actively believe that governments are purposely trying to mislead them. When you look at that stat right now in trust and governance, it is quite low, and there’s a lot to be done when it comes to AI and when it comes to this topic, and the possibilities are truly tremendous. So one of the things I wanted to start talking about was a survey that was done just recently conducted by the IBM Institute for Business Value, and they found that respondents believe government leaders are often overestimating public’s trust in them. They also found that while the public is still worried about new technologies like AI, most people are in favor of government adoption of generative AI. So I’d like to open this up a little bit to my panel. So how can AI reshape this frustrating process often linked to the distrust of government and mitigate these touch points to build faith towards ethical, fair, and trustworthy AI solutions? Okay.

Lucia Russo: Okay. Thank you. I can start with that, and as I mentioned, we have at the OECD the public government directorate that is doing tremendous work in this field. And I believe that if used correctly, AI can indeed strengthen trust in the public sector. If you look at the components for government that are influencing trust, citizens’ trust, these include, for instance, responsiveness and reliability. So where can we have AI improve those two government components? So if you look at reliability, as you were mentioning, there are a number of tasks that can be done with AI. For instance, enhancing internal efficiency of processes, so speeding up routine processes and freeing up work of civil servants for tasks that are more useful to the citizens, and also improving the effectiveness of policymaking, for instance, by understanding through large amounts of data. of data, what better what the user needs are, and then when it comes to responsiveness, also being able to anticipating societal trends and user needs. So there is this report that was recently issued and it’s called Governing with AI, are we ready? And there are interesting statistics about how OECD countries have been using AI for these three key tasks that I just described, and we found that 70% of OECD countries used AI to enhance efficiency in internal operation, 67% to improve responsiveness of services, but only 30% to enhance effectiveness of public policy. So we see that this trend is ongoing, but of course it’s still not fully at scale, so here an important consideration is of course that the public sector has also a huge responsibility of implementing AI in a way that is accountable, transparent, and ultimately trustworthy for their citizens, and especially to minimize harms when it comes to special areas like immigration law or law enforcement, or even welfare benefits or fraud prevention. So here I would recall, as I mentioned, the OECD principles that really define what key values should be embedded in any deployment and development of AI, and I mentioned some of them, transparency, accountability, fairness, respect of privacy. And I’ll just end also with a final note on how public sector should build the enablers, so the skills, the infrastructure, and data for trustworthy innovation to actually flourish.

Brandon Soloski: Thank you so much. Matisse?

Pellerin Matis: If I can add a comment, I think I fully agree that education is very important, and if you want to promote trust in technology, especially on AI, you really need to make sure people really understand what is a technology and understand what is AI, how is it built, and how the data is managed, and that’s probably the first pillar of building trust. As a tech company, of course, our role is to support that, and we are working a lot with our colleagues. customers to provide them some digital trainings and some specific sessions to help them understand how AI is used in our solutions and how AI is built, how we can fight bias on AI, how you can manage your data and make sure that they are safe. Because you don’t use an AI tool the same way if it’s managed, if it’s a GPT or if it’s a government AI tool. It’s not the same way. It doesn’t build on the same technology. Another angle is, of course, transparency and explaining how our AI solutions are built, which, of course, will improve confidence in this technology. However, I think education is the first layer, but it’s not the only one. And there is also probably a more technical discussion to have about AI. And that’s why understanding the technologies is important to be able to go to the second layer, because if you have a more technical discussion, you need to make sure people really understand. So that brings me to the topic of sovereign AI. I think sovereign AI is becoming more and more important, especially for the private sector, because it ensures the data is secure and safe. If you’re a government, if you’re a private company, you’re not going to use the same AI technology that me or people in the audience here who are going to connect to chat GPT and use AI for their personal activities, or you go to X, a former Twitter, and use a new model, which has been just released last week. If you’re a private company or a government, you need to make sure that you are going to be able to train the AI models on some infrastructures that are safe, and your data is not going to be used by someone else, especially if you put some very confidential data. So I think sovereign AI definitions, at least that’s how I define sovereign AI, there is probably. two ways to defining, two things you need to check. First, what AI models you’re using. And are you able to train the models with your own data? And actually, when you are government, being able to train an AI solution using government data is super important. But you can only do that if you are able to get access to the models and train with your own data. If you cannot do that with ChatGPT, for instance, and sorry, Microsoft is not here. I’m just bashing ChatGPT, but I love ChatGPT, by the way. But I will not put my confidential data from Oracle in ChatGPT, because Microsoft is my competitor. So I cannot use this model to work. I need to have my own. So that’s very important. And so being able to give access to some LLMs and train the LLMs, LLMs is Large-Angle Models. To be able to train these LLMs with your own data is super important. That’s what we try to do in Oracle. We have lots of customers that are involved in very critical operations, like if you’re a nuclear plant or if you are a health care company, you need to be able to get access to these LLMs and use your own data. So we work with OpenAI. We work with Cohere, et cetera. And we give the ability to our customers to get these technologies, but with their own data. So that’s the first thing. The second thing is where your data is hosted and where your data is going. Because if you are a research institute or a university or an academic institution, you’re making some good research on a specific topic, maybe you don’t want your AI trainings to go in the US or to go in China. So that’s also another point, where you’re going to put your AI data. And it’s very important for if you want to build a sovereign AI, you need a sovereign infrastructure. So what is in the back? In the back office, I want to say of AI, it’s cloud. It’s very easy. Cloud technology is the first layer of AI. So you need to have a sovereign cloud which is going to host your data to make sure your data is not going to leave the country, and your data are going to be based in the country where you’re based. So that’s very important. And it’s even more important for government. And just to finish on that, to give an example is what we are currently doing here in Saudi Arabia. Oracle is building cloud infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. And we already operate a few data centers in Jeddah, in Riyadh, and very soon in Neom. However, we know that government entities here in Saudi Arabia, they want to have the benefits of cloud and AI technology. But they don’t want to put all their data in a public cloud. They want a sovereign cloud. So what we are doing here in Saudi Arabia is that we are also building, in addition to a public cloud, we are also building sovereign cloud with STC. STC is Saudi Telecom. It’s a telecom company here in Saudi Arabia. And STC is building, with Oracle, a sovereign cloud where we are going to be able to train and host critical data from the Saudi government, and make sure when they use AI technology, when they embed AI technology into public services in Saudi Arabia, they will be able to use government data and make sure it’s safe, and it’s not going back elsewhere. It’s not going back to the US. It’s not going back to UAE. It’s based here in Saudi Arabia. That’s very important.

Brandon Soloski: Thank you so much. And more questions to follow up on that related to some of the work here, as well as making sure data remains sovereign, and that we have interoperability as well. So quite a lot on this subject. But I want to turn it over to Mr. Aziz very quick.

Sarim Aziz: Thank you, Brennan, and thank you to my panelists. I think, as Lucia set the scene on the principles, and Matisse talked about some of the considerations for deployment, I think it’s important to just emphasize that, I mean, AI is not a new thing, right? I think sometimes we forget it’s, you know, I think it’s important to kind of differentiate and reframe the discussion around, like, why is this, the trust that you definitely mentioned, like, why is that increasing? You know, for something that, you know, what is the difference between the AI that we were using five years ago versus the AI today, from the perspective that, you know, AI has been used in any computer system that helps, like, analyze, perform functions on existing data. That’s been happening for a while. But what’s so exciting about this new age of AI, so to speak, is the fact that its ability to not just perform tasks on existing data, but to create new data. And this is, it’s multimodal. It can take text. It can take images. It can take video, audio. So that’s the exciting part. And I think that does what’s crucial as to what Matisse is saying, that this is so important, this technology. And we do believe at Meta that it has a transformative potential, to the point that it’s so important that it shouldn’t be, you know, in the hands of a few, which is the trust, which is actually exacerbating the trust deficit. You can’t have, you know, a few big companies based in the United States. Where do we get this technology, right? Especially in the developing world. So I think it’s really important to understand that the current model, especially as Matias kind of highlighted, of these closed proprietary systems owned by a few companies, is just not going to get us there. So we need to fundamentally change the way, the path forward needs to be an open source one that has wide acceptance, that is accessible to all countries. And I think that’s why Meta has, our CEO wrote this letter about open source AI is the way forward to ensure that nobody gets left behind, to ensure that people in this part of the world and other parts of the world have a part in their conversation. They can test the models, they can understand, they can look under the hood, see how it’s done. They can take it and fine-tune it, as Matias said, to their local cultural context and languages. So I just want to be clear, I think that is going to be fundamental in terms of governments adopting and supporting the open innovation approach to ensure they don’t get left behind, that they’re part of that conversation. I have lots more to say on that, but I just wanted to like seed that idea.

Brandon Soloski: No, that’s an absolutely great point. And that brings me to a little bit of my next question as well. So we’re not quite there yet, but not far on the horizon. One would want to ask AI about their evaluation that they received, or maybe the patient that was denied service as a result of AI, or other mix-ups that might happen, and the powerlessness that one might feel as a result of that. So I would be very curious to follow up on your question as well, and I would love for Matias and Lucia also to comment. But with Meta, can you talk to me a little bit about how Meta is leveraging and working with government to improve public services and enhance trust in AI?

Sarim Aziz: Thanks, Brandon. So yeah, I think in our conversations with government, we do see with our open-source approach that we see amazing adoption with startups. They love open-source technology. I mean, Meta, again, as I said, they’re not new to open-source. If you are familiar with web technologies, Meta has done plenty of open-source work around that, around React and many other technologies. In AI itself, we have a thousand different libraries prior to these LLMs that we’ve open-sourced. So I think the main consideration with government is, one, trying to tell them that, you know, if you are already doing an open data approach, that an open AI approach, open innovation approach is going to be an extension of that, right? So the first is, like, are your data sets open in terms of, like, allowing the public sector and the startups and private sector that works with those data sets? I mean, it’s becoming ubiquitous in terms of data sets. Yes, like, you need to control where it’s at. You need to have full control over it, be able to customize it. But I think it’s just, like, really about democratizing the access to that, to the data sets, but also, like, the models. And it’s about, you know, telling them that there’s this conception that, well, you know, open-source is not safe or secure. And that’s actually absolutely not true. In fact, the cybersecurity industry will tell you, including the DoD, that it’s not helpful in the cybersecurity space when signals and data are not shared. In fact, you have to share with third parties to ensure that you’re able to respond to the threats and bad actors. So from our perspective, it’s educating governments around the fact that open-source AI can accelerate innovation. It can increase access within public sector. and the fact that you control your destiny. It gives you flexibility where you want to deploy it, whether you want to do it some cloud, some on-premise, whether you want to know what amount of data you want to be fine-tuned, what do you want to use RAG for, for retrieval, augmented generation. And it increases accountability. And so there’s just been this concept that you need to go with a proprietary approach and to hold people accountable. Actually, governments can have more control and customization with an open-source approach. And so that’s been the discussion. And a lot of it has been being able to prototype. And we have plenty of great examples from France, where actually, it’s used by parliamentarians to use our LAMA model to make it simple, legal documents and legislations more simpler for other agencies to understand. So they use LAMA already. It’s deployed. There’s plenty of great examples in health care as well with Mayo Clinic, which is one of the largest medical nonprofits that is using it for radiation oncology in terms of their diagnostics. Huge potential there. For education, public sector, we’ve seen in places in Africa, Fundamate is using WhatsApp as a study assistant. So amazing things you can do with that. And so I think governments, there’s an opportunity for more public-private partnership there to see what private sector has done. As you mentioned, they’re already pushing the boundaries. If they had the support of the public from the government, I think we could do amazing work in the public sector. That’s been our focus at META.

Brandon Soloski: Thank you. Matisse?

Pellerin Matis: Yeah, I mean, AI is a top priority for governments, as you said. But we need to be realistic, because unfortunately, governments are still lagging behind the private sector in terms of AI adoptions. And lots of stuff has been done in the private sector. But governments are, for most of them, still running on very old technology. If we look at what they are doing, lots of governments have technology from the 90s or from the year 2000. So they are not very user-friendly. They are very expensive to maintain operational. they are even not very secure. So there is lots of work to do, but I think there is a good understanding now from world leaders and government officials that they need to modernize their public services, their public administration, to bring the best tool in country to support economic growth, to support better jobs that also improve the quality of the public services. So lots of governments right now are making huge investment to bring these new technologies. Cloud and AI are the two first priority. One of the big difference between private sector and the government is that the government is sitting on a huge amount of data. I mean, it’s a gold mine. A government has plenty of data. And usually, they don’t really know how to use this data. Because all the ministries usually work in silos. You have the health ministry. They have their own data. They don’t connect with the finance ministry, or they don’t connect with home affairs. So it means that they are not talking to each other, and they are not able to really leverage the power of AI. So the first thing that they need to do is, first, to connect this data, and also to use this new technology like AI to be able to really analyze the data and make decisions which are based on facts, so facts-based. And it gives insights to the politicians. It gives insights to the various head of administration about what decisions they should take through this analysis, through the big data, and also data analytics they can use. I’m very convinced that AI technology is really going to improve public services and improve the quality of public services. As Lucia said just before, I mean, there is a change in how AI technology today can be used. AI is not new. And for a very long time, we have been using AI to manage very non-complex operations with very low value added. But now with GenAI, we have a switch in how the technology can be used, because GenAI can manage very complex requests. And it can also give you personalized answer, which is very valuable for a government. Because if you’re a government, it means that you can use GenAI to automate. automate lots of the tasks which were done by your civil servants before because they were complex. And now you can make them autonomous, or at least you can reduce the time you need to really manage and operate them on a daily basis. So AI will for sure make government more efficient. For instance, to give you a few examples, you can use AI to manage a relationship with your citizens. Instead of having to send an email to a public administration to ask some question, I don’t know if some people in the audience have already tried to send a request to your tax authority, for instance. You want to know if you’re subject to this regulation or if you need to submit this revenue. It may take too much to get an answer from the tax authorities. If you’re able to embed an AI chatbot which is connected to your tax regulation, so the data set of your tax regulation, but it’s also connected to the revenue from the finance ministry, which are declared by your employer, well, the chatbot can, in a few seconds, give you the answer about your request. And so you went from two months to a few seconds, and you have the same exact answer. So faster service. Second thing is also trying to better optimize public expenditure. Through AI tools, you can drastically, I mean, detect tax fraud. You can identify the…you can also better calculate social benefits. So in Europe, for instance, we are working with a lot of governments to use AI to make sure social benefits are correctly calculated. And it can save you a billion of euro every year because in lots of countries, sometimes social benefits are not very well calculated. It’s not optimized because you don’t…the social ministry is not talking with the other ministries, and we don’t really know how much revenue you have. So we give you some money, but at the end, you were not supposed to get the money. So that’s another way. And also… So there is plenty of use cases. So at Oracle, what we try to do, we try to make AI easy to adopt. And how we make that happening is that we try to embed directly AI technology into our own applications to make sure it’s easy to use and easy to implement when you’re a government. But it also applies for the private sector, by the way. Another important point about AI is when you use AI, you need to use the good data. If you don’t use the good data when you train your models, probably the answers are not going to be very good. I’m going back to my first example about ChatGPT. But ChatGPT is very good if you ask ChatGPT to draft some content or to draft a keynote or a briefing document, because it’s based on a lot of public data which are available on the internet. However, if I ask ChatGPT to give me a specific answer about a health care situation or about a tax regulation, it probably will not be able to give me a very relevant answer. So contextualization of data is very important. And for government, it means that you need to bring specific data sets which are coming from your own industry to train your model and make sure it brings relevant answer to your citizens. You mentioned passport renewal just before. And I think it’s a very good example, because how we can use AI for passport renewal? Well, it’s very easy. You can have solutions that is going to be put on the website of the government. This AI-generated chatbot is going to be connected with various databases from the government. And so it’s going to help you prepare your passport applications. Because usually, when you need to do passport application, you need to gather lots of various documents which are coming. I mean, you need a birth certificate. certificate, you need justification of your address, you need your former documents, you need lots of various stuff. So this AI technology is going to be able to gather all these documents for you, connecting with the various ministries and data sets. It’s going also to generate automatically the form you need to prepare. It will give you, it’s going to give you the next meeting available in the agenda. And also, when you’re going to arrive for the meeting, the civil officer is going to review your application. For him, it will be much easier, because he will know that, probably, the AI won’t have done some human error. So the application will be correctly filled in, the documents will be correct. You won’t miss any document, because the AI will give you all the documents automatically. And at the end, it’s also going to improve how the civil officer is going to work, because he will not waste some time to tell you you need to come back, et cetera. So that’s a very small example about how we can use AI and why it generates very good benefits in terms of productivity, efficiency, and cost saving for the government. But just to finish on that, I think AI for the public sector is growing, but it’s still very new. And I think governments are still a bit cautious about using AI, but it’s clearly accelerating. And now we see lots of use cases which are already live and generate very good benefits for citizens and the government.

Brandon Soloski: Thank you so much. My apologies for the coughing attack. I seem to be going through right at the moment. I should have brought a little water on the stage. I think one of the things I wanted to talk about, and you were just mentioning this, was the interoperability aspect of much of AI. proliferation in this past year on new regulations, policies, laws, the attempting to regulate AI, to position various countries, even regions, for the future, to position themselves for this new sector. Now, it’s been a full year since the EU announced the world’s first major AI regulation, the EU AI Act, been following this. And I’m quite intrigued to hear some of all of your thoughts and specifically, as governments around the world draw on the EU’s regulatory approach as AI, as they shape their own AI policies, what may be lessons might they want to start taking into consideration or any thoughts or observations on any of these new laws or regulations?

Lucia Russo: Maybe I’ll go first. Yes, you’re totally right. We are seeing many policies and regulations emerging. And of course, the EU AI Act is, one may say, the pioneering regulatory approach in that it establishes this comprehensive, overarching legislation across sectors that aims at regulating AI systems that enter the EU market. But we are seeing, likewise, the EU, we are seeing some regulatory frameworks emerging, for instance, in Canada and Brazil that also follow a similar risk-based or impact-based approach, though these proposals are still being discussed before parliaments. And then, on the other hand, we also see different approaches, such as those taken by the US, you mentioned, but also the United Kingdom or Israel, where instead of going with a cross-sectoral approach, you’d rather see principles defined and then regulations to be defined more at the sector level. And this is clearly an approach that, so far, the UK has taken, Israel. And in the US, we have seen the executive order that has some components of risk management and safety and critical infrastructures, but still relies mostly on standards and then voluntary commitments. So I think this space is really evolving quite fast. And what concerns mostly the OECD, being an international organization working on consensus building and facilitating interactions across jurisdictions, is that, of course, this can lead to regulatory fragmentation, which, in turn, leads to higher compliance costs for enterprises operating across borders. So our mandate is really to establish interoperability across these various regulatory frameworks. And we do that at the very basic, for instance, trying with the definition of AI system, which, in fact, has been adopted by the UI Act, by the Convention of the Council of Europe, but also by the MIS framework. So having the same definition allows these frameworks to talk to each other, because they talk about the same thing. But also, we are mapping risk management frameworks to establish what are the commonalities. And so through responsible business conduct, allowing companies to see what compliance mechanism they need to ensure to trade across borders. I’ll just, perhaps, mention three things you said, what countries should look at when they look. at the UI Act. I think, of course, it’s prerogative of countries to establish frameworks according to their technological ecosystems, their priorities, their societal values. I think the key elements from the UI Act would be really the importance of creating regulatory frameworks that are risk-based according to the level of risk of the systems and so proportionate in terms of the requirements, accountability for deployers and developers, and then also establishing the robust testing and certification systems across the life cycle. And perhaps just to conclude on the risk-based approach, I think that should also be based on evidence, and that’s why at the OECD we also built an incident reporting framework, the AIM is called, and the purpose is really to see where risks actually materialize, because we talk a lot about risk in abstract, but then where is it that causes the most harm? And on that basis, this should be able to adapt alongside technological innovation.

Sarim Aziz: Thank you. I think just to add on to what Lucia said, from an Asia-Pacific perspective, I think it was exactly a year ago at the last IGF in Japan where the G7 Hiroshima process was announced, which is actually consistent with a lot of the OECD principles. So I think what we’ve seen is most countries in Asia-Pacific are not following the EU model. I think they have followed more of the G7 OECD kind of more principle-based approach on making sure, because I think they all understand this is new technology, right? It’s evolving so quickly, and by the time you regulate it, it would have already evolved perhaps. And so I think there are great examples, including the UK example, where there is a need for having harmonized and having AI safety institutes around the world as a network. That’s been a great initiative, and I think there’s to assess risks. And with the UK ASI, I think that because of that collaboration, they were able to launch something called Inspect, which basically is an open-source software library to, almost a year ago, assesses for risks like cyber, bio, and other kinds of safety risks. So I do think there’s lots of great work going on. It’s still early, but I do see that collaboration as the key here, not necessarily regulation to something that’s still evolving.

Pellerin Matis: Thank you. Yeah, but not working very well, okay, it’s back It’s not back Okay, can I have another mic maybe? No Okay Maybe just to come in quickly one is about harmonization. I think that’s for private sector very very important without going into details of Thank you, okay, that’s that’s funny So without going into into details about the AI testing for the private sector It’s it’s very important to have an harmonization and and and we don’t want to at least we should not see values different framework Define everywhere one in Europe one in Asia one in in South America I know in South America right now There is a lot of work in Brazil and a few other countries about AI and they are all wondering what we should do in AI Well, I think it’s for us It would be very complicated if we have a fragmented regulation around the world about how we use AI So that’s the first the first one and I really think Governments and officials working on that should really consider trying to harmonize the rules So the second point is innovation and adoption. We talk about adoption at the beginning of the panel We should not make sure we should be careful about not Reducing the trust about these technologies because these regulations are great and I’m not saying it’s not it’s not it’s not it’s a bad thing But in the book in the global opinion sometimes there is some misunderstanding about about about this technology and it’s not helping adoption because people think it might be dangerous or think their data are not safe and And and sometimes these regulatory and policy discussion generated generate some mistrust about technology and in the EU It’s not it’s not only about AI but if you look at about cloud and and all the debates around data sovereignty Unfortunately, it has slowed down drastically cloud adoption because companies, governments are worried about cloud because maybe there is a risk about the data. While we know from a technical perspective, usually it’s very safe to go to the cloud because cloud companies are cyber experts and they are putting billions of dollars every year to secure the infrastructure. So usually when you’re in the cloud, your data is safer. But there is a misunderstanding about it, and there is some, in the global opinion of the population, a sort of worry about data sovereignty. And adoption is very slow because of that. I was in Singapore a few days ago and I went through the customs and I was super impressed about their ability to use AI in the airport. Now you don’t need to, in the customs, you don’t need to go to take your passport. They recognize you automatically, we face recognitions. When you arrive at the boarding gate, you don’t need to have a boarding pass because they have embedded AI facial recognition into their process. And now people are just going through the boarding gate and they recognize you, they know you’re on seat 03B, and that’s fine, you can go in the plane. You will never see that in Europe because of GDPR, because of all the rules. It’s not possible. So we need to find a compromise between data privacy, but also innovation because innovation is important and it’s also through these new technologies and through these innovations that we can make government more efficient and easier for people.

Brandon Soloski: That’s a great point. And ironically, very likely a European company that is handling a lot of what you were just talking about, edemia, but you’re absolutely spot on right there with GDPR. I think one of the other things I wanted to talk about, and we started talking about this already, was in terms of partnerships. And you mentioned this a little bit about some of the large companies and the influence that this has, but I think one of the things I’d love to chat a little bit about and get some of all of your thoughts. thoughts are on what you think the role of partnerships with the private sector is going to play, including startups. How is this going to evolve outside of just some of the big companies? And I’ll kick it over to you, Aziz, as I know you started talking about this already.

Sarim Aziz: Thanks, Brandon. I want to make sure others can chime in. But I think just to using Singapore as a good example, even a government like Singapore that is quite innovative, I think still part of the reason is because they realize the value of the startup private sector and the startup community. And so I think that’s where governments can really tap into the local talent and entrepreneurs and startups who are already, they’ve picked up this technology, they’re already doing great things with it. And I think one of the proofs of this is that we ran an AI accelerator across Asia-Pacific across 13 countries, everything from Bangladesh, Nepal, all the way to Australia and New Zealand. And we were blown away by, and this is just the power of open source, how these startups and nonprofits were using our technology. And this is one of the blessings and challenges with open source is you don’t know how it’s being used because it could be used in incredible ways. And it’s only because we did this competition that we found that, oh my gosh, the New Zealand NetSafe organization, which is an organization that takes care of online harms and safety, is using our model to basically streamline complaints that are getting from the community around just content. And they’re empowered by the government to basically send information to digital platforms and not just NetApp but others. So it was amazing to see that in every sector, health care, in manufacturing in Japan, there were those uses of AI. And what we did was we did this regional experiment locally. We ran local competitions in these countries. And we brought the local government to say, come and see what your own local startups are doing with this technology. And they’re doing it in the sectors that you care about. They’re doing it in health care. They’re doing it in manufacturing. They’re doing it in Taiwan. There was a company that was able to use AI to identify building, like use blueprints to identify building code violations and whether the IDs are using adopts to the local laws and regulations. So it’s incredible stuff. Things we couldn’t think of were being done. And so we engaged over 23 different government agencies across the Asia-Pacific region to show them, here’s what happens when you work with the private sector. It can be foreign big tech companies, but it can be your local talent who are already using all the tools available to them. That’s the power of the cloud. Your local talent can use whatever tools they have, it’s Oracle Cloud or whatever makes sense for them, Amazon, Microsoft, and again, the power is open source because you’re not locked in. With open source, you can take your data and take it wherever you want to put it. You want to put it in Oracle? Great. If you want tomorrow, if you get a better deal with Microsoft, go there. It should be what makes sense for you and gives you that control and flexibility.

Lucia Russo: Maybe I’ll just bring in some perspective from Egypt. We’ve been working with Egypt for analyzing their AI strategy and they have a very nice example of public-private partnership in that they built this applied innovation center which model works as a tripartite model where you have the Ministry of Innovation and then the ministry that could be health or agriculture or the judicial system, and then you have the private sector. The idea is that this domain ministry comes in with the need and the Ministry of Innovation helps in gathering the technological solution together with private companies that help develop and scale the solution. This has proved very effective, for instance, in developing solutions for the health like diagnosing retinopathy linked to diabetes or even speech-to-text recognition for the judicial system. I think there is this benefit of having the private sector as providers and also knowledge transfer also in settings where, of course, technological innovation may be lagging because of the ecosystem itself.

Pellerin Matis: I think government can really learn from the private sector because there is lots of technologies and solutions which have already been implemented in the private sector that can easily be replicated in the government. If you look at what, if I take the Oracle example, what we are doing for private companies to run their HR, their payroll, their procurement, lots of these applications can easily be implemented in the Ministry of Finance to run your public procurement system, your public contract, your user payment of your civil servants, etc. So there is a lot of applications that the government can use to… to really leverage the power of cloud and AI. If I give you an example about health care, health care is a very important topic for Oracle. We bought Cerner a few years ago, which is a big electronic medical records company. And since then, we have made huge investment to modernize the health care sector, because we are very convinced that there is lots of things to do. One of the main challenges of health care right now is that the data is fragmented. You have lots of various actors, stakeholders on the health care space, from health agencies, to hospitals, to private hospitals, to private insurance, et cetera. So there is lots of them. And usually, the data is not really connected to each other. So what we are doing right now is trying to build an ecosystem solution that gives the ability to governments to connect all these stakeholders together and have a global visibility as a national level, population level, and using AI to give a better understanding for government officials about what is a national situation. So we call this a data intelligence platform for health care. It’s already implemented in a few countries. But this platform, using AI technology, gives the tools to identify and detect diseases, for instance, or to predict all the patients’ needs in a specific region. So even a specific country, a specific city, sorry. That’s something we have done during COVID. And we saw it was working very well. And there is a huge demand for governments to have this type of dashboard, which is going to help them reduce health care costs, but also be able to improve patient outcomes. And the second level is a bit lower. It’s about how we can modernize hospitals and how we can help health professionals, like doctors, et cetera, to improve their quality of work in the hospitals, to make the hospital more efficient. And so actually, we just released a few weeks ago a new electronic health record, which is actually, to make it simple, it’s a hospital management system. So it’s a software that manages the appointment for doctors, drug prescriptions, number of beds, number of beds you have, everything in the hospitals. And now we are embedding AI technology to try to automate all the tasks right now the health professional needs to do, like drafting a report, like putting the meeting in the agenda, or drug prescription. It takes time. And so now we are embedding voice recognition in our systems. And so doctors can just record the meeting. And at the end of the meeting, the AI is going to generate everything for you. So no reports draft, it will be generated by AI. So next meeting will be put in the agenda. automatically through AI, same for the prescription, et cetera. And we are able to reduce the time practitioners and health professionals are in front of their computer and not talking to the patient. So that’s very important. And that’s something which is already live. Actually, in Saudi Arabia, in UAE, in Qatar, we are already implementing these solutions in a lot of hospitals. And we see drastic, important improvement in how patients are using health care in these countries. But to analyze evidence, to schedule cases, to predict a potential outcome of illegal cases, so there is lots of ways to use that. Agriculture is very important. And we have some good cases in Africa, even in Philippines, where we use an agriculture solutions to help governments to monitor crops, to monitor the climate, to be able to anticipate climate change or some issues in the crop or stuff like that. Or even public safety. Public safety is the one maybe people know the better. Because when you are a police authority or you are an emergency authority, you can use AI for emergency response, or for video screening, et cetera. So there is lots of use cases.

Brandon Soloski: Fascinating subject. We could go on for quite some more time. And I have more questions in regards to emerging and frontier markets and how AI could be applied there. And I would love for us to continue on the conversation. But we are at the bottom of the hour. And I would love to end on that optimistic note around partnerships as well. So much can get done in that space. If one could have a favorite sustainable development goal, number 17, partnerships would be mine. So much gets done there. So just amazing to be able to talk about this with all of you today. Thank you again, Matisse, for joining. for joining us, Lucia for joining us from OECD, Aziz, thank you again, Mr. Aziz Surim, for joining us as well from MEDA. It’s really been a pleasure to have this conversation today, to understand the role that the private sector plays in this space, its leadership, in terms of building trust with the public sector as well, truly a fascinating subject, and it was a pleasure to join you all today. I’ll be around. I know Aziz, Lucia, and Matisse will also be around. We’d love to take some questions at the end, as I think we might be out of time. Yeah, thank you very much, it’s my pleasure to be here.

Audience: My name is Anil Pura, I’m from Nepal, and in terms of implementation of AI, there are a lot of challenges, but one of the most prevailing challenges is a trust issue, in terms of sharing the data by the government and public partnership. So how to overcome that, and are there any good examples you’d like to share with us? Thank you.

Lucia Russo: Well, quickly, about trust in data management for governments, I think we mentioned this a little bit about building sovereign infrastructure. A few examples, close to here, we work with the government of Oman, for instance. We have built sovereign infrastructure base in Oman, because Oracle was not operating any cloud infrastructure in Oman, but the government wanted to use our technology. They wanted to use our technology to modernize their governments, to modernize their public services, and use AI. And so what we have done is that we have built a cloud for them, which is a dedicated infrastructure. It’s built under the control of the Omani government, with their own security, their own standard certification, et cetera. So there is some solutions. as you say. And for me, the infrastructure, cloud infrastructure layer is probably one of the most important ones to check when you want to really protect your data. And after, we can also go into the protection of the data sets, anonymization, et cetera. But that’s another aspect, which is, I would say, much easier. But yeah.

Sarim Aziz: At the risk of contradicting Matisse, but just to say yes, I mean, that’s one option. But I think the answer is open source, where you’re not locked in, you control your data. I mean, actually, Lama, which is Matisse’s model, is available to Oracle’s cloud infrastructure. So yes, if you want to host it there, you can. But if things are too sensitive for the government of Nepal and you’d like to host it on your own infrastructure, you’re happy to do that. You can also do both. Like, it can be a hybrid. You’re not locked into one proprietary system. And I think open source is the answer to give you maximum control, maximum sovereignty, whether it’s cloud or on-prem. And basically, you control your data. No one else does. And so open source is a solution for governments to look at. In fact, many governments are using it. They don’t have to tell us that they’re using it. And to some point, there are use cases where, especially now, where I think the next generation is going to be not these things aren’t going to run on just cloud and servers and computers. We’re seeing edge devices. There are more mobile devices in the world and sensors in places that may not even have good connections. And so you need AI to run on those edge devices. And open source models now are getting so small that you can actually deploy it on your phone or on a small device, on edge devices as well. So lots of interesting use cases that could come out of that.

Brandon Soloski: All right. Well, I know we’re at the bottom of the hour. And our time has come to a conclusion. But thank you again for the great question. And I’m sure our panelists would love to stick around and field a few more questions if anyone else in the audience would like to speak with us. Again, thank you again for. joining today, to everyone online and everyone in the room, truly a pleasure. Such a fascinating topic. Matisse, Lucia, Aziz, thank you again. Serושka. Se next guest is Raul Garber. Raul, welcome! RAUL GARBER Yeah, that’s really, very interesting. I didn’t realize we had the right translation. It was a great job. Thank you for the enthusiastic response. Thank you. It was great. Thank you so much. Yeah. Very interesting topic. Yeah. I wish we could go on. Yeah, me too. I mean, I’m not worried about the hour, right? We can end this like easily in another two hours. I’m pretty sure we can do that. So there’s a restriction, but I think we’re happy to do it. I think she’s going to stop for a minute. OK, we’ll work with you guys. Yeah, I’ll do the stuff. We’ll see how it goes. Absolutely. Yeah, Allison is on our, I just saw her on Thursday. Oh, really? Yeah, she’s on our executive committee, which is kind of like our board. Oh, OK. So she is a really strong advocate for us. I know that. I know that. So she’s great. So I am also. She’s very supportive of us. I am also. She’s been really good to the community in the US. We have lots of people. But sometimes it’s difficult. So if I don’t see her, I like to talk to her. Very nice to talk to her. Same here. Thank you. A little bit. Before Jane and Michael was a consultant, I worked for like a bit less than 10 years as an advisor. But first, I started working with a French guy. But I have been paid in DC to work with French guys.

Agreement Points

AI can enhance government efficiency and service delivery

speakers

Lucia Russo

Pellerin Matis

Sarim Aziz

arguments

AI can enhance government efficiency and responsiveness

AI can improve healthcare delivery and hospital management

AI enables more efficient passport renewal and citizen services

AI enhances agricultural monitoring and public safety

AI assists with legal document processing and legislative work

summary

All speakers agreed that AI has the potential to significantly improve government operations and services across various sectors, including healthcare, citizen services, agriculture, and legal processes.

Need for trust-building measures in AI adoption

speakers

Lucia Russo

Pellerin Matis

Sarim Aziz

Brandon Soloski

arguments

Sovereign AI and cloud infrastructure protect government data

Open source AI increases transparency and accessibility

Need for AI education and explaining benefits to increase public trust

summary

Speakers emphasized the importance of building trust in AI through measures such as sovereign infrastructure, open-source approaches, and public education about AI benefits and safeguards.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocated for flexible, principle-based approaches to AI regulation that can adapt to rapidly evolving technology, rather than rigid, prescriptive rules.

speakers

Lucia Russo

Sarim Aziz

arguments

Risk-based and evidence-based regulatory approaches are important

Many Asia-Pacific countries adopting principle-based rather than prescriptive AI regulations

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of public-private partnerships in AI innovation

speakers

Lucia Russo

Sarim Aziz

Pellerin Matis

arguments

Public-private partnerships drive AI innovation in government

Open source AI increases transparency and accessibility

AI can improve healthcare delivery and hospital management

explanation

Despite representing different sectors (international organization, tech company, and cloud infrastructure provider), all speakers unexpectedly agreed on the crucial role of collaboration between government and private sector in driving AI innovation and implementation in public services.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement included the potential of AI to enhance government efficiency and service delivery, the need for trust-building measures in AI adoption, and the importance of flexible regulatory approaches. There was also unexpected consensus on the value of public-private partnerships in driving AI innovation in government.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was relatively high, particularly on the benefits and potential applications of AI in government. This strong agreement implies a shared vision for the future of AI in public services, which could facilitate more coordinated efforts in AI development and implementation across different sectors and regions. However, some differences in approach (e.g., sovereign infrastructure vs. open-source) suggest that while the goals are aligned, the methods to achieve them may vary.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to data protection and sovereignty

speakers

Pellerin Matis

Sarim Aziz

arguments

Sovereign AI and cloud infrastructure protect government data

Open source AI increases transparency and accessibility

summary

Pellerin Matis advocates for sovereign AI and dedicated cloud infrastructure to protect government data, while Sarim Aziz argues that open source AI provides better control and transparency for governments.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around data protection strategies and regulatory approaches for AI.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are some differences in approach, particularly regarding data protection and regulatory strategies, the speakers generally agree on the potential benefits of AI for government services and the need for responsible implementation. These differences reflect the complexity of balancing innovation, security, and regulation in AI adoption for government use.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for AI regulation, but differ on the specific approach. Lucia Russo emphasizes risk-based and evidence-based approaches, Pellerin Matis advocates for global harmonization, while Sarim Aziz highlights the principle-based approach adopted by many Asia-Pacific countries.

speakers

Lucia Russo

Pellerin Matis

Sarim Aziz

arguments

Risk-based and evidence-based regulatory approaches are important

Need for harmonized global AI regulations to avoid fragmentation

Many Asia-Pacific countries adopting principle-based rather than prescriptive AI regulations

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers advocated for flexible, principle-based approaches to AI regulation that can adapt to rapidly evolving technology, rather than rigid, prescriptive rules.

speakers

Lucia Russo

Sarim Aziz

arguments

Risk-based and evidence-based regulatory approaches are important

Many Asia-Pacific countries adopting principle-based rather than prescriptive AI regulations

Key Takeaways

AI has significant potential to improve government efficiency and services, but adoption lags behind the private sector

Building public trust is crucial for successful government AI implementation

Open source and sovereign AI approaches can help address data privacy/security concerns

Public-private partnerships and engagement with local startups are important for driving AI innovation in government

There is a need for harmonized global AI regulations to avoid fragmentation

Risk-based and evidence-based regulatory approaches are recommended for AI governance

Resolutions and Action Items

None identified

Unresolved Issues

How to overcome trust issues in data sharing between government and private sector

Balancing innovation with data privacy/security concerns in government AI adoption

Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equitable access to AI benefits across countries

Suggested Compromises

Using hybrid approaches that combine sovereign infrastructure with open source AI models to balance control and flexibility

Adopting principle-based AI regulations rather than overly prescriptive rules to allow for innovation

AI is not a new thing, right? I think sometimes we forget it’s, you know, I think it’s important to kind of differentiate and reframe the discussion around, like, why is this, the trust that you definitely mentioned, like, why is that increasing? You know, for something that, you know, what is the difference between the AI that we were using five years ago versus the AI today, from the perspective that, you know, AI has been used in any computer system that helps, like, analyze, perform functions on existing data. That’s been happening for a while. But what’s so exciting about this new age of AI, so to speak, is the fact that its ability to not just perform tasks on existing data, but to create new data.

speaker

Sarim Aziz

reason

This comment reframes the discussion by highlighting that AI isn’t new, but its current capabilities are what’s driving increased interest and trust concerns. It provides important context for understanding the current AI landscape.

impact

This comment shifted the conversation to focus more specifically on the unique aspects of current AI technology, particularly its ability to generate new data. It set the stage for a more nuanced discussion of AI’s potential and challenges.

We need to fundamentally change the way, the path forward needs to be an open source one that has wide acceptance, that is accessible to all countries. And I think that’s why Meta has, our CEO wrote this letter about open source AI is the way forward to ensure that nobody gets left behind, to ensure that people in this part of the world and other parts of the world have a part in their conversation.

speaker

Sarim Aziz

reason

This comment introduces the idea of open source AI as a solution to ensure global accessibility and participation in AI development. It challenges the notion that AI should be controlled by a few large companies.

impact

This comment sparked discussion about different approaches to AI development and deployment, particularly contrasting open source models with proprietary systems. It led to further exploration of how different approaches might impact trust, innovation, and global participation in AI.

AI will for sure make government more efficient. For instance, to give you a few examples, you can use AI to manage a relationship with your citizens. Instead of having to send an email to a public administration to ask some question, I don’t know if some people in the audience have already tried to send a request to your tax authority, for instance. You want to know if you’re subject to this regulation or if you need to submit this revenue. It may take too much to get an answer from the tax authorities. If you’re able to embed an AI chatbot which is connected to your tax regulation, so the data set of your tax regulation, but it’s also connected to the revenue from the finance ministry, which are declared by your employer, well, the chatbot can, in a few seconds, give you the answer about your request.

speaker

Pellerin Matis

reason

This comment provides a concrete, relatable example of how AI can improve government efficiency and citizen services. It helps illustrate the practical benefits of AI in governance.

impact

This comment grounded the discussion in practical applications, moving from theoretical benefits to specific use cases. It led to further discussion of various ways AI could be applied in different government sectors.

We should not make sure we should be careful about not Reducing the trust about these technologies because these regulations are great and I’m not saying it’s not it’s not it’s a bad thing But in the book in the global opinion sometimes there is some misunderstanding about about about this technology and it’s not helping adoption because people think it might be dangerous or think their data are not safe and And sometimes these regulatory and policy discussion generated generate some mistrust about technology

speaker

Pellerin Matis

reason

This comment highlights the potential unintended consequences of regulation and policy discussions, suggesting they might inadvertently reduce trust in AI technologies. It introduces a complex dynamic between regulation, public perception, and technology adoption.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards the challenges of balancing regulation with innovation and adoption. It led to a more nuanced conversation about how to approach AI governance without stifling progress or eroding public trust.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from general principles to specific applications and challenges of AI in governance. They introduced important tensions between open source and proprietary models, between regulation and innovation, and between theoretical potential and practical implementation. The discussion evolved to consider not just the benefits of AI in governance, but also the complex dynamics of public trust, global accessibility, and the potential unintended consequences of regulatory approaches. This resulted in a more nuanced and multifaceted exploration of the topic, considering both opportunities and challenges in the use of AI for responsible governance.

How can AI be applied in emerging and frontier markets?

speaker

Brandon Soloski

explanation

This was mentioned as a topic the speaker wanted to explore further but didn’t have time for, indicating its importance in understanding the global impact of AI.

How can governments overcome trust issues in data sharing for public-private partnerships in AI implementation?

speaker

Anil Pura (audience member)

explanation

This was raised as a prevailing challenge in AI implementation, particularly for countries like Nepal, highlighting the need for strategies to build trust in data sharing.

How can countries ensure interoperability across various AI regulatory frameworks?

speaker

Lucia Russo

explanation

This was mentioned as a key concern for the OECD, as regulatory fragmentation can lead to higher compliance costs for enterprises operating across borders.

How can governments balance innovation and adoption of AI technologies with concerns about data privacy and security?

speaker

Pellerin Matis

explanation

This was raised as a crucial consideration, noting that overly strict regulations might slow down AI adoption and innovation.

How can open-source AI models be leveraged to ensure data sovereignty and control for governments?

speaker

Sarim Aziz

explanation

This was suggested as a potential solution to data trust issues, allowing governments more control and flexibility in AI implementation.

Summary

This session at the 19th IGF focused on transformative digital inclusion and building a gender-responsive framework for underserved communities. Speakers from various organizations and countries discussed the challenges and opportunities in bridging the digital gender divide.

Key points included the importance of meaningful connectivity, which goes beyond basic access to consider factors like device quality, connection speed, and affordability. Speakers highlighted persistent gaps in digital access and skills between urban and rural areas, as well as between men and women. Examples were shared of initiatives to empower women through digital literacy programs, entrepreneurship support, and access to online services.

The discussion emphasized the need for comprehensive policies and partnerships to address digital inclusion. Speakers noted the importance of measuring progress through gender-disaggregated data and using frameworks like UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators. The role of libraries in providing public internet access was highlighted as crucial for underserved communities.

Challenges related to disinformation and the ethical use of AI were also addressed, with speakers calling for increased media literacy and safeguards against manipulation of information. The potential of emerging technologies like AI to both exacerbate and potentially help close digital divides was explored.

Overall, participants stressed the urgency of collaborative action to ensure women and marginalized groups are not left behind in the digital transformation. They called for targeted investments, policy reforms, and education initiatives to create a more inclusive digital future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The importance of meaningful connectivity and digital inclusion, especially for women and underserved communities

– Challenges in achieving digital inclusion, including infrastructure gaps, affordability issues, and lack of digital skills

– The role of libraries, education initiatives, and targeted policies in promoting digital inclusion

– The need for gender-responsive frameworks and measuring progress on digital inclusion

– Concerns about disinformation and the impacts of AI/emerging technologies on digital divides

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore strategies and share best practices for creating inclusive digital ecosystems that are accessible to all, with a focus on empowering women, girls, and underserved communities.

The tone of the discussion was largely informative and solution-oriented. Speakers shared data, case studies and recommendations with a sense of urgency about addressing digital divides. There was an emphasis on collaboration and comprehensive approaches. The tone became slightly more impassioned towards the end, with calls to action and appeals to work together to tackle these critical issues.

Speakers

– Najib Mokni: Program Specialist for the CI sector at UNESCO Regional Office for Gulf States and Yemen, on-site moderator

– Tawfik Jelassi: Assistant Director General of Communication and Information Sector of UNESCO

– Alexandre Barbosa: Managing Director of CETIC, Head of the Regional Centre for Studies on the Development of the Information Society under the auspice of UNESCO

– Abdullah AI-Hawas: Head of the ITHRA library

– Sarah Birungi Kaddu: Dean and Senior Lecturer, East African School of Library and Information Science, Makerere University, Uganda; Information coordinator of IFLA Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Division Committee; Co-chair of International Steering Committee of UNESCO

– Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy: Professor at Cairo University, expert in ICT sector and digitization strategies and policies

– Xianhong Hu: UNESCO representative, online co-moderator

– Kossi Amessinou: Ministry of Economy and Finance of Benin, Chair of the NGO Women Be Free

– Onica Makwakwa: Executive Director of the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership (GDIP)

– Viktoriia Romaniuk: Director of the Mohyla School of Journalism, National University of Kyiv-Mohyla in Ukraine; Deputy Chief Editor of StopFake; Chair of the UNESCO IFAP Working Group on Information Ethics

– Mariam Keburia: International Relationship and Development Office Consultant at the Business and Technology University of Georgia

– Dorothy Gordon: Board member of UNESCO Institute for Information Technology and Education, former chair of IFAP

Additional speakers:

– Sun Hong: UNESCO HQ representative, online co-moderator

– Ani Chelishvili: Representative from the University of Georgia in Business and Technology

– Carmen Ferri: Online moderator from GDIP

Expanded Summary of IGF 2023 Session on Digital Inclusion and Gender Equality

This session at the 19th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) focused on transformative digital inclusion and building a gender-responsive framework for underserved communities. Speakers from various organisations and countries discussed the challenges and opportunities in bridging the digital gender divide, emphasising the urgency of collaborative action to ensure women and marginalised groups are not left behind in the digital transformation.

Key Themes and Discussion Points:

1. Meaningful Connectivity and Digital Inclusion

Alexandre Barbosa, Managing Director of CETIC, introduced the crucial concept of meaningful connectivity, arguing that discussions must move beyond the binary notion of being connected or not. He emphasised the need for a more comprehensive approach to fully understand and address the opportunities and challenges of digital inclusion and the realisation of human rights online. Barbosa highlighted the revised Internet Universality Indicators (IOI) and ROAM-X framework from UNESCO, which provide a multidimensional perspective considering factors such as device quality, connection speed, and affordability.

Several speakers highlighted the persistent gaps in digital access and skills between urban and rural areas, as well as between men and women. This underscored the intersectionality of digital exclusion, showing how gender, geography, and education compound inequalities.

2. Role of Libraries and Community Centres

Abdullah AI-Hawas, Head of the ITHRA library, emphasised the crucial role of libraries in providing public internet access for underserved communities. He shared specific initiatives and statistics, stating, “More than 60% which are females that are trying to access books, either physical or digital. Also, we have trained more than 1,000 female undergrad students. They come and use their internship in our library for every semester.” This practical example demonstrated how libraries can serve as hubs for digital inclusion and gender equality.

3. Gender-Responsive Frameworks and Policies

Sarah Birungi Kaddu, Dean at the East African School of Library and Information Science, advocated for the development of gender-responsive frameworks for digital inclusion. This sentiment was echoed by Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy, who discussed digitisation tools for women’s empowerment in Egypt, and Mariam Keburia, who shared local digital inclusion initiatives for refugee women in Georgia.

Tawfik Jelassi, Assistant Director General of Communication and Information Sector of UNESCO, introduced the IFAP (Information for All Programme) strategic plan, which aims to address digital era challenges including bridging digital divides and promoting inclusion for women, girls, people with disabilities, and rural communities. He also mentioned UNESCO’s work on the United Nations International Decade for Indigenous Languages, running until 2032, which aims to promote local and indigenous languages.

Dorothy Gordon emphasised the need for comprehensive policies, coordinated efforts among government agencies, and clear benchmarks for addressing digital divide issues. She suggested creating national-level platforms that comply with ROAM standards (Rights-based, Open, Accessible, Multi-stakeholder).

4. Challenges of Disinformation and Emerging Technologies

Viktoriia Romaniuk, Director of the Mohyla School of Journalism in Ukraine, brought attention to the critical issue of disinformation campaigns as a barrier to information access. She highlighted the acute problem of AI-generated fakes in Ukraine during the ongoing conflict, stating, “The issue of promoted manipulative narratives and artificial intelligence-generated fakes has become particularly acute for Ukraine during the full-scale invasion.” Romaniuk recommended cooperation between governments, information organizations, and technology companies to combat disinformation.

Xianhong Hu, a UNESCO representative, raised concerns about the lack of women in AI and frontier technology development, noting that only 27% of women are involved in AI development, with an even worse gender gap in quantum technology. This point highlighted both the potential for emerging technologies like AI to exacerbate digital divides and the opportunity to leverage these technologies to help close the gaps.

5. Measuring Digital Inclusion

Speakers agreed on the importance of measuring progress through gender-disaggregated data and using comprehensive frameworks. Kossi Amessinou advocated for the use of UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators to assess digital transformation. Alexandre Barbosa emphasised a multidimensional approach to measure meaningful connectivity, while Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy stressed the importance of gender-disaggregated data on internet access and use.

6. Local Initiatives and Global Strategies

Mariam Keburia provided insight into balancing global strategies with local implementation, stating, “Our solution and the formula is to follow the global strategies, to be in line with the global strategies that have been designed and have been put in place by high quality experts, to follow, to share, to continue to share the passion that you and the colleagues all share but also and also with the participation of local stakeholders, local experts and those who are well aware of the local complexities to design the local solution.”

Several speakers shared specific projects and initiatives, including:

– IFAP projects in India, Georgia, and Iran empowering women with digital skills

– Ithra Library’s initiatives for digital inclusion and gender equality

– A project in Georgia supporting Ukrainian refugee women

Conclusion and Future Directions:

The discussion highlighted several key takeaways and action items:

1. Adopt the Internet Universality Indicators to assess digital transformation progress

2. Implement comprehensive national policies for media and information literacy

3. Create national-level digital platforms complying with rights-based standards

4. Promote STEM education for girls from an early age

5. Increase efforts to involve women in AI and frontier technology development

Unresolved issues included effectively reaching and persuading women who are not currently online to gain digital skills, addressing the significant underrepresentation of women in AI and quantum technology development, and sustainably funding large-scale digital inclusion initiatives in developing countries.

The session concluded with a strong consensus on the urgency of addressing digital divides, particularly those affecting women and marginalised communities. Speakers called for targeted investments, policy reforms, and education initiatives to create a more inclusive digital future, emphasising the need for collaborative, comprehensive approaches that consider the multifaceted nature of digital inclusion. The collaborative spirit of the event was further demonstrated by a call for a group photo at the end of the session.

Najib Mokni: Good morning, everybody. Dear partners, distinguished experts and speakers, welcome to this IFAP event and IFAP session at the 19th IGF in addition on Transformative Digital Inclusion, Building a Gender-Responsive and Inclusive Framework for the Underserved. My name is Najib Mokni, I’m Program Specialist for the CI sector at UNESCO Regional Office for Gulf States and Yemen, and happy to be the on-site moderator of this important workshop. My colleague, Sun Hong, connected from UNESCO HQ, will be the online co-moderator for this meeting. The today 90-minute session will be enabling in-depth discussion. We have a joint meeting of two IGF Dynamic Coalitions, the Dynamic Coalitions Public Access in Libraries, led by IFLA, and the Dynamic Coalition Measuring Digital Inclusion, led by UNESCO, IFAP, and Global Digital Inclusion Partnership. In collaboration with the IGF, we have a joint meeting of two IGF Dynamic Coalitions, the Dynamic Coalitions Public Access in Libraries, led by IFLA, and the Dynamic Coalition Measuring Digital Inclusion Partnership. In collaboration with partners such as CITIC, UNU-IGOV, and the Tech and Global Affairs Innovation Hub. The aim is to engage IGF stakeholders in policy discussions on creating inclusive digital ecosystems accessible to all, especially women, girls, and underserved communities. Panelists will share best practices to inspire policy initiatives addressing connectivity and inclusion challenges. We’ll start our session with the opening remarks by Dr. Tawfik Jelassi, the Assistant Director General of Communication and Information Sector of UNESCO. Dr. Jelassi is responsible for UNESCO’s program on fostering freedom of expression, leading digital transformation, strategizing the role of ICT in education, and building inclusive knowledge society. Mr. Jolassi, the floor is yours.

Tawfik Jelassi: Good morning. Can you hear me? Excellent. Esteemed participants, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I am very pleased to welcome you to the session this morning in the context of the IGF. It’s a session organized by the UNESCO IFAP program, the Information for All program, which is an intergovernmental program of UNESCO running now for more than 23 years. The moderator, Mr. Najib Bokni, has introduced the topic transformative digital inclusion, building a gender-responsive and inclusive framework for the underserved. Let me express our gratitude to our long-term partners, the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, GDIP, and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, IFLAW. We are very delighted to be together for this important event. I would like also to acknowledge the contribution of the National Commission of Saudi Arabia to UNESCO and to its Secretary General, His Excellency Mr. Ahmed Belhit. Let me say that the topic is very important for us because it is at the heart of the UNESCO mandate of digital technologies for a better world, for societal inclusion, for bridging divides that exist today, and I would like here to highlight briefly three key points. The first one, IFAP has published last year its strategic plan for the period 2000-2009, and the aim of this strategic plan is to address our digital era. I mentioned some of these challenges bridging the digital divide, which is not only a digital divide, it is also an information divide, it is also an education divide, it is also a knowledge divide. Second, promoting inclusion for women and girls, for also people living with disabilities and for rural communities, and therefore to ensure that individuals can create and access digital and AI-driven content in their local language. So multilingualism, linguistic diversity online are among the top topics that we try to address. In this context, I want to inform you, in case you are not aware of it, UNESCO has been in charge of delivering the United Nations International Decade for Indigenous Languages. This decade started a couple of years ago and will run until 2032. This is one of the efforts of promoting local languages and indigenous languages, many of which have been in danger of extinction. We believe that by addressing inequality communities, both between countries and within countries and communities, IFAP can contribute to building an inclusive, equitable and sustainable knowledge society. The second point I would like to highlight is regarding the role and the contribution that emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, generative AI and quantum computing, the role and contribution that these technologies can make, of course, for people, for individuals, for society. And here we want to promote the digital knowledge-based information by harnessing the new capabilities that these new technologies offer us. We are aware also of the risks and the dangers of these new powerful technologies, in particular generative AI, and we are trying to tackle the related risk. In this context, I want to remind you of a landmark contribution of UNESCO, the 2021 UNESCO Global Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. The work for this recommendation started back in 2018, way before the advent of chat GPT and generative AI. The third key point I would like to highlight is the crucial importance of partnerships. We are here with GDIP, we are here with IFLA, but we also recognized the dynamic coalitions that we have, one on public access in libraries, the other dynamic coalition on measuring digital inclusion. So we believe that technology is global, issues are borderless, and therefore to have such dynamic coalitions and such partnership makes a lot of sense in order to have to join forces, to join hands and to collectively tackle these important issues. In this context, I invite governments, academia, research institutions, civil society organizations and the technical community, in addition to private sectors, of course, to join us in advancing digital inclusion worldwide so we can create meaningful impacts that leave no one behind. Let me mention some statistics that many of you are, if not all of you, are aware of. Today we have 2.6 billion people who are still off-line. That is, of course, a huge number, and that’s a big challenge that we need all to tackle through meaningful connectivity, especially in less developed countries worldwide. And let me say also that we have 1.2 billion people with disabilities, and obviously we have to cater to these communities. We need to ensure inclusivity through digital, and we have to address and take into account the specificities of persons with disabilities. A recent survey from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, a survey conducted with over 6,000 women in India, Mozambique, Nigeria and the Philippines, revealed the significant barriers they face, the significant barriers that women face in achieving inclusion. connectivity, such as the lack of affordable Internet connectivity or the lack of high-speed connection to suitable online services. IFAP also works on these issues, and again, with the collaboration I mentioned, we are trying to come up with solutions. And here let me mention maybe three brief use cases. The first one is in India, where an IFAP project empowered 265 rural women with digital skills through the Swarm Lumban program. In Georgia, 60 women, including many Ukrainian refugees, went through a targeted training to master digital technologies. In Iran, women participants in an IFAP training now proficiently use digital tools offered to them for inclusive role in society. So digital technologies can, of course, transform lives, can also make users more successful in whatever they do through what we offer them. Yet many women and girls in marginalized communities still lack the connectivity, and this, of course, exacerbates inequalities. So I hope this gives you an idea about some of the initiatives that IFAP program at UNESCO has been working on, whether by itself or through partnerships, like the couple of partnerships I mentioned and the dynamic coalitions. I would like to end with a call to continue building together an inclusive, not only information society, but hopefully a knowledge society, where everyone, regardless of nationality, regardless of gender, regardless of circumstances or ability, can thrive in the digital era. Thank you very much.

Najib Mokni: Thank you very much, Dr. Jelassi, for the key messages chaired regarding the response. to today’s challenges and for this call for all parties to continue to empower member states and stakeholders in developing policy for inclusive, equitable and sustainable knowledge societies and also for reiterating this commitment to partnerships. So now let’s hear from our experts. We have nine speakers. We have four on site and five online. I’ll introduce five of them and ask them one by one to share their thoughts and experiences on the strategy, actions, work plans and synergies among these dynamic coalitions and exchange on methodologies, results and good practices for measuring and enhancing digital inclusion and participation of women and girls and their servants and on exploring the multiple implications of frontier digital technologies on women and girls empowerment and building an inclusive digital inclusion framework. Let’s start with our first speaker, Mr. Alexander Barbosa, who is the Managing Director of CETIC. Mr. Alexander Barbosa is the Head of the Regional Centre for Studies on the Development of the Information Society CETIC under the auspice of UNESCO, based in Sao Paulo, Brazil. He is responsible for managing research projects for the production of ICT-related statistics on the access to and use of ICTs in different segments of society. Mr. Barbosa, you have the floor. You have five minutes.

Alexandre Barbosa: Thank you very much, Najib, and good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to be here and thank UNESCO for inviting me to speak in this interesting dynamic coalition. Well, let me say that to advance human rights, especially the inclusion and digital inclusion and bridging the gap of women’s digital age, it is important to mention that we need to discuss connectivity beyond the binary concept of being or not being connected. We need a broader, a more comprehensive approach to fully understand and address the opportunities and challenges of digital inclusion and the realization of human rights online. And this concept that I want to bring to your attention today is called meaningful connectivity. And I guess that most of you here in this room have probably seen the launch of the revised Internet Universality Indicators, the IOI and the ROMEX framework from UNESCO. And this second generation of IOI has updated to reflect evolving priorities in the digital age, including the critical concept of meaningful connectivity. So I invite all of you to know this new series of IOI. And being connected, as I have said, is no longer sufficient to guarantee that individuals can reap the benefits of the Internet. We need to go to a broader concept that truly means to be represented, truly to be included in the digital age. And meaningful connectivity requires us to adopt a multidimensional perspective that considers not only Internet access, but also the quality, affordability and contextual opportunities for women in the digital age and their engagement in this new environment. And the dimensions that I draw your attention to are at least four key dimensions. The type of device that we are using to connect, the quality of connection, meaning the speed, the availability, the stability. of the connection, the financial affordability, and the availability of digital inclusion to measure the conditions of digital inclusion of the population and for development of effective public policies. And this holistic approach allows us to measure the actual conditions of digital inclusion and in turn design and implement public policies that ensure no one is left behind in the digital transformation process. We in Brazil did build on the work of the A4AI and the ITU to develop an analytical and conceptual framework that refines and expand the concept of meaningful connectivity to better address these pressing challenges, especially the gender gap. And to illustrate the importance of meaningful connectivity, let me share some findings of our last report that we published and that serve as a basis for the G20 recommendation for the G20 countries in terms of meaningful connectivity. When you look at the Brazilian situation, we have almost universal connectivity, being 90% of Brazilians as internet users, but this proportion drops down dramatically to only 22% of the population when we apply this concept of meaningful connectivity. And this finding, this report, exposed the deep inequalities in the country that were hidden or underestimated when measuring connectivity solely through the concept of being connected or not connected. I’m not going into the details, but just to illustrate the… gender inequalities, we have 28% of men having meaningful connectivity and only 17% of women having this full connectivity, highlighting a significant digital gender gap. And when you look at the numbers without this concept, we have 50 and 50. It’s very equal, but when you go deep into more detailed dimensions, there is a big issue. And these extreme inequalities have profound implications for human rights as they exacerbate social, economic and digital divides and this limited meaningful connectivity directly impacts vulnerable population, while also marginalising their voice in the digital age. To conclude, this concept that I brought to you, to your attention, of meaningful connectivity, is a critical tool for advancing human rights and the digital inclusion in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. It provides a clear evidence framework for understanding and addressing the conditions that determine true digital inclusion. By uncovering hidden disparities and guiding the development of target effective policies, meaningful connectivity ensures that all individuals, regardless of gender, age, socio-economic status or geographic location, can fully participate in and benefit from the opportunities brought by the digital transformation. Promote meaningful connectivity is not just a matter of technology, but equity, dignity and human rights. It is a fundamental enabler of social and economic developing, empowering individuals and mainly women to access education, employment, healthcare, and civic participations in meaningful ways. As such, policies and initiatives to bridge the digital gaps must be grounded in principles of meaningful connectivities, ensuring that Internet becomes a tool for advancing human rights, equity, and opportunity for all. And last, just to mention the UNESCO work, by integrating meaningful connectivity alongside themes such as governance of digital platforms, privacy, and children’s rights, the data the UNESCO EUI ensures a more comprehensive assessment of the digital inclusion. So those are my main contributions to this debate. Thank you.

Najib Mokni: Thank you so much, Dr. Barbosa, for those important elements and information shared regarding this very important initiative and the meaningful connectivity. We will have the chance and give the chance to the audience to ask questions and interact with you at the Q&A session. Now I’ll move with our next speaker, who is Dr. Abdallah Al-Hawass, the head of the ITHRA library. During his time at ITHRA, he has managed key components of mega-projects and led multiple cultural programs, both nationally and internationally, all of which aimed to provide cross-cultural engagement aligned with Saudi Arabia’s vision to 2030. Al-Hawass also served as the project manager of ITHRA participation in international book fairs to position ITHRA among global cultural institutions, project manager of ITHRA content initiative, director of the cultural program of the Eastern Book Fair 2023, and Dr. Abdallah Hawass intervention will be on empowering communities through equal access and digital inclusion and how Ithra Library contributes in digital inclusion and gender equality. Dr. Al-Hawass, you have five minutes.

Abdullah AI-Hawas: Thank you for the nice introduction. First, I would like to welcome you all here in our country. We are really pleased to have you all here in Riyadh city, the ambitious and the great city. It’s nice always to interact with people with different cultures. So I hope you are enjoying your staying here in Riyadh. So I have five minutes, so I have to run. So I will share my experience, our experience in Ithra Center and the empowerment communities through equal and digital inclusion. So first of all, let me just give you who are we. We are a cultural center. We have different components that serve the community as per the field of culture. We have a theater, we have archive, museum, cinema, idea labs for innovation and creativity. And of course, we have the library. The center is located in Bahrain, which is almost 400 kilometers from Riyadh city. Here, this is our library, Ithra Library. So I am sharing with you the experience and what we are doing here in the library in terms of the gender equity and inclusivity. So Ithra Library was selected as one of the top four modern library as per IFLA in 2022. We have a vibrant space to attract people, to be a friend with the library. We are not just books on shelves. know we are bigger than this, so we’re trying to have this access and this concept to all of our visitors to like the library. We have different goals. First of all to increase the love of reading and make it a habit and also contribute to improving the community by empowering them to come and use the spaces to share their ideas and make their activities. Also to support the cultural need for community members. Okay, this is our library. We have five different, let’s say, levels. Back of house and we have second level for children and floor and children literacy and multimedia. We have social floor and nonfiction collection and we have the fifth level which is about research and reference floor. This is just a glimpse of our levels. This is the for children literacy and multimedia section and second level. We have this the social floor and fiction books. Here where we are hosting different communities to activate and to meet and to interact with each other. Also we have the level four for nonfiction collection and also for the level five for research and reference floor. So how Ifrah Library contributes in digital inclusion and gender equality and through the vision of Saudi Arabia 2030 and also through UNESCO. So basically our vision is ambitious one and its result you can see it around the city from now. We achieved a lot of targets so far, and yet to achieve the remaining, there are more than 90 targets. But here I put the target that’s related to the library fields, three main pillars, which is developing administrative and operational efficiency, enhancing the community participation, and developing the library sector, planning, developing standard and system, and financing and investment, and developing cadres. So what we are seeing here, this is where we interact or interfacing with 2030 vision. The red one, we are contributing this directly through Ithra Library, improving access to library service, raising information awareness and promoting reader habits, activating libraries as center for education, culture, and community development, and support the digital transformation of library services. Here where we are also interact with the 2030 vision in equity, where the promoting women’s participation in the workforce, offering equal opportunity in labor market, and engaging and empowering women, improving digital literacy and education, policy and legal reforms, public private partnership, and also awareness and advocacy. And here where we are also interfacing with UNESCO and the sustainable development goals, we have four shared goals in quality education and achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls, also sustainable cities and communities, and last life and land. So we are trying to contribute and achieve those targets either in 2030 vision of Saudi Arabia or sustainable development in UNESCO. achieving that? This is part of our effort. First, we’re introducing digital library. We have now over 55,000 books and more than 7,000 digital magazines and newspapers. It’s free of access. Anyone has an email can freely see all of these titles in English and Arabic anywhere in the world. If you have an email, then you have this plenty of books you can access. This is where we’re trying to put the culture and digitalize the books among our community. We started in 2019 with low numbers. Once COVID came, we think it will be raised and go down, but that wasn’t the case because every year it’s getting better and increased. Until now, we have more than 3,000 active users with more than 25,000 checkouts, which is exploring the books. This keeps increasing with time. Also, we have access for all. There is free internet access, Wi-Fi. We have also free printing, mobile device charging, developing accessibility. We have the sign language for people with disability. We have more than 3,000 titles for Braille books. We have also our staff can serve the people with disability either with sign language and with the signage with Braille writing. Also, this is kind of our services. We either come back shelving, self-checkout machines, and also smart screen if you don’t need to interact with a human being. Also, we have the computers is disputed among the library with free access. We have smart book return system and also multi-purpose room. If you enter the library, you need to conduct a meeting. If you just enter the library, you can get these services for free. Also, we have the quality education. We have more than 60% which are females that are trying to access books, either physical or digital. Also, we have trained more than 1,000 female undergrad students. They come and use their internship in our library for every semester. All of them are girls and women because we don’t have in the city for college for males. Also, we have here also achieve gender equality and empower all women girls. 65% of our women and we have also many of leaders from girls and women. Also we have representing Ithra Library at local and global cultural event to support this idea and cause and concept leading the library programs by our female staff in different stages through the planning development and also we have the sustainable cities and communication. We always open the doors for any activities that are related to culture. We have more than 30 reading clubs that we host in over the different years. They can come and discuss their books. It’s open for them. They can utilize any space that they like and also 50% of this reading clubs are from females. Also we have the in life and land we have lots an initiative if we call it reading marathon. We conducted every year in January with different libraries on a time in Arab world that if you read come you if you come to the library and read 100 pages Ithra will plant a tree for you. This is part to make our land green and this is part of our crown of initiative to make the Saudi green. So we are contributing in the land and make the life better by reading and reflecting this in the environment. Okay we have also safe space for cultural activities. This type of activities it is free for all ages for all genders reading club, certain book fair. We have reading competition. We have good to be exhibition where we people can exchange their books with other books freely. We have different book signing for global and and also a local author in the picture, which is the Nobel Prize winner, Mrs. Olga. Also we have pottery night all the time. Also this is part of our initiative to make the new generation to like and love the reading. We have something called iRead program, which is designed to be a competition starting from Saudi then from 2022. It’s spread to include all the Arab countries. We have more than 100,000 applicants this year. 10 of them was the finalists to win the title of Reader of the Year. As you see, nine of the finalists were females and one is male. Sometimes the women and girls are better than males in this kind of competitions and especially in reading. So by these all of activities giving the access, we think that Ithra is always trying to bridging the gap in terms of the accessibility and inclusivity and also the gender equality. Thank you. I’m sorry for taking too much time.

Najib Mokni: Thank you so much for this brilliant presentation, Dr. Al-Hawass, and I think this is very important to share the efforts of Ithra Library and it could be very, I mean, inspirational for many of our partners present at Ithra. I will move to our next expert, which is Dr. Sarah Cadu. Mr. Sarah is the Dean and Senior Lecturer, East African School of Library and Information Science, Macquarie. University, Uganda. Dr. Kadu is information coordinator of IFLA Sub-Saharan Africa Regional Division Committee, and she is also the co-chair of International Steering Committee of UNESCO. The title of the presentation of Dr. Kadu is IFLA and Gender-Inclusive Digital Transformation in Uganda, a call for action. You have the floor, madam, with five minutes, if you could,

Sarah Birungi Kaddu: Thank you so much, moderator, colleagues. Good day to you all. My presentation is the Gender-Inclusive Digital Transformation in Uganda, and I will end the presentation by a call to action. So throughout the presentation, I will highlight the importance of digital inclusion. I will also look at the challenges and propose a framework that ensures that no one is left behind, especially the women and the underserved communities. So as we may all be aware, the digital age presents immense opportunities for development. However, not everyone has equal access to these opportunities, and so that is why I bring to a case study from one of the rural communities in Uganda. So the current state of digital inclusion in rural Uganda is that 29% of Ugandans are having access to internet, and the majority of them reside in rural communities, and many of them are underserved. And this comes with a lot of challenges. For instance, there is poor infrastructure. and limited connectivity, high cost of devices and Internet services and of course lack of digital literacy and this also is causing a gender gap as has been earlier on narrated too from our keynote speech. I bring to you, ladies and gentlemen, a case study from one of the rural communities by the name of Nakaseke. Nakaseke is in Nakaseke district where there is a very vibrant public library that started as a community library but later on taken on by the state. It has about 26,000 people and 75% are small scale farmers including women and youth. There are lots of digital inclusion initiatives going on in this village. For instance, it’s a hub for digital inclusion pilot projects. There are also community based digital literacy programs for women in technology, Uganda and also initiatives by the National Library of Uganda and others and also the government through the Rural Communication Development Fund has facilitated ICT access to enable women and youth to connect online their businesses and also tap into the opportunities that online transactions come along with. Now why then do we have to think of a gender responsive framework? Earlier on I’ve just shared that there are a lot of initiatives in one of these rural areas, Nakaseke, but why should we now think of a gender responsive framework? It’s because many of these initiatives are in the rural areas. in existence, but none of them comes with a clear digital inclusion framework. So my proposal for a gender-responsive framework has three main objectives. One, promote the principle of equity, and two, to address gender disparities in access to digital tools and resources, and three, to enhance society development. So the proposal, in the interest of time, has three major components. One, I’m proposing to have a policy and regulation, whereby policies, particularly, I emphasize gender-sensitive policies, and also the second one, the infrastructure, whereby you need to have universal connectivity and affordable technologies, and three, the policy should have a component on education and training to be able to address the digital literacy programs that we’ve just seen a challenge. So my call to action, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, I know by now we all agree that there is a need for a gender-responsive and inclusive framework that can bridge the digital divide and empower all citizens, and of course, leaving no one behind. So I’m therefore, in conclusion, asking us to adopt the IC approach to this digital inclusion approach that I’m proposing. One, invest in digital infrastructure, two, encourage collaboration among government, private sector, and mostly IFLA, UNESCO, and all other parties present in the room, and actively involve women and underserved communities in digital initiatives. and finally, to encourage progressive policies such as tax regimes that lower costs of connectivity, adult education and female education. I thank you. Shukran.

Najib Mokni: Shukran. Thank you so much, Dr. Kadu, for the brilliant presentation and thank you for this call of action and this approach suggested to partners coming and based on the experience of Uganda. Thank you so much. Our next guest and speaker is Dr. and Professor Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy. I think I pronounced it right, huh? Okay, so quickly, Professor Ashenewi, she’s a professor at Cairo University. Dr. Negwa has more than 20 years experience in developing strategies and policies related to ICT sector and digitization. She also has experience in conducting studies, setting methodologies, producing statistics and indicators to evaluate and assess the ICT sector performance and its impact on the economic development. An active member in ICT Digital Economy International and Academic Experts Group, she conducted the research policy papers in the areas of ICT and digitalization. Professor Ashenewi, you have five minutes for your presentation.

Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy: Good afternoon. Thank you so much, Monji, and I would like first to take this opportunity to thank the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for their hospitality and for their excellent organization for the IGF 2024 and I would also like to thank UNESCO and my dear Alex, my dear friend, for really giving me this opportunity and share with you my experience in the digital inclusion as well as share with you some substance from a recent study I conducted titled Digitization Innovation Tools for Women Empowerment, the Case of Egypt. All of us knew that the gender gap has always been a socioeconomic concern everywhere in the world, even with the emergence of the technologies in the last few decades, but still globally this gender-based digital divide still persists. to present day. And according to the ITU figure, the world is slowly moving toward gender parity in Internet user. The percentage of female using the Internet in the year 2024 reached 65% for the female versus 70% of the of the male. And the gender-based digital gap exists everywhere, but to a different extent. But really the countries that suffered at most are the developing and the underdeveloped nation. Among this country, the Arab and the African region, where the digital gender gap reached from 9 to 10% compared to the other region. And also according to the International Labour Organization, the labor force participation for women on a global scale is approximately 49% almost compared to 75% for men. And this means that 25% gap between both genders. The countries during the last decade started to make a progress either by formulating policies or placing focus on how to digitally transform their economies. And this has allowed their societies, including women, to benefit from the opportunity offered by the digital transformation and digital economy. Among this country, Egypt, and digitization and innovation have significantly contributed to empowering women in Egypt, and offering her opportunity in the education, in the entrepreneurship, as well as in the economic participation. And let me share with you some of this substance and how this development are making a difference. For example, for the education. And I really I was proud and they had a great opportunity to initiate and managing. and Functioning, the first ICT for women platform in Egypt. And this is to fulfill the SDGs number five. And this platform really helped the women and girls to access learning and building their digital capacity, especially in the rural and under-served area. Not only this, but also this platform offer other service to the women and girls, among them, all the studies, the recent study conducted in the area of digital inclusion and in the area of ICT and women, we already succeeded to help them to reach these studies and this report, especially the report of the international organization. In addition to this also, we already, I already succeeded to convince the international companies and the local one working in the area of ICT to offer a percentage of jobs for women in the ICT sector in another also, in addition to other services. So as also in addition in the education, other initiative related to the e-learning established by the government in Egypt, which is decent live initiative, which focus also on equipping the women with some tech and digital literacy skills. For the second area, which is entrepreneurship and fostering the entrepreneurship, we have already the marketplace existing in our country. We have the national and the regional one, which help the women to manage their business from home, overcoming traditional barriers like mobility and social restriction. And also in addition to this, I had also some effort and I’m continuing this effort till now to build the capacity of, especially the women entrepreneur. Women entrepreneur, we have. different region, this region are almost, more of them are rural area. And this women entrepreneur, they lack not only digital skills, but they lack also to test the technology, the digital technology. Use this digital technology in order to develop, for example, their Facebook page, or Instagram page, or web page. So I really, I succeeded with some of my colleague and in collaboration with different NGOs in my country, to go to this entrepreneur in their rural area, in their villages, we offer them this type of workshop to help them really to test the technology, to help them to use the technology in order to building their web page, and then sell their product on this web page. In addition to this, as well for the entrepreneurship, we have mobile banking and FinTech innovation, and this is launched by the banking sector and financial institution, which allow the women to easy access to loan and financial tools to support their business. Supporting the employment, one of the important things that digitization has enabled a flexible and remote work option, allowing more women to join the workforce, especially those managing household responsibility. However, after all of this, yes, digitization opened new door and new opportunities for the women and girl in our country, but still the challenge remain existing to reach the gender equity. And for this, my proposal in this study is to, in order to define again these challenges and to focus on these challenges, the first one is related to the digital divide. Access to meaningful connectivity, reliable internet and affordable devices is still limited in some area in our country. Especially, for example, if we, according to the latest statistics and also published by the ITU in Egypt for the internet user, the individual who use internet. net in Egypt, it’s around 71-72%. When it comes to the gender percentage, for the female, it’s around 65 or 66%, and for the male, it’s around 79%. So the gap is big, still big. And when we go to the urban and rural area, the gap is more and more bigger. The second issue is related to employment in ICT sector and occupation that require intensive use of ICT. Women in Egypt really are at a disadvantaged position compared to the men. So this is also one of the great challenges, and I had the opportunity to participate in a study related to this area previously, and I’m planning now to conduct another study in this, because this is very important area, offering ICT jobs for women, especially jobs which use the ICT to an intensive level. This is very important also, not only for our country, but for all countries, whether developed or developing one. The third challenge is related to the cyber security concern as well. The data privacy issue, all of these are significant issues which can hurdle also the women in our country. Last things, which addressing this challenge through targeted policy and initiative can further amplify the impact of digitization and innovation on women empowerment, not only for our country in Egypt, I believe this is for a major country in the Arab region, in the African region, and in other region worldwide. With this, I submit Monje, thank you so much.

Najib Mokni: Thank you so much, Professor, for sharing these key findings from this important study coming from Egypt. So as I said before, how we will to enter, I mean, for the audience to interact with your presentations. I don’t see, Mr. Kossi, I may see no connected Sanhok, that’s, you can confirm? Yes, I confirm. available for this session. So I thank the speakers here present on the stage and I give the floor to my colleague, Sun Hong, to introduce the next speakers. Thank you. Thank you, Najib.

Xianhong Hu: Thanks to all the previous speakers. I heard so much insights, vision and aspirations from you. Now it’s really my great honor to continue the moderation and introduce our online speakers. We are only having 30 minutes. I will do my best and also want to ensure about 10 minutes to open the floor. So for those participants in the room and online, please feel free to prepare your questions and introduce yourself because of the Dynamic Coalition meeting. So we just want to know you more. So now…

Najib Mokni: Sorry, Sun Hong, sorry to interrupt you. Mr. Kosi was here. He was hiding in the room. So welcome, Mr. Kosi. And maybe before going to the online speakers, Sun Hong, could you give me five minutes? Yes, maximum. Also to the presentation of Mr. Amesinu. So Mr. Kosi Amesinu, from the Ministry of Economy and Finance of Benin, the chair of the NGO Women Be Free. He is a civil servant of the Beninese state since 2008 and he has been working since June 2021 at the Ministry of Economy and Finance. He is the current head of the private sector monitoring and support service. He is also the regional director for West Africa at the African ICT Foundation and he is the chair of NGO Women Be Free. Mr. Amesinu, you have the floor. Five minutes for your presentation.

Kossi Amessinou: Thank you for inviting me. Previously, I said to our colleague from UNESCO that I will share only the experience from our process. The statement we do with UNESCO in Benin, according to how to use the Internet Universal Indicators to transform our digital transformation process in our country. For the statement, for example, we put on the table one metric order group, where we have public representatives, private representatives, civil society representatives, and also the research staff, led locally by myself and globally by Professor Alain Kiyendu. And for the collection, data collection locally, I lead the staff with this colleague from different We collect information from all the stakeholders, we analyze the data we collect, we resume, and the government makes validation of each step of the information we collect. After that process, with the government representative, we do a one big validation event, where government provides his input to let the document be very acceptable for him, and also civil society and private sector, all of them provide their input, and we conclude our statement. In this process, we see the gap we have in implementation of digital process for ladies and women. We have more women who don’t have possibility today to attend mathematical study, physical study, and informatics study, technical study globally. They are mostly in literal study. We are working now with government to let them have found support to go through it for technical study now, and for this year, 2024, we have hundreds fellowship in a public university for the people who don’t have money, coming from a family where we don’t have more money to pay for their scholarship in high school. The government pay directly for them. With the support we have some projects, one called SWEDS, is financed by World Bank, but working with government. we finance more of ladies to go to technical high school this year. We will do it next year again and continue to do this process to have more ladies and women in technical area and let them become our champion in how women can be referenced in technical issue area in our country. That is the comment I need to share with you here.

Najib Mokni: Thank you. Thank you so much for this experience shared from Benin based on the IUI and the importance of the assessment based on the IUI indicators of UNESCO to come up with recommendations on gender inclusion. Thank you so much. I give back the floor to my colleague Sun Hong to continue with the next speakers. Thank

Xianhong Hu: you. Yeah, thank you, Najeeb. Thank you, Kosi. Since we only have 25 minutes, I’ll be very fast to introduce our following four wonderful women speakers online. Please forgive me if we don’t have time for open floor. So please do type your comments in the chat. We have online moderator Carmen Ferry from TDIP to moderate online with you as well. So now it’s my great honor to introduce Madam Onika Makwakwa, the Executive Director of the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, TDIP, who is also co-founder of the ITF Dynamic Coalition on the Measuring Digital Inclusion. And Onika, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Onica Makwakwa: Great. Thank you so much and greetings to you all. I will get quickly right to it. It is an honor to join you today for this session. I am going to base my contribution on a summary of a recent report, which Global Digital Inclusion partnership published earlier this year, titled Connected to Resilience, Gendered Experiences of Meaningful Connectivity through a Global Pandemic. This report is a reflection of our shared journey through one of the most transformative global challenges in recent history, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the digital divide that continues to shape the experiences of billions of people around the world, especially women. The pandemic underscored the essential role of the internet. For many, it became a lifeline, a means of staying connected to family, education, work, and healthcare. Yet, this global crisis also revealed the deep inequalities in internet access, exposing how meaningful connectivity is far from universal. We witnessed firsthand how essential internet access had become, but we also saw how many, especially women, were left behind. The digital divide is not just a matter of access to technology, it’s a matter of equity. Despite the rapid acceleration of digital technologies, too many women, particularly in rural and marginalized communities, continue to face significant barriers to connectivity. Whether it’s lack of infrastructure, high cost of internet access and devices, or societal structures that limit their access and agency, these barriers have been amplified in the wake of the pandemic. In our study, we focused on understanding these gendered experiences by gathering insights from over 6,000 women across countries like Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria, and Uganda, as well as engaging policymakers and digital experts from Africa and Asia, where we explored a new research method, which we called policy ethnography. What we found was eye-opening and deeply concerning. Women living in rural areas were three times more likely to lack internet access than their urban counterparts. And those with lower levels of education were significantly less likely to be meaningfully connected. This is a clear indication of how the digital divide intersects with geography, education, and class, creating new layers of inequality. In underserved communities, whether it’s a remote village in India or an impoverished urban settlement in Nigeria, women face compounded challenges. They often lack the infrastructure needed for reliable internet access, face high costs of device and data services, and in many cases, depend on male family members to access devices. Additionally, the unpaid care work that many women shoulder leaves them with little time to acquire digital skills or engage in online activities. Yet, despite these formidable challenges, we also witnessed incredible resilience. Women continue to find creative ways to access the internet for education, employment, and family connections. This resilience is something we must not overlook. It is a testament to the strength and determination of women everywhere. But it is also a call to action for us to do more to ensure that these barriers are broken down and that women are fully included in the digital economy. Our research also offers a glimpse of hope, a pathway forward. If we are to close the digital divide and make meaningful progress, we must center policies that are people-focused and rooted in community consultation. Solutions should not be imposed from the top down, but co-created with communities that are most affected. This is why we propose four actionable tiers of solutions. One. are deep investments. These are substantial targeted investments that can make significant impact on a specific community or issue, driving meaningful change, examples such as better use of universal service and access funds to close digital gender divides. Two is grand visions, long-term transformative initiatives that require substantial funding and years of efforts to bring about systemic change in the digital landscape, such as national broadband plans and key policy strategy documents that can be very clear about closing the gender gaps. Easy wins as the third recommendation, you know, looking at smaller, more targeted interventions that can deliver tangible benefits quickly and build momentum for larger change. An example of this is collecting gender data and actually using it. Scalable systems is the fourth recommendation, you know, programs that take existing structures and systems and scale them to reach a broader audience, creating a lasting impact. You know, multi-stakeholder approaches and gender targets can provide the foundation for processes to scale progress towards closing the gender digital divide. Importantly, no single solution will work for everyone. Each region, each community, and each person has different needs and priorities. That’s why it’s essential that policy makers engage directly with local communities, listen to their experiences, and design strategies that reflect their specific context. Beyond technological development, the advancement of meaningful connectivity also requires building a supportive social environment. This means ensuring that connectivity is affordable, that digital skills are accessible, and that everyone, regardless of gender or geography, has an equal opportunity to benefit from the digital economy. It also means emerging challenges like data protection, online safety, and consumer protection as millions more people come online. The numbers are stuck. If we do not act, the global economic losses from the digital divide could exceed half a trillion dollars in the next five years. The cost of inaction is far too high and the opportunity for change is now. As we look ahead, let us take this moment to reaffirm our commitment to digital inclusion. Let us ensure that women, especially those in marginalized communities, are not left behind as we move forward into a digital future. Together we can create a world where connectivity is not a privilege but a right, a world where everyone everywhere has the tools and opportunities to thrive. Thank you.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you Onika for sharing so extensive work you’ve done on the ground. And for those who like to follow GDIP and the dynamic coalition work, you could always fill the membership submission form as typed in the chat to join us and we’ll keep you updated on our good work. Now I’m very happy to present Dr. Victoria Romaniuk. She is the director of the Moila School of Journalism, the National University of Kiev, Moila in Ukraine. She is also the deputy chief editor of StopFake, a pioneering fact-checking organization. And most importantly, she is also the chair of the UNESCO IFAP Working Group on Information Ethics. So Dr. Romaniuk, the floor is yours.

Viktoriia Romaniuk: Thank you very much. It’s a great honor to be here and share our experience. Among the organizations I represented is fact-checking project StopFake. And today I would like to talk about the disinformation as one of the main threats and very big challenge for all of us. So the use of artificial intelligence in disinformation… information campaign and the manipulation of public opinion has become a significant challenge in spreading false narratives and misleading facts. Today, this is becoming a powerful challenge and an obstacle to access to information for all. The UNESCO report published in this year warns that without a decisive step to integrate ethical principles, artificial intelligence could distort historical data about, for example, the Holocaust, as it often generates false information. It has also been documented that AI enables a malicious actor to manipulate historical context, create fabricated testimonies, and even alter historical records. The issue of promoted manipulative narratives and artificial intelligence-generated fakes has become particularly acute for Ukraine during the full-scale invasion, and the use of artificial intelligence in the context of disinformation can be divided into following formats. First of all, it’s creation of fake content, manipulation of photo, video, and audio, audience analysis and contact adaptation to their needs, and dissemination of disinformation through coordinated inauthentic behavior generated by AI. In the spring of this year, OpenAI discovered five international disinformation campaigns that use generative AI to manipulate public opinion and influence The report mentions that the campaign involves governments, agencies, and private companies from Russia, China, Iran, and Israel. The content posed by this organization focused on the wide range of issues, including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and conflict in Gaza, in India election, and politics in Europe and the United States, and, of course, criticism of the Chinese government. And since the start of full-scale invasion in February 2022, the Ukraine Fact-Checking and Analytical Organization have documented various types of AI during disinformation campaigns in Ukraine. These campaigns are associated with content generation and use the deepfakes, of course. And also, these campaigns were likely to undermine trust in the government and military, creating a crisis in society and intimidating the population and causing distortion, as well as inciting social and political conflict and undermining support for Ukraine. So, among the main narratives that we observe and that we analyze that Ukraine is a failed state, Ukraine is a fascist state, and military support Ukraine, and the narratives that are related to it are trying to undermine military support for Ukraine, and so on, and so on. Such technological disinformation campaigns are aimed at influencing a large group of people and are often used in the context of political and military events, as I mentioned before. And they target… And they target… changes in audience’s behavior. And it’s very, very important for us because disinformation campaign really very, very dangerous and change in audience behavior, distortion of factual knowledge and creation of false perception of reality. And such disinformation campaign post a direct threats to preventing access to trustful and often life critical information for all group of people. And this post a significant threats to the information security of society, especially during the crisis, military conflict, war, election and so on and so on. So it’s extremely important, it’s necessary to build information cooperation and coordinate effort between governments, information organization, international organization and technological company to effectively combat disinformation campaign. It’s important to actively cooperate with technology companies to direct and block, to detect and block disinformation, monitor the activity of bots and fake accounts, spreading manipulative contact and strengthen action within the legal framework. Additionally, it’s essential to investigate, to analyze the sources and sponsor of disinformation campaign to ensure transparency and hold all responsibility parties accountability. And of course, finally, it’s necessary to enhance media literacy skills amongst the audience and rise awareness about artificial intelligence, about disinformation, about different technologies that changes our perception. about reality. So I will conclude here. Thank you very much for the attention and we can continue to discuss if we will have some time.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you Dr. Romanilka for unpacking so much complexities of the disinformation and related issues. Also I enjoyed listening to your solutions you have already accumulated in your past experience. I understand your working group has also a LinkedIn group so if you can share in the chat so our participants can also follow with you on the entire work related to these issues. Thank you. Now I’d like to introduce the next speaker, Madame Maria Cabrera. She is the International Relationship and Development Office Consultant at the Business and Technology University of Georgia and I also take this opportunity to recognize the presence of Madame Ani Sharishvili, also from the University of Georgia in Business and Technology and you have been a wonderful implementing partner of the IFA project we support in your country. So Maria, please take the floor and share your good practice.

Mariam Keburia: Thank you. Thank you so much and warm greetings from Georgia and from our side from Business and Technology University. First of all I would like to on behalf of our team and we are together engaged in this great forum and opportunity to exchange with ideas. First of all we would like to thank you most cordially for welcoming us, Business and Technology University, one of the actors from Georgia to share our perspectives and also to feel much more global than before cooperating with IFA program and before cooperating with our global partners. If I could kind of title our intervention it would be the global reach and local impact. This is the stories that we would like to share with you from Business and Technology University, which is a relatively small institution in Georgia and basically focused on delivering value-driven initiatives, projects in and for local communities. But those local initiatives and the projects or initiatives that are designed for the emerging pressing needs for the local societies, they are also reflected and kind of designed from the global strategies, from the global needs and the perspectives that our partner institutions share through different platforms. And our presence today, being the part of this particular forum and also being the part of the coalition, enables us to follow all those general and much needed and already strategized initiatives that are in place. The experiences and knowledge that you have shared right now from different perspectives, from the people in the audience who are in person and also the representatives across the globe who have shared the common need for empowering those who have less access to technologies, enabling those who would otherwise have less possibilities to upskill, to use meaningfully their technologies. So coming back to the local impact and global reach, I would like to bring to your attention one of the initiatives supported by UNESCO-IFAP in Georgia, and that particular initiative was addressing Ukrainian refugee women in Georgia. One of the beneficiaries of the projects or to say one of the participants target group of the project where Georgian as well as Ukrainian refugees women living in Georgia. That was relatively small scale project, but again it had in mind to increase the meaningful use of technology. technologies and many of our colleagues have beautifully highlighted how important it is to have access to fight against fake news, to have access to the AI tools, to have access to the digital skills and especially and colleagues in person mentioned that it’s important to give such access to grant such access to those who would otherwise not be able to underprivileged so to say. So that was a project that we have completed with participation and with support of UNESCO IFAP program and the learnings and the feedback, the knowledge that we gained allowed us to move further in the next keyword in our intervention would be partnership to move farther and engage more partners and currently we have recently completed one of the larger scale initiatives for the targeting Ukrainian empowering tech empowerment of Ukrainian women in Georgia that was the next phase that was supported in this case with larger stakeholders with larger number of partners in Georgia international partners of course and what is more important to highlight is the project the tech empowerment for Ukrainian women has moved to the next phase even expanding our initiative and expanding opportunities and granting even more skills more courses more tangible outcomes more opportunities to those women who temporarily now have to live in Georgia and have to be away from their homes from Ukraine. One of the highlights that I wanted to bring to your attention is how we have improved after IFAP program that we have completed we have engaged more stakeholders we have engaged more partners because we understood it very clearly what it means to have global agenda, just like similar to today, what it means to translate the global strategies, a global agenda into local initiatives and that’s how our university works and that’s how these similar programs have started to work after sharing the experience that it gives us a great pleasure even to do today and in other cases as well to be a part of the international forum and international communities such as coalitions and various opportunities. We have engaged more participants but also more trainers from Ukraine for example. This time our this particular program that we have transformed and enlarged and kind of covered more participants have brought a feedback loop, have brought the feedback and recommendations from participants, have improved our practices based on the engagement of participants and we have invited more experts and more people from Ukraine on board in order to implement the projects for Ukrainian in much more efficient way. So what is our solution? Our solution and the formula is to follow the global strategies, to be in line with the global strategies that have been designed and have been put in place by high quality experts, to follow, to share, to continue to share the passion that you and the colleagues all share but also and also with the participation of local stakeholders, local experts and those who are well aware of the local complexities to design the local solution. So once again from global reach to local impact that is how IFAP and the international part have enabled us, and that is what we have for the coming next year in our agenda. Thank you so much, and we remain in touch for partnership, for exchange, and for enriching each other’s common goals.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you so much, Mariam. I mean, what you have shared in Georgia, just also telling me that even a local project can deliver such a global impact and also such a sustainability in the country. Thank you. So I think we are really on time, that I just want to give floor to the, sorry, I don’t have time to open floor, but I have to ensure that I’m going to introduce our last speaker, Madame Dorothy Borden, to address some final words. Dorothy has been a board member of UNESCO Institute for Information Technology and Education. She has been a global leading expert in the international development and technology. Of course, she has also been a former chair of IFAB. Dorothy, please take the floor and give some of your final remarks. Thank you again, Dorothy, for your participation.

Dorothy Gordon: Thank you. I do hope we’ll be able to collect some questions because this has been such an enriching session. The first thing that I want to note from all the speakers is that our failure to act in such a way as to bridge the digital divide that we are discussing today has created new problems. Particularly, I highlight the increasing inequality because the face of poverty has always been female. It’s always been people with disabilities. And now our failure to get them effectively online further deepens that poverty. And with frontier technologies such as AI that make it so easy to spread misinformation and fake news, the fact that that huge… number of our population does not understand what is happening, makes that our entire social fabric extremely vulnerable, our democracies extremely vulnerable. And so this is the time, and I’m very pleased that this dynamic coalition has brought together so many partners, this is the time when we absolutely have to collaborate. And we have got experience that shows us which kind of tools we can use, like the internet universality indicators. But many of the speakers stress the importance of measuring, of understanding exactly what is happening in terms of access to the internet. It’s not enough to count how many SIM cards. You have to know what proportion of people in rural areas have meaningful access. And I think that that emphasis on meaningful access actually came through in many of the presentations. I know that we don’t have much time, but I want to emphasize that we can’t, we need comprehensive policy. When it comes to media information literacy, we see that many of the efforts are very piecemeal, they are not coordinated among government agencies. When it comes to addressing digital divide issues, we are not seeing national policies that are rolled out consistently with clear benchmarks. So these things do have to happen. And I really want to end by emphasizing that we can, if we work together, and not just as women, but as men, and as policymakers, as people in the not-for-profit sector, and also people in the private sector. And here, let me just make a side remark. that it’s very important that we encourage the creation of national-level platforms that address these concerns for women. And those platforms should, in my view, comply with our Rome standards. They should be rights-based. They should be open. They should be access. They should give ease of access and they should be multi-stakeholder. That means we have to reduce dependency on major platforms and focus on building our national-level platforms. So, let me end by thanking all of the contributors to this session. It’s been very impressive and I hope that we can continue to build on that by using the IFAP strategic plan and many other international instruments that we have available. Thank you so much.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you. Thank you, Dorothy. You always give us so much spirit of IFAP and refresh our concept. So, that comprehensive is exactly what we are seeking here. So, may I ask to check with our online moderator, Carmen, if there are any burning questions, comments we are still able to handle. And also ask our on-site moderator, Najeeb, if any participants want to take the floor before we conclude. Thank you.

Najib Mokni: Okay. Thank you, Sun Hong. We think we are out of time and we should close now. But we will maybe collect one reaction quickly, if you want. Oh, yeah. And Carmen, anything from online? No, nothing online. Nothing online. Okay, great.

Dorothy Gordon: Can I comment online? Of course. Let me just say that listening to everyone. I felt that one of the things you see, I think, first of all, let me emphasize that every context is different. But I think that we have to look for the entry points that would make women who are not currently online enthusiastic about getting the skills that they need. So it has to be things that relate to their lives, whether it is helping them to understand better how to use online tools for the education of their children, or in my country, where women drive the market, giving them access to the tools to help them with e-commerce. But we have to assume that they have to be persuaded. They are so busy. We cannot afford to waste their time. From their perspective, they need to see how our programs will impact their lives. Thanks.

Xianhong Hu: Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Now I just add one thing, because I think maybe one missing data we didn’t present in this session that we should go beyond the basic data of access connection, and look at really the extent to which women are influencing the development of digital technologies. For example, in the artificial intelligence industry, only 27% of women are involved in AI development. That’s a huge gap. And also not to mention the high level, even near to zero. Then I recently supported new policy research on quantum. Quantum is another new frontier technology, which is going to change everything we’re having here for AI, for internet. Then the gender gap is even worse than anything we’re having now. I think the fundamental question is how we empower women and girls, since they were a child. promote STEM education from the very beginning. It’s really, we need a comprehensive approach. It’s not just to say, in Chinese they say, you cannot cure a headache by just the medicine for the head. You need a systematic solution for that. And that’s exactly where we are here now. Thank you.

Najib Mokni: So thank you so much. We have to close the session. They informed me that we are out of time. So thank you all for your participation. I’m sure that this wonderful discussion will continue among our partners, among the coalition. So let me invite you all for a group photo if you want, please, and I thank you all again and see you very soon.

Xianhong Hu: Thank you so much. Very good idea. I also encourage everybody online, please turn on your camera if you can. And also I’m appealing to our IGF co-host, could you promote everybody to be a co-host so they could turn on their video? And maybe we are already too late to do that. But we are okay to do a screenshot. My colleague Yichen is going to do a screenshot with all the participants online. Then we can do a hybrid picture with those in the room. So that’s the amazing thing of internet. Okay, one, two, three, smile. Very good. Can we leave? Yeah, yes, I think so. And thanks again. Anyway, congratulations on pulling together some excellent speakers. Thank you. Bye. Thank you. Stay in touch, have a good holiday. Yeah. Hi. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Digital divide exacerbating inequalities

Tawfik Jelassi

Onica Makwakwa

Dorothy Gordon

Digital divide exacerbating inequalities

Connected resilience: Gendered experiences of connectivity during pandemic

Rural-urban gap in internet access for women

Multiple speakers emphasized how the digital divide is deepening existing inequalities, particularly affecting women and marginalized communities. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted these disparities.

Need for comprehensive policies and partnerships

Tawfik Jelassi

Onica Makwakwa

Dorothy Gordon

Comprehensive policies and partnerships needed

People-focused policies rooted in community consultation

National-level platforms complying with rights-based standards

Speakers agreed on the necessity of comprehensive, collaborative approaches to digital inclusion, emphasizing community involvement and rights-based standards.

Importance of measuring digital inclusion beyond basic access

Alexandre Barbosa

Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy

Kossi Amessinou

Multidimensional approach to measure meaningful connectivity

Gender-disaggregated data on internet access and use

Internet Universality Indicators to assess digital transformation

Speakers emphasized the need for more comprehensive metrics to measure digital inclusion, going beyond simple access statistics to include factors like connection quality, affordability, and gender-disaggregated data.

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers highlighted the importance of targeted digital inclusion initiatives for women, emphasizing the need for gender-responsive frameworks and localized approaches.

Sarah Birungi Kaddu

Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy

Mariam Keburia

Gender-responsive framework for digital inclusion

Digitization tools for women’s empowerment in Egypt

Local digital inclusion initiatives for refugee women in Georgia

Both speakers emphasized the importance of education and skill development, particularly for women and girls, to address challenges in the digital sphere.

Viktoriia Romaniuk

Xianhong Hu

Enhancing media literacy skills to combat disinformation

Promoting STEM education for girls from early age

Unexpected Consensus

Libraries as hubs for digital inclusion

Abdullah AI-Hawas

Dorothy Gordon

Libraries as hubs for digital inclusion and gender equality

National-level platforms complying with rights-based standards

While coming from different perspectives, both speakers highlighted the importance of local, accessible platforms for digital inclusion. AI-Hawas focused on libraries, while Gordon advocated for national-level platforms, but both emphasized the need for community-based, rights-compliant spaces for digital access and learning.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the severity of the digital divide, particularly its impact on women and marginalized communities. There was consensus on the need for comprehensive, gender-responsive policies, improved measurement of digital inclusion, and the importance of local and community-based initiatives.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core issues, with speakers offering complementary perspectives and solutions. This strong agreement suggests a clear direction for future policy and research in digital inclusion, emphasizing gender-responsive, community-centered approaches and more nuanced measurement of digital access and use.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to measuring digital inclusion

Alexandre Barbosa

Kossi Amessinou

Multidimensional approach to measure meaningful connectivity

Internet Universality Indicators to assess digital transformation

While both speakers advocate for comprehensive measurement frameworks, Barbosa emphasizes a multidimensional approach focusing on factors like connection quality and affordability, while Amessinou promotes the use of Internet Universality Indicators for assessment.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were subtle and primarily focused on different approaches to measuring and addressing digital inclusion, rather than fundamental disagreements on goals or principles.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers was relatively low. Most speakers shared similar overarching goals related to digital inclusion and gender equality, with differences mainly in specific approaches or areas of focus. This low level of disagreement suggests a general consensus on the importance of digital inclusion and the need for targeted efforts to address gender disparities in digital access and skills.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need for targeted policies to address digital inclusion for women, but Makwakwa emphasizes community consultation and co-creation of solutions, while Kaddu focuses on a broader gender-responsive framework at the national level.

Onica Makwakwa

Sarah Birungi Kaddu

People-focused policies rooted in community consultation

Gender-responsive framework for digital inclusion

Similar Viewpoints

These speakers highlighted the importance of targeted digital inclusion initiatives for women, emphasizing the need for gender-responsive frameworks and localized approaches.

Sarah Birungi Kaddu

Nagwa Ebrahim Elshenawy

Mariam Keburia

Gender-responsive framework for digital inclusion

Digitization tools for women’s empowerment in Egypt

Local digital inclusion initiatives for refugee women in Georgia

Both speakers emphasized the importance of education and skill development, particularly for women and girls, to address challenges in the digital sphere.

Viktoriia Romaniuk

Xianhong Hu

Enhancing media literacy skills to combat disinformation

Promoting STEM education for girls from early age

Key Takeaways

Digital inclusion requires a comprehensive approach beyond binary access, focusing on meaningful connectivity

Libraries and community centers play an important role in promoting digital inclusion and gender equality

Gender-responsive frameworks and policies are needed to address the digital divide

Disinformation and AI-generated fake content pose significant challenges to information access and digital literacy

Local initiatives tailored to specific community needs can have significant impact on digital inclusion

Measuring digital inclusion requires multidimensional approaches and gender-disaggregated data

Resolutions and Action Items

Adopt the Internet Universality Indicators to assess digital transformation progress

Implement comprehensive national policies for media and information literacy

Create national-level digital platforms complying with rights-based standards

Promote STEM education for girls from an early age

Increase efforts to involve women in AI and frontier technology development

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively reach and persuade women who are not currently online to gain digital skills

Addressing the significant underrepresentation of women in AI and quantum technology development

Balancing the need for global strategies with localized solutions for digital inclusion

How to sustainably fund large-scale digital inclusion initiatives in developing countries

Suggested Compromises

Combining global reach strategies with locally-tailored implementation of digital inclusion programs

Balancing investment in infrastructure with digital skills training and content development

Engaging both public and private sector stakeholders in digital inclusion efforts

To advance human rights, especially the inclusion and digital inclusion and bridging the gap of women’s digital age, it is important to mention that we need to discuss connectivity beyond the binary concept of being or not being connected. We need a broader, a more comprehensive approach to fully understand and address the opportunities and challenges of digital inclusion and the realization of human rights online.

speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

reason

This comment introduces the important concept of ‘meaningful connectivity’ beyond simple binary access, pushing the discussion to consider quality and context of connectivity.

impact

It shifted the conversation from basic access metrics to a more nuanced understanding of digital inclusion, influencing subsequent speakers to address qualitative aspects of connectivity.

We have more than 60% which are females that are trying to access books, either physical or digital. Also, we have trained more than 1,000 female undergrad students. They come and use their internship in our library for every semester.

speaker

Abdullah AI-Hawas

reason

This provides concrete examples of efforts to promote gender equality in digital and information access, offering a practical perspective on implementation.

impact

It grounded the discussion in real-world initiatives, prompting other speakers to share specific examples from their contexts.

Women living in rural areas were three times more likely to lack internet access than their urban counterparts. And those with lower levels of education were significantly less likely to be meaningfully connected.

speaker

Onica Makwakwa

reason

This highlights the intersectionality of digital exclusion, showing how gender, geography, and education compound inequalities.

impact

It deepened the analysis by introducing multiple dimensions of exclusion, leading to more complex discussions about targeted interventions.

The issue of promoted manipulative narratives and artificial intelligence-generated fakes has become particularly acute for Ukraine during the full-scale invasion, and the use of artificial intelligence in the context of disinformation can be divided into following formats.

speaker

Viktoriia Romaniuk

reason

This comment introduces the critical issue of AI-generated disinformation, particularly in conflict situations, adding a new dimension to the digital inclusion discussion.

impact

It broadened the scope of the conversation to include information integrity and security aspects of digital inclusion, especially for vulnerable populations.

Our solution and the formula is to follow the global strategies, to be in line with the global strategies that have been designed and have been put in place by high quality experts, to follow, to share, to continue to share the passion that you and the colleagues all share but also and also with the participation of local stakeholders, local experts and those who are well aware of the local complexities to design the local solution.

speaker

Mariam Keburia

reason

This comment synthesizes a key approach of combining global strategies with local implementation, bridging high-level policy with on-the-ground realities.

impact

It provided a framework for thinking about implementation that resonated with other speakers, encouraging discussion of how to adapt global principles to local contexts.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by expanding the concept of digital inclusion beyond simple access to encompass meaningful connectivity, gender-specific challenges, rural-urban divides, the threat of AI-generated disinformation, and the importance of combining global strategies with local implementation. The discussion evolved from general principles to specific examples and challenges, ultimately presenting a multi-faceted view of digital inclusion that considers access, quality, gender, geography, education, information integrity, and the need for tailored local solutions within a global framework.

How can we better measure and understand meaningful connectivity, especially for women and underserved communities?

speaker

Alexandre Barbosa

explanation

Barbosa emphasized the need to go beyond binary measures of connectivity to understand the quality, affordability, and contextual opportunities for internet access. This is important for developing effective policies to bridge the digital divide.

What strategies can be implemented to increase women’s participation in STEM fields, particularly in emerging technologies like AI and quantum computing?

speaker

Xianhong Hu

explanation

Hu highlighted the significant gender gap in AI and quantum technology development, suggesting a need for comprehensive approaches to empower women in these fields from an early age.

How can we create more gender-responsive and inclusive frameworks for digital inclusion in rural and underserved areas?

speaker

Sarah Birungi Kaddu

explanation

Kaddu presented a case study from rural Uganda and called for action to develop frameworks that address gender disparities in access to digital tools and resources.

What are effective strategies to combat AI-generated disinformation campaigns, particularly those targeting women and vulnerable populations?

speaker

Viktoriia Romaniuk

explanation

Romaniuk discussed the growing threat of AI-generated disinformation and emphasized the need for coordinated efforts to detect, block, and counter such campaigns.

How can we design digital inclusion initiatives that are more relevant and persuasive to women’s daily lives and needs?

speaker

Dorothy Gordon

explanation

Gordon stressed the importance of creating programs that directly relate to women’s lives and demonstrate clear benefits, such as tools for children’s education or e-commerce for market traders.

What are effective ways to scale up successful local digital inclusion projects to have broader impact?

speaker

Mariam Keburia

explanation

Keburia shared experiences from local projects in Georgia and suggested the need to explore how such initiatives can be expanded and replicated in other contexts.

Summary

This discussion focused on addressing connectivity challenges in developing regions, particularly in South Asia and Africa. Experts highlighted the significant digital divide, with billions still offline globally. Key challenges identified included infrastructure gaps, affordability issues, and lack of digital literacy. Participants emphasized the need for innovative technologies and policies to expand access, especially in rural and underserved areas.

The discussion explored various strategies to improve connectivity. These included prioritizing bandwidth, promoting passive infrastructure sharing, leveraging satellite technologies, and adopting flexible licensing regimes. Experts stressed the importance of public-private partnerships and regional cooperation in driving progress. The role of universal service funds in subsidizing connectivity for underserved areas was highlighted, though concerns about their effective utilization were raised.

Capacity building emerged as a crucial factor, with speakers emphasizing the need to develop local technical skills and digital literacy. The potential of community networks and open technologies like Open RAN to reduce costs and foster innovation was discussed. Regulatory challenges were addressed, with calls for more adaptive frameworks to encourage new entrants and business models.

The discussion concluded by emphasizing the shared responsibility of stakeholders in promoting adaptive policies, targeted investments, and collaborative efforts to achieve universal internet access. Participants agreed on the need for continued dialogue and action to bridge the digital divide and ensure inclusive connectivity.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The current state of connectivity and challenges in developing regions, particularly South Asia

– Policy frameworks and regulatory measures needed to enhance connectivity

– Innovative technologies and partnerships that can help address connectivity challenges

– The role of capacity building and digital literacy in bridging the digital divide

– The importance of collaboration between governments, private sector, and civil society

Overall purpose/goal:

The purpose of this discussion was to explore challenges affecting connectivity in the developing world and identify actionable strategies to improve internet access and digital inclusion, particularly in underserved areas.

Tone:

The tone of the discussion was largely informative and collaborative. Speakers shared insights and experiences from their respective regions and areas of expertise in a constructive manner. There was a sense of urgency about addressing connectivity challenges, but the overall tone remained optimistic about potential solutions through policy reforms, technological innovation, and multi-stakeholder partnerships. The tone became slightly more critical when discussing regulatory barriers or lack of progress in certain areas, but remained solution-oriented throughout.

Speakers

– Omar Ansari: Digital Leap South Asia Project Lead at APNIC Foundation, Moderator

– Mahesh Uppal: Director of Comfors Private Limited, Digital leader and consultant to regulatory authorities in India

– Jimson Olufuye: Chair of the Africa ICT Alliance advisory council, Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited

– Mohamed Shareef: Former Minister of Communications in Maldives, now in private sector

– Maria Beebe: Consultant IDG, Asia Open RAN Academy

– Syed Mohammad Shariar Jawed: Senior ICT Specialist, Economic Infrastructure at the Islamic Development Bank

– Shernon Osepa: Telecom and Internet Operations and Policy Strategist, Strategic advisor with the Caribbean Telecommunication Union

Additional speakers:

– Mirvez Khan: Works with a leading telecom company in Afghanistan

– Elisa: From Vietnam but based in Germany

– Nanjing Youth Development Center student

– Ajmal Amiri: Raised question about cyber awareness

Expanded Summary of Connectivity Discussion

Introduction

This discussion focused on addressing connectivity challenges in developing regions, particularly in South Asia and Africa. Experts from various backgrounds, including regulatory consultants, government officials, and development specialists, convened to explore strategies for improving internet access and digital inclusion in underserved areas. The dialogue highlighted the significant digital divide that persists globally, with billions still offline, and emphasised the urgent need for innovative solutions to bridge this gap.

The session began with an introduction to the Digital Leap South Asia Project, which aims to address key policy questions related to digital transformation in the region. These questions include how to leverage digital technologies for economic growth, improve digital infrastructure, and enhance digital skills and literacy.

Current State of Connectivity and Challenges

Omar Ansari provided specific connectivity statistics for South Asian countries, highlighting the disparities in internet penetration across the region. The discussion emphasized the importance of looking beyond headline statistics to understand the true state of connectivity, as official figures often overestimate actual internet penetration due to multiple accounts per user.

Jimson Olufuye, representing the Africa ICT Alliance, highlighted the economic significance of improved connectivity, noting that a 10% increase in internet penetration could yield up to an 8.2% increase in GDP per capita. This statistic provided a compelling economic rationale for investing in digital infrastructure and access.

Speakers identified several key challenges hindering connectivity in developing regions:

1. Infrastructure gaps, particularly in rural and geographically isolated areas

2. Affordability issues, especially concerning smartphones

3. Lack of digital literacy and technical skills

4. Insufficient institutional capacity and feasibility studies for connectivity projects

5. High government fees and aging subsea cable infrastructure in regions like the Caribbean

Mirvez Khan, an audience member, highlighted specific challenges in Afghanistan, including limited internet access, high costs, and the need for improved infrastructure and digital literacy programs.

Mohamed Shareef, former Minister of Communications in Maldives, emphasised the unique challenges faced by island nations, where prioritising bandwidth is crucial for connecting dispersed populations.

Policy Frameworks and Regulatory Measures

The discussion highlighted the need for adaptive policy frameworks and regulatory measures to enhance connectivity. Key points included:

1. Focus on disaggregated connectivity solutions and meaningful connectivity

2. Multi-stakeholder engagement and collaborative frameworks

3. Liberal and collaborative regulatory environment

4. Integration of capacity building into national ICT policies

5. Country-driven understanding and tailored solutions

6. Regional coordination, especially in areas like the Caribbean

Innovative Technologies and Partnerships

The discussion explored various technological solutions and partnership models to improve connectivity:

1. TV white spaces and IPv6 for enhancing connectivity in underserved areas

2. Open RAN technology for interoperability and cost reduction

3. Public-private partnerships, as exemplified in Maldives

4. Satellite technologies for reaching remote areas

5. Community networks for extending connectivity to underserved communities

6. Energy-efficient technologies for sustainable connectivity solutions

Syed Mohammad Shariar Jawed from the Islamic Development Bank discussed the digital village project in Pakistan, which aims to bring connectivity and digital services to rural areas. Maria Beebe highlighted the Free Internet Wi-Fi Connectivity in Public Places program in the Philippines as an example of expanding access.

Capacity Building and Digital Literacy

Maria Beebe provided a detailed list of critical skill gaps contributing to the digital divide, including digital literacy, technical skills, and infrastructure management. The Asia Open RAN Academy was mentioned as an initiative to address capacity building in the region.

Collaboration and Regional Cooperation

The discussion underscored the importance of collaboration between governments, the private sector, and civil society. Syed Mohammad Shariar Jawed emphasized the Islamic Development Bank’s digital inclusion strategic partnership program. Shernon Osepa highlighted regional cooperation in the Caribbean, focusing on disaster resilience for telecom infrastructure and addressing data sovereignty challenges.

Unresolved Issues and Future Directions

Several issues remained unresolved or required further attention:

1. Effectively addressing smartphone affordability

2. Balancing government regulation with innovation in the telecom sector

3. Connecting geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas

4. Improving the utilisation of Universal Service Funds, as discussed by Jimson

5. Enhancing cyber awareness and security in developing regions, a concern raised by an audience member and addressed by multiple speakers

Conclusion

The discussion provided a comprehensive overview of connectivity challenges in developing regions and explored a range of potential solutions. Key takeaways include the need to address infrastructure, affordability, and digital literacy challenges simultaneously; the importance of flexible policies and public-private partnerships; and the potential of innovative technologies and financing models to provide scalable solutions for digital inclusion. The session underscored the critical role of connectivity in driving economic development and social inclusion, emphasizing the urgency of concerted efforts to ensure universal and meaningful internet access in the digital age.

Omar Ansari: Okay, we can see your channel now. All right. Thank you very much. Good morning. Sabah al-khayr, ladies and gents. My name is Omar Ansari, and I work for the APNIC Foundation as its Digital Leap South Asia Project Lead. According to ITU, approximately 2.6 billion people worldwide are offline. Most of these individuals reside in the developing world, with South Asia accounting for about 57% of the world’s offline population. Thereby, in six of the South Asian economies, around 50% of the population lacks Internet access. Afghanistan, 82%, Pakistan, 54%, Bangladesh, 55%, Sri Lanka, 43%, India, 47%, and Nepal, 48%. Other regions with significant online population include Nigeria, Indonesia, and China. Asia alone harbors around 1.9 billion offline population, making it the most offline regions globally. Some of our participants seem that you can hear us. Okay, now go ahead. APNIC Foundation’s Digital Leap South Asia Project organizes this session to explore the challenges affecting connectivity in the developing world. developing world and explore actionable strategies. The session aims to address three policy questions. One, how can policymakers adopt regulatory frameworks to promote innovation and investment? Two, what strategies can be implemented to address the digital divide and ensure equitable access to the internet connectivity? Three, how can regional cooperation initiatives be strengthened to foster collaboration among countries in addressing shared challenges in accelerating efforts towards universal internet access? This is a panel discussion, and I’m joined by leaders and experts from across the globe. Mahesh Upal, Director of Comfors Private Limited. Jameson Olufeye, Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited. Mohammad Sharif, Director of Government and International Relations at Auxia Enterprise. Syed Mohammad Shariar Jawed, Senior ICD Specialist, Economic Infrastructure at the Islamic Development Bank. Dr. Maria Bibi, Consultant IDG, Asia Open RAN Academy. She’s online. And Sharnon Osipa, Telecom and Internet Operations and Policy Strategist, who’s also online. The panel discussion would be 60 minutes, and it will be organized in three segments. Segment number one, we’ll discuss the current state of connectivity and challenges. Segment number two, we’ll discuss policy framework. and regulatory measures, and segment number three will discuss innovative technologies and partnerships. The discussion will be followed by a Q&A session, which will be approximately 30 minutes, and we’re interested in taking questions from the audiences. So please make it as interactive and participatory as you can. So let’s start with segment number one, which is about the current state of connectivity and challenges. So I’ll come to my distinguished speakers. Mahesh, let’s start with you. In the context of South Asia, particularly India, what are the key infrastructure or policy challenges hindering broader internet connectivity, and how they can be addressed?

Speaker 1: Yeah, thanks, Omar. And ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great pleasure to speak to you. We all know that today, internet, of course, is central to more or less every aspect of our social as well as economic lives. So it’s critical that we understand what the challenges themselves are in terms of internet access. And I think for that, we also need to have a more nuanced look at some of the numbers that we are talking about. And while I’ll try and use India as an example, but I suspect the issues are common to most countries, especially in South Asia, but also probably amongst the developing world. Thank you, Omar. Thank you. I’m going to talk about three particular aspects. One is the number of users that we are talking about, the nature of usage, and the kind of methods in which people are accessing internet and what the challenges might be. Now, India, for instance, officially claims to have roughly about 1.2 billion phone connections and roughly 950 million internet users. However, I think like all of us know that most of this usage is wireless and wireless users in particular tend to have multiple accounts. So when you actually look at the unique number of users of telephone connections or indeed internet connections, you find that that number probably is roughly about 65 odd percent of this larger number. And so the number of unique users is about that. And even there, what we also notice is roughly about 60% of the phone lines and the internet connections are urban, where roughly 30 odd, 35% of the people live or 30% of the people and roughly about 50% of the connections are rural. And they’re actually more than 70 odd percent of the people live. So again, you have a sense of how the distribution of access is. Further, you also see that the, now you come to the type of usage. For instance, you will also notice that roughly 300 million Indian users out of the 1.2 billion relies still on 2G technologies, 2G phones. So, you can also begin to understand that the quality of internet access on a 2G phone is barely functional. So, beyond WhatsApp, etc., sorry, beyond simple SMSs, there is very little data that you can use in a 2G connection. And much the same thing, a similar message can also be drawn from the kind of usage people have. So, for example, whether it is WhatsApp, Facebook, YouTube, etc., we have roughly about half a billion, close to 500 million users. So when you try and imagine a typical internet user who does not use any of these services, you will find that number probably is a very, very negligible small number. So the limited point I’m making is that we haven’t really captured the actual quality or if indeed the intensity of the lack of connectivity in South Asia. So that is something that I point out and we’ll come to that. And I’ll just mention, this is largely because regulators across South Asia have been focused on aggregate numbers rather than unique users. And we’ll discuss that further. I hope that…

Omar Ansari: That was a very good start. You’ve touched upon the number of users, the issues that you raised in nature of usage. And what are the methods of the usage in India and the broader developing world? Jameson, you have a lot of experience of working in Nigeria and the wider African region. Most of it is developing. How do you see the lack of connectivity? affecting the socio-economic development in those regions.

Speaker 2: Thank you very much, Romar. And greetings, everyone. My name again is James Ndolufuye. I’m the chair of the Africa ICT Alliance. That’s the advisory council of the Africa ICT Alliance. It’s an alliance of ICT associations, companies, and professionals across Africa, 43 countries in Africa, so to speak. So it’s not only Nigeria, but the spectrum, as you said, covers Africa and also globally. Well, the topic is very, very important. It’s really crucial. And when we talk about connectivity, without connectivity, you are not in the digital world. And not just connectivity, just as mice talk about meaningful connectivity. It’s very important. Meaningful connectivity so that you can really have something productive to do with it. So in developing world, at least let us have connectivity. Nigeria, for example, we had 75% internet penetration. And that even got reduced last two months to about 61%, because there was a requirement for NIN, National Identity Card Number, National Identity Number to be ported to the phone number. So those that are not ported, they were cut off. So that is to agree with you, that around 61% is the actual people. Okay. But these are in the cities, okay, basically. So to reach the interior, we need to use, because the interior is a challenge, getting to the connectivity to the interior. There is this fund called Universal Service Provision Fund. It has not been used very well. Even at the session, that was the last session I attended. where a panel didn’t even know that there is a universal service provision fund by ITU. So we need to talk more about that and our regulators are using that fund. So stakeholders within their countries, they need to engage the regulators and find out how it is being used to subsidize reach into the underserved areas. And lastly, I did a report on behalf of UNECA, United Nation Economic Commission of Africa. And that report showed that a 10% increase in internet penetration yield up to 8.2% increase in GDP per capita. So that is an incentive to government to take this thing very seriously. Thank you very much.

Omar Ansari: And that was very good. And in a point that was new as well, like the relation of internet connectivity to GDP increase. That’s very interesting. Sharif, you worked as Minister of Communications. You were in the government and now in the private sector in Maldives. How are the islands economies addressing the challenges, especially Maldives and other geographically unique economies? And how do you see, what are your advice and good practices that could be utilized?

Speaker 3: Thank you. Well, let me start by thanking Ethnic Foundation for inviting us to share our perspective as well. As Omar pointed out, I am from the island context. A small island developing states, we call ourselves SIDS. But in reality, we are large ocean country. If you take Maldives, for example, the country is as big. is some European countries, but the land mass is only less than one percent. So our challenge is how do you connect hundreds and hundreds of islands, small islands, across hundreds and hundreds of kilometers of ocean? And I will give you the answer because I only have two minutes. So the answer is prioritizing connectivity, prioritizing bandwidth, right? As developing countries, we have many needs, but we have few resources. And often we say, okay, we’ve got poverty, we’ve got health issues, we’ve got education, we’ve got no money for connectivity, infrastructure. But I think today we’ve got to, if we want to actually tackle poverty, if you want better health, if you want better education, we’ve got to invest in infra. In Maldives, we’ve gone from a geostationary internet gateway back in 2004, pre-tsunami, to today we have five submarine cables landing in the Maldives. And we have a Starlink LEO-based satellite communication. Because over the, especially between 2020 and 2023, we prioritized just having bandwidth. Thank you.

Omar Ansari: The bandwidth prioritization, that’s one key important issue. And I think many of the countries in our region, in South Asia particularly, when I was in Afghanistan, the bandwidth was not addressing the needs of the country. So one of the solutions could be to battle with import in the flow. And that will really affect the cost and the quality of services, and more people will connect. Thank you very much, Sharif. Let’s take some views from our online participants. Maria, from the capacity-building perspective in the developing world, what critical skill gaps do you see that’s affecting the digital divide, and what could be done to address this?

Maria Beebe: Hi, everyone. Can you hear me? Thank you, Omar. I’m just going to dive right into the critical skill gaps contributing to the digital divide. First is basic digital literacy, which is the lack of foundational digital skills, such as using computers, smartphones, or navigating the Internet, which limits ability to access information, services, and opportunities online. Another one is advanced technical skills, such as programming, cybersecurity, data analytics, and AI, which hinders local innovation and participation in the global digital economy. A third is telecommunications and network infrastructure. Some of you have already discussed that, but skills in network design, management, and maintenance, for example, open run, 5G deployment, they need to be developed in developing regions to speed up digital infrastructure expansion. Fourth, we normally don’t think about this entrepreneurial and business skills, knowledge to leverage digital technologies for entrepreneurship, local businesses, and economic growth. And some of you already talked a little bit about the policy and regulatory considerations. There is a need for technical knowledge to develop and implement effective digital policies, because policies that are not effective hinder equitable access and innovation. And there’s language barriers, limited proficiency in global languages, can restrict access to online content, training and collaboration opportunities. A couple more, teacher training in digital education. Educators often lack the skills to integrate digital tools into their teaching and learning, and they perpetuate a cycle of low digital literacy. Finally, of course, cultural and gender barriers, where women and marginalized groups have less access to digital skills, training, perpetuating existing inequities. I think half of my question is to like strategies to bridge skill gaps. I think I shall leave that for the question and answer. Thank you.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Maria.

Maria Beebe: We lost you, Omar.

Speaker 4: Thank you. We’ve done fiber optic backbone programs in West Africa and Sierra Leone and the Gambia. So we do have financed a good number of projects and we’re working closely with other MDBs like African Development Bank, the World Bank, and of course we are now working on developing certain programs in the Arab and African states in partnership with UNDP, with ITU. But what we have really realized is the lack of capacity, the institutional capacity in terms of master plan in order to bridge the dollar-digital divide in the country, and also of course lack of proper feasibility studies of large-scale infrastructure projects that we have realized is the main bottleneck that we believe that is resisting in terms of bridging the digital divide in our member states. So probably I’ll stop here and of course I’ll be happy to share more examples later on.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Sheryar. So lack of bankable documentation, lack of prioritization, the lack of institutional capacity to do all these is a major challenge that Sheryar touched upon. Do we have Shanon online? Yes. Okay. Yes. You can hear me? Yes, I can. I can. Shanon, thank you very much and sorry for the technical issues. In the Caribbean context, what disparities in the internet access do you observe and how these disparities influence regional development priorities? Yes.

Shernon Osepa: First of all, I would like to thank you, Omar, as well for the invitation. I’m a strategic advisor with the Caribbean Telecommunication Union, so we have been observing several challenges within the Caribbean. First, the Caribbean is very diverse. When we talk about the Caribbean, sometimes people think it’s a country, you know, but we have a lot of islands. and countries in the Caribbean and each one of them are different. If we look, we do have for example two big extremes. If we look for example at the poorest country in this western hemisphere which is Haiti, its internet penetration is approximately 39 percent and when we look at countries within the Caribbean, the Bahamas, Barbados and others which higher GDPs, their internet penetration is above, is more than 80 percent. So we are seeing big disparities in the Caribbean and this is also true when we look at the technologies being used. Mostly in the Caribbean, we are using mobile technologies, 3G and 4G, mostly 4G and nowadays there are some discussions and pilots ongoing with respect to 5G, but we haven’t seen a big let’s say case for 5G as yet. So when we look at the challenges, we look, we have some economic barriers. For example, very high government fees. The Caribbean is also part of the SIDS, small island development states, so they have some very unique challenges. We see high government fees, taxes, dominance of over-the-top providers which especially telecoms operators are saying they are not receiving enough revenue based on all these over-the-top services being provided. When we look at the infrastructure itself, it has some challenges as I did mention. It depends which country you are looking at. Some are very well developed some are less developed and one other very important issue that we’re having that you’re focusing right now in the Caribbean is the what we call the subsea cables as you know all the all the internet traffic is being transported over the subsea cables and what we have in the Caribbean is quite old most of these cables are reaching their end of life period so we need to find ways how to if we would if we would like to continue for the for the for the development to continue to see how we can enhance all these subsea cables so this is very high level maybe later on in the questions and answers I’ll make a more a deep dive but for now this is very high level what what we’re seeing in the Caribbean thank you very much.

Omar Ansari: thank you very much Shannon you’ve also touched upon the correlation of GDP with connectivity earlier Jimson said that the higher the connectivity the higher the GDP so it enhances GDP if more people are connected so it means connectivity should be prioritized so that you know enhance the GDP in terms of the over the top operators in the ARPU when I was in Afghanistan the operators would complain that our ARPU is very low because there were complaints about the price of internet and when I did a little calculation the ARPU of the afghan operators were higher than India and Pakistan so that that was much higher and there were times it was like extremely high when the NATO forces were still in Afghanistan but they kept the price really really unaffordable for the Afghan population, and you see around 80% of the country is still offline. So these are some of the challenges that we need to identify and in address. So with this, we’re done with our first segment, but I’m happy to take one comment or question from the floor before we open the second segment of our conversation. Is there anybody who would like to share an opinion or question? So the gentlemen, we’ll take one, and then in the next segment, we’ll take another one. So perhaps we could take you next. So please keep it brief at one minute so we can, yeah, there will be a Q&A later as well.

Audience: Hello, everyone. This is Ajmal Amiri. I have a suggestion and request. We have a big challenge in cyber awareness. We have a big challenge in cyber awareness. Most of the people who are educated or uneducated, they are using internet without knowing the threat of cyber attacks and how to use internet in a safe manner. So it will be better to have a plan and awareness program for cyber attacks outside of Afghanistan and the same in the other countries. So cyber attacks, how we can secure our infrastructure and how we can protect our populations from the cyber attacks.

Omar Ansari: Who would like to comment on that? Okay, so a quick one from Sharif and then Jimson.

Speaker 3: I think the point that’s been raised is extremely important as we are trying to connect everybody. We have to understand that. What are the dangers for individuals in the cyberspace and we had to put in national programs in place to make everyone as a contributor to a safer digital space nationally and globally. So yes, a cyber awareness should be a national strategy and program. Thank you.

Speaker 2: Yes, indeed, very important question. So I’d like that, because of this importance, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, actually commissioned that report, and that report, I mentioned on internet penetration connection to GDP, also talks about cyber security maturity connection to GDP. A 10% increase in maturity, cyber security maturity will yield around 5.4% increase in GDP per capita. So that is to underscore the fact that government need to take cyber security maturity very seriously to build trust the internet. And lastly on this, we build a framework, a framework for organization for enterprises for countries to assess themselves on that is maturity assessment. So if you want to check it out, you can check it out, it’s still available free you can check your organization maturity is at tcm.africa. So through that link, you can check your gaps, so that you can improve on your cyber maturity measures to bridge gaps. Thank you.

Omar Ansari: So another interesting finding, the relation of, of cyber security maturity with the GDP.

Shernon Osepa: who has shown on what do you like to comment on this yes yes yes very very quick we have seen especially during the covid pandemic in the caribbean when governments started to use more their portals to communicate with the with the community that also the cyber criminals or the criminals let me call like them decided okay this is an opportunity for us as well you know so while we’re trying to address connectivity try to get more people connected we need to be aware that the cyber that criminals also will use this mean to contact let’s say potential victims and it’s it’s very important to look at a few areas when we talk about the cyber talk about cyber security just the domain names you can have ways how to protect them okay we don’t have time to go in depth right now but it’s a very important topic that we need to focus on because criminals also are using these very important tools which is the internet to contact their victims.

Omar Ansari: thank you with this thank you shannon with this i’d like to move to our segment number two which is policy frameworks and regulatory measures the purpose of this segment is to evaluate the current policies for effectiveness regulatory balance between innovation affordability and privacy and the government’s role in driving connectivity and inclusion such as gender i’ll go back to my i’ll go back to mahesh mahesh what specific policy reforms in india or south asia could most effectively enhance connectivity in rule uh in underserved areas

Speaker 1: well picking up from what Shannon, in particular, and Jimson have mentioned, but also from what I was saying, a key regulatory shift in focus that is required is what I would call disaggregation. That is to look at different parts of this, the lack of connectivity puzzle. Now, clearly, there are wireless technologies, terrestrial mobile that we are all familiar with, has been a godsend for most countries, particularly developing countries. They have managed to expand in telephone as well as internet access in a very, very speedy way. However, there are gaps. For example, the same cellular technologies are not particularly suitable in remote areas. They’re extremely expensive to use in those areas. Similarly, there are other technologies which are actually more appropriate. But sadly, I think for most of the regulatory regimes that I’ve studied are focused on the aggregate connectivity. I think they are missing the point that certain very, very important disadvantaged areas and populations are getting caught in the middle. So, for example, we do need focus on technologies like satellites for remote areas. We also need to make sure that other, for instance, most of the telecom sector everywhere in this region is led by telcos. And telcos have their strengths in that they have managed to connect countries, but they also have their own commercial imperatives. So, I think we have to recognise that some of the less attractive commercial usage will need other players. We’ll need other technologies. And that is something which the regulators need to open their eyes to in a way and focus on and to enable that environment. I’ll stop here, but we’ll take it up.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Mahesh. Technologies are changing, they’re advancing. The regulator needs to be, you know, they should adopt the change. They should be more flexible. That’s, I think, a key message that…

Speaker 1: People are falling between the cracks and they need to be…

Omar Ansari: Right. Right. So, in how they could be protected, these are some of the key issues. Mahesh, thank you very much. Jimson, how has Nigeria or Africa or similar countries in Africa or other places that you’ve been working in have managed to balance between fostering innovation and ensuring affordability in the digital services? Earlier, you spoke about the relation of connectivity with digital services. You talked about the SIM card registration perhaps enhancing connectivity in Africa. What do you say about this?

Speaker 2: Thank you very much again for that brilliant question. As was understood, at a global level, good frameworks… Look at recently the Global Data Compact, Path for the Future, with five objectives bridging, you know, digital divides, making everybody to have the benefit of digital economy, human rights, talking about data governance, talking about AI management for peace, for progress. At a global level, regional level in Africa, we have a number of frameworks like Malabo Convention. like the African Union, data, and many framework to guide us. But the key challenge is in the countries, inside the countries. And in Nigeria, for example, we have made a lot of progress because I got your points. The government listened to all the stakeholders. So you now have a multi-stakeholder engagement framework. They listen to the private sector, the civil society, the academy, and the technical communities. We all came into the roundtable. The president called where we have issues so that we can resolve amicably. And through that collaboration, we’re able to resolve many techniques. For example, the management of dot-ng. There was crisis over that, but the government, the president, called all the stakeholders, resolve it. So very important, we need that multi-stakeholder engagement at the local level so that we can find solution. As I mentioned earlier, the issue of management of universal service provision fund is a major challenge across Africa. Many collected, and in the session yesterday, she was talking about mismanagement or corruption. And then the way to that is digitalization. When you digitalize processes, you can deliver services to the citizens cheaply and affordably. And of course, when we allow citizens to have a stake, the regulators have a forum whereby they meet with all citizens quarterly. They have a meeting with all citizens. So they call in, and here, they take action. Thank you very much.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Jameson. So with digitalization, the people will be part of the development process. Citizens will have a say. And this could also address the issues related to. corruption, perhaps. Mahmoud Sharif, what were the successful policy regulatory strategies in Maldives that helped with the connectivity?

Speaker 3: Thank you. I think if we actually draw some lessons from where Maldives has been and where it’s going, for example, having achieved over 85% internet penetration and 50% 5G penetration, I definitely would say overall the regulatory framework or the regulatory regime has to have two key features. One, it’s got to be liberal. Two, it’s got to be collaborative. And this is the challenge. How can you have a regulatory environment where the regulator, the service providers, and the policymaker, minimum these three players, can come together and work on a consensus-based policy environment and develop aligned strategies? So the national policies, the regulators’ strategic guidance and protections of the customers align with how the service providers want to invest in that market. Ultimately, everybody wants to protect the market integrity because if there’s no market, there is no incentive for private sector investment. In a country where hundreds of kilometres of domestic submarine cables now connect hundreds of islands, this has been the key. Plus, how do you bring in international ISPs like Starlink? Again, because we have have a collaborative environment where service providers and the regulator and the government spend a lot of time. And now, the final point, the national IGF, the fourth stakeholder, need to come together. Thank you.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Sharif. So the need for policymaker, regulator, and operator to work together. And there is a fourth segment that you’ve mentioned is the community, or let’s call it the consumer, which was mentioned before. So they can work together to develop and enhance the policy and regulatory environment. Thank you very much, Sharif. How can governments in developing countries integrate capacity-building initiatives into the regulatory frameworks to drive digital inclusion?

Maria Beebe: You want me to take that, Omar? Yes, please. I guess I’m keeping with the capacity-building theme. So I guess a few suggestions. For example, integrating capacity-building into national ICT policies. For example, developing national digital skills agendas, setting targets, mandating digital skills training programs. At the same time, requiring telecom companies and Internet service providers to support training initiatives as part of their licensing agreements. Another example is to establish digital inclusion funds where a percentage of revenues from telecom operators or… spectrum auctions is allocated to fund digital skills, skill training and inclusion programs. Then there’s another big basket of strategies related to public-private partnerships. For example, collaborations with industry leaders. I’m not sure the word is mandating, but encouraging partnerships with tech companies to develop training programs tailored to local needs, such as open-run deployment or 5G infrastructure management. And that’s part of the work that’s being done by the Asia Open Run Academy in the Philippines. Another maybe possible area for discussion for regulatory discussion is providing tax breaks or other incentives for companies in upskilling local talent in digital technologies. And of course, in some countries, they already have corporate social responsibility, leveraging that to sponsor digital literacy and advanced IT training programs. What I find in the Philippines is a lot of corporate social responsibility. They prefer to do food drops and so on. So like it’s trying to convince people that digital literacy is just as important than food in the stomach, just as important. Another one is regulating for workforce development in emerging technologies. That includes creating training standards for new technologies, like establishing guidelines for capacity building in critical emerging fields like 5G, open run, cybersecurity that was mentioned, and it should be tied to global standards like 3GPP or an alliance. And I’ll give one more example. in terms of certification and licensing requirements, including digital skills certifications as prerequisites for employment in regulated sectors, such as telecommunications or IT.

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much, Maria. Some very insightful discussions. I particularly like the idea of digital inclusion fund. Most of the countries have a universal fund. Perhaps a portion of this universal fund could be allocated to digital inclusion. And tech companies and telcos also investing in capacity building because without digital literacy, perhaps it would be really difficult for people to connect. The first thing is the connectivity and second is how that connectivity could be meaningful and how it can become meaningful is for the people, the users to understand how they can better utilize the internet and technologies. Shannon, what lessons from global best practices in regulatory framework could be applied to promote a market driven connectivity?

Shernon Osepa: Yes, I think, first of all, it’s very important for us not to just to replicate everything that we’re seeing, let’s say, going on globally, because as I did mention, as small island development states, we are different. We have some very unique challenges that maybe those big countries don’t have. For example, we are vulnerable to natural disasters, we have small and close economies, we have lack of capacity, we have higher import and export costs and we have limited resources. But it’s still important that… that we look what is happening globally. But what I’m trying to say is that we cannot just replicate them one-to-one to our local situation because that would not work. What is very important, one of the measures that we are focusing on that is also happening globally is for example, passive infrastructure sharing because then we would like to reduce the cost for telecoms operators. If they can share the towers and mast sites and buildings, this can reduce the cost. We haven’t seen much development happening with respect to active infrastructure sharing. There are some, let’s say discussions ongoing but we haven’t seen them really in the real life happening. One of the also other developments that we are seeing in the Caribbean is what we call data center and cloud services. We do have one, what we call tier four data center in the Caribbean. So that’s the highest level of data center that we can reach. And there is another one being built right now in Trinidad and Tobago as well. So this is one of the developments that we are seeing. One of the other challenges that we are seeing and we are trying to address is data sovereignty. Some countries, if you look at how the infrastructures in the Caribbean are developed, most or all the traffic has to go through the US. So you may have some concerns from government saying, okay, we would like to see an alternative route and not all traffic going through the US. And right now you have through, it’s called the ELA link from Europe, from Portugal to. to Brazil and they’re trying also to get a link to the Caribbean on that. In addition to that, there is also another cable system coming from, let’s say, from Europe going to Martinique and then from there they would like to reach the Caribbean as well. So what we’re trying to do is to look for alternative routes and this is also one of the global, as you did mention, global best practices that we have seen. One other challenge that we’re seeing is collaboration among operators and here is, for example, where my own organization, the Caribbean Telecommunication Union, is focusing a lot on, especially with respect to spectrum sharing and coordination. When we talk about the Caribbean, we do have two ITU regions in the Caribbean. We have the Region 2, which is the Americas, but we also have, based on constitutional developments, for example, Martinique, Guadeloupe, they are part of Europe, they are part of the ITU Region 1. So we need to coordinate, especially when it comes to spectrum, to avoid interferences and these kind of things. So these are basically global developments that we are seeing and we are trying to use those developments that we think can give us an added value in our region, but as I did mention, it’s not just to replicate one-to-one because some of these global developments would not work given that we are small island development states. Thank you.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Shannon. So the very important issues you’ve raised, two of them were very interesting for me, number one, the passive infrastructure discussion. In Afghanistan, from my experience, Mr. Bunyad is here, who is running an ISP in Afghanistan, 80% of the cost of fiber extension would go to the digging and laying the passive infrastructure. So, if you kind of deduct that, it’s going to be 20% left. And I think many, many investors would be interested to invest that. So, the government needs to support the passive infrastructure first, so that would make it easy and attractive for the investor to work on the active infrastructure. And the second issue you’ve raised was about the collaboration between the operators. Now, this is a very interesting topic. And in some countries, it might be against the regulatory measures or policy for the operators to collaborate with each other. But that’s an interesting discussion, perhaps we can dig deeper into it in our future discussions. So, with that, I’d like to go back to Sheryar. Now, from your perspective, Sheryar, working with different policymakers, with the governments across member states, what policy frameworks or financing strategies have proven most effective for attracting investment in digital infrastructure?

Speaker 4: Thank you very much. I guess it’s a very important question to address. And just to let you know that the Islamabad Bank has been in operation for over 49 years. And next year, we’ll be celebrating our 50th anniversary. So we have a lot of experience in different countries. And you know, we’ve often heard about the challenges, the local dynamics. So one fit solution is not for all. What we have done is more recently, traditionally, we’ve been financing digital public infrastructure. And more recently, what we have come up with last year, we in Riyadh, we launched our digital inclusion strategy 2024-2027. And as part of this strategy, what we have done is we have come up with a program called digital inclusion, strategic partnership program. And I’ll specifically share a couple of examples that we have done out of this program. But before that, I would like to maybe probably address that, what is the guiding principle of what we are trying to do with our new strategy? So what is the core of our strategy is that we would like to make sure that we provide meaningful connectivity in a safe environment, making sure what we are addressing is availability, accessibility, and affordability. So these are the three key aspects that we target whenever we do. And we want to make sure that we have the right capacity, once the service is available, so that we make the best use of the services or the infrastructure that we have got out of the project intervention that we finance. Now coming back to the examples. So I’ll share a couple of examples like starting with what we are doing with ITU. We are helping developing smart villages in Pakistan. So what we are doing is we are providing meaningful connectivity in smart villages where we are connecting local schools for girls with teachers sitting in the city, teaching subjects which were not available in the villages before. And on top of that, providing internet connectivity to a nearby local health facility, where a doctor sitting in the city is basically doing online consultations with a trained nurse in the local village through this program. So what we are doing is we are now replicating in other villages as well. So this is one example that we are doing in partnership with ITU. In terms of capacity building, what we’ve done with ITU recently. Just I was mentioning three weeks ago, we were in Nigeria. We did a digital regulation training in partnership with ITU. It was a five-day training program for the policymakers and regulators from the African region. So we had like 16 countries represented in those programs. So the government of Saudi Arabia, FCDO from UK, ITU, and Islamic Development Bank basically co-organized this digital regulation capacity building program for African policymakers. Last but not least, one of the examples that we are currently working with UNDP is on harnessing artificial intelligence for inclusive village development. So what is this initiative? What we are doing is with the Ministry of Villages in Indonesia, we are helping them because in any infrastructure planning, they have a local consultation process to gather the requirements, to know the challenges, to know what solutions would best fit in those villages. So we have hand-picked three villages, three provinces. We are in 200 villages and working with UNDP to basically use artificial intelligence to collect the data of the requirements for better infrastructure services in the villages across Indonesia and use this information to do better planning and then ultimately replicated other villages in Indonesia as well. So the essence of what we are trying to do is we provide connectivity, we provide capacity building and also last but not least, what we are focusing on is mainstreaming of technology to support other services like a smart education, e-agriculture services, also in the smart education, telemedicine health services as well on top of facilitating energy transport, urban smart cities, water, all these aspects of different established development sectors. We are promoting use of technology in these just for the sake of bringing in efficiency, transparency and. and overall digitalization process that we have addressed.

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much, Sheheryar. With this, we are concluding our segment two and moving to our third and last segment. But before we do that, there was a question. You had your hand raised at the end of the segment. Do you still have the question, or is it addressed? OK. So please keep it short, and then I’ll just need one of our panel speakers to respond to this so that we have sufficient time for the next one.

Audience: Can you hear me? OK. Is there a Dr. Nazar Niklas Kerama from Tanzania? Can we make an intervention? I just wanted to make an intervention as part of my work to connect the unconnected in Tanzania. And what we have been able to manage in Tanzania is working on the low-hanging fruits in terms of connecting in rural and urban areas. Is it OK? Yeah? Like this? OK, I’m learning to use microphone. OK, so the idea is, while we continue to debate on the policies and the actions that we need to actually take. In our space, we also need to continue to use the available infrastructure to be able to connect schools and communities. For example, in Tanzania, we have been able to connect about 10 schools using the fiber network, and also using the combination of microwave that is available in the villages, by using a simple model of communities coming together to ensure that they pool their resources together in the form of community networks to connect communities as well as the schools. So I think as we continue to debate on the right kind of policies and infrastructure that is needed to connect, we also have to take advantage of the hanging fruits to connect schools especially, because the schools are where we are defining the future of digital Asia, or digital Africa, or digital whatever America, because that is where the kids are and they need to be connected to digital opportunities online. Because we are not just connecting communities and schools for the sake of connecting, but we are connecting them to the resources that can help them even solve the SDG number one to get people out of poverty. Thank you.

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much, and that was a good comment and perhaps a good start to our last segment, which is about innovative technologies and partnerships. Mahesh, let’s start with you again. You are the digital leader. You work with the regulatory authorities in India. You have been consulting. in advising the governments to enhance connectivity. So in your view, what innovative technologies and infrastructure solutions have been most effective in improving internet access in report areas?

Speaker 1: Well, I would, yeah. I would say that, sure. I too am learning to use the mic. So well, you’re in the club. Okay, so I think in a way, the answer to your question, Omar, is that we have seen very limited innovation. I think what we have seen is a huge success of terrestrial mobile services, which the operators, particularly telcos, have innovated in many different ways. For example, the whole question of prepaid and in India, you have something called micro prepaid, where you could actually get a recharge of something like five rupees, which is not even 10 cents, right? And that kind of innovation has really worked quite well. But I think there is another kind of innovation which hasn’t worked. For example, our approach to Wi-Fi hotspots has not worked and our approach to USF has not worked. And the main reason for that is that the telcos themselves are a huge interest in this area. And if their incentives are not aligned, they don’t really work very well with these things. So we have found very little attention to actually getting the right kind of balance between the stakeholders in trying to come up with some agreed approach. And I think the regulators need to work more carefully on that. There’s no shortage of innovative models. For example, one of the things that we in India lack is the freedom to use alternate business models. For example, in Indian scheme of things, you cannot bundle a handset with your service, which actually has been hugely beneficial to a lot of people who have affordability problems. But our regulatory regime, if you like, or our licensing regime has an approach which actually disallows that. So there are many things like that, which actually, same thing, we do not necessarily encourage anybody with a solution for, let’s say, a particular community or a small sub-region. Because our licensing regime requires licenses at a certain scale, at a certain geographic size. And given what we are talking about today, we’re talking about marginalized people, populations, regions, which need to be specifically focused on. I think the licensing regime, which actually evolved at a time when there was exactly one operator and one service in most countries, namely, the government was the main operator and there was only one telephony, which was the only service. So now, given what the whole internet space, the way it has evolved, our regulatory regimes are just struggling to keep up. And I think they have not managed to liberalize the entry into this market sufficiently so that people have the freedom to try new innovative solutions. And regulators also, I think, need to innovate in a big way, which again, is a separate subject. I’ll be happy to discuss it, but it is an issue.

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much. I agree that regulators need to enhance and improve. And the licensing regime is very important. I was speaking with Bunyad the other day about how voice over IP is abandoned. in Afghanistan, it’s nowhere in the law, nowhere in the policy that it’s banned. But in the licenses of ISPs, it’s written that you can offer voice over IP. So that was surprising. So I was in a session with Dunmurai, where he was speaking, I think, remotely. And he was talking about the definition of coverage. And when we say coverage, it’s the population covered. It’s not the land covered. But the future, not only internet for people, but internet of things as well. We’re talking all these technologies that would need connectivity. So it means that we have to work on enhancing some of our enhanced understanding of some of these concepts. I’d like to come to Emson. What do you think? How can technologies such as set-up, it’s not a new thing, be scaled to regions?

Speaker 2: Thank you again for that question. Starlink has demonstrated that you can really use satellite technology profitably and effectively. And that brings us to find out what happened to country-launched satellites. I think we need to ask a lot of questions about that. There are a number of countries that have satellites up there for internet, but we don’t see benefits, so much benefits. So perhaps they may need to bring about competition, open it up, okay? We recommend there should be openness, liberalization, let there be more competition. And with that, there’ll be more innovation. Talking about other technologies, if I may, there is TV white spaces. TV white spaces can help. Even in the widespread island countries, TV white spaces can be utilized. But we have seen that some telcos don’t like that idea because of interest. And then, also, we must not forget about IPv6. Because when we talk about meaningful connectivity, IPv6 will guarantee meaningful connectivity and even security. And that is where regulators, those that are in the room, need to take transition from IPv4 to IPv6 seriously. Because there are a lot of features, there are a lot of benefits in terms of faster connectivity speed, bandwidth, that we can derive from that. And lastly, services. We need to, government need to demand services through digitalization. And then, outsourcing, that will help a lot. Outsourcing to other SMEs. Because I’m in private sector, and I’ve been a beneficiary, my company have been a beneficiary to outsourcing of government activity. So they need to outsource, but now with the private sector, the more, so that we can get deeper into meaningful, providing meaningful connectivity for everyone. Thank you very much.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Jameson. We’ll ask our other speakers. But let’s make it, keep it short. Because we also, I think, how much time do we have? 20 minutes left, total, in total. OK. So if we can keep it at one or one and a half minutes, so that we can have some time for our audiences to speak, Shahryar, you spoke about the partnerships for the world. What are good examples that could help address the challenges we have been discussing?

Speaker 4: I think, thank you very much for this. I’ve probably shared some of the examples that we are already working with some of the regional organizations, UN agencies, multilateral development banks, in order to address. But I think the core of what we have seen as best practice is the country itself, which needs to understand what they want and where they are and how they would like, where would they like to proceed, like from A to B, if they understand and only then external partners could help and assist. If the understanding is not there, if the capacity is not there, then it becomes a huge challenge when external partners come in to facilitate and help the government bridge the digital divide with the essence of leaving no one behind. What we need to understand is if we can collectively work and complement each other’s strengths that if a partner like UNDP comes with the technical expertise and a financial institution like the Islamic Development Bank comes in to provide the finances needed to address a given challenge, that’s how we complement with the technical and financial resources because both are extremely important in order to address any challenge in this current phase. I think we are now seeing the role of digital cooperation organization in Saudi Arabia coming in to encourage collaboration with different partners, donors, institutions, banks, UN agencies and regional organizations that come up together to address a given challenge. Of course, we are also part of that ecosystem and happy to contribute as a multilateral development organization.

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much. Sharif, what are some good examples of public-private partnerships that contributed to enhancing connectivity?

Speaker 3: Well, let me just take one example, a controversial example from the Maldives. I would take the example of our incumbent, one of the biggest, well, we’ve got two big telecom companies. as ISPs in the Maldives. We’ve got four ISPs, but our oldest telecom service provider started as a partnership between Cable and Wireless UK and the government of Maldives, right? And over the years, it’s transformed itself into a public limited company. Now the government has a smaller share, the public have shares, and Batelco, Bahrain Telecom, has the majority shares, right? We’ve gone from connecting the islands to becoming a co-owner of CMAV6, one of the most advanced submarine cable systems that has been currently laid. So it’s a small country of a few hundred thousand people becoming a co-owner of one of the most advanced cable systems, ensuring connectivity to Maldives. This is, I think, a perfect example of how government, the citizens, the public, as well as international partners can work together to take the country to a new level. Thank you. With that, I would like to take leave because I have another session starting in the plenary. So with your permission, thank you.

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much. Amit. Thank you. Okay, thank you for being with us. With this, I will go to Maria. You talked about the, oh, thank you very much. You talked about Open RAN in similar projects. How do you see, like, what are the technology trends that could help with enhancing connectivity as well as the affordability across the developing world?

Maria Beebe: Thank you for that. I guess I’ll start with Open RAN. What is Open RAN? and RAN is the Radio Access Network. So what Open RAN does is it decouples hardware and software in telecom networks. It enables interoperability between components from different vendors, thus reducing costs and fosters innovation. Sadly, all of the examples right now are mostly in developing countries, like the US, some countries in Europe, Indonesia to some extent. There are benefits for developing economies for going Open RAN, and that enables local vendors to participate in the telecom supply chain, which would boost local economies, supports scalability for rural and underserved regions, and encourages regional talent development in telecoms and software engineering. A related example would be, excuse me, community networks and shared spectrum. Community networks, community-owned networks, they enable small-scale, low-cost deployments in rural areas. It does require sharing of spectrum, and it requires something like the citizens’ broadband radio service to optimize spectrum usage. That CBRS is not yet practiced in the Philippines, another sad story, but something for consideration for policy and regulatory consideration. It is, CBRS is quite used in the US, in addition to doing innovation zones. So community networks and shared spectrum, they empower local communities. is to deploy and manage their own networks, which of course requires then capacity building. It does reduce dependency on large telecom operators, which are, I mean, they are there for their return on investments. And then shared spectrum lowers entry barriers for small scale providers, enhancing affordability. And however, getting the spectrum allocation to benefit community networks is kind of a big challenge and a big headache. I think I want to maybe two more examples. AI, somebody’s already mentioned it for network optimization. And then let’s not forget energy efficient technologies like solar powered base stations, low power internet of things devices. And energy efficient network components to reduce costs and environmental impact. So I guess the challenge for us is like how we can leverage this trends, this technology trends and align them with policy, infrastructure development and capacity building efforts. Thank you.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Maria. Sheldon, in your view, how regional collaboration initiatives could be strengthened to improve connectivity across the Caribbean in other regions that are still offline?

Shernon Osepa: Yes, I’ll focus of course on the Caribbean and given the time constraint, I will just focus on two areas. So we see, for example, leveraging regional organizations that we have in the Caribbean, for example, Caribbean. CARICOM is one of the, you can compare it a bit with European Union, more or less the same idea behind it. So it’s called CARICOM. And we also have the Caribbean Telecommunications Union at which I am affiliated with. And in addition to those, you have also another organization called CANTO. CANTO stands for Caribbean Association of National Telecommunications Operators. So these three organizations, when it comes to telecoms developments, they are key. Because each one of them, they have specific roles to play, but together they can enhance, let’s say collaboration in the wider Caribbean. So these three organizations have been working together, but in one way or the other, still we need to enhance that collaboration. One other topic is what I would call disaster resilience. As you know, the Caribbean is vulnerable to natural disasters. So here is also where we have been working with international and other global organizations that can help us to address and to raise awareness on the need to build a resilient internet and telecommunications infrastructures. If you look when disasters strike in the Caribbean, and when we look back at, let’s say, our telecoms infrastructures, most of the times we have been identifying some key challenges. If you look, for example, at the towers that have been used or antennas, sometimes if you can expect a hurricane category number five and you see what they have been using, it’s like calling, asking for trouble, you know? So we need to continue to raise awareness in that regard and to help all these telecoms operators. and others and also working with government to ensure that we have resilient let’s say telecoms and internet infrastructure in place. So these are two areas in addition to others that we have been collaborating in the region to ensure that we have meaningful and resilient telecoms and internet services provisioning.

Omar Ansari: Thank you Sheldon. So with this I’d like to open the floor for questions from the audiences. You’ve been here listening to us. Now I’d like to you know involve you in the discussion. So please feel free to raise your hands if you have questions or comments but keep them short, inconcise so that we can take as many. So the three hands raised. The lady in the back and okay please go ahead. Introduce yourself, name, affiliation and then your question.

Audience: Okay thank you very much. I am Mirvez Khan. I’m working with a leading telecom company in Afghanistan and also part of the technical community of Afghanistan. My question is for Mr. Sheryar. As you shared your insights about your projects in different parts of the world, considering the challenges Afghanistan is facing as a landlocked and least connected country, does ADB has any future plan or program to support the connectivity of Afghanistan? Thank you. So let’s take all the questions and then we can. Yes. Hi my name is Elisa from Vietnam but based in Germany and I’d like to ask a question to several speakers and I’d love you to elaborate on your country’s situations. Maria, you talk about the situation? I can’t hear you. It’s working, but just keep it closer. You talk about digital inclusion fund and you talk about various infrastructure challenges facing the Filipinos. However, in the context of the Philippines there are only a few internet companies and the geography of the Philippines makes it very difficult to receive internet, a lot of islands. So, what can the civil society actors can do to counter these challenges? I have one question to the speaker from Pakistan. In the context of Pakistan, the government plays an active role in slowing down the internet. So, these top-down challenges, how can the civil society actors counter these top-down crackdowns on the internet? I also have a question to the moderator from Afghanistan. Can you tell us about how the conflict in Afghanistan impacts the internet and how can you describe the internet resilience in your country?

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you for this really, really interesting and a very comprehensive discussion because it covers a major part of the world where connectivity is an important part. My question is to Sheheryar. You talked about a village, the digital village that you’re working on. Usually, there also is another digital village probably ITU is working on in Pakistan. Are you targeting areas of true access gap when you’re selecting areas for these digital villages because our experience has been that they just try to do it in an area near Islamabad or where their connectivity issues are not really a big issue because the private sector doesn’t really go into areas of true access gap? So can we have development partners work on those areas? And then, if yes, what kind of challenges do you think you’d encounter? Thank you so much for this insightful conversation. I’m a student from Nanjing Youth Development Center, and I would really like to learn more about how the government of each of your countries adjust policies on digitalization to account for those marginalized groups to make sure that innovation can cover everyone.

Omar Ansari: Okay, any more questions? I think that’s okay.

Audience: Yeah, thank you very much. Am I audible here? I like the discussion. I really enjoyed the example of the school connectivity, the examples of connectivity in India, how much people are connected, the digital inclusion fund Maria mentioned. So all are like very interconnected. And one of the interconnected challenges is the affordability. So I have read that sometimes these kinds of solutions are temporary, for example, the RFDD project, which is funded to the activities are finished. So what happens? So like I have read in Afghanistan, we have the same issue of the affordability. Sometimes in some areas, there are internet connectivity there. The service providers are providing the services, but people are not able to, I mean, they are not affording it. So do you have any comments or any suggestions like Mahesh knows about the revolution, the geo route in India? So is there any other solutions where governments or any international organization can help support to provide such a permanent solution to the connect? Thank you very much.

Omar Ansari: All right. Thank you very much. I think all of you have questions, but I had a few of them were addressed to you. So if you can go first, and then we can, you know, ask others.

Speaker 4: Sure, I’ll try to address some of the questions that were addressed to me the baby. First of all, just wanted to clarify that I am, although I’m originally from Pakistan but I’m representing the Islam Development Bank here. So, of course, I will not be commenting on the government perspective of Pakistan, the probably starting with the question that was raised. So, the Islam Development Bank works mainly with the government. And we operate in a model that we try to assist the government needs. So as long as the government of Afghanistan officially writes through the official channel to the Islamic Development Bank, then we are here to address, because what we need to make sure that we are targeting a problem, which is understood and owned and prioritized by the government. So as long as these three aspects are there. We don’t come up with our own set of agenda to address any, if we believe that you should be doing, you know, in Afghanistan we should be doing that in Pakistan we should know. The idea is that the government reaches out to us, sharing a problem and needing a solution for a sustainable development. Right. And then we assess based on our technical due diligence and our financial due diligence legal due diligence and then we try to assess the country. This is one aspect. So we are actually in Afghanistan we are currently working with UN agencies, because they are actively engaged there and you know the challenges that we have in terms of accessing places to access projects sites and everything. So we are working with a UN implementation partner, like other fragile countries that we operate in that are in conflict zones and war situations. So there are certain number of countries unfortunately in today’s world that we do not directly work, but we work through agencies like UN. UN agencies. This is so probably I’ve addressed the question. I think, you know, as we understand that even this forum is about governance, right? So I think every country has their own set of rules and regulations to govern the internet. And probably whatever actions any government, including government of Pakistan would take is to in order to make sure that, you know, there are no social unrest there, you know, people are following the rules and regulations set by the government, set by the parliament of, you know, of that particular country, in order to make sure that if they, you know, to avoid any casualties, any social unrest, so whatever they need to do in order to, you know, address a bigger nation, like Pakistan, they will take all those measures. So I think I’ll probably have addressed, you know, at least that aspect. And coming back to the question that was raised about the smart village. So you’re absolutely spot on. The program is by ITU. So we are we are not directly involved. The program is basically prioritized by the government of Pakistan, which is the Ministry of IT and telecom working with the ITU. They’ve already implemented one, you know, phase. The second phase, we assess based on an eligibility criteria that, okay, what are the set of initial assumptions that should be there, because we have very limited resources. So we can with we can do only limited things with a limited technical and financial resources, which are, you know, where are certain assumptions are there that okay, if they have a paved road, they have connectivity, in terms of transportation, if you’re not able to reach to that place, how are we able to provide those services. So I think these are certain eligibility criteria that we based on that we shortlist certain villages, and the government writes to us. So it’s not we are not selecting such the government writes to us that we would like your assistance in order to address these challenges in these gaps, whether would you like to assist or not. So thank you very much. There was

Omar Ansari: I think our time is up, but we’ll close it in a few minutes. There was one question for Maria related to the islands being disconnected and distributed and what role the civil society can play. And the second question, the last one, was I think you addressed most of the question. And her question was about how the policy can help to connect the marginalized communities. So that would be a question for perhaps Mahesh could address that. And Shannon can share his opinion. Maria, then I will come back to Mahesh then.

Maria Beebe: OK, let me keep it brief. I think we’re finished with the time. Yes, let me give it a try. So in the Philippines, there is a government program called Free Internet Wi-Fi Connectivity in Public Places. Then some of the program also goes to connectivity concerns for state universities and colleges. So that’s sort of one way of getting connectivity down to the communities. So there’s that. There’s the Asia Open RAN Academy. It is an NGO. And the point of the academy is actually to, it’s an alliance. It’s to bring together government, academics, and industry pulling together in terms of this Open RAN solutions. A big problem for the Open RAN, of course, as I mentioned earlier, is the radio spectrum allocation. By definition, when you say RAN, it means access to radio, radio spectrum. And yes. There are 7,000 islands in the Philippines, so it’s difficult to connect all those islands. So we’re talking also about us in the smart village, the idea of smart islands. And of course, the connectivity is very uneven, where you have things like smart homes in places like Metro Manila. And then of course, in the geographically isolated disadvantaged areas, there is no connectivity. One thing that we’re trying to, the Asia Open RAN Academy is trying to do is also to encourage private enterprise networks. So away from the big telcos that kind of take forever to turn them around in terms of the technology. So if you have a province, for example, where they do mining, so you can start thinking about smart mining and how you can have connectivity for the miners who are mining, and then at the same time, share that connectivity with the rest of the community. Another example, of course, is smart hospitals. And the smart hospital is trying to ride on the internet, Wi-Fi connectivity in public places. So trying to get the various actors kind of to work together instead of separately, because they have separate targets, separate deliverables, separate funding, is an excellent challenge. And I would like to continue this conversation with a lot of you in terms of like, how can we do this together? In the Philippines, yes, but Indo-Pacific and in places where there are islands and geographically isolated. development areas.

Omar Ansari: Thank you, Maria. Thank you very much. So just to finalize before they kick us out, one minute, Mahesh, how can policy address the marginalized groups, the issues related to them?

Speaker 1: Yeah, I think two things, I’d make two simple points. One is, of course, that as far as service provision is concerned, the private sector has done a fairly reasonable job. I think prices across the South Asian region, I’m not sure about all, but have fallen quite considerably. India certainly brags about being one of the cheapest markets, both for data as well as voice. However, there are two areas where policymakers and regulators need to work. One is actually access, which is the regions and populations that are currently not reached and where the private operators do not have the commercial incentive to deal with it. And that is where the USF type of funds come into and they need a great amount of creativity. And amongst the creative bits that they require is also attention, in my view, to smartphones. Because while the service is cheap, the physical device is not. And the price of smartphones is actually increasing quite significantly while the price of services, you mentioned, Gayur, the case of Jio or Reliance Jio, which actually crashed the prices and which everybody else has had to follow up. And so the price of services has one way or the other fallen, but the price of smartphones has not. And also the cost of connecting those who are not connected hasn’t fallen. And for that, governments as well as regulators would need to work very creatively with… with tools such as the USF and various others to deal with it.

Omar Ansari: Thank you very much, Mahesh. Just to quickly answer your question, the colleague from Vietnam. I am from Afghanistan, but it’s been a few years I’m not living there. So I don’t have a full understanding of what’s happening now. But from my participation at Afghanistan IGF and other similar local events that are still happening online, it was said one of the experts said that people were concerned with the fall of the government in Taliban takeover that internet will be shut down in Afghanistan. But due to the fact that Afghanistan internet is uniquely designed, it was hard to be shut down. So it doesn’t have one switch from where you can shut it down. It’s so distributed and so unique that it makes it difficult for anybody to shut it down. So later on, the colleagues from Afghanistan, you could perhaps discuss more with them to learn more about the realities on the ground. So just to conclude this session, I think that the session is starting. So key takeaways or the highlights, bridging the connectivity gap, addressing infrastructure, affordability, and digital literacy challenges is critical for connecting the offline population. That’s one. Number two, policy and collaboration matters. Effective policies, regional cooperation, and public-private partnerships drive meaningful progress towards universal internet access. Number three, technology innovation drive inclusion. Technologies like AI, satellite, wireless, innovative financing models provide scalable solutions for digital inclusion. Now, what needs to be done in order to achieve these? promote adoptive policies and investment. So this is a shared responsibility of all of us to work on. So we need to encourage the governments and stakeholders to prioritize flexible policies and targeting investment that foster innovation, affordability, and inclusion, as Shariar said, in underrepresented regions. And also, we all need to invite public partnerships and regional cooperation to resources, share experiences, and implement scalable connectivity solutions. Finally, let’s keep this discussion. This should not be, it’s a start of a discussion, but it should not be the end of the discussion. So in the future, more post-session collaboration from you, share your insights with us on policy issues, the recommendations, and opportunities that could contribute to the connectivity issues across the region. Thank you very much, Mahesh, Shariar, Sharnan, Maria, and also James and Sharif, and everybody for participating with us. I wish you a wonderful GF. Thank you. Thank you, Omar, and thank you all. Take a picture if you’d like to join us, of all the participants. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for improved connectivity in developing regions

Mahesh Uppal

Jimson Olufuye

Mohamed Shareef

Maria Beebe

Syed Mohammad Shariar Jawed

Shernon Osepa

Nuanced look at connectivity statistics needed – aggregate numbers don’t tell full story

10% increase in internet penetration yields up to 8.2% increase in GDP per capita

Prioritizing bandwidth is key for island nations to connect dispersed populations

Critical skill gaps in areas like digital literacy, technical skills, and infrastructure management

Lack of institutional capacity and feasibility studies hinder connectivity projects

High government fees and aging subsea cable infrastructure are challenges in Caribbean

All speakers agreed on the urgent need to improve connectivity in developing regions, highlighting various challenges and potential benefits.

Importance of policy and regulatory reforms

Mahesh Uppal

Jimson Olufuye

Mohamed Shareef

Maria Beebe

Regulators need to focus on disaggregated connectivity solutions, not just aggregate numbers

Multi-stakeholder engagement framework helps resolve connectivity challenges

Liberal and collaborative regulatory environment enables connectivity progress

Integrating capacity building into national ICT policies and regulations is important

Speakers emphasized the need for policy and regulatory reforms to address connectivity challenges and promote digital inclusion.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers argue for more liberal and flexible regulatory approaches to address evolving connectivity needs.

Mahesh Uppal

Mohamed Shareef

Regulatory regimes struggle to keep up with internet evolution and need to liberalize

Liberal and collaborative regulatory environment enables connectivity progress

Both speakers highlight the potential of innovative technologies to improve connectivity and reduce costs in developing regions.

Jimson Olufuye

Maria Beebe

Technologies like TV white spaces and IPv6 can enhance connectivity

Open RAN enables interoperability and reduces costs for developing countries

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of public-private partnerships

Mohamed Shareef

Syed Mohammad Shariar Jawed

Public-private partnerships transformed Maldives telecom sector

Partnerships between technical and financial institutions complement strengths

Despite representing different sectors (government and development bank), both speakers strongly emphasized the crucial role of public-private partnerships in improving connectivity.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agreed on the need for improved connectivity in developing regions, the importance of policy and regulatory reforms, and the potential of innovative technologies and partnerships.

Consensus level

There was a high level of consensus among the speakers on the main challenges and potential solutions for improving connectivity in developing regions. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the issues, which could facilitate coordinated efforts to address connectivity challenges across different countries and organizations.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to regulatory frameworks

Mahesh Uppal

Jimson Olufuye

Mohamed Shareef

Regulators need to focus on disaggregated connectivity solutions, not just aggregate numbers

Multi-stakeholder engagement framework helps resolve connectivity challenges

Liberal and collaborative regulatory environment enables connectivity progress

While all speakers agree on the need for improved regulatory frameworks, they propose different approaches. Mahesh Uppal emphasizes disaggregated solutions, Jimson Olufuye advocates for multi-stakeholder engagement, and Mohamed Shareef promotes a liberal and collaborative environment.

Unexpected Differences

Focus on economic impact vs. skill development

Jimson Olufuye

Maria Beebe

10% increase in internet penetration yields up to 8.2% increase in GDP per capita

Critical skill gaps in areas like digital literacy, technical skills, and infrastructure management

While both speakers discuss factors affecting connectivity, Jimson Olufuye unexpectedly focuses on the economic impact of internet penetration, while Maria Beebe emphasizes the importance of addressing skill gaps. This difference in focus could lead to different policy priorities.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around regulatory approaches, technological solutions, and priorities for addressing connectivity challenges.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there is general consensus on the importance of improving connectivity, speakers offer diverse perspectives on how to achieve this goal. These differences in approach could lead to varied policy recommendations and implementation strategies, potentially impacting the effectiveness of efforts to bridge the digital divide in developing regions.

Partial Agreements

All speakers agree on the need for technological innovation to improve connectivity, but they propose different specific solutions. Mahesh Uppal suggests liberalizing regulatory regimes, Jimson Olufuye advocates for TV white spaces and IPv6, while Maria Beebe promotes Open RAN technology.

Mahesh Uppal

Jimson Olufuye

Maria Beebe

Regulatory regimes struggle to keep up with internet evolution and need to liberalize

Technologies like TV white spaces and IPv6 can enhance connectivity

Open RAN enables interoperability and reduces costs for developing countries

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers argue for more liberal and flexible regulatory approaches to address evolving connectivity needs.

Mahesh Uppal

Mohamed Shareef

Regulatory regimes struggle to keep up with internet evolution and need to liberalize

Liberal and collaborative regulatory environment enables connectivity progress

Both speakers highlight the potential of innovative technologies to improve connectivity and reduce costs in developing regions.

Jimson Olufuye

Maria Beebe

Technologies like TV white spaces and IPv6 can enhance connectivity

Open RAN enables interoperability and reduces costs for developing countries

Key Takeaways

Bridging the connectivity gap requires addressing infrastructure, affordability, and digital literacy challenges

Effective policies, regional cooperation, and public-private partnerships are crucial for driving progress towards universal internet access

Innovative technologies like AI, satellite, wireless, and new financing models can provide scalable solutions for digital inclusion

Regulators need to focus on disaggregated connectivity solutions rather than just aggregate numbers

Integrating capacity building into national ICT policies and regulations is important for developing digital skills

Country-driven understanding of connectivity needs is key for effective partnerships and solutions

Resolutions and Action Items

Encourage governments and stakeholders to prioritize flexible policies and targeted investment in underrepresented regions

Promote public-private partnerships and regional cooperation to share resources and experiences

Implement scalable connectivity solutions tailored to local needs

Continue post-session collaboration to share insights on policy issues, recommendations, and opportunities

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively address affordability issues, especially for smartphones

Balancing government regulation and innovation in the telecom sector

Addressing challenges of connecting geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas

How to improve utilization of Universal Service Funds

Strategies for enhancing cyber awareness and security in developing regions

Suggested Compromises

Collaborative approach between regulators, service providers, and policymakers to develop aligned strategies

Balancing commercial incentives for private operators with government initiatives to connect underserved areas

Using a mix of technologies (e.g. terrestrial, satellite, community networks) to address diverse connectivity needs

India, for instance, officially claims to have roughly about 1.2 billion phone connections and roughly 950 million internet users. However, I think like all of us know that most of this usage is wireless and wireless users in particular tend to have multiple accounts. So when you actually look at the unique number of users of telephone connections or indeed internet connections, you find that that number probably is roughly about 65 odd percent of this larger number.

speaker

Mahesh Uppal

reason

This comment challenges official statistics and provides a more nuanced view of actual internet penetration, highlighting the complexity of measuring connectivity.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards a more critical examination of connectivity statistics and the need to look beyond aggregate numbers to understand the true state of internet access.

A 10% increase in internet penetration yield up to 8.2% increase in GDP per capita.

speaker

Jameson Olufeye

reason

This statistic provides a concrete economic incentive for improving internet connectivity, linking it directly to economic development.

impact

It emphasized the economic importance of connectivity, potentially influencing how policymakers and stakeholders view investments in internet infrastructure.

We prioritized just having bandwidth.

speaker

Mohamed Shareef

reason

This simple statement encapsulates a key strategy for improving connectivity in challenging geographical contexts.

impact

It introduced the idea of prioritizing basic infrastructure over more complex solutions, potentially influencing how other regions approach connectivity challenges.

There is a need for technical knowledge to develop and implement effective digital policies, because policies that are not effective hinder equitable access and innovation.

speaker

Maria Beebe

reason

This comment highlights the importance of technical expertise in policymaking, a often overlooked aspect of digital development.

impact

It shifted the conversation towards the need for capacity building not just for users, but also for policymakers and regulators.

What we have done is more recently, traditionally, we’ve been financing digital public infrastructure. And more recently, what we have come up with last year, we in Riyadh, we launched our digital inclusion strategy 2024-2027.

speaker

Syed Mohammad Shariar Jawed

reason

This comment introduces a shift in approach from a major development bank, moving from infrastructure to a more holistic digital inclusion strategy.

impact

It broadened the discussion from purely technical solutions to a more comprehensive approach to digital development.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by challenging simplistic views of connectivity, emphasizing the economic importance of internet access, highlighting the need for prioritization in infrastructure development, stressing the importance of technical knowledge in policymaking, and introducing more comprehensive approaches to digital inclusion. They collectively moved the conversation from a focus on basic connectivity metrics to a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in bridging the digital divide.

How can the Universal Service Provision Fund be better utilized to subsidize connectivity in underserved areas?

speaker

Jameson Olufeye

explanation

The fund is not being used effectively in many countries, and stakeholders need to engage regulators on its use to improve connectivity.

How can regulators innovate to liberalize market entry and allow for new innovative solutions in connectivity?

speaker

Mahesh Uppal

explanation

Current regulatory regimes are struggling to keep up with technological changes and may be hindering innovation in addressing connectivity gaps.

What strategies can be implemented to address the affordability of smartphones, given their increasing prices?

speaker

Mahesh Uppal

explanation

While service prices have decreased, smartphone prices are increasing, creating a barrier to connectivity for marginalized groups.

How can policy frameworks be adjusted to account for marginalized groups in digitalization efforts?

speaker

Audience member (student from Nanjing Youth Development Center)

explanation

Ensuring innovation covers everyone, including marginalized groups, is crucial for inclusive digital development.

What sustainable solutions can be developed to address long-term affordability issues in connectivity?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

Many current solutions are temporary, and there’s a need for permanent solutions to make connectivity affordable for all.

How can civil society actors counter top-down challenges to internet access, such as government-imposed slowdowns?

speaker

Audience member (Elisa from Vietnam)

explanation

Understanding how to address government-imposed restrictions on internet access is crucial for ensuring connectivity.

How can regional cooperation initiatives be strengthened to improve connectivity across the Caribbean and other regions that are still offline?

speaker

Omar Ansari (directed to Shernon Osepa)

explanation

Regional collaboration is crucial for addressing connectivity challenges, especially in geographically dispersed areas like the Caribbean.

How can we leverage emerging technology trends and align them with policy, infrastructure development, and capacity building efforts?

speaker

Maria Beebe

explanation

Aligning new technologies with policy and development efforts is crucial for improving connectivity in developing regions.

Summary

This discussion focused on the emerging field of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite technology and its implications for global internet connectivity. The panel explored technical, regulatory, and policy aspects of LEO satellites, highlighting both opportunities and challenges.

Dan York provided an overview of LEO satellite systems, explaining their potential to provide high-speed internet access to remote areas and increase network resilience. He noted the rapid growth of LEO constellations, with companies like SpaceX’s Starlink leading the way. Berna Akcali Gur discussed data governance issues, emphasizing the need for transparency in data use and flow patterns. She highlighted concerns about digital colonialism and the importance of addressing privacy and security issues.

Jane Coffin stressed the importance of a holistic, collaborative approach to assessing and implementing LEO technology, emphasizing the need for feasibility studies and cross-governmental cooperation. Joanna Kulesza addressed cybersecurity concerns, noting the need for risk assessments and the potential for governments to maintain control over these technologies.

The discussion touched on several key challenges, including space debris, environmental impacts, and the potential for LEO satellites to exacerbate the digital divide. Participants also explored the role of multi-stakeholder governance in shaping the future of LEO satellite technology.

Questions from the audience raised issues about competition between private companies and government-led initiatives, as well as the implications of LEO technology for developing regions like Africa. The panel emphasized the need for continued dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders to address these complex issues as LEO satellite technology continues to evolve.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Technical aspects and current state of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite internet constellations

– Regulatory and policy challenges around LEO satellites, including data governance and cybersecurity

– Potential impacts on developing countries and concerns about digital colonialism

– Need for multi-stakeholder approaches to address challenges

– Environmental and space sustainability concerns

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore the opportunities and challenges presented by LEO satellite internet constellations from technical, policy, and practical perspectives. The goal was to raise awareness about this emerging technology and its implications, particularly for developing countries.

The tone of the discussion was largely informative and analytical, with speakers providing overviews of different aspects of LEO satellite systems. There was a sense of both excitement about the potential of the technology as well as concern about various risks and challenges. The tone became somewhat more urgent when discussing the need for multi-stakeholder governance approaches and addressing sustainability issues. Overall, the speakers aimed to provide a balanced view of both opportunities and risks.

Speakers

– Dan York: Senior advisor with the Internet Society, technology expert, open internet advocate, author on networking and security topics

– Jane Roberts Coffin: Seasoned executive and internet community expert, experienced in connectivity, infrastructure development, policy and regulatory strategy, and international development

– Akcali Gur Berna (Berna Akcali Gur): Lecturer at Queen Mary University of London, Associate Research Fellow at United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies

– Roxana Radu: Associate professor of digital technologies and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford

– Kulesza Joanna: Tenured professor of law teaching international law, internet governance and media law at the University of Lodz, Poland

Additional speakers:

– Simon Grasci: From ICTP Italy

– Vladislav Ivanets: Internet Society Youth Ambassador

– Alan Veloso: Technical advisor of international cooperation at the Brazilian Space Agency

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Satellite Technology: Opportunities and Challenges

This comprehensive discussion explored the emerging field of low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite technology and its implications for global internet connectivity. The panel, comprising experts from various backgrounds, delved into technical, regulatory, and policy aspects of LEO satellites, highlighting both opportunities and challenges.

Technical Overview and Current State

Dan York, a senior advisor with the Internet Society, provided an overview of LEO satellite systems. He explained their potential to provide high-speed internet access to remote areas and increase network resilience. York described the three main components of a satellite system: satellites, user terminals, and ground stations. He highlighted the rapid growth of LEO constellations, with companies like SpaceX’s Starlink leading the way.

York mentioned the emerging capability of direct-to-device connectivity, which could allow smartphones to connect directly to satellites. He aptly described the current state of LEO satellite technology as “a grand experiment”, acknowledging both the potential and uncertainties surrounding this emerging technology.

Regulatory and Policy Challenges

The discussion revealed a complex landscape of regulatory and policy challenges surrounding LEO satellite technology. Dan York explained that national regulators allocate LEO orbits and frequencies, while Berna Akcali Gur, a lecturer at Queen Mary University of London, noted that licensing requirements vary by country and business model. The panel highlighted the challenges faced by LEO providers in obtaining regulatory approval across different jurisdictions.

Jane Roberts Coffin, a seasoned executive in internet community development, stressed the importance of a holistic, collaborative approach to assessing and implementing LEO technology. She emphasised the need for feasibility studies and cross-governmental cooperation, stating, “There’s a huge dynamic here with respect to the need for a holistic collaborative approach across the multi-stakeholder ecosystem”.

Data Governance and Cybersecurity

Berna Akcali Gur discussed data governance issues, emphasising the need for transparency in data use and flow patterns. She highlighted concerns about digital colonialism and the importance of addressing privacy and security issues. Gur argued that “if a common understanding of data governance in the context of satellite broadband is to emerge, transparency in data use and flow patterns of this technology will be essential”.

Joanna Kulesza, a professor of law at the University of Lodz, addressed cybersecurity concerns, noting the need for risk assessments and the potential for governments to maintain control over these technologies. She also mentioned the potential impact of quantum computing on LEO services, introducing an important future consideration for the field.

Global Competition and Development

The panel explored the competitive landscape of LEO satellite development. Dan York mentioned Europe’s IRIS-2 project, a government-backed initiative to develop a European LEO constellation for autonomy and security. Berna Akcali Gur provided additional context on the IRIS-2 project, highlighting its importance for European strategic independence.

York also noted the challenges faced by competitors in launching their own satellites due to SpaceX’s dominance in the launch market, adding another dimension to the competitive landscape.

Jane Roberts Coffin discussed the potential impact of LEO technology on developing regions, particularly Africa. She suggested that LEO could provide connectivity options for the continent, while also emphasising the need for feasibility assessments for countries considering LEO adoption. Coffin mentioned the potential role of development financial institutions in funding LEO projects and discussed the importance of integrating LEO systems with existing infrastructure, such as internet exchange points in Africa.

Environmental and Space Sustainability Concerns

Environmental impacts and space sustainability emerged as significant concerns in the discussion. Dan York mentioned issues around space debris, satellite de-orbiting, and the impact of LEO satellites on astronomy. He also noted the potential effects of space weather on LEO satellite systems. Alan Veloso, a technical advisor at the Brazilian Space Agency, raised a crucial dilemma, asking, “How can we assure the universality of connection, of connectivity, and at the same time guarantee that we are not polluting our atmosphere, that we are following some guidelines that are addressing sustainability issues?”

Multi-stakeholder Governance and Future Directions

The discussion emphasised the need for continued dialogue and collaboration among stakeholders to address the complex issues surrounding LEO satellite technology. Joanna Kulesza suggested that the traditional multi-stakeholder model may not fully apply to LEO decisions, indicating a need for new governance approaches.

The panel identified several unresolved issues and areas for future focus, including:

1. Effective global regulation of LEO satellite networks

2. Long-term environmental impacts of large satellite constellations

3. Ensuring equitable access to LEO technology for developing countries

4. Addressing cybersecurity risks associated with LEO networks

5. Balancing national security/sovereignty concerns with open internet principles

6. Exploring business models and economic viability of different LEO initiatives

7. Integrating LEO technology with existing terrestrial infrastructure

8. Addressing the challenges of licensing and regulatory approval across jurisdictions

Conclusion

The discussion on LEO satellite technology revealed a landscape filled with both promise and challenges. While LEO satellites offer significant potential for expanding global connectivity, especially to remote areas and in disaster relief situations, they also present complex regulatory, environmental, and governance challenges. The panel’s insights highlighted the need for a multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach to address these issues effectively as LEO satellite technology continues to evolve.

As the field progresses, ongoing research, dialogue, and policy development will be crucial to balance the benefits of expanded connectivity with concerns about digital colonialism, environmental sustainability, and cybersecurity. The future of LEO satellite technology will likely depend on the ability of stakeholders to navigate these complex issues collaboratively and transparently, while also considering the unique needs and challenges faced by developing countries in accessing and implementing this technology.

Dan York: I know in the speaking order, it had me first, followed by Berna, followed by Jane. Rox, Roxanna, are you going to be showing any slides to begin the session or anything? Nope.

Roxana Radu: No slides, no.

Dan York: Okay. So it’ll, the first slides will be, will be me and then it will be Berna. Okay. And then, um, is that Jane?

Jane Roberts Coffin: It is Jane. Jane doesn’t have slides.

Dan York: That’s okay, Jane. You’re looking very spooky there with your background.

Jane Roberts Coffin: It’s very early, right? It’s too early.

Dan York: Yeah. Thank you for joining us. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, that’s okay. Um, okay. Huge dedication to the IGF. Oh, oh God, Jane, yes, you’re right. So it’s so late there. Um, thank you, Jane.

Jane Roberts Coffin: That’s all right. It’s normal.

Dan York: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So then, all right. So then, yes, I’m talking to the, so I’ll be the first one showing slides. And then, um, when I’m done, we’ll then go to Berna, who’s on there and she will then share some slides. Uh, Berna, could you try sharing now? Okay, there we see what’s there.

Akcali Gur Berna: Is it working? I think it is.

Dan York: We’re seeing it on Zoom. He’s just working to get it up on the, on the main, uh, screen in the front. That’s me, yes. After I’m there. Yep. I’ll just. No, no, no, no, no. So I’ll just do my part and then I’ll be done. Okay. Okay. Okay. All right. So then do I, can that clicker work for me? Okay. Oh yeah, it needs to be in the back there. We’re just getting a clicker set up. that for me here. Yeah, and then just do that, yeah. Okay, and then it. Yep, it’s working. Okay. All right, that works good.

Akcali Gur Berna: Okay, so I stop sharing?

Dan York: Yep. Okay. All right, so, Roxana, or, do you, are you gonna be introducing the session?

Roxana Radu: Yes, I’ll be introducing the session, introducing the speakers, and then I’ll give you the floor.

Dan York: Okay, sounds good.

Roxana Radu: I won’t do a very long introduction, so feel free to add more details in your presentations if you want. I didn’t want to preclude anything that you might want to say, but I’ll tell them a little bit about the run of show and then hopefully we have an engaging discussion towards the end.

Dan York: Sounds good, and like I’ve done in past times when we’ve done this together with Berna, I’m doing, I’ve got some kind of the, like setting the groundwork for what satellites, for the satellite situation and the pieces there, and then I’ll kind of go through some of that. So in my allotted 10 minutes or whatever we’re asking people to do. Yeah, 10 to 12 would be excellent.

Roxana Radu: I think you can take maybe up to 15, no more than that.

Dan York: Well, I will keep it to that.

Roxana Radu: Excellent.

Dan York: I can adjust to whatever.

Roxana Radu: And Dan, can I ask kindly for your help with any questions from the room? Because I won’t be able to point to anybody.

Dan York: Yeah.

Jane Roberts Coffin: And for all of you, don’t be surprised that I will give a disclaimer that I’m speaking in my personal capacity, not in.

Dan York: Okay.

Jane Roberts Coffin: I have to do that for ethics clearance.

Roxana Radu: Right. And Jane, I’ll just introduce you as a seasoned expert and so on, I will not mention any affiliation. You can bring it in if you want, but it’s up to you.

Jane Roberts Coffin: Yeah, they were keen that I didn’t over-highlight it, and I said, don’t worry.

Roxana Radu: That’s fine. That’s fine. All right.

Jane Roberts Coffin: I’m also new, so.

Roxana Radu: Okay. Yeah, no, that’s. Yeah.

Dan York: Channel four. Okay. Okay. This is a silent one. Hearing only with the headset. Ah, okay, okay. Okay, good, all right. All right, interesting. Little side detail. Everybody here has to wear headsets.

Jane Roberts Coffin: It was like that in Baku, Dan. I think they have every room is on a different frequency. Is that right?

Roxana Radu: Yeah, I think it might be the case. The other sessions I attended had the same requirements, so yeah.

Jane Roberts Coffin: Yeah, that was 2012.

Roxana Radu: There is an open ceiling, so.

Jane Roberts Coffin: Yeah, that’s exactly right.

Roxana Radu: A lot of background noise, yeah.

Jane Roberts Coffin: Yeah, interesting.

Dan York: Who has to wear headsets, so there we are. Yeah. People are listening, because they’re hearing our conversations right now.

Roxana Radu: Let us know when we can get started. I think we’re keen to start.

Dan York: Oh, we can go.

Roxana Radu: We can start?

Dan York: We’ll wait to see. Are you good to, oh yeah, you can get going.

Roxana Radu: Oh, wonderful. Good morning, everyone. Good morning and welcome to our session entitled Satellites, Data, Action, Transforming Tomorrow with Digital. My name is Roxana Radu and I’m an associate professor of digital technologies and public policy at the Blavatnik School of Government at the University of Oxford. It’s a great pleasure to moderate this round table on the role of low Earth orbit satellites, data governance and infrastructure governance. And we’ll look at how this drives part of the social economic change and development that we’re seeing in particular in conflict areas. This session is closely aligned with the sub-theme of enhancing the digital contribution to peace, development and sustainability and benefits from the endorsement of the global academic network. Network on Internet Governance, Giganet, and presents some of the results of two projects supported by Internet Society. It has been convened by Professor Jona Kulesza from the University of Lodz and the Lodz Cyber Hub, who will be joining us online as soon as she can. Unfortunately, she has a conflict in her schedule. That is why you will see me here instead of her. We’ll discuss today some of the key challenges and opportunities associated with low Earth orbit or LEO satellite solutions, including the developmental angle as well as the data sovereignty angle. We have three objectives for this session. The first one is to facilitate a broader conversation around this emerging field and also the global implications based on multi-stakeholder perspectives. Second, to zoom in on the challenges and opportunities in conflict areas, promoting sustainable development and peace building with digital technologies. And thirdly, to sketch out a set of policy recommendations that can hopefully drive more of the dialogue in this space and support policymakers with some of their decisions at both the national and international levels. So we have the following plan for this session. We have three amazing speakers with us today and we’ll give them the floor very shortly to lead on a particular aspect that they want to focus on for about 12 minutes to lead the discussion on that. And then we’ll take any clarification questions shortly after, give everybody one or two minutes for immediate questions. Then we will open the conversation for. an interactive discussion. We’re hoping to get your inputs as well as other questions and comments from the speakers themselves. So we’ll have this moderated discussion for the remaining time and we’re hoping to bring out not only regional experiences but also some of the global implications for these developments. Without further ado, I’ll give the floor to our first speaker, Dan York, who is on site. Luckily, he managed to do this trip to Riyadh. Unfortunately, some of us were not as lucky as he was, so we will be joining online. So Dan is a technology expert and open internet advocate, author of many books on networking, security, IPv6, Linux, and we can go on. He is currently serving as senior advisor with the Internet Society and he has been directly involved in leading a particular project back in 2022 on low-Earth orbit satellites. So we’ll give him the floor for the opening remarks and then we’ll move on to our two other speakers that are joining us online, one of them in London and the other one in the US, and I’ll give you more details shortly. Dan, you have the floor. Thank you, Roxana, and thank you, everybody.

Dan York: Oops, I’m loud. Oh, well, then I can’t hear any comments they make. Oh, and I’m falling apart. Okay, so my name is Dan York. I work for the Internet Society and I’m going to kind of start by talking a little bit about what are low-Earth orbit satellites and some terminology that we’ll be using throughout the rest of the presentation that we have today. So if this works, let’s see. Oh, it’s not advancing here, let’s see. This did just work. Let’s see. Sorry folks, we’re just experiencing a difficulty with the it was just working when we tested it a minute ago. … … … … Okay, we’re just going to try switching to a different machine. Okay, it did work here. It did work here just a minute ago. Oh, you might need to get to PowerPoint on here for PowerPoint to focus. … Okay, now let’s try it. Sorry folks, we’re just getting back to it. Okay, now let me try it. … Oh, there we go. Perfect. Okay. Alright, there we are. So, I just wanted to begin by talking a little bit about the power that we see in low Earth orbit satellites and whether it’s Starlink or OneWeb or some of these different systems. … There we go. So, this was an example, a picture that I’m showing here from a community network that was built up in the northwest territories of Canada far up in the Arctic area where they had no capability to go and get any other kind of subsea cable or anything like that. And so what they did was they used a connection through Starlink to be able to connect in and be able to share that connection with everyone else that was there. In the United States, most recently, we had some large hurricanes that came through our area. And as part of the disaster response, organizations were using, again, in this case, Starlink, to be able to go and help coordinate disaster response and work with us. They also set up wireless charging stations. They did other things like this. Similarly, in that same area, they were using OneWeb, another constellation, to go and provide 5G connectivity to people in the local area. These are just some of the many examples around how this can be truly life-changing in so many different kinds of ways that people have. The subject we’re talking about today is really around these Low Earth Orbit Satellites, or LEOs. And I want to just put a couple of pieces of terminology in here. If you look at the Earth and the orbits that are out there, the traditional satellites that we’ve used for the last 50 years or so are all out way at the very end in something called geosynchronous orbit, which is abbreviated as GEO, or sometimes GSO. And it is out at 36,000 kilometers away from the Earth. And that’s where all the satellites are that do a lot of the broadcast TV, a lot of the communications broadcast. All of that is happening out there. And that’s been the space where it all goes and has for so many years. The challenge is that it takes a really long time for a signal to get all the way out there and come back. It takes around 600-plus milliseconds, which would mean that we can’t do a Zoom call over that kind of connection. It’s a very long time. Things like video calls start to end around 150 milliseconds or so. So it takes a long time to get out there and get back. So this is why people have started to do stuff in what’s called medium Earth orbit, which is in the middle. and low earth orbit, which is what we’re going to talk about here. Now, what happens though, is that if you do something out at the geosynchronous area, you can use like three satellites to connect around to get global coverage. But when you start going in lower, you need more. There’s a couple of providers that have about 20 satellites in the medium earth orbit. And then as you get down into the low earth orbit, which is under 2,000 kilometers, you get into needing hundreds to then thousands of satellites as you have with Starlink right now. So there’s three parts to a satellite system. One is the satellites, the constellation, as we call it, of all the satellites that are there. There’s also the user terminal, the antenna, the dish, the thing that you’re using there. And then there is also the ground stations that connect these constellations to the rest of the internet. There are policy implications around all three of these different things, and they all come into play in different ways. So in a typical system, what happens is you go and you are connecting from your dish up to the satellite network and back down to a ground station and out to the public internet. And this is what a picture typically looks like, but because these satellites are moving so fast, you might only see one in the sky for about five minutes. It actually looks maybe a little bit more like this, where your signals are actually bouncing off multiple satellites as they’re traveling around. And this is one of the innovations that happened in this space. But then there was even a little bit more of an innovation, which is that what if you’re not near a ground station? You’re not, you’re not able to go and connect to one easily. This is where you might hear about space lasers and stuff like this. This is truly where we are connecting across the constellation to be able to go and have your, your traffic go across the constellation and then drop down to a ground station somewhere else. Again, though, this will have some policy implications as you start looking at this in terms of, well, where is that ground station located? Where is that? Who’s, who’s got sovereignty over that? Who’s got control? control over that. Where is it? You’re going across different borders, different things like this. So this is all part of what we’re seeing in this environment. As Roxanna mentioned, back in 2022, the Internet Society created a document. You can get it at internetsociety.org slash leos, L-E-O-S. You can get this document, which outlines a lot of the issues and things that have happened. But a lot has happened in two years. It’s amazing to think of what’s going on. The biggest one is that right now there have been 7,500, and this number’s actually probably wrong because it was from last week, and there’s probably been a couple of Starlink launches since then. I actually haven’t looked. But there’s almost 7,000 satellites just by one company right now up in space that are operating in this kind of thing. Amazing just to see what is happening around this. We’re also seeing a lot of innovation. I don’t know if… I was at a conference recently where somebody just pulled out one of these Starlink mini dishes, and he just had it in his backpack, just like a laptop. He just pulled it out, set it up, and he had Starlink connectivity. Amazing the way that we’ve changed the dynamics of being able to get this kind of access. I’m a little bit too frugal to go in. I don’t want to spend the amount of money to the monthly subscription fee, but it’s pretty cool. If somebody wanted to give me a gift, I’d love one. But it’s like, that’s not something I would do, but it’s very cool to see what’s happening in this kind of space. There’s also… People are using this for all sorts of roaming, off-grid capabilities. This, again, you’re getting into some policy things, because people are just able to go put this on their car, drive wherever, do whatever, and go into whatever jurisdiction, wherever they kind of are. From a technical point of view, they could get connectivity anywhere in the world. We’ll talk about some of the legal aspects of that in a few minutes that are there. There’s also… We’re seeing it now for in-flight connectivity. Many of the airlines are looking, they often have had contracts with the geosynchronous providers. And now, because of the higher speed and lower latency, because they’re that much closer to the earth, you can have latency speeds of down like 50 milliseconds. So you can do Zoom calls, you can do streaming video, you can do all these kinds of things. So increasingly, we’re seeing airlines doing it. We’re seeing new economic models. In some parts of the world, we’re seeing people renting out Starlink dishes. They’re renting out other kinds of things. They’re doing other creative ways to get these in the hands of people in some form. We’re resilience in the shape of disaster relief in having additional connectivity. It doesn’t necessarily have the same capacity as for instance, a subsea cable does. Subsea cables are often in gigabits to terabits of capacity. And these are more in the hundreds of megabits connection that you’d have here. But you are seeing this kind of resilience that the people are looking for. So you’re also seeing some people just going and buying a whole bunch of dishes. The state of Maine, which is near where I live in the United States, just went out and is buying a whole bunch of these dishes to go connect people in very remote communities where there’s no connectivity. Because part of it is you pay a fee for the dish and then you pay a monthly subscription fee. So they’re doing some work like this to go and do this kind of thing that’s happening. You’re also seeing, and this is the big disruptor that’s coming right now, is that these services are starting to offer direct to device. So you don’t need that dish, you could just use your cell phone. And you’re seeing this happening in the United States. Starlink SpaceX has been working with T-Mobile to provide this connectivity. And they need to get permission to use spectrum to communicate with these phones. They also need to equip their satellites with the radios that will transmit over the spectrum, but they’re doing that. They’ve been launching. satellites with this. They just got approval last month to go and turn on a trial of the connectivity in the United States to do this. They’re working with other telecom companies around the world, and other telecom companies are working with other providers. Vodafone here in Europe just signed a deal with another company called AST Space Mobile that’s putting up satellites. So this will be direct to your device without the need of a satellite dish, and it would give you telecom and also internet connectivity. So a very different model. It’s being fought, of course, by all of the incumbent telecoms, by the other mobile providers who are not, who don’t have those relationships. But this is, from a policy point of view, this is something that’s happening. It’s already happening in some spaces. There’s some islands out in the Pacific that already have this enabled through another provider. All of this is going on. The other part that’s happening is you’re seeing some more launching of more satellite systems. You know, China has started to launch their equivalent of Starlink. Well, they have two different constellations they may be launching, but they’re looking to launch about 10,000 to 15,000 satellites into each of these that’s going on. So you’re seeing a lot of these different things happening. I mentioned some of the policy challenges along the way, but one is that each of these constellations has to go through a set of approvals. And it goes, this is a curious part, and we talk about the multi-stakeholder model and how all this works and the pieces. There’s actually nobody in charge of where, of who gets to put LEO satellites where. The ITU, the International Telecommunications Union, tracks the geo-stationary satellites. They allocate slots for geo-satellites because due to some physics and other stuff, there’s around 1,400 spots that you could have around the earth. So the ITU allocates that, but they don’t allocate. LEO orbits and slots. Instead, what happens is each national telecom regulator goes and allocates the altitudes and frequencies, et cetera, and then that all bubbles up to the ITU for kind of record keeping and coordination. But it’s an interesting aspect of the current world that all of these things are launching, but they’re all under the kind of the national regulators who are sort of agreeing with each other on what’s going to happen. So we’re all, it’s all a grand experiment. Then those user terminals, they have to be approved for use within the country through typical consumer equipment kind of, you know, policies and pieces like that. And in these ground stations, you need to have permission to go and connect down to a ground station to go back out to the internet in some form. All of these things need permitting and need licensing and all this, which is why you’ve seen, for instance, OneWeb, which is another constellation that was now it’s owned by a company called Eutelsat in the EU, but they have their satellites up there already, but they’re struggling to provide connectivity because they don’t have the licenses for ground connectivity. So there are people at these organizations whose job it is just to go into each country and try to negotiate with the regulator what kind of, you know, relationship, what will you be able to do? And often in many countries, the incumbent telecom companies are fighting this because they don’t want the competition. And so they’re pushing back and making it challenging for some of these systems to go on. A couple other different things that are happening in this space is next. Okay. Let’s see if we can, what, it’s not, we’re not advancing again. I think we have to have focus on that. Okay. Yep. Oh, okay. The other big thing that’s the challenge that’s happening right now for the space is that there’s only one company that is consistently launching satellites, and that’s SpaceX launching rockets. So far this year, they’ve launched over 120 Falcon 9 rockets that have had their satellites on them. The other competitors in the space, such as Ariane Space, they’ve only launched one rocket this year. ULA has launched one, which is United Launch Alliance. Blue Origin has not launched a rocket yet. So the challenge that this whole space has, quite literally, is that there’s only one company that’s actually getting the rockets up there. And this is a challenge because all of these other providers are, they have no way to get their satellites up in the space. So I’m gonna just kind of talk a little bit about there’s some resilience questions. There’s a lot of spectrum kind of issues happening that are going on around, and you’ll see about WRC, the World Radio Telecommunications Congress. There’s a lot of these issues around spectrum sharing, what goes on. There’s also the ITU has some standards that are going on that they’re looking at. So there’s a lot of different things happening within the UN space. And we also, one of the questions we had here was about access during, in regions of warfare or restrictions or things like this or shutdowns. Technically, you could go and turn on this kind of access anywhere in the world. Legally, you can’t. It’s, there’s treaties, et cetera, that all do this. Now, sometimes that can be ignored in some cases. Recently, SpaceX, or last year, they had turned on the internet access over Iran. Iran did not let them do that, but they did anyway, out of pressure from other organizations and pieces so that people could be able to use it. Well, that created, Iran, of course, has filed complaints within the. and ITU and other spaces. But this is a space where it’s a challenge with that. The other challenge is that if you’re using these systems, they transmit. And so you can’t just, you know, they can be seen by other people. They can be found. So it’s not like just a passive observer. It’s actually doing that. So I think I wanna wrap it up here with just a final piece to say, there’s a host of other things. There’s space debris that’s going on right now. There’s environmental issues. We have real questions around all of these satellites have about a five-year lifespan. And so then they burn up in the upper atmosphere. We’re not quite sure whether that’s a good thing or not. When you’re at some point, when we reach capacity, we’ll have maybe 40 or 50 of these burning up a day in the upper atmosphere. I don’t know. We don’t know whether that’s a good or bad thing or something. So all of these and the rocket launches associated with that. There’s a big impact on astronomy. These can block a lot of the different, some of these systems are huge. You’ll see a picture here. This is about the size of a, in their new configuration. If you think of a basketball court, if you know that about half the size of that is what one of these satellites will be. So they’re pretty huge. So they go and cover a lot in that. So there’s astronomy concerns, there’s climate or environmental concerns, there’s space weather. There’s a lot of other different questions that we have around this. And the main piece is that these are things that we all have to figure out. And I’ll leave you with a final note, which is just to say that there’s a lot of people who want to launch into LEO right now. And let me get to, let me just give you this one chart here to end. There’s, I think if I read this correctly, at the moment there are plans for about 555,000 satellites that people have suggested that they would launch. Not all of those. are going to happen, right? OK, you’ve got to manufacture them. You’ve got to launch them. You’ve got to do all that. But the point is, there’s a lot of people who want to get into this game, want to be able to provide this access. There’s all sorts of different countries playing in this, lots of different places. So it’s a big space, and a lot’s going on in that. And I will leave you with one aspect, which is to say that with the new US administration and the proximity of Elon Musk to what’s going on with the new administration, I’m expecting that a lot of what they’re looking at will be greenlit. They’ll get to go ahead to go and do it, which will mean SpaceX will probably launch. It has plans for 30,000, possibly 40,000 satellites that will be going up, and some other pieces, and much more of this directed device. So with that, I’m going to say thank you very much. And we can stop sharing this screen and give it over to the next presenter.

Roxana Radu: Thank you very much, Dan, for this wonderful presentation. I’m wondering if there are any clarification questions, either in the room or online. We can allocate about a minute to anything that needs to be clarified.

Dan York: Are there any questions here that people have before we go on? I’m not seeing.

Roxana Radu: I’ll just say that we can summarize all of this as it’s all a grand experiment, in your own words. It’s something I’m going to use in the future. It’s all a grand experiment. As you were saying, there’s huge potential for connectivity innovation, but also a high concentration in the market. There are questions related to standards, to the danger of potentially weaponizing this technology. There are environmental concerns, as well as concerns around issues we haven’t explored fully yet, from astronomy to bird behavior, and so on and so forth. And with about half a million LEO satellites in the making. we can absolutely see this rising up on the policy agenda. So we’ll now turn to an academic perspective.

Dan York: Sorry. One second, Roxana. We do have a question here in the room. So let me give this to somebody here.

Simon Grasci: Yeah, this is Simon Grasci from ICTP Italy. I had just one question. I really like your presentation, but one kind of aspect that I’m actually wondering about is what will happen with these remote communities? Because if they will start to rely on this connectivity, let’s say, you know, one day something bad happens and, you know, we get a bunch of space debris, all these things falls down. I mean, what worries me that, you know, governments might have, you know, less incentive to kind of start to build and deploy and push the connectivity to this really remote area. So I’m kind of just wondering about your perspective on this.

Dan York: Yes, and that’s one of our concerns is just that they’re like, you know, this is truly can be, especially for the remote communities, this can be truly life changing. You know, we’ve got any number of stories of people who have been able to go and participate in the modern world through this. But yes, if we become very reliant on that, and we don’t have any other way to provide that connectivity, then if there is some kind of major issue with space debris or with solar weather, space weather, we don’t understand all of the aspects there, then it could become a situation where all of a sudden we’re losing that. So there is this warning that it’s awesome. We can get great connectivity out of this, but we have to think about the fact that if it’s the only path, and one of the worst cases we could see is that if these, the systems are currently being deployed, you have the biggest players are SpaceX, okay, with Starlink. They’re the biggest one. Then you have Eutelsat with their OneWeb constellations up there now. Then you have Jeff Bezos’ Amazon with their Project Kuiper, which they’re trying to get launched, but they’re building the satellites. They’re doing all that. They’re going to have one that’s the size of SpaceX, Starlink right now and that kind of thing. So you’ll have a number of Western companies that are primarily controlling this space. And it is a question if they wind up, if we wind up with a lot of terrestrial internet service providers winding up losing out on profitability, and we’re all using space-based internet, and it’s in the control of a few corporations and maybe a couple governments, the EU just announced they’re going to launch their, they got a plan to put together some by 2030 or so. So, yeah, that is a concern we have. Now, I mean, the reality is right now, even if they’re in low orbit, you still get better speed and lower latency out of fiber. So if you can get fiber connections, you’re going to get higher speed and also a synchronics that will be both download and upload and a lower latency. So that’s kind of your best case. But you know what? There’s also people in many parts of the world who found that their fiber infrastructure was wiped out in floods or other things like that. And so some of those folks are saying, hey, maybe I should have something startling for backup or something like that. But it is a question. And I think it’s a global concern that we need to make sure that as much as we embrace this for some things, we make sure we have other plans too. Yes. Roxanna, just tell me when I need to end the questions.

Roxana Radu: Sorry, this is fast. I wanted to say yes. And also the concern that if these are like private companies that governments as they move towards e-government are building systems around and then somebody decides to turn off the internet or they’re also providing service to like a country that they’re having issues with, that’s also very interesting.

Dan York: Yes. Who’s in control of the internet access? Go ahead.

Audience: Okay. Mine is on ground stations. Yes. For this kind of system, one ground station can cover even a continent. What will be the impact on? on internet exchange points and the original intended need to monitor traffic?

Dan York: So, yeah, good question. So one interesting aspect is that some of these ground stations are in fact being located near internet exchange points because you are able to connect into all of those different networks. If you’re not aware, an internet exchange point is where a whole bunch of other networks interconnect and agree to share traffic. So that’s what an IXP is. It’s a place where they all join together often with just shared peering agreements and that kind of thing. Sometimes these ground stations are being located near data centers so that you can be able to have quick access to cloud computing or to other kinds of capabilities that are there. But your second point comes in, and this is where some governments are being, if it’s going to somewhere else, then who is in control of the monitoring or whatever is going on? And so some governments who want to monitor or impose certain monitoring around that are reluctant to open up to these systems because they want to have control over what is seen in their country and that type of thing. Now, we don’t know what the licensing agreements are because that’s all not available in the public, but there is certainly a speculation that if I’m going to be approved, if I’m a LEO provider and I’m going to be approved to operate in the country, the country may impose certain requirements on the use of spectrum that say, you must have a ground station in my country or something like that. You know, again, one challenge is we don’t know a lot of what happens. It’s a kind of a black box. We know that TCP IP packets go into the Starlink network and they come out the other side. What happens in the middle and all that, we don’t know. It’s a lot of mystery around that because it’s a private network basically. Yes. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you for your presentation. It was very informative. First question is basically regarding the capacity because we saw some of the deployment and it was limited to 100 something megabit per second. If we are assuming having large island, then this 100 megabit per second will not be enough for them to operate. Maybe if we increase the number of satellite, then we’ll increase the capacity. This is the first question. The second one is basically regarding the business model, how it would be in the future. So do, for example, Starlink going to operate their services with local operators, mobile operators, or they will do it by their own and spreading all the internet connectivity all over the world, and I don’t know what will be happening in the future, so are we getting rid of these mobile operators?

Dan York: So Roxanne, I’ll wrap up with that one there, and the AV gentleman, if we could stop sharing that screen that’s up there, that would be great, so that the next person could come up with that. So the two questions, one on the capacity, this is actually why Starlink, SpaceX is in the process of trying to launch more satellites, because right now they have about 7,000 satellites that are up there right now, but they’re looking to go to, they want to grow to 42,000 satellites, their filings right now, largely so that they can be able to provide more capacity and higher bandwidth and all of that. They’re also looking to bring some satellites a little bit closer to the earth, down almost into the very low earth orbit area, so they’ll be able to get lower latency and higher capacity, and the third aspect is that when they get their starship, their large rocket to be able to launch things, they’re going to be launching what they call their V3 satellites, which will have a much higher, they’ll be larger, and they’ll have a higher capacity and higher ability to go and do this. So they’re looking to dramatically grow that infrastructure. As far as that business model one, that’s one of the open questions, because for instance, Starlink has very much a direct-to-consumer model, and that’s been their model. In some places they are working with mobile operators in some places, and especially now for the direct-to-dial component that’s there. Other providers like OneWeb are primarily working with mobile and other retailers and others, so their business model is more of a wholesale working with that. Like I said. a grand experiment. We don’t know how this is all going to end. So it’s going to be a lot of interesting times ahead of us. Over to you, Roxanne. Thank you so much. It’s wonderful to see

Roxana Radu: such a vivid conversation in the room already. And many of your questions already touched upon governance challenges. And this is what we are going to address with our second speaker now. Dr. Bela Bernamt Akalib Gur is a lecturer at Queen Mary University of London and an Associate Research Fellow at the United Nations University Institute on Comparative Regional Integration Studies within the Digital Governance Cluster. Berna, you have the floor.

Berna Akcali Gur: Thank you, Roxanne. You can see my PowerPoints and hear my voice. Yes, it’s all well. Okay, so good morning from London. And thank you very much for the kind introduction and for moderating this panel. Now, it is always a privilege to contribute to the IGF. Of course, it’s much better when it can be in person. But this year, unfortunately, I cannot be there due to conflicting personal commitments. Nevertheless, I am glad to continue our discussion on satellite broadband from an internet governance perspective at IGF 2024 as well. Now, as we all know, satellite technology is not new. Telstar 1 was the first active communication satellite, and it was launched all the way back in 1962. Now, many more had been launched since then. However, with the emergence of mega constellations, and the broadband quality connectivity they offer, there’s a renewed discussion on a wide range of issues relevant to this technology. Now, some of the most urgent questions overlap with the contemporary debates on internet infrastructures and the current geoeconomic and geopolitical tensions. Now, one company, Starlink, the undisputed current leader in this domain, ignited these discussions. There isn’t any strong competition yet, so most of what we discussed is based on its very short past. Okay, so… Going back, okay. Now, I have been working on a research project focused intensively on international law and policy aspects of satellite broadband since the beta testing days of Starlink, which was a bit longer than three years ago. Now, many in the industry in those days, they were asking whether this time, this project could be realized, because in the past, in the 90s, other mega constellations were planned. Teledesic was the most famous. It had promised to provide fiber-like connectivity, and the project was abandoned only for commercial reasons. Around the early 2000s, a lot of constellation projects had gone bankrupt, so the early investors in Teledesic, they just decided not to go ahead. And one of the main investors in this project, maybe of interest to the audience online, was a Saudi Arabian company. Anyway, so it has been possible for us to conduct this extensive and long project with Joanna Colessa, my research partner, Roxana mentioned, with the funding and support of the International Society Foundation. So when Joanna joins us, maybe she can talk a bit more about what. we had done so far. But today I will present my, I will limit my presentation to only one aspect of this project, which is data governance. And it is one of the two issues we receive most questions on. If you’re wondering what the other question, what the other group of question is, it is the environmental risks of these constellations posed to the low Earth orbit environment and the Earth. Just as Dan mentioned, it is a very important topic, but I will not talk about it today. But I have to say, I want to mention that we take that issue very seriously. And we propose in our research that all decisions concerning societal, economic and political benefits of this technology to be balanced against its adverse impact on environment, space safety, orbital sustainability, and astronomical impact. Now, if you want to learn more about what we had said on these issues, and some other questions, please visit our website. Now, Dan gave a good explanation of, of mega constellations and the orbits, but I just want to say that the low Earth orbit is a very valuable, but limited natural resource. And why is it valuable because of its proximity. And because it is, as I said, a limited natural resource. Now it is utilized not only for mega by mega constellations, but other satellite services, including Earth observation and scientific research, the famous International Space Station is there. So because of the ITU’s first come first serve system, and with the emergence of these mega constellations, the available space for the newcomers is shrinking fast. education, all the countries that have the financial, technical, and industrial capacity are rushing to put their constellations in this domain. And so this competition is a big aspect of the mega constellation discussion. Okay. Now, again, Dan’s talk and mine overlap a little bit, but I would like to mention the legal definition of the mega constellations. Now, we know now that constellations consist of multiple identical or similar satellites designed to operate as a network through shared control for a common purpose. And SpaceX has been very successful not only because of its launching capabilities, but also because of its mass manufacturing capabilities. So in response to this exponential increase in satellite filings and satellite deployments in the LEO, the International Telecommunications Union also updated its regulations in 2019 and provided for the first time a legal definition for LEOs. This is the only international law definition that exists, so I would like to read it. Constellation applies to all non-geostationary satellite systems having more than one orbited plane where the mutual relative position of each orbital plane and each satellite within its plane is important. It means that all these satellites, they work together as one system. Okay. So what inspired us to do this project? It was pure fascination and hope. We knew that infrastructure development stood in the way of closing the global digital divide within and between countries, and we knew that we needed to do something about it. In some regions, there was no business case to invest in terrestrial infrastructures, whether because these regions were sparsely populated or located in inhospitable terrain. So minimizing the need for terrestrial infrastructure seemed the perfect solution in these areas. There is also the case for increasing the resilience of existing infrastructures in times of conflict or natural disaster. We have already seen a few examples of this in the last three and a half years. So the first step for us was to see whether the domestic and international governance systems were conducive to the use of the Benga constellations by the communities on the wrong side of the digital divide. We have to remember that the developing world has a legitimate interest in broadband connectivity to stay abreast with the rapidly changing digital ecosystem. In recognition of its enabling role for all 17 Sustainable Development Goals, connectivity has sometimes been referred to as Sustainable Development Goal Zero. Now, the Digital Acceleration Agenda recently corroborated this claim, indicating that 70 percent of all 119 Sustainable Development Goal targets will benefit from connectivity. With a view to supporting satellite broadband technology to serve the best interests of the developing world, we analyzed whether the legal frameworks applicable to satellite broadband service providers to see if they were fit for this new infrastructure and to see whether they address the problems that we associate with cross-border Internet connectivity. Now, what are these regulatory frameworks? Any company offering satellite services must obtain landing rights from each jurisdiction in which they want to provide their services. So if Starlink intends to provide services in the United Kingdom, it has to go to the UK authorities. These licenses and permissions can change from country to country and will depend on the business model of each service provider. Does it want to provide services directed to consumers? Does it want to provide services to existing telecom service providers? Does it want to install a ground station but nothing else? The range of licenses, the cost and the requirements will change for each business model and each country. And each state is free to decide this for themselves as long as these frameworks do not contradict the international commitments they have undertaken. So the spectrum assignments should conform to the ITU radio regulations whereas the importation of user terminals will be expected to conform to its commitments under its bilateral regional or international trade agreements. Now data privacy and data security are among these concerns and a foreign service provider is expected to comply with the requirements of domestic authorities. In its broadest sense data security focuses on maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of data and protecting against threats like unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification and destruction. Data privacy on the other hand involves the ability to share data consensually with clear expectations about the context and scope of sharing. Both concepts are fundamentally linked to privacy, personal data protection and intellectual property. So they also relate to internet access as a right as meaningful access requires secure connections and safe navigation. Now digital data security and privacy are perceived to have a cross-border dimension. In response to the growing cyber risks and threats countries worldwide have implemented domestic regulatory measures that govern digital data flows, collection, storage, processing, often requiring data localization. Now, global companies that control and access data must comply with these regulations. Satellite broadband service providers are not exempt from domestic requirements and must adhere to the regulations of the countries that they operate. I’m sharing the privacy page from Starlink’s website. As you can see, there are additional links for the EU, the UK, Mexico, and Brazil. It has recently been reported that they agreed with India’s data localization requirements as well. When you look at the availability map, these are not the only jurisdictions in which Starlink has been able to obtain landing rights. The others are either content with the general privacy commitments of the company and do not require jurisdiction-specific commitments or there are other arrangements in place. Now, this fragmentation is clearly difficult from a market access perspective. But it is clear that Starlink is willing to commit to complying with diverse legal requirements. These practices are likely to set the industry standards. Though it seems very difficult in today’s global dynamics, aligning regulatory approaches through regional or treaty based initiatives could have reduced the regulatory burden on the emerging satellite broadband market and enhanced these measures’ effectiveness. But I do not see that happening soon in the next couple of years. Now, I will end my intervention by briefly talking about the data governance issue. Digital platforms, cloud services, data analysis. This is a PowerPoint. that shows the satellite infrastructures placed in the overall internet infrastructures. I thought it could be informative, so I’m sharing that as well. And in that context, I want to talk about digital governance. And our digital platforms, cloud services, data analysis and processing technology businesses have accumulated immense funds and influence, global influence, as a result of their global reach to data. The concentration of these companies in a few states, as well as resulting in global imbalance, benefiting from data resources, has raised concerns about the exploitation of countries that merely provide data and rely on others for digital technology, access and services. This concept is known as digital colonialism. And it is understood to expand the already existing digital divide. Now, the deployment of Leo satellite broadband services is also evaluated in terms of their position in the global data value chain. And there are questions if they have the potential to worsen the problems labeled as digital colonialism, as I just mentioned. Now, we argue in our research that if a common understanding of data governance in the context of satellite broadband is to emerge, transparency in data use and flow patterns of this technology will be essential. If satellite broadband technology is to contribute to sustainable development, authorities and users will expect their concerns to be addressed and debated openly. We argue that this would be best achieved through a multi-stakeholder process. And with this, I end my presentation. Please, we can discuss, I can take a few questions here, but also you can reach me through this email if you have further questions after this panel.

Roxana Radu: Thank you so much, Berna, very insightful presentation. I’m sure there are lots of questions. May I suggest that we keep all of that for the final discussion and we go now to our third speaker who has kindly agreed to join us from the US in the middle of the night. Huge commitment to the IGF there. Jane Coffin is no presentation. A lot of you will be familiar with everything she has done in the past 30 years or so. She’s a seasoned executive and internet community expert who has been working at the Center of Connectivity and Infrastructure Development Policy and Regulatory Strategy and International Development for many years now in different parts of the world. So we’re very excited to hear your remarks, Jane, before we go into a conversation with everybody online

Jane Roberts Coffin: and in the room. Thank you so much, Roxana, and thank you for everyone for this panel and it’s very exciting to be with you. I should say good afternoon, good morning, good evening, because I know people are beaming in from around the world. I just have to give a quick disclaimer that I’m speaking in my personal capacity. I’m not speaking on behalf of any entity and nothing I am going to say draws on non-public data. All the data is public or from my own experience. I’m going to come, what I’m going to say is more from the practical, is as practical as you were hearing from Dan and Berna, but from a different perspective and it adds another dimension to the technical, the policy regulatory, but also the more practical policy regulatory perspective that needs to take place on the ground, I believe, in a country when you’re assessing something like looking at licensing or bringing LEO connectivity into your country. There’s a huge dynamic here with respect to the need for a holistic collaborative approach across the multi-stakeholder ecosystem and that can be done, of course, through mechanisms like governments working across different ministries and different entities, as Dan and Joanna, I’m sorry, Berna were both mentioning. There are the technical aspects, so you need the technical expertise. There’s the legal, regulatory expertise that you would need. And if you don’t have it, you can draw on others who have been through the process. And you need that policy expertise, but also the practical, how do you do something on the ground in a country? How do you get it done? Where do you start? And I often like to say that when you start to have that practical focus, you really have to start to lay out a feasibility assessment and approach to how you would assess a LEO in your regulatory framework in your country. What would you do? Where do you start? And then what the impact is, and Verna’s mentioned the environmental, Dan has spoken about technical, there’s also the question of how are you going to integrate a new type of technology into your current infrastructure ecosystem? Where does it fit? Does it help with redundancy and resiliency? What are the economic implications? And it’s really, I think it’s useful to lay this out. And a way that you can find out more information about how that’s been done before is to read the paper, of course, that Verna and Joanna put together. But there are other guides out there. There’s one on satellites and communications by Dr. Whitney Lohmeyer, more from a technical perspective. That might be interesting. It breaks down satellites in general. It’s also taking a look at other countries’ filings and proceedings. If they put out a notice of public rulemaking or if they’ve done what’s called a notice of public inquiry where they’re just gathering data. And those are really useful tools from a practical policy and regulatory approach. Ministries use them all the time. UN agencies use them all the time. Regulators do. And I think what I would just say is that because we’ve heard that this is a grand experiment from Dan, that’s a great phrase. When you’re looking at this from a regulatory perspective, there are some very hard, hard, fast rules on the ITU-R side, which Verna mentioned earlier. But if you’re looking at this from the more holistic across government approach, you do need to be flexible. If you think this is only going to take one proceeding, I think that you could take a look at what other governments have done and realize that it’s as iterative as we move into the system of having more of these constellations, mega constellations, as Verna noted. earlier, in the ecosystem. And I would quickly just mentioned from that overall landscape approach when you’re looking at what to do. And those feasibility assessments. These have been run by other in other contexts, you know, for broadband mapping, for example. In other countries, there’s lots of data out there on how to run a feasibility assessment or to do a notice of public inquiry to gather that data. And it’s a normal tool I just want to stress again and pulling in that information is also extremely useful to you as an as whether you’re a regulator policymaker or civil society just trying to figure out what across the multi stakeholder multi stakeholder ecosystem is relevant to you. It’s also really important to think about your neighbors if you’re a landlocked developing country. I’ll take a country that I visited several times which is Kyrgyzstan. They’re triple landlocked. And so as a country and in the middle of many other countries. There are border issues. There are issues of, you know, can I talk to a can I work with my partners nearby. In order to see what’s good regionally and looking across the region from from an economic perspective and what’s doable. There’s also research, taking a look at again, not only the paper that the colleagues have written Burnett and Joanna, but others out there, there’s something called Leo con which is an interesting group of people that have come together. There’s the Internet Engineering Task Force looking at standards and other organizations looking at standards like the ITU. So you can broaden out your information you can take a look at all of the resources cited in different publications a paper in particular. And Dan also has when he didn’t mention a document he’d put together in the ITF which is also super helpful. Where you can also find good global information is working through the ITU development sector. There’s some questions looking at different types of connectivity on the ground and redundancy and resiliency and what that means for your country. From the technical community perspective, I mentioned the IETF. I’m sure there are others out there. You just want to do a survey. And that’s where that notice of inquiry can be really interesting or notice of information. I mentioned the ITU. There’s UNOSA, there’s JOSOA, there are other governments out there that have run these processes themselves. So take advantage of those processes to inform yourselves. There was a conference just recently there in Riyadh, I believe. It was the Connecting the World from the Skies Conference from the 25th to the 26th of November. So last month. There’s good data that’s coming out of that event, I believe, and lots of good experts there that participated globally. From a collaborative governmental approach, and Verna had mentioned this earlier, but I’ll just say this from my personal experience. You really need to know what the trade and customs authorities are thinking on customs duties, right? And I used to say this when I worked at the Internet Society that promoting the internet is wonderful, but keeping it in jail in a customs warehouse is another thing if your equipment isn’t certified. So take advantage of other countries having gone through processes, look at what they’ve done, run your own inquiry process because that will give you a lot of data. And it will help you think about those cross-governmental sort of vectors that you would want to create. It’s more of interconnection across government agencies versus networks. But that’s also a good thing, too, because you’re going to want to sync up and make sure that other parts of your system, your governmental governance system, are working well together. Also, I’m not going to touch on some of the data sovereignty issues because Verna hit on those, and that is not my expertise, but I would just take a moment also to say that from a funding perspective, these are expensive systems. So if you’re looking at working regionally or in your country, there’s some really good projects that have come to light recently. The ITU has something called the Digital Infrastructure Investment Initiative. I know a lot of the development financial institutions, which are the Islamic Development Bank, the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank. Development Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and others, and the IFC and the World Bank, they’re all looking at how do you start to fund more of more infrastructures, speaking of redundancy and resiliency, so not just one, but what does it take to look at funding large ecosystemic projects? And it’s worth noting that you have a role to play on the ground when it comes to those sort of feasibility assessments yourselves of what can the country bear if it’s a loan or a grant? What can you take in? And also perception of risk. Jonah had talked about digital colonialization. There’s also the importance of debunking or sort of taking apart the concept of risk when you’re looking at investment. And this is something I was looking at a different life, different job, but you’ve got to take a look at what that means from your own perspective when you’re talking to investors and you have to have a lot of data. That is yet another reason for looking at all the great research that’s out there, doing your own research and educating yourselves, but also looking at the proceedings of other governments so that you can see the different resources they’ve used in order to create a better, more informed process in your own country. I’m gonna stop there so that we can take other questions, but I wanted to just say, I’m coming at this from a practical approach, but it’s a cumulative practical approach. And if you look at how connectivity and from a policy and regulatory perspective, successful programs look at that technical, economic, the legal policy and the practical. And we can’t forecast what all of what’s going to happen, but you can get very well informed and draw upon other data that you can bring into your own policy and regulatory ecosystem. So thank you very much. Over back to you, Roxana, for questions from the audience. You bet.

Roxana Radu: Thank you, Jane, for zooming in on the know-how, but also the know-when and know-with-whom, because these are equally important questions. And as Berna also outlined before, And there are so many different patterns that can be explored in this, so many different country experiences, so many different paths that we might be able to engage with. And it has, on the one hand, regulatory, legal implications, technical implications. But you brought into the conversation, Jen, the question of risk. And there are obviously financial risks, there are investment risks, there are also assessments of risk that you can do on the ground. But something that has been on my mind through all the conversation is the question of cyber security. So what do you do with the risk of cyber attacks and going beyond just establishing that baseline of sustainable funding and sustainable connectivity? What happens when there are disruptions to that? And I think we might just have into the room now just the right person to talk about this very briefly. Joanna Kulesza has been able to join us. Her name was mentioned since the beginning. She’s a convener of this session, but also co-wrote a number of papers with Berna on the topic. She’s a tenured professor of law and teaches international law, internet governance and media law at the University of Lodz in Poland. Joanna, are you able to jump in? We’ll see if she can be unmuted. We might need some technical assistance. Roxana, we’re just… Now we have her. We have her. Yeah. I see that she was able to unmute. Okay. Anna is working on that.

Kulesza Joanna: I think we have a mic and the camera has not yet been enabled, but I’m glad to speak. I also see we have a few questions, a question coming from the audience, which is amazing. I’m more than happy to use the camera once it’s enabled. It’s wonderful to see everyone. Thank you so much for all the presentations, and I apologize again for not being able to join you from the very beginning. Thank you so much, Roxana, for your skilled leadership. I always get very excited when cyber security… mentioned also with Joanna. Yes, you can turn on your camera. There you go. I can see you. Great stuff. That’s how excited I am to see you guys. Thank you so much again. So just to intervene briefly I am mindful of the time. Thank you, Dan. Thank you very much for your onsite assistance. Cybersecurity, I believe, is the flip side of everything that Berna kindly skillfully presented. We’ve been looking at data. Data in Europe primarily means personal data and it means privacy. It means GDPR compliance that Berna was kind to discuss in detail. But the flip side of data governance is cybersecurity. So I feel like it might make sense to put it on the table before we enter the Q&A session. Roxanna rightfully highlights risk assessment. That seems to be a deconsensus among states. We focus on risk assessments. We build them into legislative frameworks like the NIS and NIS2 in Europe that includes satellite connectivity. But there’s so much more to be said about cybersecurity. It is the question of investment. What equipment do we invest in? The conversation Berna and I have been having around Leo started with 5G. Are there lessons from 5G with regards to supply chain security we could apply? It seems as if 5G caught at least Europe, but not only Europe, a little bit by surprise. We knew we had to have it, but we had little policy with regards to how we select the providers. It seems these lessons are now being repeated with Leo’s. We know we want them. It’s just a question of who is going to provide them. There is heavy funding, both in Europe. Just the latest headlines indicate the budget allocated to Iris Square. And Europe is pushing hard towards, this was just mentioned by Jane, digital sovereignty. We call it technological autonomy here. We would like to have our own Leos. In the report that was kindly mentioned, we would think about this as our Leos. So Leos that are funded and controlled and the data access is exclusive to those who manage them. contemporary providers on the market, they are bound by national laws on data access. This could be the national cybersecurity policy that obliges service providers to store data locally and enables governments to have a peak into those databases. So particularly when developing countries are thinking about using LIOS, these are definitely policy considerations to be included. And one theme that I believe is coming to the foreground of these discussions is also quantum computing. It seems as if China is investing heavily into the quantum to make sure that the provision of LIOS services is more efficient. This might be the cutting edge of innovation that will be added to the heavy investment in LIOS and the services that will follow. They are a part of the Belt One Road Initiative. So we just might see the discussion around LIOS sustainable development and data, including data access, have a very strong cybersecurity component. Again, mindful of the time, noting the questions already from the floor. Thank you again so much, Roxanna, for your skillful readership. Let me know if I can assist with the Q&A, but I’m more than happy to follow your lead here. And thank you everyone for contributing and for joining the session. Thank you.

Roxana Radu: Absolutely. I think we’ll move right into the questions part. So let’s go to the room and Dan might need to help us with passing around the microphone so we can hear online, but let’s start a conversation. Please feel free to also put your hands up online so we can see the questions coming in.

Dan York: Is there a question here? Okay, yeah.

Vladislav Ivanets: Yeah, hello everyone. My name is Vlad Ivanets. I’m this year Internet Society Youth Ambassador. So I think just yesterday, Europe has announced its IRIS program and they plan to invest like 10.5 billion. billion euros into launching their own satellites but there will be like 290 of them in comparison to 7 000 that Elon Musk has and China has like thousands of them and this program will it is like aimed at six following years so with this amount of satellites do they really able to compete with the private sector and with the agency they have like to create the regulations and like to prevent the private companies to be presented in Europe do you think that the sphere they can it can be regulated to that much that private company will be kind of limited from being presented in Europe for example yeah and what do you think can has more potential to win this space war I would say private companies or governments at the end

Dan York: anybody want to who wants to take that or should I say a few words or Joanna

Berna Akcali Gur: okay go ahead okay so I’ll just say a few words and maybe Joanna would like to add another point so the iris square project started as the motivation for the iris square project was to also have a secure space-based connectivity for the European governments but then when we saw the regulation proposed at the commission they also talked the regulation also talks about the the competitiveness in the commercial global commercial of the global market of the European Union companies. And so you mentioned, how do we choose, how does the European Union choose these companies that it will work with? There’s a strong security component as to how these companies are selected. So for example, one European company, one French company, it became a shareholder in OneWeb, which is a UK, India venture. And so the European Union was skeptical as to whether it should work with that company because it compromised, they thought there could be a compromise as to their security requirements. So when you look at the U.S., there’s a, I mean, I’m not an expert in U.S. law, but from what I’ve been reading, the U.S. also have very strong security measures as to space sector. So there are import restrictions, there are export restrictions, and there’s a lot of secrecy around the Starlink technology and there’s a lot of secrecy around any type of space technology. So if you, this is a competitive market, but the competitive market is very much divided between along the borders of the states. And so I think the implication of this would be the states that lack the technology, that lack the expertise, would be unfortunately left behind or they would remain on the user side of the LEO technology. But there may be different opinions on this, but this is what I have been observing throughout our research.

Kulesza Joanna: If I may, two cents. I would strongly agree, whereas I think there’s an analogy to be drawn between this sector of the market and the discussion we’ve had in Europe around platforms, where there was also the question of whether we can regulate companies. Europe takes this challenge through, we call it co-regulation. So we invite platforms to the table, we have codes of conduct, you could call it social responsibility of business, but it’s a little bit more than that. You could compare it to that scenario, but I think as Berna rightfully mentioned, the governments will likely want to have the upper hand on this, particularly because of the cybersecurity component or cybersecurity. security angle. In Europe, through regulation, it is NIS2, but it’s so much more. But if you look at China, which will likely have a very attractive offer, particularly for developing countries, the government is having the upper hand on all of these technologies. So as much as I like the European co-regulatory approach to making, building consensus around internet-related policies, I think the governments might want to have the final say here. And one component, which I have not heard yet mentioned, but I’m just going to bring back to the discussion, is multi-stakeholderism. It seems like we have had this platform, like the IGF, developed to make those decisions. Because of cybersecurity concerns, I don’t think there is a multi-stakeholder platform for the specific component of infrastructure that is being decided upon right now. So that is an interesting path to follow. I think it just complements your question. How should we make these decisions? Is the multi-stakeholder model appropriate? Is there a place for multi-stakeholders to chime into the debate around LIOS? Or will it indeed be handled exclusively by governments? And if not, even international law, but probably more national law, with Europe as the exception, with a strong EU framework. Thank you so much.

Dan York: I think there is also an interesting element with the IRIS-2, the announcement that was there, in that it will be interesting to see what the business model is and what they do, because the reality is their satellites, in the plan announced yesterday, are not going to launch until 2030, or the first parts of that. Now, there are a bunch of open questions, because the winning consortium included two companies, Eutelsat, which has the OneWeb constellation, and SES, which has its own constellation in the medium Earth orbit, and also has some geo-satellites and and is in the process of purchasing IntelSat that also has a number of geo-satellites. And so it’s a consortium of companies that already operate in there. So there’s a lot of unknowns as to what they’ll use. Can they use some of the OneWeb satellites to get some of this connectivity up quickly? I don’t know. I mean, it’ll be interesting to see where this goes because it will take them at least through 2030, so another five years. And in that time, you’re gonna have Starlink continue to launch thousands upon thousands of satellites. You should have Kuiper launching, Project Kuiper out of Amazon and more. So there’ll be a lot of competition in there. Now, on the other hand, as you mentioned, Joanna, and there, this is a lot to do with European security and European sovereignty of control of this. And so it may be that a lot of the business model is funding through the government entities and the other folks who are using it in some form. So we’ll have to see. I think there’s a lot of questions still to be known. I mean, I welcome more competitors in this space. I think part of what we’ve seen that’s made the internet so successful over the 30 years is that it’s a network of networks with a lot of competition and pieces in there. So I would welcome in the space-based space as well. We’ll have to see. I don’t have any other questions in the room. Oh, I have one more, but I also know you do have somebody online if you want.

Roxana Radu: Yeah, maybe we can go to the question in the room and ask for technical assistance to unmute the participant online. Like that, we get a continuity of questions and we address them together.

Dan York: Okay, let me, I’ll give this to you here.

Alan Veloso: Well, hello everyone. Okay, hello everyone. First of all, thank you very much for this panel. My name is Alan Veloso and I’m actually from the Brazilian Space Agency. So I’ve been following up these discussions. I’m a technical advisor there of international cooperation. I’ve been participating of some UN forums as well. And maybe my point of speech here it’s just a intervention to say that I’m as a researcher, I totally agree that we need a multistakeholder. holder platform to discuss all these questions, all these points. From a government perspective, however, we have just approved our new bill in Brazil that is addressing some concerns in space sustainability. And this is a point that, in the end, make in the middle of a dilemma. How can we assure the university of connection, of connectivity, and at the same time guarantee that we are not polluting our atmosphere, that we are following some guidelines that are addressing sustainability issues. And this is a concern that we have there in Brazil, and our policy that will be regulating this matter is still under development. But it’s nice to see that forums like this, the IGF, are maybe the main arena that we must have in pursuit to discuss all that. And that’s it. Thank you very much for this panel. And yes.

Roxana Radu: Thank you so much. I said we’re going to couple two questions. So we have one more that will come from the online space. And we have Advocate Nosifu Nandipa, who might be able to unmute now.

Dan York: Actually, Roxana, I was just informed that I guess we are not unmuting remote speakers. They are to type their questions in the chat, and then we can read them from there.

Roxana Radu: We will do that. Okay. Thank you very much. That was not clear from the beginning. We do have another question that came in the chat. And this time it’s from Chennai, India. Professor Gopal is asking the following. In the internet world, much of the action is not felt, remains invisible. Is there any methods to make one conscious? of potential risks, I guess at the intersection of privacy and cyber security from what we can’t really see and touch as such. Who would like to address any of the two questions?

Kulesza Joanna: I’m glad to start us off letting our panelists thank you so much. First, I think it was more of a comment from the Brazilian participant than a question, but I do strongly feel about the point you were making, sir, in terms of this being the time to have the discussions and having them in the multi-stakeholder format as the IGF, also having them at the ITU. But I think the point of this specific session, the idea that has guided us in this work is to raise awareness also among the individual users of the internet. Usually, particularly the younger generation does not really care where the internet comes from, they just kind of want it quick and efficient. This might be also the default thinking of some governments, so I strongly identify with your point highlighting the need to have these informed discussions now before the space is over-polluted or polluted as a result of the new space race that we are witnessing. With regards to the question from Gopal, I’m going to go back to the multi-stakeholder model again. I see some of our ICANN colleagues both in the room and in the chat. Maybe the answer to make this efficient is to go back to the one world, one internet motto that Dan mentioned and go back to the technical community to make sure that they handle all the data according to the same principles and standards. I don’t think I have a good answer legally other than saying, well, you know, Europe solved it with GDPR. We’ve invented this brilliant piece of legislation that’s now implemented worldwide and protects data, particularly of individual end users. But I know that that might be a statement that resonates very well in Europe and not so well outside of the EU. That would be my immediate response. I’m more than happy to hear what Gopal and Michael… panelists and our distinguished moderator have to ask. Thank you.

Roxana Radu: We just received a question from Advocate Nsifo Ndipa. Can I ask it now and then we collect other thoughts on all the different comments and questions we received. So this is a question that refers to Africa. What are the implications of this development for Africa? What will be the criteria for African service providers to participate in the platform? Is this not further disintegrating the internet and its infrastructure to the detriment of the deep rural that are still unconnected?

Jane Roberts Coffin: So I would just put out that there are quite a few African governments that have already taken a look and licensed certain Leo Constellation service, Nigeria being one of them, Rwanda, Kenya, and so on. And there’s data out there where you can find that information. But there’s a great opportunity with, as I had mentioned earlier, taking a feasibility assessment across countries and regions. You could even work through the African Union or the African Telecommunion, the Internet Society, the Association for Progressive Communications. They’re all taking a look at connectivity on the ground. And there are a lot of other multi-stakeholder organizations, as Joanna has mentioned, from the civil society and other side, they’re very interested in connectivity infrastructure in general. And so in particular for certain countries that have geographic challenges, there are quite a few. If you think of the DRC or you’re looking at a desert country like Namibia or Algeria, there’s lots of opportunity for looking at how to bring in more redundancy and resiliency in your infrastructure. So it would be a potential mix of different connectivities because you don’t want single points of failure. The other thing I would highlight is that many African countries, I’m on the board of a non-profit called the African Internet Exchange Association. Many countries have internet exchange points in Africa across the islands and across the entire continent. Those are very important parts of internet infrastructure that can connect up with, say, LEO systems or fiber. But I would just say there’s lots out there. There are a lot of people looking at this and the other governments that have licensed the LEO constellations that are currently active would have information. And I would strongly promote the notice of inquiry approach from a governmental or regional perspective to pull in more data. on any of the questions that have been asked, but in particular on the importance of infrastructure, regulatory policy, sort of confluence and multi-stakeholder.

Dan York: Yeah, I was just gonna say that to the question around Africa, I mean, right now, if you look at the map that’s deployments, Africa is still unconnected. And it’s the part that it’s not available. And that has a lot to do with that whole regulatory, the licensing of spectrum that I mentioned at the beginning. They have to go through all of that to get it licensed, the ground stations, the consumer equipment, the spectrum allocations, the uplink and downlink. So it’s a lot of work to get it licensed for each country. And so that is a lot of the work that they’re doing. And so I think if somebody wants to see what’s the opportunity for telecom operators in there, part of it is working with the country to the regulators to see what can be done to get the licensings accelerated. And then I do think this whole direct to dial is a whole new area. And I would expect to see that not only SpaceX, but also AST Space Mobile and some of the others will all be looking to partner with telecom companies to give them this added access. And so that creates a whole new layer of interesting policies and things that have to be thought through. But that would be one opportunity as that all comes online. Roxana, we did get a message here that we do need to wrap up in this session. So we do need to go to some-

Roxana Radu: Yeah, indeed. We see a few more questions coming in online, but I think this will be for a follow-up discussion. And I’ll hand over to Joanna just for the wrap up and conclusion.

Kulesza Joanna: Thank you. Thank you very much, Roxana. And thank you everyone. I believe that the last two interventions are a great wrap up to the session. I’m thankful to all the participants online in the room, particularly to our panelists and our moderator for gathering around this round table in a multi-stakeholder format, sharing their expertise. I feel like we have a lot of potential and capacity in the room. The last messages focused on Africa and the potential it brings to the table with regards to connectivity are the perfect takeaway message in terms of the capacity being there, being built. I’m certain I speak on behalf of all of us. The questions can be- directly addressed to any of the panellists. Do feel free to reach out. All the contact information is on the IGF website. We’re easily reachable online and offline. So thank you very much for being a part of this discussion. We’ve designed this session as a conversation. We would like for this to be carried on among different stakeholders. So please treat this as an invitation to a conversation to be carried on. As Jane indicated, having an assessment of regulatory capacity in a country, in a region, the potential of technologies with regards to data. I’m thrilled we have Roxana with us who’s an ANISA expert on cybersecurity. So all the aspects that were just merely flagged during the session are conversation starters. So my message would be to invite everyone to keep this conversation going in a multi-stakeholder format, but also on the ground locally with your governments, with your regulators and with civil society. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you to the panellists and to our moderator. Enjoy the IGF and let’s keep in touch. It’s a wrap. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Thank you very much. Thank you. Bye.

Dan York: Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Agreement Points

LEO satellites offer connectivity to remote areas

speakers

Dan York

Jane Roberts Coffin

arguments

LEO satellites provide connectivity to remote areas

LEO could provide connectivity options for Africa

summary

Both speakers highlight the potential of LEO satellites to provide internet access to remote and underserved areas, particularly in developing regions.

Regulatory challenges for LEO satellite providers

speakers

Dan York

Berna Akcali Gur

Jane Roberts Coffin

arguments

National regulators allocate LEO orbits and frequencies

Licensing requirements vary by country and business model

A holistic, collaborative approach across stakeholders is needed

summary

The speakers agree that LEO satellite providers face complex regulatory challenges, with requirements varying by country and necessitating a collaborative approach.

Data governance and cybersecurity concerns

speakers

Berna Akcali Gur

Kulesza Joanna

arguments

Data localization and privacy regulations impact LEO providers

Cybersecurity is a key concern for LEO networks

summary

Both speakers emphasize the importance of addressing data governance and cybersecurity issues in LEO satellite networks.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge the scale of LEO satellite constellations and the competitive landscape between private and government-backed initiatives.

speakers

Dan York

Berna Akcali Gur

arguments

LEO constellations require thousands of satellites in orbit

Competition exists between private companies and government initiatives

Both speakers express concerns about the potential concentration of power and decision-making in LEO satellite technology, potentially excluding some stakeholders.

speakers

Berna Akcali Gur

Kulesza Joanna

arguments

LEO technology could worsen digital colonialism

The multi-stakeholder model may not apply fully to LEO decisions

Unexpected Consensus

Environmental concerns of LEO satellites

speakers

Dan York

Alan Veloso

arguments

Environmental concerns exist around space debris and satellite de-orbiting

Balancing universal connectivity with space sustainability is challenging

explanation

Despite coming from different backgrounds (technical and governmental), both speakers raise concerns about the environmental impact of LEO satellites, highlighting an unexpected area of consensus.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the potential of LEO satellites for remote connectivity, regulatory challenges, data governance and cybersecurity concerns, and environmental considerations.

Consensus level

There is a moderate level of consensus among the speakers on the key challenges and opportunities presented by LEO satellite technology. This consensus suggests a shared understanding of the complex issues surrounding LEO deployment, which could facilitate more coordinated approaches to addressing these challenges. However, there are still areas of divergence, particularly regarding the balance between government control and multi-stakeholder governance in LEO decision-making.

Different Viewpoints

Role of government vs private sector in LEO satellite development

speakers

Berna Akcali Gur

Vladislav Ivanets

arguments

Competition exists between private companies and government initiatives

Europe is investing in its own LEO constellation for autonomy

summary

Berna Akcali Gur highlighted the competition between private companies and government-backed initiatives, while Vladislav Ivanets emphasized Europe’s investment in its own LEO constellation for autonomy. This reflects different perspectives on the role of government versus private sector in LEO satellite development.

Approach to data governance and cybersecurity

speakers

Berna Akcali Gur

Kulesza Joanna

arguments

Data localization and privacy regulations impact LEO providers

Cybersecurity is a key concern for LEO networks

summary

While Berna Akcali Gur focused on data localization and privacy regulations, Kulesza Joanna emphasized cybersecurity as a key concern. This suggests different priorities in addressing data-related challenges in LEO networks.

Unexpected Differences

Environmental concerns vs connectivity benefits

speakers

Dan York

Alan Veloso

arguments

Environmental concerns exist around space debris and satellite de-orbiting

Balancing universal connectivity with space sustainability is challenging

explanation

While Dan York briefly mentioned environmental concerns as one of several issues, Alan Veloso unexpectedly highlighted this as a major dilemma, emphasizing the challenge of balancing connectivity benefits with space sustainability. This suggests a more prominent role for environmental considerations in LEO satellite discussions than initially apparent.

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of government vs private sector in LEO satellite development, approaches to data governance and cybersecurity, and the balance between connectivity benefits and environmental concerns.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is moderate. While there are clear differences in focus and priorities, there is also significant common ground, particularly regarding the potential benefits of LEO satellites for connectivity. These disagreements reflect the complex and multifaceted nature of LEO satellite technology and its implications, suggesting that a comprehensive, multi-stakeholder approach to policy and regulation will be necessary to address all concerns effectively.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the potential of LEO satellites to provide connectivity to underserved areas, but they differ in their focus. Dan York discusses the general potential for remote areas, while Jane Roberts Coffin specifically addresses the opportunities for Africa.

speakers

Dan York

Jane Roberts Coffin

arguments

LEO satellites provide connectivity to remote areas

LEO could provide connectivity options for Africa

All three speakers recognize the need for a comprehensive approach to LEO satellite regulation, but they differ in their views on how this should be implemented. Berna Akcali Gur highlights the variability of licensing requirements, Kulesza Joanna suggests limitations of the multi-stakeholder model, while Jane Roberts Coffin advocates for a holistic, collaborative approach.

speakers

Berna Akcali Gur

Kulesza Joanna

Jane Roberts Coffin

arguments

Licensing requirements vary by country and business model

The multi-stakeholder model may not apply fully to LEO decisions

A holistic, collaborative approach across stakeholders is needed

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge the scale of LEO satellite constellations and the competitive landscape between private and government-backed initiatives.

speakers

Dan York

Berna Akcali Gur

arguments

LEO constellations require thousands of satellites in orbit

Competition exists between private companies and government initiatives

Both speakers express concerns about the potential concentration of power and decision-making in LEO satellite technology, potentially excluding some stakeholders.

speakers

Berna Akcali Gur

Kulesza Joanna

arguments

LEO technology could worsen digital colonialism

The multi-stakeholder model may not apply fully to LEO decisions

Key Takeaways

LEO satellite technology offers significant potential for expanding global connectivity, especially to remote areas

There are major regulatory and policy challenges around LEO satellites, including licensing, data governance, and cybersecurity

A multi-stakeholder, collaborative approach is needed to address the complex issues around LEO satellite deployment

Environmental concerns exist around space debris and the sustainability of large satellite constellations

There is global competition between private companies and government initiatives in developing LEO satellite networks

LEO technology could potentially exacerbate digital inequality and raise concerns about digital colonialism

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue discussions on LEO satellite issues in multi-stakeholder forums like the IGF

Countries should conduct feasibility assessments when considering LEO satellite adoption

More research and dialogue needed on balancing connectivity goals with space sustainability

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively regulate LEO satellite networks at a global level

Long-term environmental impacts of large satellite constellations

How to ensure equitable access to LEO technology for developing countries

Addressing cybersecurity risks associated with LEO networks

Balancing national security/sovereignty concerns with open internet principles for LEO

Business models and economic viability of different LEO initiatives

Suggested Compromises

Using a co-regulatory approach involving both governments and private sector for LEO governance

Combining LEO satellites with other connectivity solutions for redundancy and resilience

Balancing open access principles with national security requirements for LEO networks

It’s all a grand experiment.

speaker

Dan York

reason

This concisely captures the pioneering and uncertain nature of LEO satellite technology and its governance.

impact

It set the tone for the discussion, emphasizing the need for flexible and evolving approaches to regulation and policy.

We argue that if a common understanding of data governance in the context of satellite broadband is to emerge, transparency in data use and flow patterns of this technology will be essential.

speaker

Berna Akcali Gur

reason

This highlights a key challenge and requirement for effective governance of LEO satellite systems.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards the importance of transparency and multi-stakeholder involvement in shaping policies.

There’s a huge dynamic here with respect to the need for a holistic collaborative approach across the multi-stakeholder ecosystem

speaker

Jane Roberts Coffin

reason

This emphasizes the complexity of LEO satellite governance and the need for diverse perspectives.

impact

It broadened the conversation to consider practical policy and regulatory approaches involving multiple stakeholders.

The flip side of data governance is cybersecurity.

speaker

Joanna Kulesza

reason

This introduces an important dimension that had not been fully addressed.

impact

It expanded the discussion to include cybersecurity concerns and their implications for LEO satellite governance.

How can we assure the universality of connection, of connectivity, and at the same time guarantee that we are not polluting our atmosphere, that we are following some guidelines that are addressing sustainability issues.

speaker

Alan Veloso

reason

This raises a crucial dilemma between expanding connectivity and ensuring environmental sustainability.

impact

It introduced environmental concerns into the discussion, highlighting the need to balance multiple objectives in LEO satellite deployment.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting the experimental nature of LEO satellite technology, emphasizing the need for transparency and multi-stakeholder involvement, introducing cybersecurity and environmental concerns, and underscoring the complexity of balancing various objectives in governance. The conversation evolved from technical aspects to broader policy implications, regulatory challenges, and the need for collaborative approaches across different stakeholders and regions.

How can we balance the need for universal connectivity with space sustainability concerns?

speaker

Alan Veloso

explanation

This highlights the tension between expanding satellite internet coverage and potential environmental impacts in space.

Are there methods to make users more conscious of potential privacy and cybersecurity risks in satellite internet that are not immediately visible?

speaker

Professor Gopal

explanation

This addresses the challenge of raising awareness about hidden risks in new internet infrastructure.

What are the implications of satellite internet development for Africa?

speaker

Advocate Nsifo Ndipa

explanation

This explores how new satellite technologies might impact connectivity and development in Africa specifically.

What will be the criteria for African service providers to participate in satellite internet platforms?

speaker

Advocate Nsifo Ndipa

explanation

This addresses concerns about access and participation for African companies in the emerging satellite internet market.

Is satellite internet further disintegrating internet infrastructure to the detriment of deep rural areas that are still unconnected?

speaker

Advocate Nsifo Ndipa

explanation

This raises concerns about potential negative impacts of satellite internet on existing efforts to connect rural areas.

How can we create a multi-stakeholder platform to discuss satellite internet governance issues?

speaker

Joanna Kulesza

explanation

This suggests the need for a more inclusive approach to decision-making around satellite internet regulation and deployment.

What are the cybersecurity implications of satellite internet, particularly regarding data access and control?

speaker

Joanna Kulesza

explanation

This highlights the need to explore security concerns specific to satellite-based internet infrastructure.

How will quantum computing impact the efficiency and security of satellite internet services?

speaker

Joanna Kulesza

explanation

This points to the need to consider emerging technologies in the development of satellite internet systems.

Can private companies compete effectively with government-backed satellite internet initiatives?

speaker

Vladislav Ivanets

explanation

This raises questions about the future competitive landscape of the satellite internet market.

Summary

This discussion focused on digital cooperation in the Arab region, exploring the intersection of various global initiatives and their impact on regional development. The conversation centered around three main processes: the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Participants emphasized the importance of the Arab Digital Agenda as a framework for regional digital development, aligning with global initiatives while addressing specific regional needs. They discussed the evolution of digital cooperation from WSIS to the current GDC, highlighting how emerging technologies like AI and data governance have become central concerns.

The role of the Arab IGF was examined as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue and its potential to influence global discussions. Speakers stressed the need for harmonization of legal structures and positions on international treaties within the Arab region to attract investment and address technological gaps.

A key point of discussion was the complementarity between existing processes like WSIS and IGF with the newer GDC. Participants advocated for strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating entirely new ones, emphasizing the importance of inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches.

The discussion also touched on the challenges of coordinating multiple governance processes and the need for developing countries to have sufficient capacity to participate effectively. Speakers called for breaking down the perceived dichotomy between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism in the region.

Overall, the conversation highlighted the complex landscape of digital cooperation and the importance of regional coordination and representation in global digital governance discussions.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process and its ongoing review

– The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and Arab IGF initiatives

– The Global Digital Compact (GDC) and its objectives

– How to integrate and create synergies between WSIS, IGF, and GDC processes

– The Arab Digital Agenda and regional digital cooperation efforts

Overall purpose:

The goal of this discussion was to review the various global and regional digital cooperation processes (WSIS, IGF, GDC) and explore how they can be integrated and strengthened to advance digital development in the Arab region.

Tone:

The tone was largely collaborative and constructive. Participants shared insights on the evolution of these processes and offered suggestions for improving coordination. There was a sense of optimism about the potential for greater regional cooperation, balanced with pragmatic acknowledgment of challenges. The tone became more focused and solution-oriented towards the end as participants discussed concrete ways to create synergies between the different initiatives.

Speakers

– Khaled Waly: Director of the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States

– Charles Sha’ban: Represents business sector and technical organizations, President of the Multi-Stakeholder Program Advisory Committee of Arab Internet Governance Forum

– Qusai AlShatt: Member of the Internet Council, first president of the Multistakeholder Advisory Committee from 2012 to 2014

– Christine Arida: International expert and strategic advisor to the Executive President of the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of Egypt

– Nermine El Saadany: Regional vice president of the Middle East Internet Society

– Chafic Chaya: Regional manager for public policy and infrastructure, champion of the Arab Internet Governance Forum, current president of the Lebanese IGF

– Hussein Badran: Key member of the committee of Arab Mag and Arab Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee

– Ayman El-Sherbiny: Moderator

Additional speakers:

– Suha: Expert in the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States

– Mohammad Rashid: Representative of young business entrepreneurs and leaders

– Dr. Nermin Salim: Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab

– Maher Melhem: From Microsoft

Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region: Integrating Global Initiatives for Regional Development

This discussion explored digital cooperation in the Arab region, focusing on the intersection of global initiatives and their impact on regional development. The conversation centered around three main processes: the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Arab Digital Agenda and WSIS

The Arab Digital Agenda emerged as a central framework for regional digital development, aligning with global initiatives while addressing specific regional needs. Ayman El-Sherbiny highlighted that the agenda addresses digital divides and emerging technologies, featuring a unique measurement system and implementation framework. He emphasized, “This is the only one in the world, except for Europe,” noting its distinctive approach with 170 indicators across seven pillars and 21 objectives.

Suha from the Arab League discussed the increased engagement of Arab countries in WSIS processes and initiatives. She highlighted the importance of the WSIS process in promoting digital development and cooperation in the region. Qusai Al-Shatti pointed out that the digital divide remains a challenge, particularly in internet access and cost. Chafic Chaya emphasized the need for stronger partnerships and collaborations aligned with WSIS principles.

Arab Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

The role of the Arab IGF was examined as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue and its potential to influence global discussions. Ayman El-Sherbiny noted that the Arab IGF started in 2012 and has held several iterations across the region. Charles Sha’ban explained that Arab IGF themes consider both regional needs and global IGF themes, advocating for the renewal of the IGF mandate for another decade. He also mentioned that political tensions and military conflicts have sometimes affected the timing of the Arab IGF.

Christine Arida stressed the need for the Arab IGF to be more inclusive of grassroots organizations and youth, suggesting that more effort should be made to engage these groups in the dialogue process. The upcoming Arab IGF 7 in Amman was mentioned as an opportunity to address these concerns and further regional digital cooperation.

Global Digital Compact (GDC)

Qusai Al-Shatti outlined the five main objectives of the GDC, covering digital divides, digital economy, digital space, data governance, and AI. Nermine El Saadany noted that the GDC faced initial challenges in negotiating between multilateral and multi-stakeholder approaches. She suggested that the IGF could serve as a vehicle for implementing the GDC.

Mohammad Rashid highlighted the importance of data sharing and transport for startups and global scaling. Dr. Nermin Salim emphasized the significance of intellectual property rights in the digital context.

Complementarity between WSIS, IGF, and GDC

A key point of discussion was the complementarity between existing processes like WSIS and IGF with the newer GDC. Chafic Chaya advocated for strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating entirely new ones. Charles Sha’ban stressed the importance of giving stakeholders their respective roles while collaborating.

Ayman El-Sherbiny highlighted the UN’s role as custodian of both multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes. Christine Arida cautioned against the duplication of governance processes and called for breaking down the perceived dichotomy between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism in the region.

Nermine El Saadany emphasized the need for more consultation with regional groups to understand challenges and opportunities, promoting cross-regional collaboration and alignment in addressing digital challenges. She also noted the importance of streamlining various digital cooperation processes to address capacity constraints in developing countries.

Maher Melhem from Microsoft emphasized the need for harmonized legal structures and treaties in the Arab region to attract investment and foster digital innovation.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the complex landscape of digital cooperation and the importance of regional coordination and representation in global digital governance discussions. The conversation demonstrated a shared vision for digital development in the Arab region, with a focus on leveraging existing mechanisms, promoting multi-stakeholder approaches, and addressing the unique challenges faced by developing countries in the digital sphere. The upcoming Arab IGF 7 in Amman was identified as a key opportunity to advance these goals and further refine the region’s approach to digital cooperation.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: So we did it like that. Good morning, Dr. Ayman. Record? Record on? Record on? Your voice is clear, Dr. Ayman. Hello, sir. Record on. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this session, the 11th Open Forum on Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region. The Arab region’s view of digital cooperation has a methodological background, and has several processes that make up the concept of digital cooperation. Is the audio okay? It’s okay, doctor. We can hear you. Can you hear us? If there are other mics, please shut down the other mics. We’ll just leave the mics with the panelists here. Again, the title of this session, the 11th Open Forum, is in the 10th floor, titled Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region. The concept of digital cooperation is based on the title that was before us, which is related to the process of the World Summit on Information Society, and is also related to all international networks, and the latest one is the Global Digital Compact. Therefore, the founding title is that we are doing a round of consultations, after we did the first round in Dubai, this is the second edition of the Arab Consultative Conference on the WSIS Plus 20 review and the Global Digital Compact process. We’ll talk about the Pact of the Future, Global Digital Compact with Declaration of Future Generations, as it is, the context of this dialogue. At the same time, we’ll try to answer some of the main points in these dialogues. We’ll give time, God willing, on the floor and remotely through Zoom. First of all, I’d like to introduce our guests. We have with us remotely the panelists from the main partner between ESCOA and the Arab Region. We have a direct relationship with all Arab countries, but it is also strengthened through the Arab League. We are supposed to have with us Mr. Khaled Wali, Director of the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States. In this meeting, Mr. Belqasem and Ms. Suha will represent the medical team. Mr. Belqasem is the Director of the Communication and Information Technology Development Department of the League of Arab States. Ms. Suha is an expert in the Communication and Information Technology Development Department. They will be with us virtually via Zoom. On the right, we have Mr. Charlie Chaaban, who has several hats. He usually represents the stakeholder component related to the business sector in general, as well as the technical organizations specialized in technical academia. He also plays an important role in the multi-stakeholder arrangement in the Arab Internet Governance Forum. He is the President of the Multi-Stakeholder Program Advisory Committee. Mr. Charlie Chaaban is here with us. We also have with us remotely one of the important partners in digital cooperation, Ms. Christine Arida. She was supposed to be with us in a difficult situation, but God willing, things will get better. She preferred to be with us virtually. Her role is essential, and we will explain it during the discussion. She is an international expert and strategic advisor to the Executive President of the National Telecom Regulatory Authority of the Arab Republic of Egypt. She also played an important role for a long time in managing the Artistic Trust Team of the Arab IGF Secretariat. On the left, we have Mr. Qusai Al-Shabti, who is a physically a member of the Internet Council. He was the first president of the Multistakeholder Advisory Committee from 2012 to 2014, which is the founding phase of the Arab IGF. On the right, we have Mr. Shafiq Shaikh, who is the chief RIR in the region and in Europe. He is the regional manager for public policy and infrastructure, one of the champions of the Arab Internet Governance Forum, and the current president of the Lebanese IGF. On the left, we have Mr. Nermin Al-Saadani, who is the regional vice president of the Middle East Internet Society, in addition to her previous roles with the Egyptian administration. We also have Ms. Myrna Barber from the Esquire team in the Digital Cooperation and Development team. She is with us remotely. She will be with us during this session and its broadcasts, as well as the remote inquiries. We also have Ms. Rita Wahby from the Esquire team, and the research support. She will be with us to answer the questions and present the summary at the end of the session. Without further ado, let me quickly tell you how our story will go today. Simply, this hour and a half should be a journey. We will walk together and discuss. and we take opinions about the journey we all embarked on in the Arab region in comparison to the world, starting from 2002, 2003, 2005 and it has a certain significance and it has not ended yet then we point to certain things that appeared in 2006 and continue to this day then new things, other paths, appeared in 2019 and continue to this day so we found that the chronological discourse is the best way to move in the path of what is happening and because all these things are still vibrant and still a place of renewal and development so we will try to divide the questions in a way that is exposed to the older processes then the newer, then the newer, then the newer simply, we will start from the basics and you have heard a lot, for those who are new to this matter that we have 10 months left for the second renewal of the Information Society where it started in 2003, in its first phase in January 2005 in Tunisia and the Tunisian Agenda was issued but it also issued a recognition of major problems that were the biggest and greatest in the area of finance and this is an endless topic, but in the subject of internet governance so in 2003, which started in 1998 in Minneapolis people and stakeholders through the Plenipotentiary in Minneapolis in 1998 decided that it is necessary to enter the ICT world to the world of development and the world of international cooperation and therefore they set a goal to have a global summit and of course I am proud to mention these issues because I have kept all these things live in my career and profession from days before the United Nations when I was still in the industry so 1998 was a moment of a team, not only in WSIS, but also in the formation of ICANN and in the formation of many things around the world so the issues… These matters are still ongoing. The WSIS has been reviewed by the WSIS Plus 5 and the WSIS Plus 10. I would like to mention that Mr. Nermin, in the Egyptian administration at the time, was globally responsible for the WSIS Plus 10 review in 2015. At that time, he looked back 10 years and found that the most important thing was to continue the WSIS to 25. Today, in 2024, in a few days, we will see if we will renew the global WSIS in its form, content, and structure, or if we will change these things. Or if we will cancel it. No one knows, but it will be discussed. This is the process. Today, the WSIS Plus 20 has reached the second stage of renewal. We participated in the first round of this session in Dubai on May 22, and we did the first consultations. We will build on it today because there have been changes from May to today. That is, 7 months of a simple thing in the age of the internet, and also a quick thing in the age of policymaking, which is good news. This is the first context we will talk about. Then, we will talk about the path that resulted from the issue of internet governance. An agenda emerged in Tunisia in the form of an invitation to establish the International Forum on Internet Governance. We will attend the 19th round, and the second time in the Arab region, where the first time was in Sharm El Sheikh in 2009. So, we will ask the second question today about the International IGF, as well as the Arab one that we established in the region in 2011, and its activities began in 2012, based on the initiative of the ISCO in 2009 in Sharm El Sheikh, where the International IGF was present in the region. and arrange our affairs in a year or two, we will have an Arab forum. This will be the second question for the panelists and for you. So, today, we will ask what will happen now. What will happen now is not only a renewal of the WSIS within 10 months, but a renewal of the IGF as well. Will the IGF remain in its form and structure, or will we take opinions and contribute to a new formation? So, the second question is about the process that was born in 2006, and is now being renewed in 2015-2025. So, we are a team at the moment. The third thing is completely different. It’s not a Tunisian agenda, but it was the vision of the UN Secretary General in 2018-2019. The concept of our title is Digital Cooperation. He came up with a new title, because he found that from 2006 to 2018, there are still two camps operating at the same time. The multi-stakeholder camp is operating, and it produces dialogues and messages, but it’s not connected to the multilateral in any way. The multilateral camp, which was expecting more from the Tunisian agenda, was taking a side and fighting important issues, especially the issues of sovereignty and the role of governments. So, when the UN Secretary General read the 2018 agenda under the title of Digital Cooperation, which is not included in the report of the High-Level Panel, he was talking about a very large approach from all the camps, an approach between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism, which resulted in, three months ago, in the context of the Summit of the Future, the Global Digital Compact and other things. So, this is our third question. It hasn’t been completed for two or three months. Even our colleagues and I are discussing and arranging it. There is nothing new, but this morning Filippo, as you saw in the workshop number 7, said what I was going to say. He said, by the way, we are working. We are quiet, but we are working. I think that was good news for everyone. So, what are we going to discuss? What we will discuss there, we will start discussing with you, which is the stage of implementation, the implementation of global digital content. And finally, not finally, we will talk about how all this puzzle fits together. So, let’s start with the first question, which is about WSIS. Let me just go back a few seconds. The first question will be for the Arab League. But there is a part of the story that I forgot to say, or I deliberately left it for the Arab League, because the first intervention is the one that most people can delve into, but the door is open to all colleagues. Mr. Bilqasem, Ms. Suha, and Mr. Khaled Wali, the Arab League, recently, we have joined many companies, including the Arab Internet Authority, the WSIS 2030 Agenda, the Digital Cooperation and Development Forum, which includes all these concepts. I mentioned the other one in Amman. But more importantly, we have put together the Arab Digital Agenda. It is similar to the Global Digital Compact, but for the Arab region. We have been working on it since 2019, and it was an honor for us to propose it here, near the Ritz-Carlton in 2019, at the Arab Council of Ministers meeting of the 23rd round. And we said that we must do something for the region, like Europe, which has a European Digital Agenda. So, we will organize ourselves and work on the Arab Digital Agenda. We decided in 2019 to put a vision, and ESPO put a vision in 2020. We worked with all the countries, all the international organizations, and the Arab League and other organizations. and we produced it, and today the Arab Digital Agenda is based on the level of the Arab Ministry of Finance, the Arab Economic and Social Establishment, and most importantly, on the level of the leaders and kings of the Arab countries. The Arab Digital Agenda is its presenter, and I think the question now is about WSIS, because this is the first thing we are going to talk about, and the Arab Digital Agenda is directed to the colleagues of the Arab National Security Team, and they are the Secretary-General and a partner in the Arab Digital Agenda and the Arab WSIS forum. We have Sayed Belkasem with us. Zoom, if you can hear us.

Speaker: Good morning. Good morning. I can’t hear you, Belkasem. No, I’m Suha. Suha. Good morning. Can you hear me? I can’t hear you. Good morning, everyone. Can you hear me, Dr. Ayman? Suha, go ahead. I can’t hear you. Can you hear me? Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Good morning, Dr. Ayman, colleagues. Good morning, Dr. Christine Areda, my dear colleague. Good morning, Dr. Ayman. how all the processes happen, and the prep-comms, and… At that time, there was no big response from the Arab countries, and there was still a gap, and we were working in an isolated world. But with time, with progress, now there is a lot of activity. The university has participated in many things in the last year. We cooperated with ESCO, as you mentioned, focusing on many initiatives, like the Arab Digital Content Initiative. We started to look at WSIS more broadly. We created the Arab Digital Agenda, which is very important for all the issues related to infrastructure, cyber security, and digital governance. It encouraged us to innovate. There was also a contribution to the development of the international digital platform, in which we participated. Recently, we started from scratch, and we participated with ESCO in many steps. Also, the issue of digital economy emerged very strongly. We didn’t have it in 2005, as all the Arab countries, I’m not talking individually. After that, there was a big development, and the result is that two years ago, there was a digital Arab indicator for the digital economy, for the first time, and this is of course a breakthrough. The Arab Internet Governance Forum, which you mentioned, Dr. Ayman, Of course, the widest field that we have now is the cyber security initiatives, because many countries were exposed to cyber threats, and the response was fast, and it will appear this month at the first Arab summit for cyber security. A cyber security council will be established. We cooperated with ESCO. There was also a big development in the subject of infrastructure, and we were fighting it in WSIS 2005, I think it was the T3, one of the action lines. There was no issue, and we were not interested in it in all sectors. Also, new things emerged, the smart cities, and the improvement of civil affairs and sustainable development. Things started to look good within the framework of WSIS, and this reflects that the countries are very committed to many initiatives. As for the WSIS plus 20 reviews, we made an evaluation of the progress of WSIS since 2005-2003, especially in the field of ICT, and then… The sound is gone. The sound is gone. Did anyone hear it? The sound is gone. Thank you very much, Ms. Suha.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: By the way, I forgot to say that we all want to try to make interventions for two to three minutes. But until we get back to the field and the microphone to the Arab League, we will move on to Mr. Qosay Al-Shatty, especially since he is one of the people who attended the WSIS topics. So, I would like you to give us a glimpse of your vision for the WSIS topic. Let’s not get into GDC right now. The WSIS mainly and the Arab Digital Agenda, because it is based on the WSIS action lines.

Qusai AlShatt: Thank you, Mr. Ayman, and thank you for organizing this workshop. You’re welcome. Is speaking in Arabic appropriate? Okay. We have compared it to the global level of information society. There is a big similarity, especially when it comes to access, or the implementation of internet services, and to the digital infrastructure, and its application to concepts such as data for continents, and the governance of these data, as well as issues related to cyber security, in addition to issues related to the governance of the Arab world. But… Thank you. However, the Arab agenda is more focused on breaking the gap between the Arab countries in these issues. And this is a set of challenges. For example, if we take today the issue of the internet, and despite spending more than 25 years on the Global Summit for the Internet Society, the gap between the Arab countries in the implementation of the internet is huge, in terms of cost, quality, and bandwidth. The issue of wide bandwidth, or… The wide bandwidth is still a big challenge in the Arab region. The existence of exchange points, IXPs, within the Arab world and between some Arab countries or regional countries is a big challenge. ISOC did a good project in the African continent to establish IXPs between the African countries. But at the national level, in order to reduce the Internet, to establish a local IXP between employers or regionals, this is still a big challenge. Therefore, the importance of the digital agenda is that there are no clear projects between the Arab countries, but there are national initiatives that reduce the gap, strengthen the network, solve challenges jointly, and create partnerships between the private sector, civil society and governments to face these challenges jointly, or through investment to solve these challenges, and not relying on public resources only as a means. Therefore, in our view, the digital agenda is an ambitious agenda. We hope that there are indicators to measure it and implement it, and to solve the challenges we are facing today. We still have Arab countries where the Internet usage is less than 50%. There are still Arab countries where Internet usage is costly compared to the income of the citizens. On the other hand, there are Arab countries where the Internet usage is not 100%, but 99%. For example, we are in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia today, and the cost is less. Today, we have entered the international equation. The internet is cheaper and more efficient. We used to say that in the southern countries, the internet efficiency is lower, but the cost is higher. Today, the Arab countries face the same situation. The countries that are technologically advanced or advanced in infrastructure, the cost of the internet is lower. Whereas, the countries that have a simple or weak access, the cost of the internet is higher than those in our advanced countries. Therefore, these are all challenges that the Arabic digital agenda faces, and we hope to solve them.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you. Thank you very much. Actually, the next intervention is for Mr. Shafiq Shaya. Before the intervention, I would like to comment on the point of the Arabic digital agenda. Indeed, the Arabic digital agenda, when we put it in place, it still faces major problems. It may cause problems in the latest digital divide, whether in the policy divide or in the content, or in issues related to AI. But the beauty of the Arabic digital agenda is that it was built on a system based on measurement. This is the only one in the world, except for Europe. In Europe, we have an intrinsic system of measurement within the concept of the Arabic digital agenda, which is a compass, where we have been and where we want to be for ten years, divided into three stages of time, four years, then three years, and then three years. We have not only a baseline, but we have negotiated targets for each goal. We have 35 goals, divided into five large groups. These 35 goals cover issues related to politics in general, implementation, basic infrastructure, legislative infrastructure, cyber security, as well as issues related to the digital economy, and issues related to companies. emerging technologies, AI, and even cryptocurrencies. I mean, all the issues related to the digital economy, including the use of ICT sectors, which we still have, to create job opportunities and export them. You can also go to the Digital Transformation Department and see our website in the countries and how we improve our international intermediaries related to e-health, e-education, and the future of work, and so on. There is also a chapter on culture and media that deals with social media, conversions, and other issues. But the good news is that we don’t have anyone who thinks they have reached perfection. So, before we finish the first chapter, we agreed to update it within two years. So, during this period, we are also adding new goals and adjusting some things to cover the topics of climate, the planet, agriculture, water, even the peaceful use of outer space, and AI. Last week, we held a big meeting on AI, its technologies, industries, and the rule of AI four or five days ago. Dr. Hussein Badran is with us. I would like to welcome him and his colleagues. It is a living framework of work. It is also nice that, with our love for the GDC, we are still building an implementation framework. But in the Arab Digital Agenda, the implementation framework is built before it is implemented. So, it includes an implementation framework to support implementation, measurement, and implementation and sustainability. So, I am glad to hear that. I would like to go back to the topic of action lines and their intersection with the 2030 Agenda. Mr. Shafiq would like to tell us about his opinion on the important initiatives and actions, especially regarding the extension of WSIS and the role of the different stakeholders related to the Arab Digital Agenda in the coming period. Saeed Shafee, Shaeed Fadl. Thank you, Ayman.

Chafic Chaya: First, thank you for the invitation and thank you for being with us today. These discussions are really very important to share insights from the different stakeholder groups. So, directly to your question, Ayman, I believe that from the technical community and namely from RIPE NCC, to have an inclusive multi-stakeholder and impactful action lines, we need to have strong partnerships and collaborations. These partnerships and collaborations should be in accordance with the WSIS principles and objectives. Let me highlight three main pillars where our activities as RIPE NCC and let’s say technical community intersect with the WSIS action line and GDCs. So, direct to the point, I will go first to the first action line, which is the Internet Infrastructure Resilience, which is action line number two. When we talk about Internet Infrastructure Resilience, we talk about connectivity, we talk about security, we talk about how we can connect people to the Internet in a meaningful way. So, to do this, we had partnerships, we had collaboration with multiple governments and regulators. I believe we achieved a lot during the last two years where we can see now the region is championing in IPv6 and routing security. Another point that I would like to tackle in the infrastructure, from infrastructure perspective, is the IXPs. IXPs are very international. So this is one of the advantages of the Internet Exchange Point, which is very important to keep our data secure. The other advantage of the Internet Exchange Point, these are very important hubs to host local contacts, because one of the challenges is to have our content hosted outside our region. Another advantage of the Internet Exchange Point is to have traffic and we can’t do without them. So this is one of the advantages of the Internet Exchange Point. So I will go to the second pillar, which is the WSIS Action Line No. 4, capacity building and knowledge sharing. This is very important point. Without capacity building, without knowledge, we can do nothing. What we saw in the last years working in this region, we are not able to build a network, we can’t build a network, we can’t build a network. We need to have the knowledge, we need to have the tools. And once again, technical community and RIPE NCC are there to offer these tools, to support members, to support governments with the necessary expertise in infrastructure. So this is very important point. We need to take it into consideration. And the last pillar that I see an important point, which is the collaborative Internet Governance. And this is a good example, we are here today to collaborate. Without collaboration, as we said, we need all the expertise from all the stakeholders to have an impactful actions and to achieve our goals nationally and regionally. And here, last point is, it’s not about only collaboration between IKEA, RIPE, and the EU, it’s collaboration between What are some examples, perhaps insights too, whether any of the the technical community, the UN organization, the Arab state, all the organization regionally and nationally, plus the collaboration between NRIs that we discussed yesterday. We need to have this collaboration at the national and regional level to have these impactful achievements. Thank you Ayman. Thank you Shafi, very interesting and you brought to the table something that

Ayman El-Sherbiny: comes also in the real time to mention it. Part of the Arab digital agenda is what you exactly mentioned, the collaboration and partnership framework and the platform for this collaboration partnership framework and we have with Rita here now some brochures for the collaboration partnership framework. Initiatives as such is not just an idea to be put there in the collaboration partnership framework, sorry Shafi, but it was elevated in the beginning and was put inside the ADA. These are called the key initiatives, not only projects. So this IXP project and the routing project are one of 10 main, let us say fundamental initiatives that were put also under the adoption of the manuscript of the 1.0 edition of the Arab digital agenda. So we have these ideas deeply earmarked and as well put into this CPF, collaboration partnership framework, but we need all your initiatives, we need all your programs and projects so that we combine them together and create regional programs to support the implementation and also to drive funding and investments to the region. Ten seconds, just I forgot that RIPE NCC is a partner with Esquire and the government of state in the ADA. We are working together with them in two areas which is the IPv6 to ensure that we have the good connectivity and on the routing security to ensure we have a secure routing path for our data. Exactly. And the good news, it is part of Action Line 2 of WSIS and part of Cluster 2 of ADA. So, infrastructure is fundamental and we discussed infrastructure of AI last week as well.

Chafic Chaya: So, I know that Nermeen is the best also to talk about the WSIS, but I will save her input to more the relations, the GDC, the IGF and others.

Nermine El Saadany: Unless you want to give a quick comment on the extension of the WSIS before move to the IGF and then the GDC. Thank you so much Ayman. I just want to build quickly on the introduction that you have made and of course the deliberation of my colleagues and highlight. How can we make the Arab voice more impactful when it comes to the review process of the WSIS plus 20 and of course the IGF and the GDC and so on. And my comments will be very very quickly in three main pillars that in my opinion would shape how the Arab in that regard. The first is that we should have an Arab digital agenda and this we are lucky to have the ADA and it was very much promising to have the ADA modality when the ASPA was starting to shape it up as a multi-stakeholder model. So they seek input from all stakeholders to contribute to the document or to the agenda itself. However, we have a slight challenge, how are we going to implement this and this is something maybe we can discuss later, but it’s very very important that we don’t only stop at the drafting of the agenda itself, but rather to look at the modality of how are we going to implement because this will be very impactful that the Arab goes through the process of the review when they have one voice and one solid vision about the different aspects. issues and the different tracks of the WSIS, the GDC, and the IGF even. The other very important component is, sorry, is to be open to consult with regional groups. Yes, we do this, but it’s not very solid in the way we do business. So we need to do more consultation of the regional groups, all groups, so African groups, and so on, and understand the challenges they face and the opportunities that they see, and share with them as well what we see as challenges to our region, and exchange these kinds of views so that we go together aligned. So we don’t go in different boats, but we go aligned in the same boat, more or less. And the final thing is to embrace more thoroughly in our beliefs and in the way we think about multi-stakeholderism as a concept, and I’m not referring here to the normal multi-stakeholderism with the, you know, to be open to the technical community, academia, civil society, and the like, but also actually to include stakeholders from the Arab countries. So for instance, we always discuss, for instance, digital skills gap, okay, and we suggest, for instance, that we need to add curriculum, new curriculum in universities. While we don’t have one single university sitting in the room, listening to our deliberations, and thinking how they can take this and start to implement them in their own arena. So we need to include our own stakeholders, whether they are private sector, whether they are academia, and NGOs, and so on, so that we can embrace the multi-stakeholderism bottom-up from our own communities, as well as to be open, of course, to multi-stakeholder approach or organizations from, you know, the rest of the world. Thank you so much, Ayme. Thank you so much, Nermeen, and now we continue the story. As we go with the story, what started

Ayman El-Sherbiny: in 2003-2005 will continue, because it’s still alive, but we’ll add now the new aspect of newborn IGF end of 2005, and it really took shape in 2006. In Athens, we met, most of us, in the first year of IGF. I remember me and Posey were skeptical but he always told me the process will grow let us see in 2007 and let us see afterwards and the process took shape and now we are in the 15th edition so I said this before but I would like to now mention a little bit the Arab IGF the Arab IGF started as I said with an idea in 2009 and the first edition was in 2012 in Kuwait with the support of the Kuwaiti government and kids and especially our champion Mr. Posey. We had established the AMAG or the MAG of the Arab IGF in the beginning of 2012. We did a open consultation with all stakeholders, RIPE was there at that time, many others like ICANN, like ISOC and operators and so on and so forth so it started there we did several iterations in Algeria. I have Algerian colleagues today with us and then in Lebanon in Egypt we passed by Tunis by Morocco we did many junctions in the way and now the Arab IGF7 will be taking place in Amman as part of the digital cooperation development forum during 23 to 26th of February and we have also a brochure on that which is the orange brochure on the event but while we distribute it I will ask Christine because Christine is not only now going to talk about Arab IGF but she will talk about Arab IGF and how can it influence the global IGF which was part of the idea that we are not doing that to be like elves but we want to make a difference in the world and the question is how can this processes Christine like Arab IGF in which you play the head of the secretariat. representing the NTRA for many years, and I have Faraghi with us who played a substantial role. So Christine, tell us your views now on the second segment of the questions on the IGF, Arab IGF, the relationship, and a little bit on how this moment in history of digital cooperation can help bridge the gap between multilateral and multi-stakeholder. Christine, the floor is yours.

Christine Arida: Hello Ayman, can you hear me? Yes. And can you see me? I can see you, but I don’t know if you can see me or not. Let me check. I can see you, I can see you. So I want to start by thanking ESCO for organizing this discussion. I think it’s timely, important, and well-needed at this stage. I’m also really happy to see this gathering happening in Riyadh, which I think is a milestone in itself. So without further thanks, I think there are many people around the room to thank, but I think what is important at this stage is to look at the role of the Arab IGF among the bigger picture of the IGF role as a whole. And I’ve been listening into discussions and participating in the discussions through Day Zero and until today, and there is so much talk about the importance of the IGF at this stage with the GDC implementation just barely starting and with the WSIS plus 20 coming up very quickly. And I think the Arab IGF, pretty much like the IGF, has done a great job in opening up topics and issues and shaping up discussions. looking through the journey since it started until the last session that we had just a week ago to discuss with the Lebanese IGF and the North African IGF. We’ve been really opening up topics and discussing very important issues to the Arab region. We also had outputs, we had messages coming out, we had partnerships that happened. So I think if we’re going to gauge what we’ve done, we’ve done a good job. But the problem that is at hand is how do we link that to everything that is happening? How do we link the work of the Arab IGF to the other, to discussions among the Arab group in ITU, to discussions among Arab member states in New York? So basically, drawing linkages is, in my view, one of the biggest challenges that we are facing at this stage. And in order to be impactful, we need to remember why we have the Arab IGF, why we have the IGF itself. It’s to have a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and to come out with best practices, ideas, possibly even policy recommendations that was all very broad within the mandate and the Arab IGF was not alien to that. But we really have to take a serious step back and look at the future of the Arab IGF and see how do we want to proceed in that direction? And how do we want to be impactful with other NRIs during the coming year and shaping up also the follow up of the GDC? I will stop here and I hope that I addressed some of your questioning. Okay, sure, Christine. Thank you and stay tuned. We’ll ask you about the other processes as well. And now we move to Mr. Charles Chaban, who is also one of the key players in the Arab IGF role. He was a member of the Global MAG of IGF for some time, Christine as well, and he then joined the machinery of the Arab IGF and he became the head of the multi-stakeholder program advisory committee. So the AMPAC, A-M-P-A-X-T, Arab Multi-Stakeholder Program Advisory Committee, how do you consider the Global IGF themes? And how did we take it into consideration while we were planning the Arab IGF themes for next February, inshallah? And if you would like to shed light on your thoughts on the extension of the Global IGF

Charles Sha’ban: and let us say the also evolution of the Arab IGF. But the floor is yours, you can order as you like. Thank you Ayman, but we have two to three minutes so I will not cover everything, I’ll try to cover whatever I can. Well thanks everyone for that. In fact, important question and how we, I think we can go back to the start when Qusay, my friend, was the head of the Arab MAG, and today it was mentioned IXPs for example. So when we started even we used to know what our region needs and based on that we used to select the subjects we want to present for everyone in the Arab IGF. At the same time, the connection with the Global IGF, we used to always take their themes in consideration, we used to think for example this theme is important for us too so we keep it to be in harmonization with the Global IGF too. But the main issue I think I should stress on is we were always putting our region in specific as the priority and what we need here more. Going to the next one in Amman, based on the Global IGF and the local even, what we need, as I mentioned. We agreed that we will talk about three main themes this February, hope to see everyone in Amman. We will have one first theme about artificial intelligence, ethics and legislation. The second one will be about the trust, especially data privacy and data governance. And the third theme, my colleagues and I, of course, we agreed on one, internet and digital sovereignty. This will cover, by the way, what some people are discussing globally to about internet fragmentation. So these are the main three themes we will consider around. You asked me again about how we see the global IGF even in general evolving. I think we should push even as Arab IGF that we should maybe renew it for another decade. Even, I know you will discuss GDC later, but I think even the GDC seems they were somehow moving towards this and that they know that the IGF was an important body and an important event that everyone is participating on and interested in. So I think I’ll stop here for now to leave time for my friends, thank you. Okay, thank you so much. Now, if we don’t have other interventions on the IGF or Arab IGF, we will move to the GDC. But before that, I would like to give a chance for the floor inside and outside, if they want to ask one or two questions. Now on Oasis, we finished the Oasis and the IGF segment,

Ayman El-Sherbiny: we will move to the GDC, which is another paradigm, and then the linkages between the two paradigms. So if we don’t have any hands raised, I will, okay, Dr. Hussain Sadran, one of the key members of the committee of Arab Mag

Hussein Badran : and later the Arab Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Thank you, thanks so much, Ahmed. It’s a pleasure to be here. It’s an honor actually to participate in this. Thank you for Saudi Arabia. for hosting us, very much appreciated. Regarding the wishes and contribution of the Arab states, I think having a common agenda for the Arab states is approach number one, and I’m very happy to see that we have the other and we’re looking into refining it. I believe it’s also very valuable that on the national level the community can engage with its own delegate, with its government, to enrich the discussion, to raise the priorities. As we know, ultimately it will be a multilateral negotiation, and every government will have a vote, will have a voice in these negotiations to prepare the government’s representatives with the priorities from a multi-stakeholder perspective, what is important to society, what’s important to the private sector, the businesses, the academia, so that when their representatives go to New York and negotiate, they are armed with this information. Some countries are doing this already, but I hope that in the Arab region we can approach our own governments and make them, and arm them with this kind of information.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you. Okay, but before you leave, I will not leave you, I’m coming, approaching to you, to ask something that people think it doesn’t relate to WSIS, and they think it doesn’t relate to IGF, but it, from my point of view, does. Do you think that the AI is alien to the WSIS? A WSIS cannot cover the AI with the action lines of Essex infrastructure, cultural media, and all these things, because when we go to the GDC, I would like also to hear your views as we are renewing the WSIS.

Hussein Badran : Yeah, I think technology, particularly emerging technologies have a role to play in all these discussions, in terms of, not only in terms of development and infrastructure, but also in capacity building and businesses. They have an impact on business, they have an impact on the economy, and they have an impact on knowledge. So they have a role to play, and being aware of these concepts and how they impact us and having our voice raised is very critical. They have a role to play, for sure. Very good, thank you so much. So I will leave another version of the replies to every one of the panelists, whenever they want. and to tell us how can the West’s action lines cover emerging technologies. And I’m with the approach of Shafi to snatch the mic. Go ahead. No, because you know that I need to leave in two minutes. So, just to comment on the GDC. I believe the strategic location of the Middle East region and the advancement, the technology advancement that we are witnessing now, plus the openness of the region could be really a leverage for our strength and to show our cases at the global level at the GDC. So, what we need to do is to take success stories, is to take our collaboration that achieved a lot of progress and achievements and to share it at the global level during these global processes like GDC and others. So, I will stop here and I would like to invite you at 1pm workshop, room number seven, we’ll have the Lebanese and the Canadian IGF workshop to show how a developing country as Lebanon and a developed country as Canada, both of them, they are leveraging their own multi-stakeholder approach for IGF.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you, Eman, for the invitation again and good luck for the end of this workshop. Thank you. Thank you. And once we finish here, we’ll go to this workshop because Esko is also participating in, our colleague Mirna Barba. So, we will go, which room you said, seven? Seven, okay. So, now I’ll move to the GDC and Mr. Qusaysh Shati is one of the international experts who digged deep and made a lot of dives while we were negotiating the GDC, REV1, REV3 and so on, and now the GDC. And can you just tell us what are the five objectives, just to give the audience a glimpse of these five objectives quickly? Until you are ready, I will just give the history of the GDC. The GDC started as an idea… during the report on digital cooperation in 2019, also the idea of tech envoy office, OSET, and then in Esquire we did contribute to regional consultations on this digital cooperation since 2019 in Berlin when we were IJF, and then during the COVID, and then we took it further in 2021 in the first edition of the Arab International Digital Cooperation Development Forum. In our views, we thought this is the way we can be in advance before even it is negotiated, and before it went to the summit of the future and came up. So I asked Kossai on the main objectives of GDC, but let me explain the context. The summit of the future, the pact, had chapter three, some articles related to science, technology, innovation, digital technology, and so on, but the main annex was the global digital compact negotiated text, another annex on the future generations, but the objectives are the core of the core. So Kossai, what are the five objectives of the GDC?

Qusai AlShatt: Thank you, dear Ayman, but let me start from the previous topic, which is can WSIS and IJF accommodate emerging technologies? Okay, go ahead. And that will be the bridge. Paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda, which said the mandate, the Internet Governance Forum stated that part of the role of the IJF is to accommodate emerging technologies. Emerging technologies 2005, that is AI today, that is the blockchain today, that has been today, this is just an example. So AI can be accommodated based on the fact that emerging technology was always part of the main agenda of the IJF, since it is launched and part of the WSIS too. So moving from there to the GDC. The Global Compact is a positive, proactive evolution of the WSIS Outputs, which is the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda. These two documents have been produced in 2005. For more than 10 years, you need to be more current, you need to update the concerns and the objectives of the global community. So the first one, closing all digital divides and accelerating progress across the Sustainable Development Goals. It links the digital divide with the Sustainable Development Goals, and yet it puts the access actually issues under the digital divide. So today, connectivity, digital literacy, skills and capacities, and digital public goods, and digital public infrastructure became part of the digital divide objective within the global. This is not a contradictory, this is an evolution. So we consider the digital divide is not only the human skill, but also the infrastructure and services that are available to him to improve his skills and use it as part of his daily life. The other objective was getting the benefit of the digital economy and making the digital economy inclusive to all. So we need to get all as individuals, as stakeholders, as communities, as countries, as regions, and the global world to get the benefit of the digital economy and making the digital economy inclusive to all. This is to promote entrepreneurship. This is to promote inclusion. This is to promote inclusion. is to promote innovation. This is to make the digital world more linked to our needs and requirements. Three, fostering an inclusive, open, safe, and secure digital space. There is a fact that with the explosion of social networks, social platforms, the daily interaction between us through the digital space created a new issue. So under this objective, human rights as a personal individual right in the digital space, internet governance became part of this objective. The digital trust and safety where I need to have verified, authenticated, validated information available to me as an individual, or as a business, or as a government, or as a public information. And of course, information integrity, referencing information, and having always a differentiation between information that is baseless and baseful information. Objective four, advanced, responsible, equitable, and interoperable data governance approaches. Of course, this is a major issue today where we are talking about data privacy, security, including cybersecurity and security of individual, and what is called the data exchanges and standards. I have a good discussion with my colleague, Mohammad Rashidi, regarding exchanging data and standards in that regards. It is important today with technologies like fintech and the blockchains, for example, to have such standards available and widely adopted. And of course, utilizing data for sustainable development goals and cross-border data flows and interoperable data governance. So moving to transport. their data and governance of data. And the last objective, of course, enhancing international governance of artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. So the fact is, AI to serve humanity, not the other way around. This is the global team. I’ll stop here because I took time.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: But very important, like setting the scene for the GDC discussion, as you have seen, divides still the main concern. The digital economy became a more obvious concern. It was not very clear in the WSIS, as well as the inclusion and human rights centricity. And the last two objectives were focusing on the data governance and the AI governance. So anyways, it’s a very important addition. They still can live together with the WSIS and GDC. But now I’d like to ask Nermeen on her views on how can both processes, the one we just closed, the IGF and its renewal, and the GDC during its setting the pace for implementation, how can they synergize with each other? Thank you so much, Ayman. You hear me? Yes.

Nermine El Saadany: Okay. And thank you so much, Kosai, for setting the scene. I was just thinking, shall I start with the explaining the objectives of the GDC? So thank you. And allow me as well to just play a little bit of a devil advocate and say that the GDC has, maybe at the beginning, at its beginning, I mean, faced some challenges in the modality that they were working and the way that they will be negotiating the text, multilateral versus multistakeholderism and so on. And this took us back in ages when we were starting the process of the WSIS and there were this kind of, you know, like heat or cloud over our heads. how should we look at the WSIS and now how should we look at the GDC. The GDC had successfully completed its discussion and I think the lessons that we can learn from this and how can we link it with the IGF and WSIS review process is that we will not, definitely we will agree that we will not want to go back in ages and repeat the same mistakes and we believe as well that the community again with the process of the GDC and the challenges that it faced this by itself emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholderism as a way to communicate and discuss such issues and that there are very much synergies and similarities between the GDC objectives and the WSIS action lines and that takes me actually to how can we integrate all this together and in our opinion at the International Society we believe that the Internet Governance Forum could actually be a kind of a vehicle for the implementation of the GDC so that we don’t repeat or compete with existing models but rather to strengthen what we actually have and extend the mandate as Kossai has rightly mentioned and made us all remember paragraph 72 of the Tunis agenda it encompassed, I mean the mandate of the IGF encompasses emerging technologies so easily with the system and the modality of the MAG and so on we can always incorporate new technologies within the discussions of the IGF and maybe include as well how can we implement the output of the GDC and therefore we integrate the processes together instead of having more than verticals than we can actually accommodate as international community at large. Thank you so much.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thanks a lot Nermine. and we are like approaching seamlessly the force by this input and I don’t want to spend a lot of time on the GDC I think the complementarity is very important we are now know the GDC we know the WSIS we started to get a component of this say IGF can be compatible I see that the action lines of the WSIS are all compatible so the complementarity is there and because we have only 20 or less 20 minutes or less to go I’d like to move to this last segment and see how can these all fit together for example first question the object at the what and the mechanism the how the what are the targets the goals and the concerns of the WSIS of the GDC are areas of improvements aspirations and so on they fit together a plus b there is no contradiction a a a plus b or b b b 1 b 2 and so on so there is concatenation super set between more aspirations together so the what is not a problem the the how the modalities we have WSIS forum we have IGF forum we have preparatory process for the IOSIS preparatory process for the forum IGF but not only that but we have STI forum and we have interagency task team in New York for the STI and we have also RCM I see many mechanisms for the STI which is part of the GDC but all of that they have the CSTD and there is a part an article in the section on GDC follow-up mechanisms relates to the CSTD and CSTD is there in the GDC a new suggested modalities which are also worthwhile a scientific committee for on the AI international dialogue of organization on AI. There is also things related to the data governance and so on. But as Mr. Hassan explained it very smoothly, easily a few days ago in our AGM on AI, the scientific community of new nature is invited to play a new role. As the science of AI differs from the science from critical resources that we debated 20 years ago. There is this new mechanisms and existing mechanisms. How can we take from you some wisdom and give it to the kitchen that Filippo talked about in the morning, which I’m proud to be part of it, shaping the modality of implementation of GDC at the UN global level. What would you give me as intake that I can bring to the design phase as Isabella has explained in the morning? I felt you raised hand, but he got the hand first. It’s good to get the hands of the floor. Mohammad Rashid is a good friend and one of the representatives of the young business entrepreneurs and leaders.

Mohammad Rashid: Assalamu alaikum. I would like to emphasize more on brother Qusai objectives that he mentioned under the Global Digital Compact about data sharing and transporting data. How this is impacting the community of the startups. I’m coming from the knowledge economy. We are building startups and supporting startups, especially in deep tech. And this is a very important aspect that will impact three major stakeholders. The first stakeholder is the entrepreneur themselves, the founders, the startups. They would like to optimize, so optimizing their operation by remote workers working on these data, if there is no accessibility to these data to be shared, they cannot utilize the external talents. Building on top of the existing incubators of the clouds that are available anywhere globally with certain skill sets and certain technologies, to access this as an entrepreneur, I cannot have the affordability to have it on-prem or within my jurisdicts. I can via this data sharing and transport of data, I can benefit out of that. Also, I’m going to benefit out from the multilateral partnerships that can be cross-governments or private in a global scale, not within the country. The second aspect, which is very important, is about the investors. Investors today, as an entrepreneur or a startup, I’m always looking for scaling up. And investors are looking for a company that works on a global scale, not only on a local scale. So accessing other markets, if the data accessibility is not there, I cannot branch, I cannot transport, I cannot scale. So today we are working in a global village. This internet is a global village, and it’s a one market, one digital market. And data has become now a bit borderless with the open flow of data, and it became a shared resource, global public good as well. Exactly. So the privacy is going to be only on the credentials. So those credentials, if it’s tokenized and mapped, and this data is going to be available, you can personalize, you can do everything. Then later you can map it to the token to disclose the identity based on a request that is being given ahead to that customer profile to disclose.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: OK, thank you so much. It’s very clear. And he picked on this data governance objective, which is four. It resonates with digital economy objective two. It resonates with AI and many other things. So again, how can the mechanisms work together, Sai? And there is a lady over there. And if there is someone from the remote floor and here also. Fadal, Sai. Shafiq, sorry, Shafiq was before you.

Chafic Chaya: Can we give him the floor and come back to you? We need to focus on the process that is complementary and remove the redundancy. For example, we know for all that the IGF is the most inclusive platform from all these platforms, where all stakeholders on equal footing are coming to an independent platform, talking about all issues, including emerging technologies. So I need to complement the IGF, which is all inclusive, but non-binding, non-output platform with other activities, like the CSTD, like the internet-related governance organization, like the WSIS-related bodies, which is intergovernmental. If we complement each other with a clear process, that will be the positive outcome for all. OK, so if I rephrase what you said, it’s like strengthening some nodes and links in this existing ecosystem, existing network, to make it more ready for the new aspirations. Make it the most inclusive platform. The most inclusive platform exists and operates. OK, so what is operating? What is ticking? Don’t break it, just fix it and make it more stronger. And what is missing? Add it. So that is logical thinking of engineers, of course. that can be brought in a clear message as an outcome. Shafiq? Sorry, Charles. Two Hs. Yeah, thank you. Well, in fact, I’m glad. There are four Shins. Charles, Shaban, Shafiq, Shaya. I have my excuse. Don’t worry, of course. In fact, I’m glad I gave the opportunity to speak before me because I wanted to start that and continue on one other thing. So I can continue what you started, which is mainly, if we go back as I went back to the WSIS, the original definition of the Internet Governance, if you remember, of course, I mean, you were from the beginning, when they defined what is Internet Governance, they said to give each one its own role. I don’t remember the same sentence. In the respective role. So my addition, as I mentioned, is mainly to give each stakeholder and each stakeholder to work on his role more in collaboration with everyone. I think Shafiq, since you mentioned Shafiq when he was here, he said that this is important to collaborate. So we strengthen the idea of multi-stakeholderism while each stakeholder is entrusted the respective role. Exactly. This is exactly what I wanted to say.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you. I will not stop. And I’m happy that the role of the UN as a custodian of multilateralism has taken its respective role in being the, let us say, the custodian of the GDC, of the WSIS, of the multilateral and multi-stakeholder. So that is a strengthened role, by the way, that the Secretary General wanted to bring to the UN, starting his initiative in 2018. And now everyone knows that it’s not only the government, but the business sector, the civil society, technical community and academia, plus the international organization as equidistant with all the stakeholders as also the enabler and facilitator for them. As an example, in our region, you worked a wonderful role as Esquire with the League of Rural States. when you have the Arab and got everybody all the roles and just a small note since I still have you for one 10 seconds only the Arab IGF when we worked on the program next year since we we started working before to be honest but you know what happened in the region made us delay yes we were planning to do it in November but because of the political tensions and the military conflicts we chose to do it next year yeah and as all my colleagues are here already Christine online Hussein we asked everyone who worked on these themes I mentioned before to review it again based on the GDC outcome so this is I think we to be to make sure that we are having everything together thank you before I give the floor now to Christine there is a question from the gentleman here and the lady before can you just 20 seconds put your question and then the gentleman here then I will give the floor Christine and then we wrap up everyone I’m Dr. Nermin Salim the Secretary General of Creators Union of Arab this organization it concerns with the intellectual property rights and I think and I hope to add the intellectual property part in this mechanism because it’s became

Audience: an important assets in any business what is your first name again? Nermin Salim, Dr. Nermin Salim

Ayman El-Sherbiny: I’m an expert in IP. After the meeting, me, you and Charlotte will have a meeting. It’s my pleasure. And you do a workshop together in our upcoming Arab IGF. Thank you. And now the gentleman here a new workshop I entrusted to you. Hello hi everyone this is Maher, Maher Melhem from

Audience: Microsoft thanks for the informative session and giving us the opportunity a few points attracted my attention first of course the title about the great idea to bring all Arab countries after the umbrella of the IGF and Arab League. A few comments. One, we discussed the digital divide, importance of AI and data governance. And also Hussein mentioned a very important point about how we can introduce ourselves as members of the Arab League in front of international forums as one bloc. I think there is a clear lack of coordination under one legislative umbrella, more like treaties. Similar for what’s happening in Europe, like the GDPR treaty. International companies would love to invest in the region whenever there is a business case. But to be honest, there is a clear gap, divide between some countries in the region who have the resources and others who lack the resources. All of this can happen and attract encouraging international investors to come to the region and address the AI gap, data governance issues by having one treaty among the countries to share data.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: You are right. We have one of the objectives in cluster two of the Arab Digital Agenda pillar four is to harmonize the legal structures and to also harmonize the memberships and positions regarding the international treaties. So that is an important action. We are going to also announce during our event in Amman, what we call programmatic implementation support modalities for the ADA. And part of it will be programs on the infrastructures, programs on the legal harmonization and also digital economy on many other things. So please continue discussion with us. And now we’ll go back to the floor with Christine to give. on the complementarity between IGF WSIS on the one hand with the GDC as a newborn on the other hand and to add whatever she wants regarding the future of Arab IGF. Thank you Ayman.

Christine Arida: So, I think I know I will just mention two points. The first point is what we’ve what we’re seeing right now is inflation and duplication of governance processes and maybe it’s good that this is put on the table because it indicates that there is need. But what we need to do right now is to be aware that we as developing countries, our region is mostly developing countries, you might not have enough capacity to follow and participate in all those duplication of processes. And in that context, I think we need to be very vocal as a region about making synergies and avoiding duplications and you know, as Qusayi was saying, identifying roles, also Nermeen mentioned that, so that we can avoid having to participate in different venues and have just a process here and a process there and then get lost in the middle. In order to do that, we need to, the second point that I want to mention, as a region, we need to change our perception of this false dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism. We in the region, we tend to believe that there is a strong dichotomy between both. I personally, I don’t think this is the case. I think we just need to understand how processes such as the Arab IGF being multistakeholder, bottom up, how can they support multilateral decisions in different venues in the region and see this complementarily and empower it. And I see in the chat a question about how the Arab IGF, does it involve grassroots? Does it involve youth? I think we need more of that. We need that involvement. We need to be very inclusive. We need maybe to look at the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder messages and see how multi-stakeholder our processes are and enforce that dimension in our proceeds. Thank you, Ayman.

Ayman El-Sherbiny: Thank you so much. And of course we are involving new stakeholders in the process. Also, it’s a good chance to remind Christine that our work on the parliamentarian session is taking more shape. So please let us give it more momentum together, Inshallah. Also work with youth. We’ll add the youth segment much more in our new activities. And I’d like to also thank my young team members who are working remotely from Beirut. Lara, Abbas, and Mohamed, plus Khadiga. Also, of course, thank Rami and Mirna. Mirna now is moving to the other session at 7. And if there is no final remarks from anyone from the panelists, I think we wrap up. It is exactly now around the clock. And I would like to thank Nibel for being with us today. I’m very happy if the remark and thank my nice young friend, Jamal, who came from Belgium to say hello and be part of this workshop. And everyone here, you want to say something? Final word, 10 seconds. It’s just a recommendation to have the answer from all of you. Localizing IGF in each and every country. Yes, sir. IGF. We are working on it, and we have good news that the Saudi IGF that we advocated last year with the government in Saudi Arabia has taken shape, and we have now in several countries national IGFs, and we are just like the custodian, and everyone has autonomy, but we work together. Inshallah, together we are strong, and I’m happy that you are here, I’m happy that this is our fourth or fifth event in the Arab IGF, in the IGF of Riyadh, and inshallah we’ll continue until the end of the week, but stay tuned, register in the Arab IGF 7, part of the DCDF, and that’s it, thanks, goodbye. Thank you very much, I took your card, and the colleague of my team, Rita, will contact you, and inshallah you will be with us in Amman. I don’t want to take his context, I have the mind of the context reader, but I’m going to take it because I’m sure he’s with me. Omar Sabha. Omar is my son. Really? Yes, really. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Need for comprehensive digital agenda in Arab region

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Speaker

Qusai AlShatt

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda addresses digital divide and emerging technologies

Arab countries now more engaged in WSIS processes and initiatives

Digital divide remains a challenge, especially in internet access and cost

summary

Speakers agree on the importance of a comprehensive digital agenda for the Arab region to address digital divides and emerging technologies, while acknowledging progress and remaining challenges.

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in internet governance

speakers

Chafic Chaya

Charles Sha’ban

Christine Arida

arguments

Need for stronger partnerships and collaborations aligned with WSIS principles

Importance of giving stakeholders their respective roles while collaborating

Importance of bridging false dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism in the region

summary

Speakers emphasize the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration in internet governance, while recognizing the importance of defined roles and bridging perceived gaps between multilateralism and multi-stakeholderism.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging and strengthening existing frameworks and mechanisms rather than creating new ones, to ensure effective implementation and measurement of digital initiatives.

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Chafic Chaya

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda includes measurement system and implementation framework

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

Both speakers suggest utilizing existing forums like the IGF to implement new initiatives like the GDC, avoiding duplication of processes and leveraging established platforms.

speakers

Nermine El Saadany

Christine Arida

arguments

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

Need to avoid duplication of governance processes

Unexpected Consensus

Integration of emerging technologies in existing frameworks

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Qusai AlShatt

Nermine El Saadany

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda addresses digital divide and emerging technologies

GDC has five main objectives covering digital divides, digital economy, digital space, data governance and AI

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the ability to integrate emerging technologies like AI into existing frameworks such as WSIS and IGF, rather than creating entirely new structures. This suggests a more adaptive approach to digital governance than might have been anticipated.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement include the need for a comprehensive digital agenda in the Arab region, the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in internet governance, and the integration of emerging technologies into existing frameworks. There is also consensus on leveraging and strengthening existing mechanisms rather than creating new ones.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among speakers is relatively high, particularly on broad strategic approaches. This suggests a shared vision for digital development in the Arab region, which could facilitate more coordinated and effective implementation of digital initiatives. However, some differences remain in the specifics of implementation and the balance between regional and global approaches.

Different Viewpoints

Role of IGF in implementing GDC

speakers

Nermine El Saadany

Chafic Chaya

arguments

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

summary

While Nermine suggests using IGF to implement GDC, Chafic emphasizes strengthening existing mechanisms without specifically mentioning IGF for GDC implementation.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement were subtle and centered around the specific roles and implementation strategies for existing and new digital governance mechanisms.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers was relatively low. Most speakers shared similar views on the importance of digital cooperation, the need to address the digital divide, and the value of multi-stakeholder approaches. The minor differences in opinion were primarily about implementation strategies and the specific roles of existing mechanisms. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified approach to digital cooperation in the Arab region, which could facilitate more effective implementation of digital agendas and cooperation frameworks.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on avoiding duplication and leveraging existing mechanisms, but Christine focuses on the challenges for developing countries, while Chafic emphasizes complementing existing platforms.

speakers

Christine Arida

Chafic Chaya

arguments

Need to avoid duplication of governance processes

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging and strengthening existing frameworks and mechanisms rather than creating new ones, to ensure effective implementation and measurement of digital initiatives.

speakers

Ayman El-Sherbiny

Chafic Chaya

arguments

Arab Digital Agenda includes measurement system and implementation framework

Need to strengthen existing mechanisms rather than create new ones

Both speakers suggest utilizing existing forums like the IGF to implement new initiatives like the GDC, avoiding duplication of processes and leveraging established platforms.

speakers

Nermine El Saadany

Christine Arida

arguments

IGF could be a vehicle for implementing GDC

Need to avoid duplication of governance processes

Key Takeaways

The Arab Digital Agenda addresses digital divides and emerging technologies, with a built-in measurement system and implementation framework

The Arab Internet Governance Forum (IGF) has evolved since 2012 and aims to balance regional needs with global themes

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) has five main objectives covering digital divides, economy, space, data governance and AI

There is a need for complementarity and synergy between WSIS, IGF and GDC processes to avoid duplication

The region needs to bridge the perceived dichotomy between multilateralism and multistakeholderism

Resolutions and Action Items

Organize the Arab IGF 7 in Amman as part of the Digital Cooperation and Development Forum

Review Arab IGF themes based on GDC outcomes

Work on localizing IGF in each Arab country

Announce programmatic implementation support modalities for the Arab Digital Agenda in Amman

Strengthen the parliamentarian session and youth segment in future Arab IGF activities

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively harmonize legal structures and treaties across the Arab region

Specific mechanisms for implementing the Global Digital Compact

How to ensure sufficient capacity in developing countries to participate in multiple governance processes

Concrete steps to make the Arab IGF more inclusive of grassroots and youth

Suggested Compromises

Use the Internet Governance Forum as a vehicle for implementing the Global Digital Compact

Strengthen existing mechanisms and nodes in the ecosystem rather than creating new ones

Balance stakeholder roles while promoting collaboration in internet governance processes

The Arab digital agenda, when we put it in place, it still faces major problems. It may cause problems in the latest digital divide, whether in the policy divide or in the content, or in issues related to AI. But the beauty of the Arabic digital agenda is that it was built on a system based on measurement. This is the only one in the world, except for Europe.

speaker

Ayman El-Sherbiny

reason

This comment introduces the unique approach of the Arab Digital Agenda, highlighting its measurement-based system and comparing it to global standards.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards a more detailed examination of the Arab Digital Agenda’s structure and goals, prompting further exploration of its implementation and potential impact.

We need to do more consultation of the regional groups, all groups, so African groups, and so on, and understand the challenges they face and the opportunities that they see, and share with them as well what we see as challenges to our region, and exchange these kinds of views so that we go together aligned.

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of cross-regional collaboration and alignment in addressing digital challenges.

impact

It broadened the scope of the discussion from a purely Arab-centric view to a more inclusive, global perspective on digital cooperation.

The Global Compact is a positive, proactive evolution of the WSIS Outputs, which is the Geneva Declaration of Principles and the Tunis Agenda. These two documents have been produced in 2005. For more than 10 years, you need to be more current, you need to update the concerns and the objectives of the global community.

speaker

Qusai AlShatt

reason

This comment provides historical context and frames the Global Digital Compact as an evolution of previous initiatives.

impact

It helped participants understand the continuity and progress in global digital initiatives, leading to a discussion on how to integrate new objectives with existing frameworks.

We believe as well that the community again with the process of the GDC and the challenges that it faced this by itself emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholderism as a way to communicate and discuss such issues and that there are very much synergies and similarities between the GDC objectives and the WSIS action lines

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

reason

This comment highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and identifies synergies between different digital initiatives.

impact

It prompted a discussion on how to integrate various digital cooperation frameworks and processes, leading to ideas on strengthening existing platforms rather than creating new ones.

What we need to do right now is to be aware that we as developing countries, our region is mostly developing countries, you might not have enough capacity to follow and participate in all those duplication of processes. And in that context, I think we need to be very vocal as a region about making synergies and avoiding duplications

speaker

Christine Arida

reason

This comment raises an important practical concern about the capacity of developing countries to engage in multiple digital governance processes.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards finding ways to streamline and integrate various digital cooperation processes, considering the constraints faced by developing countries.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by moving it from a general overview of digital cooperation initiatives to a more nuanced examination of how these initiatives can be integrated, implemented, and made more inclusive. The discussion evolved to consider practical challenges, particularly for developing countries, and emphasized the need for alignment between global, regional, and national efforts. The comments also highlighted the importance of measurement, multi-stakeholder approaches, and cross-regional collaboration in advancing digital cooperation.

How to implement the Arab Digital Agenda?

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

explanation

Implementation of the Arab Digital Agenda is crucial for regional digital development and cooperation.

How to link the work of the Arab IGF to discussions among Arab groups in ITU and Arab member states in New York?

speaker

Christine Arida

explanation

Drawing linkages between different regional and global forums is important for coherent policy-making and representation.

How can the Internet Governance Forum serve as a vehicle for implementing the Global Digital Compact?

speaker

Nermine El Saadany

explanation

Integrating GDC implementation into existing forums could streamline processes and avoid duplication.

How to harmonize legal structures and memberships regarding international treaties among Arab countries?

speaker

Maher Melhem

explanation

Legal harmonization is important for attracting investment and addressing regional digital divides.

How to make the Arab IGF more inclusive, particularly involving grassroots organizations and youth?

speaker

Christine Arida

explanation

Greater inclusivity is needed to ensure the Arab IGF represents diverse regional perspectives.

How to integrate intellectual property rights into digital cooperation mechanisms?

speaker

Dr. Nermin Salim

explanation

IP rights are becoming increasingly important assets in the digital economy.

How to localize the Internet Governance Forum in each Arab country?

speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

explanation

National-level IGFs could increase engagement and address country-specific issues.

Summary

This session focused on the United Nations’ efforts in digital development and the implementation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines. Representatives from various UN agencies shared their achievements and ongoing work in promoting digital technologies for sustainable development.

Key themes included bridging the digital divide, enhancing digital skills, promoting e-commerce, and addressing emerging challenges like artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. Agencies such as ITU, UNCTAD, UNDP, and UNESCO highlighted their collaborative efforts in areas like connecting schools to the internet, supporting e-government initiatives, and developing digital economy strategies.

The discussion emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder partnerships and the need to align digital development efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Participants stressed the growing significance of data governance, environmental sustainability in digitalization, and gender equality in the digital sphere.

Several agencies reported on their expanded focus on digital issues, with increased resources and larger-scale projects compared to earlier years. The World Bank, for instance, noted a significant growth in its digital development portfolio and partnerships.

Looking ahead, speakers highlighted the upcoming WSIS+20 review process and the need to address new challenges such as AI governance and data poverty. The importance of coordinating efforts across UN agencies and avoiding duplication was emphasized.

The session concluded with a call for continued collaboration and the integration of digital strategies into broader development frameworks, recognizing the cross-cutting nature of digital technologies in achieving sustainable development goals.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Achievements and progress in implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines over the past 20 years

– Ongoing challenges and new priorities like artificial intelligence, data governance, and environmental sustainability

– Collaboration between UN agencies and other stakeholders on digital development initiatives

– Implementation of the Global Digital Compact and alignment with WSIS processes

– Gender equality and bridging the digital divide

The overall purpose of the discussion was for representatives from various UN agencies and organizations to highlight their work on digital development, share achievements related to WSIS implementation, and discuss priorities for future collaboration.

The tone of the discussion was positive and collaborative, with speakers emphasizing partnerships and joint efforts. There was a sense of pride in accomplishments but also recognition of ongoing challenges. The tone remained consistent throughout, with participants building on each other’s points and expressing enthusiasm for continued cooperation.

Speakers

– Cedric Wachholz: UNESCO, Chair of UNGIS

РTorbj̦rn Fredriksson: UNCTAD, Head of e-commerce and digital economy branch

– Gitanjali Sah: ITU, Strategy and policy coordinator

– Samia Melhem: World Bank, Lead digital development specialist

– Mactar Sect: UNECA, Chief of technology and innovation section

– Ryszard Frelek: WIPO, Counselor, external relations division

– Yu Ping Cheng: UNDP, Chief Digital Office

– Helene Molinier: UN Women, Advisor on digital cooperation and thematic lead for GF Action Coalition on Innovation and Technology

– Deniz Susar: UNDESA

Additional speakers:

– Cyntia Lesufi: South Africa, Chair of Council Working Group on WSIS and SDG, G20 presidency

– Robert Opp: UNDP, Chief Digital Officer (mentioned but did not speak)

– Delfina: UNEGO (mentioned but did not speak)

Revised Summary of UN Digital Development Discussion at IGF Riyadh

This session at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Riyadh brought together representatives from various United Nations agencies to discuss progress, challenges, and future priorities in digital development, with a particular focus on implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) action lines and the Global Digital Compact (GDC).

Key Achievements and Progress

Over the past two decades, UN agencies have made significant strides in digital development across various sectors:

1. Education: The ITU reported success in connecting schools to the internet and promoting digital education initiatives (Gitanjali Sah).

2. Economic Development: UNCTAD highlighted its work in facilitating e-commerce and digital economy initiatives, particularly in developing countries (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

3. Governance: UNDESA shared achievements in conducting e-government surveys and coordinating the Internet Governance Forum (Deniz Susar).

4. Regional Support: UNECA emphasised its role in supporting African countries with digital transformation strategies, including the development of the African Union Digital Transformation Strategy and the African Union Data Governance Framework (Mactar Seck).

5. Accessibility: WIPO reported on providing Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISCs) and the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC) services (Ryszard Frelek).

6. Scaling Efforts: The World Bank noted a significant growth in its digital development portfolio and partnerships (Samia Melhem).

7. Education and Media Literacy: UNESCO highlighted its work on AI in education, media and information literacy, and guidelines for regulating online platforms.

These achievements demonstrate the UN system’s commitment to leveraging digital technologies for sustainable development and implementing the WSIS action lines.

Emerging Challenges and Future Focus Areas

While progress has been made, speakers identified several emerging challenges and priorities for future work:

1. Environmental Sustainability: UNCTAD highlighted concerns about the environmental footprint of digitalization (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

2. Gender Equality: UN Women stressed the need to bridge digital gender divides and mainstream gender considerations across all digital development efforts (Helene Molinier).

3. Digital Divides: UNCTAD pointed out widening digital and data divides between countries, as well as growing market concentration in the digital economy (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

4. Global Digital Compact Implementation: UNDESA emphasised the importance of implementing the GDC and aligning it with existing WSIS processes (Deniz Susar).

5. Regional Priorities: The G20 presidency (South Africa) highlighted focus areas such as digital public infrastructure, AI capacity building, data protection, and open-source technologies (Cyntia Lesufi).

Collaboration and Coordination

A key theme throughout the discussion was the importance of collaboration and coordination among UN agencies to effectively address digital development challenges:

1. UN Group on Information Society (UNGIS): UNCTAD emphasised leveraging UNGIS for collective efforts (Torbjörn Fredriksson).

2. WSIS+20 Review: UNDESA highlighted the upcoming WSIS+20 review process as an opportunity to assess progress and align future efforts (Deniz Susar).

3. Gender Equality Initiatives: UN Women called for aligning efforts on gender equality in digital development across agencies, including the recent focus on the intersection of digital and gender issues, and the inclusion of the digital gender gap as a cross-cutting topic in the Beijing+30 review (Helene Molinier).

4. Support for Global Initiatives: Multiple agencies expressed commitment to supporting G20 presidency priorities on digital issues (Cyntia Lesufi).

World Bank’s Digital Academy Program

Samia Melhem highlighted the World Bank’s digital academy program, which aims to build digital skills and literacy across various sectors and populations. This initiative represents a significant effort to address the growing demand for digital competencies in the workforce and society at large.

Upcoming Events and Initiatives

Several important events and initiatives were mentioned during the discussion:

1. A conference on AI and digital transformation in the public sector on 4-5 June in Paris as part of the WSIS+20 process.

2. The upcoming UNCTAD ministerial conference in Vietnam.

3. The next Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Norway in June 2025.

4. South Africa’s G20 presidency priorities related to digital issues, including digital public infrastructure, AI capacity building, data protection, and open-source technologies.

In conclusion, the session demonstrated a strong commitment from UN agencies to advancing digital development and implementing the WSIS action lines. The discussion highlighted significant progress made over the past two decades while also emphasising the need to address emerging challenges and enhance collaboration across the UN system. As the digital landscape continues to evolve rapidly, the UN’s coordinated efforts will be crucial in ensuring that digital technologies contribute positively to sustainable development and leave no one behind.

Cedric Wachholz: you you you you you you you you Is it working? Yes, I see Tobian online. So we’re ready to start. Nice to see you, Tobian. A warm welcome to all of you here present in the room. For this, you need to put on your so how it works, you will need to put on your earphones for us to hear each other. And I can hear myself. So you need to go on channel one, you need to and then channel one. Good. So we have a specific technical setup here, Tobias, as you can see. So a warm welcome to all of you here in the room and all those following online to this session on the UN Digital for Development UN in action. And this will be a really exciting session, and I’m happy and thankful to my co-chair, Gitanjali, who has done a lot of the preparatory work and invited all of you to join. And of course, also to UNDP and UNCTAD and all the other participants and co-chairs of UNDES. So I will briefly make introductions of the panel, just say, you can see Tobian Frederiksen who heads the e-commerce and digital economy branch and UNDES, UNCTAD, sorry, as remote participants, but we see you well. We have we have Gitanjali to my left, who is a strategy and policy coordinator from ITU. And most of you will know from WSIS. To my right, we have Samia Malham, who is the lead digital development specialist of the World Bank. Thanks for joining too. On my left, Wipo, oh no, first, Magda Seck, chief of the technology and innovation section from UNECA, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Thanks for joining too. And also, Mr. Richard Freleck, counselor, external relations division, World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO. And last but not least, UNDP. Yu-Ping Cheng. Thank you for joining, and perhaps, I don’t know if Robert will come too, but we are very delighted to have you with us. Then, I don’t know if Hélène Moulinier, she’s important for our session, she will be joining online, but she’s also part of this panel. She’s the advisor on digital cooperation and the thematic lead for the GF Action Coalition on Innovation and Technology from UN Women. She’s particularly important for this session. So, we will showcase UN in action today. And as we move closer to the 20 years review of WSIS, we have, of course, the crucial task of driving forward the creation and the continued creation of a more equitable, inclusive, and knowledge-driven world, where technology really serves as a catalyst for human and social and societal development, and, of course, sustainable development. The initial WSIS vision of a people-centered and development-oriented and inclusive information and knowledge society stays very strong and continues to resonate, I think, with all of us and our work. And we have seen over time how this WSIS vision from 2003 and 2005, the Geneva and Tunis Summit, has actually evolved, has been addressing new challenges throughout the time. You know how in the text we didn’t find a notion of mobile phones or any technologies, and I think that made it so lasting. And today, we saw then also in 2015 how we could address with WSIS Action Lines and the work the SDGs and how to link our WSIS work with the SDGs. And so, today, we will hear more about Action Line implementation and what we have achieved concretely over the last 20 years, but also about future action. And I’m delighted to see Hélène now online, too, because this is important for our way forward, too, on our gender equality work across the United Nations. So, an explicit welcome to you again, Hélène. So, I think I will just hand over first for some sharing of highlights of achievements over the last 20 years, and perhaps I will ask Gitanjali to start us off with some of ITU’s work in this domain.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much, Cedric, and to UNESCO for so ably chairing the UNGIS since you took over as the chair. And welcome to all physical and remote participants. Thank you for being here with us. Also, to add to what Cedric said, the UNGIS is exactly UN in action, and we have been contributing the digital aspects to various UN processes. We’ve been having side events, and we have been contributing joint statements to processes like the ECOSOC Partnership Forum, the SIDS, the LLDCs, IGF. We’ve been organizing side events every year. So, it’s a very active group of UN agencies that are members of the CEB and an extended – of course, we have observers as well. And we’ve been very successful in driving the digital agenda within the UN agencies. So, looking at ITU, of course – ITU is the UN’s specialized agency on digital and ICTs. So we have our mandates from our governing bodies, like the plenipotentiary, the council, the council working groups, where we have several resolutions that mandate us by our membership. So not only governments, but sector members. We have academia. We have the technical community and others who give us instructions on what we should be doing to implement the WSIS process. We are the lead facilitator for action line on ICT infrastructure on capacity building C4, cybersecurity C5, and enabling policy environments action line on C6. So to enable all of this, we’ve had various partnerships with UN agencies and others, since WSIS is a multi-stakeholder process. The GIGA initiative with ITU and UNICEF, where our goal is to connect every school worldwide to the internet, addressing the digital divide in education. The e-pools global partnership program that we are doing with UN Women, GSMA, ITC, et cetera, to promote gender equality. I’m pretty sure Helen will talk about it a bit more. The Connect to Recover that we did during COVID, post-COVID disruptions to enhance ICT infrastructure resilience post-COVID. And digital skilling, which is a very important aspect of ITU’s work. We have several programs with UNDP on digital skilling. And DPI, we’ve started a lot of good work around that. I’m pretty sure Yu-Ping will also mention it. The broadband foundation that we co-chair at UNESCO. We’ve been advocating universal broadband access to support economic and social growth through that. Child online protection, another aspect of cybersecurity, Action Line C5, with ITU, with the governments, and the whole private sector, where we are developing tools, guidelines, and strategies. Also, again, training women, girls, children on the dark side of the internet, knowing what could be harmful for them as well. Again, very important point, which probably Denny should also speak about, is the partnership on measuring ICT for development. A very important, but kind of hidden aspect of our work, where statisticians in our organizations are kind of measuring the achievements that we’ve had in these various action lines, and the goals that WSIS had set. Some of the key successes that we feel as the UN system, two main ones have been the WSIS forum that we jointly organized with ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, UNCTAD, and more than 40 UN agencies. All of you are involved. It’s a platform for all UN agencies and stakeholders to get together to advance our Digital for Development agenda. The next one is from the 7th to 11th of July in Geneva. So please mark it on your calendars. And we’re going to do it again in alignment with AI for Good. So the WSIS forum participants will also have access to AI for Good. And the IGF. IGF has been one of the successes of the WSIS process. Many of you have been contributing to the WSIS stocktaking database, the repository. We have more than 13,000 plus initiatives in the stocktaking database. So please do have a look, because they are aligned with the WSIS action lines and SDGs. So if you’re looking for case studies, projects on the ground, you’re more than welcome to please have a look at those. Of course, other examples of collaboration, Be Healthy, Be Mobile, that we do with WHO, the Smart Village, Smart Islands that we are doing with local governments and the private sector. Again, Digital Skills for Jobs campaign with ILO. So Cedric, 20 years is a lot to kind of summarize. But these are some of the real main things, partner to connect, which many of you are involved in, and the regional level. So the regional implementation has been crucial for ITU, working with the regional commissions, the ITU regional offices, UNDP, and various other partners. So we can continue our contributions, but this is kind of what I could summarize.

Cedric Wachholz: Yes, I know and understand it’s very difficult to really summarize in a few minutes only all the work your organization has been doing. Magda, as Gitanjali has just mentioned UNEKA, perhaps you want to take on and continue to highlight a few of your achievements.

Mactar Sect: Thank you very much, Cedric. And UNEKA is pleased to participate at this event. As you know, we start with this since more than almost 20 years, and we have seen a lot of progress in the African continent. In 2005, our access to internet penetration was 2.6%. And today we are at 38%. When you go to the mobile penetration, it was almost 8% in 2005. And today we have almost 60% at the continental level. This is a good progressive of the WSIS implementation at the continental level. And ECA work with all the country to support them in the implementation of the WSIS Action Line. In collaboration with several partners here, ITU, UNCTAD, and other partners. We can highlight some key achievements during the 20 years. First, it is we work together with African Union to have this African AU Digital Transformation Strategy 2020-2030. It will be the blueprint for Africa on digital economy. We already work with AUC to develop this African Union Data Governance Framework. It is a one key achievement on the continental level. Also, we can talk about this Artificial Intelligence AI Strategy we adopted last year, key achievement in the continent. And also we supported more than 40 countries to develop their national strategy at the continental level during these 20 years in line with the WSIS implementation. On digital ID, very important for the continent because we are a continent, we were more than almost 500 million without any legal form of identity. And we work closely with several partners to develop the digital ID at the continental level, World Bank and others. And as you see now, a lot of digital ID have developed at the continental level. Also, on policy cybersecurity, it is a big issue of the continent. Despite this 10% loss in the GDP for cybersecurity, we already work with African Union to develop this Malabo Convention on Cybersecurity. And recently to complete the framework on cybersecurity in the continent, ECA has developed a guideline framework for cybersecurity. It is some key strategic element we have developed at the continental level. Of course, in the C5, C3, all we need to build the capacity of our member state. And ECA has established an African Center of Excellence on Artificial Intelligence in Congo Brazzaville, as well as we are establishing now a STEAM Center in Rwanda and a Center of Cybersecurity in Togo. It is to support the digital skills in the continent. We work also closely with ITU and UNICEF in the GIGA project. And also, we didn’t forget the digital skills for young generation. While we have initiated in collaboration with ITU and UN Women, this initiative called African Girl Recruiting Camp. And now we have developed, we have trained almost more than 40,000 girls across the continent. We have 284 projects developing. Also, we guide a gathering, a lot of initiative at the regional level to take into consideration the import as a priority of Africa in the global GDC. We organize several roundtable across the member state to explain better the GDC to the member state and also to get their view and print and priority for the GDC adopted two months ago. And now we are supporting African country to implement the GDC in line with the WSIS Action Line. As you know, what in 2005, almost the key issue was integrated in the WSIS. And we have seen during this 20 years, two key challenge for the continent. One, it is for all the world, the AI issue as well as the data issue. And that is something we needed to contextualize in the WSIS Plus 20. And we are going to have our WSIS Plus 20 event next year in May in Benin. And also we are going to have African IGF in Tanzania in May. And we think all this outcome will be reported during the WSIS Plus 20 and the global IGF year. You’re welcome. Also, we are a member of all this partnership for Muslim of ICT. There are a lot we can say. We have a lot of progress. We have the support. We work with UNDESA on the e-government survey. I think there are a lot of accomplishments in the continent, in the implementation of the WSIS Action Line. And we thank you all partners supporting ECA on this task. Thank you. Thank you, Makto. This is really most impressive,

Cedric Wachholz: and I know this is just the surface, you know, of all the great work you have been doing. And I wanted to keep it a little bit interactive like that and do a natural link. But I will now go back to the formally correct thing to first our Angus co-chairs. So I will give the floor to UNDP, followed then by ANGSTAT, and then UNDESA, World Bank, WIFO, and I don’t know if there’s enough of you who want to say something. So Yuping, over to you as our co-vice chair.

Yu Ping Cheng: I have to say, Cedric, we were actually okay with interactive, but I also appreciate the ability to speak. I’ll try and keep it short because I think it’s there’s so much amazing work that all of us UN agencies are doing together. So it’d be really great to hear from everyone and then have a chance to also hear from others participating in the room who might want to ask some questions to the UN agencies. I just want to pick up a little bit where Martha’s left off, that we’re really looking towards GDT implementation and how WSIS needs to play a critical role in this. Because over the last 20 years, indeed, we’ve been doing so much amazing work as agencies together collaboratively, really looking at what it means to be implementing this both at the regional level and the country level as well. So going forward, it really has to be that the WSIS action lines and the way we push forward in a multi-stakeholder fashion through the WSIS process is the cornerstone of how we implement the GDT. Indeed, yesterday UNDP was proud to host an open forum with our colleagues from ITU and UNDESA, Southern Voice and Internet Society, on how global digital cooperation really must be implemented at the country level. And so today’s theme of today’s meeting, digital for development, really cuts the heart of what UNDP is doing. We are the UN’s development arm. We are in over 170 countries and territories around the world. We are now currently supporting 120 plus countries in harnessing digital to achieve the SDGs. So really, this is a cornerstone of how we approach development, that digital is indeed an enabler and accelerant of the achievement of the SDGs. And in order for us to realize our mandates across the system and to deliver on all these very important things that our partner countries have entrusted us to do, we need to harness the potential digital technologies. So for instance, the Chief Digital Office, from where I sit, has already been with over 50 to 60 countries conducting digital readiness assessments, working on digital public infrastructure, really fulfilling the ambition that was laid out in the WSIS Action Lines, where UNDP sits as the co-facilitator for C4 on capacity building and C6 on the enabling environment. I think Gitanjali also touched on a lot of the work that we’re doing with the ITU. We’re doing, for instance, the High Impact Digital Public Infrastructure Initiative that was a key outcome of last year’s SDG Summit. We also have the SDG Digital, which actually is a hallmark of the entire system coming together, where we present a lot of the work that various UN agencies are doing in collaborative fashion to really think about how SDGs can be, as I’ve said before, enabled and accelerated by the use of digital technologies, together with the ITU on skills and capacity building through an open source ecosystem enabler that is supported by the European Commission that’s looking at countries such as Trinidad and Tobago and thinking about how we can harness open source through the development of an open source program office in these developing countries, such that we together can actually co-create a more interoperable open source system that achieves digital transformation. I could list a lot more of the collaborations that we’re doing with the other UN agencies. It would take a lot of time. I just want to specifically call out the important area of artificial intelligence, where I think other colleagues will also raise this as something that we really need to look forward to in the update of the WSIS plus 20 reveal and the action line. I think this area of artificial intelligence will be something that is cornerstone to the way the United Nations develops and uses digital technologies. Indeed, it’s something that we’ve all been working on together. With UNESCO, for instance, the UNDC is doing artificial intelligence assessments, with the ITU working on AI skills capacity building. These areas will be critical. The other area that I want to very quickly mention is environmental sustainability, where, again, I think this is something where there is that potential to make sure that the references in the GDC are also reflected in how WSIS pairs this. Particularly important, for instance, from the UNDP is the fact that we co-chair the Coalition on Digital Environmental Sustainability with the ITU and UNEP, as well as the International Science Council, the German Environment Ministry, and other NGOs. This really is a multi-stakeholder coalition that looks at the issue of digital environmental sustainability and thinks about how we collectively can really push forward this global effort towards ensuring that this is part of how we deliver on making sure digital is an empowering force for people, as well as climate as well. I just want to end there. I know I’ve gone over quite a lot. There’s also a lot more that I’ve not gone over, and I look forward to questions from other colleagues.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you so much, Yueping. This is really impressive, and for highlighting so many areas where we really work well together across the UN on the key topics. I hand over now to

Torbjörn Fredriksson: Torbjörn, who is unmuted, I see, and ready to go. Thank you very much, Cedric. I hope you can hear me. Good morning to all of you from Geneva. I wish I could also be present with you in Riyadh. This time it was not possible, I’m afraid. Let me start by thanking UNESCO as UNGIS Chair and ITU also for having organized this session during the IGF. I think the world is really digitalizing faster than ever before, affecting more and more aspects of life. While this is creating many new opportunities, it’s also clear that it’s raising many new challenges. This is clear, not least in the context of e-commerce and the digital economy, which is the part of digital for development that UNCTAD is particularly concerned with. From the perspective of achieving the sustainable development goals, all of us need to explore every possibility for making use of digital technologies to contribute towards improving progress, because unfortunately we are currently not on track to achieve the SDGs. In the area of digital economy and digital trade, which are at the heart of e-business, we are observing widening digital and data divides, growing market concentration, and an expanding environmental footprint from digitalization. The super fast evolution of the digital economy, where AI and other data-driven applications are increasingly important, is making it ever harder for countries at low levels of digital readiness to keep up, and harder still to catch up. This increases now the risks of wider inequalities, and if we truly endeavor to achieve an inclusive and sustainable digital economy, we need to do better, and this can only be achieved through more effective collaboration, both domestically and internationally, across stakeholders, across policy areas, and across borders. We very much welcome that member states came together to agree on the Global Digital Compact last September, which provides additional impetus for us as UN entities to support collective efforts towards achieving the SDGs. In this journey, the UN Group on the Information Society represents a very valuable mechanism for ensuring that we make full use of the entire UN’s networks and expertise. UNCTAD looks forward to another year of great importance for the perspective of Digital4Development. For example, under the auspices of the GDC, UNCTAD will play its part especially in fostering a more inclusive digital economy, Objective 2, and fostering better data governance under Objective 4. We will continue to build on the E-Trade4All initiative that now has 35 member organizations, including many UN organizations. We also look forward to taking over the baton from UNESCO in 2025 as chair of ANGIS. It’s not going to be easy, you’re doing a great job. And in partnership with the International Trade Center and the Universal Postal Union, we will also keep facilitating the e-business action line in the context of the World Summit on the Information Society, the first 20 years of which will be assessed next year. Last but not least, next year UNCTAD will hold its next ministerial conference. We only have one every four years, and this time it will take place in Vietnam. And that will offer another opportunity to bring the digital dimension of development to the fore at the ministerial level. So with that, thanks a lot for your attention and good luck with the rest of the events in IGF.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you. Thank you so much, Torbjörn. Can you tell us the dates for the ministerial conference in Vietnam? I will tell you as soon as I can. Okay, thank you. Just curious. Thank you so much. And of course, the digital economy aspect that you’re working with on in UNCTAD has become increasingly important from the beginnings of WSIS till today and the work you’re doing in this field too. Over to you, Ambassador.

Deniz Susar: Thank you so much, Cedric. This is Deniz Susar from UNDESA. UNDESA is very important for us as well to coordinate our internal work. UNDESA is the business action line facilitator for C1 promotion of ICT for development, C7 e-government, and C11 international regional cooperation. Sorry. Related to C1, we’ve been doing a lot of work in country, capacity building workshop. We just recently partnered with ECA in southern Africa, and we have many other capacity building workshops on digital transformation on e-government is happening. Related to C7 e-government, we recently launched the United Nations e-government survey 2024 in September during the G8. The survey is looking at 193 UN member states e-government development, and also together with UNEGO, who is sitting next to me with Delfina’s team. We are expanding the survey’s coverage into the cities, so we are bringing it at the local level, how we can measure e-government development at the local level. And we are also partnering with entities, either non-government or government, to apply our methodology in several countries. And related to C11, IGF, as you know, it’s happening now. We are the institutional home for the IGF, and the next one will be taking place in 23-27 June in Norway. And finally, I just want to talk about WSIS Plus 20 overall review by the UNGA. We are expecting to be the secretariat for the WSIS Plus 20 overall review. We will need all the ANGES agencies, especially the core agencies’ support in this process. We will not be able to undertake this important process without your support. We will make sure that all your input contributions, all your WSIS Plus 20 reviews will be fully reflected. We are expecting that General Assembly will appoint co-facilitators latest by mid-January. Right now, they are just waiting for the ICT4D resolution to be adopted by the GA. It’s already adopted by the second committee. Once we do the modalities resolution, we are expecting to see a roadmap and make sure that the process is multi-stakeholder, and we take all stakeholders’ input transparently and fully in the process. Again, we rely on ANGES’ support on this, and I look at all the agencies here. The view from here is what we have right now, not to create any new structures, use existing WSIS mechanisms to implement the GDC, and we very much appreciate the GDC-SDG matrix that’s put together by ANGES, which we contributed. I think this is an excellent way of mapping how we can implement the GDC implementation. All our existing WSIS processes, IGF is not perfect, but we should continue to work to improving it. For example, IGF had recently had a leadership panel appointed by the SG. We see it as an improvement to the IGF, and we expect to continue to leadership panel. If, as UN agencies, if there is anything jointly we should do to improve to WSIS process, we should be open to that. But again, we should be sensitive to resource constraints within the UN and shy away from creating new mechanisms. And this is the message that we will also reflect in the Riyadh IGF messages, which will go out on Thursday, which our team is compiling right now. Over to you.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you so much, Denise, for this update. And I really appreciate also that everybody is trying to be short. For those online, we have here a room full of people, and we would like to interact with them, too. It’s a unique opportunity for us as ANGES, and I really am happy about all the interest we have generated here. So we will do a rapid round and then also hand over to the participants who might have any questions for us, and we look forward to that, too. Yeah, yeah, I know. I didn’t want to stop there. And also, Hélène, we haven’t done our round, but I just wanted to highlight, it’s good to be short. We can’t speak about all the achievements of our organizations. Impossible. But the update is very much appreciated now from the World Bank and Samir.

Samia Melhem: Thanks a lot, Cedric. And thanks a lot to all the organizers and partners and host country. I’ll be very brief. Three minutes, okay? Okay. I could spend three days? Three minutes. All right. We’ll go for it. So when that whole process started some almost 20 years ago, we were talking about the next $6 billion. We are talking now about the next $2.6 billion. So kudos on all that have really taken that agenda, taken it forward, and taken it very seriously. I think this is one of the most solid stakeholder processes I have ever witnessed in my career. However, the road is full of new challenges, whereas we talked a couple years ago, a couple, two decades ago, about mobile phones and telecom regulators. These were the new kids on the block we were training. We now have climate change. We have AI. We have data poverty everywhere. And we have a huge digital divide in data caused by all the challenges we know and a huge divide in languages that are so needed for AI, for developing these large language models that we talk about. For us at the World Bank, it’s been a story of growth. I would say if I want to leave you with one message, it’s the World Bank is very serious about digital. Our president has been a big champion of it. When I started, we were a unit of 20 people with a bigger unit with water, with financial service, with transport. We have our own VPU now. Our project size used to be around 10 to 20 million. Our average project size, I give you Rwanda where I work, 10 million to start. It’s now we have projects of 100 million. So the message is really scaling up, both in people capabilities and in partnerships. We partner with all of you around the room. Is it enough? No, it’s not. Sometimes we reinvent things. Sometimes we’re not completely aligned from the very beginning. So that’s something that we can definitely improve, reuse one another’s research, facilities, et cetera. The way that we are looking at it very strategically now for the next couple of years with our new vice presidency is not only are we investing a lot more in digital public infrastructure, but we want to also invest in the human capital and that of policy makers, that of people, youth specifically, and have a lot more participatory approach in digital development, in digital transformation as we call it now. So really this is an ideal table to discuss all this. And I want to leave you with one point on the capabilities. When the World Bank launched its academy program, we will have a digital academy with different chapters around the world. We just piloted a Tokyo chapter a couple weeks ago. We’re looking at the Middle East regional chapter. We’re looking at partnerings with new governments such as Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan, other governments that were not typically our traditional partners because of their interest and leadership in the agenda. And we really look forward to collaborating with all of you in the most impactful way. Thank you.

Cedric Wachholz: This is incredible. In three minutes only, three minutes, 15 seconds, you did an incredible job because the World Bank has, of course, numerous projects across, huge projects across the world. Now I hand over to Waipo.

Ryszard Frelek: Good morning, everyone, again. And good afternoon, of course, for those who might be joining online. Thanks very much for the invitation. It’s always great to be here together with our friends and family from the UN system and beyond, connected also through the UNGIS. For those who might not know, the World Intellectual Property Organization, in short, WIPO, is the UN agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators. We are also the forum for addressing cutting-edge IP issues and our IP data and information guide decision makers. And we, of course, have impact-driven projects and technical assistance to ensure IP benefits everyone everywhere. And digitization is also key to our development work, firstly because, of course, essentially all development work has to take into account ICTs. Digital is cross-cutting and it’s an enabler. But secondly, of course, we also have a range of initiatives that specifically focus on digitization and development which contribute to VCs, GDC, and to the implementation of the SDGs. my work here is quite easily cut out for today because we just recently also submitted our report for VCs plus 20 review where we cover all the wide range of activities on digitalization and development because time and we also of course contributed to the matrix which was which was mentioned as well. Because time is always short let me just give you three examples of our action-oriented initiatives. First example are technology and innovation support centers in short TISCs. These are typically located in patent offices, universities, research centers, and science and tech parks and these TISCs enable researchers and inventors to get support in accessing and using technological information for more than 150 million published patent documents and scores and scores of scientific and technical publications. In recent years also TISCs have been picking up new additional activities such as patent analytics, technology transfer, or commercialization and currently 93 countries have established national TISC networks. Second example the accessible book consortium ADC in short. Following the adoption of the Marrakech Treaty which makes the production and international transfer of specially adopted books for people with blindness or visually impaired visual impairments easier, we launched a multi-stakeholder alliance comprised of organizations that represent people with print disabilities and the goal here is to increase the number of books in accessible formats and to distribute these to people who need them around the world. What did we achieve? 138 participating authorities, most in developing and LDCs countries, more than 1 million titles in 80 languages are available for cross-border exchange, three of clearance formalities under the Marrakech Treaty. Third example is supporting ICT applications in IP institutions so we help national and regional IP offices to enhance their efficiency of their IP registrations and adopt their own digital transformation strategies. This includes among others improving their online services, integration into regional and international IP systems and to enable that exchange of data and documents and 91 IP institutions across the world are actively using one or more of our modules included in our digital WIPO IP office suite and we have many many more including of course with all our partners here gathered at the table but just mentioned the usual market WIPO Green, our WIPO Academy where training programs for women in STEM or tools and IP checklists for game and app developers and tomorrow you can actually those interested you can join at 15.45 there’s a we are hosting an event on women in games and apps where we will also be showcasing some of our activities in that area. Being here of course I have to mention that we also have a lot of work on AI through our WIPO conversation on frontier tech we facilitate this open and inclusive discussion and knowledge building among all stakeholders to support well-informed policy choices on IP including also on AI. Over the last five years 9,000 people have participated 100 from 172 countries. Last session took place in November and in focus on IP and AI outputs. We also provide tools also on IP and AI I won’t go into that right now but you can find all that on our websites and in the reports and I know the time is running out so just finishing at WIPO we always look forward to we’re supporting all countries and stakeholders and working together with all our partners from the UN system and beyond that to help to make to ensure that each and every innovator and creator can thrive and looking forward to working through also the UNGIS and hopefully also thanks again for the invitation.

Cedric Wachholz: I hand directly over to Hélène.

Helene Molinier: Thank you Cédric. I hope you can hear me. I’ll also try to be brief. Good morning and good afternoon everyone. On UN Women’s side to flag that I think what we want to report on is that probably the last five years there has been the years where we’ve seen the most conversation at the intersection of digital and gender happening. It was mentioned that the coalition and equals were really incubators for knowledge for ideas and that all this conversation have turned during that period into really concrete and concrete outcomes and commitments. The first of which was last year the CSW, the Commission on the Status of Women and the agreed conclusion on technology and innovation. The first one on this topic that provided us really an important innovative framework to build on and this framework was really helpful last year when we are doing all and this year the advocacy for better integrating gender in the GDC. Thanks to all this work we really can see that the digital divide is now front and centre in many of the discussions and that there’s a I think common agreement that the best way to bridge it is to really have an intersectional approach and reach the hardest to reach which are very often the women living in rural areas, in marginalized groups, in developed countries and regions. The challenge now ahead of us is to make sure that we don’t work in silos on this topic and I really believe that OASIS and UNGIS are a space for collaboration on that. We did an event yesterday specifically on this topic and many voices called indeed for an action on gender as part of the OASIS review process. They also called for a digital track on the Beijing plus 30 review which is also happening this year and actually UN Women has identified digital gender gap as one of the important six cross-cutting topics and areas of acceleration for the work to come this year on Beijing. We also have, and it was mentioned here, the I think colossal task of implementing the GDC and the stakes are high to make sure that gender is not diluted in this implementation or in their invisible but instead to really be mainstream and prioritized across all the chapters. And so for that with ITU and hopefully with many members of the group as well we want to make sure that we bring the conversation in all this work stream together and that we have one cohesive action agenda that is amplified at CSW in March, at OASIS in July and every other important moment that are going to come in 2025 and the years beyond. And again what was said by many participants is that if we want to be impactful on this topic we have to implement it together to be forceful and to have one line of action and so I really hope that these are the collaborations we can create this year on the topic.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you. Thank you so much Hélène. And for those who don’t know here we have chosen to take gender equality as one of the cross-cutting themes this year together with the environment and some capacity development for civil servants on AI and digital transformation. But this is certainly a topic which all of us are committed to and I am personally also very keen to coordinate and work jointly there. Perhaps we can have another UNGA session online with all the members dedicated to that theme only to really see. We have already to plan for 26 till 29 our outputs indicators and so on and so we are quite concrete planning ahead and I would like to have a session perhaps to also see how we can coordinate our work in this specific topic. But thank you so much for trying to keep a short view on that. Now over perhaps I don’t know Daphne would you like to say something or yes? I know the time is

Audience: too short but I will also be short. Just to say thank you very much for the invitation to be here. We started to join UNGA since March this year and it is really a pleasure and to see the value of this group. It is extremely important that we understand what is happening and who has been contributing to this issue of digital inside the system so that we can align efforts and get achieve all the value that we want. Very quickly basically we have been so this digital is our main business so we just do that. We just look to the digital part and now governments are using digital to transform themselves and to achieve what they want considering all the multiple aspects that have been already mentioned here. We have three main focus we are very focused on policies and regulations at digital level also at the innovation and emerging technologies particularly AI and also people. People at the center of all this digital transformation and here we include many of the things that you have been also working that is related with human rights and all the aspects participation etc. So we have been working with most of you and let me share with you that we work a lot a lot a lot with countries with government agencies spread all over the world and we have been working also with many of you in our activities. With UNEC, for instance, we have initiated, we signed an MOU and we have initiated some collaborations. We are very proud of them. Namely, and it’s very connected, what we have been talking about, collaboration and multi-stakeholders that we launched for different regions, also regions in Africa, that gather representatives from this area of digital governance in multiple countries. We have been also cooperating with UNDES for some time now, since 2018, in what regard is WALSEY, with ITU, also UN-Habitat, so with many of you, particularly also with UNDP. We have some joint projects in all these countries that we have been working. So, regarding the main topics, yes, I need to close. Everything that you mentioned, AI, indeed an important topic that we are also working on, data, but also more traditional aspects that are related with measurement, assessment and monitoring. These are key aspects for countries to be able to achieve what they want. So, thank you very much.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you for trying to keep it short. When you’re doing interviews, as an interviewer, you’re never supposed to give away the mic, you know, so you can have different control, but here it’s a different setup. And now, is there any UN institution I have overlooked? No. So, yeah, Rob, thank you for joining us, but we had an excellent intervention by Yuping, if it is okay. So, thanks for joining us today, too. Rob is the Chief Digital Officer of UNDP. He could spend three days speaking about UNDP, but we’ll keep it short. So, for UNESCO, we have six action lines and we have eight minutes left. So, I will just say we are covering education, sciences, ethics, access to information, culture and media. And of course, we’re trying to address the key challenges which the world is seeing today. And they are sometimes even going across action lines. So, in education, of course, we have the integration of technologies into education systems, across education systems with pre- and in-service teacher trainings and lately, guidelines and trainings on how to use AI and how to deal with AI as a teacher, you know, which is sometimes a challenging thing. But if we’re speaking, for example, about disinformation, hate speech and so on, another part in education is about media and information literacy, dealing with the information overflow and learning to be able to look at information critically, but also to think before you click and send on, you know, possibly disinformation is an important aspect of this work. And related to that, I just highlight one second thing and then mention a third. It is our guidelines on the regulation of online platforms, which is related to the media work. And it has been done by our section on freedom of expression, to be very clear. So, it is not about censorship online at all. It is the freedom of expression people who dealt with it. And it was a process where over one and a half years, with different versions and 10,000, a little bit more than 10,000 inputs and a big conference of 4,000 people, we developed these guidelines and are implementing them now with regulators and, of course, with private sector companies and so on, as an example of our media and WSIS-related work. Next, as a last thing, on 4th and 5th June, we will have a conference in Paris on AI and digital transformation in the public sector, which will be part of our WSIS plus 20 process. And I could speak longer about that. But we have here a unique opportunity again of having participants. So, I wanted to just give a few minutes to those who want to take the floor and ask any of us any question. And now is the moment.

Audience: Yes. Yes. Also, we acknowledge the presence of our chair from South Africa of the Council Working Group on WSIS and SDG. And she’s also – they also have the presidency of G20. So, Cynthia, we hope that you will also like to take the floor. Cynthia?

Cyntia Lesufi: Thank you very much. And I really have enjoyed the talk in this session. And we appreciate to be here at South Africa. And really, for us at South Africa, taking over the G20 presidency, we are looking forward for the continuation of the great work that is done by the UN agencies in implementing the WSIS. But more than that, we are also looking forward for the WSIS, the IGF to continue in the implementation of the GDC. And there are a number of activities that South Africa as the G20 presidency, they have actually identified as key priorities, not only for South Africa, but for the African continent issues such as the digital public infrastructure, the issue of looking at capacity building around AI, but also the issue of the data protection and the privacy of data, and also the issue of the open source. So, these are the key issues that South Africa is looking at. And we’re looking forward to the support that we’ve received, not only as South Africa, but as Africa, as a continent and other developing countries to ensure that the implementation of the GDC, it is sufficiently done, and it’s done by yourself. And we still rely on you in terms of doing all these key issues in relation to digital transformation.

Cedric Wachholz: Thank you. Thank you, Cynthia. Thank you, Cynthia. And if I would have seen you in the audience, I would have highlighted our AI work. Because that is, I understand also, and you will have, of course, UNESCO, and I’m sure also the other agencies for support on the work streams you’re there advancing on data governance, on AI, and where we have a lot to offer and to share with you, too. Is there anybody else who would like to make a point or raise a question? Well, fantastic. Just to say then, too, on data governance, we are working with the co-chair ITU, co-chair UNDP, co-chair African Union on a data governance toolkit, which we’re also developing with many private sector companies and also governments and building on their experience. So that will be very useful for all of us. Should we take a photo before we – I have several time – the minutes left, and we just take the last minute, perhaps, to go – please stay online, and perhaps all the participants, too, come in front of the screen, and we take a photo, if that’s fine with you, with all of you. Is that good? Thank you. So while everybody goes to the screen, I continue just speaking a little bit, thanking all of the participants, thanking all the panelists, and we look forward to our continued cooperation. And we will have special sessions on environment. We will have special session on the gender equality aspect very soon in the next. So thanks to all of you who joined online and those in the room for your keen interest and for your active participation. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of digital development for achieving SDGs

speakers

Gitanjali Sah

Mactar Sect

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Deniz Susar

Samia Melhem

Yu Ping Cheng

arguments

Connecting schools and promoting digital education

Supporting African countries in digital transformation strategies

Facilitating e-commerce and digital economy initiatives

Conducting e-government surveys and coordinating Internet Governance Forum

Scaling up digital development projects and partnerships

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical role of digital development in achieving Sustainable Development Goals, highlighting various initiatives and projects in different sectors.

Need for collaboration among UN agencies

speakers

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Deniz Susar

Helene Molinier

arguments

Leveraging UN Group on Information Society for collective efforts

Coordinating WSIS+20 review process

Aligning efforts on gender equality in digital development

summary

Speakers stressed the importance of collaboration and coordination among UN agencies to effectively address digital development challenges and implement initiatives.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of implementing the Global Digital Compact and aligning efforts with global digital development priorities.

speakers

Deniz Susar

Cyntia Lesufi

arguments

Implementing the Global Digital Compact

Supporting G20 presidency priorities on digital issues

Both speakers highlighted the need to address emerging challenges in digital development, particularly focusing on cross-cutting issues like AI, data governance, and gender equality.

speakers

Yu Ping Cheng

Helene Molinier

arguments

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

Bridging digital gender divides and mainstreaming gender in digital initiatives

Unexpected Consensus

Environmental sustainability in digital development

speakers

Yu Ping Cheng

Samia Melhem

arguments

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

Scaling up digital development projects and partnerships

explanation

While environmental sustainability is not traditionally a primary focus in digital development discussions, both speakers highlighted its importance, suggesting a growing consensus on the need to consider environmental impacts in digital initiatives.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong agreement on the importance of digital development for achieving SDGs, the need for collaboration among UN agencies, and the importance of addressing emerging challenges such as AI, data governance, and gender equality in digital initiatives.

Consensus level

High level of consensus among speakers, indicating a unified approach to digital development within the UN system. This consensus suggests potential for more coordinated and effective implementation of digital development initiatives across various UN agencies and programs.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

There were no significant disagreements among the speakers. The discussion primarily focused on highlighting achievements and future plans of various UN agencies in digital development.

difference_level

The level of disagreement was minimal. Speakers generally presented complementary views and initiatives, emphasizing collaboration and coordination among UN agencies. This alignment suggests a unified approach to addressing digital development challenges, which is likely to facilitate more effective implementation of shared goals.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the importance of collaboration among UN agencies for digital development, but they differ in their approach. Deniz Susar emphasizes implementing the Global Digital Compact through existing WSIS mechanisms, while Torbjörn Fredriksson focuses on leveraging the UN Group on Information Society for collective efforts.

speakers

Deniz Susar

Torbjörn Fredriksson

arguments

Implementing the Global Digital Compact

Leveraging UN Group on Information Society for collective efforts

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of implementing the Global Digital Compact and aligning efforts with global digital development priorities.

speakers

Deniz Susar

Cyntia Lesufi

arguments

Implementing the Global Digital Compact

Supporting G20 presidency priorities on digital issues

Both speakers highlighted the need to address emerging challenges in digital development, particularly focusing on cross-cutting issues like AI, data governance, and gender equality.

speakers

Yu Ping Cheng

Helene Molinier

arguments

Addressing AI, data governance, and environmental sustainability

Bridging digital gender divides and mainstreaming gender in digital initiatives

Key Takeaways

UN agencies have made significant progress in digital development initiatives across various sectors like education, e-commerce, and e-government

Emerging challenges include AI, data governance, environmental sustainability, and bridging digital gender divides

There is a strong emphasis on collaboration and coordination among UN agencies to implement the Global Digital Compact and address digital development challenges

The upcoming WSIS+20 review process is seen as an important opportunity to assess progress and align future efforts

Resolutions and Action Items

Conduct a special session on gender equality aspects of digital development

Organize a conference on AI and digital transformation in the public sector on June 4-5 in Paris as part of the WSIS+20 process

Develop a data governance toolkit in collaboration with ITU, UNDP, and African Union

Support implementation of G20 presidency priorities on digital issues, particularly for developing countries

Unresolved Issues

How to effectively mainstream gender across all aspects of digital development initiatives

Specific strategies for bridging widening digital and data divides between countries

Balancing innovation and regulation in emerging technologies like AI

Suggested Compromises

Use existing WSIS mechanisms to implement the Global Digital Compact rather than creating new structures

Adopt an intersectional approach to reach the hardest to reach populations in digital inclusion efforts

We are observing widening digital and data divides, growing market concentration, and an expanding environmental footprint from digitalization. The super fast evolution of the digital economy, where AI and other data-driven applications are increasingly important, is making it ever harder for countries at low levels of digital readiness to keep up, and harder still to catch up.

speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

reason

This comment highlights critical challenges in digital development that go beyond just access, pointing to systemic issues of inequality and environmental impact.

impact

It shifted the conversation to consider the negative consequences of digital transformation and the need for more inclusive approaches.

The challenge now ahead of us is to make sure that we don’t work in silos on this topic and I really believe that OASIS and UNGIS are a space for collaboration on that.

speaker

Helene Molinier

reason

This comment emphasizes the importance of collaboration across UN agencies and avoiding fragmented efforts.

impact

It prompted discussion on how to better coordinate efforts across agencies on digital gender issues.

We are expecting that General Assembly will appoint co-facilitators latest by mid-January. Right now, they are just waiting for the ICT4D resolution to be adopted by the GA. Once we do the modalities resolution, we are expecting to see a roadmap and make sure that the process is multi-stakeholder, and we take all stakeholders’ input transparently and fully in the process.

speaker

Deniz Susar

reason

This comment provides concrete next steps for the WSIS+20 review process and emphasizes multi-stakeholder engagement.

impact

It focused the discussion on upcoming milestones and the importance of inclusive processes.

There are a number of activities that South Africa as the G20 presidency, they have actually identified as key priorities, not only for South Africa, but for the African continent issues such as the digital public infrastructure, the issue of looking at capacity building around AI, but also the issue of the data protection and the privacy of data, and also the issue of the open source.

speaker

Cyntia Lesufi

reason

This comment brings in the perspective of a major developing country and highlights specific priority areas for digital development in Africa.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider regional priorities and how UN agencies can support them.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by highlighting critical challenges in digital development, emphasizing the need for collaboration across agencies, providing concrete next steps for important processes, and bringing in regional perspectives. They moved the conversation beyond reporting on past achievements to grappling with current challenges and planning for future coordinated action. The discussion became more focused on addressing inequalities, environmental impacts, and regional needs in digital development efforts.

How can we improve coordination and alignment among UN agencies on digital development initiatives?

speaker

Samia Melhem (World Bank)

explanation

Samia mentioned that sometimes agencies reinvent things or are not completely aligned from the beginning, suggesting a need for better coordination to maximize impact and efficiency.

How can we ensure gender is mainstreamed and prioritized across all chapters of the Global Digital Compact implementation?

speaker

Helene Molinier (UN Women)

explanation

Helene emphasized the importance of not diluting gender considerations in the GDC implementation and called for a cohesive action agenda across various work streams.

How can we address the widening digital and data divides, growing market concentration, and expanding environmental footprint from digitalization?

speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson (UNCTAD)

explanation

Torbjörn highlighted these as key challenges in achieving an inclusive and sustainable digital economy, suggesting a need for further research and action in these areas.

How can we improve the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process?

speaker

Deniz Susar (UNDESA)

explanation

Deniz mentioned that the IGF is not perfect and suggested that UN agencies should be open to jointly improving the WSIS process, including the IGF.

How can we better integrate artificial intelligence considerations into the WSIS+20 review and action lines?

speaker

Yu Ping Cheng (UNDP)

explanation

Yu Ping highlighted AI as a cornerstone area for future UN digital technology development, suggesting it needs to be more prominently addressed in WSIS processes.

How can we ensure effective implementation of the Global Digital Compact at the country level?

speaker

Yu Ping Cheng (UNDP)

explanation

Yu Ping mentioned the importance of implementing global digital cooperation at the country level, suggesting a need for further research on effective implementation strategies.

How can we address the challenges of climate change, AI, data poverty, and language divides in the context of digital development?

speaker

Samia Melhem (World Bank)

explanation

Samia highlighted these as new challenges that have emerged since the inception of WSIS, suggesting a need for further research and action in these areas.

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the evolution of Internet governance since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003-2005, examining achievements, challenges, and key principles for the digital future. Participants highlighted the success of the multi-stakeholder model in fostering internet growth, with global internet usage increasing from 16% to 67% since WSIS. They emphasized the importance of preserving this model, which involves governments, civil society, the technical community, and businesses working together.

Key achievements discussed included the development of internationalized domain names, the expansion of internet exchange points, and the IANA stewardship transition. Challenges identified included the risk of internet fragmentation, cybersecurity threats, misinformation, and the persistent digital divide. Participants stressed the need for collaborative efforts to address these issues while maintaining a unified, secure, and resilient internet.

The role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as crucial in facilitating dialogue and fostering inclusivity. Speakers emphasized the importance of engaging smaller countries and diverse stakeholders in the governance process. The technical community’s role in developing frameworks and technologies to counter risks and build trust was discussed, with examples such as DNSSEC and RPKI mentioned.

Looking ahead to WSIS+20, participants emphasized the need to preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, ensure inclusivity, and address emerging challenges such as AI governance. They called for continued collaboration, transparency, and accountability among all stakeholders to maintain trust and foster innovation in the digital future.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– The achievements and challenges of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) over the past 20 years

– The importance of preserving the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance

– The role of the technical community in addressing challenges like cybersecurity and misinformation

– The impact of geopolitics on Internet governance and the technical underpinnings of the Internet

– The future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and preparations for the WSIS+20 review

The overall purpose of the discussion was to reflect on the evolution of Internet governance since WSIS began in 2003-2005, examine current challenges, and look ahead to how the multi-stakeholder model can be preserved and strengthened for the future.

The tone of the discussion was generally positive and collaborative, with panelists emphasizing the successes of the multi-stakeholder model while acknowledging ongoing challenges. There was a sense of urgency about preserving this model in the face of geopolitical pressures. The tone became slightly more serious when discussing threats to the open Internet, but remained constructive in proposing solutions.

Speakers

– Moderator: Facilitator of the discussion

– Brendan Dowling: Ambassador from Australia

– Kurtis Lindqvist: President and CEO of ICANN

– Raquel Gatto: Head of Legal at NIC.br and VP for ISOC Brazil

– Tripti Sinha: Chair of the ICANN Board

Additional speakers:

– Ian Sheldon: Vice Chair of the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) of ICANN

– Alexander: Audience member from an unnamed country

– Wallace: Audience member from the Global Ethics Foundation

Evolution of Internet Governance: Reflections on WSIS and the Path Forward

This panel discussion brought together key figures in internet governance to reflect on the achievements and challenges since the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in 2003-2005, and to consider the future of internet governance. The conversation centered on the multi-stakeholder model, its successes, and the need to preserve and strengthen it in the face of emerging challenges.

Origins and Evolution of WSIS

The panelists unanimously agreed that WSIS has made significant contributions to internet governance over the past two decades. Kurtis Lindqvist highlighted how WSIS fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration, which has been crucial to the internet’s development. Brendan Dowling emphasized the dramatic expansion of global internet connectivity, with usage increasing from 16% to 67% since WSIS began.

Raquel Gatto provided important context for the evolution of internet governance, discussing three “waves” of IGF development:

1. The initial establishment of the IGF

2. The NetMundial initiative in 2014, which reinforced multi-stakeholder principles

3. The current phase, focusing on concrete outcomes and actionable recommendations

The panel also highlighted the IANA transition as a significant achievement in internet governance, demonstrating the maturity and effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model.

Achievements and Contributions of WSIS

Tripti Sinha pointed to technical advancements such as internationalised domain names (IDNs) and universal acceptance as key achievements. She emphasized the importance of these initiatives in making the internet more inclusive and accessible to non-English speakers.

The success of the multi-stakeholder model was a recurring theme. Brendan Dowling made a particularly striking comment, stating, “If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet.” This statement underscored the unique capabilities of the multi-stakeholder approach in fostering innovation and growth.

Raquel Gatto noted the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee as an early example of a successful multi-stakeholder approach at the national level, highlighting the model’s adaptability to different contexts.

Challenges Facing Internet Governance

Despite the successes, the panel identified several significant challenges facing internet governance today. Tripti Sinha highlighted the risk of internet fragmentation, particularly due to state-driven governance approaches. Kurtis Lindqvist pointed to cybersecurity threats and misinformation as major concerns, while emphasizing the need to balance security measures with maintaining the internet’s openness. Brendan Dowling noted the persistent digital divide and lack of connectivity in some regions as ongoing challenges.

The discussion also touched on emerging challenges, such as AI governance. Tripti Sinha provided insight into the complexities of AI systems, stating, “For AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes, and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad.” This comment highlighted the need for robust data governance frameworks within the broader context of internet governance.

Preserving the Multi-stakeholder Model

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the importance of preserving and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model. Brendan Dowling emphasized that this model has been crucial to the internet’s success. Raquel Gatto stressed the need to engage diverse stakeholders at both global and local levels, while Kurtis Lindqvist highlighted the technical community’s role in building trust and security.

The moderator raised the important point of government participation within the multi-stakeholder framework. This led to a nuanced discussion about balancing diverse interests while maintaining the core principles of the multi-stakeholder approach. Brendan Dowling mentioned ICANN’s government engagement team and their network of 540 members from 85 countries as an example of efforts to involve governments in the process.

An audience member provided a thought-provoking perspective, stating, “I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law.” This comment highlighted the real-world challenges to implementing the multi-stakeholder model in some countries and prompted further discussion on how to address these issues.

Future of Internet Governance and Role of the Technical Community

Looking ahead, the panelists discussed several key areas for the future of internet governance. Raquel Gatto emphasized the need to strengthen the IGF’s role and impact. However, she also raised concerns about the IGF’s financial sustainability, stating, “The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the UN streams and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment.”

Tripti Sinha highlighted the importance of addressing emerging challenges like AI governance, while Kurtis Lindqvist stressed the need to preserve a unified, interoperable internet. Both speakers emphasized the crucial role of the technical community in developing and deploying security frameworks and technologies for trust and verification, such as DNSSEC and RPKI.

Raquel Gatto made an important point about the need to understand that the internet is not just social media or big tech platforms, emphasizing the importance of a holistic view of internet governance.

Conclusion and Future Directions

The discussion concluded with a focus on key takeaways and action items. These included continuing to advocate for and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model, engaging policymakers and diplomats to inform WSIS+20 negotiations, developing and deploying technical frameworks to address security risks, promoting universal acceptance and internationalised domain names, and strengthening the IGF’s role and impact.

Unresolved issues were also identified, including how to balance diverse interests within the multi-stakeholder model, addressing the digital divide, navigating increased regulatory pressures and geopolitical tensions, ensuring data integrity and ethical use of AI technologies, and maintaining a unified, interoperable internet amid fragmentation risks.

The panel discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the current state of internet governance, celebrating the achievements of WSIS while acknowledging the significant challenges ahead. The strong consensus on the value of the multi-stakeholder model suggests a unified direction for future internet governance discussions and negotiations, particularly in preparation for WSIS+20. However, the complexities raised by audience members and the identification of unresolved issues highlight the ongoing work needed to ensure a secure, open, and inclusive internet for all.

Moderator: Welcome, everyone, to the IGF Open Forum WSIS to WSIS++20, Enduring Principle of Internet Governance. We have, I think, you should be able to hear in channel 3. Yeah, it’s, maybe you need a new device. Now you can hear, okay. I can hear myself, so if it’s not working, if hers is not working, she may need another one. We have some good speakers. Ambassador Brendan Dowling from Australia, Curtis Lindquist, ICANN’s President and CEO, Raquel Gatto, Head of Legal and NIC.br, and VP for ISOC Brazil, and Tripti Sinha, our Chair of the ICANN Board. And we are going to explore the evolution of Internet Governance since WSIS in 2003 to 2005, what are the achievements and challenges, and what are the key principles and actions for a transformative digital future. We have people who are participating here live, and we have a Zoom room where people can ask questions. We have an online moderator who can ping us when there is a question. And we will be sharing our perspectives on, you know, what are these achievements and challenges of the WSIS. I understand, Ambassador, that you have to leave after a certain amount of time, but you have somebody else from Australia who will step in. Yes, Ian, the Vice Chair of the GAC of ICANN, the Governmental Advisory Committee. Thank you for taking that role as well. And with that, we’re going to have, so we have three parts. We’re going to start with some questions. We’re going to, and please try to answer within like three minutes so that we can fit as many as the question, as the answers possible. And also we may have some online requests as well. So Curtis, to you is the first question. What do you think have been the most significant WSIS achievements and contributions in the past 20 years? And how do you think they shaped the internet we have today? Not a big question, three minutes. Did I get an entire panel by myself?

Curtis Lindquist: So I think WSIS was created 20 years ago, or 19 years ago this year as a platform for really to bring together the different parts of the multi-stakeholder model but in no particular order, governments, technical community, civil society, business, and and to foster a dialogue around what that means and how do we evolve the internet as such in all of these arenas and building on all the experiences and and mandates that these groups bring to it. And if we go back to 2005 we had 16% of the world population was on the internet and today we are over 67% of the world population is on the internet. So the internet has done a remarkable journey as during this time and obviously part of that is fostered by the the environment, by the outcomes of the multi-stakeholder model that was very much supported, or has been very much supported by the IGF since then and the and the outcomes and the Tunis agenda from WSIS 20 years ago. Very much part of the multi-stakeholder model has also been to actually foster this inclusivity across all these areas, way beyond just the perhaps more limited scope that led to the WSIS discussions 20 years ago. We now cover you know, multilingual domain names, IDNs, multiple script has been brought into the internet. We see a lot of work in this. There is a 151 internationalized domain names in 37 languages and 23 scripts. That wasn’t there 20 years ago, and we have supported all this. And beyond that the WSIS or the multi-stakeholder model has been embodied through the IGF and the WSIS process has gone from supporting exchange points builders around the world into areas that didn’t have exchange points before. It’s championed a lot of collaboration in many of these areas. The Coalition for Digital Africa that have supported these initiatives in Africa, for example, but we also see this in many of the other regions of the world. So I think it’s been actually very successful. It’s delivered a lot of value from the multistakeholder model, that’s a mouthful, and the IGF has really been the embodiment of this, which actually coming together once a year to enable all these groups, stakeholder groups, to have these discussions in a really open forum, transparent forum, to exchange

Moderator: ideas and share the vision from that. Thank you. Thank you, Curtis. Ambassador, the second question goes to you. In how the achievements of the WSIS shape the global environment across political, economical and social dimension, and again, not a very big question. I think it’s an incredible success story. When

Brendan Dowling: you look at the number of users that are connected to the Internet globally, how the Internet has become the most important piece of global infrastructure, possibly in human history. It has expanded along with the governance arrangements. So you’ve seen WSIS grow from, I think, what was seen as a niche technical discussion to a process now which is incredibly expansive, incredibly inclusive. WSIS has found new ways to engage new stakeholders, new countries. We’ve seen 190 regional and national initiatives buy into the process. So I think as connectivity has expanded, so has the processes for Internet governance expanded. When you look at how that has evolved, you don’t have the Internet as we know it today, functioning as we know it today, without that inclusive process. If you set out to design the Internet from scratch with a state-led process, with a multilateral process, there is no way it works. There is no way it gets us to where we are today. I think next year’s an incredible opportunity to review the arrangements, to look at how they’re working, what needs to adjust and evolve for the next 10 years. how we ensure there is that inclusive approach, how we ensure civil society, the technical community, small countries which us who are still on their digital connectivity journey, we need to evolve to make sure they have a voice, that we are inclusive, but I do think we should take time to reflect on the incredible success of how the model has brought us something that is so crucial to all aspects of human life today. Before I go to Tripti, if I may follow up, Australia has been actively involved obviously, but since the beginning, if I remember correctly, what is your stance about the WSIS plus 20, like where is Australia staying? I think our most important priority is twofold, one is to preserve the preeminence of the multi-stakeholder model to ensure there is equal footing for the range of stakeholders through the conversations next year. As I said, it only works when all stakeholders have a voice. I think WSIS is in some ways a unique arrangement where we bring a range of stakeholders on equal footing with an equal voice into those rooms. For us, that is a crucial priority. Our second priority is inclusivity. We are doing a lot of work with countries in our region, particularly in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, to say as connectivity spreads, and we’re strong supporters of digital connectivity in the region through our work on subsea cables and telecommunications access, we want to ensure that they are part of the process. We want to ensure the smallest Pacific island states are represented, are able to present their perspective. So our second priority is, as we preserve that multi-stakeholder process next year, to ensure there is a broader range of voices that are represented. I think we’re well on the way. way to achieving that. I think we do a lot of work in the region, a number of other people who are represented here today including ICANN are really active in ensuring those places have a voice. For me that’s a huge priority for next

Moderator: year. Thank you, that’s really important to have the smaller countries that usually don’t go to these events to be present. Tripti, again not a big question for the three minutes but what have been the most challenging moments in the last two decades since the WSIS started? Well it started more than two decades ago and what do you think are the key lessons that the IGF

Tripti Sinha: community should take away from this experience? Thank you Veni for the question. So I would say there have been many significant events and challenges some that I would classify as achievements and some that are challenges that have occurred recently that we must overcome. So among these challenges a key one that has been percolating in the last several years has been the risk of internet fragmentation at the technical level. So the calls for replacing the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance as we are currently witnessing with the new one which is multilateral oriented highlight the critical need for the technical community including ICANN of course to come together to deliver on our mission. Another event that I would like to highlight is the IANA stewardship transition which I believe is an achievement. It was a pivotal moment that required trust and compromise and careful management and this process proved and underscored the value of collaborative governance and provided a model for addressing some very complex transitions. And in other areas in terms of what I would consider challenges and threats is cybersecurity threats and misinformation and just the misuse of data and the value of data that has been presented to us in the last many years and this value has taken on all kinds of you know key attributes such as privacy has become critical and then the weaponization of data right. And so this can potentially erode public trust on the internet. And another very key thing is that no one I think ever imagined the speed with which information could move and actually impact and influence another part of the world. So balancing security with openness has proven to be difficult yet essential underscoring the need for very robust security measures and greater transparency. At the same time the persistent digital divide leaving close to a third of the global population unconnected. You know, highlights the need for innovative approaches to expand access, particularly in those regions that are not connected. So the key takeaway for the IGF community is, of course, ensuring that the multi-stakeholder collaboration in this model prevails. It involves governments, academia, civil society, the technical community, IGOs, businesses. Coming together, we have shown the resilience and adaptability, enabling all these different voices to come together and tackle problems together. And for example, I think the IANA transition proves as a model for us being able to come together and establish that intergovernmental cooperation, inter-multi-stakeholder cooperation actually works and is very effective. So looking ahead, the IGF community must continue to strengthen this model while advancing digital inclusivity and fostering trust and transparency to safeguard the internet’s future. Thank you, Tripti.

Moderator: You mentioned the IANA transition. Indeed, during the WSIS Plus 10 review process was in 2015, and this was exactly when the IANA transition was happening. And I won’t forget how the representative of China to the UN took the floor and actually supported the IANA transition, which was a very good sign of a major country supporting it. Raquel, last question is to you, and then we’ll open if there are any questions online or in the room for a couple of minutes. What key factor has helped us overcome some of the challenges in those past 20 years, some of those that Tripti mentioned? And how might that knowledge guide the development of a more inclusive, secure, and resilient digital future? And how do you think the IGF has contributed to this outcome? Thank you very much, Veni.

Raquel Gatto: And thank you very much, first, for the invitation for this rich panel. I think we are going to have a lot of discussion. questions on WSIS and this is another opportunity to to do so. So I would like to recall a little bit what was the breakthrough into the two rounds, the first two rounds of the WSIS process of 2003 and 2005. I think a good point has been made on the recognition of the technical community role and in all the internet governance mechanisms. But also a couple of months ago I was invited by LACNIC, one of the regional internet registries location to to make a talk for the tech guys on why it’s important to participate into those discussions. And I think the point that I want to make is not only the mechanisms of the decision-making mechanisms for the WSIS needs to be inclusive and open but also once they are, you need to have the stakeholders engaged. And this is pretty much one of the fatigue problems that you have when there are so many multiple discussions to see the relevance and the importance of participating. So allow me just, I will try to keep short, I know I have two minutes now, but to make it an example on another level. When we think about the breakthrough between the paradigm that you had into the two rounds, the first two rounds, which was the multilateral model for the multistakeholder model, what is the difference there? If you think about, you know, if you go to a restaurant, let me try into a pre-lunch session to use food as an example. If you go to a restaurant and you have a fixed menu, of course you are going to be fed but then you have just this, you know, kind of set choices that you can make. Imagine if you could go to the kitchen and everyone could go there and use your family recipe or if you don’t know how to cook, you can contribute by doing the dish washing or, you know. Everyone has a role there in the kitchen. And then when you are served, you have this diverse plates and experiences and exchange that can be made. And yes, it took more effort, probably more time. But then once you are at the table, you have just richer experience that can be shared among all the participants. So I know examples are tricky. This is not a 100% a good example, but I think it shows the difference between a fixed menu when you have multilateral model and when you have this rich kitchen experience that the IGF can provide when everyone isn’t at the room, everyone can participate and then the outcomes are much more richer and solid. And I think we are going to be talking about results later.

Moderator: Thank you, Veni. Thank you. Are there any questions in the room? Over there, if somebody can bring a microphone. And if there is no microphone, you may have to use one of those.

Audience: Thank you, Veni. Very great panel. I’ve been involved in the WSIS project through the CSTD Working Group on IGF Improvement and Enhanced Cooperation, member of MAG. I’ve been very active in business constituency in ICANN. I followed the IANA transition. And throughout, I’ve seen that ICANN has a unique product and has their unique multi-stakeholder approach. And it played out during the call for the elimination of .RU, okay? And the community said no. So, that is a brilliant model, are we propagating this further, are we strengthening this because of internet shutdown, there are a lot of internet shutdowns around the place, can we project this model so that when it comes to shutting down, maybe we can have a forum to discuss?

Moderator: Who wants to take that question? Because if not, I mean, I have some experience with that because it’s related to how much governments are willing to take the experience of the last 20 years into their building their legislation, regulations, etc. And I come from Bulgaria, so I always give Bulgaria as an example because nobody can get upset about it, but Bulgaria has years ago now, 25 years ago, decided that there will be no regulation of any kind on internet addresses and internet names. Internet numbers, however, were regulated and the result was that with a 6.5 million population at the peak of that boom, there were 2,000 internet service providers in the country, which, you know, I live in New York City with 10 million people, there are two internet service providers, so not much of a choice. So I think one of the ways is what can be adapted from this model and how it can contribute to the intergovernmental and intergovernmental processes. Yes. Can I just add one thing, I mean, I want to come back to what we said about the, back in 2003 and 2005, this was not a given, right? There were other alternatives that we could have come down, right? And if you look at the discussions we, you know, look around us here today, you know, you ask the question, how can we broaden it? We have broadened it.

Curtis Lindquist: We, you know, we have a lot of other topics that has come here exactly because they’re seeking what this model offers, right? They want to have the broad participation, the broad multi-stakeholder model, and I think that that’s really a testament to the strength of what we have achieved, because that was far from certain back in 2003, certainly, maybe more certain in 2005.

Moderator: That was the other comment. Thank you. I’m going to move to the second question I now ask to you, Ambassador, because you have to leave, I know, so a little bit change in the order, but there has been, and it comes into the question actually, there has been a lot of talk in multilateral venues about strengthening multilateralism in the multipolar world. Given the global internet is a network of many networks, is a multilateral approach the answer to deal with some of those complex and transitional challenges? And is there room to preserve the multi-stakeholder approach in this increasingly geopoliticalized world? I think that’s the question that is really critical for 2025. But let’s be real. If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet. That is the starkness

Brendan Dowling: of the choice. The multilateral world is not equipped on its own to develop a network of networks in the way that we have that. Now let’s imagine that. Let’s imagine a multilateral driven internet. Firstly, I don’t think it has spread in the way that we know it today. Digital trade, I think, is subject to far more national barriers and borders. We don’t have the globally connected world that we have today. So that is the starkness of the choice that we face. The multi-stakeholder model has worked. It has brought us all the benefits and upsides in a way that the multilateral world would never be capable of organizing. So we need to preserve what works with the multi-stakeholder model. We need to remember that multi-stakeholder means governments are in the room. Governments are a key part of the process. Governments have a strong role in shaping the future of the internet. So this is not a one or the other proposition. The multi-stakeholder model gives everyone a voice, gives everyone the ability to shape the future. Multilateral institutions are a core part of that. They are part of the process, they are part of the discussion. So yes we need to use next year and the WSIS processes as a way to evolve, to look at what the future arrangements should be, but let’s be in no doubt if we try to replace the multi-stakeholder model with a pure multilateral state-governed model, goodbye to the internet. That would be a catastrophe for us all, it would be a catastrophe for global development, it would be a catastrophe for meeting the sustainable development goals. We’re all invested in preserving the multi-stakeholder model and governments are a key part of that. Thank you, I guess you have to leave and

Moderator: be able to ask follow-up questions because I’m sure there will be. So Ian you can exchange seats, Curtis I’m gonna go to you and sorry for the change of order but I wanted the ambassador to have the answer this question. So there are a lot of challenges that we hear here talking about misinformation, disinformation, cyber security risk, regulatory pressures, how do you see the role of the technical community in addressing those challenges? Sir, I mean

Curtis Lindquist: without a doubt there is a issue of misinformation and well cyber security risks is a quite a wide topic ranging from true security risks to resilience and I mean there’s many topics under the umbrella and these are leading to increased regulatory pressure and I think we need to, from the technical community, we need to make sure that we have the frameworks and the technologies to counter the risks and I think they will also take some pressure of the regulatory need because if we can safeguard this through technology you might have less need for regulation but I mean there has been a lot of in the level throughout the last a few years, last 10, 20 years, maybe even, these risks has increased, and there are all kind of actors and drivers of trying to exploit these weaknesses. The technical community have very much tried to address these. We have on the DNS side, the domain name side, we have the DNSSEC, which is the technology and framework for ensuring trust in the identified resolution of namespace. That’s developed by the ITF and ICANN, very much are active in trying to get this deployed as far as possible, as wide as possible by all actors in the name resolution chain. And this, by building capacity and furthering this. And the same goes for the number space, so the IP address space, to ensure validity in this between RPKI and MANRS and other initiatives where we can validate that the authenticity and the trust in the system is maintained. And that is what we are doing as technical community

Moderator: to counter some of these threats. Thank you. Tripti, to continue from Curtis’ answer, governments have been paying close attention to those challenges as well. And so, in your view, in your observations, how does the geopolitical environment affect the technical underpinnings of the internet and the challenges that Curtis was talking about?

Tripti Sinha: So, I couldn’t agree more with what Curtis just said, that geopolitical and political movements do impact the technical underpinnings of the internet, and particularly the areas of regulatory complexities and cybersecurity events and risks and misinformation, the propagation of misinformation. And fragmentation risks have grown as some nations push for state-driven governance and infrastructure, including DNS resolvers. So these measures challenge the internet’s unified and interoperable nature, creating barriers that could disrupt its global functionality. And I think we need to recognize that as we’re promoting a multi-stakeholder model, this interconnected world, but I think the value that comes with such an interconnected world needs to be understood. So as the question that was asked earlier about countries turning off internet access, they only hurt themselves, because we are such an interconnected world that transactions will simply. start to fail, and I think many of us, many entities in the world don’t understand how things happen in the world today, whether it be economic transactions and communication transactions. So, you know, it’s really a situation of, you know, cutting your nose to spite your face. Coming to cyber security threats further compound the challenges, as geopolitical tensions escalate, state-sponsored cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, and misuse of digital platforms increasingly undermine the trust on the internet. And this erosion of trust, you know, highlights the urgent need for collaborative measures to strengthen the internet security and stability. The multi-stakeholder model continues to remain critical in addressing these challenges. It brings together all the different, you know, constituents, the different stakeholders, governments, the private sector, civil society, technical community, so that we can produce a craft, and craft a balanced solution, an inclusive solution. So ICANN’s ongoing commitment to this model, particularly through its work in promoting, you know, UA, universal acceptance, and IDNs, international domain names, you know, help bridge this linguistic divide and create a multilingual internet, which is essentially speaking to inclusivity. And so to safeguard the global internet’s integrity, and the stakeholders must collaborate on all regulatory frameworks that address security and content-related concerns without fragmenting the internet. Through dialogue, cooperation, the IGF community can help maintain a unified, secure, and resilient internet in this increasingly polarized world.

Moderator: Thanks, Steve. I’m looking at my watch, but we have one more question, and then we’ll open for some, to Raquel, and then we’ll open for some questions, and there is an online question, which we will also address. So Raquel, some critics argue that the multi-stakeholder model. is struggling to balance diverse interests and achieve concrete results. How would you respond to those critics and what changes or improvements if any

Raquel Gatto: might be needed? Thank you very much again Veni and well the burden of being the last one in the session is that you can subscribe to the other ones but then you have a challenge to bring something new and I will keep just a short answer into two points. So one is regarding the processes and the second more of the substance of the discussion. Regarding the processes I think it’s important also to remember that you can bring this multi-stakeholder approach also to the local level it’s not only a global discussion and I come from .br which has the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee which was set into a multi-stakeholder committee from 1995 so even before this was done even before ICANN and it was really a natural decision when you realize that to take on the big task of thinking the internet evolution and recommendations for the internet use at the local level one actor one stakeholder is not going to bring the solution so everyone come together to the table and make those recommendations so that’s the let’s say the inception of the multi-stakeholder at the local level and it’s not about only keeping the internet open of course and safe but also resilient and regarding the question on the on the shutdowns I mean of course you need to keep it on but you cannot avoid some of the decisions but you can make sure that you were bring back faster as you can and so this resilience is also very important not only on the infrastructure level but also on the political level and I’m going to talk a little bit about that but also at the global level when I’m still on the processes part CGI has undertook together with lots of the partners a huge effort on net mondial on making this global discussions realizing that you have those challenges so back in 2014 when you had these know the revelations on massive and pervasive vigilance you had this moment where internet governance principles were internet governance and the patient of the internet itself was at risk And bringing NetMundial, this global discussion, into a multi-stakeholder fashion was really important to reinforce our way ahead. And we were back to this moment this year, so the beginning of this year, there was NetMundial Plus 10, which also took the realization that we had new uses and new challenges for the Internet, and we need to be back together as a community to reinforce our principles, but also to look ahead how those processes can be improved in order to bring the solutions that we need and that don’t break the Internet. So that’s one of the points. And very shortly, in terms of the substance, I think our biggest challenge right now is to make the understanding what the Internet is, and in different levels, right? It’s not only for the governments, for the judiciary, for the Congress. I mean, it’s really hard not to bring what is more visible in terms of social media and the big techs and the platforms, and make sure they understand that the Internet is not only social media. Make sure that AI is a great breakthrough in terms of new technology, but the Internet still holds it together as a foundation. And that’s what I think it’s the cross-cutting substance that we need also to bring into those processes.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Thank you. We have a couple of minutes for questions after this session, at this part of the session. Anyone in the room? Well, it’s either everything is crystal clear or nothing is clear. Yes. Sorry, maybe a question will be a little related to the previous part.

Audience: But I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law. So we are slowly moving from light discussions, not decision-making activities, to activities which might be slightly illegal or in some cases very illegal. And this issue is not addressed anyhow. So ambassador from a free country may say good words. I can’t word and president can say good words. But how issue of lack of multi-stakeholder possibilities in non-free countries may be addressed by technical community and other stakeholders? Thank you.

Curtis Lindquist: I mean, it’s a complicated question. I’m going to offer observation. So the ambassador said that if the multilateral model were to design the internet, it would never have happened. Now, I’m a technologist from beginning and I’ve been around for a very long time and a bit of a nerd. Those of us who have been around long enough will remember that actually multilateralism tried to develop the internet. And in its place, we got the current internet. That was a successful model, was the multilateral model that actually out-competed the multilateral, well, competing technologies. It’s not exactly an answer to Alexander, but I think that the reality is that you need, in the end of the day, you need to have a working solution for it to catch on. And if you break it, it becomes unusable. The market forces in any country will act right. I mean, I think that’s the best that the technical community can do. community can do is prove that we have something that works.

Moderator: Thank you. And there was a couple of online questions. One of them actually related to the UN policies, which is not really our expertise. But the other one was asking whether ICANN can deprive a country, or I assume it can be expanded, not only ICANN, but the technical organizations like the RIOs, or ICANN can take off a country domain name or country IP addresses of the internet. And I think this was addressed actually almost three years ago now. There was a request coming from Ukraine to ICANN and RIPE, the European Internet Registry, about taking down the Russian top level domain IP addresses that were given to Russia. And the response that came from both organizations was that we cannot do that. That’s not in our powers. So that’s the situation there. Alexander, this answers your question, right? Is there another question? Yes, please. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you very much, Wallace. I’m from the Global Ethics Foundation. I have a question about the content of internet. I understand you touched upon many open, free, and multilateral framework. But it seems that, particularly in AI-driven age, how to ensure the information integrity, and we use that term that used in Global Digital Compact, how this governance framework, how the multistakeholders can ensure the integrity of information on the internet. Thank you. So this goes back to the topic of data governance. This is a big topic right now with the percolation of AI and the capabilities that are coming with AI.

Tripti Sinha: So for AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes. and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad. So it’s very critical that as AI governance models are being discussed, the data is appropriately tagged and labeled and fed into its repositories before it’s used. So there needs to be a data validation process, ensuring the veracity of the data, and the ethical tagging of the data. So this is, in my opinion, a very steep hill to climb, but it’s a hill that we must climb if we want to be successful in the use of all these emerging technologies that will be so impactful in our future. So I hope that answers your question to a certain extent.

Moderator: Thank you, Tripti. We’re gonna change the order now. Raquel, you complained that you’re the last. No, I’m joking. You did not complain. But now you’re gonna be first, and we’re gonna put the diplomat to answer last. So Raquel, the question to you is, how do you see the role of the IGF in transforming the digital future? What changes or evolution do you think is necessary to make the IGF more impactful? And what have we learned in the past 20 years? And maybe there will be another WSIS Review in another 20 years, who knows?

Raquel Gatto: Thank you very much, Veni, and for changing the order. I’m sure the diplomat is much more skilled to be the last one. And I’m going to use this as, it’s a very complex question for a one-minute answer. But then I think first, the IGF has proven to be the successful experience, but it is not one solution, right? And it’s not a one IGF that we are talking about. The first point I want to make is, the IGF is not only the event, but it’s the process that you do all year round. that matters. And I used to say that the IGF has, at least for now, three waves that were pretty much important. So the first wave, till about 2013-2014, for those revelations that I was mentioning, the IGF really consolidated into this global dialogue space, into a bottom-up process, into an eco-footing, and into changing and breaking this paradigm of the multilateral that was known so far. And it’s not only for the Internet, right? All other collective goods and rights, like the environment, are also taking on this model, because it’s really important to consolidate that it can be done, and it can achieve results, even though they are not the results we are used to. So that’s the first wave for the IGF. The second wave for the IGF has been precisely to bring more into the tangible results, and how it’s changed the intersessional work, how it makes sure to bring all the thematic relevance that was needed, but also to integrate into the other mechanisms. So looking for, let’s say, G20, ITU, and all the and even ICANN processes. So how we can make this coordination and cooperation really something that is tangible at the end, looking for the best practices. And now it’s the third wave, right? It has reached the kind of the highest level at the UN, and in order to be to be continued, right, and to think about the next 10 years, 20 years, or the IGF forever, as it was called into the one of the high-level sessions, I will bring some of the points also that was that are in the NetMundial plus 10a statement. The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the the UN streams and and and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment but also in order I mean to make sure that it keeps going on being more inclusive and more open and it foster more of the national and regional discussions and you have a retrofit from those of course we have different challenges in each of our countries even in in some countries you have localities with different challenges and so on but make sure that this rise to the global discussions but also the global discussions keep having local actions and I think because of the time I’m

Moderator: going to keep that short thank you very much and I hope the IGF is renewed for those that are have the the decision powers thank you thank you Raquel but by the way you never know I may still ask you the last question Curtis what about your vision for you know digital future beyond 2025 and what can the technical community do to continue building the trust and maintaining the global internet I mean amidst it’s increasingly geopolitical polarised world so I think there’s a few things the unified global internet we have today that is is you know interoperable seamless is really the

Curtis Lindquist: foundation of all the value creation the internet has enabled right that is the fundamental aspect of the internet and as you say there is a question of trust in this model going forward that we need to ensure that that trust remains and by doing that we need to address some of the challenges that we have just talked about in the panel now, from security to verification, and also enabling that openness there, because that’s very much part of that value creation. And I think the technical community, like the ITF, who sets all the standards, ISOC, who does a lot of the work with business, civil society, ICANN, who the constituents we have in names and numbering, and all the other ICANN groups, GAC, etc. We really need to identify and understand these concerns, and what could possibly erode that trust, and how do we create a technical framework that meets that. Going forward, and I mean some of this work is done, as I said, we have MANRS for routing, as I said, BNSSEC before, and there’s a lot of other programs, so MANRS is a program for bringing RPKI and routing security to the world’s ISPs, and certify, and have a standardized way for doing it. KIND DNS for DNS is similar, so building on these frameworks to ensure that this gets globally deployed, because there’s also the other thing is that we might have the technologies, but we need to deploy them as well. We need to have them actually validated, and in the world, so we can actually provide that trust. One thing is to have the tools, the other one is to actually ensure the trust exists. And so to continue building that, so that we really have this trusted system, trusted ecosystem, and collaborate around all these efforts with all these stakeholders, both in identifying the challenges, but also delivering the solutions to them. And I think, again, that’s the multi-stakeholder approach. That’s how we work. We work together, and the technical community’s role in this is to ensure that the technical aspects provide resilience, security, and trust of the network that we want. And the other part that we haven’t talked so much about here, but there is another aspect of trust, is of course also the inclusivity. You know, trust is the technical trust, but they’re also feeling included, provides that trust, and that includes internationalized domain names, scripts, etc. that we work on so that people actually can use this and make sure we have the capacity building as well. So like the programs I talked about, so you feel included in that sense because that’s really where we start seeing value. Then people don’t feel, can actually trust beyond the technical trust, but also having trust in the system, trust in participation, trust in use. Thanks a lot.

Moderator: Tripti, the second to last question and not Sherian and Raquel. But what actions can the technical community, including ICANN and other key stakeholders take to ensure that the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model? Thank you, Veni.

Tripti Sinha: There’s a lot that can be done. So to ensure the WSIS Plus 20 review strengthens this model, the multi-stakeholder governance model, the technical community, including ICANN, of course, and other key stakeholders, we must act with a shared vision and come together in collaboration and be determined to maintain this model. And it’s been said over and over again this morning, as we’ve talked, this model works and let’s not break it. And it’s been central to the internet success. The ambassador mentioned it, Curtis just highlighted it, we’re all highlighting it, that this has fostered inclusivity, transparency, collaboration, and innovation. Let’s not forget. I mean, this was built upon an open environment when you look at the early days of the internet. I mean, vibrant minds came together and said, let’s do something exciting. And why on earth would you want to break that and take that away? So let’s learn from our successful past and preserve the good of the past. And the technical community, we must advocate for the multi-stakeholder model by showcasing how effective we’ve been in addressing challenges. And the current prevailing challenges are security, inclusion, and all the other challenges that are coming with AI. AI is introducing many challenges. We’ve got to have standards. We’ve got to ensure that the data that’s being fed into engines is good. And that is not in turn used in the wrong way. So we’ve got to come together as a community, as a technical community, and be part of the solution. So that’s something that I would say is critical. Technical expertise must inform diplomats who will be negotiating the WSIS plus 20. So organizations like ours, ICANN, must share our technical expertise to ensure that people who negotiate WSIS plus 20 understand how the internet works and what the role is of each stakeholder. Because it’s not clear that there’s a common understanding of the different layers of the internet and how things interoperate. Can you hear me? Because I’m cutting in and out myself. I think I’ve lost. You can hear me? Okay. And so some other examples of how we can come together and inform diplomats is universal acceptance and IDNs, which actually these key elements of future services speak to inclusivity and preserving, making a multilingual Internet. And one thing that I’d like to mention is that I’m particularly tied or married to multilingual Internet because the language of science and technology has become English, which has helped us all come together and create new technologies. However, there’s some collateral damage that comes with it, which is we potentially are going to forget our languages and forget our culture because we have started to speak this common language, which is great. It’s producing some positive outcomes. But let’s not forget our rich cultural heritage, and we’ve got to preserve that. So for that reason alone, I think it’s very important that we make the Internet multilingual. And the other thing that’s very important is engaging policymakers. That’s equally important. Active participation in the UN consultations and global forums help shape these discussions, build understanding. Can you hear me? Because I’m interesting because I’m cutting out. I can’t hear myself. And it’s all right. I’m almost done. So this includes advocating for the continuation and strengthening of the Internet Governance Forum as this critical platform for dialogue and capacity building. And so it’s a pivotal moment for all the stakeholders to renew our commitment to the WSIS principles. So we’ve got to prioritize trust, security, and inclusivity. And the technical community can effectively contribute to an Internet Governance Framework that supports innovation, fosters resilience, and promotes inclusivity. in this digital world. So thank you Vinny. Thank you and sorry for the technical

Moderator: difficulties it was breaking here but I realized it’s only our two devices that were breaking. So the last question was for your ambassador so you only have no just kidding no from a government’s point of view though what do you think the government stakeholders or the government’s can do to preserve the trust while building upon the success of the digital transformation we’ve witnessed in the last 20 years. Thanks the question and thanks for letting me

Brendan Dowling: sub in for my cyber ambassador. Quite simply I think it’s it’s governments should allow ourselves to continue to benefit from the multi-stakeholder process. Multi-stakeholderism means we’re in this together. The internet only flourishes if the community as a whole works together. This requires trust. Trust requires two things transparency and accountability and for that to be a two-way street. This means that governments and all other parts of the multi-stakeholder community must ensure that there is clear communication between each groups and we all need to be accountable for each other’s roles and that we play in the internet successes. So the internet success don’t work if we if governments if only governments are committed to upholding the WSIS and similarly it doesn’t work if either governments feel WSIS doesn’t address their needs or if the multi-stakeholder approach is no longer at its at its core. Australia’s approach to our WSIS plus 20 preparations is a great example of this of this in action and we we committed to taking a multi-stakeholder approach to our preparations not simply and not just based on principle but because we genuinely believes it produces good outcomes and outcomes that we can take with us into the negotiating room. So our approach is guided by a number of core principles which are key to building trust with the multi-stakeholder community. It means being multi-stakeholder openness and transparency. and building on the perspectives and voices of all, taking a holistic evidence-based approach to outcomes and achieving long-term agreement. So certainly if you are interested in learning about the approach we’re taking to WSIS, please come by our booth, grab a Tim Tam, grab a koala, and we’d love to continue leveraging the deep expertise that the multistakeholder community has to offer as we approach the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations. Thank you. We also were able to take pictures yesterday.

Moderator: I think there was a… Thank you. We are wrapping up the discussion. So I think one of the references that I could give also is the government engagement team and we have a dedicated webpage. You can go to ICANN.org and government engagement and you can find the information that we share. We’ve created a network, can you hear me or no? We created a network of about 540 members right now from 85 countries. We exchange information which people find useful and we organize webinars every once in a while. We were very active during the Global Digital Compact negotiations, discussing every draft that was published. We’ll continue doing that in the WSIS process. So please sign up, read our papers that we are producing. Any last comments or words from you guys or else I’ll turn to Raquel. Thank you very much. I just want to say and appreciate the work you’re doing. It really helps us even at the local level, those materials we can spread. And I think that’s also the message here because I preached the importance of the IGF. For those in the room, it’s easy. It’s much harder when you go back home or back to your constituencies and then. you need to convince those of the importance and so having this background materials are really really important. Thank you Veni and Kurt and everyone for the work done. Thanks a lot, any last comments? No? Well thanks a lot, we finished actually three minutes before the end of time, which the local host will be very thankful we’re giving them time to rearrange the stage. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of multi-stakeholder model

Kurtis Lindqvist

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Tripti Sinha

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Advocating for multi-stakeholder model

All speakers emphasized the crucial role of the multi-stakeholder model in the success and development of the internet, highlighting its importance for inclusive and effective internet governance.

Achievements of WSIS in expanding internet access

Kurtis Lindqvist

Brendan Dowling

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

Expanded internet connectivity globally

Both speakers highlighted the significant increase in global internet connectivity as a major achievement of WSIS over the past 20 years.

Need to address emerging challenges

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Addressing emerging challenges like AI governance

Both speakers emphasized the need for the technical community to develop frameworks and technologies to address emerging challenges, including cybersecurity risks and AI governance.

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive decision-making processes in internet governance, highlighting the success of the multi-stakeholder approach at both global and local levels.

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Both speakers stressed the importance of the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks and informing policymakers about technical aspects of internet governance.

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Informing policymakers on technical aspects

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of multilingualism in internet governance

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Enabled technical advancements like internationalized domain names

Fostered multi-stakeholder collaboration

While not a primary focus of the discussion, both speakers highlighted the importance of multilingualism and internationalized domain names as key achievements of WSIS, showing unexpected consensus on the significance of linguistic inclusivity in internet governance.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement among speakers included the importance of the multi-stakeholder model, the achievements of WSIS in expanding internet access, and the need to address emerging challenges in internet governance. There was also consensus on the significance of inclusive decision-making processes and the role of the technical community in developing frameworks and informing policymakers.

Consensus level

The level of consensus among the speakers was high, particularly regarding the value of the multi-stakeholder model and the achievements of WSIS. This strong consensus implies a shared vision for the future of internet governance, emphasizing the need to preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder approach while addressing new challenges. The high level of agreement suggests a unified direction for future internet governance discussions and negotiations, particularly in preparation for WSIS Plus 20.

Different Viewpoints

Approach to internet governance

Brendan Dowling

Kurtis Lindqvist

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

While both speakers support the multi-stakeholder model, Dowling emphasizes its crucial role in the internet’s success, whereas Lindquist focuses more on the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the specific approaches to maintaining the multi-stakeholder model and addressing emerging challenges in internet governance.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among the speakers is relatively low. Most speakers agree on the importance of the multi-stakeholder model and the need to address emerging challenges. The differences lie mainly in the emphasis placed on various aspects of internet governance and the specific approaches to tackle these issues. This low level of disagreement suggests a generally unified vision for the future of internet governance, which could facilitate more effective collaboration in addressing challenges and implementing solutions.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers agree on the need to address challenges in internet governance, but Sinha focuses on the risk of fragmentation due to state-driven governance, while Gatto emphasizes the need to strengthen the IGF’s role and impact.

Tripti Sinha

Raquel Gatto

Risk of internet fragmentation

Strengthening IGF’s role and impact

Similar Viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive decision-making processes in internet governance, highlighting the success of the multi-stakeholder approach at both global and local levels.

Brendan Dowling

Raquel Gatto

Multi-stakeholder model crucial for internet’s success

Promoted inclusive internet governance processes

Both speakers stressed the importance of the technical community’s role in developing security frameworks and informing policymakers about technical aspects of internet governance.

Kurtis Lindqvist

Tripti Sinha

Developing frameworks to counter security risks

Informing policymakers on technical aspects

Key Takeaways

The multi-stakeholder model has been crucial to the internet’s success and should be preserved

WSIS has fostered global internet connectivity and inclusive governance over the past 20 years

Emerging challenges include cybersecurity threats, misinformation, and potential internet fragmentation

The technical community plays a key role in building trust and security for the internet

Government participation within the multi-stakeholder framework remains important

Resolutions and Action Items

Continue advocating for and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance

Engage policymakers and diplomats to inform WSIS+20 negotiations

Develop and deploy technical frameworks to address security risks and build trust

Promote universal acceptance and internationalized domain names for a more inclusive internet

Strengthen the Internet Governance Forum’s role and impact

Unresolved Issues

How to balance diverse interests and achieve concrete results within the multi-stakeholder model

Addressing the digital divide and lack of connectivity in some regions

Navigating increased regulatory pressures and geopolitical tensions

Ensuring data integrity and ethical use of AI technologies

Maintaining a unified, interoperable internet amid fragmentation risks

Suggested Compromises

Governments should participate in multi-stakeholder processes while preserving the model’s core principles

Balance security measures with maintaining the internet’s openness and innovation

Develop technical solutions to address concerns while avoiding excessive regulation

Foster both global coordination and local/regional internet governance initiatives

If the multilateral world 20 years ago was tasked with constructing, developing, spreading the internet, there would be no internet. That is the starkness of the choice. The multilateral world is not equipped on its own to develop a network of networks in the way that we have that.

speaker

Brendan Dowling

reason

This comment starkly contrasts the multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches, emphasizing the unique capabilities of the multi-stakeholder model in developing the internet.

impact

It set a strong tone for defending the multi-stakeholder model and prompted further discussion on the merits of this approach versus a purely governmental one.

The IGF really needs to have more of this financial support right now at the UN streams and how the fund works it’s really uncertain how it can keep going and to do all it’s done it’s really a miracle that is happening right now and it needs to have more of this resource level commitment

speaker

Raquel Gatto

reason

This comment highlights a critical practical challenge facing the IGF, bringing attention to the often-overlooked issue of funding and sustainability.

impact

It shifted the conversation from theoretical benefits of the multi-stakeholder model to practical considerations for its continuation, prompting thoughts on how to ensure the IGF’s longevity.

I come from a country which actually really wants the world to be exactly multilateral, not multi-stakeholder. And in some cases, including our country, keeping multi-stakeholder relations and also technical relations like independent DNS, government independent DNS, is a kind of violation of law.

speaker

Audience member

reason

This comment from the audience introduced a critical perspective from countries resistant to the multi-stakeholder model, highlighting real-world challenges to its implementation.

impact

It prompted the panel to address how the multi-stakeholder model can be promoted or maintained in countries that are resistant to it, adding complexity to the discussion.

For AI to be successful, there are essentially three pillars to AI, which is the data that’s fed into the engines, the algorithms that compute the outcomes, and of course the back-end infrastructure. So if the data is bad, so if the data that goes into it is bad, the output is bad.

speaker

Tripti Sinha

reason

This comment succinctly explains the critical components of AI systems and highlights the importance of data quality, connecting the discussion to emerging technological challenges.

impact

It broadened the conversation to include considerations of AI and data governance within the context of internet governance, prompting thoughts on how these new technologies interact with existing governance structures.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by reinforcing the importance of the multi-stakeholder model while also highlighting its challenges. They broadened the conversation from a focus on past achievements to include considerations of future challenges, particularly around funding, resistance from some nations, and emerging technologies like AI. The discussion evolved from a celebration of the multi-stakeholder model’s successes to a more nuanced exploration of how to maintain and adapt this model in the face of geopolitical, financial, and technological challenges.

How can the multi-stakeholder model be propagated further to address issues like internet shutdowns?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is important to explore how successful governance models like ICANN’s can be applied to other internet-related challenges.

How can the issue of lack of multi-stakeholder possibilities in non-free countries be addressed by the technical community and other stakeholders?

speaker

Alexander (audience member)

explanation

This highlights the need to consider how to implement multi-stakeholder approaches in countries with restrictive governance.

How can the multi-stakeholder governance framework ensure information integrity in the AI-driven age?

speaker

Audience member from Global Ethics Foundation

explanation

This is crucial to address emerging challenges related to AI and data governance within the existing internet governance framework.

What changes or evolution are necessary to make the IGF more impactful?

speaker

Moderator (to Raquel)

explanation

This is important to consider how to improve the effectiveness of the Internet Governance Forum in shaping future internet policies.

How can the technical community continue building trust and maintaining the global internet amidst an increasingly geopolitically polarized world?

speaker

Moderator (to Kurtis)

explanation

This is crucial to address the challenges of maintaining a unified internet in the face of growing geopolitical tensions.

What actions can the technical community and other key stakeholders take to ensure that the outcomes of the WSIS Plus 20 review preserve and strengthen the multi-stakeholder governance model?

speaker

Moderator (to Tripti)

explanation

This is important to consider strategies for maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach in future internet governance frameworks.

Summary

This transcript covers a book launch event for a report on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2023 held in Kyoto, Japan. The report, published by the SEEC Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group, aims to document the event and raise awareness about IGF in Japan.

Junko Kawauchi presented the report’s contents, which include an introduction to IGF, details about the Kyoto event, and summaries of various sessions and activities. The 219-page, full-color report is available in Japanese as both a hard copy and a PDF download. It features pictures from the event and contributions from Japanese organizers.

Keisuke Kamimura explained that this unofficial report serves to encourage local Japanese community engagement in internet governance discussions. It provides a detailed record of the UN conference to help people understand IGF and internet governance better. The report also demonstrates multi-stakeholder collaboration in Japan’s internet governance context.

The presenters emphasized the report’s potential use as a reference for future IGF hosts and as an educational tool for young people through planned School on Internet Governance webinars. They highlighted the significant effort involved in creating the report, including collecting session summaries from various presenters and moderators.

Audience members praised the report’s usefulness for understanding IGF and suggested making it more widely accessible, potentially through the UN IGF website. The discussion concluded by encouraging future host countries to produce similar records of their IGF events to share knowledge and connect different stakeholder groups within the internet governance community.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Introduction of a report booklet about IGF 2023 held in Kyoto, Japan

– Detailed overview of the report’s contents, including IGF history, conference details, and various sessions

– The purpose of creating the report to increase awareness about IGF in Japan

– The voluntary nature of the report and its role in encouraging local Japanese community engagement in internet governance

– The potential use of the report as a reference for future IGF host countries

Overall purpose:

The main goal of this discussion was to launch and present a comprehensive report about the IGF 2023 event held in Kyoto, Japan. The speakers aimed to highlight the importance of documenting such events to increase awareness, encourage local participation, and provide a valuable resource for future IGF hosts.

Tone:

The overall tone of the discussion was informative and enthusiastic. The speakers were eager to share details about the report and its potential impact. The tone remained consistent throughout the conversation, with a focus on presenting information and encouraging similar efforts in the future. There was also a sense of pride in the work accomplished and its potential benefits for the internet governance community.

Speakers

Speakers from the provided list:

– Keisuke Kamimura, Professor at Daito Bunkai University, Tokyo, Japan

Expertise: Member of the SEEC Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group

– Junko Kawauchi, Secretariat for the research group

Additional speakers:

– Tanaka, Attendee from Tokyo, Japan

– Unnamed attendee, Asked about the effort spent on preparing the report

The book launch event for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2023 report, held in Kyoto, Japan, featured a comprehensive discussion on the importance of documenting and sharing knowledge about internet governance. The primary speakers, Junko Kawauchi and Keisuke Kamimura, presented a detailed overview of the report’s contents and its significance for raising awareness about IGF in Japan.

Report Contents and Purpose

Junko Kawauchi, the Secretariat for the research group, introduced the 219-page, full-colour, A4-size report published by the SEEC Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group. The report, available in Japanese as both a hard copy (700 printed) and a PDF download, includes:

1. History of IGF

2. Domestic activities related to IGF and NRIs

3. Detailed outline of IGF 2023 sessions (opening ceremony, high-level leaders meeting, main sessions, NRIs, policy networks, etc.)

4. Reports from Japanese organizers about their sessions

5. Youth sessions, open mic, taking stock, and closing ceremony

6. Pictures from the event, including cultural elements like fireworks, music night, kimono costumes, and tea ceremony

Keisuke Kamimura, a Professor at Daito Bunkai University and member of the research group, emphasised that this unofficial report serves multiple purposes:

1. Encouraging local Japanese community engagement in internet governance discussions

2. Providing a detailed record of the UN conference

3. Helping people understand IGF and internet governance better

4. Demonstrating multi-stakeholder collaboration in Japan’s internet governance context

While not an official document from the Ministry of Information Affairs, the report includes introductory messages from them. The speakers highlighted its potential use as a reference for future IGF hosts and as an educational tool for young people through planned School on Internet Governance webinars.

Collaborative Nature and Effort

Both Kawauchi and Kamimura stressed the collaborative nature of the report, involving various stakeholders including government, civil society, and industry. They highlighted the considerable effort involved in producing the report, with Kamimura noting it took “thousands of human work hours,” including collecting session summaries from various presenters and moderators.

Distribution and Accessibility

The report’s distribution plans were discussed, with Kawauchi mentioning that free copies would be available at various events, including the Japanese IGF. The PDF version will be accessible for download on the SEEC website.

An attendee named Tanaka suggested making the report more widely accessible, potentially through the UN IGF website. This proposal was seen as a way to amplify the report’s impact and usefulness on a global scale, particularly for future host countries researching IGF best practices. Tanaka also noted that while the report is currently only in Japanese, translation engines could help make it accessible to non-Japanese speakers, broadening its potential impact.

Connecting Stakeholders

Kamimura highlighted an additional benefit of creating the report: fostering connections within the local internet governance community. He noted that the report helps connect different groups who had sessions at the IGF, preventing them from becoming disconnected or isolated.

Future Implications

The discussion concluded with encouragement for future host countries to produce similar records of their IGF events. Kamimura specifically emphasized the importance of keeping such records, seeing it as a way to share knowledge and connect different stakeholder groups within the internet governance community globally.

Overall, the speakers demonstrated a high level of consensus regarding the purpose and value of the report. The discussion was primarily informative, focusing on presenting the IGF 2023 report booklet and its potential impact on raising awareness about internet governance in Japan and beyond.

Keisuke Kamimura: event. This is a book launch event. We prepared a report booklet from the IGF 2023 last year in Kyoto. So this session is meant to present you with the guidelines of this booklet and the activity that we had behind the publication. My name is Keisuke Kamimura. I’m a professor at Daito Bunkai University based in Tokyo, Japan. But today, I am speaking in the capacity of one of the members of the SEEC, Digital Research Institute Internet Governance Research Group. SEEC stands for the Center for International Cooperation. At the end of the session, we have some free copies of this booklet. So if you are interested, please take one for yourself. I will be joined by Ms. Kawauchi. She is the secretariat for the research group and she will give us a detailed outline of this booklet. Kawauchi-san, please.

Junko Kawauchi: Hello. Can you hear me? Okay. So, yeah. Okay. I will explain about the report. As you know, Japan hosted the IGF 2023 in Kyoto last year in October. And actually, it was the maybe we won’t host for many years in the future, so it was a very important event for us. So, we decided to make a report. And actually, in Japan, not many people know about the IGF. So, we want many Japanese people know about the IGF because IGF is very important for the digital society. So, that is the objective of this report. Actually, this report is a hard copy. It’s A4 size and full color. You see the full color with the pictures and 219 pages. And we published, actually, it takes a bit of time and we published it in September this year. And I will go to the next. Okay. And this is the table of the content. Actually, the report is only in Japanese. So, but I put the translation here. The first is the introduction and the next is about the IGF because many people don’t know about the IGF itself. So, we explained about IGF, the history, and the visas in 2005 and 2006 in Tunisia and Geneva. And also, we explained about the domestic activities related to IGF and the NRIs and something like that. Also, we have 5, 6 members of this IGF research group members. So, we asked them to write about the IGF. And the third one is about the IGF 2023 in Kyoto. The overall outline is the conference details and the outline of the sessions and also the like opening ceremony, high-level leaders meeting, or the main sessions, NRIs, policy networks, and overview by sub-teams, and day zero workshops, town halls, open forums, and something like that. And also, the parliamentary track and leadership panel, best practice forum, and dynamic coalitions, and something. We made a brief introduction of those sessions. And also, it was held in Japan, so many Japanese organizers’ sessions in 2023. So, we asked those Japanese organizers to write a report about their sessions. Also, the youth sessions or the open mic taking stock and closing ceremony. So, that is the table of contents. Actually, this is the details of the contents, so I will skip it. And this is some pictures from the Kyoto 2023 IGFs. Maybe if you attended the Kyoto IGF, you maybe remember some of the pictures. Yeah, we had the fireworks or the music night, and yeah, something like that. Another picture is the kimono costumes, or the tea ceremony in Japanese, and something like that. So, we We made a hard copy, 700 hard copies printed. There are some here also, I don’t know where is it. And also it is available in the PDA format. You can find it, you can download it free from the website here. Actually, this is only in Japanese, so please note. And also we utilized this report for the School on Internet Governance webinar. We are planning to organize a SIG webinar and use this report as a reference book so that the many, especially the young people, university students, college students know about the IGF in Japan. It is important activity, we think. So this is the last. Actually, we organized the Japanese IGF in November in Tokyo. And we distributed the hard copies there. Actually, the red circle, it is very small, but in the red circle we put the free copies there and many people took it, take it back if they like. So we utilized this report and we are thinking to utilize this report as much as possible so that the IGF’s importance, we want many Japanese people to know about the importance of IGF. Yeah, that’s it. Thank you very much. Any questions?

Keisuke Kamimura: Thank you, Ms. Kawaguchi. Thank you, Kawaguchi-san. Did you hear? Hello? Okay. Thank you, Kawaguchi-san. Let me add some comment to her presentation. This is not an official report by the Ministry of Information Affairs in Japan. This is more of a voluntary or unofficial report. Why did we do this? Hello? Okay. Why did we do this? Because we always have a problem when we try to encourage local Japanese community to be engaged in internet governance or local internet governance forum in Japan. And we are always asked what the internet governance forum is or what internet governance is about. So we try to keep the recording of the UN conference as detailed as possible so that when we try to encourage local Japanese community to be engaged in the internet governance dialogue, they will have a better understanding or a better idea of what the IGF is or what internet governance is about. So that’s one thing. And we also wanted other host countries to produce their version of reporting of the IGF that will be held locally so that will be a good thing. So that’s the reason why we did this. I mentioned that we tried to be as precise as possible, but we did not mean to be fully precise. Because if you go to the IGF website, you have a comprehensive recording of the meetings in the IGF. So we tried to highlight what was discussed or what was important in the IGF 2023. So that’s the concept behind. And as I mentioned, this is not an official report, but we have some opening or introductory messages from the Ministry of Information Affairs. So in a way, this report demonstrates the collaboration or combination between the civil society, business, the industry, and the government. Multi-stakeholder collaboration that is taking place in Japan’s internet governance context. So this is my additional comment on this booklet. So if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to do so. Can you give the audience the microphone? Thank you for the presentation. Can you hear me? So I’m Tanaka, also from Tokyo, Japan. I joined Kyoto IGF 2023, so it’s a very impressive event. So I think that in this event, there should be somebody thinking about introducing or inviting IGF to their country. So in this sense, this book is very useful to understand what is IGF. And also, so many pictures made me very helpful to understand the event mood. So while it’s only in Japanese, but at this time, the translation engine can help to translate each country’s language. So my comment and question is, there is a link to this PDF file in your CFIEC website, right? How about, I’m not sure the organization of IGF itself, maybe IGF headquarter website should have a link to this PDF. So because potential in future hosting country may be research. what is the IGF, what is the key success factor of this event at that time. I believe this book is very helpful to understand and encourage so many affiliated people to join a future IGF, I think. This is my comment. Thank you. Thank you very much. At this point of time, we don’t have a link to this report from the UN IGF website, no. Thank you very much anyway. Any other comments? Yes, please. Could you tell how much time was spent on preparing this report? What was an effort? To create this astonishing book? Well, actually quite a lot. Well, maybe there is thousands of human work hours or something like that. Maybe she’s the lady behind the whole work, so she will be probably better positioned to answer your question. Actually, it took quite a time, actually. Sorry. So, I spent no time to take this book, but I heard the key is a short report after each session. So, she runs all sessions at Kyoto, so some write a very good report, but some are absent, no report of that session. So, very important thing is that each presenter or facilitator, moderator should leave some report, what happened, what is the future like that. So, it’s very helpful to make this report. Sorry, I had no job, but I heard from her that comment. Thank you. Another point of beauty that we have this report is that we can connect each group who had a session at the IGF. Otherwise, session groups are disconnected or isolated. So, having this booklet or having this effort to produce this booklet will be one of the opportunities for the Japanese local community to get together and to see or understand what other stakeholder or other group is doing during and before the IGF. Yes, that’s the point. So, as I mentioned, this session is more of a book launch, and we encourage that other stakeholders in the future host countries will do some way or the other, try some way or the other, keep the recording of the conference that you will have so that we can share the knowledge afterwards. So, if you don’t have further questions or comments, thank you very much. Thank you for coming, and thank you for joining this launch event. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Importance of the IGF 2023 Report Booklet

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Purpose of the report

Contents of the report

Unofficial nature and collaborative effort

Both speakers agree on the significance of creating a comprehensive report about IGF 2023 to raise awareness and encourage engagement in internet governance discussions in Japan.

Raising awareness about IGF in Japan

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Raising awareness in Japan

Encouraging local engagement

The speakers emphasize the importance of informing Japanese people, especially young people, about IGF and internet governance to increase local engagement.

Similar Viewpoints

The report serves as a valuable resource for understanding IGF and its importance, both for the Japanese community and potential future host countries.

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Masanobu Katoh

Contents of the report

Encouraging local engagement

Usefulness for future host countries

Unexpected Consensus

Collaborative nature of the report

Keisuke Kamimura

Junko Kawauchi

Unofficial nature and collaborative effort

Publication process and format

Despite being an unofficial report, there is an unexpected consensus on its collaborative nature, involving various stakeholders including government, civil society, and industry. This demonstrates a multi-stakeholder approach to internet governance in Japan.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement revolve around the importance of the IGF 2023 Report Booklet in raising awareness about internet governance in Japan, encouraging local engagement, and serving as a resource for future host countries.

Consensus level

There is a high level of consensus among the speakers regarding the purpose and value of the report. This strong agreement implies a unified approach to promoting internet governance understanding in Japan and potentially influencing future IGF events globally.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

No significant areas of disagreement were identified in the discussion.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers appears to be minimal to non-existent. The discussion was primarily informative, focusing on presenting the IGF 2023 report booklet and its purpose. This lack of disagreement suggests a unified approach to raising awareness about IGF in Japan and potentially encouraging other countries to create similar reports for future IGF events.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

The report serves as a valuable resource for understanding IGF and its importance, both for the Japanese community and potential future host countries.

Junko Kawauchi

Keisuke Kamimura

Masanobu Katoh

Contents of the report

Encouraging local engagement

Usefulness for future host countries

Key Takeaways

A comprehensive report booklet on IGF 2023 in Kyoto was created and published in Japanese

The report aims to raise awareness about IGF and internet governance in Japan

The booklet is a collaborative effort between civil society, business, and government

The report serves as a valuable resource for future IGF host countries

Creating such reports can help connect different groups involved in IGF sessions

Resolutions and Action Items

Distribute free copies of the report booklet at various events

Make the PDF version of the report available for download on the SEEC website

Use the report as a reference book for School on Internet Governance webinars

Encourage future IGF host countries to produce similar reports

Unresolved Issues

Potential inclusion of a link to the PDF report on the official IGF website

Possibility of translating the report into other languages

Suggested Compromises

None identified

This is not an official report by the Ministry of Information Affairs in Japan. This is more of a voluntary or unofficial report.

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

reason

This comment is insightful because it clarifies the nature of the report, highlighting that it’s a grassroots effort rather than a government-mandated document. This distinction is important for understanding the report’s context and purpose.

impact

This comment shifted the perspective on the report, emphasizing its community-driven nature and potentially increasing its perceived value as a genuine reflection of the IGF experience.

We try to keep the recording of the UN conference as detailed as possible so that when we try to encourage local Japanese community to be engaged in the internet governance dialogue, they will have a better understanding or a better idea of what the IGF is or what internet governance is about.

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

reason

This comment provides crucial insight into the purpose and intended impact of the report. It reveals a strategic approach to increasing local engagement in internet governance.

impact

This explanation deepened the conversation by highlighting the educational and outreach goals of the report, potentially inspiring others to consider similar approaches in their countries.

So while it’s only in Japanese, but at this time, the translation engine can help to translate each country’s language.

speaker

Tanaka

reason

This comment introduces a practical solution to the language barrier, suggesting that the report’s usefulness extends beyond Japanese-speaking audiences.

impact

This observation broadened the perceived accessibility and potential impact of the report, potentially encouraging its wider distribution and use.

How about, I’m not sure the organization of IGF itself, maybe IGF headquarter website should have a link to this PDF. So because potential in future hosting country may be research what is the IGF, what is the key success factor of this event at that time.

speaker

Tanaka

reason

This suggestion is insightful as it proposes a way to amplify the report’s impact and usefulness on a global scale.

impact

This comment shifted the discussion towards considering broader dissemination strategies and the potential for the report to serve as a model for future IGF hosts.

Another point of beauty that we have this report is that we can connect each group who had a session at the IGF. Otherwise, session groups are disconnected or isolated.

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

reason

This comment reveals an additional, perhaps unintended, benefit of creating the report – fostering connections within the local internet governance community.

impact

This observation deepened the conversation by highlighting the report’s role in community building, beyond its informational content.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively revealing the multifaceted value of the IGF 2023 report. The conversation evolved from a simple presentation of the report’s contents to a rich exploration of its purpose, potential impact, and broader implications for community engagement in internet governance. The comments highlighted the report’s role in education, outreach, community building, and as a potential model for future IGF hosts. This discussion underscored the importance of documenting and sharing experiences from international forums to foster local engagement and global understanding.

How can other host countries be encouraged to produce their own version of reporting on the IGF?

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

explanation

This is important to create a comprehensive record of IGF events across different host countries and to share knowledge and experiences.

How can the IGF report be made accessible to non-Japanese speakers?

speaker

Tanaka

explanation

While the report is currently only in Japanese, making it accessible to a wider audience could help potential future host countries understand and prepare for hosting an IGF event.

Should the UN IGF website include a link to this report and similar reports from other host countries?

speaker

Tanaka

explanation

This could provide valuable resources for future host countries and researchers interested in understanding the key success factors of IGF events.

How can the process of collecting session reports be improved to ensure comprehensive coverage of all sessions?

speaker

Junko Kawauchi (indirectly, through another participant’s comment)

explanation

Ensuring that all presenters, facilitators, and moderators provide reports on their sessions would improve the completeness and value of the overall IGF report.

How can the creation of such reports be used to better connect different groups who had sessions at the IGF?

speaker

Keisuke Kamimura

explanation

This is important for fostering collaboration and understanding between different stakeholders in the local internet governance community.