The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
>> Okay. I am being told ‑‑
>> MAJA ROMANO: I'm not sure if other hosts are able to put a pause. There seems to be music playing in the background. There we go. Thank you very much. Um, welcome, everybody. Apologies for the late start. Great to have everybody here with us. Um, a special welcome also to the GISWatch team from ABC and also all of the authors who have contributed to this year's edition of GISWatch and really made it a very powerful and very timely report. So welcome. My name is Maja Romano and I am the coordinator of GISWatch here. And we're here to celebrate the launch of the 2021‑2022 edition of global Information Society watch on the theme of digital futures. We're doing this launch in a hybrid format. So we have some participants on site, I believe, at the IGF venue and we'll try to make this session as inclusive as possible.
We have a great panel discussion ahead led by our Editor Alan Finlay and we also encourage everyone to use the chat in Zoom. And we will try to leave some time for question and answer period at the end before we get to closing remarks from our executive Editor at or Executive Director at ABC. So, ah, before we get going, just one other note that we are right now celebrating 15 years of GISWatch and that's a really great milestone. So a big congratulations to everybody in the GISWatch community who's been involved in this impactful project over the years.
So now I'd like to turn it over to Valeria batten court who is in charge of ‑‑ she'll talk to us a little berabout this special project and the significance of this edition. So Valeria, turning it over to you.
>> VALERIA BETANCOURT: Systemic to develop concrete actions to implement the commitments of the summit. The idea of creating the global Information Society watch. And since then, the GISWatch has evolved in it's recreating foundational goals and becoming a rough guide to the Information Society from a Civil Society perspective as the GISWatch Editor Alan Finlay has described it. The GISWatch content is informed by contextual Ainalsy at country level, but at the same time Talso addresses the global dimension of the Civil Societies. It meets evolution, the global Information Society watch has linked political levels and action building on the experience commitment and also the strength of APCs members and partners and it has become we believe a very powerful tool to not only inform but also to nurture policy and practice of digital technologies to contribute to achieve environmental social justice. This edition, the GISWatch edition that we're laning today focuses on the responses to some of the fundamental questions brought by the pandemic to inform Civil Societies advocacy around digital technology issues and the potential to shape to horizons. As illustrated on the cover, sustain is travel will be necessary in the years ahead but not only in spaces. So you have an approach that advocacy will be essential to open multiple ways to bring about positive change at different levels. This has a special connotation for us not only because of the celebration of the 15 years of GISWatch but also because we believe this edition offers a nuance understanding of the challenges that we face and it ignites a renewed energy to reshape this sense of us, the sense of us as a necessary force to imagine and work towards a digital future that we want in a post‑pandemic world. So we really thank you for joining us for the conversation and I'm really looking forward to your views from the lense of your experience to keep imagining how we can respond to the various challenges that the pandemic has posed for us. So thank you, Maja. Back to you.
>> MAJA ROMANO: Thank you very much. Excuse me. Thank you very much, Valeria. That's fantastic. Um, so, ah, now I'm pleased to introduce you to Alan Finlay who has been Editor of GISWatch since the first edition. Alan will be hosting a discussion with a panel of speakers who have also contributed to this edition. So Alan, I will let you introduce your speakers and get the discussion going.
>> ALAN FINLAY: We have five speakers with us. We have GAYATRI from the row sources center. We have Paula from the technology from the Berkman and the May first movement. And Paula is representing the author team there. We have Dippica from the trade alliance. And Ananda and Shamila from the digitalis. Maja, I noticed other people online. So I presume Cheryl is in the room.
>> MAJA ROMANO: Let me have a quick look. I'm not sure. Possibly not, but we'll all try to get her to join the call.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Alexandra, if I may kick off with you, in your report you refer to ‑‑ in terms of the technology, your port breaks down responses to the pandemic into a topology of responses with examples for each. You discuss quarantining lock downenforcement, border management and so on. What from your perspective were the primary problems used to control and monitor the spread of the pandemic?
>> Thank you, Alan and thank you, everyone. Hello, everyone, in Ethiopia. It was great to join you this morning. In response to your question, some of the things we discussed that we contributed and there are several things that we observe with the use of technology and response to the COVID‑19 pandemic that I wanted to share this morning. The first one is that we saw governments introduce a range of measures relying on untested or poorly tested technologies and while they had been prior examples of pandemics, none of them had been to the scale to a global pandemic as we so recently and in many ways, what we were experiencing were unprecedented circumstances. They were pushing for the solutions and a lot of them with database technology with so much certainty, it didn't make sense with what we were actually experiencing because we didn't know exactly how the fire was working, how it was spreading. We didn't know what would make a difference and at what points and to whom. So these are some of the issues we highlight at the beginning of our chapter and content matters and it was really important to be able to identify really was the problem at a particular point in time. We were really seeing a push out are it tech no solution and this point of timing and time is one that we were looking at in particular detail where we saw many of the responses that were focused on the use of different technologies failed to consider what was necessary at a particular point in time and at different stages of the pandemic. And by the time they were rolled out even if they were justified, they were no longer what was needed and yet there was a huge focus on them. So we saw very little or no reflection on what was actually the problem at the different stages. And also the reason why I wanted to mention this is that moving forward, it's really important that any audits or evaluation of the different technologies that were deployed really take that into account so that the lessons learned or the best practices that we're seeing now become more long‑term policy issues are not based on this floored assessment of what was going on.
The second point I wanted to share is that we really saw a lack of a human rights due diligence and effective enforcement of existing human rights obligation and responsibilities and that really led to very short sizes, decision making with little consideration that I was mentioning that was needed for public health response thinking about differential exposure that was coming from a scientific background or a differential vulnerability and resilience of individuals being impacted. So one size fits all approaches or replicating or duplicating some of these technological measures didn't make sense in some context. I think the really important one and I think that comes through from a lot of the chapters that are part of this edition is really a limited understanding of the impact on individuals and communities and particularly those that prior to the pandemic were already in a vulnerable precarious position. We serve a variety of communities disproportionately disadvantaged be it woman, mygrant, LGBTIQ, people from disadvantaged backgrounds who were pushed into very different situations with lockdowns, impact on job security, for example. And I would say that the last one I wanted to contribute is that it felt when the pandemic started that we forgot a lot of the lessons learned that many of us are here today were already alerting to in terms of the different dangers that come with the use of different technologies. We forgot what it meant to use metadata and the need to regulate the use of metadata. We saw, for example, with the use of mobile phone metadata that was used to track individuals to enforce lockdown measures in quarantine. We saw it with the lack of adequate framework for data sharing, for example, when it came to cross border travel, the certificates as well as limitations of technology. So those are some of the points that we saw. We already document many of the risks before. When the pandemic started, we threw out on the window all of these things that we knew already could have informed and improved decision making instead of focusing on those as though we started governments and companies started from scratch thinking about what could be some of the risks to some of the issues. So I'll leave it there for now.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Thank you. Sorry. I was getting frantic and anxious there. Alexandra, I wanted to touch on one thing before I move on to another panelist. You identify three sectors where you feel that the Private Sector has entrenched itself further, education, health and employment. Can you say a little bit more about this and particularly I'm quite interested on whether you think that Civil Societies concerns with respect to technology, of course, have been weakened or you feel have been less of a consideration in fields like education and health where they have Civil Society has had quite a strong say in the past. I suspect Alexandra might be having a problem unmuting. I'm not sure how this is working, but if the host person can allow people to unmute, that would be great.
>> Great. Perfect. Thank you. Sorry about the delay. So yeah. On the first part of your question, as mentioned, we explored different changes in terms of how we are living, how we're engaging in society as a result of the pandemic and we looked at the fact that with the lockdowns and different measures, children were having to be homeschoold and so we saw really a push for the use of Ed tech in many context. We also see people working from home. A lot of employers having to shift from an office space to working from home set up and some of the measures they deployed as a rule. And then broadly within healthcare, the fact that these were already things that were underway in many ways in terms of the push for telemedicine or SMS for appointmens or a broader dig 'tizzation of the healthcare. And the pandemic, grievance be ity to make it more efficient. We saw a huge push in that respect as well in the healthcare as well as the fact that we had limited physical interaction and still needing to provide care a lot of healthcare facilities shifted again as well to an online counseling or online treatment or online appointments mechanisms. And so, you know, these are things that connecting it to your second point. I don't necessarily think it was around us being muted. As Civil Society, you mentioned already some organizations were already in the spaces. So it was just a matter of how to be one continue and build our work in the domains especially as decision were being made rapidly and I think that was the biggest challenge for and I'm speaking on behalf of some of the comments that came from our partnerses. With not being able to be in the spaces and be in the room where decisions were being made and also because of the context in which we were engaging, it made it even harder to have a seat at the table. It is something we always feel very frustrated by the Civil Society is now included and I think there is an additional barrier without being physically present and having to join events online, but how do you find those these events were happening. There was less of that communication happening and enable environment for Civil Society to join. At
At the same time, I think something that we saw as well it really confronted us for many of us to connect, you know, the more broader rights movements and those working on human rights and technology to be connecting with different allies. I think some of the positive things that we saw in the work is that we started to engage more actively with organizations working on Ed tech or organization working on workplace surveillance with unions, for example. And in the case of health, connecting with organizations that for many years had already been advocating for the right to health but slowly being concerned with how technology and data was being used in the healthcare sector particularly the impact on different communities and issues around exclusion or surveillance or the privatization of the healthcare system. There are more challenges in terms of our ability to engage, I think it also in many ways opened up some of the opportunities there to connect with other sectors and other movements.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Thanks. I'd like to go to the room. I believe Shamilea is there. Shamilea, your region report and I hope you can hear me fine examines how priorities in Latin America have shifted during the pandemic. You identified several terrains. What do you feel Civil Society should take note of?
>> Hi, Alan. I hope you can hear me.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Yes. Hi.
>> Thank you for the opportunity of what my colleague Juan Carlos and thinking partner in the issues are proposing for the GISWatch. So to answer your question, our concerns can be divided into three main advocacy points all of them I. related considering the content. First of all, yes. Fostering policies for meaningful connectivities in the center ‑‑ sorry for that. It was in the center of the digital rights agenda more than ever. This doesn't mean this wasn't among the main priorities for a long time at the Internet governance spaces and even before in activism. But in particularly global south countries, but the pandemic puts a new urgency to it and I believe it's a role as digital rights organizations to learn and join efforts with the ones who are leading this Alinda before and keep the urgency of this debate as we apparently or seemingly leave the pandemic behind us. That isn't true in selfcountries. We're still facing it in different formats and levels and with different difficulties. It is important to recognize.
But the second priority has to do with impacts of digitization to marginalized groups with people who are disconnected or preventd from having meaningful access as I mentioned before. Let's say such access is not limited to having some form of connectivity had to do with the type of devices, the type of connections, the absence of data caps that prevent people from accessing the full Internet. These are issues that have to be taken into account when they talk about connectivity data. But the policies that are affecting differently, these different groups and I guess Alex was mentioning something about this before. It has to do with so‑called COVID apps that orders will explore much more on that, but the provision of essential services which imply new forms of control and surveillance that exclude people from accessing from the mental rights or mental services including social and economical rights. That adds new layers into the public sector making decisions even harder and even harder for affected people to access remedy in case they feel any time of violation. Examples that we identified are in the digitalization include will emergency social welfare problems. In the case of Brazil, we analyzed it a bit deeper. In that particular case, it illustrates a lot of our concerns in terms of opacity the system had to decision making relating to people's lives. In that case, we were discussing about emergency aid during the pandemic for families that were not able to continue their economic activities. I can spend more on that decision, but I want to highlight the third priority and it's very much related to previous one has to do with who decides on how technology is developed and deployed and the need to include people who are affected by decision making in the spaces of decision including the national regional and global levels. And policies having more diversity in the production of technology itself. I guess these are key elements that we need to continue to think about as we advance on the learnings from the pandemic.
>> ALAN FINLAY: If I can follow up with another question if you don't mind. You also spinning about Civil Society needing to be much more proactive in participating in policy and legislative processes or even approaching the human right, regional human rights. But the one thing you mention is strategic litigation which for some Internet rights group, this might be a new field of engagement. Can you say more about that? Is this something that you see as a growing importance as we move forward with different shifts in power, I guess.
>> Definitely Alan. We also have to recognize it is a very challenging and consumer format for advocacy. And probably as much as or even more participating in multi‑stakeholder discussions and for organizations that are likesd outside the north and face resource restrictions. We have ‑‑ the role litigation can have on our strategies we believe has to do with this shift in terms of how decision making is being made and how participation spaces are being closed. And more than that. How decision making is shifting from national level spaces decision making to very local even institutional level decision making on the implementation of technologies that are affecting people in a very broad sense. And usually, at least in the Latin American context, the way in which we are informed about the implementations is potentially very harmful in implementations are after they have already been implemented and that's why litigation has been a key tool for Latin American particularly for digital rights organizations or organizations working in the intersection of human rights and technology recently to try to stop and prevent these initiatives from advancing. But we are aware there is a lot to advance on that in terms of strategy, in terms of mobilizing resources, in terms of collaboration. It's very difult for one sole organization and there were very interesting cases and advances in the region to stop facial recognition technology at the public sector. So we believe there is value there. Of course, this is a strategy that has to be gained with others like campaigning, like training of public authorities, training of judicial organizations members among others and that's why it is nothing that one unique organization is able to achieve, but it requires a lost coordination and strategize.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Okay. Paula, if I may turn to you, you're also right about focusing on Latin America.
>> We can't hear you, Paula.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Oh, dear. Can you hear me now? My mic is unmuted. Yeah. You can hear me online. I'm not sure if the room can hear me. Can I go ahead? We can hear online. Shamilea, can you hear me in the room? No. What you have is detailed analysis of what you call public interest technologies and by that, you are referring to contact tracing apps and control people. Why is this framing of these technologies as public interest technologies useful framework to use?
>> Hi. Do you hear me?
>> ALAN FINLAY: Yes.
>> I cannot enable my video. Thank you. Thank you for your question and thank you for inviting us to speak about our report. I would like to begin saying that in the case of Latin America, the technology response of governments to face the health crisis was improvised. So the pandemic highlighted the lack of digital policies, preparedness and infrastructure and the widespread tendency to adopt, private solutions to address the emergency. With no analysis, I would say with no ‑‑ in terms of deciding, why do we need technology ‑‑ in relation to the benefits and harms. In this case, the deployment of current apps. Ask for public health and, um ‑‑ and with this framework, we are questioning the values with which technologies under the signs are aligned as well as the measures that were taken by our governments to reduce risk and harms or the lack of measures. These think its are always embedding certain values. They're not aligned with the advancement of the Democratic values or not aligned with social justice values. So I would say that the public interest technologies framework is, um, important for us in Latin America because as I said, there is a trend associated with a lack of understanding of technology as a matter of public interest. Development and employment of current apps. The technology we choose, we choose to develop, we choose to buy reflects additional society and as such, anticipates our responses to the crisis and, of course, the result of this responses. So, Ah, our analysis tries to highlight these ideas and values that are embedded in the decisions of our governments. In this case, developing these current apps.
>> ALAN FINLAY: I found that really you found it very useful framework really because it did break down the different aspects of using technology in current systemic way and with appropriate questions and I think a lot of people are saying exactly that needs to happen. So I would alert people to read your chapter and to think about it using it as a framework. Paula, you did one point talk about design justice, which includes indicators of performance and liability and reparation. Can you say a bit more about this idea of design justice?
>> Paula: Yeah. Sure. Absolutely. Justice framework is a very interesting framework because it's oriented toward finding or providing some principles for the designing of an opt, process or in this case, a technology. And this framework that was developed by a group of people, a collective, basically reflects on the idea of having the communities that are going to be affected by this design in this case by this technological design to be part of the pros so from the beginning. So one of the trends that we analyzed in the development of these apps is that the public was not included at any stage in the process. Until now, we don't know if the technologies were useful. We don't know what ‑‑ we don't know what happened to our data. We don't know what happened to the technologies. We don't know how much money was spent. So we were affected by these technologies in some sense because our money, like our public investment we as citizens spend there, but we had no idea, no clue about what happens these technologies were deployed and we don't know anything about the contracts on why the companies choose to develop or ‑‑ yeah. To implement those technologies. So the designing justice framework highlights the idea of having the communities involved in every stage of the process, but also in every case that there should be included policy preparation. We don't have anything ‑‑ we don't have many resources to claim our rights because we don't know what happened. We don't have any information about the process. So one of the points about our report, one of our main concluded is that we need to consider not only the problem of privacy because privacy is one of the dimensions. We need to consider the complete life cycle of technological development. In the complete life cycle, we can see that many are in danger of being violated by our governments and we are not ‑‑ and we are even not aware of that possibility because we don't know. We don't have any information about that. So the design justice framework is a very useful framework to understand that the whole process needs to be a social process not only top down decision that has an effect on society.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Thank you, Paula. Paula, your view is very interesting about private‑partnerships and they have implicitly or have been referring to. You talk about these partnerships being set up to implement technology and how this result is they have lost significant public trust given the rights violations that occurred as a result of them. Can you elaborate a little bit and how do you think public trust has been eroded through the formation of the public partnerships during the pandemic?
>> Thank you, Alan and congrats to the APCs. You can hear me okay?
>> ALAN FINLAY: Yes.
>> GAYATRI: As was pointed out, we know Internet and digital technologies play a central role during the pandemic. I mean to those people who had access or forced to get access during that period. We saw a surge in public/private partnership as an effort to directly or indirectly as you said between governments and ICT companies because states were sort of in a desperate situation to deal with an impossible situation. We have tech and private sector companies, technologies who are bridging with ideas. So it really was a match in that set. In practice, PPparks or private, public partnerships offering digital base solutions and support during this period included the development and deployment of contact tracing apps, waxing and management platforms, health information that dissemination partnerships, that's another key area that doesn't get attention. It can be little doubt that many of them did make our lives a little easier. There were lots of concerns. They centered around privacy, security measures that govern the digital platforms really particularly for those of us who engage with these collaborations thinking that our data will be withheld securely from third parties. These concerns became more augmented by the fact that we witnessed large scale spread of deliberate misinformation on messaging applications. Our coordinated campings were carried out to push harmful narratives targeting racial and minority communities for spreading the virus, for example. We particularly saw this in the case in Bangladesh and many other western countries as well. Platforms stated that they were putting in place policy measures. They were trialing to take down harmful content to news they were calling it about the writers or the implementation really varied based on the context. In platforms and technology, driven solutions in a sense at the center of the response we had in the pandemic, pretty seated and deepened further the pre‑existing parts of inequality in violence and oh,pression that existed in society. We did not know what is being collected, how it was being used, who had access to it, what happens if there was a violation. Is there going to be oversight? Are there going to be consequences? Is there a mitigation strategy in place? We didn't know any of that. In my opinion, I don't think we still know the answer to many of those questions.
>> ALAN FINLAY: You do talk in your piece and again, this is something Civil Society has been pushing for a long time is business is using the UN guidance principles and business and human rights. I do want to throw a bit of a curve ball question. It has been suggested a little bit. People are talking about a more systemized approach whether public interest framing or whatever the framing is as long as it is sort of this impact assessments are done when the use of technology when governments use technology. And what if the governments say it is an emergency and it is just not enough time. How would Civil Society respond to that?
>> GAYATRI: We have to take an assessment as my clocks pointed out already about what is Civil Society's voice on that. I think the most significant challenge around this situation is the fact we're living through an age of digital authorrianism. A significant publication is global with whom it is to engage on the one hand and then we are dealing and enjoy a level of (inaudible) and relieve from scrutiny. It is because of this that we have to figure out to get our voices heard and information pertaining to public‑private partnerships. It is hard to find. Typically the contracts that companies have or governments have the companies come with a lot of exclusivity. But prior to the pandemic, Civil Society groups have to grapple with this whole black phenomena go the way in which technologists are tech‑based companies and are active as a barrier to address the violations. The state company nexus is often lacking the clarity especially around what are the terms, what is the money involved, what is really the engagement part. And then we can pretty much forget what happens in regimes where we don't have data protection mechanisms in place. PPPs with tech‑base companies are first evolving into an opaque bilateral in a sense. This relationship is between two powerful actors. That is one mutual benefit and I would say there's a little bit of fear factor involved in it. I feel this because let me put it this way. What is really interesting about the tech center being involved in that is the fact that the tech center is uniquely positioned to shape or influence opinionser manipulate them in relation to the government that came back in the case of Brexit. They can pretty much shut down a company or prevent them there being available in a jurisdiction. The two entities ever dependent and enrich each other but are fearful of each other. In the equation, Civil Society gets left out when we bring a very important perspective. And this is really important because on the one hand, you're dealing with states that are fixaded and controlled and then on the other, you're dealing with companies that are fixated and optimization and profit making to the last minute.
So that brings us to the question of what should be a guide? And there are multiple answers to that. But what I think in terms of what's useful and the amount of work that's already got into it is the fact that the primary responsibility for protecting our rights remains with states. With respect to the kinds of contracts, they cannot outsource the responsibility to protect our rights. Companies have the responsibility to respect our rights. No doubt about that. I think adequate and predictable accountable mechanisms need to be in place and there needs to be regulation and policy and liability. These are two important things. But I think one of the key questions to be answered is: What and who are the companies that states should be getting into contracts with because it is unavoidable that states are going to have contracts with companies, but I think the main guide there would be human rights and environment with due diligence. We have seen regulation, policy and around that coming up. States need to do their own due diligence about which companies they want to engage, but they need to really require tech companies to do due diligence about how they operate and take assessment periodically. That means it is stakeholder engagement and different stages. I mean, across different stages. In my opinion, I feel the UNGparks are a fantastic guide. It is your negotiations that have gone into it and there is a significant buy in by the business opportunity to the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. I think the UNGPs cover this nexus. This includes familiar and support by providing from other companies. They may impact human rights and enjoy public procurement. Irrespective of the kind of contracts we have, they need to make sure that this oversight mechanism and where states support this contracts especially, they need to be actively involved to make sure there is Civil Society engagement and the companies do not violate rights and insure companies the they they operate rinse all rights. My colleagues have said that we need to form alliances between movements, build greater technologies with tech workers, tech worker unions. That's really the only way to uncheng the power of technoiologist and the power they have. I think there is also a moment for us to take stock of the need in a much more broader sentence by bringing perspectives to it. I think there is a gap currently. Lan republican that's an interesting point. Perhaps if tech workers instead of the tech organizations in some sense. Thanks, GAYA. You're the last panelist. So I would like to give you a chance to shift attention to the question of intellectual property. Your report focuses on IP during the pandemic and how this affect the global and equitable access to vaccines. This is embraced with business interest which Gaya and others have been talking about. You can explain is to people what happened with the trips waiver.
>> Yes, Alan. Congratulations to everyone. I have to start with how it began and we all know it began in 2019. That's when COVID was discovered and then come 2020 March and (inaudible) said COVIDa a pandemic and 95 and people are holding and then, of course, we also see a another thing. And government ‑‑ we see vaccine development taking place at a speed which has never been seen before. It was like okay. Let's wait a few months and then I will be vaccinated and countries are making promises they are developing a public global good, which will be available to everyone. And like I said in my report, this is a narrative of broken promises. So what followed was something that can be captured in the term. We saw that in global north, there were people getting their booster shots ask them in global south. There were people who had not gotten their first shots. What happened this was something that we hope to never see again. Taking the second way, there were shortages of ‑‑ so that country like India, Bangladesh, Egypt, they could rely on their manufacturing capacities to scale a production and then increase supply for everyone. We also had some businesses, India and South Africa together introduced something called trips favor. So the idea behind this was that, you know, to remove failure, IP related, there were patents, copyrights, trade secrets, no data for all the vaccines of medical products, et cetera. For it was a very ‑‑ let's move to the other side on the global now, which was not appreciated. We saw reactions from you. We saw reactions from UK. We saw reactions from the U.S. initially which we were ‑‑ we had enough time to experience that these flexibilities were not enough to overcome the layers and we needed to ‑‑ what we saw is civil services organizations came together and drove a campaign. They reached out heads of Europe to allow to be able to vast through. There was a moment in this journey where something happened, which was very unprecedented, where U.S. jumped on board they will provide and support the (inaudible). It was scam points. It was a big success. This is ‑‑ this is also a turning point. It's a turning point because U.S. could have played a very important role in pushing this forward; however, when you made a statement, they did not go head what I am seeing, bringing everyone on the fable to agree on it. So something which focuses. So it's like ‑‑ notice, over the next course ‑‑ in a very recent investigative article, it has been (?) the big pharma companies reached out to making the point in a certain way that why we should not be allowed and it had an impact on what exactly passed. What we got was something that was ‑‑ it is only for a limited time and for limited products. That is vaccine. Overall, the positives are it was achieved. It had the advocacy been there, but I would have been achieves. It I also on ‑‑ so now, that was.
>> ALAN FINLAY: So now, that was the field of vaccines. Digital's works on open worse is, data, the right to reprint is a new field of, a ooh. What implications do you think happened with the future for open knowledge, advocacy that broughtly speaking for Civil Society?
>> Deepica: I look at advideo case around open knowledge. You can say the work group and knowledge will be fixed. It will be hard. COVID was a great situation, but yet here we are. They're not health and time sensitive how COVID was. Sometime ‑‑ there are certain issues which need to be added and identified. That is my take. What I personally feel that can work here is that they need to be collective effort from global north and global south. These efforts can take years and ears. There is a moriusum thank 20 we do need. We have issues. We have especially like when it comes to big data, we know that there's to be a huge amount of lobbying. There will be things quiet, but we'll have to push back so we have to maintain that consistenty is it we have to bring alliances and we have to look for in the corporate who will listen to us and who will send eye mess orange across.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Thank you. Thank you, Deepicca. I'm not sure where to check or if there is someone in the room and once they ask a question before we hand over to yourself in chat.
>> Not seeing anything in the chat, Alan. If there is, maybe one quick question from the room. If there is anyone in the room that has a question, please go.
>> ALAN FINLAY: Go ahead. Sorry.
>> Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to thank APC for the opportunity of contributing to the APC. I wanted to add that I made a contribution for a robotics and I am the future work of Costa Rica. I try to show the divisions we have and terms of policies. Some action steps that I think are important to make in the country, for example, I principal based strategy and regulation using as an and also trying to ‑‑ in my country, it could be trying to advocate for a lot of nondiscrimination, Abiases as well as trying to enforce the recently approved public access information. And also trying to align data the majority of complaints that were presented by citizens in Costa Rica. So thank you, APC finish particular.
>> ALAN FINLAY: We're all quite sorry about the time issue, but I would like to thank the panelists who joined us today. It's been really great talking to you. Maya, back to you thank you so much, Alan, and thank you to our amazing channellist. I will thank you, Alan, as well as our panelist, I knowledge my mistake to everybody. When we decided this theme, it was also because we knew we had to (inaudible). We knew we needed lessons and we saw that he needed something. It was a different lense to move forward. And I think one of the things that struck me are witnesses. And in also looking at what we have. I think some say that we actually have learned a lot. There are articles in the addition about we've had the kinds of agreements that are there that we can use in the frameworks, I do think it is important need to have alliances to be able to make a difference. I I hope that ‑‑ this is the hope just to actually create these alliances and not only to document them, but to use it and strengthen advocacies.
I think the last thing I want to make it's really outlines how different. APC will hopefully be using organizing more events, activities so that we can really use this what we have produced collectively in the last couple of years. It's taken that long. As long as the pandemic. So thank you, everybody, for your participation and we hope to see you at future events that are connected. Thank you.
>> Deepica: Thank you so much. On that note, just to let everybody know that. You are welcome to come. Enjoy Valeria on here. Please do come to the APC booth company at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday. Thank you, Chat, for those great words and I think that's definitely a strength and a lovely note for us to crap on us. If you have any further questions other for all the rest of us. A big congratulations for being that huge panel. Take care of, everybody. Ovf well thank you so much for coming and joining us for the launching.