IGF 2022 Day 4 DC-IUI Strengthening digital ecosystems through shared principles – RAW

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.



>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: I am Director for Digital Inclusion, Digital Policy and Digital Transformation in the Communication and Information sector of UNESCO. We are waiting just two more minutes to make sure that everybody's connected, and then we will start our session. So, thank you very much for coming, and then, of course, I'll be honored to introduce our panelists and speakers. So, bear with us for two more minutes. Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Let's do a sound check for the online speakers.  Who do we have? Do we have ‑‑ let's see, onsite, onsite. I don't see Anja. We're supposed to have Anja still. We're waiting for Anja and Sandra.  Kossi Amessinou, are you online? 

>> KAREN LANDA: Can you hear me, Marielza? 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Karen, yes, I can hear you. 

>> KAREN LANDA: Yes. So, I'm still waiting for the remote participant to connect. I have sent an email for them to connect right now to join us. Unfortunately, Sandra could not make it today. And the rest of the speakers I will send another reminder for them to join right now. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: All right. So, let me cut Sandra from the lineup.  So, we had Minister ‑‑

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: All right. So, I think, Karen ‑‑ are we ready to start? 

>> KAREN LANDA: Please start. I will just make sure to remind everyone remotely to attend. If they don't come, please just go with the people onsite. 


>> KAREN LANDA: Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Please, one more chair here.  You are a panelist of honor. So, we have another chair, everybody. Great. All right!  So, we are ready on our side. So, let's get the session rolling. And if the online panelist is still missing, they will join us when they are available.

So, good morning, again. My name is Marielza Oliveira, Director of Digital Inclusion, Digital Policy and Digital Transformation, Communication, and Information Sector of UNESCO. I am very honored to be here today with a lineup of experts, incredible experts who have been contributing and enhancing our principles for an Internet that is, you know, really human rights‑based, open to all, accessible by all, multi‑stakeholder‑led. And we are going to discuss today how to take this framework forward and how to use this experience to contribute to the upcoming processes of the United Nations Global Digital Compact, the WSISplus 20 review coming up and other elements of the Digital Agenda of the United Nations.

So, before we start, it's my great honor ‑‑ not before I start ‑‑ as a first part of our presentation today, let me ask for the technical support to give us the video message from Dr. Tawfik Jelassi, who is the Assistant Director General for Communication and Information in UNESCO, who is going to give us his remarks. He wished to be here with us, but unfortunately, he had to leave because he had other appointments in Paris, but he left us a video message to roll. So, please. 

>> TAWFIK JELASSI: Distinguished ministers, colleagues, participants of this Dynamic Coalition ‑‑


>> I wish I could have been with you in person and could have benefitted from the excellent networking that is going to take place at this session and the exchange of ideas. My name is Dorothy Gordon, and I am the Chair of UNESCO's Information for All Programme. This is a programme that has been dedicated for over two decades to actually ensuring that we have inclusive and equitable knowledge societies. That means that we have a digital transformation that gives everyone the opportunity to actually gain from these developments in technology, and that we avoid some of the potential pitfalls.

And our focus is, of course, on humanistic Internet and digital development. We need to be sure that governments have got the tools to develop the policy instruments that will bring this about, and we believe that the (?) indicators are the best tools at present to achieve this. And the Dynamic Coalition working together is another of the tools that links to ROAM-X but has its own value in its own right through the sharing of best practice. And I believe that together, we are going to create the kind of future that we actually want. 

I want to talk a little bit about what has been happening recently.  We have found that the take‑up of ROAM-X has been very enthusiastic. In just a short time, we have over 44 countries that have already produced national reports, and these are fascinating.  We realize that in many cases, when new things are introduced, new vulnerabilities are introduced. And while some of the reports highlight these vulnerabilities, they also highlight the kinds of things that we need to do to fix this. And I want to highlight the fact that, despite much talk, there is still not enough attention being paid to people living with disability in the digital age and how to make sure our solutions are inclusive for them. We need more work on children as well and the aged, rural, women. I could mention so many that the ROAM-X reports really allow us to appreciate. 

And the other thing, I think, is while we see that there are gaps, and for instance, we see major gaps in terms of data, we also see that through this wonderful experience of creating the national reports in 44 countries, we have actually been able to identify inspiring best practice, best practice that can now be shared among partners, such as you, and which can also be taken up by partners to actually leverage and gain momentum. 

It's been an extremely positive experience to be associated with the Internet Universality Indicators and the ROAM‑X, and at EIFA, we see this as fundamental to our work. We look forward to even stronger partnership and to working with all of you as part of the Dynamic Coalition. Thank you so much. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you. That was Dorothy Gordon, the Chair of the Information for All Programme, who has been one of the biggest contributors and champions of the Internet Universality ROAM‑X Framework. So, let me now give you the words of Tawfik, who wished to be with us today, but unfortunately, was unable to.  So, on behalf of Tawfik, dear colleagues and partners, I'm really delighted to address you here today at the Dynamic Coalition on ROAM‑X, opening this year at the Internet Governance Forum, the 17th Internet Governance Forum. 

And just as an aside, you know, the Dynamic Coalition is certainly one of the big Dynamic Coalition under the IGF, and we have this tradition of always making sure that we bring together the partners to ensure that we have as the experiences and the learnings that we have throughout the year as part of the process and trace the way forward.

So, going back to Tawfik.

For a long time, UNESCO has advocated for a universal and humanistic Internet. And indeed, it's been, at least from 2015, when our General Conference endorsed the Internet Universality ROAM principles, which calls for an Internet that is human rights based with DR, open, accessible, M, multi‑stakeholder governed, and with the X, also for the cross‑cutting elements, including protection, support to women, gender equality, and safety of children and other important elements of ensuring that the Internet really is inclusive and safe for everyone. 

In keeping with the overarching theme of the IGF 2022 Resilient Internet for a Shared, Sustainable, and Common Future, the Dynamic Coalition on ROAM‑X Indicators serves as a shared space for in‑depth reflection and for synergizing actions on Internet policies. It helps with consultations, development, and adoptions of the Global Digital Compact.

As presented in Day Zero event on Monday, the ROAM‑X indicators have been initiated at the national level now in 44 countries, and I'm really happy to say that 17 of those are from Africa, but also, we're covering all five continents of the world, and as well as countries from the developing and the developed communities.

So, this task application and a take of the Internet universality really shows that the universal relevance of the ROAM‑X framework and the principles in its indicators to really chart the future, to take a stock of our national Internet ecosystems in the Global North and the Global South, and to chart the future for that, because the point of the Internet National Assessments ‑‑ Internet Universality National Assessments ‑‑ is to really examine them, to derive recommendations on ways to go forward. 

So, I really would like to particularly congratulate Minister ubongo in telecommunications in the Republic of Congo on the recent national assessment launch. We are very pleased to welcome Congo ‑‑ the Republic of Congo to our community. During the kickoff event, the minister stated that ROAM‑X indicators have great potential for the protection of human rights online and offline, including the support of vulnerable communities and sustainable development. So, really, we cannot agree more on that.

Through the ROAM‑X, UNESCO assists all member states and stakeholders in identifying digital gaps and making solid recommendations for guiding humanistic digital transformation around the world.  And now I'm going to switch a little bit to French, just a little bit, for one little phrase ‑‑ paragraph. 

(Speaking French)

Back to English now. These national assessments and emerging policy recommendations have attracted high‑level attention and support in many countries and for many partner organizations that have been working very closely with us to take them forward.  In Benin, the ROAM‑X Assessment received support from the country's president directly. We are very proud of that. In Senegal, the assessment has facilitated the implementation of their 2025 Digital Strategy and High‑Level National Plan.

The National Council for the Protection of Personal Data in Brazil was created after the assessment. In Germany, the assessment results were presented to the Parliament.

During the time of uncertainties and crisis, coupled with rapid technological development, the world needs a rights‑based, inclusive, and sustainable Internet environment more than ever before. For this reason, UNESCO reaffirms its continued action to support the global stakeholders. On Tuesday, we held two meetings with experts to take training and capacity‑building modules and think about how to update ROAM‑X indicators to keep up with the fast‑charging and changing digital ecosystem. We will have a little bit of a view of the outcomes of those meetings.

We are also launching the ROAM Interactive Map, which shows updates and progress in all the countries where the assessment is progressing.  This is to monitor progress of the ROAM‑X projects around the globe and to allow member states and global stakeholders to learn from the national experiences at various stages of update.

And finally, UNESCO seeks to improve the Dynamic Coalition to meet the growing needs, to scale up the ROAM assessments in more countries, particularly in Africa, in order to support the achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. With this, I wish you a very fruitful discussion and go back to our experts here. 

So, let's start with calling our first... So, now I would like to give the word to Simon so that he presents the ROAM‑X framework for our ‑‑ (off microphone).

>> Simon Ellis: My PowerPoint, please? Thank you.  So, I used to work for UNESCO Statistics, and I'm supporting about a half dozen countries in the IUI implementation at the moment.  Xianhong Hu, who is in charge of the program, I'm afraid she's had to leave. 

Essentially, you've heard, ROAM‑X is a holistic ecosystem approach to the Internet involving both qualitative and quantitative assessment and also looking very much towards policy development. So, it's very much starting from concrete indicators, but moving to very much an overall view as to where countries are and where they might move towards.  Next, please.

So, the core of the assessment is the ROAM‑X dimensions, and under each dimension category, you can see the specific subareas that are examined. So, R is rights, O is openness, A access, M multi‑stakeholder participation ‑‑ everybody in this room should be familiar with, since you're here ‑‑ and X, cross‑cutting, and that covers elements, particularly gender, children, sustainability, and a couple of other dimensions.  Each of the indicators is in the form of a question. And the countries are asked to respond to the question. And responding, as I said, to the question, sometimes it may involve quantitative data, you know, percentage of users by age, by sex, whatever, and sometimes it's qualitative, like what is business's perception of the working environment or the starting ‑‑ difficulties of starting up a business online. 

There are a lot of indicators ‑‑ 300 ‑‑ which sounds a bit scary to start with, but actually, there's 100 core indicators. So, the 100 core indicators provide the base level. And some of these simply are asking for a statement, rather than an extremely detailed analysis. But this builds up into this broader pattern. Next, please. 

So, this is a sense of the kind of recommendations that are coming out of these kinds of ‑‑ this framework. So, we have questions about new legal instruments that might be introduced, gaps/problems in infrastructure; so, for example, obviously taking infrastructure to remote areas; open solutions, particularly open government and e‑government and how not only accessible, but how user‑friendly those are; cybersecurity issues, which there's been so much talk about again here, and I don't really need to go into. Next, please. 

So, a quick map of all the countries involved. As Marielza has said, all kinds of countries are there, from Germany, from Brazil, who's present here, who is the pilot country, if you like, to smaller and African countries. Kenya has completed the assessment, and we have several in West Africa, some of which are, unfortunately, covered by the label, but you can see on the list.  Next, please. 

Okay. So, then, moving on to the impact.  So, already, since several countries have completed the assessment, you can see the kinds of impacts that are there, which are obviously linked to some of the recommendations we've seen earlier. I just pick out Thailand in terms of adoption of net neutrality principle, but there's a wide range of different impacts which are still ongoing.  Next, please. 

So, the IUI is based definitively not only in the dimension of the indicators themselves about multi‑stakeholder work in the Dynamic Coalitions but has been put through many partnerships at the international level and at the national level. And again, some examples here. So, this is not just a UNESCO ‑‑ it is an initiative of the countries concerned. And Marielza's outlined the commitment of Congo to pursuing this.  But UNESCO facilitates this and helps bring together the partners concerned. Next, please. 

In such a situation, as well, there's been a lot of interest in, really, of countries being able to find out where other countries stand in this whole progress and process. So, UNESCO's introducing an interactive map, which will allow anybody to see where countries are in the development of the project and which will allow, again, more sharing of information across the different projects that are going forwards. Next, thank you. 

So, again, we've had one expert meeting this week. It's very early in the process. We're beginning to discuss how the indicators can keep up with the ever‑changing world of the Internet and ICTs and so forth. We will probably consider reducing the indicators in some area, but we will also consider adding new elements in. But again, that has to be taken forward in discussion with countries concerned, in discussion with partners, and in alignment with UNESCO and other international organizations' ideas.  And next. 

Finally, just these are the names and contacts of the main sources and the main people who are helping in the implementation, but you will find out more from pretty much everybody at this table, and probably, I suspect, other people in the room who have been involved in different places, and this is also the focus of our discussion this morning. So, thank you very much. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Simon. Simon Ellis has been a driving force, in terms of implementation of the ROAM‑X framework, the design and the thinking through and the implementation of the ROAM‑X framework in all 44 countries that we are currently working with, as well as just thinking about the future. So, this presentation really gives us kind of an overview of what the principles are, but it doesn't stay at the level of principles.  The great contribution that the ROAM‑X makes is that it goes from the principles to taking a very detailed picture using the indicator's framework so that we can then make recommendations. And some of the impact has been already extraordinary, even in countries that have not yet completed their national assessments, because just the process of formation of, for example, the Multi‑stakeholder Advisory Board already is a step forward in the way that Internet is governed and managed in the countries.  So, with that, thank you very much, Simon, for your excellent presentation. 

And let's now go to our speakers list.  The first speaker would be online, would be Minister Ubongo from the Republic of Congo. Is he online? Is he available? Hello, colleagues online? 

>> KAREN LANDA: No, is not yet online, so please go forward with the people on site. I will signal you when he's online. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Great, thank you very much. 

>> KAREN LANDA: No problem. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Okay, so, let's then go through to the colleagues on site, and I would like to invite Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat, who is the IGF Coordinator for the NRIs, you know, the national networks, and please, the floor is yours. 

>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much, Marielza, and good morning to everyone. It's a pleasure to be together with all of the panelists in these excellent sessions. I remember last year, we also spoke in Poland at the IGF 2021 about this topic, and I am curious to learn what has changed since then. 

But I know when we met in Poland, we spoke a lot about principles and a lot about values. And I assume a year after, it's time to speak about agreed and adopted values and principles being translated into real life and into practice. And I think that's probably our next challenge.

On paper, we're doing well, but the question is, how are we doing when it comes about real life and how pragmatical we are. In the last year, much has changed and the Internet has been challenged on so many levels, including its policy and its robustness, and principles and values have never been more important to be enforced and to be implemented. 

In that sense, I think that brings us to the question of process and procedures, how are we implementing. Marielza and Simon mentioned about the assessment, which is a form of implementation. The assessment is happening at national levels. And the question is, who is doing the assessment? I think when you're dealing with the Internet that is so complex just as a network by its core, then I think the nature dictates a multi‑stakeholder assessment as well. And in that sense, I'm very glad that this Dynamic Coalition exists, first of all, as a multi‑stakeholder network, and that the assessment on several levels is done through a multi‑stakeholder lens. I know that for a fact because I worked for years with the national and regional IGFs who are, by their nature, multi‑stakeholder, and I know that the stakeholders who are gathered around the NRIs were also doing the assessment.

It is really critical at the local level to understand what multi‑stakeholder community thinks about these principles and how do they see it applied on their real life before the assessment goes on a paper for the original authors to understand whether the principles and values indeed correspond to what we see in real life, or we have gaps to close. 

And finally, what I would like to say is that the idea of these principles and of the assessment must be implemented at horizontal levels. I think that's really critical, which means, must be with people, because the Internet is used by people, essentially, and all of the companies, all the institutions and organizations dealing with Internet‑related tools and services are doing it and delivering it for all the people, and that says through the NRIs, I would certainly advocate as the NRIs' focal point, that we use the momentum and the benefit of existence of 155 NRIs to go and join those processes and to understand through multi‑stakeholder discussions how is the implementation of principles seen in practice, whether it is seen at all, because I have a fear that we still have low awareness when it comes about certain areas of the world.

From the perspective of the IGF, the awareness certainly is an issue with certain parts of the world, and I think we need to enforce our cooperation with the regional processes, because there are green cards to reach the weak and missing voices in our ecosystem and ensure that we have an audience that is really relevant to the implementation of something that we want to see implemented on a global scale.  Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Anja. Those are really important observations. The multi‑stakeholder process that is exemplified, actually, by the IGF itself, is critical to the development of the national assessments, and those two processes learn and feed from each other, so there's plenty of synergy, and this is what one of the points that Anja was pointing out, that we have the NRIs, that we have 155 NRIs ongoing, plus the fact that we have regional processes as well, and those are mechanisms that could be really synergized and brought together to raise awareness to examine the Internet ecosystems in various places, and we can offer the ROAM framework as a mechanism for this kind of depth of understanding. So, thank you very much for your thoughtful remarks.

And let me just say that we are very, very grateful, always, to the IGF Secretariat, which is the host of the Dynamic Coalition, the home of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality, so thank you for the support you give us every year and since the beginning, so, thank you. 

Let me now go back, go to the next speaker on site so that we leave more time for the remote participants to join. And I'd like to pass the word to ‑‑ let me see if I am pronouncing it correctly. Please let me know. (?) great. He is co‑founder and Chief Executive of the Library Aid Africa and is here representing ‑‑ also is (?) please, the floor is yours. 

>> Thank you so much. I'm happy to be here.  So, libraries have been a space for informational knowledge for all, be it physical space or elaborate platforms. However, as our community evolves, such the labyrinths of the local community changes, and this is over time in our walks of life to constantly improve service delivery.

I will deliver my point on the ROAM shared principles, such as human rights‑based, open to everyone, participation and governance. Human rights‑based, it appears the principles rely heavily on human rights and human rights, access to information being human rights.

What the libraries are doing in this context? Libraries have managed knowledge to provide accessible information for all, in the context of human rights. In 2021, the International Federation of Library Institutions submitted a response to the Office of the Human Rights Commission for council. It outlined how meaningful access to information is essential with the development, okay, and it's pointed out two major things. The first is civil and political right, right to expression and the freedom to seek, acquire, and impart information are closely linked to information access, and access to information by public agencies, and particularly facilitated opponents accountability and decision‑making processes in governance. As a result, people's rights to participate in governance may be strengthened through this process. 

And the second point reiterated is about economic social and cultural rights, to which access to information is critical to a variety of social and cultural rights. The rights to health is one topic. The Director‑General Tedros states that the rights mean everyone should be allowed to control over their own body, including access to sexual information and services. And also, access to specific sort of information, content, and materials, is also critical to fulfilling the rights of education.

According to UNESCO publication, it states that schools are not accessible unless they have adequate educational materials, okay, and the importance of access to information and materials from varieties of national and international sources, particularly those aimed at promoting social well‑being and human rights. And UNESCO notes that measures taken to improve meaningful access to information can support a wide range of rights, from education to rights in governance.

As a progress, what libraries work further to propel progress to strengthen systems through these shared principles.  So, the context that was mentioned in libraries in providing access to information for all emphasize more on how libraries are essential physical and in person and how it is ingesting the ROAM principle.

Now, where do we see progress going and how libraries can contribute meaningfully to further human rights, open to more multi‑stakeholder participation? To achieve this, it aligns with the submission made by IFLER and approaches two main things which libraries can work. The first is international ‑‑ and it's reiterated for digital inclusion as some of the essential elements of meaningful access to information, which is why the international collaboration to ensure successful connection, access affordability and libraries are very crucial.

In addition to that, accessing library content is also critical to enable the cross‑cooperative frameworks. An exception for libraries. This we facilitate in particular to key matters and information to help deliver on human rights. For example, the culture, access to educational materials, among others.

More importantly, the (?) treaty enforces a model of mechanism that facilitated access to key contents for people which with prints disabilities to have access to materials.

And the second level, which is mentioned, is the national level. The national level, numerous action as keb done to improve digital inclusion, connectivity to access true libraries and the importance of universal service for supports of public houses. Okay.

And progressively, in 2020, the IFLA library pledge for digital inclusion, for example, encourages libraries to leverage up infrastructure resources and competencies to support low or no‑cost access to ICT content and digital skills‑building. 

So, in conclusion, libraries since inception, to parchments and to (?) similar experience and when introduced printed paper and now digital houses, libraries have always been at the forefront of access to information for all. And as we progress from here, the call to action has further strengthened the digital ecosystem through shared principles in four major areas for libraries. We should post the focus on content in ensuring there is support for libraries to support connections online and to give access to them, including remotely.

Number two, active engagement at the international, national, and local level, libraries should be more involved in implementations of international universal indicators.  They are making Internet universal and should involve libraries in planning and implementation.

And number three, libraries as communities to co‑create, share, and provide information.  And lastly, it is essential that we first instruct libraries infrastructure and sources to ecosystems through shared principles. Thank you very much. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Schu very much. Those are very thoughtful and important remarks. IFLA, the International Federation of Libraries and Archives is a longtime partner of UNESCO, since the very beginning. It's been an NGO that is in partnership with UNESCO and in contact with UNESCO.  Recently, we launched a manifesto that calls exactly attention to the importance of libraries and importance of libraries to communities to bringing meaningful access to information for all in the areas that they cover, and this meaningful access is really at the core of what the ROAM framework is, is looking at the different aspects of inclusion on digital ecosystems and participation in digital ecosystems, based on a human rights framework. So, that's exactly the same thing that libraries do, so it's always a pleasure to hear from them. So, I'd like to just highlight that phrase that you said ‑‑ libraries are key to share access to information. We share that with us. And should be involved in the ROAM assessment. So, that's, essentially, an invitation also to IFLA representation in various countries to engage in the multi‑stakeholder advisory boards and be part of the groups that constructs the national assessments and the picture going forward. So, thank you very much for that. 

Let me now turn to Fabio from CETIC, which is a category 2 center under the auspices of UNESCO, which has been key to the development of the ROAM framework, as well as the first analytic group behind the first national assessment that was published in Brazil. And Fabio is the Lead Coordinator for the Technical Team, the substantive team that did this analysis. So, Fabio, please, the floor is yours. Thank you. 

>> Fabio: Hello, good morning. Thank you, Marielza. Thank you all for the invitation. Well, taking on the idea of this debate, I would like to share a few words on the lessons learned in the case of Brazil, and of course, how do you ‑‑ we think we can move from principles to practices, which I think is the main issue that we are all discussing here. I will share my screen here so that you ‑‑ I don't know if it works.  Can you share it for me? 

So, first, I think if I can make one contribution to the discussion, I think it would be the strength of the multi‑stakeholder perspective from this, and this is not just in terms of implementing assessment, which you already saw that it's a whole multi‑stakeholder perspective, but also, in transforming the results into practice, so the relevance of having a multi‑stakeholder perspective in the country. 

So, in the case of Brazil, we might say that we have a very strong multi‑stakeholder model for Internet governance that comes even before the discussion of the ROAM‑X situation. So, this is organized through the CGI, which is the Brazil Internet Steering Committee that exists since the mid‑'90s but was defined in this basis in 2005, and which is a multi‑stakeholder model where government, private sector, scientific community, and non‑governmental organizations come together in a forum to define and to have an open and participatory dialogue on Internet issues. So, all the decisions are made in this group by consensus, so it's a very strong process of debate and coordination of strategic issues about the digital technology in the country. So, this also creates a model that is also sustainable in a sense that it exists permanently. It continues to exist even when it changes governments, so it's a very sustainable way, and they have a financial and resources that are inverted in this multi‑stakeholder debate in the country.  So, this model of Internet governance has already provided some good examples of implementation and successful support to the policies, such as the creation of Brazilian civil rights framework for the Internet, and it was voted in, in 2012, and it was based on the debate constructed by the CGI.br. And this model was also recognized recently by OECD and at a national assessment of Brazilian digital policies and recognizes as a reference to the word for digital governance.

So, first of all, having a permanent way of implementing multi‑stakeholder debate on the Internet is crucial to make it happen and to make things work. And within this model, CETIC was created in 2005 as a research center based in the model of the cgi.br, dedicated especially to implementing research on the access and use of Internet. And by 2012, we became a UNESCO Category 2 center to support other countries, especially in Latin America, in African and Portuguese‑speaking countries. 

So, this is why we participate in the ROAM‑X processes since the beginning, since the approval of the principles, and then piloting the initiative in Brazil, in launching our first report in 2019, and also supporting other countries in the region and around the world in terms of this implementation. And all this, this implementation was connected to CGI in a sense that all the multi‑stakeholder groups actively participate in the review or strategy so that they can be more connected to the assessments and the results.

And finally, just to show a little bit how we envision the idea of having a data ecosystem that is also a multi‑stakeholder data ecosystem, this is very relevant for this type of project. Nowadays, data cannot be itself anymore, data coming from official governments or official statistical offices. So, nowadays, we have data coming from private data companies, from different types of agencies, from civil society, and the use of this data is also multi‑stakeholder, so not just the availability of data depends on the multi‑stakeholder coalition, but also the use in making policies with this data depends on that.

If you take the very first implementation of projects, what we believe is that the multi‑stakeholderism, it has to be part of the whole process. So, in the beginning of the process, in the planning phase, we have meetings of our multi‑stakeholder group, and then it comes back with the results and discuss, why is that; how can we develop better recommendations from this data? So, in our process, we do believe that multi‑stakeholderism is key not just for implementing the process, but also for making it useful and it being used for the policy. So, this is my contribution today. I hope we can discuss a bit more about it. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Fabio, thank you very much. And CETIC, as you saw from the presentation, the category center under the auspices of UNESCO, has been involved from the very beginning with the ROAM. An important element is that it really was centered in a multi‑stakeholder process, that it already existed in Brazil, but it was, as Fabio highlighted, essential to really not only ensure that all the voices were present in the assessment so that we can actually derive as much concrete elements for recommendations and partnership going forward in order to implement changes needed, but also that it was good and important provider of data also that contributed to this assessment, so that multi‑stakeholder element of the national assessments has those two important elements. It's a process in itself that enables the voices and the contributions and insights to really being reached as much as possible, but also when you see with the data collaboration that results from that. So, thank you very much to Fabio for his contributions.

Now, let me turn to David (?) who is international advisor with us. And also, we call him one of the fathers of the ROAM‑X framework and he has been also a major, major contributor to the thinking behind this framework.  So, it's always a pleasure to give him the word. Thank you. 

>> David: Thank you, Marielza. I was asked to say something about how the ROAM‑X framework might be used in the broader context of the Global Digital Compact and that kind of analysis. I'll focus on that. It takes the issues a bit broader than what's been said so far. And I think my starting point for anything to do with digital development, is the purpose of digital development is not digital development. Its purpose is about the improvements in policy and practice that will facilitate human development goals and for practical purposes in the UN system, that means the Sustainable Development Goals that were agreed in 2015. 

It has relationship to a number of those founding documents that we use within this international forum kind of world. So, in the world summit context, it is about people‑centered and development‑oriented information society. I think it refers also to the concept of common good, which is in the Secretary‑General's language around the global digital compact. 

And in the work that I've done for the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, I talk about shaping the digital society in three contexts: That is, preserving what we value, promoting what we want, and preventing what we fear.  So, that's the starting point, in my view, for thinking about how a framework like the ROAM‑X framework, which is concerned with digital development, should apply to the broader context of something like the GDC. 

It requires three things that I think are at the root of the IUI process. So, the first of those is a strong evidence base that enables us to identify not just what is happening today, but also the likely changes that are going to occur over the next few years in the digital context itself, but also in human behavior and business development and so forth. And the second is a recognition that digitalization plays into complex, existing, socioeconomic and political structures, so it doesn't eliminate power structures within society, but it alters them. And so, in order to understand the context, we need to take a holistic and comprehensive view, both of digitalization and of its interactions with the rest of society.

And I think the third point is a willingness to base policy changes and practical interventions on a clear‑headed and thorough ‑‑ but particularly say thorough ‑‑ analysis of the evidence base and the potential impacts and the things that we wish to see and things that we do not wish to see, rather than relying on aspirations or assumptions or beliefs about what might happen. So, there's a real need to analyze likely impacts, in particular, both opportunities and risks, and think through the unexpected. 

So, the ROAM‑X Framework I think offers an

Analytical framework used not just in this format but for those like the Global Digital Compact, because it addresses those three points. I'd say also that the structure that's adopted for it in a particular country is particularly important, and the Brazilian example is useful here.  It's important that the research team is independent of any major player, including the government. So, this is not an exercise in promoting a country; it's an exercise in identifying things that can improve a country.

I think it's important to ensure inclusion, and I would go beyond multi‑stakeholder here, because I think it's important to have a plurality of political perspectives within the analytical grouping, and it's important also to be sure that those not normally represented in decision‑making structures are represented in this one, so the voices of marginalized communities are heard in their own terms and not through an intermediary. 

And it's important to be deliberative, to take the time to analyze things properly, rather than cutting corners, to start from a position of skepticism, rather than a position of faith, and to be prepared to develop views and change views. 

Just to go quickly and briefly last to aspects of the ROAM‑X Framework which I think are especially, potentially, valuable. There is a bit of criticism of myself and colleagues at the time we developed it. There was a lot of pressure from the consultation process to add indicators, and we, I think, probably did end up with far more indicators than we needed to have.  So, we responded a bit too generously, perhaps. 

However, for thinking about them now, and for thinking about the Global Digital Compact in particular, I would emphasize the scenes. So, on one of the slides that Simon shared earlier, there are five categories ‑‑ the ROAM‑X categories ‑‑ and under each of those categories, there were up to five themes. And the analytical framework should really be about what is happening in each of those themes. The indicators help to give the evidence that enables that thematic analysis to take part, to take place. 

I think the ROAM‑X Framework is particularly useful in including qualitative, as well as quantitative, approaches. A lot of measurement of progress is made on gross numbers, gross quantitative numbers, and they tend to emphasize the impact on the average, rather than the impact on the most vulnerable, for example. There is an emphasis on disaggregation, too, and I think that that is a valuable element to move forward in the Global Digital Compact, where we're not talking about the population as a whole only, but the population in its different segments, and there are other documents that I think are valuable as partners to the IUICS, as to General Comment 25, the Children's Rights Convention.

And two final points. I think the ROAM‑X analysis process does enable us to take account of the fact that digitalization is changing rapidly and that monitoring and analysis need to replicate that change. And I think to accept as an underlying principle ‑‑ perhaps this goes back to what I said at the start ‑‑ that more digitalization is not the same as better digitalization, and that better digitalization can mean less digitalization. In other words, what matters here is the human development outcomes. So, we should not be looking at whether there is growth in digitalization; we should be looking at whether digitalization is delivering in terms of human social and economic development. Okay. Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you. And those are incredibly important remarks.  I particularly like to highlight the elements that you put, you know, that the purpose of this entire process is, you know, to shape digital societies. And I like the three elements that you mentioned, the preserving what we value, promoting what we want, and preventing what we fear, because those are exactly the kinds of discussions that we've been having here. And I think the experience, the way that you distill the experience of the ROAM principles and how they can contribute to Digital Compact was particularly insightful. You mentioned the important elements that the next wave, the next group of principles for the Internet should be capturing, that we should be looking at this complexity in society, you know, not only in terms of the digital side, but in terms of how it plays within the more complex, economic, social, political, environmental elements, and how we really need to emphasize, you know, how digitalization actually interplays with those and how it affects those so that we're not really looking at it in terms of how fast or how much more we are digitalizing, but in terms of how we are really transforming digitalization into improvements in people's lives in all those aspects. So, this is a really valuable contribution. And the fact that we have a monitoring framework to really examine and measure that, even though our framework have been maybe ambitious, you know, with the 303 indicators, but we really need to be looking at how to measure the transformation under each of the themes or principles that we are looking at. So, thank you very much for those contributions. Very important. 

I'd like to now turn to our speakers online.  So, let's please project the screen and see. Karen, could you give us a rundown of the colleagues that have been ‑‑ that are logged in? Do we see Dr. Mushalenga? 

>> KAREN LANDA: Unfortunately, we don't have any speakers online connected. I think a lot of them are encountering technical issues, which enable them to connect. So, I think now we should do maybe a Q&A? 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Yes, okay. So, let's go back to the Q&A, you know. So, now we actually have then the opportunity to open the floor to the room and give you the opportunity to ask questions. We also may receive some questions from some of the online participants. So, please, you know, let's see if the room has questions, if anybody would like to raise one.  Yes, please, sir. 

>> AUDIENCE: Okay, thank you. First I thank you for your nice discussions, actually. Okay. I am Hattah Fera Suli from Iran in private sector. I have two brief questions. The first question is about the ROAM‑X Framework. I want to know, what's this framework actually stands for? I mean, these are a lot of frameworks for assessing cyberspace in different aspects. For example, cyber capacity‑building frameworks or cyber readiness assessment or cyber maturity model assessment. What's the competitive advantage of the ROAM Framework compared to other frameworks? This is the first question.

And the second one is about the ROAM Framework usage. As we know, these are a lot of factors and indicators which are used in this framework in different aspects, for example, rights, security, et cetera. How the countries should contextualize and customize these indicators for the usage? Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you very much for the questions. Let's collect a few other questions, please. Yes. Then we'll go back to the experts to answer. Thank you. 

>> AUDIENCE: Hi. Sort of looking at what ROAM‑X as a framework is putting forward and trying to get feedback from countries, it sort of strikes me that the U.S. ‑‑ or not just the U.S., various countries have sign on to it, but it certainly was a U.S.‑initiated initiative with the future of the Internet and so on. And I wonder whether there's a certain degree of risk of if the Americans are going to be a bit bone‑headed and run ahead of the pack on some of these things that the ROAM‑X Framework could sort of just become a purely academic exercise.

And the second thing that I'm just sort of wondering is, you know, the R in ROAM‑X is rights. And rights centrism is there. I'm not disputing that. But one thing I'm not seeing in any of the discourse is the importance of the rule of law, you know. That just does not ‑‑ and I don't understand how we can, you know, anticipate that any of the metrics that we would regard as good shared principles can survive if rule of law is not in there. I think without the rule of law, we have nothing.  So, I'm wondering if it's a case of whether it's presumed or whether it's a case of its absence is an oversight. Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Could you introduce yourself? 

>> Paul: Paul from South Africa, private sector. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: There was another hand raised. Please, thank you. 

>> AUDIENCE: Thank you so much. Beloa is my name. I'm a librarian from Uganda. From your presentation, it appears like our sister neighboring countries ‑‑ Kenya, Tanzania ‑‑ have already completed their assessment. What about Uganda? 

The last question is about the impact, the impact. Because if ROAM‑X is targeting the rural communities, we want to see the end results of this. Is there any time frame for this? 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you very much. Let's cut the questions here for a moment. We will go back, if we have more time, but we have already a collection of questions, so let's go back to the experts to answer some of those.

You know, so, just in summary of the questions. What is the comparative advantage of the ROAM Framework, versus these other measurements on the digital ecosystems, how do we contextualize and use that at the national level? A question on the future of the Internet and how does that ‑‑ and the rule of law ‑‑ how does that figure into the framework? And this very quick question of where does Uganda stand on the measurement and what is the impact and how do we look at, you know, whether ‑‑ since it's targeting communities, it has really reached that kind of effect.

So, I would like to turn to perhaps David, Fabio, you know, Simon? 

>> Simon Ellis: I'll start and then David, you can certainly add to it. Okay. Localization, the question around about the overall objectives of the framework. I think that is the point that David has already talked about. It is really to take that holistic view, so it's very much a center of where a country is, from the country's point of view, but in a multi‑stakeholder fashion, and then to, as David suggested, if you like, a baseline for saying, well, then, where do we go next? And from the indicators also comes out some sort of trends as well, both in the sense of numbers, but also in the source of qualitative ‑‑ views from business, views from civil society, views from government.

And as in the usual multi‑stakeholder process, the framework will try and bring those views together. And in some cases, they'll come together, but in some cases, they won't. And it's not trying to force a single result and a single recommendation.  And it's not, as I said in my presentation, it's not something that is controlled by UNESCO; it's something that's facilitated. And it's not really controlled by anybody. It's controlled by the multi‑stakeholder committee. That's the idea.  But that committee should be multi‑stakeholder; it should involve all sectors and all interests. 

Quickly on the rule of law.  As you've seen, the rights category is substantially ‑‑ and when you read the reports ‑‑ it's substantially about that, what is the institutional structure. But also, most importantly, it is evidence as to whether that institutional structure is implemented and the good things and the bad things of that. And we see bad issues such as fake news and hate speech and all those kinds of interests. So, we're looking forward on an institutional basis, and are there institutional gaps? But we're also looking to see how those rules and framework might be implemented. 

Lastly, from Uganda. I'm not aware of any proposal that UNESCO's received from Uganda yet. What tends to happen is that either through ‑‑ Marielza's probably better placed to respond ‑‑ but through an institution in Uganda, a proposal reaches UNESCO. UNESCO will then talk to the appropriate member state contacts, and a process will be then identified about putting that in place, which will involve an implementing partner. Implementing partners tend to be not governmental, but some form of institution which can balance these views and organize the multi‑stakeholder committee, which meets at least twice in the process, and often more than that. And obviously, key stakeholder interviews are involved as well.  And that then refers to the place of the local rural communities.

And the third dimension, access in particular. A lot of what comes out from the project is this sense ‑‑ and even in advanced communities ‑‑ for example, from the German report, where we would imagine that everybody has access. And they identified particular gaps in access for the older age groups and then for the disabled. So, even in the most, one of the most advanced countries in the world, let's say, these gaps of access exist. And clearly, in the contract in Thailand, certain geographical areas and certain rural communities exist. And that becomes, then, one of the centerpieces for possible recommendations. So, I'll stop there and see if David or somebody else can go ahead. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you. David, please, would you like to comment? 

>> David Souter: A few things. When my colleague and I were designing the structure for this six years ago, we deliberately put policy, legal, and regulatory frameworks at the start of each of the categories, because we wanted to have a focus on that institutional legal framework, so that is where, in a sense, the rule of law should really be located in the thinking around this. 

The other thing I'd say about the rights is that there is ‑‑ it's not in my view, as strong as it ought to be ‑‑ but there is a section within this on economic, social, and cultural rights, which are sometimes underplayed ‑‑ well, they're actually very often underplayed when thinking about the impact of the Internet, and personally, I see that reinforced as these are developed, as the indicators are developed.

In terms of the models or the frameworks ‑‑ so, the colleague from Iran who was asking about. I mean, I think the distinction that I would say here is that this is not ‑‑ this is deliberately set up as something that is not a competition. This is not a ranking of countries that emerges from this. And that is actually what really often happens with these other frameworks that governments, in particular, but other stakeholders use as an opportunity to say look how good we are or look how bad we are or whatever. It's not for that purpose. It's for you to do something that's more in depth and identify issues that are priorities for change or development in the country.

Fabio might want to say something about the Brazilian experience. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you. Thank you very ‑‑ oh, sorry. Let me just pass the word to Anja so that all the colleagues get in. 

>> ANJA GENGO: Just want to briefly reflect on Paul's question. I don't know if you're a lawyer. It sounds like you are, a good lawyer, by the nature of your question. I think you are very much right, because what David said, you know, the ROAM‑X principles do refer to frameworks, right, to documents and so on. But you ask a very critical question, because the rule of law goes beyond that. It's also about enforcement, about implementation, about sanctions, and it's also about procedures. And I think nothing has challenged our traditional, conservative, set procedures as the Internet and digital technologies.

I'll give two examples. One example, right to be indexed, the question of jurisdiction. Another example is collection of evidence. For example, you know that if you are accused, if there's allegation that you did something, you certainly go to an investigating authority to be questioned there or to testify and so on. But we saw examples where the leaders of the biggest tech companies were speaking in front of the legislative bodies. That's a new thing to all of us looking conservatively into legal frameworks and procedures.

And I think in terms of the application of rule of law, it certainly stands as such, but I think we're really learning by doing, as our technologies are developing, and I think new mechanisms will certainly be seen in the very near future. Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you very much. Fabio, would you like to weigh in on some of the questions? 

>> Fabio SENNE: Yeah. Just on the ‑‑ we, as a statistic center, we participate in lots of readiness index and other frameworks. So, I think for the main characteristics of this process is being holistic in a way that it includes not just percentage ‑‑ the results of the digitalization, such as percentage of users or percentage of rural areas connected, but also the institutional, the ecosystem measurements, including the multi‑stakeholder part, which covers if the country is participating in the international forums, if there is evidence of civil society being strong enough to deal with those issues. So, I think it's broad.

And including ‑‑ one of the main results, in the case of Brazil, was precisely what you raised in the terms of rule of law. Although we mapped through the methodology a very strong legal, or in a sense, our legal frameworks or laws was strictly in line with the International Standards for Human Rights and for freedom of expression, so we have a very sound system of laws. All of the evidence we collected on enforcement implementation showed problems. So, for instance, so these lead to, including UNESCO effort, to promote capacity‑building with the judicial operators because they were clearly having decisions that were not aligned with this international standard. So, I think this is something that is powerful in the methodology, and it was perceived in the case of Brazil. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Fabio.  Oyedele, would you like to weigh in or to answer the questions? 

>> DAMILARE OYEDEL: I think in terms of rule of law, it is important to look at libraries and access to Internet services. The policy says first to have access to libraries. And if UNESCO public manifest (?) and I think it is imperative of decisions in country for libraries to process the processes, review policy legislations about these statistics and address them, more importantly to draft community‑level impact. Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you very much. From all what our experts and speakers have contributed, I'd like to add and highlight some points. First, I think it's actually a mistake to call this an indicator framework. What this is is a process for change. This is what the ROAM‑X actually is, you know. It sets out principles and a way in which you're going to really examine whether we are adhering to those principles, and if not, where the gaps are.

In terms of bringing together a group that reflects our voices in society, as many of those voices as possible, a multi‑stakeholder group, to derive the evidence and analyze it and put forward ideas and proposals for improvement. So, this is what it is, you know, the ROAM‑X mechanism is, you know, framework is. 

And as such, it's absolutely contextualized because it only talks about the specific context of what is happening in a context, a national context, for example, and with particular groups, you know, that have been, perhaps, excluded from access to information in digital ecosystems or expression or any other right that they have through digital ecosystems. So, that's what it is.

In terms of rule of law, you know, and the application of that, I just want to read a few questions that come. Theme, a policy and legal framework. Is there a legal framework that recognizes the same rights that people have offline must be protected online? Is there a legal framework to protect individuals against violations of rights that arise from use or abuse of the Internet, and so on and so forth. There are questions specifically about the existence of legal frameworks, so we are looking at the rule of law in that sense.

But what I think is absolutely fascinating is that, even though we are looking at the existence of the legal framework, the subsequent thematic areas look at whether these legal frameworks are actually resulting in the rule of law being applied and being really experienced by citizens. So, for example, if we are talking about equality, you know, if there is a legal framework that talks about equality, and then later on with indicators that actually suggest that persons with disabilities are excluded, they don't have the same access, or women are not having the same level of access, and so on and so forth, we actually can say that even though the legal framework exists, it's actually not operable at the level that it should be, and it triggers this exact kind of recommendations, not necessarily to digital ecosystems, but to the legal ecosystems, to the implementation of these norms and standards in adherence to international standards. So, I think it's a fascinating process and a very important one.

And you know, we welcome Uganda to join the ROAM assessment process, so, please, you know, contact us. We are always happy to support our countries, and our hope is that we will be supporting all countries in Africa.  So, we still have a few more minutes, you know, before we close, so I'd like to see if there are any other questions. Are there questions online that would like to be raised or in the room again? Oh, there's a hand up in the back. 

>> AUDIENCE: Sorry. My name is Thomas, from Ethiopia.  Yeah, I have been dealing with the digital transformation into paperless office environment for the last 15 years, especially in the United Nations, in field and regional office.  But you know, strengthening the digital and ecosystem, it has a lot of challenges, especially the awareness and too much resistance, especially from the staff members in the community. So, we professionals, at a time that we're implementing especially in the digital transformation, we have a lot of challenges, especially like infrastructure and resistance, especially coming out from the longtime trained and coming back to the digital transformation is not easy.

So, as we are expected, we are not that much speedy to go through, you know, into the digital transformation or ecosystem, so especially when you are a country in Africa. We have a lot of challenges, especially infrastructurewise, in security, especially in the cybersecurity nowadays. Not only that, what kind of information is going to be secured? Which one is confidential? Which one is classified and so on? So, there is a lack of awareness, especially within the community. Not only that, even the officials in the senior managements. So, I don't know how you are going to advise us, especially the electronic signature, like digital signature, how it's going to be legal binding and also protecting mechanisms, especially the data privacy and so on. So, sorry, I'm touching a lot of things.

But for legal point of view, how you are going to digitalize or transferring, as we are expected to speedy in the future? That's my questions. Thank you. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Any further questions from the room or online? No? So, let me turn back to the experts again. 

>> Simon Ellis: A quick response. One of the things in the framework is about barriers. We recognize that there are countries that are going faster or slower, if those terms make any sense anyway, but barriers are certainly recognized in different ways, both, again, from a quantitative side, so how many people have difficulty because they don't have the skills, but also simply, as we've already talked about, it's about the legal framework, which areas, institutional, are missing, and which could facilitate more progress. And then, again, from recommendations, we would see some kind of a mixture of that coming forward.

And also, one of the things I wanted to make earlier and didn't is that recommendations are not just about government. Recommendations might be about civil society, too. So, again, how can civil society work together to help rural communities, for example, those kinds of things. So, it's not just about seeing these leaps forward and so on, but also about taking a realistic view about what is possible. 

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you. Anybody else would like to comment? No? And I think that with that, we actually have, you know, a few minutes left only.  So, let me wrap up this session by saying, you know, this is always an incredibly important session every year, because every year, when the Dynamic Coalition comes together, it comes together to take stock of the progress that has been made to share these lessons and experiences between the members of the Coalition, but also with others that are interested in learning more and understanding better, you know, the ROAM‑X Framework and how it can contribute to society. And this year, it's been particularly important as well, more important than ever, because this year we are talking about a framework that is based on principles when the UN and the multi‑stakeholder and multilateral part of the system is actually developing its principles, which is the Global Digital Compact for governing digital ecosystems. So, the richness of the experience of the ROAM Framework is being placed at the disposal of this new process, and this richness can be translated into a few, very few, quick points. 

First, this is a framework ‑‑ the ROAM Principles ‑‑ that is essentially about justice and fairness and inclusion and participation in digital ecosystems. It's an incredibly important part of how we work together as an international community to look at how to include people on the Internet. What are the barriers? Like you were mentioning barriers just now. What are the barriers that really impede people from having meaningful access, which, you know, our colleague from libraries in Africa was highlighting. The issue of inclusion and meaningful access is particularly important.

We tend to look at the Internet ‑‑ or we used to look at the Internet in terms of inclusion as being connecting people. Connecting people is not enough, you know. Living in an area in which you have Wi‑Fi access is not enough. We've been deriving from that the conclusion that we need to go beyond and move into what has been called meaningful connectivity, which is not only we have access to the Internet ‑‑ there is broadband where I live, but I can actually, you know, connect because I have the right device, I have the right ‑‑ you know, I can afford those devices, I can afford to buy the data package and the connections that I need. But even that is not enough.

When we look at accessibility, for example, we're looking at meaningful access. When people connect, do they find on the Internet, on digital ecosystems, the kind of content, local content that is relevant to their lives? Can they express themselves in the languages that they use in their own communities? Can they exchange knowledge and information online with others in their own languages, for example? Are the platforms that they access offering accessibility for persons with disabilities, for example?

There are so many barriers that the Internet prebts that we need to look at. And what this fantastic framework ‑‑ and I can really say fantastic with humility, because even though this is a UNESCO framework, I wasn't part of its development. I'm here with the experts that actually did it.  This framework allows us to pinpoint all those barriers and to give us the opportunity to work together on a multi‑stakeholder group to actually think how we can improve that. So, it is a process for change. It is a process for improvement. It is a process for inclusion that is by nature a participatory process, evidence‑based.  So, this kind of experience, and the peer‑to‑peer learning, the networks that form around it that coalesce in the Dynamic Coalition that comes together in the Dynamic Coalition to share experiences every year, is a great, great and important part of it, because we learn from each other; we learn from the various experiences; we identify not only how to collect evidence, how to come together as a group, who should be around the table discussing these elements, but also, you know, what solutions exist out there to some of the gaps that we find. What are some of the strengths we have that we can share with others, that our national ecosystem, digital ecosystem has that can be shared with others. How did we get to that point? And you know, to help others improve. So, it's a process of, you know, cooperation and collaboration as well. So, it's not just participation ‑‑ inclusion, participation ‑‑ but also, it is a process of collaboration. And this is an experience that is rich, important, and that we offer going forward as an element to the Global Digital Compact for its own reflections when these principles are in place.

So, with that, I would like to really express enormous appreciation to our experts, to our entire Dynamic Coalition, who always comes together in this last day to take stock of how we've been doing. And this year, we are particularly proud of really saying 44 countries, and you can follow that with our new platform that has been launched for that. I would love to also thank the IGF Secretariat and the IGF community for hosting the Dynamic Coalition and for, you know, all of you who joined us today in this important session. So, thank you all very much, and we will see you next year. But in the meantime, during the year, please keep us updated on the new developments on all of your national processes, you know, how they are progressing and has evolved. And we certainly hope you will keep advocating for more countries to take stock of their national digital ecosystems using the ROAM‑X Framework so that we can enrich this community further and learn more and do better together. So, thank you very, very much.

Give our speakers a round of applause for me, please. Thank you.