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.
>> PAULO JOSÉ LARA: OK. So I'll make a quick introduction and pass it over to you, so you can give the initial overview. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, to everyone who is joining us. My name is Paulo. I'm head of digital rights in ARTICLE 19 Brazil, and South America.
Very happy to give you guys welcome to this session of the IGF 2022. The idea of the session is to discuss who is being left behind by stakeholderism and Internet Governance.
We will be joined by Vladimir Cortes, Nandini Chami from IT for Change, ARTICLE 19 Mexico. Nandini Chami from Karisma Foundation. I'm pass it over to my colleague.
I'll be your moderator. Thank you to Rafa as well for being the on‑site moderator. Everyone who has accepted our invitation. Because of the different time zones, I especially thank Vladimir and Catalina Moreno, for being so early in the morning, joining us from Mexico and Colombia. So thanks a lot. I guess I'm sure this will be a great session and without further ado, I will just hand it over to my colleague Afia, for a quick overview of the session, and then back to me, and then we can pass it over to our speakers.
So welcome everyone and thanks a lot, everyone for joining. So the floor is yours, Rafa.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: Thank you, Paulo for the introduction. I would like to say how much we appreciate your attendance today. Your online, on site attendance. I think that I will share a few thoughts on the idea of the session. Firstly, the session is connected to our activities that ARTICLE 19 has been carrying out together with the different organizations.
With these activities, we tried to approach the engagement of groups that although are affected by Internet Governance policies, are not necessarily engaged in shaping Internet policies.
Because they have different ‑‑
In this context, this specific conversation, represent a continuity of debate that has been going on in workshop at Rightscon this year, where we approach issues such as indigenous languages, peoples ‑‑ multicultural, and colonize Internet.
And I think that is something we can share. Something that has been happening in Brazil. This year, we have been following some of these news that people are ‑‑ that Elon Musk has interest in connecting the Amazon, in order to provide Internet access to rural schools.
And to connect ‑‑ this kind of initiative bring us concerns related to the idea that of ignoring, not only the tools that are already used in the region, but also the context of different groups.
In the end, for instance, indigenous populations, that will be affected and the region. So the suggestions in getting best practices, in order to think how to first participation in the democeratization of ‑‑ democratization of Internet Governance, improving the multistakeholder scenario that is already in place.
And we have three panelists that kindly accepted our invitation to speak and share their perspectives and experiences.
And the different panelists intentionally, are from different countries throughout the world, in order to have a more wider diversity and points of view in the session.
And I think I will start to introduce our panelists. We plan to have this order, firstly, Vladimir Cortes. Then Nandini, and afterwards, Catalina Moreno. I think you want to ‑‑
>> PAULO JOSÉ LARA: I think that's it. We can go straight. Thank you for the introduction. We can go straight over to Vladimir. The idea is to have ten minutes for each presentation and examples and sharing ideas in general about the topic that composes the session.
And then we can have some time to have chats and open to the public and so on. So again, thank as lot for everyone that is joining us. And Vladimir, glad to meet with you. He's head of digital from ARTICLE 19 Mexico, but if you want to introduce yourself, also feel comfortable with it. Be our guest. Thanks a lot, Vladimir. And welcome.
>> VLADIMIR CORTES: Thank you, Paulo, thank you, Rafaela. Yes, I'm Vladimir Cortes. Sorry, if I'm not like the brightest person now, it's like 3:00 in the morning. But I will try to do my best.
And first of all, thank you for everyone also to joining this session. Those who are on site and those who are also online. I'm Vladimir Cortes. I'm the digital rights program officer based in Mexico city, working in the region of Latin America and the Caribbean. As an office, we covered here Mexico and also part of our work in Central America.
I will start this conversation using and taking into account, one of the pieces of one writer Janart Shult (phonetic), and using as a theoretical framework on how the academic perspective also interacts with one of the main things that it's going to be discussed here.
And I would love, perhaps like raise some questions and raise some challenges that I somehow identify. First, by saying an understanding that there's a complexity in Internet Governance, under something that he defines as the polycentric approach in which there is like different elements being involved in our thinking of Internet Governance. Not because of just what for example, brings us here at the IGF, but recognizing different elements also taking part on being part of the complexity of understanding Internet Governance.
First, like, different elements, such the transclarity of Internet Governance, the transsectorality. It's been placed with the different sectors of the private sector.
The academy, the technical community. Another elements considering, for example, the diffusion of the Internet Governance and how this goes to different and multiple entities. Many institutional sites, we have, yes, the Internet Governance Forums, but we have IEEE, we have the Internet engineering task force, and other entities which also adds some different elements. Another characteristic of what he describes of the Internet Governance complexitiy, is the fluidity ‑‑ complexity. The fluidity. How it's highly changeable, during the time, and how it also recognizes different ways in which Internet Governance is constantly changing.
And another two elements, which I think it's also relevant when we're thinking. First of where we are being placed. One is the overlapping on mandates. How sometimes different aspects of regulation, and when we are thinking about Internet Governance, puts in different institutions. It could be at ITU, it can we an ICANN. It can be at different places. And finally the ambiguity of hierarchies, and (?) Supreme authority.
I think when we start dividing and looking this different elements of Internet Governance and these different characteristics, it's like, first thinking as a unite block or as a monolith, which kind of first gives us a flat place to act.
On the other hand, one of the challenges that must be considered by this, when we are having this first characterization. It's how Internet Governance cannot be achieved only by states, but through a broad and complex regime of multiple actors. And here comes of the particular questions and what bring us also to this discussion.
It seems that when we are thinking about Internet Governance and the biggest challenges that make Internet Governance, is how we do this more Democratically. How to build this in a more inclusive way, and how we start involving the historically marginalized sectors.
That is, even in approaches that involve multistakeholder participation. And sometimes this also can be super‑romantic way of saying Internet Governance. And I think at least from Civil Society and civil sector, it's always like a way of thinking that the different spaces can really be open.
But sometimes, just like to problematize, how in real, we are like thinking of this as a Democratic and as a very inclusive perspective.
With a broader participation of different sectors in policymaking, sometimes these spaces have been dominated by male, white English speaking professional wealthy people.
So in that sense, the so called stakeholder democracy can easily become a mechanism of elite privilege that confirms hegemonic power.
By recognizing this type of complexity, I believe is one of the first steps in addressing democratization in the field of action of Internet Governance. Identifying these areas of opportunity to generate greater involvement of participation of different stakeholders.
In particular, for nonprofessionals, for people of color, women, youth, not English speakers, people with disabilities, and others who have never really been heard in many arenas of Internet regulation.
Cultural or hegemonic resistance will have an impact on this way of being ‑‑ like promote the democratization of Internet Governance. The challenge of course, will be how to dismantle it, the political and economic structures that also shape the processes of Internet Governance. And reflections, therefore, also points to the structural conditions. And the basis of global inequality.
Here in Mexico, for many years, we perhaps stopped, for example having the discussions around the local IGFs. This means first, like there are no ‑‑ even debates. Even when we are thinking in a more broader way to discuss different elements and topics that relates, for example, to digital divide, that relates to the power and the monopolies and the digital markets and so on.
And so from the beginning, it's like if we are not having this type of discussions, then the second phase is like how do we start also involving those, for example, local projects that are also being relevant.
And how do we start thinking of expanding this type of discussion. Which sometimes ‑‑ and also to address on this, can get a little bit harder to starting understanding ‑‑ as I was mentioning at the beginning, the complexity.
So that's perhaps something for the first moment, some of the reflections. Like taking into account how we start thinking and start creating different talents and different ways of expanding more from the local, from the regional, and from the international perspective.
And I know that at the IGF and at different ‑‑ in other ‑‑ also, like scenarios and fora, there have been different efforts on this.
But it's still I think a way of really thinking, that this is going to promote some kind of democratization, and the inclusivity of different groups that already historically have been marginalized. Thank you.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: Thank you so much, Vlad, for the overview of Internet Governance, and offering your relevant perspective in regard to the similarities and gaps that we have in comparison with the global north and Global South participation.
And thank you also for talking a bit about the context in Mexico, which is really relevant. And I think that you mentioned it on the language in which we speak in those forums, et cetera.
And I think that you gave us a lot of food for thought to start the session. And now I will pass it over to Nandini Chami from IT for Change. Thank you for joining us. The floor is yours.
>> NANDINI CHAMI: Hello, everyone. I think it is wonderful that we are having this critical discussion today on who is being left behind by Internet Governance. And I will bring some perspectives from the work of my organization, IT for Change. IT for Change is based in India, and we do the search and policy advocacy at the intersections of digital technologies and social change. And our mandate is to promote social justice, Gender Equality, and development justice in the emerging digital economy and society.
Like Vladimir began before me. I agree that when we start answering the question of who's being left behind by Internet Governance, the primary difficulty that we face is embounding the concept of Internet Governance. Increasing socialization of the Internet and the emergence of frontier platform data and AI technologies, it is evident we are no longer talking about the technical cooperation matters in relation to critical Internet resources.
But we are taking about a range of things which is about the structures of the new digital economy and society, and the institutional data and AI order that is emerging.
One thing that I find promising is that in the post‑global digital compact, as laid out by the UN Secretary General in his other agenda report, there is a recognition that any type of global digital cooperation solution that we talk about today needs to discuss not just the questions of universal connectivity and technical cooperation on Internet matters, but equally the respect and promotion of human rights online. The regulation of AI. And the governance of the digital and particularly, the data commons.
And solutions that is proposed about governing the data commons as a global public good.
When we look at this agenda before us and we see whether in shaping this agenda, whose voices are taken into account and who's being left behind. Typically I think the conversation tends to focus on representational diversity in IG forums and in the different fragmented policy forums at the global level where digital governance gets shaped and policy set and so on. But we can't fully answer the question of who is being left behind without looking at the ills of equal footing multi‑stakeholderism as it is practiced in the mainstream digital cooperation space today. Here I would like to reflect on a few things.
There's an analysis of 21 multistakeholder initiatives at the global level connected in the year 2021. And they point out how most of these initiatives are corporate led and this includes IBM, Intel, Cisco, telecom companies. Such as orange, AT&T, e‑commerce giants and cybersecurity providers. And within these 21 multistakeholder initiatives, in this fragmented space of policymaking, it is evident that big tech corporations dominate the various aspects of Internet and data governance conversations today.
Massive commercial gains, and there's direct conflict of interest. Even more varyingly, none of these single MSIs has focused on the contentious issues of binding rules for data. Especially how to govern cross‑border data flows, which is the challenge of our time. And this is quite unsurprising, as any conversation around this will challenge the heart of data extractivism (phonetic) and digital neocolonialism.
More problematic, even as the ills of equal footing multistakeholderism evidence bounds around us. When we look at the proposals in the SG road map for digital cooperation, we found more of the same in the solution.
For instance, in the SD road map for digital cooperation the proposal for a new strategic and empowered high level multistakeholder body that has also come back in the shape of the IGF leadership panel. Which is attempting to set stratification in the categorization of IGF participants into different categories, undermining the forum's original goal of encouraging stakeholder participation. And Civil Society collations such as the just net coalition from the Global South have pointed out the risks in these developments of a parlor capture of the Internet Governance space by powerful, elite corporate voices and agendas.
And I think the biggest problem leading to exclusions of those who are at the margins from Internet Governance today is actually the problem of corporate capture of multistakeholderism, and the gaping Democratic deficit at the global level which we need to actually find solutions to.
Now I come to the question of agendas, because we can't actually understand who's being left behind without actually looking at which agendas are getting left out or excluded from the table. So point 1. When we talk about digital inclusion, most of you may have read about this proposal for the digital development tax, that is supposed to enable connectivity for all. Because the idea is a fund is created within the companies contribution, and there will be universal connectivity. The real question we ought to be asking, is we're not interested in just connectivity to bring more and more users for big tech companies, right? We want meaningful participation in digital community and society. How can workers, farmers in the Global South, pursue new platform and data and AI solutions that they own, which are embedded contextually in their local economies and run in a public cooperativist model. And how do we have such development of the next generation digital innovation that is people centric and not big tech‑centric. I think we're not having this critical conversation, and we have to put it back there into the conversations in the summit of the future.
My second point is about the whole conversations and the proposals for AI regulation. Now I think that when we are talking about a new global AI constitutionalism, there is a very dangerous trend that we see, especially when you observe this debate from the Global South. Where there is an idea that can be a copy‑paste of the European model of how to regulate the data and AI economy, across the entire world.
Now the EU may have looked at the question of human rights and solved it in one way, but in economies in the south, for instance, when you look at the first generation and second generation human rights and how they intersect in the AI economy, complex and ‑‑ notions about how to straddle e ‑‑ the realities of shared use of digital artifacts and community identity. And different types of contextual interpretations may be needed. And we don't really have the room for this in the conversations we are doing right now.
And most critically, when we look at AI and human rights, I think 99% of the conversation gets focused on reducing human rights to civic and political rights. There are second generation, and third generation right, to development. When looking at AI and human rights, we should also be talking about what happens to the right to self determination of the peoples of the Global South to claim the data resources to carve out their own autonomous pathways to development. What about economic self‑determination to people and neocolonialism ‑‑ these agendas are missing from the picture.
I come to my final point. In the global digital compact, and everywhere, if you look in the UN system, especially within the debates on the committee of food security and the World Health Organization, there's the idea that the data commons has to be governed as a global public good. There is a catch here.
If data is a public good and part of the common heritage of mankind and has to flow freely across borders, why is the intelligence that is derived from this global data commons put behind certain intellectual property enclosures? We're not talking about dismantling the existing IP rights regime that allows big tech to control critical sectors of the society and economy. But we want data to flow freely and we think this will lead to an equitable and fair order.
So there is something missing in the analysis. I would say rather than argue for a global digital public good governance model for data, we ought to be looking at a common property, in this regime, where we understand data as refined social knowledge belongs to people and the communities from which it is generated. And then we look at some kind of a commons model recognizing connective equal rights as part of collective self‑determination rights over data sources.
Last but not least. Again, looking at all these facts before us, and we want to look at who's excluded from Internet Governance. I think that what we need to start doing is that in the Internet Governance debate, we need to start from what happens to the farmers, workers and citizens of the Global South who may not be users of the Internet today, but they are implicated in the emerging patterns, because they are data points for this big tech apparatus. And then we need to start thinking about structural exclusion.
I will just stop here. Thank you so much.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: Thank you so much. Excellent. I think that you have addressed social, important topics, that are related to the subject that we're debating today. I think your approach connects to Vladimir's approach.
And you point out really important topics that show that representation, the lack of participation, goes beyond representation itself only. It's related to the materialities of the consequence. And thank you also for approaching the concept of Internet Governance itself. It's something that we have to approach as well in order to think how wide is our debate. And thinking also for approaching neocolonialist relationships and inglobal north relationships ‑‑ and the global north relationships and asymmetries.
We need to think about it from our walls, our territories, from the place we occupy in the world, without copy and paste legislation or regulation from Europe. Thank you so much for that.
And without further ado, I will pass it over to Catalina, that is from Karisma Foundation, based in Colombia. Thank you. The floor is yours.
>> CATALINA MORENO: Hi, thank you very much, Rafaela. Yes maybe my part will be a bit of reputation of what's before. The thing is I brought some examples of what has been happening in Colombia right now. The Internet as a free and decentralized space. One might believe that the Internet is not governed by anyone, or should not be governed by anyone. But we know that not everything is available to everyone in the same way in practice.
So someone makes decisions regarding the Internet. The Internet's technological ‑‑ it shapes the digital environment but also determines the power of various actors. Based on the multistakeholder principle, one would think that in forums, such as the one we're in, where all the relevant actors for Internet decision‑making are included is enough. And if any more, they can be invited.
The truth is that governance goes beyond centralized and formalized institutions such as the ICANN or the Internet Governance Forum, IGF. Internet Governance, rather than a set of institutions and multi‑(?) For discussions is a field of dispute are under the control and management of technology. Governance is run on social coordination according to Hoffman. This means that governance of course, when ways of interacting become problematic and require adjustment. When public criticism flares up or when established procedures lose legitimacy. These critical moments open the windows to the precarious conditions and the social coordination, which more often in than not may be in need of adaptation.
Thinking governance happens in mundane activities allows for real coordination with stakeholders. For example, agreements can be reached on the expectation of privacy to be respected by local governments, or on the legitimacy of the moderation of certain types of content by social platforms in times of elections.
Internet Governance should address issues such as the protection of online privacy and the anonymity of users, the role of private companies that control the Internet infrastructure. The roles of the states. The responsibility of intermediaries. And of course, freedom of expression.
Despite being a tool with huge capabilities to enable the exercise of rights, it can be affected by the development of policies that do not take into account its particular characteristics and the point of view of multiple actors. What has happened in Colombia regarding Internet Governance, what we've seen is that voices and viewpoints of populations directly affected by them do not participate in the debate about the policies. The government has developed for example, first example I have brought is the government has developed communication surveillance systems. The police have the ability to intercept Internet and telephone communication signals.
Colombia's security forces and intelligence agency also have direct access to most Internet traffic surveillance capabilities with the ability not only to capture users communications traffic, but also to take over the target's device, control it, and find everything there is in their vicinity. This technology has been used to monitor the communications of journalists (?) Corruption and human rights defenders. Second example, also during the protest in the previous years, when the Army and police arrived to control the places where people gathered, the Internet seemed now was shut down. It prevented people from reporting excessive use of force and calling for help through social media. Administrative regulation allows signal jammers to ensure public safety without judicial supervision or prior authorization.
The history of armed conflict in which the state has been the perpetrator also of violence has led to need for social leaders, journalists and social rights defenders, generally the target of social conflict by the state. They har rd hardly ‑‑ hardly have a voice in local governance decisions.
Technical training on digital rights. So they would not have maybe technical voice to express if they were to go to these spaces. Both cases are now that I just mentioned are now in the hands of judges. Constitutional court of Colombia waiting for a decision.
My third example would be the digitalization of multiple services thereafter the COVID‑19 pandemic. Right now, we saw that the debate in the Congress on the permanence of the use of justice, only took into account division of lawyers and judicial officials who can easily connect to the Internet and who have equipment to do so.
So no one took into account the people who didn't have any Internet connection or knowledge of technology. In an investigation, we saw how notifications to attend a here hearing ‑‑ a hearing arrived before to indigenous communities a day before. They were not the focus of the digital divide despite being in a country with differences in access to Internet.
As a last example, I would like to mention the way in which traditional human rights organizations interact with social platforms. For the organizations, they are a space for disseminating their work. However, in the research we did recently, it was shown to us that due to the political content they published, undue content moderations. In addition, they also suffer (?) And they did not understand how content was being less or more visible in some cases. As a response, I want to focus on my local ‑‑ I believe to meet these challenges, Civil Society must raise with stakeholders, platforms and states, the (?) Of making decisions behind the back of public interest. It must litigate changes and mobilize people to demand change.
This perspective focuses on the mutual adjustments we make in our daily social life. Under of centering on laws and regulatory structures and enforcement measures governance as an organization highlights the daily practices. Traditional organizations must be aware of the challenges of digital environments in their work and daily lives. Most of their work takes place in territories, what happens on the Internet also matters.
Civil Society must be attendive to developments that affect the Internet in order to receive effective ‑‑ ‑‑ relevant authorities in the creation, implementation of policies. This in turn should go in hand with advocacy actions based on research, and in line with local needs and international (?) On the Internet. Civil Society must also promote and expand local, regional and international support networks to amplify its voice in the defense of human rights in the digital spaces. And pool efforts and knowledge and issues shared among countries.
Authorities also have some obligations. They should develop and implement models of participation that take into account the views of different groups interested in the Internet, such as Civil Society, academia and technical community. Broadening the discussion to these groups will increase legitimacy of the policisto implement ‑‑ some Internet Governance issues are being decided by the judges. Capacity should be strengthened, especially in relationship to understanding the Internet, that a line of judicial interpretation of consistent with international human rights standards applicable to the Internet.
That would be all. Thank you very much.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: Thank you so much, Catalina. I think that you brought, you shared some specific topics and approaches that help us a lot in thinking about the subject. Thank you for sharing the context in Colombia. It is really important to get to know the scenario in the countries. Especially considering the social protests that you have mentioned that have been carried out over the last years in the country.
The thing about surveillance and authorities is also really relevant when we debate Internet Governance. And also the advocacy strategies, the strategic litigation issues are are also really important. It's a thing we carry out in Brazil and other countries as well.
Thank you so much for sharing this. I think that all interventions, all the topics that you as speakers have raised are complementary, are really important to have a wider perspective and debate on the subject that we have been trying to address today.
And I would like to ask Afia, that is kindly helping us on‑site. I don't know if we have some on‑site intervention right now? Because we would like to debate a little bit with attendees. If attendees would like to raise questions or share best practice related to engagement of different groups. Internet debate. We would be more than happy to listen to those inputs.
And we also are here to listen to and interact with online attendees as well. I don't know if you have on‑site interventions?
>> AFIA FAITH: Yes. I have one.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: Great. Please go ahead.
>> Thank you, Joseph from the University of Oslo and the basic Internet foundation. I very much appreciate your inputs to the different policies. I would just ask you, and perhaps comment on the challenge of really connecting everyone on earth, which for me is the first starting point before we talk about the other starting points.
So in the relation of policies versus capability of access, do you really believe that our current Internet is going to reach out to rural areas in the Global South?
>> Thank you very much. I'm from Nigeria. I've attended discussion about Internet Governance since, to focus more on getting people on the table. But overlooking the fact that when people are on the table, what they say is informed by this unexperienced and participation in technology production and (?)
In Africa, governments, Civil Society, and private sector, our participation is constrained. We are not involved in the production of technology. We are merely consumers of devices that are produced in other parts of the world.
And so if people ‑‑ private sector in those countries. Users of a general sector, you know, can participate effectively, because they are key players. They produce the technology.
Our private sector is completely outside of this discussion. Our governments are not fully relatable about the production systems and so forth. So in that context, in fact, there is the tendency that digital divide is profitable for other actors.
And therefore, whatever discussion we do, it will not substantively address the issue of the gaps. I think that we have to find a way in which we can democratize the issue of technology production and not just the issue of consumption. Because much of the discussion we do is about access and use and not about how countries in developing ‑‑ in the global south can own or reproduce technology.
So I'm wondering how that differential in terms of participation impacts on the systemic and divisions and formats that get out of the various discussion about the global governance of the Internet. Thank you.
>> Hello, everybody. I'm Renaldo from Brazilian youth delegate. I would like to make a comment about exactly the construction and participation in the debates from an intersectional perspective. Which permits not only the construction of poverty and inequality in the north and south/eastern west context, but in the understanding of those who participate in the procedures that builds the base and rules for GY. Intersectionality in this case could be applied in the perception that there are inequalities in the face of representations, which as a rule, exclude people by virtue of their color and sexuality. And make the processes only represented by a perspective that analyzes the privileged space of man, white, and from the global north making the figure of especially, black woman, (?) Activity, through a perspective of social binaryism, invisible. In my bill, those who are left aside are those poles that do not align with the white male normative highlighted in the decision‑making flows. And I believe this needs to be worked for the development of a more plural Internet and accessible for everyone. As a matter of fact, I want to see the opinion of you on this space building and how do you see the space of intersectionality on the building and proposal of a new ‑‑ of multisector ‑‑ sorry, multisecteral space ‑‑ multisectoral space in Internet.
>> AFIA FAITH: Thank you. There's no more question for now. Thank you.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: OK. Thank you so much for your interventions. We have a lot to think about. We don't have the expectation of being exhaustive with a one hour session. Actually, the debate that should be carried out also afterwards. And thank you so much for your interventions.
I would like to check to see if we have someone that is participating online here that would like to raise anything, ask some questions, or share anything?
If not, I think that we can pass it over to our speakers. It's a one‑hour session. So we have nine minutes. Sorry for that.
And I think that our speakers can react and share their perspectives. Be reminded, ask the questions, that were raised and also share a few final words related to the participation here. Just to, I don't know, sorry about that. But I think that's the best way to finish.
So I will proceed over to Catalina right now, please.
>> CATALINA MORENO: OK. Maybe I will address just a question regarding the digital divide and the regional areas, if they can be effectively connected. That's the goal. I mean what I believe is that's the goal. And related to the topic of this panel, what I would say is that the decisions regarding their connection should be addressed by them. I mean they should have a boat there so, that would be my main take. That's the goal. In Colombia, it is said to be completed by 2030. It is still like, so far away.
So right now, they depend on just mobile connections and really slow connections and net neutrality, these kind of policies, to get their connections. So the goal is that one. We don't know if it's going to be real, but they should be taking into account when making decisions. And also, the impacts of policy regarding the digitalization of services should take into account also this digital divide.
So that would be my take on all the questions that were asked.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: OK. Great, thank you so much, Catalina. And I think that I will pass it over to Nandini to share any impressions that you have.
>> NANDINI CHAMI: Thank you. Two quick points. On the comment that we should be talking about is not the divide in access to connectivity, but it's about the divide in the digital infrastructural capabilities and prediction power, I couldn't agree more. I think that's the conversation we should be having.
And we should be looking at how to effectively use official development assistance routes to build digital economies autonomous in the Global South and how we can enable the economic development in the Global South.
I have a second point and this points to the comment from the representative from the Brazilian youth delegation. I absolutely agree when we are talking about technological design we should ensure we are not going with the mainstream white heteronormative perspectives that get hedgemonized. It's easy to get ‑‑ actors from the south have long warned how you see this rainbow capitalism, where you will get pride march doodle or a photoal filter. But when it ‑‑ photofilter. But effective accountability for gender based hate or standing up for women's rights, corporations are not going to be there.
So in terms of how to further progress politics of gender, I think we have to be very clear that the market is not an easy ally, a mixed ally. So I'll just stop with that.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: Thank you so much, Nandini. And now pass it over to Vladimir, to share your impressions.
>> VLADIMIR CORTES: Thank you. And I really appreciate all the comments from those who are on‑site. Thank you very much for your questions and reflections and comments. I will just perhaps leave a small ‑‑ might contribute, a little bit controversial around digital divide. But also ask ‑‑ that's something we're seeing here in Mexico. Those who doesn't will and doesn't want to be connected. When we are thinking about digital divide, there's like this idea that everyone has to be connected and that everyone and the rural communities have to be connected. Sometimes perhaps it's just slowing down and thinking about the way they want, indigenous communities for example, in Mexico, and other type of communities.
They are thinking about Internet and thinking about being connected, and thinking about taking part also in this more broader discussions around Internet Governance. Because that's the first steps about how they are imagining and why they're imagining to be connected in terms of their needs. In terms of their beliefs. In terms of their vision. In terms of their linguistic and cultural approaches.
So that's just like to slightly have like a different perspective. And finally, and related to the last two comments, definitely there is a way of thinking from the Global South in terms of the counterhegemonic resistance. That it's like a vital sign for robust democracy.
And I also share the points of Nandini. It's not just about inclusivity and in terms of bringing those voices. But in terms of the agendas that we are seeing and being in place. For labor movements, from feminist ‑‑ from an ‑‑ intersectionality, is something that should also be put in place. And having these conversations. Again, not just about bringing those voices, but actually thinking on these movements to dismantle it. As was mentioned, the economical powers and other forums that dominate part of the conversations. Thank you.
>> RAFAELA DE ALCANTARA: Yes, thank you so much for your interventions. I would like to take this opportunity to take those final minutes to thank you so much. Thank you to the attendees for the interventions, for being here today. Thank you to our speakers for sharing such important inputs.
Because I think that the problem shows itself like a complex one. And we have to think beyond simple relationships between big tech and consumers. We have a lot to think, because intersectionality is something that goes beyond not only participation, and some in participation, there's not meaningful.
And we also have to think from the territories and not from the companies and from what the companies are imposing in regard to connectivity. And connection to the Internet. It was a really great session. Thank you so much for the perspective that have shared.
They will help us a lot in our work as well. And we're at your disposal for anything. On behalf of ARTICLE 19 Brazil, I would like to thank you all. And thank you so much.
I think that we should end right now, because the time. We are facing the one hour that we have. And thank you so much.
And we keep in touch, I hope. It was really meaningful for us.