IGF 2022 Day 4 WS #411 Move Fast and Fix Policy! Advocacy in an era of rapid change – 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.



>> DANIEL OMALEY:  Good morning, everyone. We're going to go ahead and get started. It's now 9:30 here in Addis Abada. I am Dandelion Kenya. I am the senior digital governance specialist from the Center for International Media Assistance, and it's my honor to be moderating this panel move fast and fix policy. So often we hear move fast and break things from Silicon Valley, but here we want to move fast and fix things.

  48 countries have given policy directives or aims at political engagement online. According it research from freedom house. Everything from content modification data protection disinformation laws. Change in the digital policy landscape is changing as policymakers try to implement laws as quickly as possible. We see this in the UN with the focus on the global digital compact, UNESCO's regulatory framework.

  As input becomes increasingly difficult for stakeholder groups to provide meaningful input at the nation and regional level.

  Small changes in one policy area can have ripple effects in other seemingly distant areas. So my institute works on media development, and digital media sustainability, and we see changes to content moderation can have broad impacts on how media outlets work, for example.

  Moreover, the policy discussions we are having are often dominated by typically two stakeholders. Governments have a really big role in this, particularly the active governments in this space. The U.S., EU. And then also big tech. And so without broad based multistakeholder engagement, infringe upon internationally recognized human rights and might not accommodate the context in which these policies are implemented.

  First, to identify the problem and then how it impacts different sectors but then to think about what success stories exist and how we can improve a democratic policymaking process.

  This has been organized for the open Internet for democracy. The National Democratic Institute, and the Center for International Private Enterprise. The goal of the initiative is to foster Democratic engagement from all sectors of society.

  Through Democratic digital governance democracy will thrive in the digital age. Today's session is going to follow as such. We'll start with the moderated conversation with our four esteemed panelists. That conversation will last about 20 minutes, and I've asked paneliststo keep interventions brief so it will be more like a dynamic conversation. Then we'll open the floor to questions and comments from those of you in the audience on site and online. And Morgan Frost, my colleague is our online moderator.

  She will be moderating the Zoom chat, and I'll be moderating the in‑person audience here. And I want to thank the in‑person audience here, especially because this is the first session of the last day of the 2022 IGF. So you are the hardcore Internet Governance believers. And I'm sure we'll have more people trickle in.

  But I think it will be a great conversation. Mira Milosevic is the Executive Director at the Brussels based Global Forum for Media Development. She authored the world press trends report, the most authoritative global source of data analysis on newspaper industry.

  Served as the chief platform officer at Indy voices and director of bell grade based media center.

  Constance Bommelaer who I hope has joined the call but may have not logged on yet. Is the Executive Director at project liberty McCourt Institute. The mission to ensure that digital governance is prioritized in new technology.

  Started at the French Prime Minister service on information society issues and then joined Internet Society as vice president of institutional relations and empowerment.

  Notably, she was a part of the Internet technical advisory committee to the OECD, in 2013, helped UNESCO develop their Internet governance strategy.

  And she has served on a number of committees including on the IGF's MAC.

  Catalina Moreno is a lawyer leading the digital rites department at ARTICLE 19 in eastern Africa. She leads implementation of various projects aimed at online free expression and open Internet. Previously was digital rights lead ‑‑ rights respecting legislative frameworks.

  And she's also worked on ‑‑ helped written the data protection laws and policies in Kenya, the national and subnational levels and worked on digital safety and security and online violence.

  And Paola Galvez, Peruvian lawyer navigating the intersection of law and technology for over ten years. Currently studying a master of public policy at the University of Oxford. And served as a strategic adviser.

  And previously advised big tech companies on their public policy strategies in Peru. So a lot of experience there.

  And she has given class at the University of Lima and coordinated impactful initiatives as the head of audit and has been engaged a lot at UN IGF youth observatory. And the youth IGF movement.

  Those are our speakers and we'll get it kicked off now, and I'll throw a first question to Mira Milosevic. And I think one of the first things that we want to talk about is, you know, what do you see the challenge of this accelerating digital policy space, particularly from your sector.

  And also, thinking about it from a regional perspective if you like as well. What are the challenges that are facing the news media sector in this accelerating digital policy space? 

  >> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  Good morning from Scotland. And thank you, Dan and everyone for joining us this morning, afternoon, night. Whenever you are calling in. ‑‑ wherever you are calling in from.

  A bit of a background on what the GFMD is doing. We're a network of more than 150 organizations in more than 50 countries around the world. And we're different organizations from the perspective of Internet Governance, we have small fact tracking organizations. Policy organizations such as ARTICLE 19 here with us today. And we have organizations that promote press freedom and media development support to journalism.

  All over the world, such as investigative journalism network. So we have different policy interests and different, also advocacy targets and goals within our own network. We are seen as a neutral partner to all of our ‑‑ both members, but also partners that we cooperate with around advocacy and policy.

  And that gives us a really privileged role in many processes. For instance, in the European Union, we facilitate something called EU media advocacy group and exchange. Where different advocacy organizations come together to exchange views.

  And this is very precious for us over the last three years. Even the organizations with different points of view have come together to discuss major policy and regulatory developments.

  We are also a Secretariat for the dynamic coalition here at the IGF dynamic coalition for sustainability of news and journalism. That also gives us a very interesting view of different conversations around the world.

  And if I have to single one of the challenges that we are particularly facing as a community gathered around freedom of expression, journalism and media. It is 20 years ago, journalism and media had an established system of sustainability.

  And there was no need, especially for established incumbents, or media organizations to develop strong policy around the world that will look at whether they will exist in the future.

  I mean we are now talking about the very existence of journalism online. And so what we are facing is almost a huge gap in capacity knowledge, tradition of developing a ‑‑ challenging and large policy and regulatory piece that we are seeing today all around the world.

  So we are seeing lack of experience, lack of evidence, lack of research. Lack of understanding implications, as you were saying, of different policy pieces and decisions.

  On the other hand, we already have some very interesting example and successes around how collective action is contributing to good policy. And I can talk about that.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Yes, we'll get to that. Perfect. I think that's a really interesting and good point from the media sector. We're in a situation where some of these global conversations, before the Internet, you didn't have to engage in that. So this is a new space for many of the sectors and means we have to build our muscles and capacities learning about mechanisms exist. Catalina Moreno, could you answer the same question?  I know you worked a lot on data policy and protection in eastern Africa. What's your perspective of this digital policy environment and the challenges faced from your legal perspective and your regional perspective? 

  >> CATHERINE WANJIRU MUYA:  I'm going to start with an example that happened this week. This week, connecting with the journalistic (?) With the data protection act. Our data protection act allows the commission to set up guidelines that would guide the media industry and how to navigate that act. So we were speaking to a group of journalists, just to understand, an interpretation of this act.

  We were speaking to some of the senior editors and media houses in Kenya, and their perspective was this act is good for everyday users, but it's really cumbersome for an editor, because then it creates a level of compliance that they have to deal with every time they're passing a story or things like that. There were examples of things that had erroneously gone on print. There was an obituary, where there wasn't supposed to be.

  So for them it's an added layer of compliance that they don't know or don't have an idea of. I think because many regulations are coming up within the digital space, sometimes it might be difficult for media practitioners to actually keep up with those legislations and to actually be continuously aware of the contents of this legislation, which then makes it very difficult to conduct the work.

  But it also may or may not enhance a good environment for media practice. And a good environment for freedom of expression in this sense.

  So for example, a lot of the eastern African countries have cybercrime legislations. Mostly involve offenses of speech. We've seen and documented a lot of the use of this legislation to restrict what press can print. For example, around COVID, there was regulations around statistics that you could print for COVID.

  Or COVID cases. Which sometimes are used to restrict what media personalities or media entities in this sense could print. And also there's a criminalization of publications, so with the offenses, it becomes very difficult that you might actually print something and it becomes a liability for yourself. Especially because in the media space, you might have people who are within an institution and freelancers.

  So what we've come to understand is that the freelance media practitioners in this sense are more vulnerable than other people who have to go through. Editors and institutional‑based approval.

  So I think in the sense, the point I'm trying to make is there may be different legislations that come up, create layers of compliance that might not necessarily be known to media practitioners.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you. That's really good to bring a concrete example of what this means. We see this a lot from cyber crimes developed from certain sectors of government, but not thinking of other sectors of society. Another example of why multistakeholder discussions and inclusion of others is important to building this policy.

  Paulo, with your perspective, you have been in a number of different seats working as a strategicic adviser to the government of Peru, and I believe working with financial institutions prior to that in Peru that worked in the digital space. And now as an academic. So from these different vantage points, how do you see this current environment and how are things taking shape?  Particularly in the Latin American context? 

  >> PAOLA GALVEZ:  Sure. First of all, good morning, good afternoon, good night to everyone that are joining this conversation. Definitely insightful. Something we need to discuss.

  And thank you for the invitation to the organizers of this session. Definitely, all the bills that we have been discussing. Actually I started in this world when I was working in Microsoft ten years ago. They are very different, and I can see the approach of the government.

  And even in the Congress, it's different. Unfortunately, I cannot say that the teams involved in preparing these drafts, in working on the regulation have more knowledge on the digital ecosystem and how it works and how they are embracing multistakeholderism. Unfortunately, I don't see that yet.

  And I can even speak, because I've been working in the Peruvian government until September this year. And it's difficult to change the cultural mindset when they consider that the government has the only view.

  Even though these topics are so new and evolving so fast, right?  As the name of the session says, we need to move fast, but it doesn't mean we need to do it on our own when we're speaking from the government perspective.

  And even when I was working for the private sector in law firm, I could say there were intentions to bring to the conversation Civil Society, universities. But that was not enough. And actually, now that I'm in the University of Oxford, with more time to actually reflect on what I've done, there's something that I would improve, right? 

  Which means (no audio)).

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  I think we may have a challenge with Paola's audio. Are we connect would the other Zoom speakers? 

  >> Yes.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Unfortunately, Paulo was cut off there. But I think that was an interesting point about her experience.  Even over the last ten years. We have seen lots of advances in the discussion around digital governance. But the shift in ‑‑

  >> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  Paulo is back.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Oh, OK. Sorry, Paulo.

  >> PAOLA GALVEZ:  I'm so sorry.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  No, go ahead.

  >> PAOLA GALVEZ:  Even in the UK we have these problems with connectivity. I will wrap up briefly then so we can move on.

  What I was trying to say is I reflect that building trust and having meaningful relations with all the stakeholders and try to build a map of stakeholders in an unbiassed way is key. I didn't realize that first. So when we tried to approach the stakeholders or tried to build work and roundtables, workshops, that's very practical.

  But first, we need to do it a step backwards and say, OK, how am I building trust with my stakeholders and in parallel, how to look in new stakeholders or at the underrepresented ones. Because in my case I would always invite the typical NGOs, but there are more, and actually ‑‑ (audio cut)


  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  I think unfortunately, we've had another disconnection with Paulo.

  >> PAOLA GALVEZ:  Yeah, I will connect from my phone, I'm really sorry.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  OK.  Try joining again, and we'll continue and get back to you, and you'll be able to make your point. I'm now going to turn to Constance who I'm really glad has joined our Zoom session. The question we're talking about now is just kind of understanding the challenge in the current scenario of the accelerated kind of digital policy space. And Constance, you have one of the most ‑‑ your resumé is really impressive in terms of developing different monitoring and mechanisms tools and engagement tools. And I was wondering if you could tell us a bit about your perspective at the McCourt Institute, about what you see as the challenge in this space.

  And yeah. Thank you.

  >> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Thank you. And apologies for joining a little late. I had a few technical glitches to address.

  So from my perspective, and you know, coming from ‑‑ I started my career working for the French government and then spent some time at the Internet Society working on multistakeholder policy processes. I also worked at UNESCO, and now I've just joined the McCourt Institute.

  What I have been able to observe is that the key ingredient ‑‑ and I think Paulo mentioned it, is trust. The difficulty for the different stakeholders in charge of developing policies. Whether they are from the public sector, whether they are from the private sector, is that either they're going to face the difficulty on the government side to fully understand.

  To be exactly at the same speed, pace, than those developing technologies. The challenge for industry is to be able to convey the idea that they are absolutely impartial in proposing policy regulations. Or policy frameworks.

  And hence, the conclusion I would read is that it's important to have structures out there who are perfectly inclusive when it comes to having representatives from Civil Society, consumers associations, youth, academia.

  But also, and Paulo mentioned this, the importance of having representatives from maybe other countries than the usual suspects. Countries who have individuals who might be the next leaders of SMEs in specific tech markets.

  And so on and so forth.

  The importance of offering impartial platforms that are scientifically backed up. So they're able to produce rigorous work. And who therefore, are able to offer a forum that is providing trust and confort to all stakeholders ‑‑ comfort to all stakeholders who come together. Internet Governance Forum is a great example, under the auspice of the United Nations.

  But the auspice is totally open, bottom‑up, grassroots, and it has technical, industry, policy leaders at the table. I think that's why it's very interesting to see the development of these best practice forums, recommendations progressively coming out of the Internet Governance Forum.

  At the McCourt Institute, which is still a quite new organization, this is our goal. It is to work in partnership with academia. We have founding partners in Paris and Georgetown University in the U.S., and we will be expanding progressively the set of academic partners we would like to work with.

  And based on the findings of this actionable research, practical research, that we are supporting. Our goal is going to be to engage a wide set, a multistakeholder community, to reflect on tomorrow's policy.

  But also technical governance when it comes to web 3.

  So to wrap up, I think the key ingredient is obviously going to be trust. And it's important to participate, to support, to create some impartial platforms, such as the Internet Governance Forum. Such as the McCourt Institute that we are building, in partnership.

  And under the auspices of a broader project called Project Liberty. But there are other multistakeholder platforms out there. I will challenge a little bit what you said, Paulo, because I come from the government side at the very beginning of my career.

  The culture is evolving. The public sector leaders are now fully aware of the necessity to include industry, Civil Society, at the table, to see able to produce effective policies. But also policies that are going to be legitimate. The OBCD is an example, created a permanent seat for the technical and academic community. The Internet Governance is another example.

  We're seeing progressively, governmental structures. It's, I think in a law in Brazil, that there needs to be a multistakeholder council for Internet issues. We're seeing these public structures open up in a more systematic way to multistakeholder input.

  And we're also seeing on the industry side, a higher level of awareness on the need to fully include consumers, policymakers, in whatever technologies and governance mechanisms they're developing.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great, thank you, Constance. That's really interesting perspectives on how governments are or are not evolving. That's really interesting. I want to now turn to Catalina Moreno, on the same topic of maybe we call them success stories or examples of inclusionary processes with sectors that have more challenges in being engaged. I know that Catherine, you've been involved with private sector bodies like the Kenya private sector alliance, the technology service provider of Kenya organization.

  And I'm wondering if you could talk a bit about your experiences recently there, and also, your take on this question of how governments and how different stakeholders are evolving in this space.

  >> CATHERINE WANJIRU MUYA:  Thank you. I wanted to give an example of private sector and how they engage in policymaking, whereas under represented groups such as Civil Society and other underrepresented groups have engaged with different regulators.

  We have the Kenya private sector alliance, KPSA, an alliance of telecommunication providers.

  ISPs. And my surprise is how easy it is for these groups to access mostly regulators, to access members of the executive, and to present on policy positions. And also how seriously government takes these policy positions when they're presented.

  So if you have a bill, and you have cributions let's ‑‑ contributions from Civil Society, let's say, and from private sector, the overall reception from government is different. And I think mostly it's also because of trust, but also because of, I don't know, maybe economic value that the governments ‑‑ you know, maybe we should really look at this. So when CAPSA raises ‑‑ KPSA raises an issue, then it takes it a little more seriously than if civil service raises an issue. We have seen private sector working with Civil Society to present certain things, like on issues such as data protection, and cross‑cutting issues such as copyright legislation.

  The idea here is then what can Civil Society also learn from different bodies, like KPSA. For me, it was the need for collaboration, even amongst different stakeholder groups, and also within a stakeholder group. Because KPSA is a private (?) Body.

  We've seen certain results. For example, in legislation or challening legislation such as the (?) In Kenya, and really just engaging the government and getting the government to listen, because they all work together as stakeholders.

  And more or less exploiting their different strengths exploiting the different strengths of different organizations. But also I wanted to say the involvement of communities, also sometimes gets legislators to listen.

  And what I mean is earlier this year, I was appearing in parliament, and it was about the copyright bill in Kenya. A proposed amendment ‑‑ there was provisions around revenue sharing for artists and something that ‑‑ when somebody is calling you ‑‑ there's the revenue shared between the actors and the telecommunication company.

  So what I noticed, that really moved legislators is the fact that these artists came together and were able to demonstrate to the legislatures how this legislation was affecting them. And because there was a particular community being affected by this legislation they were able to move parliament. That was passed with minimal objections.

  It's important to bring the stakeholders who might be underrepresented, who might not have that capacity, but just bring them in to voice their own concerns about certain legislations, which obviously sometimes leads to better results. Those are a bit of my takes.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Thank you, Catherine. I'm going to turn next to Mira, but I want to remind the audience we'll open it up for questions. On‑site here in Addis and our participants online.

  So Mira, I know you're already interested in telling us about some success stories. I thought the example Catherine mentioned was really interesting. It does seem once something has happened you can bring a community that's been affected and advocate for change.

  But I think one of the things we also need to go about is how do we proactively think about these to mitigate, even if they're minor challenges in advance. I think of the work you and I have done on media. A lot of these things, already in place, they're hard to undo, even if they're a sympathetic community in terms of the community producing high quality journalism. So I wonder if you could talk a bit about some success stories and lessons learned from your experience working in the digital governance space.

  >> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  Yes, and thank you Dan and to my colleagues who have mentioned some very important points. And there is a lot to unpack. Just linking to something that was said around mapping and looking who's out there and those kind of coalitions of Civil Society or other types of stakeholders that come together in certain situations.

  So one of the big learnings that we have had over the last couple of years, especially with the EU media advocacy group, that it's very important to create a space for different stakeholders to come together on a permanent basis.

  So it's not enough to come together when something happens and just do it last minute. And so having this space that gathers around different subjects and creates this trust over time, even between stakeholders that have different opinions.

  So what are we facing?  For instance, we had a successful example of anti‑ads tracking coalition in Europe. It was successful in terms of managing to get to their policy, attitudes, into the digital services act.

  And Europe is the first region where tracking will be limited. And there are areas, especially around the minors, where this is going to be implemented almost fully.

  But at the same time, there are media organizations that were against this. Thinking that this will limit their ability to earn money. So it was very important to have a space where you understand media associations that came together and said, you know, this is the argument that we have.

  Now we have a similar situation around the European media freedom act that is being drafted in Europe. And it's really important for us to have a space where different organizations like digital rights organizations, come and say, well, we see this as a media exemption, as a potential backdoor for misinformation to come in. And then big media associations are coming and saying well, this is the first time that press will have statutory regulation in Europe.

  And this can be a dangerous precedent for non‑governments that are not friendly to journalism and media, to establish mediation of the press, that traditionally in Europe was always self‑regulated. So there's so many nuances and details, even within the smallest pieces of regulation that are coming in.

  And we need to understand that having this space, is first to have different stakeholders with different opinions, where they can safely and with confidence, discuss these issues, very important. This takes time, resources, energy, and persistence.

  The second thing is to map and know where these expertise live regionally. So if you come from other regions, you know that there is a fantastic case coalition, against (?) In Europe, that can also give for instance, different experiences to our colleagues around the world.

  And then finally, of course, for all these multistakeholder processes, not only to open the space to Civil Society, but to empower it. To give resources. And also to understand that Civil Society as well comes with different shades and colors and traditions.

  And that we need to listen to all these voices to be able to create policy and eventually some pieces of regulation that work. Both for users, both for media. And journalists. And other parts of our societies.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great, thank you, Mira. I just want to ‑‑ you made a really excellent point about even within one stakeholder group, for example, the media associations, there can be differences of opinion. And I want to put in a plug for the dynamic coalition for the sustainability of news [and|I] journalism, because that is one of the permanent places. It's an IGF working group where we discuss these different issues and different media organizations, have their own perspectives about what needs to be done in the digital space. It's really important for us to engage in those conversations. Anyone online or in the audience is interested in learning more, you can approach me. I'm one of the co‑coordinators of that DC.

  I want to come now to Paulo. And I know you have lot of experience working from a government angle, working with Civil Society, and you have ideas about what works and how to build trust. One thing I have also heard from parliamentitarians, is oftentimes they feel that Civil Society comes to them with a package or thing that they want. It becomes for parliamentitarians or policymakers ‑‑ ‑‑ as we often hear that Civil Society society is excluded, which is the case many times, I have also heard it from the other side of the coin that parliamentarians feel they have to rubber stamp whatever Civil Society brings them. You have a unique position there to think about that.

  So I'm wondering about your experiences on what works and also on that question. Because it's really important that we work with like‑minded human rights respecting parliamentarians and governments.

  >> PAOLA GALVEZ:  Definitely. Thank you for the question. Actually in Peru, we have had the most proposals from the Congress rather than Executive Branch, where I was serving. But it was my task to discuss with the Congressmen and their team how to improve these proposals.

  I didn't have this reaction to be completely honest. However, they would like their proposal to be as it was drafted. However, the multistakeholder recently understood it was important, and actually, the detailed transformation system in Peru ‑‑ sorry, the approval of these regulations, must be done under a multistakeholder approach.

  So following the law, we always make roundtables. But it was done, and they're a neutral actor. And this is what Constance mentioned. In Peru, we held these meetings in a university. So academia was the host of the meeting.

  To discuss some proposals. And when I was discussing with Civil Society society, NGOs, they would say they felt more comfortable in that place, rather than in going to Congress. Because it would imply that for them sometimes, they were looking for specific opinions, but not what really the NGO could complement to the regulation.

  So actually, work very well. However, to bring more NGOs, even the small ones. I remember once I want to have the boys of LGBTQ+ community, were not always included. It was better to call them through a big Civil Society organization that had already established a bill, a trust with them.

  So the big NGO was the one that called a small Civil Societies. And also for having SMEs at the table, which for me was very important, I would call the ‑‑ it's called the Peruvian SME association. And they would call to other small chambers. Because it's a matter of trust. Actually that's what I was assuming.

  How can I summarize that?  If you build the relationship, engagement, with them, they will come and they will return their insights.

  I would say that most of the bills in Peru were not approved because the crisis in Peru may sometimes, and these bills take a lot of process. And it changes.

  The congressional term. But these discussions also help for the next bills to be presented. That's my two cents, Dan, on this topic.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great, thank you, Paulo. That's really interesting. I also think that's interesting about that point. I never thought about how you can have a larger, more well established Civil Society organizations reach out to the lesser established. So that's a part of a process, you know? 

  And that could be addressed. I want to now turn to Constance. Because you have so much experience building these kind of mutual mechanisms. I was wondering, we have talked a number of situations about Europe, and I was wondering what type of success stories you've seen in other regions in this regard, and what other points maybe in addition to the points that our other panelists have talked about.

  Academies, neutral mechanisms, permanent engagement. What other things might you add to the list in terms of moving fast and fixing policy? 

  >> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  Well, thank you for the question. I was very intrigued to see over the years that some of these open, multistakeholder processes actually were put in place in countries where the digital economy was not necessarily the most rapidly developed.

  I mentioned Brazil previously. We've had the example of Kenya. So just to point to the fact that you have very inspiring examples of Agile and inclusive mechanisms who stem from different places in the world.

  And it's sometimes a good source of inspiration, I think. And a good example setting for some of the most developed digital economies of the world. The second aspect is I think the cultural change that we've been talking about. I'm convinced it's emotion.

  And I've seen it, because 20 years ago, you know, laws were not developed in a systematically open multistakeholder fashion. There were no institutionalized channels for Civil Society to come and share concerns, thoughts. For industry to come in a systematic way.

  And now these platforms, these channels, he's fora, are multiplying, whether it's at the national or international level. And I think that's very good, and I think it's ongoing effort.

  It's something we're going to have to continue nurturing, asking for, improving. One aspect I would highlight, and that I don't think was mentioned yet, is that it's not enough to simply open channels of communication, to have good policies, good governance mechanisms, good technical governance stemming either from industry or governments.

  It's very important for the different stakeholders to actually be educated. To be equipped with the knowledge that's going to be necessary to fully understand what's at stake. And in this regard, the different platforms, that we've been talking about, Internet Governance Forum, McCourt Institute we're building today with project liberty. But there are others out there, Internet society, that has done tremendous work over the past 20, 25 years.

  In addition to that, I think these organizations in parallel to facilitating inclusive processes asking for open channels, highlighting the importance of multistakeholder dialogues for technically and scientifically grounded regulations. It's important that we also concentrate some of our efforts and resources in empowering people very concretely, through e‑learning programs, through fellowships, with briefing sessions with parliamentarians.

  Any action that can equip from a knowledge point of view, those who need to make decisions tomorrow, I think is going to be equally important, in an impartial way, opening from an institutional point of view, the possibility, the channels for different stakeholders to contribute.

  Otherwise, all of our multistakeholder processes are going to be simply cosmetic. So for me, it's very important to advance on both fronts. Empowering individuals, and we could also talk about how to reform educational systems for youth. That's equally important than actually equipping policymakers or parliamentarians.

  And in parallel, continuing to open up these multistakeholder channels.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you, Constance. I'm glad that you're seeing positive movement in this space. And I fully agree with you that we need to make sure the stakeholders aren't just present, but also informed and being able to engage. Especially as there are more of these processes out there, it can also be a lot of time and energy, so we need to dedicate resources and capacities.

  We now have one question from the online chat. I was wondering if anyone in the room has a question. We have one question here. We'll go ahead and Morgan, are you going to read the question from the chat, and then we'll take the question from the audience.

  >> MORGAN FROST:  Sure. Thank you, Dan. We have one question from Guy Berger. He is also microblogging the great discussion, thank you, Guy. He's provided his information in the chat where he's doing that. Encourage everyone to take a look.

  The contrary view to shaping policy catch‑up to tech industry development is that policy can incentivize and enable this development with requirements, like risk assessments, safety why design, transparency and resourcing. In other words, policy, that is by definition, behind. But sets the guardrails at the same time. So if you have any comments around that, Guy is really interested in learning your thoughts. Thanks.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Thank you. We'll go to this question and then we'll throw that to our panelists.

  >> Hi, Helani from Learn Asia. Policy is in the initial making of the policy, interactive or catching up with what's going on. But I think another role is also the feedback loop when things are not working. So I think both are part of the policymaking process.

  And we rarely pay attention to that course correction and the feedback loop. And there's real opportunities, I think for multistakeholder engagement. That's just a comment.

  The question really ‑‑ I mean I came to this session, because it was nicely titled move fast fix policy. So there's been a lot of stuff about the process of engagement, but what is the answer to speed?  We do need to get that done fast.

  And I personally don't know of one. I mean we work in policy windows, and the only solution is to have built up a long‑term cadre of people at international and local level who can engage when a sudden policy window opens up. So there's a speed element there.

  And to having the done the research so you have your guns lined up when the window is open and you go. That's trained people, that's governmental capacity, the networks to connect. All of that

  So that's certainly one part of the solution, but how do we address the issue of speed?  I really haven't heard anything about speed from the panel. Thank you.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you for both those questions. We'll take those. And I want to see who on our panel would want to address the question from Guy about how do we build things that aren't just the guide rails once things go on. The feedback loop, and speed, which is important. How do we address that?  Any takers from the panel?  Mira? 

  >> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  Yes. Thank you, Guy. And I haven't caught the name of our colleague from Learn Asia? 

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Helani Galpay (phonetic).

  >> MIRA MILOSEVIC:  Thank you for the question. Excellent one. And I think they're connected, actually. So to Guy's question, in terms of catching up. I think that we're not only catching up, but we are participating in policy and regulatory framework that I think is mostly set up by the big companies. What do I mean?  Is all these conversations and what we are putting in motion, are not fundamentally challenging the systems and architecture, and also the business model of the platforms in place.

  So there are bits and pieces that are being done. And so in terms of risk assessments, I think they're crucial, and safety by design, of course. But then when it comes to transparency, it's also very important to look behind the transparency reports and what is meaningful transparency for different groups.

  For instance, in terms of journalism and media, transparency that we're getting from platforms at the moment, is not meaningful. Because we can't desegregate transparency reports around certain groups, and then you will have our colleagues from online coalition against online violence towards women journalists, that were also talking here at the IGF. Looking at how this particular group is severely affected online, but there is no meaningful transparency from platforms to address this.

  There are no mechanisms to act quickly and fast as the colleague is saying. So I don't think it's a question only of speed. I think it's a question of scale. And having space not only to have these nitty‑gritty discussions, but having big questions posed and big discussions had.

  So I think the big question that is coming up in the conversations at the moment is how do we address the question of moderation and regulating platforms at scale and not on a case by case basis?  There are two articles I really like at the moment. One is from Evelyn Duic, and I'll post the link. Called quantum moderation assistance thinking. I think that this is the framework that actually, we have an opportunity to set.

  And the other is from a scholar at the LSC, Martin Husalitz who are talks about trusted content creators. This is something I think if we change the approach and look at regulation at scale, and not case by case basis, which we did normally in the freedom of expression space, I think we can then also think about speed.

  Because then it will be addressing a lot of issues at the source, by design, as Guy is saying. And that would ‑‑ and that will give us speed. But for all of this to happen, we need all those things that my colleagues have mentioned.

  You know, mapping, cooperation, education, investment, resourcing and having all of these groups of stakeholders ready to act.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you. Constance, I want to come to you about Guy's question and this question about speed. Obviously, we need to build up capacity and you spoke about capacity. How do we do that with speed?  Especially with communities who may not have the same amount of expertise in that area and still developing that expertise? 

  >> CONSTANCE BOMMELAER:  It's a question of resources. It comes down to investment and time and financial resources. Organizations like the McCourt Institute, but also I've seen this at the IGF, were around Diplo foundation, have been training hundreds, thousands of individuals. Whether students, policymakers, industry leaders who actually design policy through technology.

  And this is something that needs to continue. But to address the question about speed ‑‑ and this is the example that my colleague was just describing. It's post‑regulation.

  It's actually about, OK, once we have regulation, do we have the right transparency guarantees, mechanisms in place, to verify that platforms, different players, industry, but also beyond, are complying with law. And can users who are not necessarily educated from a tech perspective, or even a regulatory perspective. Do they have a mechanism, an impartial party to go for help, assistance and verifying the way they used a service or consumed information through a platform or interacted with some sort of digital service. Is it compliant with law? 

  And here I think it's going to take a bit more time. And probably additional resources to equip the ecosystem with those impartial third parties, go‑to people, who can be a resource to consumers, Internet users, and who can also provide a channel of trust for these different individuals.

  And that from my perspective. We've seen some attempts. But from my perspective, it's probably going to be one of the next priorities for the different players in this field.

  And the non‑profit sector will have a role to play. Academia, impartial organizations, Civil Society, is going to be key in that conversation to back up Internet users and ensure that we actually cocreate, codesign, a space where not only regulations developed in a multistakeholder fashion. Technology is ethical by design. But also, I would say in a post‑phase, in a Phase 2. Compliance, accountability, is also equally trustworthy.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you. We're going to add one more question. One more question in the audience, then I'll pass it to Catherine and then Paulo to respond all three.

  >> So it was mentioned ‑‑

  >> Could you please introduce yourself? 


  >> Sure, I'm Massai, center for national private enterprise, Ethiopia.

  So it was mentioned how governments are moving, but in my opinion, it depends on, from where, we know where we are looking at. For example, in Ethiopia, there are visible and commendable change, like cooperation from the government side to sit and discuss with the private sector, Civil Society organization, which comes for staff. But the problems when it comes to changing or putting policy into action, there are huge gaps.

  So my question goes to all the panelists. What do you advise. You can share, the private sector, the Civil Societies, should follow, to push government to put their orders into immediate action.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you. Unfortunately, we're running out of time, so I'm going to pass this to Catherine and then Paulo to answer these three questions. And try to be brief, as we only have a couple more minutes here in the conference room.

  >> CATHERINE WANJIRU MUYA:  I was going to give you an example of the speed question, because mostly I've seen it work in our context. One of the examples I would have given around speed is when the stakeholders are pushing for regulation and working together with regulators.  So the example I have is, for example, in Kenya, we have regulation about Internet to externally related media, but access to the Internet. How we came about this regulation, it was an industry supported push from Civil Society working with others. And learning across each other, and then presenting it to the regulators, and the regulators allowing the space for the development of these regulations.

  So it makes that policymaking process really easy, because it comes from industry and academia led research presented to the regulator who then says yes. But the other point I wanted to make is cross‑learning and cross‑collaboration.

  A talk about our infrastructure regulations was given to the nambia IGF.

  I presented all the advantages we have from our own different regulations. So that's the way in which when you present evidence‑based cases, it makes the policymaking really quick and fast.

  But then again, and so that goes also to the second question in terms of the implementation. Sometimes regulators want evidence case, and like seeing how much you can benefit from this policy. To push and guide the implementation.

  I guess those examples more or less answer both questions.

  But then it also goes to promoting collaboration. And as my colleague said, multistakeholder, just to push for the implementation.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you, Catherine. Paulo? 

  >> PAOLA GALVEZ:  Thank you, Dan. I know we're running out of time. So I will be very brief. I believe there are three key things that we need to consider. First, (?) With policymakers to make this happen to push in a fast way and involve all the stakeholders. Mostly underrepresented ones.

  First, advocacy and the process must be done and developed early enough so we can scope the key issues and we have enough time to maybe changes that may be considered necessary by the multistakeholder discussion. Also, that it must be informed.

  They have relevant ‑‑ they must have relevant information, and they must be disseminating in advance with the stakeholders, so we can be timely and get their inputs in a proper way.

  And third, they will be meaningful to those consulted. So we need to consider what are ininterests, what are the topics ‑‑ interests, what are the topics of expertise. So it must be presented in an understandable format and avoid specialized technical jargon.

  In terms of SMEs or Civil Society to be prepared, because capacity‑building is so important. I would encourage they are always connect would universities, with ‑‑ connected with universities and academia, because they're always open to share papers, or as Mira said, share information online.

  But it's important to contact people and and for resources. I have seen here in Oxford, they're always open to sharing. So in my case, if you want to reach out to me, maybe I can connect you with someone here at University of Oxford. I'm happy to do it. Thank you.

  >> DANIEL OMALEY:  Great. Thank you, Paulo. And unfortunately, we have reached the end of our session. I know this could go a lot longer, but there are many other interesting sessions that I know people online and in the room are going to need to rush off.

  We won't have concluding remarks, but a couple key points that have come out. One, the idea of neutral mechanisms and neutral spaces to have these multistakeholder discussions. I think in part to build trust, because trust has emerged as one of the important things to do with this.

  Permanent engagement is important. We can't just one‑offs here and there, won't build trust either and it won't build enough of the knowledge and capacity that we need. Especially if we want to do these things quickly. Regional mapping of experts is important, and I think this is not just regional, but also in your stakeholder group, as there are diverse opinions. Civil Society is diverse in iticism, so we ‑‑ in itself. We need to have those discussions internally. There will be differences of opinion. Not just enough to open channels of communication, you need to make sure they're meaningful channels of communication. To do that, stakeholders need to be educated and fully informed.  One outstanding question is the speed issue.

  A thing that is challenging. We have some ideas about that, but I think we're all going to learn how to address that, because I think things are getting faster.  So we're going to have to figure out how to make that happen.

  I think it will be really important, the digital governance space, is increasingly important to our economies, society, democracy worldwide. It's really been a pleasure to have this panel, have these speakers talk with us, because it gave me hope about the future and what we can do together as we build networks to enimprove the digital ‑‑ improve the digital governance space. Please a round of applause to our speakers for their time and generosity with us.



  We should also give one to the technical staff here in Addis Abada who made this session possible and were troubleshooting throughout the session. Thank you so much for your hard work.



  And thank you to our captioner as well. It's really important that this is captured and it's inclusive. And also to my virtual moderator, Morgan Frost, from the Center for International Private Enterprise , who is making sure everything that was captured in the chat was captured in our conversation. Thank you to all of you for showing up from wherever you are joining around the world. Thank you.