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.
***
So I'm Fabio Senne, General Research Coordinator at Cetic.br, Department for KeNIC, and I will be moderating. It is a thinktank linked to the Brazilian Stakeholder Internet Governance and represented by KeNIC and CGIR. And we are a UNESCO centre that support Latin American countries and Portuguese‑speaking countries in better developing international and comparable indicators on access of the use of the Internet.
I would also like to introduce Elen Taylor from the Government of Canada, and will be our virtual moderator.
So I would like to remind this session is hybrid form. After a short interventions from the panel, we will open the floor for questions and comments from you here in the event or online.
Just to begin, I would like to mention that digital divides are increasingly relevant up to today. We can say, for sure, that it affects directly citizenship and the way people can participate in economy and in societies. It also make vulnerable population less resilient to online risks. So we can say about frauds and misinformation, disinformation, and especially in a moment where there is AI and much of the models on the AI training uses data. Digital divide by creating biases. Additionally connectivity and digital divide has been discussion under the layer of infrastructure only. So what's the coverage of broadband and how Internet connections are offered to individuals and organisations. However, we know two decades of research in the field, we know the supply side is also necessary to keep in mind but is not sufficient. So we need to understand the barriers for digital inclusion that comes at intersection of different inequalities, territory, gender, ethnicity, language and others.
We also know the solution need to take into consideration the other layers of the Internet Governance, including the logical layer, the transport and application layer. That is why we are engaged in this discussion today.
And just to mention that among the most relevant conceptual shifts is we need to take care of meaningful connectivity, not just basic, but the quality, frequency and conditions of use that enable users to benefit from digital technologies.
In Brazil, just to mention briefly one single research we developed in Brazil, although we know almost 90% of population has some connections with the Internet and use in a sense, only 22%, according to our estimates, have a meaningful connectivity, which means we really need to push the discussion forward. So the idea is to discuss really strategies and actionable solutions to this topic. We start by listing our speakers and open the floor for discussion. I will start with Allison O'Beirne, director of the department of innovation, science and economic development of the government of Canada. Allison, you have the floor for your first debate.
>> ALLISON O'BEIRNE: Thanks, Fabio. It is a great pleasure to be here and speak of a topic close to our heart in Canada for a while, which is Universal Acceptance. An issue fundamental to building an inclusive digital future, as you were just speaking about.
Since we are at IGF, the Internet is the backbone. Despite the reach, access and usability are still not universal. One of the major barriers we have seen is the failure of many systems to support all valid domain names and email addresses, especially those in non‑Latin scripts or newer top‑level domains.
This is what Universal Acceptance tries to tackle, that all domain names and addresses should work across every application, device, platform, regardless of language, script or length. It sounds like a very simple issue. In 2025 it maybe should be but we have quite a way to go on Universal Acceptance. I want to start by acknowledging the incredible work done by tech natural community that is done continues to be done to reduce barriers of the Internet. We need to talk about the role of government to ensure the Internet remains open, secure and operable, in particular, at the international level to ensure wide scale adoption of standards like Universal Acceptance. The government sets standards for Internet technologies. We operate massive IT infrastructures. We've got websites, portals, e‑services and interact with millions every day.
Ensuring a linguistically diverse and inclusive online environment to ensure the interests of our citizens are met, governments really have to work together at both the national and international levels to help promote and advocate for advancement of technical standards. Governments are conveners, educator, enable hers, they have IT companies, work with trust and can collaborate with international partners like the universal steering groups or ICANN, to help ensure there is awareness and understanding among developers, administrators about the importance of UA, and how to implement it. We have a long way but pretty optimistic. For Canada we face particular challenges in being able to implement this ourselves. We have a huge geographic region with a whole lot of layer ers of government. We can talk about whether it too many but that is for a different panel. Getting everybody on board can be a challenge and linguistic challenges. We have two languages, English and French, but 70 more indigenous languages spoken in Canada.
ICANN is the lead technical on Universal Acceptance, of course, and doing work in the space. We are seeking to engage with them consistently to support the work that ICANN to advance the work, including the current policy development on Latin script diacritics, which when I started, I had to have explained four or five times. Basically, the principle you can have different languages support ed in the way for example that one diacritic and one non‑diacritic exists for Quebec and Quebec. Once has an accent, another doesn't but can exist alongside each other.
There is more to be done in the space, but the multistakeholder has this adaptability and change, and innovation is part of its D.N.A. Since we are working towards this common goal, I'm common to make change in the space. Thanks, everyone. Looking forward to the discussion.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thanks, Allison. Very insightful introduction. How something apparently simple can be very ‑‑ changing, the way people have access to the Internet. Now I will give the floor to the senior director of the Kenya Centre. You have the floor.
>> ANDREW MWANYOTA LEWELA: Let me start at the onset by throwing cold water to the discussion. I will do this from a Kenyan perspective, a country at the Heart of East Africa in Global South. There can be no UA or trust without a meaningful Internet. I will speak that. We cannot have Universal Acceptance and trust without a meaningful Internet. This morning it was mentioned we still have 30% of our population globally off‑line. In Kenya, this number is 1.4 million. Underserved or not served citizens. In other metrics from Kenya, we have high coverage by providers, we have high subscription but very low usage. Why usage is important, because only when our citizens use the Internet in a meaningful way can we then move onto domain, emails and ensuring that that reflects our languages and our diversity. And in Kenya and most of Africa, the local language is Swahili, so how do we bring the elderly, the youth into this ecosystem.
A few barriers and potential remedies we see that together we can truly bridge the digital divide. At the top of that list actually is affordability. Affordability of network plans or Internet plans, affordability of devices and the requisite policies that come with that affordability.
I think secondly, we still have limited trust by citizens based on what they hear as part of the Internet threats. Cybersecurity threats are still out there. The whole issue of digital trust. Last month alone in Kenya the regulators mentioned a 7X growth in (?) Attacks. A lot are AI‑generated now. So citizens are concerned about that. Secondly, I mentioned infrastructure and access, but do regulators and policymakers -- are they doing enough to ensure affordability in infrastructure. There is more that can be done there.
Finally, on some of the barriers we see is technical expertise around governance and (?) technology. I'm happy some regulators were here, and legislators. We need to carry them along in terms of enabling environments.
Now, in conclusion, where do we go to ensure UA and trust, at least from a care perspective. I propose that this is what a meaningful Internet looks like, ladies and gentlemen. This is a conversation I think we have to not only capture but associate myself with the Minister last evening. We have to be bold in terms of actions we take as a community. One, we not only have to have reliable access but has to be affordable. I think we are doing that. We also have to assure there is efficient speed and quality. Not sure how many of us have enjoyed the Internet at the event. I have a bit of issues with the quality. I say that tongue‑in‑cheek.
We need to also ensure that we carry along citizens in terms of digital literacy. Because the language of the Internet cannot be and should not be only English. How do you make it Zulu, Swahili and so on... and relevant that citizens participate in. Number two, safe and secure. Especially children. At KeNIC child online safety is a cornerstone to how we take the Internet to the youth. It has to be. No harassment. No exploitation. These have to be front‑and‑centre to make sure the value can be sustainable. Finally on this big question of enabling environment, literacy, issues of privacy, innovation, freedom of expression and, finally, the rights. The rights off‑line have to be the rights online. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we see from a Kenyan perspective in terms of potential barriers. But hopefully together we can surmount these challenges. Thank you, Chair.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Andrew. It was very insightful that you presented the African perspective, but taking all the main categories for meaningful connective we are also considering in Brazil and other parts of the world. Including affordability is key, because it is not sufficient to have the service available or coverage if you don't have real affordability. People can use, of course, language is another key issue that I think the next ‑‑ invited to the session, you take care of this topic. I will also call online. If you Phil, are you there?
>> PHIL STEINHAUER‑MOZEJKO: I'm here, thanks for the good pronunciation.
>> FABIO SENNE: Sorry if I mispronounced, Minister External Affairs At The Digital Connectivity Institute, and you have five minutes.
>> PHIL STEINHAUER‑MOZEJKO: Thank you, I will try not to be distracted by seeing my face plastered on the screen. I apologise I can't be there in person. Grateful for the opportunity. I'm wearing an orange shirt in honour of indigenous people's day, in Canada June 21 on the eve of the summer solstice. We don't want to be relegated to a single month.
My name is Phil Steinhauer‑Mozejko.
(Speaking in non-English language)
>> PHIL STEINHAUER‑MOZEJKO: I'm a member of the Saddle Creek Cree Nation and member of Alberta (?) and Director for the Indigenous Connectivity Institute. We are an organisation that seeks to advance digital equity for first‑nation Inuit, Native Alaska, American‑Indian, people on Turtle Island in the Inuit area. I'm thankful being here.
I'm building literacy and understanding in the area of Universal Acceptance. So I really want to thank the government of Canada. That said, thank my colleagues for inviting us to participate and learn. I'm keen to learn and hear, actually, from rest of the people on the panel. I think I have a limited slice of what I can provide in terms of intervention.
What does digital equity mean for first‑nation Inuit and key in Canadian context. I will lead off, given it was just Indigenous People's Day in Canada. We are an international UN forum here. I think familiarizing with the United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We are starting there as kind of a framework in talking about free prior and informed consent for native people. Not just in Turtle Island but across the world. That means there's robust engagement and recognition and acknowledging that native people are inherent right‑holders. We are not just stakeholders in this matter and we need to be not just consulted with. There is a duty to consult from the governments but there needs to be understanding that we are inherent right‑holders here. We have existed on this land forever. We will continue to.
But our organisation, the Indigenous Connectivity Institute, seeks to enhance digital equity by promoting indigenous-owned and operated networks. That means that indigenous nations must be kind of at the centre of infrastructure decisions in Canada, the United States, with governments in Global Gorth, colonial governments in the Global North, and we need policies that work in lock‑step with priorities and initiatives that the great array and diversity of nations in Canada have. That is challenging but means a lot of bilateral intergovernmental meetings and time and relationship‑building.
I like the idea of meaningful connectivity. This is something I would like to revisit. What does that mean? Speaking for myself, a Cree, in a meaningful way. What does it mean for our people, overwhelmingly in rural and remote areas, who still have lack of access to Internet, let alone broadband. It is prohibitively expensive. The maps some of the governments use, though not all, are still lacking quality data in terms of served or unserved areas. So there is also needing to consider fixing of structural and kind of regulatory barriers. That is particularly with respect to spectrum access, given that many of our communities are in rural and remote areas and the indigenous connectivity institute, we have really been promoting this idea around access and rights to spectrum. One minute left.
We need to ensure there is ongoing sustainable funding for Canada, U.S.s, everywhere. I think competitive funding models kind of leave communities behind sometime. Credit to government of Canada, who has been working, I think, diligently, in upping their relational approach, working with indigenous communities in Canada. Recently opening the indigenous priority window for spectrum access and potentially setting aside quality bands for spectrum.
Lastly I will say, respecting indigenous data sovereignty, that is not just on the mapping model but that is in terms of digital data and digital data flows through the cables and the airwaves that kind of constitute the Internet. So thinking about indigenous data sovereignty with respect to online presence is a key thing. Others have mentioned on it safety, security, honouring and respecting cultural traditions online.
So I'm going to leave it at that. I appreciate the time. It is an honour to be here. Thanks to everyone for having us. I will pass it on to the next guess.
(speaking non‑English language)
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you. Interesting points. That is key to my work; that is, having statistics, measurement. Otherwise, you cannot do policy without knowing where are the gaps in this population is key, so I will pass to Qaisar Roonjha, the founder of the Udu AI. I hope you can hear, because you have the floor for five minutes.
>> QAISAR ROONJHA: Thank you so much. I really appreciate being here on this screen. It is wonderful to see a lot of exciting people here. Good morning and good afternoon, wherever you are watching from. I'm Qaisar Roonjha, founder of Urdu AI and a place where the Internet doesn't just operate slowly but often disappears when needed most. I come from rural Pakistan, where the digital divide is layered with geography, gender and sometimes governance failures.
The digital divide is not just about fiberoptics or smart phone penetration; it is about who is included, who is heard and who is invisible. A rural area without access is not just not online but locked out of future. A woman without digital literacy is excluded, denied from economic freedom. When the Internet is turned off without a digital ‑‑ during the digital turmoil, as it often in my country, entire communities lose connection to opportunity and hope.
This is the digital divide we must talk about. We bring artificial down to art; transferred into simplified for all, like for everyone without their educational experience and simply find it a very down-to-earth or low-level, so everyone can understand. That has been a successful nexus for us so far.
For now we reach 32 million every month with our numbers we see on our platforms: rural youth, housewives, micro‑entrepreneurs, young people in small towns who now see AI as it typically was, as a trade but a personal tool. One of innovations, which we built with support of Internet Society, is Pakistan's first rural innovation‑led. We train woman artisans for their work using tools we have trained on them. Woman, younger girls. We have provided digital schools. Woman come to stitch local traditional products and girls who we are training on AI and digital marketing help them to sell the product and to online world, implementing a mother/daughter sustainable network.
What we see is Universal Acceptance. Not whether the tech exists but whether it welcomes everyone and how we are incorporating devices into that. How do we build trust in this digital promise when in my country, for example, and many others I know of the Internet is switched off during every crisis. How do we tell young people in rural areas, especially girls, the technology is their future, when government shut down every time they fear dissent. Internet privilege is right, not a privilege. When denied especially to already marginalized it deepens the divide and tells young people in rural communities and women, you don't matter in the digital age.
I think trust is foundation of the digital development and it shut downs ‑‑ it breaks the trust. We believe what we must commit to do. Digitalizing localization, technology and language shaped by our realities. We see AIs transforming lot of things but don't see much content coming in other languages, as a fellow speaker was talking about. How do we ensure it doesn't just change the lives of many in urban settings or developed countries, but how do we make sure the most marginalized are benefitting from AI, especially when language is biggest barrier.
I think we need to focus on rural‑centric innovation, rural villages become hubs, not just a recipient. We see transformation is going to lot of places. I think ensuring gender folk inclusion woman and girls, the centre of digital policy and programming would change that. And Internet infrastructure, as I said, is protected from political shutdown, accessible to all, especially during crisis. We must change that and must enable that.
I believe digital equity isn't charity. It is power waiting to be unlocked. When a young person in Pakistan speaks to the newly emerged AI tools in their own dialect, their own language, we don't just close the divide. We build a new world of opportunities. I have been training hundreds of people through Urdu AI and when I see people understand something that they could utilize so it is creating out a huge barrier for people who did not have access to Ivy league universities or very high quality schools but AI is shape of highly intelligent model tool in their pocket and could educate them on lot of tools they never thought they could learn. I think there is an opportunity. I believe we let the ‑‑ let us govern as shared language of empowerment, not control. Spoken in every dialect, protected in every strong and village and community across the world by every woman, child and young person and every person from marginalized community. That's my opening remarks, I'm excited to continue.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Qaisar. You brought AI into the discussion and may want to comment later. Next, but not least, Sabrina Wilkinson from Internet -- Internet Governance Manager from Canadian Internet Authority. You have the floor.
>> SABRINA WILKINSON: Wonderful, thank you so much. Hi, everyone. It is a real pleasure to be with you here, both virtually as well as in‑person. It's been really terrific to hear a little more about how digital divides manifest across regions and, of course, have real and tangible impacts on how people live their lives. Today I'm going to be Zooming in to talk about one particular initiative that CIRA's been working on a while, looking to tackle one very local digital divide in Ottawa, Canada, where many of us at CIRA are working and living.
So we are best known for managing the dot agency lane but extends beyond that. As a not-for-profit, we invest a portion of revenue each year to help build a safer, more accessible and more trusted Internet for all Canadians. A big part of that is our grants programme. Launched in 2014 our naked grants programme provides funds annually to support projects that improve digital infrastructure, promote online safety and advance Internet policy. While much of our funding on the infrastructure side has and continues to focus on rural and remote regions, we have also recognised the rising need for investment in urban digital equity. In Canadian cities the challenge is often less about infrastructure and more about affordability, access to devices and digital literacy.
These barriers can be especially acute for low-income households, even when broadband is technically available. To mark the tenth anniversary, we launched a new urban‑focused initiative in Ottawa called CommuniFi, involving CIRA as well as several local organisations, National Capital Free Net, a community Internet provider, Ottawa Community Housing and Hydro Ottawa. Together we have created a free community network, serving neighborhoods in Ottawa with some of the highest levels of social and inequity. The first phase launched in December 2023 and brought this to fixed housing to the network, underscoring this type work for low‑barrier, no‑cost connectivity.
CommuniFi,as we have heard about, it is a lot more than bandwidth. With this network in place, we are seeing a real impact or change in the ways in which residents of these two buildings live their lives. Folks are gathering in shared spaces, where the Wi‑Fi is available to stream videos, connect with friends, colleagues, access health services, e‑education, tax clinics, all the things that, of course, are readily available via an Internet connection. For people with mobility or income constraints, that access ‑‑ more broadly, that access makes a meaningful difference in day‑to‑day life.
CIRA also contributes its firewall technology to the network, which helps protect users from phishing, malware and other threat s, which adds a vital layer of trust and safety, particularly for vulnerable populations.
Our goal here is to demonstrate a replicable model expanded across the city, community and beyond. CommuniFi embodies community‑led ideas for real impacts. Recognizing, of course, this is one small example of the ‑‑ you know, that a ‑‑ that against all of what we talked about today is ‑‑ there is much more to be done but some learnings that can be had both in Canada and elsewhere. This is not just about infrastructure gaps. As Andrew and others noted, they are also about affordability, trust, access to devices and ability to meaningfully connect and use the Internet devices.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you. The student need to think when comes to the area and spectrum and areas we can discuss. It is insufficient to discuss but we have multiple areas we can make solutions happen. We have time now for discussions and questions. I will check first with Ellen. If someone is online or have questions, please, Ellen.
>> ELLEN TAYLOR: Thanks, Fabio. There have been reactions to panelists, particularly concerning community‑driven initiatives for Universal Acceptance and multistakeholder collaboration needed, particularly with governments and to make it a priority, as Civil Society is championing these initiatives with the technical community.
So there is a question here in the chat. It came up during, Andrew, your remarks, but if anyone on the panel would like to reflect on it. The question is from Immanuel, a DCAD Fellow. Is there a possibility of a framework that offers a special Internet package policy for all network operators and ISPs to adopt and implement and to ensure persons with different abilities have access the Internet, to close the digital divide in the Global South. That is the question there. I will hand it back to the panel for reactions and thoughts.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Ellen. I don't know if someone from audience, in‑person, want to add some other question or comment. If not, I will defer to the panelists and start because direct to you but any other panelists can also comment on the issue.
>> ANDREW MWANYOTA LEWELA: Thank you, Imanuel, for the question. I will give framework Kenya uses for consideration. It is hard for profit‑drivens, like ISPs, Telcos, to buy in. There are differences but a regulator in play, for example, Kenya, the regulatory authority, the space using the universal service fund, some of the profits from the ISPs are used by the government to bridge this gap for underserved or unserved. So this is one framework I believe Imanual could work in his jurisdiction. Where it is profitable for ISPs, for example, the government will then use some of this money. Procure from competitive providers, including community networks, for example. So the smaller guys to take this infrastructure and to keep the product price competitive, or at least useful in terms of allowing usage. So this will be one framework, thank you.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Andrew. Let's check if our colleagues online want to comment. Raise your hand if you ‑‑ Phil and Qaisar can comment. Please, Phil.
>> PHIL STEINHAUER‑MOZEJKO: I don't know if this answers the question. However, having some experience working in the United States with their Digital Equity Act -- pardon me for taking it away from the Canadian context, but there are shared experiences and it is relevant. Similar things are happening. But with the Digital Equity Act there has been increased funding for ‑‑ I believe Canada may be doing similar things coming down the pipe for digital navigation, which I think here at the IGF is probably very familiar with by some here. What I have seen working in community, in Canada and the U.S. , identifying and funding ‑‑ well, basically identifying those connectivity champions and people who are digitally literal or technically versed, at least at a kind of level one or level two kind of capability of trouble‑shooting using devices, computers and accessing or using the Internet, but I have seen first‑hand in community how digital navigators can be really excellent guides because they are navigators who can help multi‑generational citizens of the nation actually learn how to send or receive an email or set up an email address or how to connect to Wi‑Fi or the differences between cellar and Wi‑Fi. But even more based in terms of using a browser and getting online.
So there is an aspect of Internet adoption and you have a connection formed to the Internet through a human, a trusted person. This has been an ongoing theme of trust. So governments working with communities to kind of identify people, individuals who can be your trusted kind of technology and digital stewards and guides in community as a bridge to online inclusion.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you very much, Phil. If Allison and Sabrina want to comment.
>> ALISON O’BEIRNE: Sure, to respond. Thanks, Phil, illustrative. In the government of Canada there's been work and efforts in the general direction of digital literacy and ensuring skills development and multi ‑layered from perspective of having the federal government's responsibility for skills development and likewise provencale governments for education so working together is two layers of government and others as well to ensure there are programmes in place. From the federal perspective, there's multiple layers, as you have digital skills development to kind of advance business adoption of emerging technologies versus skills development ‑‑ as you say teaching people to use a browser to get online and all those things have to be captured so lots of different programmes underway in Canada in that regard. Likewise, the federal government level, I think a huge commitment to ensuring our own IT meets standard s so content we provide as a government of Canada is available in a consistent way and accessed by folks with different abilities.
But the idea of having digital champions or navigators is one that is new. I kind of left this and will bring this back to our GF and start to talk in our department. I think that is a really clever way to get people in the community involved.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Alison. I think there is someone from the floor. Please go ahead.
>> Edmund Chung from .Asia. This is something I'm passionate, working on Universal Access and acceptance for a very long time. I really like the way it is framed; that is not just about the technicalities of Universal Acceptance but also digital inclusion, also about meaningful access in multilingual Internet. Because I think that is the right way to really frame this issue, because it is not only technical. I'm also really excited to hear from Andrew and Phil that touched on one thing I feel is very important. I call it ‑‑ well, not me that call it, but I include this as part of Universal Acceptance is language assistance in order to be meaningful. One of the things is we need to move away from an English‑first approach to developing systems and infrastructure. When we deploy infrastructure into places where there isn't the Internet, then we need to go with an UA by design approach, so it is not an English‑first approach.
But I did have one particular, I guess, question for ‑‑ especially for Alison, and maybe Sabrina as well. We know the challenges are difficult and this issue of Universal Acceptance is a long‑tail issue as well. Does the government of Canada have a road map to become fully ‑‑ for your systems, you mentioned many systems, I understand. Do you have a road map to make all the government systems Universal Acceptance ready and also, you know, I guess are the procurements, you know, contracts and tenders, and those kind of things, have they started to include Universal Acceptance requirements. Even not immediate requirements, but at least the providers or the system integrators that provide services to the government of Canada have to have roadmap in place for UA readiness. Sort of the same question to CIRA and .CA.
>> ALISON BEIRNE: Reasonable question. I want to say we have a road map, but I can't. Like many governments, we are trying to figure how to integrate UA in process we have. I will say something glib, and as a white lady, but I have an apostrophe, and the number of government and nongovernment systems that freak out when I have an apostrophe -- and I have Francophobe friends who have these in their names. The extent is huge. And the focus is currently working with the international community to establish road maps and enabling factors that will allow us at domestic level to implement; where my team focus is for the time being. You are right, we have made leaps and bounds in at least making government of Canada compliant with international standards, to accessibility. UA is the next frontier, where not only are you able to access from a screen reader but in language and the script of your preference. It’s not a road map, but I promise we will get to this.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you. Sabrina, comments?
>> SABRINA WILKINSON: Thanks. Maybe not a road map but CIRA offers domains ‑‑ for ten years CIRA has offered domains for first‑language speakers, recognising in Canada there are many other languages spoken too, at a stage where part of dialogue within the CCO community. So we recently joined the Universal Acceptance community, where we are glad to engage and stay abreast and monitor developments as well, thank you.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Sabrina. I didn't know if anyone from the floor or any online. Yes, Ellen, please.
>> ELLEN TAYLOR: Thanks very much. There is actually lots of chatter online. There are three questions, so I might just ask ‑‑ I might combine and ask two now and hopefully we will have time to get to the third but also give opportunity to those on the floor.
So I think the first question is a great one, and it could be answered by anyone on the panel. This person is asking, has the issue of acceptance been addressed? What is the meaning of it, in the view of the panelists. So in terms of definition of Universal Acceptance. Particularly the acceptance part.
The second question, so this question – fundamentally, it is coders and developers who underpin implementation of UA, UTF‑8 and all linguistic technologies, there is not effort carried out to involve stakeholders. How to advance this question, the involvement of stakeholders. And also offering warm regards to all UA friends on the floor and remotely. Thanks.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you very much. Seems our time is ending. I also suggest we do round of speakers so you can react on the questions and probably just do your final remarks. Can we start maybe in the same order of Alison ‑‑
>> ALLISON O'BEIRNE: Always happy to. And focusing on the first part of question, in acceptance with the caveat I'm into the first year of learning about the Internet, alone. I'm not the expert but happy to speak a little about my sort of understanding of it, how it's arisen in our team's work. I think one of the frameworks in which I think about, especially our panel, Universal Acceptance and Universal Acceptability is kind of in the supply side versus demand, which is to say Universal Acceptance is focused on the supply side.
So how do we ensure different languages and different scripts, different diacritics are accepted by technical systems, as people wish to use them. Then there is Universal Accessibility perspective, more on the demand side, which is how do we ensure folks from a host of different communities and host of different regions have the skills and capacity and interest and affordable means to engage with digital systems. I think when we are talking about, you know, having the technical means to be able to accept different types of scripts. If we are talking about communities that don't have affordable access to broadband, it is not super helpful with an email with a non‑English diacitic; may not be accepted. That is probably not the most pressing at that point. There are two sides. The acceptance is on the supply side, but the accessibility piece is critical as well.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Allison. Andrew, one‑minute comment so we can conclude.
>> ANDREW MWANYOTA LEWELA: So I want to associate myself fully on that question with Alison's view, so that I don't have to get into the technicalities based on the maturity level Canada has been through. In short, my opening hypothesis ‑‑ and I will read it again. There can be no UA on digital rights without a meaningful Internet. However, I want to end with some productive and pragmatism. Based on the opening comments this morning, we have made progress, ladies and gentlemen. A lot remains to be done. We have to stay vigilant to make sure we leave no one behind. As long as we stay collaborative and keep this multistakeholder model bottom‑up, we shall prevail. Why do I say this? While my parents are alive, they used a very old telephone. One piece here and one piece here. I can now send my mom a WhatsApp. They are very elderly, and can only get better. Thank you.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Andrew. Your one‑minute comment, Phil. Phil, can you take the floor?
>> PHIL STEINHAUER‑MOZEJKO: Bottom‑up is right. We are thinking about truly grassroots influences and input into the design and architecture of these systems that underpin the Internet. So in terms of UA, I have a little note I wanted to make sure. Just like UA ‑‑ or Universal Acceptance, it can be a tool in one piece of puzzle in protecting, promoting, reclaiming many indigenous languages, many of which are endangered. Not just Canada but all over. If you are thinking about Universal Acceptance, you can go beyond that and talk about keyboards, spellcheckers, voice assistants.
And many indigenous languages promote oral tradition, and still do so. How can we think about that in having and ensuring our voices can be used to navigate the Internet and used and applied digital technology. There was a question in the chat about the coders who kind of build this stuff. I attended a meeting not too long ago, like a year ago with computer scientists, who were talking about digital inclusion with first nations in Canada. There was this like you guys are the builders and architects of the Internet. It is almost like, is there a Hippocratic Oath in place to ensure you are building tools that reflect and embody the values of these different heterogenous communities all over; not just native people but every person. We want this to be a diverse, multi‑cultural, so to speak, tool. We need to make sure to ensure we are all included in making it, and a bottom‑up tool, thank you.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Phil. Qaisar, over to you.
>> QAISAR ROONJHA: I won't take much of your time. I believe universal are not just with technical infrastructure promises, but how do we ensure the language is not a barrier, gender inequalities are not there and government failures do not stop people from accessing the Internet; ensuring it is equal and accessible for everyone in their own language. I think AI is a wonderful opportunity, from that perspective, that would solve problems that would have otherwise taken us years to. Thank you, everyone.
>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you. Sabrina, would you ‑‑
>> SABRINA WILKINSON: Sure. I think I will just refer to a term that you used at the beginning, Fabio, which is meaningful connectivity. So I think just to tie it back, those are something that resonates. Thanks.
>> FABIO SENNE: Okay. Thank you very much. I think it was a very insightful discussion. It is interesting to see that by your contributions that I started talking about the different layers that sometimes we discuss in the Internet governance. But then Allison, bring up supply and demand. You can think in complexity. Then, of course, there are technical issues, social, demographic issues. We talk about gender, ethnicity. Age is a key topic for elderly versus children, so how to deal with that. Of course economic barriers. And being from the Global South, it is very relevant to talk about affordability. I think it is a key discussion for ‑‑ especially when we are trying to connect the most vulnerable part of the population, which is now still disconnected. Is, for instance, a debate that we face, for instance, in the poverty discussion. So should we provide a minimum connectivity or minimal types of devices so that people can connect to the discussion does society need to face. Of course digital literacy was also mentioned. This is key. And is impossible to talk just about devices in connectivity without this dimension, digital literacy.
I would change by ‑‑ and finally, I thinks lots of people mentioned trust and safety, so this is another key issue. Especially when it comes to now with AI in several aspects of our lives, how threats can be viewed in this environment. And other, I think, is key for us. So I hope this is useful for you in the audience, online and here. Thank you very much for being here with us today, thank you.
