IGF 2019 Reports
Do Internet services deserve a sin tax?
How do policies that impose levies on Internet service providers and other Internet services (“Internet taxes”) impact digital inclusion, human rights, and socio-economic development in diverse regions? What kinds of precedents could Internet taxes policies establish, and what is the impact of different Internet taxes in different regions on the global Internet and its development? Who bears the primary onus of paying for Internet taxes, and how does this impact digital inclusion, human rights, and socio-economic developments?
Overall, the session focused on policies that impose end-user levies for the use of social networking and mobile money platforms and the impact of such developments on digital inclusion, human rights and socio-economic development in Africa in particular. While the reasons and motivations for proposing and/or implementing such policies differ (ranging from political issues to supporting the revenue base or stifling dissent/ “gossip”), the taxation of popular platforms is becoming a prevalent in many countries/regions and this pauses global implications.
Participants voiced concerns that such measures interfere with freedom of expression and act as a measure to control their Internet use by governments. Governments, on the other hand, feel that the taxation of Internet services can be a legitimate source of tax revenue and that foreign companies that are providing services should be taxable in the countries where their services are being used. There was largely agreement that such taxes should not be imposed on people who are struggling to afford Internet access and that due consideration is needed regarding their impact on local content.
Panellists provided background on the introduction of such levies, noting that in Developing Countries and the Least Developed Countries, mobile network operations are sometimes the only kind of significant tax being collected. They highlighted that what is significant about these taxes is that they intersected with state or ruling party efforts at social and political control. As a result they often had contradictory outcomes, limiting the use of social networks which drive data demand and therefore not realising the rents they were intended to extract in order to meet debt repayments, while undermining national connectivity and financial inclusion efforts.
While governments need taxes to generate income, panellists all argued that current initiatives in Africa have not achieved their purpose and have, in many cases, led to unforeseen harms. Issues of taxation must be viewed in terms of the political economy of the countries, the challenges they face, the context of global platforms and the inability of governments to tax large platforms that are generating revenues in countries.
Panelists explained issues of taxation in terms of the political economy of the countries, the challenges they face, the context of global platforms and the inability of governments to tax large platforms that are generating revenues in countries. The impact of social networking on taxes is highly retrogressive, and what may appear a very small tax daily on networks and platforms is an enormous part of the income that people have. Some of the taxes saw a decline of 15% in data use and 30% in revenues, which raises the question of the purpose of the tax. Users are inevitably double-taxed; pushing more people offline hence reducing revenues for mobile operators, who collect taxes on behalf of users.
The difficulty of taxing companies was highlighted due to such companies not having a physical presence, hence the need for international cooperation. Example swere given, including the OECD and the G20-led initiative, BEPS) which is building an inclusive framework to collaborate on dealing with issues of tax avoidance for digital services without physical office presence in countries. From a policy point of view, developing countries should support such global initiatives which would ensure the revenues of the global platforms being derived from different jurisdictions could then be appropriately taxed, rather than taxing end users.
In an era where countries are talking about digital visions and transformation, conclusions and recommendations made centred engagement with governments, alternative taxation options, alternative solutions to providing Internet access like using spectrum allocations and a global fund to provision of access to WiFi.
Onsite participants: 35
Online participants: 8
Women online: 6
Women onsite: 20
Participants spent a significant amount of time reflecting on the effect that social media taxes and similar levies have for women and other potentially marginalised communities, including the elderly, poor, illiterate and those in rural areas. It was noted that such communities are likely to be even more susceptible to harms as a result of such tax proposals.
1. How can universal design principles for accessibility be advanced across the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities?
2. What can the IGF community do to further collaboration to realize the potential of the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities?
3. What priorities and/or changes are needed from an Internet governance policy standpoint to accelerate progress towards a more inclusive internet for persons with disabilities?
We expect session participants to engage on how universal design principles for accessibility be advanced across the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities, and to capture and understand the uses of ICTs enabled by the Internet that are, today, empowering persons with disabilities. We expect session participants to learn about what the IGF community do to further action and cross-sector collaboration to realize the potential of the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities.
The moderator, panelists, and workshop attendees discussed innovative uses of ICTs for the empowerment of persons with disabilities, covering different approaches taken to address disability inclusion in their regions and diverse experiences. Notably, robust discussion included:
- The scope of the term "disability" (with discussion of including not only certain physical, but also cognitive and learning, disabilities);
- The need for workforce training/education to bring those with disabilities into the workforce;
- The role of open and consensus-based standardization activities;
- The need to mitigate human biases in new artificial intelligence solutions;
- How disability inclusion makes good business sense via widening a products potential user base;
- Government roles and efforts in taking in feedback on disability acces and responding to identified needs; and
- Whether focus should begin with "low-hanging fruit" or alternatively on the most marginalized disabled populations.
Participants discussed the pros and cons related to the above areas.
Policy recommendations identified during the workshop included:
- An increased role in discussing and sharing information with respect to disability access to ICTs in key fora including the IGF;
- Governments taking a more focused effort to understand the needs of those with all disabilities;
- Government grants to support universal design practices, potentially funded via universal service fund-style approaches;
- Development of accessibility best practices for new ICTs, building on robust standardization efforts (e.g., W3C) and incorporating input from those with disabilities;
- Global adoption and implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
- Governments and private sector utilizing procurement policies to advance disability access to ICTs to lead by example; and
- Governments accellerating disability access by buidling capacity for access to ICTs (e.g., infrastructure, harmonized data flows, etc.) and ensuring that resources are used in the most efficient way possible.
Other initiatves addressing this session included:
- Canada Radio and Television Commission's Video Relay Service
- Mozambique's universal service fund approach to supporting disability access to ICTs
- Seeing AI, a leading software accessibility tool for the blind by Microsoft
- Optikey https://github.com/OptiKey/OptiKey/wiki
Panelists and session participants discussed:
- What kind of disabilities ought to be included and considered under "disability policy" - while it was acknowledged that most policies for disability access address auditory, visual, and sometimes mobility, many do not fully consider cognitive and learning disabilities. It was agreed that this definitional baseline should be immediately addressed by policymakers to take a broader approach to the term "disability".
- Where to most appropriately act in the short-term. On one hand, some advocated for tackling the lowest-hanging fruit (i.e., areas of disability access impacting the widest community or communities); others advocated for beginning with addressing the most marginalized communities first to ensure that no one is left behind.
- Emphasis was placed on effective resource management by governments and policymakers as they address disability access to ICTs.
Total onsite/online participants: 35 (including 2 with mobility disabilities, 2 with visual disabilities, 1 with autism)
Total onsite/online female participants: 15
Disability access issues were acknowledged as issues that impact individuals of all genders, but that females with disabilities may be more so affected by a lack of accomodations to ICTs (along with other populations that may be marginalized).
Panelists and participants of this session left with an improved understanding of the uses of ICTs enabled by the Internet that are, today, empowering persons with disabilities, as well as what is coming down the pipeline; that the IGF community should do more to further action and cross-sector collaboration to realize the potential of the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities; an appreciation for the diverse perspectives regarding priorities and changes needed from an Internet governance policy standpoint to accelerate progress towards a more inclusive internet for persons with disabilities; and developed concrete recommendations for improving disability access to ICTs in the short-term and long-term. There is also the potential for a follow-on session to occur during the upcoming ICT4D Non-Conference 2020 (https://ictrd2020.org).
Value and Regulation of Personal Data in the BRICS
1. What national laws (or other types of normative acts) regulate the collection and use of personal data in the BRICS countries?
2. Do the laws recently adopted by BRICS countries apply to foreign entities that do not have a physical presence in such countries?
3. Are data protection laws adopted by BRICS countries based on fundamental rights defined in Constitutional law or International binding documents? Are the newly adopted frameworks converging amongst themselves and can they be compared to other existing frameworks such as the European one?
It was general consensus that the political, economic and social systems of the BRICS countries are different and they have different approaches to data protection. Therefore, the approach of policies should regard cooperation, not coordination.
Some of the participants highlighted that there should be no sovereignty over the internet and addressed as a solution the development of international frameworks regarding multistakeholderism. Others observed that the free flow of information entails bidirectional flow – i.e., when it becomes possible to funnel data from one country and only extract value on another. Therefore, data localization is also about protectionism.
It was general consensus that the political, economic and social systems of the BRICS countries are different and they have different approaches to data protection. Therefore, the approach of policies should regard cooperation, not coordination.
Some of the participants highlighted that there should be no sovereignty over the internet and addressed as a solution the development of international frameworks regarding multistakeholderism. Others observed that the free flow of information entails bidirectional flow – i.e., when it becomes possible to funnel data from one country and only extract value on another. Therefore, data localization is also about protectionism.
The legal initiatives were presented in each of the countries, as mentioned before. Brazil with LGPD, which is similar to the GDPR; India with the jurisdictional declaration of data protection as a fundamental right and a Data Protection Bill; China with new cybersecurity standards; Russia with new regulation; and South Africa with POPI.
Russia’s legislation has a protectionist approach and it says that data of Russian citizens must be localized inside of Russia’s territory. That was pointed out as the main reason for some service providers to abandon the Russian market – changes in this approach should be necessary to avoid arbitrary ban of social networks.
Participants observed that data localization is linked to sovereignty, but it is also deeply intertwined with protectionism. The free flow of information looks like a great exchange of information, in the paper, but in practice it looks like a draining of valuable information. Also, legislations that allows authorities to collect and use personal information without user consent should be targeted in policymaking.
Onsite and online: 60 and 108
Women onsite: 30
Gender Equality is one of the goals of the discussion about what values should be considered in the BRICS.
The purpose of this section was to map and identify what could be the best practices BRICS countries should follow to create a legally predictable environment for business regarding data protection.
What do we know about children´s access and use of the internet that can inform the policymaking process?
How to protect children from risks and damage, without hindering other rights, such as to free expression?
What was expected for the session was to share a global and regional update on the most relevant and recent data about online children, and to hold a debate about the most relevant policy issues stemming from those data. Together, these points feed a research and policy agenda that has children´s right at the centre.
There was full agreement that more reliable data (both quantitative and qualitative) is needed for improving digital policies and education campaigns targeting children.
There was support to the view that a journalistic approach to online harm, as a matter of fact, creates the perception that such problems occur more often and affect more people than they actually do. Therefore, parents and the general public also have to be targets of the communication of the results of such research.
One of the main points highlighted by the data shared and the debate that followed it, is to acknowledge the ubiquitous online presence of children, yet with pervasive inequities, both in the degree and quality of internet access, and in the skills development opportunities for its use.
As an actionable recommendation, including children as active parts both in communication campaigns and policy design, including internet governance decisions affecting children, was strongly emphasized by most panel participants.
Actions need to be implemented in the various levels affecting digital inclusion: from legal and regulatory instruments, to educational interventions, need to be put in place to meet the needs of the children.
Another actionable recommendation is not to focus regulation or communication campaigns solely in the risk and damage issues affecting children, but mainstreaming their right to expression and participation in a balanced fashion. The Internet was portrayed as a privileged setting in which children may thrive and express themselves with little adult mediation. Bearing in mind that greater internet use is associated with greater risks, in turn.
Digital literacy programs aimed at parents were highlighted as key initiatives for keeping children safe and healthy in the digital environment.
One of the main experiences showcased in the panel that clearly tackles the issues covered in the panel was that of Uruguay and its national ICT in education policy Plan Ceibal. For more information: https://www.ceibal.edu.uy/es
There was broad agreement in that for addressing these issues and achieve a safe and stimulating digital environment for children it is necessary to involve both public and private stakeholders, that children need to have a voice and participation, that parents and teachers also have to be target of policy and education campaigns and that internet governance, in general, needs to end being child-blind.
There were 50 participants present in the workshop, 60% of them, women. We estimate another 50 online participants, with similar proportion of women. Out of the 9 panellists, 7 were women.
Gender issues were covered throughout the session, on the one hand, by showing the data by gender, therefore identifying internet access and use patterns that differ for boys and girls. Parental mediations also proved to have peculiarities when the kid is either a boy or a girl. Both issues present, in turn, different patterns in the different regions covered (Latin America, Europe, and the Global South). Policies and measures were discussed taking into account these variations and specificities.
A comparative report of the Kids Online studies from Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Uruguay was pre-launched at the session, titled: Infancia y adolescência em la era digital (edited by Dantiela Trucco and Amalia Palma - Cepal), featuring chapters from the session organizers and participants from the Latin America Kids Online network (LACKO). This represents a landmark for LACKO, which is a research and collaboration network aimed at producing reliable data on online children and fostering its use for policymakind and advancing children´s rights, in particular, digital rights. LACKO adopts the conceptual and methodological framework proposed by Global Kids online, which facilitates the production of internationally comparable data and shared knowledge on the issue. Unicef is a key partner of this effort. The report is expected to be published in the first quarter of 2020.
The Global Kids Online Report launched during the session can be accessed at:
https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/1060-growing-up-in-a-connected-world.html
Ethical, political, legal and regulatory dimensions for new technologies:
- What is the relationship between technological, economic, ethical, political considerations and legal and regulatory frameworks in data-driven technologies?
- How are they connected and what may happen if those relationships undergo changes?
Who holds the data necessary for democratic decision-making?
How can we support digital sovereignty based on democratic values?
What influence do filter bubbles and algorithms have on our social coexistence?
There was broad support for the view that we should have a discussion on data governance including different stakeholder groups.The importance of data for development, identity as well as for our country and everyday lifes was commonly stated. A main theme was how to design systems in a proper user-oriented way. No agreement could be found on to what extent technological solution are able to solve the problems of data privacy and regulation or user behavior within the data governance discussion. Another disagreement was about to what extent democratic decision making processes are shaking in their core or on the other hand are stable, trustworthy and secure.
We have to discuss data governance including different stakeholder groups.
We have to create a better way of using data; e.g. a better data documentation standard.
We have to be engaged and have to look after the existing democratic procedures and values.
We do not have to re-invent everything. We have laws, standards on which we can built on.
We need national automated decision making strategies.
We should support participative technical development; privacy by design and support Open Source Projects.
Politics should support fora where every stakeholder group is involved in participative technological development to foster co-design.
Subsidies and incentives for peoples especially in rural areas to support common technological integration.
- Global identity: project three words.
- Freedom information right,
- Projects to inform the citizens, e.g. Frag den Staat / My data
- Open data including better data documentation
- Privacy by design
- Open Source movement
- Co-Design
est. 50 onsite participants, est. 10 online participants, est. 25 women present onsite, est. 4 women online.
Reaching out for user that are a minority within the digital community. Bring technology to rural areas and involve older people as well as all group that are not involved in technological development until now. Create fora to bring everyone together to co-design and identify opportunities.
Distinction for digital products might be introduced according to their development based on inclusion of different stakeholder groups, e.g. elderly, women.
- How can we make inclusion, empowerment and agency of individuals a core design element of identity and data models?
- What are high-value use cases that data and digital identity can enable for citizens and consumers, and how can we accelerate their implementation?
- How must roles for governments, businesses and civil society evolve in an increasingly data-driven economy?
Expected outcomes:
- Broaden shared understanding of individual-centric principles on digital identity and data
- Identify “lighthouse” activities and scalable, replicable best practices from around the world
- Identify priority policy considerations that need multi-stakeholder dialogue and action
There was agreement on:
- Digital Identities as opportunity to enable high-potential use cases as well as risk to individual rights
- Principles to be maintained in designing Digital Identity Solutions: Public involvement, Opt-In, Collaboration (you cannot solve identity alone), Standards / Interoperability, Security
- No one-size fits all: e.g. top-down state-imposed identity versus collaborative approaches
Policy recommendations relate to collaborative approaches and respecting privacy and control of individuals:
- Economic: Define incentives and explain to users the benefits of identity [to be addressed in business fora and digital skills]
- Social-cultural: Public consultations, Public-private involvement - to reach critical mass
- Technical policy: Define and adopt common standards / technology exists to approach this [to be addressed by technical, vendor alliances, as well as ethical approaches to AI]
- Overarching policy issues: Define frames for privacy and security before imposing digital identity scehemes.
Examples addressing policy issues:
- National ID Schemes giving agency to indiivduals over their data: Estonia
- Collaboration of public-private sector: UK: Gov.Verify
- Public engagement in designing solutions: Canada, Estonia, Australia
- Technical authentication: FIDO Alliance
- Focus on standardization, harmonization, public engagement, critical-mass of coallitions to avoid monopolies e,g. of large private sector companies or of government surveillance
Estimated participation: 60 participants, 50-50% gender diversity
Digital Identities should not exaccerbate divisions.
Assessing the role of algorithms in electoral processes
- What is the role of algorithms in political campaings?
- What are the main challenges to regulate the use of algorithms considering the following dimensions: transparency, secrecy, audit, others?
- What are the main regulatory and governance aproaches to consider in the challenge of regulating the use of algorithm in political campaigns?
We expect to produce a list of proposals that may contribute to the development of legal, political and governance mechanisms to deal with the challenge of regulating the use of algorithms in political campaings.
The discussion started with presentations exploring the role that of communication strategies based on the use of algorithms to distribute content had in the dissemination of disinformation, mainly through social networks platforms, in electoral processes. Both presentations supported the connection between digital platforms and the emergence of an advertising industry that benefits from the spread of disinformation. However, one of the speakers proposed that the evidences on the influence that this strategies played during 2016 presidential election in USA is inconclusive. The open debate brought the social impact of algorithms beyond the issue of electoral processes. As a counterpoint, one participant exposed the influence of different aspects of the political contexts influencing democratic processes. This questioning led the discussion to an important point of disagreement where from one side participants where exposing illegal practices conducted during political campaigns - many of them based on the use of algorithms and the massive collection of personal data -, and from the other, researchers were trying to draw attention to other important elements of the electoral contexts, stating that an unnecessary effort is being made to regulate algorithms.
The workshop had an important contribution from other countries. As soon as the debate presented different positions on the understanding of the role of algorithms in electoral processes, international experience around specific cases where practices based on the use of algorithms have influenced democratic electoral processes were presented. The phenomenon proved so recent that proposals to deal with it are still being cooked . In the very beginning, one of the guest speakers quoted five recommendations to be considered regarding algorithms and disinformation: media literacy; strong human review and appeal processes where AI is used; independent appeal and audit of platforms; standardizing notice and appeal procedures (creating a multistakeholder body for appeals); and transparency in AI disinformation techniques.
This workshop provided an extremely rich meeting between different countries who shared their experiences. Beyond the contribution of electoral processes in United Kingdom, Unites States and Brazil, briefly described in the workshop resume, during the session representatives from Hong Kong, Italy, Trinidad and Tobago, Ecuador, Colombia e Honduras, brought examples of the influence of algorithms in their local elections and shared their experiences. Hong Kong representative spoke about the spread of disinformation in his country and its multifaceted form, such as the target of disinformation towards Hong Kong citizens and its source which, differently of the others cases, was based in China. Italy in turn mentioned the raise of hate speech during their elections and how this escalates outside the Internet boundaries as physical violence toward policy makers. Trinidad and Tobago pointed out that their couple last general elections were influenced by the actions of Cambridge Analytica and now, the Electoral Comission is investigating how so much personal data was available to political parties.
A few punctual initiatives towards framing algorithm impact in electoral processes were presented. Beyond the Co-regulation approach mentioned in the topic 3, Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward, some initiatives raised were (i) the development of fact check agencies (Honk Kong example); (ii) to focus on the understanding not only of paid advertisement, but also in spontaneous advertisement, spread by bots, for instance, fake accounts, etc.; (iii) to foster high quality journalism in order to combat disinformation. Aside this inputs, one important discussion about the function of disinformation took place. In this matter, Lorena Jaume reminded some historical and philosophical studies showing that disinformation does not appear to convince you to believe in something that you don't believe, but to build identities and gather together people who already believe in similar ideas; disinformation, in this studies, are a discourse of domination.
The estimated number of participants in the room was 74. Of these, about 36% (around 27 persons) were women, and 64% (47 persons) were men.
As the theme of this workshop was about algorithms in democratic processes, no gender issue was debated either directly or indirectly.
Considering that our expected goal with this workshop was to produce a list of proposals in order to contribute to the development of legal, political and governance mechanisms to deal with the challenge of regulating the use of algorithms in political campaigns, we had two different approaches presented. The first was the co-regulation model, which aims at complement self and public regulation structures to define recommendations on specific principles, standards, and measures designed to establish principles and forms of collaboration to content moderation. The second was the recommendation of initiatives to be considered regarding algorithms and disinformation, namely: invest in media literacy; strong human review and appeal processes where AI is used; independent appeal and audit of platforms; standardizing notice and appeal procedures (creating a multistakeholder body for appeals); and transparency in AI techniques. It is worth highlighting that we carried out a deeper debate about the role of algorithmic technology in electoral processes in different countries.
The sessions aims to discuss the following policy questions:
a) what concrete job opportunities exist for workers in the Global South? What is the gap between skills needed and workforce qualifications, specifically for low-income women in the Global South?
b) To what extent can low-income women in the Global South take advantage of jobs being created? What strategies can be leveraged to ensure that low-skilled women are better equipped to participate in the digital economy? What does it take to bring new female workers up to speed to meet job demand?
c) What measures are needed to ensure emerging, and evolving jobs provide decent work opportunities for vulnerable populations in the Global South, particularly women?
The discussion unpacked multiple facets of modern work, including technological advances such as automation, and the emergence of digital platforms; preparedness to take advantage of online opportunities; legal protections and rights to ensure that gig workers are treated fairly; and unique challenges faced by women from the Global South in accessing fair work. Panellists agreed that the benefits of online and gig work were less achievable in the developing world because of disparate determinants to successful gig work when compared with the developed world, including: low Internet and digital skills penetration rates; precariousness in employer-employee relations (legal classification of workers as opposed to service providers, unsafe work, low accountability of platforms, etc.); incongruity between traditional educational offer and modern-work needs (preparing for jobs that have not been invented as yet); and challenges in enforcing laws (e.g. labour and taxation) for new work models. Legal challenges are significant - ambiguity surrounding the classification of gig workers as employees or freelancers/independent businesses means that the gig workers are at risk of being exploited by some platform companies and corporations. Panellists also agreed that current challenges have led to the creation of a digital underclass in some cases, as opportunities are slanted towards specific population segments while the digitally excluded and vulnerable groups become further disadvantaged in future work.
Panellists indicated that multiple forms of global governance were critical to addressing jurisdictional challenges and other legal matters for gig workers. Panellists recognised that legislation at local levels was slow to adapt to new employment models, and that there are even difficulties in domesticating some soft law created from international organisations such as the OECD. There were shortcomings among multilateral organisations in their grasp of the range of issues implicated in gig work. However, given the nature of transnational, digital work, mixed approaches to setting global principles for fair work were essential. At the enterprise level, gig work management needs to be flexible to better leverage workers’ outputs. Panellists also identified new approaches to developing skills of gig workers. Using the example of training by the CEIBAL Foundation in Uruguay, that country’s IT sector was engaged in the development of curricula to better align training outcomes with the present-day needs of businesses. The session also underlined that future work will consist of traditional activities and new technologies, such as the deployment of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in medical diagnoses. Striking the balance is key to maximising the potential of technological advances and new forms of work.
Initiatives addressing the issues raised in this session included:
Fairwork project – the Fairwork Foundation brings together platforms, workers, trade unions, regulators, and academics in meetings held at the International Labour Organisation (ILO) to set global principles for fair work in the platform economy. Having developed five Fairwork principles (fair pay, fair conditions, fair contracts, fair management, fair representation), the Foundation evaluates platform companies and score their ‘fairness’ using a ten-point marking scheme.
The Center for Research CEIBAL Foundation – CEIBAL foundation provides advice to the ongoing implementation of the CEIBAL Plan in Uruguay, which introduces educational technology into that country’s classrooms and digitises learning. The Foundation works on promoting digital skills, and also traditional competencies such as critical thinking, collaboration, and problem solving.
Ayitic Goes Global – This project sought to increase young Haitian women’s access to employment by building their digital capacities, shoring up Haitian internet infrastructure through bespoke training for the local technical community, and matching young women graduates with gig opportunities, internships, and long-term employment. Between 2017 and 2019, the project successfully trained 358 women and 163 technicians, and oversaw the engagement of some graduates for work opportunities.
More emphasis must be placed on legal classifications of workers to ensure that gig workers are afforded adequate rights as traditional employees, and not treated as independent businesses with little accountability for platform companies. Similarly, 21st century skills should also be redefined to understand the changing nature of work. Discourse on both matters should be further developed at the IGF and other policy spaces, and not be confined to academic debates.
Rethinking how traditional employment is viewed is critical to improving the conditions of gig workers as new employment models such as platform work arise. Their is a need for further evaluation of the gig economy within the IGF system and among other international organisations. Awareness and cognition among non-traditional IG actors (e.g. trade unions, labour organisations, courts) would also be instrumental to having platform companies comply with rules, and offer labour and general rights to gig workers.
There were approximately thirty onsite participants and five online participants.
Gender bias within cultures disproportionately affected young women’s access to gig work, as the challenge to securing employment is compounded with that of ensuring that young women had access to ICTs. Perceptions of female gig workers differed between the developed and developing worlds. In the first case, female gig workers positively combined gig work with opportunities for child care at home. In the developing world, gig work was sometimes perceived as a competing interest to “traditional” societal roles. Also, unpaid time for women to skill up for digital opportunities was seen as problematic in some households in developing countries.
In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability to transfer digital information across borders has become an essential component whether to enabling economic growth, facilitate access to education, healthcare or other social services or just simply empower people across the world to access information and connect with each-other. SMEs have the most to gain from the cross-border data flows that support global trade, but at the same time, are the most vulnerable to the challenges they pose.
How can we better understand data flows?
How do they contribute to our common development goals?
Where do the threats and challenges lie and how can we overcome them?
This workshop aims to explore these questions, in an effort to find answers to the overarching policy issue: how can cross-border flows of data be facilitated to connect SMEs in the global supply chain, while also preserving privacy and protecting personal data?
The workshop's six panelists were grouped in groups of two. Each pair addressed one of three main elements: 1) data-enabled digital transformation of SMEs, 2) data flows connecting SMEs in a global supply chain, 3) privacy and data protection considerations.
The workshop provided an improved understanding of both the practical and policy elements necessary to support cross-border data flows to enable participation of SMEs in global trade. Speakers discussed the potential impact that digital transformation is and can have on SMEs. They discussed the right policy environment that can enable SMEs to engage in international trade, as well as highlighted some examples of SMEs that are using ICTs to grow and expand their business across borders. They also grappled with the challenges SMEs are facing trying to navigate the complex regulatory environment arising from data protection and privacy concerns.
Some of the main takeaways were:
- SMEs comprise a huge part of the global labor force, make up half of businesses globally, and have enormous potential for bringing new avenues of economic opportunity, through e-commerce for example.
- Cross-border e-commerce is important for SMEs and ICT is a critical enabler of that activity by providing connections to business counterparts and customers up and down the supply chain.
- Navigating complex regulatory frameworks is a significant challenge for SMEs. International regulations around data protection and privacy are complex and increasingly fragmented.
- The regulatory environment around data protection is complex and is causing new digital trade barriers for SMEs.
- Not all regulation is burdensome and companies can utilize data protection and privacy regulation as an opportunity to build trust and build confidence of consumers.
- UK’s Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) published results of a national survey of around 1,000 SMEs, which asked the degree to which data restrictions were important in hampering the development of e-commerce. 25% of companies involved in the delivery of cross border services or the sale of intangible goods noted significant issues with navigating regulations.
- McKinsey report pointed to the massive increase in data flows across borders and estimated that this had “raised world GDP by 10.1 percent over what would have resulted in a world without any cross-border flows”.
- Data Access Map and related initiatives from Open Data Institute
Policymakers should strive to set favourable conditions for the digital economy and encourage data-driven innovation, while at the same time taking into account the interest of individuals and businesses alike in the protection of their personal data regardless of where it is stored, processed or transferred. Policymakers should work to ensure all citizens and companies can realize the full potential of the Internet as a platform for innovation and economic growth, by adopting policies that facilitate the adoption of new technologies and global movement of data that supports them.
Emphasis was placed on the need for streamlining data protection and privacy regulations and approaches.
Overall 50 participants, approximately 15 women.
It was mentioned that ICT is a powerful tool for women to engage in e-commerce. The CEO of GoCoop shared his experience as an SME in India. GoCoop is a platform and marketplace designed to connect artisans, weaver co-operatives and clusters directly with markets. GoCoop illustrated how ICTs can and are enabling and empowering women across India and the world to engage in e-commerce.
Public Interest Data: Where Are We? To Do What?
-
What is the definition of public interest data?
-
What are the legislative frameworks on the sharing of public interest data?
-
How to encourage actors to share their data in the goal of the general interest?
-
What regulation for public interest data?