Organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br). the Open Forum, focused on providing an overview of the activities developed by CGI.br within the scope of the Gender and Diversity Agenda, a project that was implemented in 2021 to investigate challenges to promote gender and ethnic-racial diversity in the IT sector and Internet Governance ecosystem in Brazil.

The session was presented by Beatriz Barbosa, Laura Tresca and Gabriela Nardy, and divided into two parts: 1) the motivations, objectives and methodology of the initiative; 2) the results of the national workshops.

In the first part, Beatriz presented the guidelines for developing the workshops, how they were held and conducted, ensuring regional and ethnic diversity of women, and leading the group to the joint construction of the main challenges in Brazil to promote diversity in ICTs. The second one focused on presenting the ten challenges found in the workshops, how the debate took place and how it relates to the Brazilian scenario. The ten challenges are:

1. Produce data that includes information on gender, race and ethnicity regarding presence participation in the technology sector

2. Develop public and private policies that promote diversity and equity in Internet access, use and development

3. Address gender and racial violence and different forms of oppression on social media/Internet platforms

4. Ensure access to information and the exercise of freedom of expression for women on the Internet

5. Promote policies with gender, equity and diversity perspective

6. Build capacities for girls and women regarding ICTs considering the intersectional perspective of class, age, race, sexuality and persons with disabilities

7. Support and foster civil society initiatives that promote diversity within the Internet ecosystem

8. Create a work environment that is favorable for women in Internet and technology companies

9. Ensure gender and racial diversity in Internet governance spaces

10. Economic empowerment of women in the online environment

After the presentation, some comments highlighted how this initiative can inspire actions into other countries. The comments from the audience could be divided in three areas: policies that could contribute to reduce inequalities, education, and intersecctionall issues.

A participant from Uganda mentioned that, in his country, the digital world is creating even more gaps between women and men. The debate revolved around policies that could tackle these challenges not only in the digital environment, but, somehow, to make women equally benefit from the digital technologies. Another one ranted about university courses and asked how we could make STEM more appealing to women. A comment from an online participant from Brazil said that the first step to advance on themes like facial recognition and transgender is producing material on the topic. Finally, another woman from Brazil talked about the importance of making women feel like they belong in tech and how to provide a warm environment where they can feel safe to learn and work.

Complete report also available here

Introduction (Mariel & José / iRights.Lab & LAPIN):

With regard to transparency, she mentioned that there are many different ways, depending on the system and its application, to provide information about its functioning and deployment.

With that in mind, she mentioned that transparency needs to be provided in a way that the general public, but especially the groups most affected by these systems, including Black and Indigenous communities, understand their impact and are provided with tools to interact with them, sharing experiences and giving feedback.

Key takeaways:

Based on the above considerations of the panelists, we conclude that transparency in AI systems can be part of the solution, but it is not a silver bullet. More important than making models themselves transparent is to operationalise the provision of information about these technologies through (i) accessible information to affected communities on how AI impacts them; (ii) inclusion of underrepresented groups, such as black and indigenous people in the debates; (iii) building trust among citizens and those who build AI models; and (iv) ensure public data is open source.

Next steps:

Following the panel we see the need to further deepen the discussion about practical implications of AI transparency for specific communities. An opportunity to do so could be though a follow-up panel where we bring together representatives of affected communities, scholars and technicians involved in AI systems design. Valuable outcomes of such an event could be the assessment of similarities and differences, needs and challenges of affected communities to information about AI systems. Recommendations for policy advisors and technicians to the requirements of communities for transparent information and opportunities to engage with AI systems would also be positive results.

The Swiss OFCOM organised an "Open Forum" on the topic of digital self-determination and trustworthy data spaces.

Political authorities at national and international level as well as civil society are developing new models of data governance in this respect. In Switzerland, we published a government report earlier this year on the concept of "digital self-determination" and "trusted data spaces". Our vision is a data society based on autonomy and freedom to manage one's own data. We want to restore trust in data technology and empower the actors in the digital space. To this end, Switzerland is developing a code of conduct for trusted data space providers.

The proliferation of national and unilateral approaches to data governance has led to an increasing fragmentation of regulation at the international level. This is accentuated by the fact that there is currently no international process for a holistic and cross-cutting discussion of data governance issues. This session aimed to address difficult data governance issues such as: How can we reinvent ourselves in the digital age as our digital footprints expand? What are the key elements needed to implement digital self-determination? How can we ensure that such efforts do not contribute to further regulatory fragmentation? What governance mechanisms are possible and how could they be deployed?

Magdalena Jóźwiak argued that personal data should be protected as a core value. Yet there is a dichotomy between private and public actors. The transparency of private companies is only based on voluntary disclosure. Many studies bring the importance of data governance to a constitutional level. The inclusion of digital self-determination is a way to balance the trends. 

Roger Dubach recalled the difficulty of moving from a national to a global discussion. At the national level, Switzerland is developing a voluntary code of conduct, with the objective of building trustworthy and human-centred data spaces. The discussion at national level should help inform the international level and vice versa.

Pari Esfandiari pointed out that the issue of data governance is very controversial, with a geopolitical concern. There are various ideological perspectives on data, from the American approach of maximising use, to the European approach of protecting it and the national approach of controlling it. Pari reminded the audience that a single, global data governance regime is as essential as it is unlikely to be achieved at the moment.

Marilia Maciel noted that data regulation has moved away from the use of data as intellectual property to focus more on how data can be shared and used collaboratively. The Swiss proposal is in line with this. Little attention paid to the development aspects of data in trade-related discussions. The issue of transparency arises in this context, trade negotiations are very opaque. We only have an idea of what is being discussed, but no clear indication. And only governments participate, which excludes the idea of multi-stakeholder participation.

The session reflected on the importance of meaningful access and participation in the online environment for the full enjoyment of human rights. The panel discussion focused on

Access and participation to address major challenges  to access and participation online and reflect on ways to promote empowerment and inclusion;

Online content moderation  and the most pressing challenges  in Africa;

Redress for human rights violations online

The panel included:

• Catherine Muya, Civil Society (Article 19), African Group - remote
• Hon. Neema Lugangira MP, Government (Tanzania),  African Group - on-site
• Roselyn Odoyo, Private Sector (Mozilla) - on-site
• Victor Ndede, Civil Society (Amnesty International Kenya) - on-site
• Yohannes Eneyew Ayalew, Technical Community, African Group - remote

and intervention from  IRPC Steering Committee member, Santosh Sigdel

The session was moderated on-site by IRPC co-chair Raashi Saxena and online moderated by  IRPC co-chair Minda Moreira

Access and participation

Victor Ndede identified four major barriers to access and participation:

1. Network infrastructure  and policy
2. Taxation. The ever-increasing governmental taxes on digital devices and services pose affordability challenges and a reduction of mobile taxes would lead to better inclusion.
3. Digital literacy,  It is important to know how to use Internet-connected technologies to harness their full potential
4. Content, language barriers and the importance of localised content. The fact that the content is mostly in English can limit participation online.

Roselyn Odoyo added that when it comes to access and participation, marginalised communities are disproportionally affected as the legal and political environment is still hostile to these communities e.g, refugees, and LGTB. Access is not only difficult but can even be used to surveil and curtail their rights.

Roselyn pointed out the fact that human rights violations online have repercussions offline and vice-versa and therefore human rights defenders working with marginalised communities and digital rights groups should work together rather than in silos to better address these issues. She also highlighted the importance of including civil society in discussions on accessibility and participation.

Responding to the issue of taxation Hon. Neema Lugangira pointed out that developing countries are losing out due to international tax regulations and that it is important to ensure that African countries benefit from the taxes generated by sales within the countries and that it is only fair that tech companies pay taxes on income generated in the country. The discussion developed further with examples coming from Kenya, Tanzania ad Congo and there was some support both from the panel ad the floor that the increase of taxes for users of digital services and devices could lead to accessibility challenges and hinder inclusion.  Hon. Neema Lugangira highlighted the importance of all stakeholders working together so those valid arguments can be passed on to legislators to better look at these issues.

Santosh Sigdel (Internet Rights and Principles Coalition Steering Committee) highlighted the importance of documents such as the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet in the promotion of accessibility and participation. The Nepali translation of the Charter, he added was a collaborative process. The translation of the document into the local language develops capacity building and gives communities the chance to work on issues that affect directly the tools to work on better laws and policies to address those issues. Sigdel also stressed the importance of the right to access to address digital inclusion and pointed out that the online world replicates what is already happening offline and, therefore, escalates vulnerabilities.

Online content moderation

Reflecting on online content and issues at the intersection of freedom of expression, online abuse and online hatred or incitement to violence the panel reiterated the position that human rights should apply online as they do offline and agreed that online violence has repercussions of offline.

Hon. Neema Lugangira looked at the fine line between freedom of expression and online abuse. She explained how the latter was used as a tool to silence some groups, especially women and highlighted the dangers of self-censoring. She called for online discussions that are “focused on the agenda, not the gender” and for wider representation in social media platform teams so that cultural and language diversity are taken into account. Hon. Lugangira stressed the importance of legislation and regulatory frameworks to remove the grey areas from where hate speech and online violence flow. She also pointed out the need for all stakeholders to come together and called for different ways of engagement and cooperation among stakeholders.

Yohannes Eneyew Ayalew reflected on the profound impact of online hate speech in the context of the war in Northern Ethiopia and on the slow response of social media platforms to prevent the escalation of violence.

Content moderation as pointed out by Catherine Muya should be a remedy to address issues such as hate speech however there was strong support that more needs to be done to address the challenges of online content moderation to ensure it is a practical and effective remedy. Catherine highlighted the lack of transparency and coordination which are directly linked to the failure of tech companies to truly invest in online content moderation and to develop effective measures from adequate training and fair remuneration of online content moderators, more awareness of the tools available for abuse reporting to the development of long term solutions accountability for those responsible and support to victims of online abuse.     

Questions and comments from the floor came from different stakeholders, from civil society to government and National human rights institutions and highlighted the different experiences on taxation of digital devices and services in African countries and the impact on accessibility and participation online. They also stressed the crucial need to address online accessibility for all by designing and developing content for people with disabilities. Participants also highlighted the importance of striking the right balance between business and human rights and the role of governments to uphold human rights online as offline and pointed out the barriers that need to be overcome to promote accessibility and inclusion from the physical barriers still preventing access in many communities to the lack of coordination and effective mechanisms or the lack of trust among stakeholders. The lack of access to the Internet and digital services due to national and regional shutdowns, particularly the current situation in Ethiopia Tigray region was another issue brought up during the Q&A discussion with participants and speakers highlighting the importance of a free and open Internet and members of the IRPC SC referring to the Coalition’s Charter of Human Rights and Principles and the importance of Article 1 - The Rights to Access the Internet as an enabler of all digital human rights.

Recommendations

At the end of the session, the panel put forward several recommendations to ensure the full enjoyment of digital human rights:

• A real commitment from all stakeholders to promote access and participation and to ensure digital inclusion. This includes more infrastructure, concerted policies and effective implementation, ensuring digital literacy and content which is accessible to all.
• More engagement and constructive multistakeholder dialogue to develop regulatory frameworks and effective solutions to promote digital inclusion, and to respect and uphold human rights online.
• Online violence must be tackled effectively. Internet shutdowns are an obstacle to a free and open Internet and hinder the full enjoyment of digital human rights. Content moderation can only be an effective remedy if civil society, the technical community, the private sector and governments work together to ensure that any implemented solutions are transparent, sustainable, localised, human-centered and rights-respecting.

The session focused on the draft report entitled "Health Online Indicators LAC ‘22-‘23: Data on access to health solutions using the Internet", produced by Governance Primer with funding from LACNIC, presenting its findings to a global audience in order to seek further input and evaluate what next steps should be pursued prior to publication of the document.

Mark W. Datysgeld (Governance Primer) and Ron Andruff (ONR Consulting) had an open debate with the audience in relation to the contents of the report, in a session that focused less on exposition and more on exchange of ideas.

The first point that was brought up is how, in spite of the global COVID-19 pandemic, some countries in LAC still lacked proper regulations around telemedicine, a concerning issue that reduces the safety both of practitioners and patients.

It was next noted that the ability to purchase medicines using the Internet is also limited and sometimes outright banned in some LAC countries. This is at times circumvented with the use of delivery apps, which leaves open questions such as liability and medicine safety.

The subject of medicine importation was debated, with an understanding that this practice is not even seen as a matter of discussion in many jurisdictions, when in fact the Internet could be leveraged to increase access and reduce inequalities in relation to medicines.

Finally, a dependency map was presented showing the potential routes of action to generate impact on processes where health and Internet Governance intersect, pointing out that there could be much more action than there currently is.

In discussion with the audience, it was brought up that such a study would be useful to the African region, seeing as, much like LAC, it is also constituted of a patchwork of legislations that do not harmonize with each other.

It was then discussed that the IGF itself is a good avenue for such debates to take place, considering its open-ended nature and multistakeholder nature, but different fora need to be sought for the theme to be socialized and increase in awareness.

The final report will be published in 2023, reflecting the discussions from this session.

As part of the 17th UN Internet Governance Forum, held in Addis Ababa from November 28 to December 2, the BMZ Digital Transformation Centers (DTCs) together with the global project “Future of Work” organized an open forum on Digital Education and the Future of Women’s Work, on November 29. The session invited experts from a broad range of countries and background to a panel discussion on opportunities and challenges faced by women in the digital economy and the role of digital education for equitable access to IT-enabled jobs in the future. 

Sabina Dewan from the JustJobs Network India and Prof. Kutoma Wakunuma, partner of the DTC Kenya, shared findings from their research on women’s experience in the digital economy, and learnings on good practices as well as policy implications for ensuring new digital opportunities benefit women equally. Their discussion was followed by practical experiences shared by Hannah Adams from Harambee Youth Accelerator on Rwanda, Salih Mahmod from Mosul Space Iraq and Yayaha Amsatou from the SmartVillage project Niger. All panelists highlighted the need to leverage women’s opportunities in the digital economy, while universally agreeing on the many obstacles female economic empowerment remains to face.  

Participants off- and online engaged in the discussion and emphasized the importance for policymakers in the global south to ensure requisite levels of basic education as an essential starting point to promote effective digital skills development and future-oriented competencies.​ At the same time, participants called for more inclusive policy reforms education systems to ensure access for people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups. 

In conclusion, the session identified several key takeaways from the panel discussion and subsequent round of questions: While digitalization and new technologies are sought to provide new employment opportunities, their positive impact is often limited to selected, highly educated groups with access to internet and IT-infrastructures. As a result, policies and regulations must consider the needs and interest of vulnerable groups such as women to guarantee equitable access to jobs and benefits in the digital economy.  

Yet, access to digital technologies is not a guarantee for women’s economic empowerment and no end to itself. In fact, the lack of sufficient regulations threatens to exacerbate existing inequalities. Yet, there are no one-size-fits-all solutions – rather, policies need to cater to women’s needs and consider their country-specific context to empower women in the labour market as well as in their homes and communities.​ 

Socio-cultural factors prevent women from realizing their full potential and limit equitable access to jobs in the digital economy as social requirements and unpaid care work continue to bind women to traditional reproductive roles and routine jobs. Experts from India, Rwanda, Niger, Kenya and Iraq agreed that governments must prioritize job creation and commit towards reducing the gender skills gap by creating education systems that promote digital skills for younger generations. For that it is crucial that training programs are demand-oriented and offer clear pathways to jobs to ensure female participation. As shown in the case of Rwanda, female role-models can further promote women’s participation in skills trainings and increase their participation in digital markets.​ Meanwhile, governments should also incentivize the hiring of women and supporting female entrepreneurs in the digital economy.  

In addition to that, government actions must include public awareness campaigns to make digitalization more accessible in society and implement curricula that focus on digital literacy to promote key digital competencies. For that, increased investments in education are needed and gender-disaggregated data in national statistical systems must inform new regulations as well the design of systems evaluating women’s reproductive roles. As demonstrated on the example of Niger, in rural areas where digital literacy rates and access to digital financial services are particularly low, more collaboration between private and public sector is needed, as well as better stakeholder-engagement, especially including women, for promoting women’s financial and digital literacy.  

MAIN REPORT

The Internet is a Network of Networks, global, not only in a geographical context, but by several shades of the term 'global' in terms of being free of cultural, ideological, political bias, and global in terms of the technologies that converge into it. On many occasions, the decision taken was to separate geopolitics from the Internet which would make the Internet into two or more 'Splinternets' in place of the unfathomably valued One Internet.

Yet, recently, some leading members of the Internet Community signed a common statement "Towards the Multistakeholder Imposition of Internet Sanctions" - opening the door to the Internet Community having some means to decide on whether sanctions such as disconnection from the Internet would be appropriate. This Statement and background can be found on: https://techpolicy.press/towards-the-multistakeholder-imposition-of-internet-sanctions/

This brings forward the question of whether the Internet should be part of a sanctions regime.

In the session, panellists were asked the following questions:

• Is the Internet technical architecture and infrastructure as currently defined able to impose sanctions?
• Is the Internet management/administration as currently defined able/willing to impose sanctions
• Indeed, should it impose sanctions, knowing these would break Core Internet Values?
• What path could the Internet’s Governance take in the future:
  • Is the future that of assuming a technical mission, simply maintaining the geopolitical neutrality of the Internet or will it expand to reflect ways of the Internet bridging real world geo political and cultural divisions to make One World, or Two, Three or more?

Panellists answered as follows (some comments submitted in writing by the authors themselves, some paraphrased from their interventions):

(Vint Cerf, Google)

• Maintaining a generally neutral , connected and resilient core Internet infrastructure is of vital importance. Combating bad behaviors sometimes can be locally implemented (dropping DOS traffic, seizing abusive domain names, filtering “bad” content, detecting and filtering malware, spam and phishing). 
• The major problems today are at the application layer whether this is misinformation, disinformation, CSAM, phishing, surveillance, etc. Finding ways to create incentives for good practices and to discourage bad ones is a challenge. When incentives don’t work, we need ways to hold badly acting parties accountable. This will require international cooperation in cases where harns are inflicted across jurisdictional boundaries. 
• It is important that attempts to apply sanctions proportionately and to follow the principle of subsidiarity. It is a mistake to apply sanctions at the wrong layer in the architecture. For example, shutting down the Internet to deal with bad behavior by some parties is an overreach that creates a lot of harm for those innocently relying on the operation of the network. 

—-------

(Bill Woodcock, Packet Clearing House)

• The implementation of sanctions via Internet means currently faces two principal challenges: On the network side, network operators typically under-comply or over-comply, due to difficulties in appropriately scoping enforcement actions. On the governmental side, sanctions regimes are not typically published in a uniform, consistent, or machine-readable format, they’re not published in a single predictable location, and they’re not harmonized with other regimes. 
• Many very specific implementation issues exist as well, starting with governments’ predilection for transliterating foreign-language or foreign-character-set names of sanctioned entities in diverse and inconsistent ways, rather than using the most-canonical form of each name, in its native language and character set. Network operator implementation has been occurring within the Sanctions.Net community since March of 2022, and governmental harmonization efforts have been occurring principally within the Digital directorate of the OECD.
• Most conversation about Internet sanctions implementation has been positive and collaborative, since governments wish to see their sanctions regimes respected, and network operators wish to comply with the law and protect their customers. Dissenting voices have questioned the legitimacy of sanctions regimes from both the right and the left, principally fearing governmental overreach.

—--------

(Veronika Datzer, Advisor at German Parliament)

• It is impossible for politics to refrain from the internet because it already is. This process cannot be reversed. We therefore need political solutions because the technical infrastructure of the internet must remain neutral.
• Solutions to making the internet a peaceful place must not include internet sanctions as these impact all people and can have dramatic adverse consequences. They must be based on a multistakeholder model and co-create what it means to establish a peaceful internet, as such an understanding should not be imposed.
• We need to be in close cooperation between the technical community and the political community. 

—--------

(Iria Puyosa, Toda Institute)

• The global multistakeholder governance ecosystem should center the protection of human rights to safeguard internet core values. Sanctions against States that violate international law may be necessary in cases of widespread human rights violations or credible allegations of crimes against humanity enabled by  State agencies' internet usage.  
• The global internet may need to create a multistakeholder policy advisory body that provides guidelines on targeted sanctions that may be enforced if necessary. Nonetheless, sanctions must be targeted, specific, and proportional. Also, a robust and reliable due process must be established for making these decisions 
• The establishment of rules and processes to define and enforce sanctions should not be decided by a small number of governments (such as those belonging to the OECD). The policy formulation process should involve countries from different regions of the world. Otherwise, the sanctions regime may be considered unilateral and provide an excuse for the "sovereign internet" model leading to the splinternet.
• All of the countries are working their model of sovereignty and Internet some are taking an approach that is completely different than that model we're used to, the open, free, Internet.

—------

(Bastiaan Goslings, RIPE NCC)

• It is not in the mandate of technical organisations like RIPE, not within the policies that determine how these organizations are run, to make decisions on sanctions. Policies  are set by multistakeholder communities across an entire service region, which includes many jurisdictions. If there are sanctions, they need to be decided following due process, democratic fashion demonstrating that the sanctions are proportionate to the goals to be achieved. Economic sanctions are set by the European Union.
• RIPE has no authority to actually enforce what they are doing as it operates as a trusted technical organisation, a neutral authoritative entity in this case, but no enforcement power of any kind. Networks using the RIPE database operate on Trust.
• Anyone can decide they do not trust this system and operate their own registry. From that perspective, it is a vulnerable system.

From the Floor

• The way to protect the Internet is to isolate the Internet from politics completely and emphasize to the parties that are geopolitical that this is not a geopolitical space and politics has to be out of Internet governance in order to protect the Internet. (Sivasubramanian Muthusamy, ISOC Chennai)
• As a national regulator, when it comes to technical issues or technical harm, I guess from a technical point of view, it is easy to spot something going wrong or to spot harm. And stop it in a way or another. But Nationalisation of the Internet is a concern - how can we stop that? Secondly - it is already too late to keep politics out of the Internet as it is used by politicians. (Hadia El Miniawi, Egypt Telecom Regulator)
•  it can't be Germany. It can't be the European Union. And it also can't be Google. We all have to be included in it. That is why the IGF is so important. It is multistakeholder and through a process that is completely inclusive to all states and big companies, at least. (Veronika Datzer)
• There is no such thing as a splintered Internet. Once it is splintered, it is not the Internet. We have to deliver to the Government and leaderships that we can't splinter the Internet. If you start imposing a sovereign law, you will start actually removing functions of the Internet, totally or significantly. The Internet Society and myself, others, have created frameworks, whereas you can see how different policy proposals and Treaties work with the Open-Ended or Governmental experts in the U.N. It shows how the proposals can be commensurate with the Internet or not. With that knowledge, we have to work on a multistakeholder basis first. (Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM)
• From the Global South perspective what we need the international community to do is actually work on the basis of humility, empathy, solidarity rather than punitive approach, which could actually be prone to bias or to political and economic agendas. Because always when we have a political and economic agendas rolling the dice, the reality that we have on the ground is that those that are the most vulnerable and that are least responsible and least involved in great power competitions, they're the ones that suffer. …we now have the Sustainable Development Goals and these need to be the priority of the international community….  So we very much understand that there are some trends related to the use of Internet for political and international security and geopolitical issues. But this trend must stop. And we must use the Internet to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.(Tulio Andrade from Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)
• The issue, the important issue of geopolitical neutrality of global Internet should be reflected through Global Digital Compact. The first one is development of internationally legally binding (?) from cybersecurity based on the international law. The suggestion is establishment of framework, rules and norms and accountable behavior of digital platforms and serve providers in data security and content and law. And defining a common region for Internet as a peaceful and development oriented environment for public good. Not as a new battlefield and militarized environment. Through signing a global Declaration by all members. The last one, internationalization of Internet and public core as a trust building measure could help global Internet to be geopolitically neutral. (Amir Mokabberi, Tehran University)
• We have to have an agenda to continuously help the public officials to give them knowledge and help them determine what they think from a public interest perspective they have to do. It is useful to distinguish the core of the Internet, the functionalities, the numbering, naming, routing systems as opposed to everything that happens on top of the Internet. (several participants)
• What we need is a space where politics can take place forever without destroying the structure, the Internet itself. The Internet is not one monolith as Bill emphasized. There are lots of networks. There is a great incentive for the Governments to recover the mantras which we had forever on the Internet side. Connectivity is its own price. You lose more than you gain when you lose connectivity. So let's start pushing more for outcomes at the multilateral level that are compatible with what has been happening under technical and multistakeholder sides for so many years. (Alejandro Pisanty, UNAM)

Summary by Olivier Crépin-Leblond - 28 December 2022

Combatting Disinformation without Resorting to Online Censorship – Open Forum organised by LATVIA

Date, time, venue:

30 NOV 2022, 10:50 UTC, Caucus Room 11

Moderator:

Viktors Makarovs, Special Envoy on Digital Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia

Speakers:

Ms Anna Oosterlinck, Head of the UN team, Article 19; Mr Allan Cheboi, Senior Investigations Manager, Code for Africa; Mr Rihards Bambals, Head of Strategic Communications Coordination Department, the State Chancellery of Latvia; Mr Lutz Guellner, Head of Strategic Communication, Task Forces and Information Analysis Division, European External Action Service; Ms Melissa Fleming, Under Secretary General of the United Nations for Global Communications.

Main information about the panel:

Disinformation is a major threat to public safety, security and democratic stability. Governments around the world fight disinformation in different ways. Right now we see a particularly concerning trend for online censorship by some governments as a way to address real or presumed threats posed by disinformation. By applying censorship, governments take away or limit citizens’ freedom of speech and expression. Online censorship also often goes hand in hand with information manipulation.

The main panel discussion focused on identifying ways for governments, organizations and platforms to address disinformation without resorting to online censorship, bans or internet shutdowns. There was broad agreement that disinformation is most effectively addressed by means of wholistic and multifaceted policies, and that this approach is also rights-compatible. Successful implementation of this approach must be based on a conceptional framework that identifies and defines the challenges. It starts with a critical examination of the true cause and context of disinformation and of the risks it presents to society at large. Free and independent media and better public communication are the best tools to fight disinformation. A free, open, safe and secure online environment is most resilient to disinformation.

Key points by each speaker:

Allan Cheboi: Misinformation is false information without intention to do harm, but disinformation is false information that is used to harm or influence other people’s decisions or thoughts. Disinformation is also used to gain power. In most of the cases, misinformation misrepresents facts, while disinformation is centred around a narrative. To address disinformation, we need to customize laws to include information monitoring. Specifically, for the local disinformation attempting, for example, to influence the outcome of elections. We need to make substantive investments to cope with the challenge. Another alarming development is disinformation targeted at the United nations (UN) peacekeepers. That needs to be tackled swiftly and decisively.

Rihards Bambals: Disinformation is false or misleading content disseminated on purpose to mislead and to gain political benefit. Disinformation is a global man-made disaster that is hazardous and influences vulnerable people. Latvia addresses the challenge with centralized information environment monitoring capabilities covering both traditional and social media. Latvia’s strategy is based on three pillars: effective government communication, quality of independent journalism and media, societal resilience. It is of utmost importance to invest in media and information literacy. Governments need to strengthen citizens’ capacity to think critically and recognize and report disinformation cases. Some governments invest billions in spearing disinformation. One example is the Russian Federation’s massive disinformation campaign accompanying its military aggression in Ukraine.

Lutz Gullner: First, we need to define the problem and distinguish between misinformation and disinformation. Misinformation is false information with no intention; disinformation is based on a clear intention. Disinformation can be used as a way to gain economic benefits. There are five characteristic elements we need to look when distinguishing disinformation: harmful, illegal, manipulative, intentional, coordinated. The European Union uses the ABC model which stands for: A – actor, B – behaviour, C – content. This is a technique for distinguishing disinformation and identify actors that are trying to manipulate the information. The approach allows governments to prevent censorship and look at given information in an objective manner.

Anna Oosterlinck: Disinformation must be seen in a wider context, including: reduced pluralism and reduced diversity of information that we can access online; challenges connected to the digital transformation of media; underlying social causes including economic and social inequalities leading to mistrust and polarization. All these factors combined create environment where disinformation can flourish. Disinformation has been addressed in some laws as restriction on false statement of fact that can cause substantial harm or laws on election fraud or misleading advertising, or sales of certain products.

We need to fight disinformation with a number of positive holistic measures by a range of actors. To fight disinformation, we need free and independent media environment, strong protection for journalists and media workers online and offline; implement a comprehensive right to information laws including by complying with the principle of maximum disclosure of information and by proactively releasing information of public interest. Governments should not spread disinformation themselves; they need to ensure connectivity and access to free Internet; invest in digital media and information literacy; adopt positive policy measures to combat online hate speech; work with companies to make sure they respect human rights.

Melissa Fleming: Back in 2018, the UN found that disinformation and hate speech online played a significant role in stoking horrific atrocities against the Rohingya population. They pushed ordinary citizens to commit unspeakable acts. And similar stories have emerged in many other conflict settings. For example, recently in Ethiopia Facebook posts spread hate and inspired attacks. In Ukraine, information is also being used as a weapon. Meanwhile, in Ukraine's neighbouring countries, we're seeing how spreading of lies about refugees brings more suffering for the most vulnerable.

Free speech is not a free pass. In the era of mis- and disinformation, free speech is much more than the right to say whatever you want online. Platforms must face the fact that they are constantly being abused by malign actors; they must live up to their responsibility to protect human rights and save lives. United Nations are constantly engaging with the platforms and advocating the need for the platforms to do their due diligence on human rights and to review their business models against the UN guiding principles on business and human rights. The platforms should offer a robust framework to reduce the dissemination of harmful falsehoods, as well establish remedy mechanisms.

The UN “Verified Initiative” succeeded in getting accurate lifesaving information to communities around the world during the COVID-19 pandemic. The UN is also working to strengthen the capacity of social media users to identify and avoid falsehoods by promoting media and information literacy and by creating own teaching tools. The UN has launched two free online digital literacy courses on mis- and disinformation in collaboration with Wikipedia. The courses are in multiple languages and are being taken by students of disinformation all over the world, hopefully improving their ability to identify mis- and disinformation and not become part of the spreading cycle.

The UN also encourages governments to promote various measures to foster free flow of information, enhance media diversity and support independent public interest media as a means of countering disinformation.

Summary/Conclusions:

• Disinformation is false information put in circulation to intentionally do harm or to gain political or economic benefits. 
• Disinformation can and should be addressed without resorting to censorship.
• We need to keep developing our conceptual framework on disinformation and related phenomena.
• Policies to address disinformation should focus on fostering a free, open, safe and secure online environment and on strengthening free and independent media.
• The online platforms need to improve their efforts to better address disinformation.
• It is important to strengthen citizens’ ability to identify and counter disinformation by investing in digital and media literacy programmes.

The session brought together over 60 organisations for an open exchange of ideas, experiences, and lessons on how to address disinformation through a multi-stakeholder and human-centric approach. In particular, the debate focused on how Africa-Europe partnerships can help tackle the issue, in light of the AU-EU D4D Hub’s mandate to foster digital cooperation between both continents.

The panellists explained how fact-checking has grown dramatically in recent years, becoming one of the most common measures to tackle disinformation. Nevertheless, more than effective fact-checking is needed, they warned. Africa-Europe cooperation should adopt a comprehensive approach integrating multiple complementary measures, such as building digital literacy for all (including the most vulnerable), holding those who profit from disinformation accountable, and the involvement of all stakeholders in devising solutions.

Bringing all actors to the table

Simone Toussi, Project Officer for Francophone Africa at the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) highlighted how “disinformation is a multi-faceted phenomenon that directly threatens democracy and human rights and affects all stakeholders in society”.

“Disinformation manifests in many ways, and can be perpetrated by a diversity of actors,” she added.

As such, she argued that countering fake narratives needs both online and offline efforts undertaken in a coordinated manner by governments, intergovernmental organisations, civil society, media, academia, and private sector. “Multi-stakeholder collaboration is crucial to bring together different views and understanding of the roles that each actor plays,” she said.

Toussi presented research findings proving that measures to tackle disinformation can be ineffective or inadequate when they only consider the point of view of a single stakeholder. For example, fact-checking is sometimes challenged by lack of access to information. Media and civil society participation can help ensure that governments treat information as a public good.

Engaging with the private sector… how?

The debate also touched on the essential role that technology companies play in keeping disinformation from spreading. Ongoing efforts by private sector include partnering with civil society and fact-checkers — including through multi-stakeholder collaborations as proposed by Toussi.

Nevertheless, for Odanga Madung, journalist and Mozilla Foundation fellow, such measures are not enough. He argued that one of the major contributing factors to disinformation is that fake or misleading information is algorithmically amplified by big companies.

“Big companies and social media platforms profit from the spread of disinformation. It is part of their business model, which is a very serious problem,” he said.

For Madung, tackling disinformation requires strong regulations to protect users and their rights, addressing big technology companies’ dominance, encouraging competition, fostering new ideas on different business models, and decentralising the Internet.

Planting the seeds of change

Charlotte Carnehl, Operations Director at Lie Detectors, proposed further investments in training teachers and fostering exchanges between journalists and school-age kids: “Countering the corrosive effect of disinformation and polarisation on democracy requires empowering school kids and their teachers to tell facts from fake online.”

She argued that enabling journalists to visit schools to explain how professional journalism works is a win-win situation. It can help journalists to learn about how the younger generation accesses and consumes information, while teachers and children can gain practical skills in identifying fake or misleading information online.

“Everybody needs the skills to assess and critically think about information,” Carnehl said. “Kids are actually a high-risk group for disinformation because they are targeted on channels that can’t be monitored, and they are largely navigating them by themselves without their teachers or even their parents present.”

When questioned on the short-term impact of such measures by a member of the audience, Carnehl acknowledged that it’s a long-term investment, “like planting the seeds of a tree”. However, she argued that there are also some immediate positive effects for children.

Finally, Carnehl called for special attention to be paid to marginalised groups, such as rural populations. Civil society organisations could help ensure that everyone can access reliable information, she said.

Report: IGF 2022 WS #292 Connectivity at the critical time during and after crises

The session was moderated by Innocent Adriko who gave a background information and introduction to the session.

Ethan Mudavanhu started by acknowledging that everyone has a part to play when it comes to preparedness before or post-crisis. He said civil society’s role might be to provide strategies on how to minimize damages to critical infrastructure. He also mentioned the need to define the roles of each stakeholder around national emergency telecommunications plans and integrate those plans as climate change and adoption policy priorities.

He also mentioned that government has a role in regulating future technologies in emergency preparedness and resilience of internet connections. He added that, that could be achieved by envisioning satellite and the Internet of Things (IoT) as part of the emergency system which can be used as search and rescue alternatives.

He again mentioned partnership is important for the government, the private sector, and civil society to create better solutions and activation protocols. He gave examples of partnerships that helped in mitigating damages and ensure connectivity. One example was in Australia where the Stand program was a disaster satellite service and the first to be rolled out through funding provided by the government which was strengthening telecommunications against national disasters. He urged the need for Africa to consider a combined effort of terrestrial and extraterrestrial going forward.

Shah Zahidur Rayamajhi noted that connectivity issues might be looked at by the national and local authorities as each country has National Disaster Management Organizations. These management disaster management organizations are included with ICTs, ISPs, humanitarian organizations, and civil society organizations. He again noted the need to look at the option and evaluate connectivity that is relevant to the affected population due to a disaster.

He also mentions internet connectivity solutions for the affected population and designing solutions depending on each context and considering the different needs such as human, socio-cultural, economic, and affordability. He added that connectivity solutions bundled with internet, voice, SMS, and other data services are understood to be the best solution. The need to deploy various VSATs and WI-FI accessories through local partners or other stakeholders who may help in the deployment and service restoration process.

He highlighted the need to have portable connections and ensure the privacy and protection of data services provided to the affected populations. He again mentioned that after the emergency has been restored, the service has to be maintained and operated for a certain period because the telecom service provider might be affected and not be able to provide services to the community. He suggested that community networks can be deployed to support the connectivity efforts of response activities during and after crises.

CALEB KWABENA AYITEY KUPHE on his side started by defining a critical infrastructure as a system and an asset, whether physical or virtual in our digital world. In terms of crisis, there is a need to understand the three (3) elements of critical infrastructure; the physical, cyber, and human. We must also understand the effectiveness of the critical infrastructure for ensuring the effective functioning of the economy as that is an essential factor in determining the location of the economic activities or sectors that can develop in a country.

He highlighted that developing countries need to understand the framework and plan for the infrastructure system and know how to protect the critical infrastructure sector by understanding the risks involved and knowing where the vulnerability lies. He also added that collaboration between stakeholders like governments, the private sector, and civil society is important. He said the government and the private sector can help with some resources like routers, switches, computers, et cetera while civil society, academia, and the technology community can also collaborate to provide training to deploy the telecommunications infrastructure.

He again noted that developing countries must be able to resource personnel that can understand the emergency response. He referred to the collaboration between the Internet Society Ghana chapter and NetHope trained people in disaster management and he stated that he believes when we come together and provide resources for such people, we will be able to manage critical infrastructures.  He concluded by stating the need for developing countries to double the current investment level in emergency response projects.

EILEEN KWIPONYA started by noting that disasters can strike at any time giving Covid-19 as an example of such an emergency which can happen anywhere and at any time. She said the pandemic brought the world to a standstill which resulted in the closure of companies and some of them had to let their employees work from home. She highlighted that those that worked from home needed laptops and internet connectivity which partnership between stakeholders helped to solicit resources to enable continuity of work and daily life activities. She added that schools had to continue running and the government came in ad worked with organizations to solicit resources such as laptops and provide internet connectivity in schools to enable students to learn.

She again noted that ITU plays a critical role in disaster risk reduction and management by supporting its member states in the process of disaster management through designing of national emergency telecommunication plan whereby in 2023 all countries should have a national emergency telecommunication plan as part of their national disaster risk reduction strategies. She continued to add that low-income countries are left out when it comes to having a national emergency telecommunication plan and it will be difficult for a country to manage a disaster without a plan. She stated that it is important for governments and local stakeholders to come and develop emergency telecommunication plans to enable their response to disasters without the need to seek help from outside.

She noted that civil society can also contribute by creating awareness and providing capacity building through training communities in emergency response for them to be able to respond to emergencies when they strike. She highlighted that funding is a critical aspect when managing a disaster.

Ernestina Lamiorkor Tawia noted some of the basic things that the telecom sector does during a crisis. She highlighted that during a crisis, the telecom sector helps to make people stay safe, connected, and informed by notifying people of the occurring disasters, where disasters are being hit. This she said, helps to save lives.

She acknowledged the need for backup for critical infrastructure as communities don’t have to depend solely on telecom companies for their communications as they wouldn’t know what will happen to the infrastructure during a disaster. The need to get backup batteries that would last long and generators to provide power to communications infrastructures in the case a telecom infrastructure fails due to a power outage.

The session aimed at discussing the impacts of platforms' regulation on internet fragmentation and how common standards and interoperability could help to mitigate it. The speakers stressed that to improve platform governance and enforce users' rights – especially regarding content moderation and possible impacts on fundamental rights –, it is necessary to develop a multistakeholder agenda on shared guidelines and procedures towards meaningful and interoperable transparency. 

The panel began with Prof. Luca Belli presenting the session and highlighting the impacts that both private ordering by platforms and national regulation pose to internet usage. Prof. Belli also emphasized the great role that platforms and its regulations – or lack of them – play in the responsibility have in respecting human rights. Those remarks were followed by Yasmin Curzi’s statement over the objective of the DCPR Session, which is to explore how platform regulations are affecting internet fragmentation worldwide. She stated that "such regulations may be causing negative externalities for users and for the enforcement". Some examples are data concentration, censorship, conflicts of jurisdiction, and others. The speakers were encouraged to discuss possible guidelines to orient policymakers in creating a more trustworthy and inclusive digital environment, that may be able to foster user control, and interoperability.

In this regard, one of the main points brought by the speakers was the obstacle of fragmentation specifically on the regulation of digital spaces, something that was addressed from an infrastructural perspective to a rhetorical level. From the first moment of the discussion two points can be highlighted: accessibility to information and the actual ability to use it. Oli Bird, from Ofcom, and Vittorio Bertola, from Open-Xchange, commented on the internet infrascrutural fragmentation that can be observed from software programming to hardware operation, for example. Bertola highlights that although States can contribute to IT with shutdowns etc, also the big internet platforms can disrupt national regulations on content. Oli Bird, on the other hand, brought examples of user experience on mobile devices to point out the multiple possibilities of the digital world both in terms of ideation and use. He added that, although there may be convergences between different national legal regimes regarding platform governance, "national regimes will inevitably diverge", fostering internet fragmentation. Point also highlighted by Yasmin Curzi, who recalled the infrastructural issues of access and its implications for regulation in the unfolding of the possibilities of usage. 

On a rhetorical level, some of the concerns pointed out by both Prof. Luca Belli and Prof. Rolf Weber were around determining a "common semantics" and methodologies for a jurisdiction capable of encompassing regulation that serves both local and global levels. On this matter, Prof. Weber also highlighted that open standards are important tools to promote interoperability. Adding to the discussion, Prof. Nicolas Suzor, from Oversight Board, talked about some of the challenges the current way platforms use automatic classification systems: marginalized populations face errors more frequently due to the lack of data regarding them. 

In response to Nicolas Suzor, Emma Llansó included to his point that the reluctance of platforms to make information available is part of the big picture, the researcher from Center for Democracy & Technology and Action Coalition on Meaningful Transparency, states the importance of independent research regarding online services in order to inform public policy-making, adding to that, she states the entering into force of the Digital Services Act in the EU as a way researchers will have to access data from platforms, which will be useful for policy making, especially regarding transparency. Luca Belli had as final remarks that the quality and relevance of the information in the reporting activity is more relevant than raw data.

Moderator: Dr Zhang Fang
Panelists: Zhang Peng / Prof. Su Jun / Prof. John E. Hopcroft / Dr Zhang Xiao / Prof. Simon Marvin / Prof. Huang Cui / Dr. Wang Yingchun
Rapporteur: Lian Xiangpeng / Tu Shengming / Zhang Yu / Ren Tianpei

This open forum session aims to discuss the research on intelligent society governance and the feasible path to realize people-oriented intelligent society governance. In today’s era, digital technology represented by artificial intelligence, as the leading force of the global technological and industrial revolution, is increasingly integrated into the whole process of economic and social development in all fields, profoundly changing the mode of production, lifestyle and social governance. The forum was organized by the Information Development Bureau of the Cyberspace Administration of China, and jointly hosted by the Institute of intelligent Society Governance of Tsinghua University and Center for Science, Technology & Education Policy of Tsinghua University. Seven experts from China, the United States and the United Kingdom discussed the opportunities and challenges of intelligent society governance and international cooperation, bringing together research topics such as AI social experiments, algorithmic governance, data governance, and urban governance. They agreed that intelligent society governance needs to adhere to the concept of people-orientation, to promote evidence-based intelligent society governance research, and to strengthen cooperation on a global scale, to build an academic community on intelligent society governance with shared resources and information, and to respect the diversity of governance cultures.

(1) Adhere to the concept of people-oriented intelligent society governance, and jointly build a humanistic intelligent society
The development of intelligent technology is based on embedding in human society. Humans are the initiators of the intelligent technology revolution, the main bearers of the new challenges of intelligent society, and the explorers of the risks of the intelligent society. The ability to promote people’s well-being and realize technology for good is the key to whether AI technology can serve the development of human society. 
In order to achieve a comprehensive balance of technical rationality and value rationality, intelligent society governance should establish people-oriented values, ensure the core position of people in the process of intelligent technology development, application and governance, and make the construction of a humanistic intelligent society as a goal of governance. Su Jun believes that a humanistic intelligent society is a people-oriented society with highly developed science and technology, widely used intelligent technology, a comprehensive balance of technical rationality and value rationality, a harmonious coexistence of people, environment and technology, an open, inclusive and harmonious society, and a rich humanism. Humanistic intelligent society governance needs to achieve a deep integration of social values and technology.
Wang Yingchun highlighted that social values and rules should be deeply integrated with technology and applications, so that values can be embedded in technology and applications can reflect rules, and the two aspects can boost each other and promote each other. Data governance is one of the core aspects of intelligent society governance. Huang Cui mentioned that there is an urgent need to establish a new global data governance framework, build a more inclusive, people-oriented and warm global data governance system, and effectively protect personal data and data related to intellectual property rights and national security intelligence, in order to promote the global digital economy and social development.
Panelists agreed that the concept of humanistic intelligent society governance is in the fundamental interest of human society and can guide the development of AI technologies in the direction that benefits human society.

(2) Conducting social experiments on AI and promoting evidence-based research on intelligent society governance
Artificial intelligence will be an important part of future human society. Exploring the path of intelligent society governance requires not only a focus on the development of AI technology itself, but also a systematic and comprehensive assessment of the ongoing social, economic, cultural, and political impacts of AI technology. As John E. Hopcroft argued, reducing AI social risks by strengthening AI governance is critical to ensuring the beneficial and safe nature of AI systems. In the face of systemic changes and future scenarios of intelligent society, Su Jun proposed to adopt evidence-based research methods such as “long-period, multidisciplinary, and wide-field AI social experiments” to address the various issues, risks, and problems brought about by AI technologies. This will further promote the application and development of AI technologies and enhance the effectiveness of governance of intelligent society.
Simon Marvin suggested that in the post-smart city era more attention should be paid to the integration of AI technologies in urban infrastructure construction and urban planning, and that regulatory reform and innovation should be promoted to better serve the development of AI technologies and social experiments. In order to give full play to China’s advantages of wide, deep and diverse AI application scenarios, and to deeply explore the impact of AI technology on people, organizations and society, China has actively organized and carried out AI social experiments in multiple fields across the country in recent years, which can provide practical experience and real feedback for the development of global AI technology. Moreover, Zhang Xiao believed that AI social experiments are important in exploring AI new paths in AI governance and promoting reform of the AI global governance system.

(3) Actively promoting international exchange and cooperation in intelligent society governance research, and building a community with a shared future for mankind in the intelligent era
Panelists agreed that it is necessary to explore the path of intelligent society governance under the concept of building a community with a shared future for mankind, strengthen international cooperation in research on intelligent society governance, promote the inclusive sharing of intelligent society, and realize the development of differences and win-win cooperation among countries. As suggested by John E. Hopcroft, it is necessary to strengthen international cooperation among governments, enterprises, industry associations and other diversified subjects around the world, to guarantee the right to speak for all parties involved in AI governance, to continuously improve laws and regulations on AI governance, to accelerate the development of procedures and standards for AI applications, and also to create more valuable activities for the marginalized groups in the AI system to improve their quality of life.
Finally, Panelists unanimously called for a new cooperation framework and governance model to build an international cooperation ecology for intelligent society governance. They advocated:

• to initiate the establishment of a global academic alliance for intelligent society governance;

• set up an international cooperation fund for intelligent society governance;

• build a data sharing platform for AI social experiments;

• strengthen the capacity building of intelligent society governance;

• and train professionals through training, workshops, and academic conferences.

SUMMARY REPORT: The round-table discussed how to ensure the safety, security, and privacy of children in digital environments through data, legal, regulatory, policy, and technology analysis in order to build a more robust prevention strategy and enhance a more efficient response mechanism. 

The session explored how evidence-based analysis from the Disrupting Harm project, combined with international laws such as General Comment #25 made a positive impact on children's digital lives. Furthermore, participants have discussed how and to what extent new regulations from certain countries and regions have informed actions in other parts of the world. The important role of digital service providers to act upon evidence, promote regulations, and ensure safety across all technologies they deploy globally has been further explored in the discussion. 

Amy Crocker from ECPAT International opened the discussion and commented that as the digital world develops, expands and diversifies, it is becoming not only necessary but also a legal and moral obligation that we address the diverse positive and negative implications of the digital world for children’s rights.  

Prof. Sonia Livingstone from the London School of Economics and Political Science highlighted the key link between data and legislation, saying that ‘data’ has taken on a new meaning in recent years as it has become focus on data that is collected. Initiatives such as General Comment #25 (GC 25) to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child represent are a milestone in child protection in the digital environment. In the GC 25, the Committee explains how States parties should implement the Convention in relation to the digital environment and provides guidance on relevant legislative, policy, and other measures to be followed by States to ensure full compliance with their obligations under the Convention and the Optional Protocols. Implementing robust data collection is essential, including research “with and by children”, to inform policy makers and legislators. The principle of "non-discrimination" is also key. The Commission establishes that "all children" must have equal and effective access to the digital environment, and "all their rights" must be respected by policymakers and stakeholders. Privacy and a high standard of protection must be ensured. Gaps exist, such as the difficulty of collecting useful data and evidence from the Global South; the delicate balance between privacy and data collection; the soft-law nature of the Comment; and the difficulty of fully understanding the "interest of the child" by policy makers and legislators. 

Interventions from the floor: 

• To a question about whether the GC 25 also addresses the need for better data on the phenomenon and of what works to tackle it, Prof. Livingstone asserted that the GC25 does oblige evidence-based policy and action. 

• Rodrigo Lopez from the Brazil youth committee asked whether the GC 25 addresses targeted advertising to children because this is an issue in Brasil as this has been considered abusive for years but it still happens. The response was that it does, that that the DC has increasingly recognised the commercial risks to children and needs to find a way to deliberate on the tipping point between commercial use and commercial exploitation, perhaps by identifying some criteria and building on the CRC Committee assertion that State Parties should prohibit by law any targeting based on inferred characteristics.  

Serena Tommasino from End Violence’s Safe Online team affirmed that data and evidence-based information have been a useful tool to advocate for children’s rights. Disrupting Harm (DH), funded by Safe Online, is a large-scale research project producing unique national, regional and global insights into how online child sexual exploitation and abuse in Southern and Eastern Africa and Southeast Asia (Kenya, Uganda, Thailand, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Philippines, Viet Nam, Namibia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Mozambique, and South Africa). They are now investing in implementation in these countries, and research will begin in 10 more countries. Data scarcity and poor quality have limited our understanding of OCSEA. Generating high-quality evidence is fundamental to developing a coherent methodology that might be replicable in different countries. A recent event in Brussels, Safe digital futures, saw experts discuss how to improve the data ecosystem and devised a joint roadmap to inform policy and stakeholders. 

Rangsima Deesawade, Regional Coordinator for South East Asia ECPAT International highlighted that a reliable and standard data collection methodology at regional and global level leads to comparability. By aggregating data extracted in different countries following the same methodology, it would be possible to have a scientific comparison of information on OCSEA. She pointed out that some of the findings were new even for ECPAT, such as in relation to gender. The data showed that there were similar rates of victimisation between girls and boys, with interesting variances across the countries. This type of information can help change persistent narratives.  

Interventions from the floor:  

• Dave Miles, Director of Safety Policy for Meta, pointed out that Meta is using clear standards to design online/onsite guidelines and codes of conduct. Standards such as the GC 25 and age-appropriate design code are influencing the way Meta designs solutions. Larger platforms can influence others in the sector. Age assurance, child-friendly products, and empowering the trust and safety community should be the main concerns of the industry sector. 

• Jennifer Chung, Dot kids raised the point that when we look at enabling activities, harm does not always start with clear criminal activity, making it hard to know where to intervene and at what stage.  Jutta Croll responded that Stiftung Digitale Chancen are advocating for proper age verification so that platforms know how their users are and can adapt support for them.  

• Jutta Croll from Stiftung Digitale Chancen raised the importance of improving national risk assessment mechanisms and presented a model they have co-developed. Current risk assessment is addressing harm after the fact. Pre-emptive, comprehensive, and concomitant assessment of potential threats to children must be implemented among different platforms where anticipatory conduct might consequently lead to criminal offences. Precautionary measures such as age verification may fit this scope.  

Interventions from the floor: 

• Jonathan Andrew from the Danish Institute for Human Rights wondered what the response has been from lawmakers to this risk assessment tool. When the draft CSA Regulation in the EU came out, most were still considering what risk assessment really means. He pointed out that education is key because risk starts before a criminal act, but precautionary measures by service providers are also needed. The role and mandate of national human rights instruments is key.  

Conclusions 

• The GC25 is legally binding and comprehensive framework to ensure digital child rights. 

• Education is key but cannot replace proactive measures by online service providers. 

• Common data collection methodologies ensure comparability and drive change. 

• Key to tackle tensions between children's data privacy and protection.

• Governments must provide funding for data collection and analysis, 

• Industry must adopt a safety-by-design approach. 

The EU is impacting global regulatory trends in the digital sphere. EU regulations are shaping the global marketplace and influencing governments in their policymaking decisions, and to a great extend setting the regulatory standard for global companies.. Most regulations are applicable also to non-EU companies operating in the EU and hence have immediate effect. This is a huge opportunity but also a huge responsibility for the EU to put in place and effectively implement its regulation for real market outcomes. The objective is and should remain the safeguard of a free, open and interoperable Internet ensuring human centric digital transformation serving citizens and society. The EU value-based approach is challenged in the current geopolitical landscape of tech war and digital authoritarianism.

The DSA Package is about greater responsibility (DSA) and market contestability (DMA). It aims at addressing a global problem and represents a global opportunity. DSA Package’s implementation within the EU will have a global effect due to the experiencing and building up of auditing and enforcement capabilities. In jurisdictions where the Package is not applicable, it would however set a threshold for elementary safety provisions since jurisdictions would not accept lower standards than those set e.g., in the DSA. The DSA should allow the balancing between content takedown and safeguard of freedom of expression (freedom to speak, seek and receive information). When regulating digital platforms, a whole society approach is needed.

To create a safer and more open digital space, protect European citizens from illegal and harmful content and conduct online, create a level-playing business environment it is essential that key elements of the ecosystem are put in place before or together with regulation (free space for the journalists, independent auditors, effective system of notifiers, among the others). This may ensure the accountability of gatekeeper platforms. The approach may depend on the country or the society. The overall vision of a human-centric approach to digitalization may result in an articulated complex regulation, like in EU, with many members states of different societies or like in Japan with a very homogenic society, in more agile and a multistakeholder governance approach.

The Data Act will impact IoT products’ design, which will have spill-over effects also on non-EU markets. It is also about ensuring interoperable and well-functioning cloud market. Fundamental values should be attached to data flows which affect privacy, national security, and intellectual property. It is important to build the interoperability among the various approaches to data governance across jurisdictions. This is one aspect into which looks the Data Free Flow Trust initiative.

EU’s aim is to have a trustworthy and human-centric AI to avoid algorithms’ possible harmful effects. AI policies depend also on a given country’s democracy values. While other parts of the world may have different approaches to regulation, the effect and interest in framing digital developments has been increasingly recognised by governments world-wide. AI raises questions on innovation and regulation, and the approach to these two may be altered by a possible Beijing effect.

There is no single policy, no single legislation or no single actor to secure an open, free and secure digital future for all, but the prerequisite for any massive transformation, like the digital transformation, is the structured dialogue among all stakeholders based on shared principles. One lesson learned from the several EU regulatory processes (Artificial Intelligence, Data Act, Digital Services Act) is that even if the legislation process in EU might be the most transparent in the world, it is still complex for the citizen to navigate the extensive information material. There is a need to secure not only the participation of the citizen in designing the regulation but also the public supervision of the whole process. The outcome of the legislative process is as important as its quality. For DSA/DMA to secure the maximum level of transparency the idea was to inject the transparency in every aspect of the regulation, as for content moderation, journalism, audit or trusted flaggers and to introduce the cardinal principle that there is no general monitoring.

After welcoming all participants to the DC-SIDS IGF 2022 Round Table, the onsite moderator (Tracy Hackshaw) invited introductory messages from participants from the CTU, Fiji and Mauritius.

Remote moderator, Maureen Milyard was then invited to lead the next phase of the Roundtable by welcoming everyone, introducing herself and thanking the CTU (Caribbean Telecommunications Union), and the Pacific-based participants for their involvement, their leadership and commitment to the DC-SIDS.

Maureen introduced a couple of key takeaways from the Inaugural SIDS IGF held from August 25-26, 2022. Firstly, the development of a framework and protocols to research SIDS IG issues that could be used to inform presentations at DC-SIDS such as these at the global IGF and this event would ensure that all regions get an opportunity to be involved in the discussions. Second, was from the presentation given by the Honourable Simon Cossey, the Minister of Justice Communications and Foreign Affairs from the island of Tuvalu in the Pacific. Simon spoke of how the pandemic had pushed Tuvalu's government towards prioritising and driving internet connectivity so that they could maintain connection with their isolated outer Island communities through virtual meetings during the lockdowns. He applauded the SIDS idea not only for bringing Island communities together to share the initiatives, the challenges and achievements but also for fruitful and constructive dialogue which is one of the main goals. He also explained his country's future project which is aimed at securing the future of their country against the violent impacts of climate change that they're already starting to experience. They're currently pursuing initiatives that involve creating a digital Nation by preserving its government infrastructure, geography, people and culture they believe is important to do in the event that their land is eventually lost due to climate change and sea level rise at the same time as they're going through this transformational phase. He also stressed that in order to maintain the Integrity of what they aim to achieve takes a values-based approach by fusing the positive commonalities that arise out of ICT development with a unique cultural values of their community-based society so the ICT strengthens rather than undermines their values and can contribute to climate resilient development and Innovation adoption to combat climate change impacts.

Leticia Messiah, from the Solomon Islands,  the current Board Chair of the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society (PICISOC) shared some of her takeaways from the SIDS IGF. Internet connectivity is crucial for economic development, excess of information opportunities and service delivery. There is an opportunity of ongoing digital transformation and digital readiness happening in the small island developing states. It was also highlighted that there is ongoing work on e-health and digital and health information roadmap. It has been seen that the development of cyber security and online child protection policies coming into place accessibility of services online and inclusive access to devices and ongoing online safety, digital literacy and awareness are being conducted by various ICT societies. There is a need to increase skill sets, create workforce space in the Pacific for digital health, the need for cyber security building and  voices to be heard in the space since there is no representative of a seat in the IGF Leadership Panel. Lastly, Universal and meaningful connectivity is defined as the possibility for everyone to enjoy a safe, satisfying and reaching productive and affordable online experience. There are some activities that took place in this year, one of them is the Pacific Hackathon that aims to find an ict-based solution to a problem state. The event connects young Innovative Technologies in the Pacific. There is also a “Girls in ICT” event that aims to create an environment that empowers and encourages girls and women to pursue careers in STEM fields enabling both health and technology companies to realise the benefits of greater female participation in the ICT sector and other STEM sectors through collaboration and partnership. It is also aimed to build this network and increase female participation in developing ICT-based Solutions in the region as well as have more female participation in future hackathon events. Lastly, She highlighted that civil societies are the voices in the local communities to those looking to invest in National or Regional activities projects in seats and asked full Partnerships to collaborate, cooperate and work together in a multi-stakeholder approach to advanced IG in the globe, the SID’S and especially in the Pacific Island countries. 

Selu Kauvaka, board member for PICISOC and currently the president of Tonga women ICT presented what currently they are doing in Tonga. She discussed about Tonga challenges, way forward and mainly their vision which is to allow women and girls to enter the industry without fear of discrimination and also giving them the opportunity to the industry transformation. One of the main roles they do is reaching out to Grass level, getting them to understand more of how the internet works, how to be safe online and be updated with technology. 

Dalsie Green Baniala presented a project approach to connect the most remote areas that is overseen by the government of Vanuatu and implemented by the ITU which is based in South Maliko, Central Islands of Vanuatu.

Rodney Taylor, Secretary General, Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) discussed that they held in partnership with the Pacific Islands and other stakeholders the first Small Island Developing States Internet Governance Forum. The discussions were quite engaging and the entire IGF was a three-in-one type of event so it included the 18th Caribbean IGF because the CIGF has been running for 18 years. An Internet Governance policy framework that guides the regional governments on internet issues in about four core areas including infrastructure, security, exchange points were developed. The Youth IGF was held for the first time that was planned by the young people for the young people in the region. It’s important to collaborate, consult and discuss the issues with global digital compounds,  internet and the environment, the issues around the energy consumption of these large data centres and cloud services and things like cryptocurrencies and Mining of Bitcoin. There is a need to look for sustainable sources of energy, renewable sources of energy, how to deal with E-Waste and so on in a sustainable way and this is all part of the climate change discussion. The voices need to be amplified within International ICT policy development processes such as the ITU and SID’S IGF gives that opportunity by strengthening the numbers and raising the voices within these organisations.

What can we do next and how can we collaborate? Build a  disaster mitigation preparedness response and recovery and look at some strategies on how to make the infrastructures much more resilient most of the time especially as we talk about Internet Governance. Submit proposals so as to become active and have the voice out there so as to discuss the Caribbean talk about the Pacific by submitting these proposals for next year.  Be more visible and include youth and bring more people to the IGF. Language is also often a barrier across the regions. Looking at common languages other than English is also important.

The session aimed at discussing challenges faced by digital rights advocates and spotlighting the Digital Rights Learning Exchange (DRLX) program that Digital Grassroots held in cooperation with the Open Internet for Democracy Initiative. During the opening of the session, the onsite moderator and Digital Grassroots co-founder, Uffa Modey, introduced the objectives of the program, highlighting the importance of providing capacity-building for digital rights advocates coming from underrepresented communities. As part of the program overview, one of the program leads and Digital Grassroots founder, Esther Mwema, presented program core components and highlights from participants' feedback, mentioning that the majority of program alumni found it specifically beneficial to work with other advocates from different regions on developing a campaign and learning from each other over the course.

Sarah Moulton, the deputy director for the National Democratic Institute, discussed how the Digital Rights Learning Exchange came to life as a learning space for emerging digital rights activists starting their advocacy work to acquire basic skills across such areas as stakeholder mapping, communications, digital safety, and security. The panelist also emphasized the lack of foundational programs that can help budding digital advocates start and lead their advocacy projects and the need to support activists at the entry level. 

After the program overview, the word was given to a DRLX alumna Fatou Sarr, who shared her experience of participating in the program. Fatou acknowledged the importance of the participatory and interactive nature of the program, where participants have space to engage with hands-on learning materials and build connections with fellow participants and advocates from different backgrounds.

During the open floor, the program leads were asked about the commonalities of the participants in the program cohorts. It was noted that coming from different countries, the participants were able to find common ground for cross-country collaboration and take a regional perspective on the hypothetical advocacy campaigns that they were working on during the program. Another feature of the program spotlighted by the program leads was participants' interest in particular thematic areas, such as access and affordability, freedom of expression, and internet shutdowns. The panelists also covered the issue of program sustainability, stressing the significance of building networks between the participants and hosting organizations and offering alumni different pathways to engage after the program, i.e. as project mentors and guest speakers.

The session was attended by 12 online participants, who had an opportunity to engage in discussion with onsite panelists. The participants came from different backgrounds, including individuals interested in digital rights training programs, civil society representatives working with digital issues, and IT specialists. The questions were asked on the Zoom platform and the social media channels of Digital Grassroots by participants following the session live stream on Youtube.

IS3C held its general meeting at the IGF in Addis Ababa where it presented on the results of work carried out in 2022 and looked ahead to the near future.

Working Group 1 : Security by design, sub group on Internet of Things

Research has confirmed that there is a large gap between the theory of security and the daily practice of IoT security. The working group focuses on identifying the solutions needed to close this gap. The first results will be reviewed in December and January, after which the final report will be published in the winter of 2023. The IGF open process of consultation with stakeholders worldwide will be announced soon.

The WG's research focused on: (a) a review of current security-related IoT initiatives and practices worldwide, and (b) to develop a coherent package of global recommendations and guidance for embedding security by design in the development of IoT devices and applications. The report will include the outcome of research questions shared globally. One of the outputs of the research is a compilation of all the Security Best Practices that could be collected from the documents. These best practices are divided into four categories: Privacy and Exposure; Update; Non-technical; and Operation/Community.

Also, attention is given to the consumer side. What do they need to know about IoT security by design when they deal with a device containing IoT? Current labelling schemes have been compared to ascertain this. When consumer knowledge is upgraded and it is ensured that they are fully equipped to use a device securely and are aware of their rights, focus shifts to the manufacturers of the IoT devices and tools. They will feel the burden of having the obligation to make sure the device is in a good condition and safe to use more strongly, as well feel a growing awareness to deliver security updates to the devices they manufacture.

A  call for action was launched by chair Nicolas Fiumarelli to all stakeholders to participate in the open consultation process of the draft report.

Working Group 2 : Education and skills

A major factor undermining the development of a common culture of cybersecurity is that students graduating from tertiary ICT-related educational programmes often lack the skills that business and society as a whole need in order to understand the benefits of security-related Internet standards and ICT best practices. In order for ICT security to be better understood, it has to be integrated into tertiary ICT educational curricula; at all levels. This may result in the structural development of ICT(-related) products and services that include cyber security Internet standards and ICT best practices. The coalition’s Working Group 2 has therefore identified the following goals:

• To detect and resolve cyber security skill gaps in tertiary ICT education curricula;
• To encourage tertiary educational institutions to include in their ICT curricula the essential skills, knowledge and understanding of security- related Internet standards and ICT best practices, building on current best practices, in order to bring tertiary education in line with emerging workforce requirements;
• To strengthen collaboration between educational decision-takers and policy makers in governments and industry in order to align tertiary ICT curricula with the requirements of our cyber future;
• To ensure effective collaboration between key stakeholders in order to keep tertiary ICT educational materials in step with new technologies and standards and prevent new skills gaps from developing;
• A need to make cyber security education more interesting to young people and especially women;
• To make cyber security education part of life-long learning programmes.

The research used two methodologies. First interviews with cybersecurity experts in multiple countries and second, a questionnaire that was extensively distributed through internet governance fora. This resulted in input from 66 countries from all regions around the world.

The results show the gap between what people learn in the formal education and what the need in the cybersecurity industries is. When the technical skills could be learned in formal education, employers need to add some soft skills, creativity and critical thinking for example. The resources said that there is a need for collaboration between education and industries, to ensure that knowledge becomes more compatible to employers’ demands. Also, there is a need for constant knowledge sharing from the experts in cyber securities.

The report 'Closing the gap between the needs of the cybersecurity industry and the skills of tertiary education graduates' was formally presented by WG 2 representative Teuntje Manders to MAG chair Paul Mitchell and to the research's sponsors, Mieke van Heesewijk of SIDN Fonds and Julia Piechna of NASK. It can be found here: https://is3coalition.org/docs/study-report-is3c-cybersecurity-skills-gap/, on IS3C’s website.

The working group on Data Governance and security was not able to present but will present its report in the winter of 2023.

Global Digital Compact

IS3C has launched a special working group for its response to the Global Digital Compact. Dr. Allison Wylde leads this body of work which will reflect the outcomes and work underway within IS3C that ought to become a part of the GDC to ensure a more secure and safer Internet, thus world.

The future

Two working groups will start their work in 2023, Procurement and supply chain management, and a prioritisation list when procuring secure by design ICTs. Others are in the process of formulating their mission statements: post-cyber encryption; A working group aims to offer a roadmap for anticipatory governance strategies for the field of emerging technologies, initially focusing on AI and Quantum technology; Consumer protection and advocacy and finally; A working group that focuses on the (barriers preventing) deployment (of) three standards: DNSSEC, RPKI and IPv6.

Everyone is invited to join and/or support the upcoming body of work that IS3C endeavours to undertake in 2023.

Session Notes

Augustina and Andrew introduced the topic and speakers.

Panelists' discussion on the topic:

1. Natalie

1. Referred to knitting as an analogue to appreciate the efforts put to build the internet and making it such an incredible source. She emphasized that stakeholders could work together to build a bigger, stronger and more resilient internet by following a simple pattern that is bigger than anyone as it brings value through global connection.
2. We all have a responsibility to protect the internet from fragmentation.
3. The internet has seen concerning trends on the splinternet that can lead to a future we do not want (splinternet).
4. The internet is made of the foundation of critical properties that all together form the internet’s way of working. She compared it to being a business model for the internet. It is the simple foundation that the internet exists, it is what separates it from other types of networks like an office internet.
5. Referencing the knitting analogy, the internet is a simple pattern that enables any network to become a part of the global sweater that benefits all.
6. The internet is not just about technology, every network that wants to participate on the internet must adhere to the foundation that enables us to be globally connected.
7. The splinternet is the opposite of the internet. It is the idea that the open globally connected internet that we all use that splinters into a collection of islands that do not connect to each other.
8. We are worried about the splinternet because businesses, governments and organisations are increasingly making decisions that can undermine how the internet works. And unknowingly or knowingly starts to unravel the incredible resource that we have put so much effort into creating.
9. Internet fragmentation is a theme for good reason. This year we have seen an increasing number of government decisions on geopolitics that are bringing greater concerns that could lead to the splinternet.
10. The splinternet would complicate our ability to communicate with each other by fragmenting the internet to separate networks that do not work together so easily. Having zoom calls will be difficult, and people may have to pay to work on a shared document.
11. There many causes of the splinternet including:

1.  Internet shutdowns- When the government tries to disconnect the networks within its borders from the internet has serious consequences for its citizens. It's like unravelling the sleeve from the sweater and disconnecting from the global resource (internet).
2. There are political decisions that could lead to the splinternet. For example, in the Ukraine war there have been calls to disconnect other networks from the internet. This goes against the principles that make the internet thrive.
3. Threats to mitigate policies and business decisions that do not protect the internet and its existence. With governments tackling hard and complicated issues like misinformation, disinformation, and online harm. In trying to mitigate these harms, governments are proposing decisions that do not understand the impact on the internet and what makes it thrive.

12. To protect the internet, the Internet Society has created an impact assessment toolkit which is like the environment impact assessment but for the internet. The toolkit is based on two white papers:

1. The critical properties of the internet’s way of networking which establishes the internet; and
2. The enablers of a globally accessible, secure, and trustworthy internet.

13. The Internet Society has been using the tool kit to analyze decisions and proposals around the world to understand how they impact the internet and educate businesses and governments on how to mitigate these harms. This has allowed the Internet Society has collaborated with the community and led to engaging in conversations with the said governments and businesses.

2. Emmanuel

1. Heads the #deargov organization in Nigeria.
2. He indicated he had applied the Internet Society toolkit, which is easy to understand the incentives and motivations for those governments around the world, particularly in Africa continue to seek pathways for consolidating interests and control around the internet and data resources.
3. The concern of bits of the internet being controlled without recourse of the long-term effect and the impact will be on the open model of the internet.
4. They have been supporting the Nigerian government through policy recommendation. Recently they worked on two policy recommendations or regulations that the government sought to propose they include:

1. The Social Media Bill which we recommended the government to address the impact of the regulation on an interconnected model of the internet.
2. 2021 Twitter Ban. They looked at the economic implications in the long run on the ban.

5. Governments usually have genuine intentions and interests in tackling internet issues e.g., cybercrimes, child pornography, hate speech, misinformation, and disinformation. However, the approach is the problem there is a disconnect between the intentions and the drafting of policies and laws. This leads to stakeholders feeling their interests and concerns are undermined in the drafting or proposals of the regulations. Thus, the Dear gov organization works with governments and stakeholders to try and build a multi-stakeholder perspective that allows all stakeholders to see the entirety of what the regulation proposes in terms of human rights, and accessibility of the internet and does not favour certain players more than others.
6. Mirja
7. The Internet Architecture Board (IAB) is one of the three leadership groups of the IETF, the main organization tasked with developing and maintaining some of the internet protocols.
8. The role of IAB is to provide architecture oversight, not just the protocols, but it tries to get the big picture of how everything works together and whether there are gaps and trying have conversations with the organisations to fill the gaps.
9. It's also a contact point for STOs.
10. The IAB is a group of experts who sometimes have differing opinions, but the group is monitoring and discussing the global development of internet governance and its impact on the internet and the quest for digital sovereignty.
11. The IETF’s mission is to make the internet better. But is you look at its mission statement, it defines ‘better’ in terms of where the internet comes from. The mission statement states, ‘We want to make the internet useful for communities that share our commitment to openness and fairness.’ It is what the internet is based on and what the IETF is committed to.
12. The success of the internet is based on how we design it based on a set of principles and create building blocks that you can use in different ways together, which has provided the success and innovation on the internet that you can see so many services that have bloomed over time. It is one of the base principles for maintaining the protocols and technology that provide the internet.
13. Deployment of new technology (protocols) gets blocked in the name of digital sovereignty. This is concerning, especially if the protocols are supposed to provide better security and user privacy. It is also concerning that the blocking is happening on the internet infrastructure, thus fundamentally affecting internet connectivity and interoperability. Further, it limits innovation.
14. The internet is designed as a global network of networks, and trying to enforce measures that set national boundaries on it goes against some of the basic design principles and puts the future of the internet at risk. Thus, we should all work together to keep it as one, open and globally connected internet.
15. Noelle
16. On the topic of there being many paths of internet fragmentation and focused on one path. The one has been driven by governments that want to exercise their sovereignty over how the internet works within their borders. It is referred to as digital sovereignty or internet sovereignty, or tech sovereignty.
17. This has been a subject of the Internet Society this year. Digital sovereignty means a lot of different things to different people in different countries. Thus, it's unwise to equate internet sovereignty to internet fragmentation. Some may be well-meaning people who are using this term (fragmentation) and expressing support to digital sovereignty.
18. There is one approach to digital sovereignty that could fragment the internet. One of the reasons a government or State wants to assert sovereignty in the digital space is when it is worried about its national security. Thus, its reasons for wanting to secure the digital space within its borders are a way of making the country more secure. This becomes a threat to the internet because a State wants to implement it by giving itself the power to control how the internet works locally. It wants to have a greater hand in managing the internet infrastructure or directing how networks operate; for example, when a government through its agency wants to control the flow of traffic within the country or to and from the country, it comes up with its own routing policies.
19. Another example is when a government tells everyone to synchronize their clocks in their ICT system to only one source at a time (the government servers). Typically, systems synchronize their clocks with multiple time sources to minimize the risk of getting the wrong time. It's part of what makes the internet robust and resilient.
20. From the above examples, we can see an attempt to centralize the processes and mechanisms that are decentralized and distributed on the internet.
21. A final example is one country requiring operators to use the DNS reservoirs that are controlled by the government. This allows governments to change how name resolution works in the country or creates an alternative to the global DNS. This would prompt fragmentation in the global network of networks. Imagine if all governments were doing this.
22. Invitation to read the Internet Society’s upcoming report called, ‘Navigating Digital Sovereignty and Its Impact on the Internet’ coming up on Thursday, 1^st December 2022.

The panel took place on December 2nd, from 09:00 to 10:00 (UTC). Its main objective was to provide a constructive approach to Internet Governance. In this context, the session focused on how digital policies affect organizations and members of social movements that deal with vulnerable populations, although those groups do not necessarily participate nor have their voices and demands heard during their formulation.  

The first panelist, Vladimir Cortés, Digital Rights Program Officer at Article 19 Mexico and Central America, pointed out that there is a complexity when it comes to Internet Governance. There are different elements to be considered, namely (i) the multistakeholder nature of Internet Governance, such as the private sector, academia, and technical community; (ii) the decentralized way in which Internet Governance is organized and how it reaches different entities, considering not only the different official forums; (iii) the fluidity of this theme, which constantly changes. Furthermore, there is the issue of overlapping mandates on regulation and governance in this area, which also presents an ambiguity and a lack of a definition in terms of hierarchy. With all this in mind, he pointed out the urge to involve not only the governments in the Internet Governance debate, or stakeholders that represent privileged groups, but the need to also bring the historically marginalized groups and other stakeholders, such as non-professionals, ethnic minorities, women, youth, non-English speakers, people with disabilities, among others. He concluded that there must be an effort to take this debate to a different sphere, through an effectively democratic and inclusive process. 

The second panelist, Nandini Chami (IT for Change Senior Research Associate), spoke about the difficulty in defining the concept of governance, once there are new challenges with the increased use of the Internet that go beyond technical cooperation. In that sense, there is an increase in the use of data and resources, which changes the structures of the economy and society. In this sense, she pointed out that the UN Secretary General has already pointed out the need to deal not only with connectivity and technology, but also with the promotion of human rights, AI regulation and data commons in this new scenario. The issue to be addressed is that this new economy and society agenda ends up being formed by corporations and their interests, which are aggravated by the absence of binding rules, especially for cross border data flows. This can enhance data colonialism and data extractivism, aggravating human rights violations. Although there are forums that seek a multiplicity of points of view, there is a problem related to the fact that large corporations “capture” multistakeholderism, stratifying participation and making their agenda prevail, without considering a truly democratic process. There are ways, however, to change this scenario, by allowing solutions focused on people, and not only on the interests of big tech companies. Additionally, in regard to AI regulation, it is important to consider the needs of the Global South, not just replicating the governance that exists in the Global North, since different regions deal with human rights and cultural identity issues in different ways - especially considering second and third human rights generation and the issue of self-determination. Finally, regarding data commons and their use by big tech companies, the solution encompasses stopping the exclusion of the affected voices and, in this context, there must be a shift in perception, attributing these data as common knowledge that belongs to communities and people, including more people in a more democratic way afterwards.

The final panelist, Catalina Moreno, from Karisma Foundation, enriched the conversation by bringing examples of the scenario in Colombia. She reiterated that, although there is a belief that the Internet should be a free and decentralized environment, this does not happen in practice, since it is not available to everyone, nor does everyone participate in decision-making processes. In the Colombian case, she mentioned 04 cases that demonstrate the exclusion of participation in Internet Governance: (a) the existence of a surveillance system developed by the government via which the police can intercept internet and telephone signals, in addition to allowing agencies to access internet traffic, enabling the capture of communications. This tool has been used to monitor journalists and human rights defenders; (b) during the protests of the last few years, the internet connection was shut down, so that it was not possible for the protesters to report human rights violations. In both cases, the internet was used to monitor and silence human rights violations, without the affected populations being heard or considered in these scenarios; (c) the digitization of various data and services during the Covid-19 pandemic, which did not cover the entire population. Many people (such as indigenous communities) did not have access to connection nor command of Spanish and were not informed in time to participate in public civil activities, so decisions were made excluding such vulnerable groups; (d) finally, the case of civil society organizations that use the internet to disseminate their work, but do not necessarily know how these environments work and how their content may be disseminated. The possible solutions presented were: (i) organizations must  be aware of the challenges of digital environments; (ii) civil society must be able to help to engage the affected populations and take these demands into discussions with the authorities in the creation of governance-related policies; (iii) research-based advocacy should be conducted considering local needs; (iv) civil society should promote and expand regional and international networks to amplify the voices of human rights defenders in digital spaces. (v) authorities should develop and implement models of effective participation that consider the views of different stakeholder groups, including academia, civil society, and the technical community; (vi) there must be a strengthening of knowledge about Internet Governance from a human rights perspective by the Judiciary Branch, when approaching such questions.

After this stage, the floor was open for questions from the audience, both remotely and in person.

The audience engaged with the discussion in a meaningful manner. Questions related to issues about  connecting everyone in the world, considering different areas and communities, were raised and then addressed in a sense of recognizing its relevance but, at the same time, considering the need to respect those who do not want to be connected and their rights

Furthermore, a reflection was made on the structure of governance, considering that some regions and some populations are perceived as consumers of technology, and not producers, keeping them away from the discussion on the real governance of the internet. In this sense, it was considered that it is necessary to democratize the construction of these technologies. The idea of democratizing infrastructure was also endorsed by the panelists.

Even more, a comment was made on how spaces for debates exclude people who do not conform to straight, white and cis standards. It was mentioned that a positive path would be creating multisectoral and intersectional spaces, but it should be observed if such spaces are really representative and not just represent a way to "co-opt" an inclusive speech without actually guaranteeing the effectiveness of this inclusion.

Finally, it is important to highlight that there was a concern with gender issue in this panel, which was reflected both in the panelists (out of the 03 guests, 02 were women from the Global South). In addition, two women were involved in the organization and elaboration of the panel (responsible for the moderation and reporting). This presence fostered the reflection on gender issues in governance, which encompasses the need to not only include women in relevant spaces, but also to think about truly feminists agendas in those areas, so that the corresponding demands are really addressed.

Giacomo Mazzone introduces the Town Hall meeting explaining that the title “The war in Ukraine and the disinformation war”, was proposed by Edmo (the European Digital Media Observatory) and Eurovisioni. The objective of the session is to understand how the Internet can be used as a weapon, not in the battlefied, but in a battle to influence public opinion about the war in Ukraine, in the rest of Europe and in the world. 

Disinformation around Ukraine is also a testbed for the recent measures that the European Union has put into place to fight disinformation, such as the Code of practice and the European Digital Media Observatory (which were presented at the IGF in past meetings) and the newborn network of national observatories of EDMO. The present war is a laboratory of what could happen in a future cyber war.

Krisztina Stump, Head of the Unit in charge of the Commission’s policy to fight disinformation, presents the unique European approach. It is unique because it is based on a strong toolbox, whose tools are fully rooted in freedom of speech, combining regulation and industry-led solutions (reflected in the Code) in the form of co-regulation, with the Digital Services Act backing up the Code; it is rooted in a multi stakeholder approach, which is also demonstrated by EDMO, its national/regional hubs and the diverse stakeholder community it is assembling. 

Within the Code, did we find a single magic bullet to fight disinformation? This is not the case, as disinformation is a complex problem, requiring complex solutions. The code of practice is a therefore toolbox with a variety of instruments that all together can be efficient in fighting disinformation.

The key areas of the revised, 2022 Code of Practice are Demonetisation, Transparent political advertising, Reducing manipulative behavior including detecting fake accounts, User empowerment measures including media literacy, Fact checking coverage throughout EU with fair financial contributions and Data access for research.

The Code comes with strong transparency measures to allow users to consult how signatories of the Code implemented it. There is a Transparency Center, a Permanent Task-force chaired by the Commission which continues to work on the implementation of the Code, and a robust monitoring framework to make sure the commitments are properly implemented.

There are 35 signatories of the Code, which include major online platforms (Google, Meta, Tiktok, Twitter, Microsoft, etc.), but also associations and smaller and specialised platforms, the advertising industry, fact-checkers, research organisations and players offering technological solutions to fight disinformation. This is putting into practice the multi stake-holder approach.

In case signatories – who are considered as Very Large Online Platforms -  do not live up to their responsibility to mitigate the risks stemming from disinformation, the Digital Services Act offers regulatory intervention (hard regulation entered in force in all EU countries on November 16^th 2022.

The war in Ukraine and the war propaganda surrounding it is a very specific situation. The Kremlin’s propaganda machine is part of hybrid warfare, it is in that light that the EU adopted  sanctions against certain Russian broadcasting channels. At the same time,  the implementation of the Code of Practice by the signatories offers also a variety of measures fighting disinformation around the war. The Commission is working with the signatories to make sure they live up to their commitments, notably to demonetize Ukraine related disinformation, to increase  fact-checking, and to apply all the other measures such as giving users reliable information, labeling State affiliated accounts, and take measures against coordinated manipulative behaviour.

EDMO secretary general Paula Gori presented the Ukraine’s war observatory, that since February is regularly analyzing and reporting about disinformation campaign across Europe while  Claire Wardle – EDMO expert for Media Literacy- explained that disinformation need to be tackled also in the long term through digital and media literacy regular efforts and campaigns.

Two fact-checking organizations participating to the debunking activities of EDMO (Tommaso Canetta/Pagella Politica and Adam Maternik/Demagog.org) presented some of the cases of disinformation and of toxic information propagated during the war, mainly by Russian sources, but also, in a smaller percentage, by Ukrainian sources.

Francesco Sciacchitano from the Italian regulatory body added that the disinformation war has been a very tricky issue to be treated by independent authorities of regulation across the EU, because this effort lies on the thin edge that divides freedom of expression from hate speech and propaganda from reliable reporting.

The panel’s session was followed by a short but intense session of questions and answer with the audience in the room and on line in which intervened Russian, Ukrainians and Iranians participants.

LINK TO THE PRESENTATIONS SHOWED IN SESSION:

https://edmo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Stump-IGF-EDMO-2022.pptx

https://edmo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Canetta-IGF-EDMO-2022.pdf

https://edmo.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Maternik-IGF-EDMO-2022.pptx

The nexus between long-term news sustainability and internet governance is undeniable and more important than ever. How are Internet policies affecting the ability of news organizations and journalists to sustain public interest journalism in the post-pandemic world? What can we expect from proposals to tax technology platforms to fund news media? How does the online advertising business model affect both Internet governance and digital journalism?

The session “Unbreaking the news: Media sustainability in the digital age” approached these questions and identified some of the challenges for the sustainability of journalism and media online, both looking at the trends and practices of digital media natives, regulatory frameworks and their potential impacts outside the borders they were conceived and the influence (and effects) of platforms’ internal policies on the sustainability of the media around the world.

Sustainability of independent digital native media organizations

SembraMedia’s report, Inflection Point International was launched in 2021 with the goal to give better understanding of challenges and opportunities faced by digital media. Mijal Iastrebner, co-founder and Executive Director of SembraMedia affirmed that “diversification of revenue is key to sustainability especially for digital business models” since they are built in an ecosystem where the rules and users’ behavior change really fast.” It is also essential for the media to have a strong strategy and a strong mission that can be carried from one platform to the other. This mission needs to be also connected to a social purpose, as Iastrebner warned: “reach can be momentary, impact is everlasting. Working around your community needs and challenges is and will always be the most effective development plan for media”

Startups, especially in the Majority World or so-called “Global South” are usually the ones focusing on public interest journalism, reporting on minority or marginalized communities. Their social purpose is, in fact, especially relevant considering the impact these digital natives have as key actors in countering mis- and disinformation and improving their communities’ access to trusted and quality information. Essential to the sustainability of these journalists and digital media organizations is the regulatory framework or policies that need to be designed for them to grow and thrive in the digital information ecosystem.

Rebalancing the digital ecosystem: Regulatory Frameworks and their impact beyond borders

News organizations are dependent on platforms to reach their audiences and monetise their content which, especially for digital natives, is essential to ensure their existence and economic sustainability. 

In her study “Making Big Tech Pay for the News They Use” Dr Courtney Radsch, journalist and scholar at UCLA Institute for Technology, Law & Policy, and co-coordinator of the DC-Sustainability, explores three policy interventions to rebalance the relationship between digital platforms and media: taxation, competition policy and intellectual property interventions. Examples presented were the Australian News Media Bargaining Code which gave news media the right to bargain and license their content to tech platforms or EU’s Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, which provides ancillary rights and frameworks for news outlets to negotiate with platforms at an individual or collective level.

The ethical dimensions of the money and how news organizations around the world would use it was a topic that also emerged among the participants. While some were wary of taking money derived from platforms and their collection and commodification of personal data, Anya Schifrin, director of the Technology, Media, and Communications at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, argued that all money comes with risks. While doing research for the report “Saving Journalism”, Schiffrin noticed that journalists in some regions were wary of accepting revenues that came from their governments. Iastrebner explained that in 2021 the leading source of revenue for digital native media continues to be grant funding, followed closely by ad revenue. While grant money abruptly leaving the sector is likely to have a negative impact on the media sector, Iastrebner affirmed that the problem is not being over-depending on grants, but over-depending on just one revenue source.

Advertising, government and even private foundations money can all pose ethical questions and compromise the independence of the outlets if safeguards are not put in place. But when it comes to tech companies, the reality is that many of them are trying to minimize their tax burden, when not avoiding it entirely. 

On the other hand, small, alternative non-English speaking news outlets in the Global South are particularly struggling in the platform era because of constraints in a playing field created by dominant platforms in the Global North. Since governments in many countries around the world might not have the capacity to influence or rebalance this playing field, political powers with that capacity, like the US or the EU, should think outside their boundaries when developing meaningful policy to govern tech platforms. And, in any case, as Schiffrin mentioned, policies can help quality information and journalism no matter the situation of the country, as long as the regional context is taken into account. 

The missing pieces

In order to empower journalists, media organizations and other public interest content creators worldwide, participants were nearly unanimous: transparency is essential. The question of what kind of transparency and the lack of it in the digital advertising, publishing and content moderation domains were quite important in the panel discussion, especially transparency regarding algorithms, advertising, revenue and content moderation. Relatedly, the question of how “transparency mandates” could address the lack of transparency arose, particularly since the Digital Services Act in the EU addressed some aspects, but  focused primarily on content moderation. The Australian approach, as illustrated by Dr Radsch, included an “algorithmic transparency” requirement for tech platforms to share advance notice with news organizations which is a critical development since major policy shifts have an outsized impact on news media sustainability. There is also a lack of transparency by media organizations and tech companies involving licensing deals. 

Transparency is crucial to know how to rebalance the digital advertising system. Google and Facebook control 90% of the ads market and own the complicated infrastructure. This raises the question of “antitrust” laws and how to give news organizations the possibility to earn from the ads going to the platforms. In Europe the has been on copyright policy and what the critics have called the so called “link tax”, which would give news organizations some of the income from platforms ads. Tech platforms’ advertising policy also creates challenges for journalists and other content creators. An example of that was the case of sex education content being rejected because it was flagged as pornographic content, as raised by one participant. Others were simply asking for basic data: data that media outlets could use to try to understand and connect with their audiences, develop feedback loops and monetize that relationship, which is also essential for the media business sustainability.

Content and account moderation issues were also raised, especially regarding its inconsistency, particularly for content in low resourced digital languages, which impacts the ability of media organizations to serve their audiences and by extension, the public good. Issues regarding the transparency of advertising, algorithms, content and account moderation practices, highlight the outsized influence that tech companies and their internal policies have on the sustainability of news media, as noted in the discussion.

Conclusions

The digital space offers many new opportunities for alternative and digital media, however, to fully achieve the Internet's potential as a channel to disseminate public interest information, facilitate public service and community journalism, and enable community building, the impacts of technology policies and practices on journalists and media organizations needs to be centered in more internet governance and data governance discussions. The lack of consistent policies by both tech companies and governments and  the lack of channels to effectively address issues such as content monetisation, access to data or platform’s content and account moderation policies are threatening the sustainability of the information ecosystems worldwide, with an outsized impact in non-English, or smaller “markets” worldwide. Creators of public interest content often lack the capacity to bargain for the appropriate remuneration of their products or to address unjustified content moderation decisions that lead to account suspensions and content takedowns of legitimate public interest information.

Participants highlighted the  importance of building networks, communities to exchange information, knowledge and data, bring support and do joint advocacy. As one of the participants stressed, “network building is essential for the sustainability of media organizations: a global network is a place to share experiences and skills.” Networks have power: going back to the example of sexual education content, a big campaign succeeded in pressuring the tech company to update its advertising policy. Moreover, these types of communities are specially relevant to think globally, and go beyond boundaries: when connecting experiences from people in different places, more data is collected and stronger arguments are put together. And the more stakeholders involved in these communities, more lines of communication are opened to identify opportunities to collaborate, understand the issues and try to create remedies. The DC-Sustainability was created with this purpose:

“When we started [this Dynamic Coalition] it was difficult to convince people why a Dynamic Coalition on journalism and news media sustainability belonged at the Internet Governance Forum and trying to explain why Internet Governance fundamentally shapes the sustainability of news. [...] We've always realized that the way we govern these platforms and the Internet more broadly has a fundamental impact on news and journalism, which is a public good. And which is fundamental to democratic governance and to accountable governance.” Courtney Radsch, co-coordinator of the DC-Sustainability.

As Radsch stressed: humanity needs reporting, it needs the accountability that independent media bring. The digital age has shown that information barely has boundaries, and while policy making needs to take into account regional particularities and needs, a fragmented approach would weaken the goal to ensure a sustainable information ecosystem worldwide.  

DC-Sustainability

https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-the-sustainability-of-journalism-and-news-media-dc-sustainability

Join our mailing list: https://groups.io/g/dc-sustainability

Resources

Radsch, C. (July, 2022) Making Big Tech Pay for the News They Use. Washington DC: Center for International Media Assistance. Available at: https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/making-big-tech-pay-for-the-news-they-use/

SembraMedia, (November, 2021). Inflection Point International: A study of the impact, innovation, threats, and sustainability of digital media entrepreneurs in Latin America, Southeast Asia,and Africa. Available at: https://data2021.sembramedia.org/reportes/executive-summary/

Shiffrin, A.; Clifford H., Adjin-Tettey, T. D. (January, 2022) Saving Journalism 2: Global Strategies and a Look at Investigative Journalism. Washington, DC: Konrad Adenauer Stiftng Foundation. Available at: https://www.kas.de/documents/283221/283270/Saving+Journalism+2+-+Global+Strategies+and+a+Look+at+Investigative+Journalism.pdf/a8ec2655-5636-8d69-00e5-e698e76c3845?version=1.1&t=1643317826159

Shiffrin, A. (August, 2022) Australia’s news media bargaining code pries $140 million from Google and Facebook. Poynter. Available at: https://www.poynter.org/business-work/2022/australias-news-media-bargaining-code-pries-140-million-from-google-and-facebook

Long Report Town Hall: EuroDIG Messages - Internet in Troubled Times

Participants onsite: around 30

Online: around 15

Gender split: approximately 60% men, 40% women

The session was opened by explaining how the EuroDIG Messages 2022 were drafted and agreed upon. For the first time, the new mode of Focus Areas was being used.

The Focus Area surrounding the topic of digital sovereignty was presented first. The main take-aways were, that new regulation has brought clarity, but always has to be carefully evaluated against potential harms, such as Internet fragmentation – a topic heavily discussed at the IGF2022 – and harms to human rights and democracy.

In the discussion it was pointed out that a main challenge for Europe at the moment is the war on Ukraine. Peace and sovereignty are not in opposition, but the term is sometimes used to describe a closed and territorial approach.

It was mentioned that a European vision of sovereignty has to foster openness and interconnectedness.

The Focus Area on effective regulation the importance of the multi-stakeholder approach was championed. Example where regulation can play a key-role in the near future is the green transition and rapid cybersecurity standards/criminal justice.

In the discussion it was commented that the environmental aspects of the digital transformation were a topic that the EuroDIG community very actively worked on, also picked up by the IGF community and a subsequent intersessional policy network. It was recommended that EuroDIG should continue to be a strong voice. One way to highlight it was suggested in making a remark in the European stakeholder consultation on the Global Digital Compact.

It was noted that due to the energy crisis in Europe, the topic might naturally gain traction again. It was also suggested that regional and global workstreams, especially intersessional work, should be streamlined and integrated, not parallelized.

The Focus Area on effectiveness of governance bodies was presented. Some main points were the call to take a fresh look at the multi-stakeholder approach. Youth should be included more readily. Discussions and regulatory processes around artificial intelligence, digital identities and innovation such as delay-tolerant networks were noted as examples for updated approaches to policy-making.

In the discussion, it was pointed out that the human-centric approach to digital policy that Europe portrays is not the same in all world regions and it is a continuous effort to align values, while not hegemonizing different approaches.

The Focus Area of Internet in troubled times came about in the wake of the war on Ukraine. The main messages were presented. Again, Internet fragmentation has to be estimated as a risk, interconnectedness and openness should be championed by the UN Tech Envoy and by all stakeholders in Global Digital Compact. Broader engagement and open Internet governance processes are to be centered. Another aspect is the integrity of information, which has to be protected and disinformation has to be countered.

On the topic of disinformation, it was noted in the discussion, that in a pluralistic society, a diversity of opinions has to be protected, while fostering the accessibility and reach of neutral, fact-based information.

The youth messages were presented and comprised perspectives by YOUthDIG participants upon AI, social media, cryptocurrency, and sustainability. Education and literacy were highlighted as one important precondition to all of these aspects. The messages also called for more research and funding to promote a safe, sustainable, innovate digital sphere.

The youth representative thanked the EuroDIG community that the current dark times due to the war are acknowledged. Access to the Internet and digital infrastructures in Ukraine is hampered by energy shortages and attacks on infrastructure, depriving the people of many important, sometimes life-saving, services and technologies.

In the discussion the importance of youth voices was complimented. EuroDIG commits to continuously involving youth in its processes.

In a next thematic section, EuroDIG 2023 in Tampere was presented, specifically the overarching theme “Internet in troubled times – risk, resilience, and hope”. The community was invited to participate in the conference June 19-21, as well as contribute to the program. A Finnish member of European parliament extended the invitation, pointing out the rich history of the city of Tampere in science and technology.

In the last thematic segment, EuroDIG’s process regard the Tech Envoy’s survey to the Global Digital Compact was outlined. Messages and outcomes of EuroDIGs were mapped, with the outcome that almost all topics of the GDC will receive input. The commenting platform for the European stakeholder consultation is still open and all are invited to contribute. Strong multi-stakeholder engagement in the process is important regarding the high-level nature of the compact.

Report Internet.nl workshop
 
30 November 2022, Caucus room 11
 
This Open Forum focused on the need of modern Internet standards to be adopted in a faster and more scalable way in order to make the Internet and its users more secure and safer. It took the form of a tutorial, in which  the focus lies on a testing tool, that helps one to check whether a website, email, and Internet connection are up to date, i.e. comply with modern Internet standards such as IPv6, DNSSEC, HTTPS, STARTTLS, DANE, DMARC, DKIM, SPF, and RPKI.
 
The Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate explained the origin of the Internet.nl tool it created in 2015. It is a multistakeholder initiative intended to create awareness on Internet standards deployment and safety. Any organization can check its own domain name whether security measures, i.e. deployment of Internet standards, are in place or not. You can check the level of security of your domain name here: www.internet.nl. Within seconds the level of security is shown to you, including advice on next steps.
 
The software behind Internet.nl is open source and can be used by other organisations willing to run a local version in their respective countries. You can find the information on Github. Three other countries have adopted the tool: Australia, Brazil and Denmark. The former two presented on their experiences in adopting the process into their local environment.
 
What stood out from the three presentations is that local customs and perceptions on standards determine the way the tool can be used and presented. These differences did, however, not stand in the way of building a local version of the tool and launching it.
 
In the first presentation, Gerben Klein Baltink of Platform Internetstandaarden (Dutch Internet Standards Platform) stressed the importance of Internet.nl being a Public Private Initiative. All participants cooperate without commercial intent, joined by the intention to create a more secure Internet that is open, transparent and safe. He showed how the tool works to the audience and points to its hall of fame. All organisations showing a 100% score can apply for “membership”.  (The local IGF connection scored 10%.)
 
Bart Hogeveen of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), presented .auCheck. It is technically a full copy of Internet.nl, the organization behind it is not. It proved harder to create a PPI. The current result was four years in the making. Research had shown that Australia is not in a position where the need for the deployment of Internet standards is broadly understood and accepted. There’s a lot of education and awareness raising to be done. The tool was only launched quite recently, so it’s hard to show any effects at this point in time. The tested outcomes however, show the need for more awareness. Deployment percentages on average are (too) low.
 
Gilberto Zorello of NIC.BR presented on TOP, Teste os Padroões (Test The Standards). The programme was launched in December 2021. TOP is a collaboration between the NIC.BR environment and experts. Tests show that average scores are below 25% for those who have tested for all standards. TOP is promoted in technical events in government and academia and it works closely with ISP associations. Although it is still rather early to truly measure effects, TOP already sees organisations coming back with better scores.
 
Maarten Botterman presented on behalf the Global Forum of Cyber Expertise on its Triple-I initiative (Internet Infrastructure Initiative) “This GFCE initiative is meant to “facilitate” awareness raising and capacity building events in different regions of the world in order to “enhance justified trust” in the using of Internet and/or email in those regions. Local and regional actors are stimulated and supported in setting up and running local/regional events between regional stakeholders, bringing in local expertise.“ If you need help, reach out to the GFCE. It has all the toolkits and information you need. (See: https://thegfce.org/ for more information.)
 
Moderator Daniel Nanghaka adds that this initiative started in 2017 by way of a campaign, after which some CERTs started to work together. In 2023 the trusted Africa Internet Initiative will start. It is expected that through cooperation with the GFCE all regions will be reached.
 
Gerben Klein Baltink points to the fact that in The Netherlands results are measurable. There is a clear uptake in the past eight years, where naming and faming has an effect. Around the world it is far too limited as the situation now stands. The world has to step up to make itself more secure and safer. He makes a call for action: “Modern Internet standards are essential for an open, secure and resilient Internet that enables social progress and economic growth. These standards are readily available, but their use needs to rise significantly to be fully effective. The UN is called upon to help accelerate the global uptake of key standards, by including their promotion in the Global Digital Compact, and supporting advocacy and capacity building, as well as initiatives to test and monitor deployment, especially where many people aren’t connected yet.”
 
From the room Mark Carvell pointed to the work undertaken by the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (IS3C) that is working on recommendations and toolkits on the goal of faster and massive deployment of security-related Internet standards and ICT best practices.

UN IGF Session Report

Session/event: Open Forum 77: Implementing the Data Policy Framework

Date: 1 December

Time: 10:45 – 11:45

Moderator: Souhila Amazouz

Reported by: Pierrinne Leukes (GIZ)

Name of panelists:

Dr Alison Gillwald                   Executive Director of Research ICT Africa

Mrs Aretha Mare                      Project Manager in charge of Data Governance at Smart Africa

Mr. Guichard TSANGOU         Director of Postal, Telecommunication and Digital Economy ECCAS 

Mrs. Stella Alibateese               National Personal Data Protection Director: Uganda

Mr Torbjorn Fredriksson           Head, E-commerce and Digital Economy Branch at UNCTAD

The purpose of this panel, as introduced by Mrs Souhila Amazouz (moderator) as the representative of the African Union Commission (AUC), is to raise awareness of the African Union Data Policy Framework (DPF) and discuss the readiness of Africa as a continent when it comes to data usage, data governance, data ownership and how that will support the development of digital economy in Africa. The DPF is the continent’s strategic framework for data governance and aims to set the priorities, vision and principles with regards to data in order to harness its transformative potential. It also aims to empower African countries and citizens whilst safeguarding their rights, to achieve equitable and equal opportunities for all African citizens in the digital space. The objective of the DPF therefore is to provide guidance to African countries in developing comprehensive, coherent and harmonized data systems across the continent which will enable the efficient use of data and enable data to flow across countries in support of digital trade and also data driven businesses. Now in its second phase, the DPF is supported by an Implementation Plan which has been validated by member states, inclusive of a Self-Assessment Capacity Tool to help countries gauge their various levels of readiness as well as identify the support they need for successful domestication.

Mrs Stella Alibateese, as Director of the National Personal Data Protection Authority in Uganda, underscored that domestication of the Framework requires of member states to make sure that they provide for the DPF recommendations within their own policies. Once policy development is completed and the necessary legislative processes have been finalized, it will become easier for the implementing ministry to cascade it to the other ministries considering that this policy framework requires a lot of collaboration across different sectors. What follows then is a review of standards to enable interoperability and an assessment of the relevant infrastructure required. Ensuring that those needs are included in the national development plans is another imperative step to ensure that the necessary resources are made available to support implementation.

Approaching the discussion from a more regional perspective, Mr Tsangou as Director at the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS), emphasized that the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) are the building blocs of the African Union. In this vein, they play a prominent role in actualizing the goals of the DPF and his recommendations included operationalizing regional Internet Exchange Points, building regional data centre capacities and ensuring that Model Laws are aligned to the continental framework whilst taking into account regional specificities and needs. Key to achieving these objectives is addressing the obstacles currently prohibiting cross-border data flows between member states. According to Mrs Aretha Mare, Data Governance Project Manager, Smart Africa has conducted extensive research revealing that barriers to data flows can be broadly encapsulated by three main challenges: Lack of trust, lack of infrastructure and lack of technical capacity. Foundational institutions such as Data Protection Authorities are further hamstrung by the lack of financial resources needed to increase and ensure the required enforcement capabilities.

The principle of harmonization – a central tenet of the DPF and its Implementation Plan – will be a key driver in addressing the abovementioned challenges. Dr Alison Gillwald explained that harmonization is essential for enabling and harnessing the benefits of the data economy. It creates the economies of scale and scope needed to ensure equitable participation in the global data economy and in so doing helps guard against uneven development. The DPF makes a principled commitment to the realisation of a Digital Single Market - an integrated trade environment that we're going to see in process with the African Continental Free Trade Area - but also creating a rights preserving environment for users from the continent. By adopting an approach informed by progressive realization, low hanging fruit such as setting standards for integrated national data systems in order to unlock the public value of data can ensure that Africans share in the benefit of the data that they are producing. For too long Africa has been the recipient of the data subjects that are excluded from these markets, and it's really the commitment to harmonization that will allow stakeholders from Africa to create this enabling and trusted environment.

This scale is also needed for Africa to assert its place in the global data economy. Mr Torbjorn Fredicksson, who leads UNCTAD’s Digital Economy Branch, highlights that data can help to address many of the world's and Africa's major development challenges such as green transitions, food insecurity, pandemic preparedness, as well as more transparent and accountable governance. It holds the potential to transform research and development to improve the quality of decision making at all levels. However, should data be mishandled, the growing reliance on data may result in greater and greater inequalities. Additional risks are the continued fragmentation of the global landscape of data governance which will in turn exacerbate rising tensions among the matriarchs of the governments like China, the US and the EU, in addition to the increased fragmentation of the internet triggered by increased use of data localization requirements as an attempt to try to protect data inside the country which reduces the opportunities for internalizing the benefits of said data. These factors inform the call for a balanced global approach to data governance to help secure inclusive development gains. Reaching agreements on definitions and taxonomies for establishing terms of access with different types of data, dealing with data as a public good, exploring new forms of data governance and agreeing on principles as well as standards all require the active participation of African member states to ensure equitable benefits.

Questions from the floor related to data sharing agreements and mechanisms, increased civil society participation and the inclusion of local languages to give expression to governance in various settings – are all indicative of the desires of various actors to take up their roles in the shaping of global data flows. This is further evidence of heightened awareness of the strategic value of data and an enthusiasm to ensure that the digital dividends of data are shared in by all.

UN IGF Session Report

Session/event: Open Forum 89: Enabling a Just and Data-Driven Single Market

Date: 30 November

Time: 09:30 – 11:00

Moderator: Souhila Amazouz

Reported by: Pierrinne Leukes (GIZ)

Panellists:

Dr. Ify Ogo:                            Regional Coordination Specialist for the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) at United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Mr. Jean-Paul Adam               Director, Technology, Climate Change, and Natural Resource

Mr. John Omo                         Secretary General of African Telecommunications Union

Mr.Kenneth Muhangi             Lecturer-Intellectual Property, Partner-KTA Advocates, World Economic Forum 4IR Committee Member, Chair Technology, Media, Telecoms Committee East Africa Law Society.

Eng. Murenzi Danniel             Principal Information Technology Officer at East African Community, Tanzania

Mr Samatar Omar Elmi           Chief ICT Specialist, Africa Development Bank Group

Dr Talkmore Chidede             Digital Trade Expert at the AfCFTA secretariat

This session was primarily devoted to creating a platform for the panellists to share their sentiments on how the African continent can work towards enhancing digital trade and facilitate cross-border digital trade. The African Union Commission (AUC), represented by Souhila Amazouz (moderator), initiated the discussion by highlighting that the AUC has taken great strides in recent years evidenced by the development of the Digital Transformation Strategy (2020 to 2030) of which the main objective is to achieve this digital single market in Africa. To strengthen capacities in managing data and facilitate the movement of people and goods across the continent the AUC has also developed the Data Policy Framework and Digital ID Framework following extensive consultation and collaboration with both international and national organizations for the development of a harmonization strategy to create an enabling environment for creation of Digital Single Market in Africa.

Dr Talkmore Chidede, as Digital Trade expert for the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) secretariat, provided a report on the progress of the Digital Trade Protocol since the Committee on Digital Trade (comprising of all State Parties) was established in May 2021 to coordinate and facilitate the negotiations of the Protocol on Digital Trade under the AfCFTA. Since its inception, this committee has conducted explanatory and preparatory work by consulting with non-state actors through brainstorming with digital trade experts from the continent at high-level sessions to hear the expectations and key issues to address this protocol on digital trade and hosted regional stakeholder consultations to hear the views of businesses and civil society organisations. Formal negotiations are set to take place between 5 and 9 December 2022, where a report on these hearings will be submitted for consideration and validation by the negotiators, together with a situational analysis on digital trade across the continent which maps the state of digital trade, policy and regulatory frameworks. Once consensus has been reached regarding the rules of engagement and guiding principles, this Protocol is going to develop a continent-wide legal regulatory framework for digital trade that governs intra-Africa digital trade.

Mr Jean-Paul Adam of UNECA recognized and congratulated the AU for the exemplary partnership and leadership it has displayed because digital transformation is the tool that will allow the acceleration of the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. He cautioned that collectively we must address the gaps which exist between the promise, the present and the potential of the AfCFTA. Amongst the regulatory challenges that need to be addressed are ensuring Infrastructure and Connectivity, ensuring Cyber-security and Artificial Intelligence for the enablement of trade. Initiatives such as the Africa Trade Exchange (operated by Afreximbank) – a platform which facilitates access of African companies to trade their goods, as well as African Regional Centre on Artificial Intelligence which was launched in the Republic of Congo earlier this year (with a priority focus on trade facilitation), are already in place to incentivize the continued investment in harmonization of the regulatory environment across the continent.

In his reflections on the role that political leadership can play in enabling data to flow within countries and across countries, the Secretary General of African Telecommunications Union -  Mr John Omo, asserted the importance of imbuing political leaders with a sense of urgency and the necessary knowledge regarding the importance of data for the management of national, communal and regional economic systems. He emphasized that we need to address the asymmetry that exists between the technical stakeholders, and the political class – which has access to grassroot networks and can initiate skills transfers. In acknowledgement of the fact that there's not a single organization, or individual, whether politicians or private sector, that has a monopoly of knowledge over this jurisdiction, it is imperative therefore that everyone in the ecosystem is brought together for purposes of data management and this will also bring to light any institutional overlaps and jurisdictional conflicts in terms of the partnership engagements in Africa.

Mr Daniel Murenzi of the East African Community shed light on the domestication of the DTS within the region, underscoring the importance of coordinated implementation and highlighting the gains made thus far under the umbrella of the “EAC Single Digital Market Vision and Digital Agenda”.  Buttressed by four pillars, namely Online, Data, Connectivity and an Enabling Environment this Regional Economic Community is promoting digital trade by ensuring all foundational components work across borders, removing trade and customs barriers, ensuring data protection and privacy laws allow cross-border data transfers, sharing cybersecurity resources and removing cross-border barriers to infrastructure and connectivity (in both wholesale and retail). Echoing the importance of addressing the supranational issues in collaboration with various economic communities as well as the African Union Commission in order to ensure overall consistency, Mr Samatar Omar Elmi of the African Development Bank introduced the Upstream Project for Digital Market Development in Africa. This $9.73 million project, which supports the implementation of both the AfCFTA and the DTS, contributes to the implementation of digital enablers such as universal access to broadband infrastructure, sovereign African cloud, African digital market, e-commerce and digital trade promotion programs for medium, small and micro enterprises and start-ups kicks off in Addis Ababa in January 2023. In the main, it aims to facilitate the creation of a conducive ecosystem for digital trust, skills and African experts’ networks.

Within this context, Dr Ify Ogo, with extensive experience in supporting member states in the first phase of the AfCFTA coordination in her role at UNDP accentuates the reality that states will be negotiating from their own interests which must effectively be reconciled in order to give expression to the Protocol. She called on these actors to reflect on the constructs of these rules, the reality they were intended to create and whether they fully serve the interest of the African continent.         Similarly, when asked about the importance of provisions in the Intellectual Property and Competition Chapters of AfCFTA, Mr Kenneth Muhangi (a World Economic Forum 4IR Committee Member) stressed the importance of member state buy-in for minimum standards, since this consensus provides the foundation needed for harmonization. To further underscore the importance of reciprocity, he shared the view that Intellectual Property will be the driver of digital trade because it gives companies the confidence to trade freely, in the knowledge that their goods and brands are going to be respected within the countries on a mutual basis.

This session highlighted the incredible opportunity which currently exists to galvanize the synergies in the work of the multiple agencies working on this topic across the continent. By strengthening cooperation, raising awareness about shared priorities to ensure complementarity between the different initiatives and building individual and collective capacities, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) can facilitate an integrated approach which promotes the shared prosperity from global digital dividends by enabling a just and data-driven Digital Single Market in Africa.

Fact-checking the DNS: towards evidence-based policy-making

IGF Report 2022

The DNS is receiving increased attention from policy makers. This session sought to explore to what extent the DNS ecosystem relies on data to make informed decisions, what tensions have been created by increased DNS encryption in terms of accessing data and how to develop evidence-based solutions to tackle DNS Abuse. The session collected views from various stakeholders from the ecosystem.

We started with Geoff Houston from APNIC (technical community). He spoke about how the DNS was not designed thinking it would evolve into a global network, and therefore it was built with virtually no security features, it was ‘trusty.’ This became a vulnerability when the Internet consolidated as a global communications network: any adversary could intrude upon the DNS, observe what was happening and tamper with the answers. Following the Snowden revelations, a series of protections were built around the DNS (DNS messages are encrypted, sources of information are authenticated, DNS content is now verifiable, etc). However, as a result, the DNS has become obscure, “gone dark”, generating problems of its own in preventing abuse and keeping tabs of drivers for centralization. In his words, when we speak of evidence-based/data based policy making around the DNS, “there is no DNS data to talk about, it just does not exist.”

Mallory Knodel from the CDT (Civil society) challenged the notion that the DNS has gone dark. Her view being that just because we had not secured data before, it does not mean there was a good reason for DNS queries to be global data. The data was visible before, and we have now found ways to make it private. She does agree, however, that this has generated issues and has broken things, and to her, it is important from a public interest and Human Rights perspective, that we acknowledge those issues. These include initial centralization of services to make DNS lookups private, challenges for abuse mitigation, censorship becoming more blunt in regimes that previously relied on DNS data for blocking and filtering.

Emily Taylor from OXIL inquired about the availability of data for researchers to study the impact of encrypted DNS, highlighting how for studying the resolution space it is very hard to get that data. Mallory Knodel pointed how measurement initiatives tracking censorship are confident they will be able to overcome that challenge. Geoff said that the reason why query data is not shared is because it has incredibly privacy implications, most operators don't release it for good reasons. When you strip query data from personal, sensitive data you are left with something quite limited. As a result, our window to look into what is happening at the level of the DNS is small and getting smaller. No regulation will change that. The more functions are picked up by applications (QUIC, DoH), the smaller the role of networks will become. This push is the result of interest by large operators and what they perceive users want in terms of privacy that has led to this push.

The conversation then moved on to pick up on existing industry practices to deal with abuse on the DNS with the participation of EURid, CENTR, .ng and Verisign and contributions from academia from Latin America.

Peter Van Roste from CENTR spoke about DNS4EU. The initiative seeks to create a European-wide public recursive resolver. The reasoning has to do with concerns by European institutions that (a) some dominant players –especially interested in the valuable data generated by public recursive resolvers– have captured a significant market share and that public recursive resolvers are typically not European. DNS4EU was probably informed by market or commercial concerns related to the value of resolver data. CENTR welcomes the initiative, as long as the use of the resolver not be made mandatory, and noted that nearly a dozen of European ccTLDs are running local instances of public resolvers contributing to the diversity and resilience of European networks.

Jordi Iparraguirre from EURid spoke about actions taken by EURid to prevent harm to users of the .eu space. These actions are evidence-based policies, but they are also informed both by the existing legal framework (contract with the European Commission, local law in Belgium GDPR) as well as with EURid’s commitment to .eu brand and customer protection. Concrete existing actions include keyword detection on domain names (for example, searching for specific strings related to COVID pandemic) and analysis of domain names at the time of registration; improved Know-Your-Customer procedures to check on Whois data, and information sharing with law enforcement on domain names deemed suspicious of harmful activity.

When considering reliance on data for abuse mitigation, Keith Drazek from Verisign highlighted the importance of recognizing that there are different actors with different roles, responsibilities and operational capabilities. He highlighted ongoing activity at ICANN to identify improvements in DNS abuse mitigation focused on threats that are not content related. The gTLDs registries and registrars have recently sent a letter to ICANN to say they are prepared to take additional responsibilities to deal with DNS related security threats. But there is also a need to focus on content related abuse and for considering additional tracks for dealing with abuse in a multi stakeholder way which may belong outside of ICANN. He also highlighted the need to work with other actors for them to understand what it means to take action at the DNS level when trying to mitigate broad abuse. Mark Datysgeld - chair of DNS abuse group in GNSO supported Keith’s points about work at ICANN and mentioned that the group has also submitted a letter to ICANN asking to renegotiate contracts to change responsibilities.  

Beyond experiences from the global North, there were contributions from the African and Latin American perspective. Carolina Aguerre explained how the technical community in the LAC region is aware of the level of centralization that exists (the region relies on large, international providers). She also pointed out that concerns around privacy on the DNS are not being matched with initiatives to deploy privacy protections and protocols at the architecture level. APNIC has done a good job of mapping the adoption of protocols for the protection of privacy on the DNS, in Latin America there are some initiatives, like in Brazil and Chile, but very little data. The community is currently focusing on raising awareness among users and policy makers around this particular issue. It will likely generate tensions in the region as DNS blocking is common practice.

Biyi Oladipo from .ng spoke about not just Nigeria but how ccTLDs are managed in Africa. He expressed concerns about recent developments where governments take over the running of ccTLDs and potential implications of such developments on how freely and easily users access domain names. The regulatory environment is far more complex in Africa, with each country having its own data protection laws; he sees data protection as a potential opportunity for evidence-based policymaking to take place. Lastly, in practice there are few domain names taken down due to abuse in the continent, this is an additional area for collaboration with law enforcement and where an evidence-based system would be important. Some developments are taking place, a coalition is forming to collaborate with law enforcement on abuse and takedowns.

Lastly, Nigel Hickson from DCMS added a government perspective. He highlighted the importance that government officials be involved in these discussions to address valid government concerns as they impact government policy and regulatory development. He also called the group to reflect on ongoing UN processes and our vision for the DNS, particularly in the face of the WSIS +20 review and UNGA.

This session titled ‘An internet that empowers all women: can we make it happen?’ brought together representatives from the private sector, international development community and civil society to discuss the unique challenges that women face in accessing the internet and what can be done to bridge the digital gender divide.

GSMA opened the session and set the scene for the discussion by providing the latest data on the mobile gender gap in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) which stands at 16%. This means that women are 16% less likely than men to use mobile internet in LMICs. GSMA noted that progress towards closing the mobile gender gap has stalled and highlighted the need for urgent action by governments and a range of other stakeholders to work together to address women’s needs and barriers to accessing and using mobile and mobile internet.

Speakers unanimously reiterated the importance of addressing the digital gender divide and noted that the internet offers an opportunity to transform women’s lives, including women with disabilities. They highlighted that improving women’s digital inclusion also creates opportunities for economic growth, and can improve women’s well-being and society at large. The cost of exclusion was also raised and a speaker cited research which estimates that women’s unequal access to and use of the internet has cost low-and lower middle-income countries $1 trillion over the past decade.

The barriers to women’s digital inclusion were discussed at length. The session speakers identified a number of the key barriers to women’s internet use in Ethiopia and across LMICs which were related to:

• Affordability of internet-enabled devices;
• A lack of digital skills and awareness of the benefits of mobile internet;
• A lack of access to devices and a lack of accessibility of devices and online platforms;

• Safety and security concerns including online harassment; and
• Lack of relevant content and services including content in local languages.

Panellists shared practical examples of how these barriers can be addressed and how their organizations are working to address the barriers. For example:

• Digital Opportunity Trust (DOT) Ethiopia’s programs equip women with technology, business, entrepreneurial and digital skills so that they can create opportunities for themselves and participate fully in the economic and social development of their communities.

• Vision Empower designs and teaches curriculum that is accessible for children with visual impairments on digital literacy and STEM related subjects.
• Safaricom has implemented device financing programs to lower the upfront cost of purchasing a smartphone and to date has sold around 1 million devices using a pay-per-use model.
• Africa 118 supports small and medium sized enterprises in Africa with cost-effective digital services to reach their target audiences and improve their online presence.

Additional noteworthy calls to action that speakers shared were around:

• The need for stakeholders to hold themselves accountable by setting targets to reach more women through their initiatives and to consistently monitor and evaluate against their key performance indicators;
• The need to mainstream gender in ICT policies;
• The need for policymakers to focus on and improve the implementation of legal frameworks and policies that aim to protect women's online safety;

• The need to include diverse women, particularly marginalized women and women with disabilities, in the design of projects, initiatives and policies aimed at improving women’s digital inclusion from the start;
• The need for the courage ofprivate sector organizations to pursue initiatives to drive women’s digital and financial inclusion, particularly initiatives aimed at improving affordability of internet-enabled devices; and
• The need for digital skills training content that is tailor-made to women’s needs and preferences and use cases.

UNCDF concluded the session by summarizing the discussion and highlighting the importance of partnerships to catalyze collective action to tackle the barriers women face to becoming financially and digitally included. UNCDF shared the work they are doing in this space and invited stakeholders to join the Women's Digital Financial Inclusion Advocacy Hub (WDFI) network in Ethiopia.

The session put gender front-and-centre. This was reflected by the diversity of the panellists (4 women, 3 men) as well as the topic of discussion, which concerned the barriers to women’s digital inclusion. The session was attended in-person by approximately 70% women and online by 85% women. 

The session had speakers from regions impacted by Internet Shutdowns. The session saw reflections from Activists, Researchers, and Lawyers on Internet shutdowns in their side of the world. Some major themes that came up from the session were how shutdowns impact people. Internet shutdowns basically Exacerbate humanitarian crises.  and they do not allow support to journalists and human rights defenders.  On network measurement, it was felt that it  Helps increase internet sensitivity around the world. It has been observed that it is a pattern that access to social media platforms is blocked in times of conflict and unrest. The impact is felt hardest in marginalized communities which often goes unnoticed. In the case of Myanmar it was reported that the shutdown had lasted for 18 months in 54 townships where 12% of the population does not have access to data. Loss of the Internet means loss of access to each other. For women, this is especially hard as they are married off at an early age because of lack of information.  In case of Balochistan, it was reported that the general public is becoming more and more frustrated with internet shutdowns, especially in cases of students and young professionals. There is not just a shutdown but also throttling where speed is downgraded. There is a lack of regional and national level cooperation. In the case of India as well, there is no government documentation for the same which leaves the onus upon civil society to document shutdowns, advocate and litigate against them.

The key takeaways of the session were -

1. The need for more documentation to understand the nuanced impact of shutdowns.

2. The need to have coordinated efforts to actually understand shutdowns

3. More transparency on shutdowns from both government and private institutions.

Data protection must be mandatory in school education, for the youth to understand the concept of protecting their privacy. Most African countries don't have data protection laws, or are not enforced. They have schools on internet governance, but it is not sufficient, so they need to bring these programs to the school level.

The issue of non-english languages was raised, also people don’t understand how big tech companies are handling their data. The concept of peer-to-peer education was also touched on, where recent research shows that when it comes to children and adolescents having problems on the internet,  they learn from each other.

Via games they could better understand the implications of privacy also, is a good approach of engagement for the children. When people download apps, they are not paying attention to the privacy issues, and they cannot easily understand if they are safe or not.

In the global south specifically,  The European region has more protection than the global south, that is a reality. Also in countries like Brazil. There is a compromise to take with Global south developers for them to provide applications and services when we can communicate properly and safely.

DC-SIG 2022 IGF session

This year’s session, hybrid in nature, was also a combination of a regular yearly DC SIG review of schools, the yearly activities and planning for the next year, but with an issue based focus: on Schools and their contributions toward the achievement of SDGs. the meeting agenda was divided into discrete sections. 

1. Self-introductions: at the start of the session there were 30 participants in the room and 15 joining remotely. While a specific count was not taken, the room had a good gender balance.
    
2. Report from New Schools
   1. Zimbabwe IGF and Zimbabwe ISOC have been organising their SIG for 3 years now. First as a consultative moment, second as a remote session, and lastly as a physical school.
   2. ISOC Comoros organised its SIG in the year 2020, sponsored by PRIDA. They want to have a consultative moment for everyone to know their roles in the ecosystem.
   3. Cote D’Ivore IGF organised their SIG in 2019 and 2020. Got funding from PRIDA but because of Covid, they did not organise any SIG this year.  They need support for speakers and to organise the Western School on Internet Governance and Western IGF this year. It should be noted that as we wid not have translation services, this was done by a bilingual participant. IGF would be well served if translation services were to be provided to all sessions.
       
3. Details on new things existing Schools have done:
   1. AFRISIG: it is a leadership development school and it is for people already playing a role in the ecosystem.  What was done differently at this year’s SIG was they brought very experienced people from the Cyber Security Authorities across Africa for them to have discussions and have a working paper on Cyber Security.  This was presented in New York and the Africa Union also used it.  The important thing about this effort is that the schools are learning places for negotiation processes.
   2. APSIG: they created a separate programme for people with disabilities.
   3. SouthSIG: the new thing is they did 2 months of online learning and then one-week hybrid learning. Then the last stage was a collaboration with a university and those who got to this stage got a fellowship and a diploma from the university in internet governance. Everything was done for free.
   4. EuroSSIG: this year’s practicum was the most relevant since it contributed to the Global Digital Compact discussion and it is on the website of the UN.  They made recommendations for other schools to make contributions towards the compact and make contributions towards other global discussions.
   5. GhanaSIG: the new initiative is using their fellows as expert speakers to make proposals for events at local and global events. 
   6. InSIG: they reserved seats for people with disability.
   7. RussiaSIG (Illona): they are now using their SIG to research on internet fragmentation issues. 
   8. Chad (tdSIG): they intend to close the gender gap in this year’s SIG.
   9. VSIG: they intend to bring in GDPR for citizens that match various countries’ needs.
   10. North America (Andre):  they intend to make the NASIG process multilingual in future events.
   11. Bangladesh-SIG: hands-on learning on the time-demand learning process.  They also intend to do the SIG in local languages.  They requested to be added to the DC-SIG since they have done 6 schools already.
        
4. Discussions on SIGs and SDG:
   1. What has been done and what could be done:

While this section of the session was intended to allow discussion of SIG contributions in several areas including SDG 5 on Gender, SDG 7 on Energy, and SDG 13 on Climate Change, the meeting only managed to have a single extended discussion on SIGs and SDG 5. Further sessions, yet to be scheduled, are planned for the 2023 to cover the other SDGs.

Regarding SIGs and SDG 5, the following points were discussed.

1. Increase gender inclusion: this was done by the Russia SIG.  They keep getting more applications from ladies.  
2. AFRISIG: they have questions on what applicants think on gender equality and they include sensitive issues such as the LGBTQ in their application process.  They encouraged all schools to include the practicum session in their SIGs.
3. EuroSIG: they get a vast majority of females as their applications, but rather not more male applicants.
4. BrazilSIG was done which includes a legal school dedicated to lawyers and judges, which has been a very good experience. 
5. RSIG: SIGs must keep promoting gender balance, especially promoting STEM and ICT careers and education among young students.
6. ZimbabweSIG: they get more female applicants, however, female engagements is less in the actual participation.  Anriettte’s responded that AFRISIG does not have such experience, hence, the ZimbabweSIG must look at what works for them, and also include people in the moderation process in order to make it inclusive. Design the school in order for the fellows to know that they have an expertise that will be acknowledged.
7. Chad Youth IGF coordinator: how can schools engage in discussions when they were being subjected to  internet shut downs (Khouzefi).
8. Joshua (GhanaSIG fellow), be deliberate and keep pushing female fellows to participate in the fellowship process.
9. Liana (online): more than 90% are females in the Armenia SIG.
10. Sarata (online): we are making conscious efforts to include females in the community. 
11. RRSIG (online): according to Illona they select everyone with clear interest in their SIG.

Because the session was running out of time, there are plans for continuing the discussion at some point during 2023..

5. AOB:  
   1. The chair encouraged all SIGs to come together and have a global faculty, and global fellows.  
   2. There are no schools in Japan and they would want to have one. 
   3. There will be a networking session for all fellows of all SIGS in next year’s IGF.
   4. Given the number of issues that those attending wished to discuss, consideration will be given by the DC SIG to a Day 0 event at IGF2023 and/or an intersessional event during 2023.
       
6. At the end of the session, we had 45 participants in the room and 24 people remotely.

The IGF 2022 session of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity focused on the rights aspect of community networks. Session participants provided their perspectives and best practices. Some panelists authored and co-authored the official DC3 outcome, a report titled "Community networks as Enablers for Human Rights".

The session started with the launch of the report, presented by Senka Hadzic. The report is a compilation of of four different papers/ chapters, one of which is a collective paper - and a direct result of a collective effort by DC3 members.

The first speaker, Ronaldo Neves de Moura from the Brazilian regulator ANATEL, spoke about ANATEL's  activities related to promotion of community networks  both on a national level, but also when engaging with international bodies such as the ITU. He also highlighted the relevant synergy between ANATELs activities and the work of DC3.

Raquel Renno from Article 19 pointed out that developing countries and marginalised communities are more affected by accelerated digitalisation.

Nicholas Echaniz' talk focused on importance of participation in the digital space. The current landscape ignores meaningful connectivity and tends to create a "second class digital citizenship".

Sarbani Belur shared her experiences on addressing community's needs (on location, coverage, online vs offline) when seeding communities networks in India.

Glenn McKnight And Niels ten Oever focused on infrastructures: Glenn highlighted that electricity is mandatory supporting infrastructure for connectivity, while Niels spoke about the way infrastructures are operated and controlled. He raised the question of private 5G networks being able to get local spectrum licenses, something that community networks spent years advocating for.

Karla Prudencio Ruiz from Rhizomatica in Mexico brought up the assumption that connectivity is always preferred to disconnection, which leads to a situation that the means by which connectivity is being achieved, seem not to matter. People are often not aware of risks and harms when going online.

Jane Coffin wrapped up the session pointing out the need to look at different regulatory models with respect to spectrum, licensing and financing CNs.

In his closing remarks, Luca Belli highlighted the need to be critical, and understand the limits of conventional models.

The session was opened by DCNN coordinator, Prof Luca Belli (FGV Law School) and the session co-moderator Ms Smriti Parsheera (CyberBRICS Project). They stressed that over the past decade DCNN coalition has been advocating for open, secure, and non-discriminatory Internet, affordable and accessible to all people; promoting Network Neutrality as this fundamental principle plays an instrumental role in preserving Internet Openness; fostering the enjoyment of Internet users' human rights; promoting competition and equality of opportunity; safeguarding the generative peer-to-peer nature of the Internet

Since its creation this Coalition has explored the various dimensions of Net Neutrality and Internet Openness, acknowledging that Internet Openness is a multifaceted concept, and the debate on Net Neutrality and non-discriminatory traffic management is only part of the broader openness debate

Over the past years, Internet Openness analyses have increasingly focused on interoperability and device neutrality, acknowledging that net neutrality is only one necessary yet not sufficient ingredient of a successful internet openness formula, which include Interoperability + Device Neutrality + Net Neutrality.

Yet, net neutrality debates keep on being popular in policy circles, especially at the EU level, with the recent discussions regarding the introduction of a "fair share" proposal based on the "sender party network pays" model and its compatibility with networks neutrality principles. But also, at the south Korean and Latin American levels, as discussed by participants.A large number of Interne Openness related issues were explored by the speakers, including:

• Lina María Duque del Vecchio, Commissioner at the Colombian Communications Regulator, Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones, Latin America, Government, Latin America
• Maarit Palovirta, Senior Director Regulatory Affairs of ETNO, Private Sector, Western Europe
• Thomas Lohninger, Epicenter Works, Civil Society, Western Europe
• Angela Daly, University of Dundee, Academia, Western Europe
• Sabelo Mhlambi, Founder of Bhala, Private Sector, Africa
• Kyung Sin (KS) Park, Director of Open Net Korea, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific

Stakeholders manifested diverging views on the so called “fair share proposal” stressing that it might undermine Internet Openness, as emphasised in the Open Letter addressed to DCNN members to EU Commissioners, in October 2022 https://internetopenness.info/29-internet-experts-and-academics-send-a-letter-to-the-commission-urging-to-abandon-the-sending-party-network-pays-proposal/

Stakeholders also broadly agreed on the usefulness of the elements defined in the DCNN 2022 Outcome, the Open Statement on Internet Openness https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/92/23885

Namely, the Statement stresses the importance of:

1)      Network Neutrality is the principle according to which Internet traffic shall be treated without discrimination, restriction, or interference regardless of its sender, recipient, type or content so that Internet users’ freedom is not restricted by favouring or disfavouring the transmission of specific Internet traffic. Exceptions to such principles shall be necessary and proportionate to achieve a legitimate aim.

2)      Interoperability is the ability to transfer and render useful data and other information across systems, applications, or components (horizontal interoperability) and for third parties to build upon a certain technology (vertical interoperability). The combination of transmission and analysis involves several layers of interconnection, requiring the achievement of various levels of interoperability. At a minimum, one should distinguish between the lower (network) and the upper (application) layers, pointing to a division between infrastructural interoperability and data interoperability.

3)      Device neutrality is the property ensuring users’ right to non-discrimination in the services and apps they use, based on platform control by hardware companies. That means users can have a choice of the application they prefer to use, regardless of the brand of device they are using. In other words, device neutrality is instrumental to achieving the ability to run any application so that users can access and share to all applications, content, and services, as long as they are deemed legal in a given jurisdiction, which is essential to achieving an open Internet

Lastly, participants stressed that stakeholder should stop analysing internet openness focusing merely on the Internet access layer approach but should work together to understand how internet openness is threatened and can be preserved via a systemic approach.

Governance Forum’ brought together six leading EU and Africa’s experts representing private sector, academia/think tank, civil society and public sector/government.

The speakers of the session - Marek Havrda, PhD (Deputy Minister for European Affairs, CZ Presidency), Bridget Andere (Access Now, Africa Policy Analyst), Alberto Di Felice (Director for Infrastructure, Privacy and Security, DIGITALEUROPE), Maria Rosaria Coduti (DG CNECT, Policy Officer for Data Policy and Innovation), Chloe Teevan (Head of Digital Economy and Governance ECDPM), Johannes Wander (Policy advisor on digital development & innovation at GIZ to AUC) shared  their views on the forum topic.

Human centric approach – role of the governments and how to strike the right balance between making available more data for reuse and guaranteeing  privacy and data protection

Dr. Marek HAVRDA informed that CZ presidency presented a Joint policy statement - Human-centric approach at the core of the standardisation and connectivity, at ITU Plenipotentiary Conference (Sept. 2022) on behalf of EU27, signed by 57 countries. He states that in a modern world we are dealing with trade-offs, privacy is one of the criteria, understanding and being aware of the use of technology, respect for the individual autonomy are other important criteria. And finally there is the overall impact on human well-being at large. There are much larger risks and we need better checks and balances, combining different types of data, especially criteria of privacy. On digital divide: having a human centric approach should also help to bridge digital divide. We need to know what data is out there and how it is used in the communities.

Mrs. Maria-Rosaria CODUTI expressed opinion that data protection and access sharing & use should not be treated as contradicting elements, these are two elements of the same face. EC is putting in place data protection in legislation when drafting, and complement already existing legislation. You can't just protect data and impede the use of data. We create a trustful environment, a trustful ecosystem, data subjects, data users, etc. the basis of our data governance model is a human centric approach. We have put this into the legislation, into the Data Act for example. This empowers users, ie. of IoT objects, that by individuals, by interacting, by using IoT objects they produce valuable data and they need to have a say on the data. We need investing in technologies that includes privacy by default.

Digital transition and data economy – how ensure no one is left behind?

Alberto di FELICE noted that companies in Europe - big or small  - do not have monopolies in the market. These are all central points of the EC. And their data strategy has been centred around sovereignty and how data can protect the economy. In the EU we are in the middle of several proposals around data, such as AI act. And respect safety and fundamental rights, data sharing across sectors and players in the economy (Data Act), vertical proposals such as the EU health data space. It is a complex environment because there are lot of proposals and also lots of regulations in place (e.g.GDPR). ‘Gold is great but it's also heavy’, so we need to know the amount of regulation particularly if we have more of it, can also facilitate data sharing. We're also in the middle of a global crisis (pandemic, war in Europe). One aspect underlying data discussions is a connectivity. We're building partnerships worldwide, e.g. US: TTC strengthening joint initiatives built on the global gateway.

How to build a data governance model which benefit both the economy and the society? Regulation versus enforcement: margins for improvement.

Bridget ANDERE – expresses opinion, that  human being is central. We need always pick society if having to choose between society and the economy. Importing laws and infrastructure from other places without looking at consequences in own country are detrimental. So we need to build models that benefit society, what impact will it have on the end-user. Human rights diligence is very important. Look at the people whose data will be collected and who is at most risk, make sure they're protected and you don’t have to go back and fix it in retrospective. We need to engage in public participation in these processes. Regulation vs enforcement is not just a problem in Africa. We have lots of regulatory frameworks that are amazing and have policies and regulations that are supposed to go with them, these laws are often existing in vacuums. No absolute rights protection, opt-in/opt-out mechanisms, just use national security as a reason. Limitations on laws are very broadly formulated and not clear, creates lots of gaps. When it comes to operability we have principles but we find ourselves with really good laws but bad implementation. We need mechanisms that allow people to complain about infringement of their rights. 

Chloe TEEVAN argued that GDPR, one of most established European regulations, was based on multistakehokder consultation (incl civil society), but it is also not without its faults. It has become a model around the world but is not necessarily either adhered to in other contexts/countries. Ireland hosting many tech companies, this has an impact not only at EU data protection but also globally as other countries have to go through the Irish Data Commissioner. And if there are improvements it is because of civil society putting pressure. Data Commissioners across the EU have been discussing how to improve enforcement and also invited civil society to the table. Multistakeholderism is important element, and if enforcement improves it is because civil society constantly holds government accountable. Active CSO participation is really essential and also means adapting to the context you're in and bring the voices in. In certain contexts there aren’t even data commissioners in place to enforce such regulation or they don't have the resources and independence they need. Also questions whether big tech - even in EU- takes government seriously, they pushing limits in EU. Even more difficult for smaller African countries. These are just a few issues with enforcement, also when talking about GDPR as a gold standard.

Key challenges on regional level (focus on Africa)– how to act efficiently to closing digital gaps. Role of data to bridge digital divide, ensure strong data protection and inclusive economic growth - case study of EU-AU Data Flagship and the Digital Global Gateway.

Johannes WANDER presented a perspective is from the work with the African Union. Lots of countries in Africa are interested in more localisation which then tends to very much a locked-in approach and you can not leverage the benefits for the economy and society. AU developed Data Policy Framework and endorsed it this year, the EU is supporting this. AUC is in a leading role in formulating such policies at a continental level. EU should support this endeavour, also as part of the global gateway. But of course harmonisation is an issue, AU has double as many members as the EU, but we all know how many years it took for the EU to reach a consensus. Enforcement is also an issue. This is something we will work through the next three years, plan is to align existing stakeholders to bring this framework alive. We need to find solutions at national and community level. How do we ensure a just data governance? How can the African continent manage and use the data for itself, without localising more than 50 countries. Certainly the data is a new gold or oil, but the main question is how to make use of that.  Some countries have legislation in place and second step should be enforcement to ensure the economic growth.

Question/ Answers round.

·       Tony Blair institute: how can we simplify protection evaluation to actually make data transfer possible across borders in case of GDPR?

Maria Rosario CODUTI answered the question by addressing international provisions of Data Governance Act, between EU and third countries. Provisions to ensure sensitive publicly held non personal data so it will not be subject to unlawful access. We have a regime abased on intervening acts for non-personal data that we think will create a bottleneck. We extend the provision in data governance act to cloud service providers and customers. These rules are similar to Schrems II. We don’t create data localisation but encourage data sharing.

Chloe TTEVAN mentioned South African example -  it took a certain amount of time to develop the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and by that time the EU has moved to GDPR and South Africa was not granted adequacy. So this is a really big question.

·       Question (Government representative): knowing data is gold, how to manage our data if there is no standard framework internationally?

Bridget ANDERE. There is no one standard framework working for everyone. So how do we ensure adequate data protection? Take the person that is most at risk and then you have adequate data protection frameworks that will work more widely

Johannes WANDER added that in case of the AU data framework, its principles that can be interpreted at a national level and see what works for them

·       Question: (representative of Ministry of Technology, Ethiopia): which values can be incorporated at national levels in African countries?

Johannes WANDER replied that in EU there is a law interpretation focused very much on the individual. In some countries in Africa the communal aspect tends to be more important or higher priority than the individual. For example, health data is very private and should not be at communal standard. But societies really vary across the continent.

Dr. Marek HAVRDA added that  there is a need for new methods to monitor enforcement. Especially on privacy rules that differ between countries.

Key takeaways from the forum:
-Enforcement of the data policy regulation should be adequately addressed and ensured. Enforcement is crucial, but common understanding and harmonised approach across the globe are important too.
-Civil society organisations play very important role to make sure human rights are defended.
-Multistakeholder engagement throughout the process is crucial.
-Human centric approach and human rights should be embedded in the legislation.
-A clear need for models that benefit society starting from the principle that the most vulnerable should be protected. If they are – the whole society (is protected) too. 

The moderators Cynthia and Alexandra started the panel by introducing the regulatory context of artificial intelligence. Then, they introduced the respective panelists, the dynamics and objectives of the workshop, which, in short, was intended to explore how the regulatory landscape of AI has been developed in the Global South.

The panel's initial question was asked by moderator Alexandra: “What steps have your State taken in creating a regulatory framework for AI? Are there any legislation, bills, policies and/or national strategies seeking to establish rules or recommendations for the development and use of artificial intelligence? If so, what are their main features?

The first panelist to respond was Smriti Parsheera, from India, representing civil Society. She is a Fellow with the CyberBRICS Project from the Fundacao Getulio Vargas.

Smriti responded that the focus of discussion in India has been issues of promotion, innovation and capacity building. She also mentioned liability and regulation, noting, however, that these have not been the main focus. She argued that the main processes are not legislative and binding, but soft law mechanisms. She also mentioned that government committees have been created that look at privacy and security aspects. She mentioned the 2018 “AI For All” document, which sets out principles for responsible artificial intelligence, and stressed that people are already beginning to talk about the need for risk-based regulation aligned with principles such as those enshrined by UNESCO. Despite the existence of discussions and proposals for regulation, she stated that the focus is still on compliance and self-regulation, with a long way to go before binding legislation emerges in India.

The next panelist was Wayne Wei Wang, from China, representing technical Community, through the University of Hong Jong and Fundação Getúlio Vargas.

Wayne argued that China has a governance model for AI and data protection, mentioning that Oxford held a conference called “The Race to Regulate AI” in mid-2022, where three approaches to AI regulation were mentioned. He pointed out that regulation is often not specific and can be used together with data protection legislation. He argued that Chinese regulation encourages the large population to participate in the digital transformation, for example, in 2015, where there was the Made In China 2015 Plan and the Internet of Plus Initiative. In 2017, a formal document called The New Generation AI development emerged that defined the commercialization of AI as a market goal. And in the last two years, China has established a government AI committee that, although centralized, allows multistakeholder participation. Wayne summarizes that China regulates AI through hard law mechanisms, such as trade and data protection legislation, and also soft law, mentioning national incentives and strategies. He ended by mentioning that China has introduced specific legislation, “The Preventions of Internet Information System”.

In continuity, the panelist Thiago Moraes, from Brazil, representing government, through the Brazilian Data Protection Authority, replied that the debate in Brazil has a national strategy (2020) and a bill in progress, also mentioning the importance of guidelines of the OECD in this process.

He mentioned that the national strategy is based on the horizontal axes of legislation, regulation and ethical use, AI governance and international aspects, in addition to six vertical axes with related themes. In the legislative field, he mentioned the bill 21/20 in which there is a Commission of Jurists with 18 specialists to prepare a substitute text based on the debate with public hearings and a multisectoral approach, in order to understand the socioeconomic reality of Brazil. In the field of supervision and governance, he argued that the idea of multiple authorities coordinated by a central authority is a possible proposal for Brazil.

The panel continued with Bobina Zulfa, from Uganda, representing civil Society through Pollicy.

The panelist pointed out that she would address an overview of what is being discussed in Africa as a continent, since unfortunately in Uganda there is still not much regulation on the subject. She mentioned that in Africa few countries have written about the subject and that progress in this field is still slow. For example, only about six countries have national AI strategies and only one country, Mauritius Islands, have an AI legislation. Much of the regulation stems from data protection and soft law discussions, such as the Malabo Convention of 2014 (which only thirteen countries have signed), and Resolution 473 of 2021 which aims to study AI and robotics in terms of benefits and risks. At the moment, it is suggested that attention is being paid to the principles being developed in other regions in the hope that this will reach people on the African continent in a positive way. On the other hand, it was mentioned that in these discussions there is still a lot of opacity, being necessary to add transparency and participation.

The last panelist, Juan Carlos Lara G., from Chile, representing civil Society, through Derechos Digitales.

Juan Carlos points out that technology has been seen in his country as an opportunity for development and participation in the global dialogue with countries that are at the forefront of this implementation process. In Chile there is a national artificial intelligence policy for the years 2021-2030 and an action plan to implement the policy, coming from the Ministry of Science, Technology, Knowledge and Innovation. The Chilean experience is to assess the country's capacity and stage in the implementation of AI, in an optimistic and economic view that says very little about the boundaries of the technology, being much more focused on assessing potential to the detriment of ethical and responsibility challenges. There is still an ethical gap regarding the discussion of risks, impacts, accountability and damages. However, recommendations are being made and it is important to include new voices and participants in the debate, in addition to deepening it to understand local needs.

Moderator Cynthia highlighted the use of hard law by some countries and soft law by others presented, as well as the need for inclusion, participation and ethical guidelines. Next, she asked Smriti and Thiago a question: “Is and how diversity and multistakeholderism taken into account in the regulatory debates? (race, gender, territorial, vulnerable groups, academia, civil society, private, public sector, specialists)”

Smiriti responded that diversity and multisectoriality can be analyzed at various levels. The first level is who has a seat at the table when the discussion is taking place; the second level is that of those who participate in the debate with deliberative capacity; and the third level is that of who is producing knowledge in this process. She argued that India has a very diverse social context, which highlights the concern with non-discrimination and bias.

In this context, she stated that the government sector has involved the private sector and part of academia as multistakeholders in the discussion and that Centers of Excellence have been implemented in technical institutes around the country where startups, entrepreneurs and academia are called to dialogue about innovation. Furthermore, the National AI Portal is being developed, the result of government collaboration with an industrial sector, which aims to be an institutional repository of AI in the country. She also mentioned government committees, which include people from academia and industry. However, she concluded that the discussion is still not open to all who represent the diversity of academic perspectives and that the participation of civil society is critical because it is being little heard. Therefore, it is necessary to improve the transparency and participation of the process.

The moderator Cynthia emphasized that this gap is a point in common with Brazil, due to the difficulty of including some groups in the debates, which are dominated by the preponderant presence of the private sector. She highlighted the relevance of the discussion to ensure the participation of affected vulnerable groups who are not included and who need space for deliberation.

Thiago recalled the importance of multisectoriality in Brazil, as in the case of the “Comitê Gestor da Internet”, in which all participants must be taken into account, as in the process of drafting the “Marco Civil da Internet” and the “General Data Protection Law". The challenge was highlighted in a country of great diversity in Brazil and that indigenous peoples are still little heard, despite being an extremely important part of the country. Thiago pointed out that in Brazil there is an effort on racial and gender diversity, but that there are still many challenges to face. It was pointed out that Bill 21/20 is an interesting experience because it was proposed in 2020, in the pandemic year, and this discussion was not deepened, so that the private sector took on a lot of prominence in the debate. Only in 2021 was the Commission of Jurists proposed, where more voices were expanded.

In continuity, a questioning was made by the on-site hearing, where it was questioned, for the Chinese case, how the inspection has been carried out, considering the legislation that deals with algorithmic transparency and recommendation systems. Representatives of civil society were also questioned about experiences of participation and diversity.

Juan Carlos responded to the last question that it is important to highlight public consultations, which rely not only on individual responses and external experts, but on the invitation to introduce and create with people from civil society and who do not necessarily have technical knowledge. On the other hand, he mentioned the participation that started on digital platforms and that did not have accessibility or other languages, including indigenous ones. Furthermore, 70% of the people who answered the query were men. So, there is still a lack of processes to overcome inequalities.

Wayne, in turn, replied that in China there is the Cybersecurity Administration (CSA), which adopts a routine for supervising activities called the Clean Cyberspace Campaign. Other supervisory authorities are Companion-Life Enforcement Activities and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology that also adopt this type of campaign. These authorities examine, for example, applications in terms of data protection, security, etc. China has also released a guideline on algorithm registration systems.

One more question from the on-site audience was asked. This time it was asked if there are specific examples of how the government has engaged target groups in discussions.

Bobina responds that she is not aware of specific legislation in Africa, but civil society groups and academia, such as the African Commission for Human and People’s Rights, have tried to broaden the debate at initial levels.

Juan Carlos, for his part, responded that Chile has the example of a national cybersecurity policy for the years 2015-2021, where some groups focused on the issues were heard. It was still a restricted initiative, but guided by the government. Juan Carlos went on to add that this initiative is not just up to the government, but can also be promoted by civil society. This collaboration can come from the promotion of training, petitions or invitations to participate in procedures, being fundamental to think of ways to collaborate and also cultivate the knowledge of the academy.

Smiriti pointed out that technology policy must be transparent with civil society.

In continuity, a question was asked by the remote audience to the panelist Thiago. Questions were asked about transparency and how it works in terms of consultation and engagement.

Thiago replies that in Brazil there is an effort towards transparency and that there are challenges, but also some examples of what might work. At this point, for example, the Access to Information Law, which is about ten years old and which can help with these challenges of transparency. This is legislation that deals with the collection, access and request of information to the government. He pointed out that the legislation may conflict with data protection in some cases, but there is still optimism about its functioning. The central question would be what degree of transparency is achieved, combined with the difficulty of technical capacity and financial resources, which is usually addressed to the private sector and which is a difficulty that can be faced in other countries as well.

One more question from the on-site audience was asked. This time Bobina was asked how the debate on facial recognition in public safety has been conducted and what are the main concerns related to the topic.

Bobina replied that facial recognition technology for public safety purposes has already been used on the African continent, in Zimbabwe, Uganda, etc. and that such mechanisms culminated as instruments of mass surveillance, with many researchers emphasizing the harm resulting from this use.

Juan Carlos said that the issue touches on public interest and that in Latin America, regardless of any regulatory debate, facial recognition in public safety is inadequate for fundamental rights and is usually being questioned in the courts. He also argued that the systems are neither technically robust nor legally authorized and that this has been happening in cities like Santiago and São Paulo.

The last question came from the on-site audience and asked what would need to be done and discussed in the future for the AI regulatory framework in the Global South.

Wayne replied that one of the biggest challenges to be resolved and that has been guided by the Chinese discussion is the paradox of transparency and commercial secrecy, making it difficult to assess accuracy with the protection of secrecy. He also mentioned the co-regulation model and the expansion of stakeholder participation. Finally, he raised the point of “ownership” of data and algorithms, which have been commercialized in China.

Thiago replied that there are many steps to be taken and that it is necessary to think about an intelligent regulation that can be applied. He mentioned that hard law often fail to keep pace with the development of innovation, and it is necessary to think of alternatives. At this point, he also argued about means of partnerships between sectors that can favor dialogue and that have been promoted in the last five years, such as hackathons, innovations hubs and regulatory sandboxes. All of them have specific characteristics and give the public manager the opportunity to approach the regulated field. But there is still a need to think about designs for transparency, diversity and amplifying voices.

Moderator Cynthia concluded by pointing out that the use and development of artificial intelligence is usually accompanied by the rhetoric of innovation, however, it is necessary to talk about the risks and impacts on fundamental rights. It is a challenge and the panel ends raising several questions and reflections. Finally, the use of facial recognition for use in public safety was mentioned, considered as a discriminatory measure, without security and that harms vulnerable groups in Brazil.

The panel ends with a reflection on the balance between the protection of rights and innovation. Moderator Cynthia reminds the audience that they can ask questions through the institutional contact of the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, and moderator Alexandra closes the panel.

GENDER INFORMATION - In the virtual audience, about 7 women were present, apart from the moderator and the rapporteur. At the on-site hearing, two women were present, apart from the moderator. About 7 men were present at the virtual hearing and about 8 men at the on-site hearing.

The UK’s Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport convened stakeholders from across the Internet community to discuss a positive future for the Internet, and how to translate this vision into reality.

The session took stock of initiatives since the last IGF which have contributed to a shared positive Future of the Internet, and which have made progress towards realising this vision. 

• At the national level, the UK has articulated our vision for the future of the Internet in the refreshed 2022 Digital Strategy, and UNESCO has worked with a range of other countries to conduct measurement and assessment against the ROAM indicators.
• In the multilateral space, we have seen almost 70 countries sign up to the Declaration for the Future of the Internet. 
• Participants noted that over the course of this year, three major ITU conferences occurred, including a successful Plenipotentiary where a new Secretary General was elected. 
• It was discussed that in the technical community, ICANN has continued work to close the language divide for 3000 languages, and within the IETF work has continued to analyse and address Internet consolidation. 
• Here at the IGF, progress has also been made, with the intersessional Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation starting its work, and the appointment of a new Leadership Panel.

Across these developments, a number of themes emerged from the discussion in the session.

• There was a sense of awe at the evolution of the Internet through adversity. Participants noted that hundreds of millions of new users have come online over the past two years, and that governments as well as the rest of the Internet community have been able to keep working through the pandemic. There was a renewed optimism in Internet governance as global meetings across the community such as IGF, ICANN, IETF have been re-energised by a move to a hybrid of virtual and physical participation. However, through this time of change, participants urged that we remain conscious of the strength as well as the frailty of the Internet, and take action to guard against two trends in particular: Internet fragmentation on the one hand, and Internet centralisation on the other.
• Much of the discussion focused on leadership, and the need to set a positive forward-looking and ambitious vision for the Internet, rather than focusing solely on threats, challenges, and other negative aspects. Participants discussed the importance of reinforcing forums and their roles, while also noting the room for fine-tuning of leadership and governance such as the new Leadership Panel of the IGF. In the vein of leadership, the participants also spoke about bottom-up approaches, and the power that each of us have as role models to spread awareness and build capacity in our local communities, and in doing so root global discussions in local context. There was also consensus around the importance of leadership making processes more inclusive to participation from a wider set of stakeholders, as well as working to extend access to the Internet itself.
• On a more practical note, the discussion touched on the ways in which stakeholders can translate their commitments and principles into impact. Participants noted the trend at the national level of updating technology regulations, as well as the need to enhance ICT infrastructure. Capacity building initiatives at local and national levels were also highlighted, as were measurement initiatives as a tool for targeting action, and tracking progress.

The session also looked ahead at the next year, and surveyed the critical moments to come together and shape the future of the Internet by translating principles into action.

• In 2023, the Japanese government will host the IGF and the G7 presidency, and IETF116 will be held in Japan. Discussions on approaches to the Internet and cyberspace will also be hosted by UNESCO, and other parts of the UN system like the OEWG. 
• The Global Digital Compact was highlighted as an important ongoing process which could serve to build consensus on a range of issues relevant to the future of the Internet. However, the process for developing the Compact would need to allow for meaningful contributions from the multistakeholder community, beyond an initial consultative round eliciting responses.
• In the longer-term, the WSIS+20 review process was highlighted as a juncture at which the global community can come together and reaffirm our support for a multistakeholder Internet for the benefit of all, as well as setting ourselves new collective goals for the future, for example on development.

During the session, most speakers emphasized the necessity and urgency of international cooperation on digital economy, digital connectivity and data governance. They shared practices of different stakeholders in boosting digital economy while ensuring data security. It is suggested that governments, civil societies, private sectors and other stakeholders should unite and cooperate to jointly build a community with a shared future in cyberspace. Efforts should be made to deepen digital exchanges and cooperation, expand economic and trade exchanges in the digital field, promote the interconnection of digital infrastructure, enable digital access for all, and jointly promote the sustainable development of global digital economy.

Experts also focused on the establishment of international rules for digital governance. They maintained that the establishment of international rules for digital governance based on consultation and consensus would enhance the development of digital economy and that more engagement in establishing international rules for digital trade would reduce trade barriers and facilitate the sound and orderly development of international trade.

Some expressed that in order to develop and benefit globally from cyberspace, international cooperation must take place in cyberspace and benefit from the Initiative on China-Africa Jointly Building a Community with a Shared Future in Cyberspace, to become a global initiative because of its comprehensiveness, clarity, transparency and global mutual benefits.

In addition, some advocated more engagement in the international governance of digital economy such as joining the G20 Digital Economy Development and Cooperation Initiative, the Global Development Initiative (GDI) and other international cooperation agreements.

Reflection on Gender Issues (Gender Report):

The number of participants in the open forum is more than one hundred and the percentage of women and gender-diverse people that attended the session is estimated to reach over one third. The session managed to engage with gender as a topic. The onsite moderator and keynote speaker Ms. Yik Chan Chin delivered a speech under the theme of “Building Gender-Inclusive Digital Ecosystems”. She analyzed the challenges and difficulties facing women in the digital technology ecosystem and shared her insights into enhancing gender inclusion in the digital world, which were echoed by the participants at the session. She maintained that woman-centered design could enable digital innovation hubs to tailor their services to women’s needs and that collaboration should be made between digital ecosystem stakeholders.

Summary report: Combating Hate Speech – Answering the H & 5 W's Questions

The Open Forum was attended by approximately 50 people on site and 10 people online.

Following a short introduction to the Council of Europe Recommendation on Combating Hate Speech and the UN strategy on combating hate speech, participants split in three different Break-out groups. The on-site participants joined the in-person break-out group which discussed the definition and legal framework on combating hate speech. The online participants split between two groups on ‘How to monitor hate speech online in order to address it’ and ‘How to use education and counter speech to prevent and combat hate speech’.

Summary from break-out group ‘How to use education and counter speech to prevent and combat hate speech’

• Key to prevention is making users, and general public, aware what is and is not hate speech. In addition to understand the risk hate speech poses and how best to respond in given circumstance.
• Education should provide a safe setting to explore how to balance different rights essential to a democratic society, such as freedom of expression, which comes with responsibilities and limits, and impact of hate speech on others and their right to non-discrimination and safety. A save educational setting allows us to learn how to have critical debates, deal with different opinions and conflicts constructively with respect for everyone’s human rights. 
• It’s observed that Youth seem more aware of, reduce their use of, and act against hate speech. Meanwhile generation 50+ is becoming key contributor to the toxic environments online, reposting hate and dis-information. It raises the questions if internet media literacy should be strengthened among that generation?
• Building on experiences gained from the Italian No Hate Speech Movement; key to successful education and outreach is cooperation between different stakeholders. Civil Society actors, Universities, cultural sector work and learn together to use human rights education methodology and raise hate speech as an issue in the public debate from their different viewpoints. This approach ensures human rights speech in public spaces, in education, in media and online, and makes for a coherent and consistent messaging.

Summary from break-out group ‘How to monitoring hate speech online in order to address it’

• It’s reaffirmed that data gathering on hate speech is essential to devise effective and  meaningful policies and practices.
• There is a lot of similarities between international standards regarding the requirements for monitoring and reporting on hate speech.
• UN agencies are tracking data on hate speech.
• Tech Companies have responsibility to collect and make available data on online hate speech. It should be used for public policy, and internal systems quality control, which must be open for external monitoring.  Cooperation between companies and other stakeholders should be encouraged, international regulation can help to do so.
• The Council of Europe Recommendation calls on its member states to take appropriate measures to ensure that law enforcement effectively record and monitor complaints concerning hate speech and also set up an anonymized archive of complaints. That body of information should be disaggregated and available to relevant stakeholders for research, policy and monitoring purposes. To establish a data access framework by states would be very important.

Summary from on-site Break-out group on ‘Legal framework’

• Participants shared examples of national legal frameworks in place to address (online) hate speech. For example South Africa, Kenya and Ethiopia have systems in place similar to the German Network enforcement act, but with some interesting different elements, eg
  • In Ethiopia Hate speech and mis-information is defined as a crime. If an account with more than 5,000 followers disseminates hate speech it leads to an aggravation of the punishment. So, the wider the hate speech is spread, the greater the punishment.
  • In Kenya an independent institute was established to monitor hate speech, including on grounds of ethnicity.
• Other countries, like Sri-Lanka, have no laws on hate speech, but other laws are used, such as those covering discrimination.
• It was found a necessity to address hate speech with comprehensive laws. As Ethiopian participants illustrated, hate speech can precede genocide.
• A global agreed definition on hate speech is needed, but it should accommodate national contexts and realties.
• In drafting the legal framework, implementation needs to be considered. Law enforcement find it difficult to collect evidence of hate speech and build a case for prosecution.

Responsible Internet Usage

Session Report

Session: Responsible Internet Usage

Date: December 2^nd 2022

Time: 10:45- 12:15 UTC+3

Theme: Enabling Safety, Security, and Accountability

At Banquet Hall A

Session Chair: Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, Chairman- Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs, Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

Rapporteur: Ms. Smriti Lohia

The Session started with opening remarks from Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, Chairman of Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs, Internet Governance Forum (IGF). He released the report on ‘Responsible Internet Usage’. He discussed how digitalization is becoming an integral part of our lives and how it impacts the environment. Dr. Gupta gave a very different perspective on understanding the topic. If we take an average lifespan of 70 years and a human sleep around eight hours a day, we probably sleep 24 years in our life. And if we estimate 9 hours of time on the web per person, we spend almost 21 years of our life on the internet. That means the majority of our time. We are going to be on the net in terms of our office workers and that will definitely have an impact on the carbon footprint.

Mr. Gunjan Sinha, Executive Chairman of MetricStream and a tech pioneer, has been closely involved with the Internet since the early 90s when the Internet was still a research network. The Internet has become foundational to our lives, society, and nations globally. He talked about the intersection of the internet and ESG principles. The environmental world focuses on the carbon side; the social focus is on the digital divide. The Environmental, Social, and Governance of the Internet need to be considered very carefully at the policy and individual levels. According to him, social media will be more decentralized in the next generation, and when you decentralize the internet, it creates more empowerment and more local. So we have to get towards modus decentralization, more localization, and more governance at the local levels, even though the internet assumes to be a global network. As we get to a Federated model, we will create a lower digital footprint.

We have to label our digital activity properly. Labeling standards must be used in the digital world; for example, label at the bottom of an email about its negative impact. As we label, it starts to create awareness which leads to the right change of behaviour which then leads to a more ESG- centric internet, which has been missing in our overall architecture of the Internet of the future. It requires governments to come together. It also requires standard bodies to come together to create labeling standards.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio, Chief Information Officer at the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) talked about the project of Digital Identity. It was a move towards digital transformation. Now the system is based on new technologies such as biometrics and blockchain and how to provide assurance about these technologies’ reliance on governing bodies and other stakeholders.

He emphasized a lot needs to be done to make sure that the use of technology can be done in an accountable manner to provide assurance and whether and how the use of technology is being done by taking into consideration all the implications of technologies, whether it's about environmental sustainability, social responsibility, energy consumption and so forth. Governments, international organizations, the private sector, and professional associations should work together and start creating a set of standards in order to provide assurance and reliance on the responsible use of these technologies.

Mr. Erik Solheim, Former Environment and Development Minister of Norway, and former executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), touched upon the IT industry’s responsibility for solving the global environmental crisis. The industry should aim to go net zero, sourcing its data centers from renewable energies and buying carbon credits for emissions that cannot be abated. It should use its enormous outreach on various social media platforms to facilitate a broad dialogue on how to solve environmental problems.

Dr. Pooran Chandra Pandey, a senior visiting fellow at The Institute for Democracy in Taipei, gave a brief on the kind of scale and impact of carbon emissions that we are creating by doing very small things, like email, but that matters a lot. The serious problem with any technology is when we go beyond and begin to use it without really knowing the consequences that we will have on health, climate, and society. The kind of activities we undertake without knowing how it impacts the environment. Therefore, knowledge is important because most of us don't know the kind of impact of 1 MB of an email and the data created in its life cycle. On aggregate, an individual is contributing more than 300 million tons of CO₂ annually, from sending emails to text to playing games online and others which we are not aware of in terms of the negative impact we are creating for the people around us and also on the environment which is an intrinsic part of life.

There are a few things that need to be considered: We have to educate children from the school itself about these issues; companies that are producing technology need to be more transparent in terms of their sustainability report, the value they are creating not by selling technology but also being aware how technology affects people in the state of wellbeing.

Osama El Hassan, a senior digital health expert on Smart Health at the Dubai health authority, talked about the excessive use of the internet and its association with people’s health. The consequences of excessive of the internet are both physical as well as psychological, which can cause damage to the economy as well. This can also affect cognitive abilities. The key health issues that are clearly associated with excessive internet use is the high blood pressure and obesity; sitting for so long, or focusing on internet devices for long, especially with people who are addicted to gaming, will impact their blood pressure. On the psychological side, anxiety is becoming more and more prevalent, especially with adolescents that now have more difficulties interacting with the real world. This area needs much consideration, and we must have many governance issues.

We also need to have legal governance around misbehavior, bullying, or shaming. This could be at local, regional, and country levels.  We need a framework to ensure that these interactions will not have a psychological impact on users.

Smriti Lohia, the co-author of the Responsible Internet Usage paper, talked about how the internet will soon become a basic human necessity and why it is now important to understand responsible usage of the Internet. People need to start focusing on their digital carbon footprint. She emphasized on while using the internet; we need to consider what's necessary and what's not necessary; for what purposes we are using the internet; we need to see what platforms we are using; what kind of content we are accessing. So, we need to consider our responsibility towards the internet at very minute levels.

The session ended with a vote of thanks from the chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, and with a promise to come out with more reports on the labeling of our digital activities and to create mass awareness about the carbon impact of our digital footprint and work towards making people responsible on internet usage.

To learn more about our work,  visit: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-internet-jo…

Sustainable Automation as SDG-18?

Key Takeaways:

• Disruption in labour market due to automation
• Identify the gap between current and futuristic skilling
• Control of the Private sector over different areas/sectors of automation
• Focus on job creation
• Bridging the skills needed for future jobs
• Life-long learning process to life-long skillinglnced use of automation

Calls to Action

• Bridge between job opportunities and academics
• Continuous Lifelong Learning to Continuous and Lifelong Skilling
• Focus on Up-skilling, Re-skilling, and Futuristic skilling
• Balanced use of Automation
• Basic social safety and security for people
• Creating ideas for capacity-building of futuristic jobs
• Sustain-Able Automation as SDG 18 or included in SDG 9 – Sustainable industrialization

Session Report

Session: Sustainable Automation as SDG-18?

Hosted by Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs, Internet Governance Forum & Digital Health Associates ( https://www.digitalassociates.health/ ). 

IGF 2022 Town Hall #82

Press Briefing Room

13:15 IST (1 Dec) -14:15 IST (1 Dec)

Rapporteur: Ms. Rahatul Jannah

Session Chair: Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, Chairman- Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs, Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

The Session started with opening remarks from Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, Chairman of Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs, Internet Governance Forum (IGF). He released the report on ‘Sustain-Able Automation as #SDG 18’ Dr. Gupta remarked that technology should not just focus on Productivity, Profits, and Proliferation, but also there is a need to keep people at the core. He discussed whether we should use automation indiscriminately or discreetly. He also briefed about the Sustain-Able Automation report which looks at automation in countries- large and small, sectors including agriculture, manufacturing, and retail services. Later, he moved to the panel to discuss the effect of automation on jobs and if Sustain-Able Automation should be #SDG 18.

Dr. Rishi Mohan Bhatnagar, President, Aeris India, and co-author of the book, Enterprise IoT, which covers Internet of Things (IoT) project management frameworks, talked about the time when the industrial revolution started in the western world and all the people who spun the wheel in India lost their jobs. He mentioned that whenever there is a technological advancement, there will be a transformation and a disruption. In 1986, when the computerization of railways was initiated in India, people were completely against computerization. However, advancement in technology will not stop, and we will have to adapt ourselves. He pointed out that policymakers need to come up with ideas for skilling resources and creating capacity-building for futuristic jobs.

Asish Thakur, Executive Director, Glocal Pvt. Ltd. talked about automation in Nepal, and mentioned that there has been a lot of work going on in terms of automation in different sectors. He mentioned the research conducted by UNICEF in 2019, which said that by 2030, more than half of the students would come out of school without the skills needed for future jobs. So, we need to adapt to technological advancements and focus on skilling. He also added that a lot of young people have now started taking up upskilling and reskilling programs, and observed that they are now getting into coding, designing, & different activities, which are equally or even more at times, providing them with opportunities and resources. Therefore, there needs to be a bridge between academics and job opportunities. He concluded that there will be a need to learn futuristic skills to adapt to technological advancements.

Mr. Suresh Yadav, Deputy Head, Secretary General Office, The Commonwealth Secretariat, quoted from the Sustain-Able Automation report how the total market value of Apple is much higher than the total GDP of many countries combined together, which brings a perspective that how much control companies have on automation and how they define and decide the direction and areas of automation. He mentioned the shift of power from the government to the private sector and how the private sector controls important assets and determines changes in policies. Mr. Yadav also remarked that technology has the power to disrupt, and neither the government nor individuals can stop this disruption. Hence there is a need to look for the best ways to adapt and prepare ourselves for those changes. He emphasized shifting from ‘continuous lifelong learning to continuous and lifelong skilling.’

Mr. Pooran Chandra Pandey, former member of the Board of Trustees, United Nations World Food Program, and currently International Visiting Fellow, Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, Taiwan (R.O.C) discussed how to balance technology in a way that does not get on the wrong side of human centricity. He elaborated on how technology is evolving and creating disruptions at a very large scale- throwing people out of jobs, bringing upheaval in the labour market, and which is waiting to be accelerated by excessive technological application brought into the offices. He remarked that it is the joint duty of the government and private sector to identify areas, sectors, and people to skill and give them basic social safety and security. He concluded by saying that automation is not only going to displace people from several sectors but also create social disorder. Therefore, there is a need to mitigate the downsides of automation urgently.

Toward the end of the session, the majority of the participants opined that it is time to consider ‘Sustainable Automation’ either as SDG-18 or under the existing SDG which covers sustainable industrialization  i.e. SDG-9

The session ended with a vote of thanks from the Chairman, Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta.

For more information on Sustainable Automation, please visit the webpage https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/dynamic-coalition-on-internet-jo…

The DNS Abuse Institute and Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network Open Forum on Strengthening Multistakeholder collaboration on DNS Abuse, took place on Wednesday, November 30, 2022 from 06:30 to 07:30 UTC. It engaged a multistakeholder panel comprised of industry representatives (both generic Top Level Domains (gTLD) and country code Top Level Domains (ccTLD) Registries), government, law enforcement, and civil society representatives on the question of, “when is it appropriate to act at the level of DNS to address online abuse?”. 

The session was structured around the following key pillars:

• What does DNS abuse look like? 
• What does acting at the DNS layer mean? 
• When do you think it's appropriate to act through the DNS? 
• What is the role of multistakeholderism in DNS abuse? 

This session focused on the role of the multistakeholder model in relation to when it is appropriate to address online abuses through the Domain Name System (DNS). Domain registries and registrars are part of a centralized system of Internet infrastructure that provides an addressing system for the Internet. 

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a multistakeholder organization where consensus policies are developed by the community including the contracted parties (e.g., Registries and Registrars). These contracted parties who operate generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) can be impacted and ultimately bound by these consensus-driven policies. Country Code Top Level Domains (ccTLDs) also fit into the ICANN ecosystem but have their own systems of policy development which can also include multistakeholder engagement on a national or regional level. 

There are various definitions of ‘DNS Abuse’. Sometimes the term can be used as shorthand to indicate ‘action is appropriate at the DNS level’. However, the conversation benefits from a more granular discussion and the consideration of context for specific types of online abuse.

The DNS is a tool that allows users to connect to specific addresses on the Internet (often websites), but itself is separate from the content on websites– which is not within the control of a registry. Acting at the DNS layer often entails deleting or suspending the entire domain name which can have far reaching, often unintended consequences, for the registrant and website users. For a registry, remedying abuse often means working with registrars or other service providers. 

For governments and law enforcement around the world, it can be challenging jurisdictionally to address harm occurring on the Internet, with its transnational nature, when the actors and intermediaries are distributed globally and laws are not aligned across the world. 

There are more actors involved in the ecosystem beyond registries and registrars, for example, hosting providers, the registrant themselves (the user of the domain name). 

On what DNS abuse looks like, panelists delved into what different operators consider to be appropriate to address at the level of the DNS and the wide distinction between gTLD registries and ccTLD registries. It was identified that ccTLD registries are often much closer to national laws and may be required to follow national procedures. 

When considering action at the DNS level, it is important to differentiate technical abuse from content abuse, assess evidence and consider principles. Is the ‘tool’ available to that operator effective to mitigate the specific harm, precise, proportionate, and has a limited potential for collateral damage? If action is taken in error, it can often be reversed (e.g., a domain name can be restored), but the consequences of the error may not be reversible. Those consequences could come with an unacceptable impact on fundamental human rights, for example, by causing a loss of connectivity for critical health or informational services. The potential to cause more harm than the initial issue detected should be considered seriously. 

It is essential that law enforcement in particular have respect for due process as they investigate and report harm. It is also essential that operators of infrastructure are aware of the potential human rights impacts of potential actions. 

In addition, it was identified that ​​the role of the multistakeholder model is important but is better suited to some tasks than others. There is currently a movement within ICANN by the contracted parties to request changes to their contract. In particular the request is for focused and targeted amendments to take reasonable and appropriate action to mitigate or disrupt malicious registrations when reports are properly evidenced. 

There is also a role for the multistakeholder model within ICANN to undertake further, more detailed work on the topic of DNS Abuse. In addition, there is also a need to engage with actors outside the ICANN DNS Community ecosystem. 

The multistakeholder model includes a role for users, it is important to reflect this in due process and consider the impact on human rights—for example, through notification and engagement with the user that their domain name is implicated in a form of abuse. Recourse mechanisms also form part of a due process when prior notification of action is not possible, for example due to severe, well evidenced concerns of harm to the public. 

There is growing regulatory pressure on the need to address content related abuses at platform level (where the content ‘lives’), and increasingly through the DNS. Given the technical limitations of the DNS in targeted interventions, there is a need for further work through the multistakeholder process to develop principles, criteria, and thresholds to demarcate the limited set of situations where the DNS may be used to remediate specific types of content. However, it is important to note that the purpose is not to legitimize content restrictions through the DNS which is neither technically possible nor recommended.

Open Forum The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE) held an Open Forum (#50) on the ‘Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building (GC3B) 2023: Cyber Resilience for Development’ on Wednesday 30^th November 2022, during the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2022 in Addis Ababa. This open forum session presented the concept, aims and foreseen outcomes of the conference while highlighting the opportunities for global cooperation through the GC3B.

Tereza Horejsova, Outreach Manager of the GFCE Secretariat, opened the event by summarising that the GC3B will be a key global gathering of leaders and experts to mobilize effective, sustainable, and inclusive stewardship of international cooperation for cyber resilient development and cyber capacity building. Its overarching aim is to catalyze global action to elevate and mainstream cyber resilience and capacity building in the international development agenda. She explained that this Open Forum was convened to consult with the global multi-stakeholder community on the conference program.

Chris Painter, President of the GFCE Foundation, outlined the conference’s aims and objectives. He noted that much has been done to promote best practices in cyber capacity building, but insufficient awareness among key decision-makers and a lack of resources and coordination sometimes hinders implementation. This is why the GFCE partnered with the CyberPeace Institute, World Bank, and World Economic Forum to work together in convening the Global Conference on Cyber Capacity Building: to advance, operationalize and collaborate on cyber capacity building. He affirmed that the need for cyber capacity building as a key enabler of sustainable and resilient digital development will be highlighted, reflecting the key theme of the conference for 2023: ‘Cyber Resilience for Development.’ Lastly, he highlighted the two main objectives of the conference: elevate and mainstream cyber resilience and capacity building as a first-order, strategic and operational priority in international cooperation and development, and to support middle- and low-income countries in incorporating cybersecurity and cyber resilience into their national strategic plans, including their digital and infrastructure strategies and investments. These objectives will be achieved through several concrete outcomes.

Theoneste Ngiruwonsanga, Project Manager in charge of Cybersecurity & Data Privacy at SmartAfrica, re-iterated the importance of cyber resilience for development and the need for the GC3B, by highlighting that cyber resilience requires deeper understanding of risks and communities at the regional level and that developing countries should introduce resilience into their critical functions. He explained that this is also because individuals will always strive to live and invest in countries that are resilient. Finally, he spotlighted the importance of the conference’s aim to be multi-stakeholder and inclusive, to mobilise effective, sustainable, and inclusive stewardship of international development and CCB, and that it is necessary to be open to input from the global community, in order to catalyze global action.

Dr. Towela Nyirenda-Jere, Head of the Economic Integration Division at AUDA-NEPAD, highlighted that a key outcome of the conference is a Global CCB Agenda that can be linked to Regional CCB Agendas. She zoomed in on the Africa CCB Agenda by stating that it is currently in the process of being written and finalized with contributions from the community such as through the GFCE Africa Regional Meeting 2022 which took place in the margins of the IGF 2022. Moreover, this process is being led by the Africa CCB Coordination Committee who represent key institutions with various stakeholder interests in Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and Cybersecurity in Africa. The Agenda relies on a demand-driven approach for the coordination and implementation of cyber capacity-building programs and initiatives on the continent. She also affirmed that a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach to cyber capability building is needed. The key themes identified to be addressed in the Agenda are: political willingness from governments; revision of legal framework on cybercrime and technical capacity building for CERT and DFLs; coordination at national, regional, and international levels; and cyber awareness and skills development. Lastly, she explained the next steps, which include finalizing the proposed Africa Agenda on CCB together with the Africa CCB Coordination Committee, and subsequently submitting it for endorsement by the African Union, after which it will be presented at the GC3B.

Francesca Bosco, Senior Advisor at the CyberPeace Institute, presented an overview of the GC3B program, highlighting its four pillars: Making International Development Cyber-Resilient; Collaborating to Secure the Digital Ecosystem; Cyber Capacity Building for Stability and Security; Operationalizing Solutions. All the pillars will involve sessions and discussions on sub-topics and the 4^th pillar, Operationalizing Solutions, will be further divided into four tracks: Empowering Better Program Management for Cyber Capacity Building and Cyber Resilient Development (Track A), Implementing Successful Cyber Capacity Building and Cyber Resilient Development Actions (Track B), Using Global Public Goods for Cyber Capacity Building (Track C) and Coordinating at the Regional Level (Track D). It was explained that the conference program has purposely left space for up to 12 session slots for members of the community to propose and/or lead sessions, under the cross-cutting theme of “Operationalizing Solutions”.  An Open Call for proposals for session leads or session topics under this pillar will be launched on December 15th 2022. Prior to this, the conference co-organizers are looking for feedback from the global multistakeholder community on the topics included per track (A-C).

Following the presentation of the GC3B and its program, participants were invited to partake in an interactive discussion regarding which topics should be prioritised under each of the tracks of Pillar 4. For Track A (empowering better program management for cyber capacity building and cyber resilient development) bringing cyber expertise into development programs and upskilling/reskilling development staff on cyber issues was identified as the preferable priority. Diversity and inclusivity were also identified as principles the Conference should aim at promoting and representing. Secondly, under Track B (implementing successful cyber capacity building and cyber resilient development actions), participants proposed that the track priorities opportunities and challenges of financing cybersecurity and cyber resilience in developing countries through different sources. In this way, the conference can serve as a launching pad for assessing the way in which resources are used and involve additional donors. Lastly, under Track C (Use of Global Public Goods for Cyber Capacity Building), participants highlighted the importance of giving wider access to existing resources and ensuring global public goods are designed and used sustainably.

Participants were thanked for their contributions and are invited to visit the website at gc3b.org for more information, or get in touch with [email protected] for any questions or to provide any further input.

Smita Vanniyar inaugurated the discussion by highlighting the importance of bringing forth the experiences and visions of women and queer people in building a resilient internet and stressed on the need to de-binarise discussions on internet governance. With Governments bringing emerging tech, digital ID systems, and surveillance tech, we need to think about in what contexts these are being pushed and who will be most affected by them. They pointed to how facial recognition technologies and CCTV cameras are pushed for the ‘protection’ of women and children, however, facial recognition technologies have an inherent colour bias. When you use such tech for safety and it is already biased, we need to ask: who are we throwing under the bus? Research shows that non-binary, trans, and black people are significantly misidentified. We need to ask: what determines what kind of policies govern tech? Are these being pushed by civil society or are there other forces at play? A lot of the time, we get policies from the perspective of research and development and they are inevitably connected to state security and the military. Tech policies are often informed by global relations, for example, a lot of privacy conversations came from the EU, often ignoring local contexts.

Liz Orembo reflected on how algorithms contribute to the lack of representation of women in governance or politics in today’s age.  She highlighted how the algorithms and social media’s business models amplify attacks on women seeking political seats. What needs to be done is to discourage such biased and harmful business models, and reimagine these business models in a way that enables other communities. Technologies are biased because they are built on data that ignores the realities of women and gender minorities, especially in the global south, as they have limited access to digital technologies. On the other hand, women and gender minorities in the global south are not using technologies because they are not built for them. It is a continuous loop. Liz also spoke of the many barriers to holding technology companies accountable. Civil society members act out of passion, while companies are always driven by profit-motive. They have strong lobbies with various governments as they have the money and power to do so. Moreover, it is a challenge to mobilise the general public in holding these companies accountable as understanding tech and policies is a slow and difficult process. When people do not understand how tech works, it becomes a challenge to ask for accountability. 

Chenai Chair deliberated on the concerns around surveillance and tech, noting that in many parts of Africa, surveillance cameras are being increasingly deployed for military and state security. Who has the data that is collected by these technologies? How are these technologies being secured? What is the data used for? There are also serious concerns around data surveillance, and there is a need for greater transparency. How does my device know where I am and who is collecting such information? What steps are being taken to ensure privacy? For example, the mental health apps that we share our most intimate thoughts and information with are often quite irresponsible with our data and do not prioritise privacy of data. Chenai also elaborated on the biases that exist in Voice Technologies. Voice technologies respond to European and American accents but misidentify African languages and accents, and even voices of women. These voice technologies are being pushed as solutions that enable greater access to information and engagement with digital technologies, but these biases need to be addressed. There needs to be diversity in datasets that these solutions are built on. 

When speaking of tech accountability, Chenai highlighted that geo-location dynamics play an important role in determining the tech platforms’ response to accountability demands. These companies respond to political representatives where they come from. For example, platforms take the EU more seriously because they will be charged a hefty fine, whereas, fines imposed by African nations are seen as a small cost. The forex rate works against African nations. Community standards that govern these platforms are also used to silence people from many communities. Mass reporting is used to silence feminists, LGBTQIA+ community, and activists, who greatly rely on these social media platforms for their work. Apps like Telegram are used to mobilise such mass reporting.

Chenai also emphasised the need to centre fun and joy in our approach to technology and innovation. People first used the internet to date. When TikTok came, a lot of people thought TikTok would not work because people did not have to sign up to see content. However, TikTok is has reach across classes because it centred joy and entertainment for as many people as possible. A lot of innovations were driven by SDGs, etc. but how do we ensure that there is a greater participation and awareness of technology among people because there is joy and fun in the process?

Srinidhi Raghavan examined conversations on data, surveillance, and privacy at the intersection of technology and disability. In India, there is a strong push toward the systematization and creation of Digital IDs for easier and streamlined access to health services. Some of the few central questions that need to be addressed are: Where is this data being kept? How is the system built to allow people with diverse disabilities to access these systems? Access to these services is often linked to the extremely contested Biometric ID card (in India), Aadhaar card, which was built thinking of non-disabled bodies in mind. People with cerebral palsy, retinal detachment, or other kinds of physical disabilities cannot access the Aadhaar system. Technology is seen as a solution to bridge the gaps in access, but often it is the other way around. Disability needs to be front and centre when we create these technologies and services.

Srinidhi also highlighted how many of the emerging technologies are actively harming people with disabilities. Technologies are being built to detect disabilities, and to look for how disability presents itself, but as we know, these systems of identification are often used to discriminate against people with disabilities. While some might say that these technologies allow for streamlining of access to healthcare, these same technologies are also used to deny disabled people, like those with psychosocial disabilities, access to medical insurance. We also need to think about these technologies from the perspective of privacy – who gets to decide when a person’s disability is disclosed and identified?

Srinidhi also noted that the question of AI helping in increasing accessibility, spaces, and possibilities for persons with disabilities is a complicated one. As activists, we realise we do not have enough data on disability issues. But if data is collected without paying attention to privacy or transparency, it can be weaponised against groups the data is collected about. For example, a study in the US showed that a company was collecting user data on disability, and one of the things it ended up doing was deprioritizing disabled persons' applications in the hiring process. Data collected is often not in the best interest of the community. How do we imagine good use of data? We often do not know what data is being collected. There is a power in play - how do you challenge something when you do not even know what is being collected about you? We would like data to build inclusive systems, but it is used against us. Our relationship to data is a very complicated one. Moreover, the conversations at the intersection of tech and disability are always about fixing disability. It is important to think about where this comes from. We need to think about people and community and care, not just a means to an end. We need to think about the human aspects of engaging with technology - how can it nourish human life and relationships?

Sheena Magenya reminds us to be wary of the narratives that talk about tech as a great equaliser. Tech is seen as a big solution to all our problems, especially in the African context, however these technologies are devoid of any accountability, equity, and representation. In the technology landscape, there is limited agency and choice of community members. As we saw during COVID-19, often, technological ‘solutions’ are imposed on communities, and there is not much to refuse or reject use of tech. Communities that are criminalised in certain contexts and nations are denied access to spaces when these technologies are constantly tracking you or fishing your personal information out of you. If you are a trans person, and your identity is criminalised in a certain region, you can only participate in certain spaces by lying about your identity. 

Sheena also asserted that we need to shift focus away from what is horrible and what we want more of. We need to remember that tech and innovation are not new to the human experience. We have always been developing tech as humans, but now the speed is just really fast. We are always trying to do more and better. But this inherent interest in technology is manipulated by corporates and states. Where is the choice to the extent to which we want to participate? Who gets to take up space? Young women and queer people face an incredible amount of violence for simply existing, for saying things that are not in line with societal, patriarchal standards. They are truly at the battlefront. There is no support, solidarity, or recourse. It is important to recognise that young people are defending not just their freedoms but everyone else’s as well.

Online gender-based violence is prolific. It affects women, girls, and gender diverse people across different countries and social environments.

People who call this problem out make themselves more vulnerable to further abuse. Honourable Neem Lugangira spoke about her experience as an elected official in Tanzania, the exposure that meant for online gender-based violence, and how raising this issue made her even further targeted. Another activist based in South Asia noted the self-silencing impact of this abuse for targeted individuals.

Women are helping themselves overcome this problem. Irene Mwendwa gave the example of Pollicy’s peer-to-peer communities and local-level training for resilience among women policymakers at multiple levels of government.

Norms against this kind of violence already exist. Clear analogies on the illegality of this behaviour in the streets should be translated into the online world, said Onica Makwakwa of the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership. Governments are falling short of their mandate to address this: huge amounts of public education against gender-based violence is required, and a failure to address this issue costs governments over $1 billion in lost productivity due to the digital gender gap.

Platforms are taking action, but transparency is missing, said Kat Townsend. This comes from the experience of the Web Foundation and its Tech Policy Design Lab, working with activists and major social media platforms on this issue. While the platforms are making changes that users can see, there is still an underwhelming amount of transparency for us to understand what the potential impact of this change might be.

Resources:

Amplified Abuse, from Pollicy https://pollicy.org/projects/amplified-abuse/

Tech Policy Design Lab, from Web Foundation https://techlab.webfoundation.org/ogbv/overview

Meaningful Connectivity, from A4AI https://a4ai.org/meaningful-connectivity/

Rapid developments in technology and the datafication of society are seen as inevitable by most members of society. According to research conducted by EngageMedia among Indonesian and Philippine respondents as part of the Alan Turing Institute’s Advancing Data Justice Research and Practice (ADJRP) project, people seldom question the advancement of technology. This reliance on technology fuels endless data collection – every click, scroll, and tap on digital devices generates massive amounts of data that define people’s identities and inform their participation in and access to key everyday activities, from financial transactions to communications. The vast amounts of data being collected are not always leading to better policies or actionable knowledge. Should one collect data for the sake of its collection, or should outcomes of data collection always be leading? Again, a question that is not often asked.

With the datafication of society, humans exist as both physical and digital beings. When it comes to that digital being, how just is society when regulating this online person? The positive view of technology and datafication glosses over critical questions, particularly about the purposes of the collection, use, and processing of data, and who benefits in this process.

The research by EngageMedia and the Alan Turing Institute is an attempt to expand research on data justice and critically question how people understand the concept of data justice and the impact of datafication on their lives. Based on the insights shared by the speakers and panel members during the IGF session, data collection does not always translate to actionable knowledge that improves people’s living conditions, especially those for whom datafication tends to facilitate their exclusion and exploitation further. One example is the case of an Indonesian research respondent who was unable to have her ID card reflect her gender because the system did not allow for it, until a government official stepped in and offered to change it for her manually, after seeing and confirming the individual's new gender identity in person.

At the core of the issue is the need to question and examine power dynamics critically, particularly concerning fairness and equity in the way people are made visible and represented in the production and analysis of data. In discussions on defining data justice or setting data governance mechanisms, whose ideas take precedence? Too often, the voices of communities in the Global South are not adequately captured in these discussions. During the IGF session, participants stressed the need to ensure a diversity of views and understand people’s different lived experiences. Their experience of datafication – its harms and benefits – may be different from the experiences of those in the Global North, and to ensure inclusion and equity it is important to be mindful of whose voices are being heard in the conversation. The dignity of every individual should be at the centre of determining these values.

Based on the research, and echoed during the IGF session, the correlation between data justice and human rights is dependent on power. One example raised during the session was about an individual whose digital data, and by extension, his digital identity, was wiped out in armed conflict, presenting a host of complications for how he can access essential services and fully exercise his rights. In this case, the loss of data and his online personhood is not an individual failing, but the fault of the institution holding power. Such institutions are no longer limited to the government: non-state actors, such as technology developers, now have the power to collect, use, and store data, impacting people's lives worldwide. But the question on accountability and the obligation to protect this data presents no straightforward answer.

What is clear, however, is the need to centre human rights and social justice in discussions on data justice, and ensure the diversity of views and critical examination of power dynamics in such conversations. These will be crucial in informing and shaping the body of knowledge to guide policymakers, technology developers, and other relevant actors in embedding fairness and equity in data governance mechanisms.

The session was centered around redefining the strength of the current ROAM-X framework and further advocating for the update of the indicators to better adapt to current socio-political contexts. 

Global partners and experts discussed the revision of the number of indicators to simplify the framework to adapt to fast-changing digital development and making digital innovation part of solutions for climate change and green transformation. The experts also called for adding new relevant dimensions in the context of the UN Global Digital Compact.  

Dorothy Gordon, Chair of IFAP, opened the session emphasizing the link between Internet Universality and the core Information For All Programme mission. Marielza Oliveira, Director for Partnerships and Operational Programme Monitoring, introduced the session, by presenting the support of the ADG, and stressed the overall applicability of the ROAM principles to the digital ecosystem. Simon Ellis then gave a brief description of the Internet Universality ROAM-X indicators’ methodology, with particular reference to the growing number of impacts from the programme as well as the multistakeholder ownership of reports.  

 Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat indicated that the ROAM-X assessment should bring forward horizontal measures owned by a multistakeholder coalition including appropriate NRIs. She was followed by Damilare Oyedele from IFLA Africa who placed libraries at the center of access to information. 

Fabio Senne of CETIC Brazil, the first country to implement the ROAM-X indicators talked about how the results have been translated into practice through changes to legal, digital technology and operation quality. He added that data were not just the realm of government but of the private sector as well as civil society a multi-stakeholder of data creation and ownership.  

David Souter, the principal author of the IUI-ROAM manual gave a strategic view of the Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators in relation to the emerging issues of the UN Global Digital Compact. He emphasized that the purpose of the assessment is the improvement of human development, social and economic by aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals. Following his Commission for Science and Development report, he reaffirmed the relevance of the ROAM-X indicators and principles to ‘preserve what we value, promote what we want, and prevent what we fear’. Digital developments go as far as to alter political structures.  In terms of the ROAM method, he stressed the importance of a solid evidence base – starting the work with skepticism not with faith. 

Questions from the floor covered localization of the ROAM-X assessment, the place of the ‘rule of law’ within the framework, its impact on local communities, and the barriers faced by countries in making progress. The panel responded by highlighting that the ROAM-X framework includes indicators on barriers to progress, noting the impact of legal process on national legislatures, and re-emphasizing the importance of the multi-stakeholder model in identifying the needs of disadvantaged communities.  

Marielza Oliveira concluded the session by saying that Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators were more of a process for change than simply a suite of indicators and that, in this sense, it aligned well with the development of the Global Digital Compact. 

The town hall session #55 Inclusive AI regulation: perspectives from four continents brought together perspectives across four continents to reflect on the status quo of AI governance and specifically the question of inclusion. After a short introduction to the session, four presenters briefly summarized the state of AI governance in their respective context, speaking for about 8 minutes each. The participants were encouraged to set the floor, so that they would provide space for meaningful debate in the second half of the session, where questions from the audience were answered openly and deliberatively. In the following, the input presentations are summarized before the discussions are reported.

Celina Bottino (Project Director at the Institute for Technology & Society of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Developments in the field of AI are enormous worldwide. In terms of regulation, the challenges are still there. In Brazil, advances in policy have been reflected in different instruments, from the National AI strategies to more than 20 proposed AI bills.

Yet, there are still complex infrastructure hurdles that have not been overcome. Celina Bottino noted the example of a project that the Institute for Technology and Society of Rio de Janeiro has, developed in partnership with the Public Defenders of Rio de Janeiro: a Sandbox of AI for exploring health issues litigated in the Judiciary. The project has the funding, the access to technology and the right minds, yet it still lacks structured, machine readable, quality data.

The advances in AI Regulation, mostly do not address this infrastructure gap. Data governance and open data are yet to be considered first on the list of priorities. She mentioned the most recent Bill presented in the Senate, which has been the result of an inclusive process where specialists from a wide variety of fields could partake in an open consultation endeavor and even there this matter was less than a significant element.

Samson Esayas (Associate Professor at BI Norwegian Business School, Norway)

He noted that he was representing the European perspective but originally he is from Ethiopia, where IGF 2022 is taking place. He mentioned that he is from the North of the country (Tigray) where there have been a lot of communication gaps and he wishes to call attention that inclusion means communities such as the one he comes from being taken seriously and partaking in regulatory processes as well.

As for the European regulatory process, in his views there are 4 main drivers of the discussion:

• The first driver is the protection of fundamental rights, particularly privacy, freedom of expression, freedom against discrimination and the protection of vulnerable groups.
• The second driver is protection of the integrity of elections and against disinformation and other systemic dangers;
• The third driver is accountability and allocation of liability; and,
• The fourth driver is data control and access. This is a similar concern as the one noted by Celina Bottino in terms of Brazil and the Global South, as Europe seeks to address the concerns of data quality, and the asymmetries of access to data.

Samson Esayas noted that one of the main purposes of the AI regulation is to foster an environment of human-centric AI development. Thus, Europe has identified specific cases that increase the risks of posing danger to humans and the regulation addresses such cases.

Additionally, he noted that the EU is developing other regulations to complement more general issues not directly addressed by the main AI regulation. The example he mentioned was platform regulation, which focuses on the vulnerabilities of platform workers.

Shaun Pather (Professor at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa)

He mentioned the digital divide that still exists in the world and noted recent ITU studies, which show facts and figures: 2.7 billion people are still offline. Additionally, he highlighted that affordability and costs of connectivity services add to the digital gap.

Another significant shortcoming refers to skills. A study of the state of AI in Africa shows that:

• There was no dedicated AI legislation in the continent;
• There were only 4 national AI strategies; and
• Data protection regulation is one of the most developed issues, particularly in terms of personal data processed for automated decision-making.

Moreover, there is an important question of whether populations and groups are involved or represented in data collections for the AI tools that may be offered to them. Not being a part of data sets may lead to ineffective AIs or unequal and even potentially discriminatory results.

As a solution, there should be an integrated effort to involve more of the population and foster greater participation. There should be more coordination and coordinated responses and both the projects and the frameworks should involve a more international participation.

In terms of ethical principles and responses, even if ethics may have a local component, we should strive to find more universal frameworks that are still accommodating to regional and local realities and policies. It is significant that more research, especially on practical tools and mechanisms for checking software in all stages, should be developed to provide a more inclusive AI.

Sandra Cortesi (Fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, USA, Senior Research and Teaching Associate at the University of Zurich, Switzerland)

Reflecting on the state of AI governance in North America, and the United States in particular, Sandra Cortesi showed that many conversations are taking place to develop a diverse range of norms for governing AI. Thus, in terms of inclusion of stakeholders there is a wide variety of participants in the development of AI issues. Significant issues are picking up in municipalities, such as facial recognition limitations and bans, and standard organizations, such as the ethical standards of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

There is no national law in the US. The approach of governance is not an overall view, yet to sector specific agencies, for medical AI (Food and Drug Agency).

There are still participation gaps. One example is the participation of young people. They seem not to be part of the wide AI governance agenda. UNICEF, for instance, has documented the gap of youth being mentioned and represented in the debate.

Questions from the audience and responses from the presenters

How can we deal with the different ethical considerations at regional level?

Shaun Pather: There should be a more universal framework still even if we should allow for more regional and continental-wide responses to be developed.

Celina Bottino: Conversations are being lead by Global North countries, other countries and regions should be called upon to participate.

What would be the practical approach for AI regulation and AI-based spaces like the metaverse to ensure public safety, security, health, data sovereignty and accountability of global AI actors, given that different societies have different ethical and legal frameworks? And what should be done for AI related cybercrimes which are borderless?

Sandra Cortesi: There is no one silver bullet. All such conversations should happen at the Global level. Include civil society and different actors. We may not agree on cross-border solutions yet this does not mean we should not strive to find common ground.

Samson Esayas: Fundamental rights and concerns about safety are the focus of AI regulation. Metaverse may not exactly be covered in the AI Act, yet certain important issues that were mentioned in or implied by the question are. Disinformation and systemic concerns are an example.

Shaun Pather: The metaverse implies a different level of globalization than what we have today. A practical approach should be cooperation and convergence. It is possible to find consensus on universally acceptable ethical principles.

Celina Bottino: The Berkman Klein Principled AI Report showcases convergence in ethical principles amongst Ethics principles from different global stakeholders. These may be starting points in our endeavors.

We face questions of digital imperialism or digital colonialism stemming from a huge market concentration. where users are in the South and developers, in the Global North. Examples can be found in the processing of health and education data from the South in the North. The question is whether there is any room for a Global agreement or coalition building so that AI infrastructure for education and health should be developed in an open standard and not only closed and for commercial purposes?

Samson Esayas: Local communities should be engaged in the first place.

Celina Bottino: UNESCO is increasingly becoming a focus for discussing such topics and may be an important forum for such discussions.

Sandra Cortesi: Definitely in such cases, the majority world should be included. This may not be easy but there is a lot of good work on the matter being done worldwide. One group that we should note is youth as they are 1 in 3 internet users, yet do not have a seat in the discussion.

Shaun Pather: It is significant that we bound together and coordinate efforts having all continents represented.

The session started on time with welcome remarks from the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (CTO). She welcomed the participant and gave a quick update on CTO’s work in meaningful connectivity to enhance digital transformation. She reiterated that meaningful connectivity encompasses affordable and availability of appropriate content to advance citizens lives. The SG noted that universal affordable access to broadband networks and devices, the ability to use the network facilities and devices safely, and the availability of appropriate content, applications and services are the essential components of meaningful connectivity. She also underscored the importance of human rights as a must-have for online access that contributes to the wellbeing of societies.

The provocateur introduced speakers who discussed the need for political will to provide affordable universal broadband connectivity, leveraging infrastructure and technological innovation while addressing energy requirements for connectivity. The speakers also discussed the need to protect human rights in the digital environment and how to deal with online harm such as cyberbullying, privacy issues, cybercrimes and negative effects of social media.

The panel was composed of 5 speakers of which 2 were ladies.

Key points of discussion included: 

1. The need for political will to realise universal broadband connectivity. Importance of Governments to plan, set targets and allocate budgets for connectivity nation-wide.
2. Governments should view Internet as a public utility and increase access through proper use of universal service and access fund to cover rural and hard to reach areas.
3. There is an urgent need for a new generation of human rights activist to address the online harm and protect human rights in the same was way as offline.
4. Availability of connectivity does not equal adoption, to increase adoption it is essential to:

• Focus on digital skills development
• Local content promotion
• Provision of devices for use
• Develop specific programmes that focuses on the vulnerable groups (PWD, girl & women)
• Enhance connectivity through community projects like smart villages and digital centre
• Increase market competition to bring about affordability

5. Energy goes hand in hand with connectivity and it can impede access. Therefore, it is crucial to diversify sources of energy, incorporating renewable source to facilitate access to the digital economy.
6. There was a call for a new regulatory philosophy to drive investment and bring about affordability.

A summary of the main takeaways of the session:

The discussion focused on the challenges posed to consumer protection by dark patterns, through the lens of various sectors. The speakers were introducing their comments one by one according to the round-table routine. Led by moderators, they displayed the discussed issues from different angles depending on their background. Thus the ultimate conclusions incorporate a combined vision of policymakers, business and academia.

The first challenge the panelists touched upon was that dark patterns are not all the same, making it difficult to draw the line between dark patterns and common marketing practices. This issue led to the discussion on how can we differentiate, with some panelists claiming that common marketing practices have fair and neutral designs, rather than manipulative and detrimental. These can be classified as choice architecture nudges instead of dark patterns, which are seen to negatively impact autonomous decision making. However, other panelists argued that this is not so simple, as no practices can be seen as wholly neutral, and that even marketing that tries to be unbiased does affect consumer decision making in one way or another.

The panelists then moved on to say that in terms of terminology we need to be careful and analyze which words we use. One example given was the use of the term “sludges” instead of “dark patterns”. Another issue surrounded consumer detriment – are consumers aware that dark patterns can cause them harm, and from a consumer protection perspective does it matter or are dark patterns that consumers are aware of equally grievous as those that they are not aware of?

Next one of the panelists gave two case study examples of companies that were caught using dark patterns. The first company was Amazon, who made it difficult to cancel its Prime subscription due to many stages of cancelation. This was seen as a deliberate attempt to retain its customers, and Amazon was ordered to drastically reduce the stages of cancelation to make it more accessible to consumers. The second company talked about was Booking.com, who had misleading scarcity claims – these claims were found to be vague or referred to a different time range than the consumer was interested in. This led to the key issue of corporate responsibility – that businesses must hold themselves accountable for the use of dark patterns and decide whether they want to engage in activities that they know cause consumer detriment. However, in order to achieve corporate responsibility, the panelists agreed that consumer protection authorities need to provide adequate guidance and raise business awareness and education. This is so that businesses can develop and abide to ‘fair marketing’. The panelists argued this is important as many consumers have a ‘fear of missing out’ and due to this can make decisions that they know may not be in their best interest. One of the panelists even stated that the business community needs a shift – that currently there is too great of a focus on turnover and not enough focus on consumer welfare.

There was some participant engagement from the audience in the chat. The first comment from the audience made was that consumer awareness is the first step and then they will protect themselves just the same as with data protection and cybersecurity. One of the panelists replied that whilst this is the right direction, the difference between, for instance, cybersecurity and dark patterns is that dark patterns are more subtle and not as discernible. Another audience member observed that we can make consumers aware of what influences their choices and decisions (education) and we can educate them on remedies they can take (like the right of withdrawal).

Lastly, one participant asked a specific question on how to protect minors within online gaming, that does not require excluding them from such games or making ‘lite’ versions that usually are not as entertaining as the full game. Our panelist from the European Commission started an answer to this question, by explaining that there is work done regarding this in the Fitness Check of EU consumer law. The European Commission has concerns about certain interface designs and elements, such as "loot boxes" and the use of in-game currencies that could distort the consumer's decision-making. She finished by inviting everyone to respond to the public consultation on EU consumer law that the European Commission has released.

REPORT

The workshop`s discussions are mainly about what kind of role should the government play in internet governance, what are the major changes that need to be made by the government in the new situation and figure out what should the government do, and what can`t do.

For governments` role on internet governance, we should first be aware that government is not one monolithic group in its understanding of Internet governance. Usage of the term "governments" as name for one stakeholder group is not entirely correct., we should identify which part of government or department should be responsible for this. Before that we should first understand the deal between government and citizens. governments have to deliver on this basic social contract. They have to ensure security of citizens, flourishing society economically, politically, socially, we should return to common sense and the role of the government and many questions will be simply answered. Lao Tzu once argued that if governments followed the principle of wu‐​wei (non‐​action), social and economic harmony would naturally emerge and people would prosper.

As digital technology continues to be deeply involved in daily life, the government, which has a monopoly on public power, will undoubtedly need to play a more active and critical role, otherwise, the order will be unsustainable. While at the same time, as seen in events such as the tech conflict and the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the powerful power of government will also have a more destructive effect if it is not restrained.

We shouldn’t overcomplicate the questions and answers, the role of government is primarily to create an environment for internet development. At the same time promote and respect human rights. Governments may have overreach, it is their duty to address harms but not necessarily by regulating the internet. big countries are in a situation where they not trying to accept that there are differences and build more commonality and establish common ground.

Major source of disorder in cyberspace today is actually coming from government. one of the most important things that government can do in the current role is to leave, certain forms of global governance that require global compatibility, to the private sector. Government can foster an open and competitive market in internet service and cloud and software. They can prosecute effectively cyber criminals, which means that they have to cooperate and harmonize their rules with other governments. Government should stop trying so hard to control content, should allow end to end encryption to protect the privacy and confidentiality of users on the internet.

Some governments think consulting with stakeholders is already multistakeholder, consultation is not really a multi stakeholder approach, multi stakeholder approach goes far beyond consultation with other stakeholders. Regulatory intervention needs to proportional, feasible, and designed to fulfil a legitimate purpose.

Big players like US, China, Europe and India. should talk to one another, to bring other stakeholders into the conversations and instead of every big player developing its own set of principles, its own declaration for the future of the Internet., they should work together. They need to get together and recommit to free trade and internet services, and to de-securitization or to the pacification of Internet Governance among them.

It won't be an easy process will need a lot of diplomacy will need a lot of listening, we need to compromise and delicate tradeoffs. All views should be taken around the table, and only in that way. We will ensure the future of this great, great network and great human result of human creativity as the internet is. we need a new quality of interaction between the various stakeholders.

Proposal for global digital company, government leaderships and United Nations should identify the issues, and then to create multi stakeholder drafting teams, and then to draft could go in the final stage to the government's and because the United Nations is intergovernmental body, and then governments have to adopt it. But it should not be left in the hand of the governments.

There is a need for new fundamental theories to structure a new theoretical system of global internet governance; IGF, WSIS, GGE, and G20 and other mechanisms should play a better role, and also there is a need to have more in-depth communication mechanisms; the interdisciplinary academic community should play a more active role, The scientific community is the creator of the Internet and also the best guardian of cyberspace.

Youth play an important role in activism for creating public policies that guarantee accessibility for riverside, quilombola, and indigenous populations in the Amazon region since accessibility and interconnectivity are powerful weapons against misinformation.

Intending to discuss how internet governance can create solutions capable of creating a fair and sustainable future for all people in the world, the Town Hall  session #69 “The Amazon is online, and it is not the Prime," came up to find solutions for connectivity and accessibility for the indigenous, “quilombola” and riverside populations of the Brazilian Amazon forest.

The session featured testimonials from people who already live in the Amazon region and are activists for connectivity and respect for the land. Gustavo Souza (Brazil), a resident of Acre state, for example, highlights an exciting initiative from the Federal University of Acre to tackle a large number of illegal forest fires; they installed IoT devices to monitor the burning in the region, which reaches new records every year.

Another exciting initiative, brought by Lori Regattieri (Brazil), aims to research internet infrastructure and connection points through local Amazonian communities, creating bridges between the different communities so that they can cohort in favor of the environment. In addition, the connection would bring a regional perspective from the point of view of the populations who inhabit the territory.

There are even successful cases in the region. For example, in the state of Amazonas, in the north of Brazil, the Internet has been in implementation for some years now and can therefore bring education opportunities to more distant and low-access regions, allowing students to learn and share their knowledge. Mariana Filizola (Brazil) emphasized, during the session, that talking about the environment is not just dealing with its physical issues but also understanding how people relate to nature, their roles, what they have been producing, and their impacts on others. Thus, the question of connection and access is a challenge. However, there are important cases, mainly concerning constructing an environment for students to understand their role within the Amazon.

CETIC.br,  a Regional Center for Studies on the Development of the Information Society in Brazil, acting under the auspices of UNESCO, has already been highlighting evidence that the Amazon region is experiencing a significant increase in internet access. For example, according to Fabio Senne (Brazil), the north region currently has 83% of its population connected, which is a great success in some ways, although, compared to other regions, it still needs to catch up. Furthermore, he emphasized that when we talk about connectivity and access, we also have to talk about meaningful connectivity, as having access to the Internet by itself is no use. This access needs to be effective and has to give a voice to these communities. In that sense, he highlighted how many factors need to be considered to understand meaningful connections.

Karla Braga (Brazil), a resident of the northern region of Brazil, said that, despite celebrating that connectivity in the region is growing, there is still a lot to evolve. In 2020, more than 3 million people still did not have access to the Internet, which directly impacted even public policies involving the issue of COVID-19 and the pandemic. For her, the Internet must become an ally of youth, can foster prosperity and can save lives. She displayed a documentary created by the Institute where she works, which talks about the difficulty of accessing the Internet in the Amazon region. She said that the youth in the region are very active and are fighting to ensure equal connectivity in the region, but not only that, they are also fighting for their rights and the environment.

Entering the topic of connectivity, disinformation, and global health, with particular attention to the COVID-19 pandemic, Siena Frost (USA) brought some perspectives on how the Internet can help with health. During the pandemic, with everyone isolated in their homes, the lack of internet connection made life even more difficult for people. For this reason, for her, students need to start getting more into activism on the Internet. Therefore, young people must develop skills such as leadership and empowerment when discussing the Internet.

From a more academic perspective, Rodger Richer (Brazil) said that misinformation in the Amazon territory is a considerable problem in Brazil. He spoke about some research results of the Protocol Ipê project, carried out by the Vero Institute, where he is part of the research team. Based on these results, he emphasized that some Brazilian politicians are one of the most responsible actors in spreading misinformation about the Amazon rainforest. Therefore, we need to think about solutions to mitigate this problem. In addition, Rodger stated that environmental and climate issues are linked to an ethnic-racial perspective. Therefore, the fight against disinformation in the Amazon must consider the voices of indigenous and local communities. He also spoke about the importance of co-creation with the local population of counter-narratives about environmental and climate problems in the Amazon.

Finally, Victor Durigan (Brazil) closed the debate by talking about how misinformation in the environment becomes a barrier to creating public policies. It hinders the legislative debate, distorting the discourse in favor of the environment. For him, the fight against misinformation has to gain priority within the platforms. They must place the discourse on the defense of the environment as a priority agenda. On the other hand, society has to take the agenda to the creators of public policies, defending scientific grounds. The countries which have the Amazonia in their territory must unite to create laws against environmental and climate misinformation, user protection, democratic discourse, and social values.

It is crucial for organizations, institutions, universities, companies, and governments to invest timely and financial resources in the Nothern region of Brazil, with a special focus on Amazon populational groups and ethnicities. It is our responsibility, as specialists in the field of internet governance, to ensure diversity, inclusion, and equality in projects, meaningfully mobilizing local stakeholders so their voices can be heard, especially the youth. There is a myriad of challenges that contemporary societies face on a daily basis, and most often, they connect to climate change, environmental depredation, and digital inequality. However, the youth can be key game changers within their communities, and they bare the creativity and hope to solve problems, find solutions, and create sustainable dynamics for future democratic societies.

PNE Updates

The session continues from the previous discussions that has resulted in the publication of Policy Network on Environment (PNE), which provided guidelines for high level diplomacy advocacy. It encompassed tackling the cross-cutting issues with multi stakeholders and inclusive approach. It also acknowledges the gap in knowledge that has to be bridged between two big sectors of the dynamic coalition: the internet governance or tech sector and the environmental sector.

Study Cases

Best practices from the communities are discussed and shown various landscapes, dimensions, and perspectives. These included:

• UN Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) shared about their Digital Identity greener and more sustainable solution using the blockchain and biometrics technology to manage the administrative process of 84.000 people in 193 countries.
   
• The work of CITAD & APC in Nigeria which has pushed for e-waste management through reuse-repair mechanism and ensured the ecosystem supported the practice holistically, for example guaranteeing the spare part for repairment is available and affordable.
   
• UNDP shared the CODES' publication of the Action Plan for a Sustainable Planet in the Digital Age which addressed three important systemic shifts of aligning digitalization, mitigating the negative impact, and accelerating digital innovations with sustainable actions.
   
• The EcoInternet research project by DotAsia has looked into the carbon footprint emission of internet use especially during the pandemic.

What's Next?

​​​​​​​Other Dynamic Coalitions agreed that more discussions are needed in addressing the environmental impact of digital technology. Whether through a bottom up or top down approach it has to be inclusive of multi stakeholders, especially the ones who are the most impacted.

The session was a 30 minute-dialogue moderated by two speakers.

Elizabeth Thomas-Raynaud, the Head of the GPAI Secretariat introduced GPAI’s mission, structure, Experts Working Groups and the different forms of participation in GPAI. Yoichi Iida, Director of International Research and Policy Coordination, at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan (MIC-Japan) stressed the GPAI’s growth and diversity in promoting its work toward shaping a responsible AI society.

Summary of talking points

1. GPAI’s mission is to bring governments and experts together to support and guide the responsible adoption of AI grounded in the shared principles from the OECD AI recommendation. Founded in 2020 with 15 Members, GPAI has almost doubled its membership with 29 Members in 2022. On 22 November in the context of the GPAI summit in Tokyo, GPAI welcomed four new Members: Argentina, Senegal, Serbia and Türkye. GPAI produces project outputs under the four topic areas – Responsible AI, Data Governance, Future of Work and Innovation and Commercialisation. The projects are the responsibility of the GPAI Experts who are from a wide range of sectors and a diversity of countries.
2. Membership in GPAI is open to countries, including emerging and developing countries that endorse and share the values reflected in the OECD Recommendation on AI and have proactive role in advancing responsible AI. Experts wishing to participate in GPAI can do so through a nomination by GPAI Member countries or by the process of self-nomination. The call for self-nominated Experts opens once a year and experts from all around the world are welcome to apply.
3. AI has progressed to the extent of bringing innovation to industries, transforming our daily lives and providing technology solutions to the most pressing issues of our time. However, this transformative potential can come with challenges when left unchecked. GPAI, despite its infancy, plays an important role in strengthening the shared values and efforts to shape a broader responsible AI community across the globe. To do this, GPAI gathers leading AI experts to produce impactful and useful AI projects in view of helping Members ensure AI development and deployment that elevates humanity.

Summary of interaction

• Potential risk of overlapping with other initiatives: GPAI was not intended to duplicate activities taking place in other organizations on policy making. GPAI focuses on leveraging insights and expertise from the experts for the applied AI projects that aim to benefit governments in pursuing their AI discussions and implementations.

• Criteria for Membership: GPAI is open to developing and emerging countries and its strong importance lies in like-mindedness based on the OECD AI principles.

• Domestic priorities vs. Global priorities: There’s a strong willingness of the majority of GPAI members in contributing expertise and insights from the national AI institutes and their own experiences. Their domestic priorities and interests are shared for the development of GPAI activities and projects. Similarly, insights from international cooperation are contributing to the domestic work on AI. There are mutual benefits from that exchange.

• A Voluntary initiative: GPAI is a voluntary organization and there is no treaty requirement. GPAI promotes project-based efforts for the development and deployment of responsible AI, while the OECD focuses on discussions of policymaking and governance framework around the topic. They should both go hand in hand to promote the OECD Recommendations on AI which are non-binding. The discussion of binding regulations is left at the government-level policy forums. GPAI distinguishes its work from binding AI regulation and emphasizes the collaborative efforts to facilitate responsible and human-centred use of AI across the globe.

The Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network & Datasphere Initiative Town Hall, took place on Thursday, December 1, 2022 from 5:30pm to 6:30 pm EAT. It provided stakeholders with an update on the work in 2021/2022, shared announcements of upcoming projects, and how IGF participants can join the efforts.

The session presented the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network Regional Status Report "Framing, Mapping and Addressing Cross-Border Digital Policies in Africa", which has been produced with the support of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). 

Participants discussed findings from the Report and why policy coordination is important to building an inclusive and vibrant digital economy in Africa. Panelists identified key trends taking shape across the region and presented opportunities and challenges for government, private sector, and civil society actors to consider.

Marking the 10th-anniversary members of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, Contact Groups shared updates on the work of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network Policy Programs (Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction, and Domains & Jurisdiction) developing concrete proposals to support legal interoperability in specific policy areas related to domains names system abuse, content moderation and access to electronic evidence. 

The Domains & Jurisdiction Contact Group has been working on addressing some cooperation and coordination challenges arising in the mitigation of botnets at a global scale and identified key questions that need to be addressed. Participants discussed recent outcomes including the Framing Brief on Improving the Workflow of Fighting Botnets: Handling Algorithmically Generated Domains (AGDs) which provides a brief outline of the way tackling AGD botnets is currently undertaken.

Speakers also shared updates on the work of the Content & Jurisdiction Program including work on the complex question of the geographical scope of online content restrictions and how this issue emphasizes the fundamental tension between the cross-border internet and territorial national laws.  

Regarding the Data & Jurisdiction Program, the Contact Group Coordinator shared updates on the work and how the discussions have been leveraged in policy processes around cross-border access to electronic evidence. The I&JPN Toolkit on Cross-border Access to Electronic Evidence outlines the ways in which data flows and privacy can be reconciled with lawful access requirements to address crime. The Toolkit intends to inform public, private, and civil society actors in their own activities and interactions in developing and implementing alternate practices for cross-border access to electronic evidence.

Finally, the I&JPN shared news of the new organization it has incubated, the Datasphere Initiative, which seeks to build agile frameworks to responsibly unlock the value of data for all.