Session Title: Trademarks and ICTs: Empowering Entrepreneurs in Emerging Economies

Date:  Tuesday, November 13, 2018

Time:  13:00 to 13:20

Session Organizer: International Trademark Association (INTA)

Rapporteur:  Lori Schulman, [email protected]  

List of Speakers and their Institutional Affiliations:

Charles Shaban, Executive Director, Abu-Ghazaleh IP, Jordan

Lori Schulman, Senior Director, Internet Policy, International Trademark Association, USA

Theme: Development, Innovation and Economic Issues

Subtheme: Internet for Development & Sustainable Development Goals

Relevance of the Issue:

Do trademark, domain and brand protection enable or hinder economic growth in the digital landscape? The issue of the role of intellectual property rights within the internet governance structure are a source of ongoing debate.  Some view trademarks and domain protection as growth inhibitors while others view them as the building blocks for sustainable business. This builds on the 2016 IGF Lightening Session, "Trademarks Enable Sustainable Growth." https://www.intgovforum.org/filedepot_download/4183/451

Content of the Session:

As never before in history, entrepreneurs and small business that need to break out of local economic circumstances have the opportunity to create a business or other endeavor, to empower it, promote it and make it sustainable with the help and support that ICT brings to them.  But, of course, to grow and be successful over time, a business needs more than internet access:  it needs internet presence.   A key element of a unique online presence is offered by combining a website based on a ''good'' domain name matching a trademark that offers information about source, ownership and quality of goods and services.  Combining domain names and trademarks provides the means for broad outreach to the global economy.   A recent impact study conducted by the International Trademark Association (INTA) demonstrates that trademark intensive economies grow faster, promote employment and offer a path to sustainability.  See http://www.inta.org/Communications/Documents/Latin_America_Impact_Study…; Trademarks, in particular, help protect a business from unfair competition and related violations and also have the potential to become an important asset of the business with a real and sometimes substantial value.  These assets become the basis for sustainability by enabling the business to license its products or services and to expand into complementing streams of commerce.  This benefits the proprietor, the consumer and the community-at-large.  A successful business and brand can reflect positively on the country of origin and its economy and employment prospects. Trademarks are what connects the business to its customers and to its country.  Famous Brands immediately identify a country.  If we look at marks like Sony, Ford, Lego, and Heineken, most of these businesses started with a small unknown trademark and an individual entrepreneur. Their trademarks have become famous and intertwined with the business, its products and brand presence and a source of national pride in the countries of origin.

3 Takeaways:

• Trademarks are symbols of trust in the digital economy.They enable consumers to make quick, confident decisions
• They enable entrepreneurs to protect their customers and their business assets. 
• Trademark intensive economies grow at a faster rate, promote employment and offer a path to sustainability.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The format was an interview between Ms. Schulman and Mr. Shaban who is a very experienced trademark practitioner.  Using data from INTA impact studies and real-world examples from private practice, they discussed the importance of trademarks and domain names to small and women-owned businesses.  Trademarks are symbols of consumer trust. They help consumers make confident and quick choices and promote innovation by protecting entrepreneurs.  While having a technical function, domain names become source identifiers too.  Some participants questioned the policy of enforcing trademarks against poor people whose only means of living may be to sell unauthorized or counterfeit good in micro economies. The respondents suggested that those products may be of poor quality and unsafe.  It is incumbent upon the community and governments to build awareness of the dangers of counterfeits and to promote policies that enable the development and sale of legitimate goods and services.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

As mentioned above, there is a need to build awareness that trademarks enable sustainable and inclusive economic growth. They are not solely for the use of large companies. They can help entrepreneurs identify and protect their emerging businesses.  Trademark protection is more affordable than people realize. Many trademark professionals are willing to work with small business owners, especially women entrepreneurs, to devise reasonable and cost effective plans for trademark protection and domain name acquisition.  Examples of woman owned businesses in Morocco, Cameroon, Jordan and US used to demonstrate the point.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Suggestions were made that this session should be expanded to a full workshop as there is more interest in the community.  This is important in the IGF context because of the importance of building trust on the internet, fostering innovation and inclusion. Trademarks bridge the gap between basic access and using to access as an economic driver.  In this sense, trademarks have a place in discussions around technical engagement and supporting policy.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.  

20 seating participants and some walking in and out.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

It appeared that at least half to 2/3 of the participants were female.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?   The discussion focused on women entrepreneurs and used several examples of woman owned businesses from a diverse range of economies to illustrate the points of discussion.

Related SDGs:  5 - gender equality, 8 – decent work and economic growth, 9 – industry, innovation and infrastructure, 16 – peace, justice and strong institutions

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Lightning Session

- Title: Always-on and listening: a talk about digital assistants

- Date & Time:  Day 1 / Monday, 12 november | Time: 15.00-15.20

- Organizer(s):  Luã Fergus, Diogenes Laertius and Kimmy Wu

- Chair/Moderator: Luã Fergus

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paula Côrte Real

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Luã Fergus Cruz (Male)

- Theme (as listed here):

Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet of Things

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

Need for measures of privacy control, in hardware and software, by users.

Conscientization of the population so that they do not adopt these technologies so easily.

Better writing of the Terms of Service and Privacy Policies of these platforms, and which must comply, at least, with international human rights treaties

The debate focused on the potential threats that digital assistants can bring to users and consumers. This was boosted with the the presentation of patent applications, terms of service and privacy policies of the biggest digital assistants in the market. The discussion turn into a forecast for a scenario in which such assistants are increasingly present in our homes and, finally, were discussed ex ante measures to mitigate the possible harmful effects to privacy caused by these devices.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Launching of the 2018 annual edition of the Global Information Society Watch, with a focus on Community Networks.

- Title: GISWatch 2018 launch

- Date & Time: Tuesday 13 Nov 13:30 -15 – Salle X

- Organizer(s): Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

- Chair/Moderator: Valeria Betancourt

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: To be confirmed

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Kathleen Diga, APC, female

Valeria Betancourt, APC, female

Carlos Rey-Moreno, APC, male

Mike Jensen, APC, male

Chat Garcia Ramillo, APC, female

Phet Sayo, IDRC, male

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Community Networks

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• The importance of community networks to contribute to digital inclusion and accessibility

• Sharing of experiences and stories of community networks in different parts of the world by authors

• Progress and challenges in the development of community networks

Pre session Report

Session Type: Book Launch

Title: Launch of the Book "Internet Governance and Regulations in Latin America"

Date time: Monday 13:30 15 hs Salle IX

Organizers: South School on Internet Governance - ISOC Argentina Chapter

Chair /Moderator: Olga Cavalli

Note taker: Adrián Carballo

List of Speakers:

• Claudio Lucena, University of Paraiba
• Christoph Steck, Fundación Telefónica
• Agustín Garzón, Director ENACOM Argentina
• Andrés Sastre, ASIET
• Claudia Bretón, ISOC República Dominicana and SSIG fellow
• Mónica Trochez, SSIG Fellow
• Luca Belli, Getulio Vargas Foundation
• Olga Cavalli, Academic Director South School on Internet Governance, ISOC Argentina
• Adrián Carballo, Institutional Relations Director South School on Internet Governance, ISOC Argentina

As we are launching a book to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the South School on Internet Governance our three questions are:

- What were the challenges the Internet was facing 10 years ago?

- Where these problems solved?

- Which are the new challenges 10 years after?

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

There was an extensive discussion about the evolution of the most important Internet Governance issues evolution during the last 10 years and also how they can evolve in the future, specifically the issues discussed were

infrastructure

access 

community networks

privacy

cybersecurity

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. 

Good regulation but not so much regulations

Ethics depends on the context

Privacy rules from Europe are somehow shaping the privacy discussion in Latin America

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? 

The relevance of capacity building and the publication of books like the one which was presented.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

70

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

35

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? 

The discussion was mainly focused on the evolution of the concept of Internet access and what it means today, access for women and girs, and accesss in those areas whre there is no connectivity using community networks.

Several participants spoke about the importance of the South School on Internet Governance in creating and enhancing the Internet Governance ecosystem

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Best Practices Forum

- Title: Discussion about the IGF 2018 Best Practices Forum on the Internet of Things, Big Data, and AI

- Date & Time:  Wednesday, 14 November 2018, 1150-1320

- Organizer(s): Concettina Casa (BPF Co-facilitator) and Sumon A. Sabir (BPF Co-facilitator),

- Chair/Moderator: Alex Comninos and Maarten Botterman

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Michael R. Nelson

- Remote moderator: June Parris

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Nobuhisa Nishigata, OECD, (male), last-minute substitute for Karine Perrine (female)

• Imane Bello, Sciences Po, Lecturer on Human Rights & AI (female)

• Peter Micek, Access Now (male)

• Taylor Bentley, ISED, Canadian Government (male)

• Michael Nelson, Cloudflare (male

- Theme (as listed here): Emerging Technologies and Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Artificial Intelligence and Internet of Things

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]:  The session provided a lot of useful insights about the issues covered by the IoT+Big Data+AI report.  Recurring themes:

1. There is a need to focus.  Rather than discuss all of artificial intelligence, focus on machine learning and how it can be used to create insights from the data generated by the Internet of Things.  The report should cover both the benefits and the risks associated with these three technologies.

2. More than ten speakers commented on the need for applications of IoT+Big Data+AI to be trusted and “trustworthy” (and how many different steps are needed to foster trust).  These include protecting privacy and personal data, enhancing cybersecurity, being transparent about problems, respecting human rights, giving users alternatives if they find one service or application unsatisfactory, “design for safety,” and “design for diversity.”

3. A number of speakers and members of the audience highlighted the role that education, training, and capacity-building can play in promoting new and better use of emerging technologies like IoT and AI.  

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Most of the session was devoted to conversation between the “discussion catalysts” onstage and members of the audience.  There was time for more than 15 questions and comments including at least five from remote participants. There was support for added emphasis on:  (1) Diversity and multi-stakeholder processes that could shape the development of IoT+Big Data+AI, (2) Education can help address some of the fear about emerging technologies like IoT and AI, (3) NGOs and other groups have a key role to play in working to ensure that applications of IoT+Big Data+AI are not used in ways that violate human rights, and (4) Capacity-building can help develop technical skills and improve policy-making, especially in emerging economies.  One questioner stressed the need for governments and the United Nations to do more to shape the use of the IoT and AI. Other speakers disagreed.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

During the discussion about the next version of the BPF report, several speakers suggested including more specific examples of the use of IoT+Big Data+AI, especially in areas such as healthcare, environmental protection, and infrastructure.  

A number of speakers stressed the need to provide specific ways to enhance trust in technology

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words] A recurring theme was the need to attract more participants (with more varied views and experiences) to the effort to draft and revise the Best Practices Forum report on Iot+Big Data+AI.  Better communications with the national and regional IGFs could help recruit talent and comments. One questioner stressed that it seemed that participants in some of the IGF 2018 sessions on AI and IoT did not know about the BPF.

- Please estimate the total number of participants:  At least 60 people

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present:  25 people

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?[100 words]  During the question and answers session, several members of the audience and speakers stressed the need for diversity and inclusion in developing and deploying new technologies and in crafting policies to shape and promote them.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): BPF

- Title: 2018 Best Practices Forum on Cybersecurity

- Date & Time: Wednesday 14th Nov, 10:10-11:40

- Organizer(s): Markus Kummer, Internet governance & policy consultant (Technical Community) and Ben Wallis, Microsoft (Private Sector)

- Moderators: Markus Kummer, Internet governance & policy consultant (Technical Community) and Kaja Ciglic, Microsoft (Private Sector)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Ben Wallis, Microsoft

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Mr. Wim Degezelle, BPF Cybersecurity consultant

Mr. Louk Faesen, Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) (Technical Community)

Mr. Ephraim Percy Kenyanito, ARTICLE 19 Eastern Africa (Civil Society)

Ms. Saleela Salahuddin, Facebook / Cybersecurity Tech Accord (Private Sector)

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Cybersecurity best practices

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• The importance of norms as a mechanism in cybersecurity for state and non-state actors to agree on a responsible way to behave in cyberspace, given that the speed of legislation often struggles to keep up with the pace of changes in the sphere of cybersecurity.

• The importance of multi-stakeholderism – threats to cybersecurity impact governments, private companies and people. There are a number of helpful norms, on different aspects and from various parts of the world, but more needs to be done to involve non-state stakeholders in the development and implementation of norms.

• Cybersecurity norms and laws should be respectful of human rights, and not stray into areas such as freedom of expression and control of content online. It is important to separate the security of the infrastructure, which this BPF is focused on, from questions of content shared online.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

The work of 2018 BPF identified the norms that exist and any best practices that can be learnt; and then looking into the question of a digital security divide in which some sets of users have better cybersecurity protections than others. It recognises that norms have become more important as a mechanism for state and non-state actors to agree on a responsible way to behave in cyberspace, partly because traditional law-making is generally not able to keep pace with the evolution of online security threats. It found that there are a great variety of norms, varying from the culture of cybersecurity within a company to behaviours of end users, including an example of a teacher in the classroom. However, norms are often developed in relatively small and close communities which focus on their areas of expertise and do not involve or communicate with others. And they are often developed by a specific group of stakeholders or countries which can make it difficult to transfer them to a multistakeholder environment. The 2018 BPF output can be seen as valuable in raising visibility of norms developed outside the intergovernmental realm, which governments are sometimes less aware of.

There are some positive recent examples of new norms being developed, including Geneva Dialogues in Switzerland, an ASEAN commitment on norms, the United Nations Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security (UN GGE) and the framework developed by the US standards body, NIST. But many norms are developed between states or within the private sector. When norms are developed, it is important to find ways to bring in technical expertise and allow for the involvement of stakeholders. The November 2018 Paris Call is an encouraging exception, with almost 400 signatories coming from across governments, the private sector, the technical community and civil society, and a focus on working together with different stakeholders to tackle these challenges.

An illustrative example is the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC). It has a mandate very much focused on developing and implementing norms, and has recently adopted the Singapore Norm Package, providing six further norms to the two previously agreed, and with the express purpose of having them adopted by public and private sector actors towards an architecture to improve international security and stability in cyberspace. However, the GCSC is a discussion just between governments, and only 25 of them. It could benefit from the expertise and knowledge of stakeholders, conscious that the technical community and civil society manages much of the Internet and the private sector owns most of the critical infrastructure.

A major example of private sector efforts to develop norms is the Cyber Tech Accord which has brought together over 60 large and small companies representing network operators, software developers, social media companies and cybersecurity researchers. Its work is based around some central norms – to protect all customers, to oppose cyber-attacks on innocent citizens and enterprises, and to help empower users, customers, and developers to strengthen cybersecurity protection. Beyond developing high-level norms, it also develops capacity among its members through sharing technical information and providing training. In taking responsibility for its role, a particularly important element for the private sector is the principle of security by design, which should be enshrined in many of these norms.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It is important to separate the security of the infrastructure, which this BPF is focused on, from questions of content shared online. Issues such as freedom of expression, data protection, intellectual property have their own separate legal frameworks and should not be taken within cybersecurity laws or norms. One panellist spoke of cybersecurity laws being adopted which also bring in non-cybersecurity measures, such as prohibiting the sharing of information over the Internet by public officials or making it illegal to question official statistics.

Capacity building is needed in terms of both financial resources. More partnerships would be an important way to help achieve this, helping to get experts in various regional levels and at the ground level to spread expertise and norms into all parts of the world.

In the discussion, it was suggested to think about the various steps required to have norms in place. Between designing norms and implementing them, there is an intermediate step which one panellist described as “norm authorisation”. This relates to identifying which kinds of bodies, beyond governments, could take on the authority for driving the implementation of norms, and could also extend to providing some kind of accountability for attributing non-compliance with norms and creating pressure which can help the norm become accepted over time. The media can also play a role in shedding light on exploitations and subversion of cybersecurity norms or drawing attention to best practices.

 - What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The IGF does not have a mandate to develop norms or to be any kind of authorisation body related to norms. However, there could be a role for the IGF to continue its intersessional work on cybersecurity by contributing to developing a narrative, e.g. what do we mean of this norm, and what should be done or not be done to essentially illustrate what could be done going forward. It could also be interesting to look at how the IGF could take forward ideas with the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 65

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 30

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session did not discuss cybersecurity in the context of gender; only cybersecurity as it relates to society as a whole.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): BPF

- Title: BPF Gender & Internet Governance

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 15:00 to 16:30

- Organizer(s): Radhika Radhakrishnan, Agustina Callegari , Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Paula Real,

Raquel Gatto

- Chair/Moderator: Agustina Callegari and Radhika Radhakrishnan

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paula Real

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speakers for segment 1

• Anri van der Spuy -ICT Africa - Civil society - Africa. (TBC)
• Nic Bidwell - APC - Civil society - Africa (TBC)
• Jane Coffin - Internet Society - Technical Community (TBC)
• Claire Sibthorpe -  GMSA - Private Sector - Europe (TBC)
• Yolanda Martinez Mancilla - Government of Mexico - LAC (TBC)
• Ritu Srivastava- DEF - Civil Society - APAC (TBC)

Speakers for segment 2

• Bruna Santos - Coding Rights - LAC
• Alejandra Erramuspe - Government of Uruguay - LAC (TBC)
• Renata Aquino Ribeiro -  MAG Member - Civil Society - LAC

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality - Access and Connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• Gender analysis must be an integral part of planning efforts of initiatives, rather than an “add-on” task.
  In 2018, the BPF focuses on the impact of supplementary models of connectivity on Internet access and use for women and gender non-binary persons. However, a key finding is that there is a lack of a gender focus on initiatives supporting and developing such initiatives.

• Recommendations to develop Internet access initiatives that focus on women and gender non-binary persons
  The BPF session aims to produce a set of recommendations for incorporating gender perspectives in the implementation of supplementary models of connectivity.

• Multi-stakeholder cooperation for addressing gender issues
  The BPF functions in a bottom-up, multi-stakeholder, community-driven manner. Enabling diverse stakeholders to collaborate to better address barriers faced by women and gender non-binary persons in accessing the Internet has produced valuable evidence. Nevertheless, continuing to discuss ways to improve collaborations is key for the session.

-                 Date & Time: Tuesday 13 November 2018 15:00 - 16:30 CET  (UTC+1)

-                 Organizer(s): •   Giacomo Mazzone, EBU,; Ignacio Estrada BPF Co-facilitators,  Wim Degezelle, BPF Consultant

-                 Chair/Moderator:   Bertrand Moullier (FIAPF)

-                 Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Giacomo Mazzone (EBU) & Wim Degezelle (IGF)

-                 List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

-                 1. Roberto Gaetano,  , ALAC Italy (MALE)

-                 2. Ucha Seturi, Telecom Operators Association of Georgia, coordinator of the Tusheti project, Georgia (MALE)

-                 3. Ema Edesio, Award winning filmmaker and film director, Nigeria (FEMALE)

-                 4. Enyi Omeruah, Music and audiovisual entrepreneur, Nigeria (MALE)

-                 5. Jean Hubert Nankam, Producer of reality TV shows, documentaries, and drama, Ivory Coast (MALE)

-                 •6. Alain Modot on behalf of Grégoire Ndjaka, Association of the African Broadcasters AUB/UAR (MALE)

-                 7. Gonzalo Laguado Serpa, Proimagenes Colombia, Colombia (MALE)

-                 8. (remote) Ani Dallakin, the Internet Society, Armenia REPLACED BY  Lianna Galstyn   MAG member (FEMALES)

-                 Theme (as listed here): LOCAL CONTENTS

-                 Subtheme (as listed here):

-                 Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

AGREED PREMISE:

The success of Internet in a community (apart of the availability of infrastructure) is determined by the availability of local contents and local services in local languages. More of these contents and services are available in a community, more successful the internet is.

KEY MESSAGES:

1. In some parties of the world there are already existing and consolidated models that today guarantee a flow of resources (from TV and radio, film industry, publishers, etc.) to professional creators. In the developed countries these mechanisms are slowly moving to extend their action also to internet contents. In other parts of the world such kind of mechanisms doesn’t exist or are very weak;

2. Face to the insufficient transfer of resources from the Internet platforms to local creators in local languages (especially in small countries), the most efficient way to improve the quantity and quality of local contents and languages over the Internet is to accelerate and facilitate the conversion of existing models into the Internet market. Cinema becoming digital and on line. TV and radio becoming digital and producing ad hoc contents for the on-line distribution. Printed media becoming digital publishers of web-based contents and services;

3. Effective national and regional laws could incentive this process of transformation, while International Treaties (such as UNESCO on cultural diversity and WIPO on the protection of authors, performers, producers and broadcasters rights) could represent a level playing field and provide appropriate framework for domestic policies. The BPF session presents a series of case studies and successful practices that provide useful food for thoughts.

 -Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, whileothers

Full support was expressed to all experience presented, each one of the covering one specific need and perspective.

Roberto Gaetano explained the importance to develop more and more Internet identifiers (for instance domain names and email addresses) in non-ASCII scripts. Without that all non-latin languages and regions of the world are practically excluded from the effective access to Internet.

Lianna Galstyan presented the experience of Armenia educational platform, where -thanks to the state financing- educational resources have been made available on line to all educational institutes of the country.

Ucha Seturi presented the Tusheti project in Georgia where the valorization of a specific territory and of its language has been made possible through an Internet platform that allows direct trade of local products and promotion of tourism in that region.

Ema Edesio and Enyi Omeruoah from Nigeria presented the successful experience of a selfproduced movie : “Kasala” that is now touring around the festivals of the whole world having great success, that has been simultaneously distributed in cinemas and through digital and on-line tools, opening the way to new forms of financing.

Jean Hubert Nankam from Ivory Coast presented his experience of a series of  episodes for TV and the web called “Teenagers” distributed on TV and on Facebook, with one main sponsor and a consortium of 8 tv buying the rights for broadcasting distribution. A community of 120.000 adolescents across the region that is now developing into a market for ancillary products, such as music records.

Alain Modot from France but also representing the AUB (African Union of Broadcasters), explained the project of Hub Africa, where -with the seed money from institutional partners (such as EU or development funds publics or provates)- a serie of programmes will be coproduced with a consortium of broadcasters, with centralized sales of advertising spaces for the TV and the on line distribution simoultaneously.

Gonzalo Laguado from Colombia presented the successful experience of the Colombian film fund Pro-Imagenes, that supports with state funding and with money from taxations of certain activities, the development of movies (including one nominated best foreign movie at the Oscars 2015), TV series and ,more recently, of web series.

 -What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Putting in place the proper mechanism created by IGF for the BPF, that consists in identifying experiences models and enablers that could help to solve the lack of local contents in local languages, especially in underdeveloped countries.

-Please estimate the total number of participants.

There were around 100 participants in the room.

-Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Half of the audience in the room was made of women

-To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100words

Gender issue was not the main subject of discussion. But the choice to present the experience of a  woman film maker from Nigeria as one of the pivotal example of Best Practice, was a clear message to the participants.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): CENB

- Title: Connecting and Enabling the Next Billions: Phase IV

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November 2018 at 9:00 - 10:30 a.m. (90 minutes)

- Organizer(s):

• Radhika Radhakrishnan (Consultant, Secretariat - Internet Governance Forum, UN-DESA)
• Christopher Yoo (1 World Connected)
• Sharada Srinivasan (1 World Connected)
• Raquel Gatto (Regional Policy Manager, Internet Society)

- Chair/Moderator: Christopher Yoo, Raquel Gatto

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Radhika Radhakrishnan

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Mr. Wisdom Donkor, Co-Founder, Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation, Male (Intergovernmental Organization)

• Mr. Eric White, Male  (Intergovernmental Organization)  TBC

• Mr. Philip Zululeta, Male (Business / Private Sector)

• Mr. Paul Rowney, board member, Africa ICT Alliance, Male (Business / Private Sector) TBC

• Ms. June Parris, Associate Researcher, Halaqah Media, Female  (Business / Private Sector)

• Mr. Christopher Yoo, Director, Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Male (Academia)

• Ms. Radhika Radhakrishnan, Consultant, Secretariat - Internet Governance Forum, Female (Academia)

• Ms. Raquel Gatto, Regional Policy Manager, Internet Society, Female (Technical Community)

• Ms. Mary Uduma, Managing Director, Jaeno Digital Solutions Ltd, Female (Technical Community)

• Ms. Karen McCabe, Senior Director, Technology Policy and International Affairs, IEEE, Female  (Technical Community)

- Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here): INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• Local access projects working on enabling meaningful Internet connectivity for attaining SDGs 7, 8, 9, 17 will be highlighted.

• Interlinkages between projects that support ICTs for realizing different SDGs (in this discussion, specifically SDGs 7,8,9, and 17) are necessary for attaining the goals. Thus, a unified approach is required across SDGs and stakeholders going forward.

IGF 2018 Long Session Report
DC on Blockchain Technologies Session

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): DC Session on Blockchain Technologies

- Title:  Decentralized Governance in Blockchain-Based Systems and its Relation to Blockchain for Social Good

- Date & Time: November 14, 2018 at 13:00-14:00.

- Organizer(s):
Carla L. Reyes, Michigan State University College of Law (Civil Society)
Primavera De Filippi, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (Civil Society)
Constance Choi, Seven Advisory (Civil Society)

- Chair/Moderator:
Carla L. Reyes, Michigan State University College of Law (Civil Society)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: 
Constance Choi, Seven Advisory (Civil Society)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
• Maria Gomez, Aragon (Technical Community) (female)
• Pindar Wong, VeriFi (Government) (male)
• Rick Dudley, Vulcanize (Technical Community) (male)

• Primavera de Fillipi, CNRS Paris (Civil Society) (female)
• Constance Choi, COALA (Civil Society) (female)

- Theme (as listed here): Emerging Technologies

- Subtheme (as listed here): Distributed Ledgers - Blockchains

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. Session participants examined the implicit and explicit governance and design elements present in existing blockchain technologies and decentralized systems and will explore the trade-off decisions communities engage in when selecting certain governance and design elements, and the benefits and costs of those trade-offs.
2. Session participants discussed best practices in rooting out the values inherent in each governance and design choice and exploring the resulting implications for the community and the impact they have on each stakeholder group that comprises that community.
3. Session participants explored whether blockchain governance mechanisms can enable uses for social good, including new practices that better comply with the original ethos of the Internet, and help society more broadly deal with issues related to fake news, digital oppression or digital targeting, or issues of socio-economic disparity in access.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety

- Title: Online products and their impact on children’s vulnerability

- Date & Time: Tuesday 13 November 2018, 12:30-13:30 pm. Salle IV.

- Organizer(s): ECPAT International and Stiftung Digitale Chancen

- Chair/Moderator: Marie-Laure Lemineur, ECPAT International

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Marie-laure Lemineur, ECPAT International

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/

transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Jutta Croll -  Stiftung Digitale Chancen, Germany-  Female
• John Carr – eNASCO - Male
• Maarten Botternam – ICANN Board and Chair of the DC Internet of Things - Male
• Patrick Mead, Dubit Limited, UK - Male

-Theme (as listed here): Human Rights Gender and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Child Online Protection

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. It is important to discuss screen time exposure and its positive and negative impact on children; 
2. There is need to discuss Is there such a thing as a “a right amount of screen time for children” using phones, tablets or any other objects connected however equally important is what children do when the engage with devices and internet as it can be meaningful time;
3. Parents and care givers are in part responsible for guiding children however other sectors are should equally engage, namely the private companies developing platforms used by children;

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

1. There was agreement that it is extremely important to elaborate strategies taking into account age categories given that age differentiation is a key element of a successful strategy;
2. Some argued that it is more important to look at the what the child does when connected rather than focusing solely on the time he spends connected.  In other words, what should matter is what the children do when they are connected and not so much how many hours they are connected;
3. However, speakers and participants from the floor did acknowledge that there is need for researching more on the negative impact of over use of screen time and this type of engagement. Some initial existing research is pointing towards changes in the brain functions, loss of memory, more attention deficit problems, sleep deprivation, virtual autism. One participant mentioned that a special area of attention in that regard should be the effect of 3D screens and virtual reality where very few is known;
4. Another participant emphasized that we needed to be careful when discussing “addiction”. The notion of what constitutes or not addiction is not that clear cut and that there is need for agreement;
5. One youth participant noted that in some countries parents are addicted and they are no social interaction between parents and children or between children themselves because they spend so much time online;
6. There is consensus that the speedy evolution of technology is challenging. This fast evolving environment allows constant emerging potential negative impact on users;
7. Those devices have many functions and as a result, children use them for multiple purposes such as studying, looking for source material, connecting to friends, play, watch movies, etc.   

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

1. There is need for the concerned parties in this topic to engage in producing more research on the impact of over exposure of screen time and over use of internet on children;
2. There is need to think of age verification even if this is difficult;
3. Private sector companies are forced to develop products for children that do not harm them as they are their user base of this;
4. Not all children as the same, age differentiation solutions are vitals;
5. A call was made by one participant for the private sector to share its data for research purpose by research institutes.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

All members of the DC COS are active within the IGF ecosystem, individually many are already active on aspects of this topic, raising awareness among policy makers, promoting research, etc.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 60 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 50%

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

There was no mention of the gender dimension of the problem rather a mention of how relevant it is to consider age differentiation regardless of gender when discussing solutions.

- Add your Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation as explained here:

or each issue area covered during your session (e.g. e-commerce, cybersecurity, privacy, AI), please provide input on the following questions:

1. What are values that digital cooperation should aspire to?

2. What are principles that digital cooperation should follow?

3. Which digital cooperation mechanisms were mentioned during the session?

4. Based on the discussions during the session, how can digital cooperation mechanisms be improved (such as: addressing gaps in existing mechanisms, developing a cross-silo approach, increasing inclusiveness)?

5. Please indicate any other aspect related to digital cooperation that could be of relevance for the Panel’s deliberation.

- Session Type DC

- Title:  Community Networks: When The Unconnected Build Connectivity

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018 - 11:20 to 12:20

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Luca Belli, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV)

Organizer 2: Nicolas Echániz, Altermundi

- Chair/Moderator:  Luca Belli, FGV

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

    Mr Luca Belli, FGV

    Ms Jane Coffin, ISOC

    Ms Stavroula Magleva, University of Thessaly

    Mr Spencer Sevilla, University of Washington

    Mr Nicolas Echániz, AlterMundi

    Mr Roger Baig Viñas, Guifi.net

    Ms Muy-Cheng Peich, Bibliothèques Sans Frontières

    Mr Félix Tréguer, CNRS

    Ms Virginie Aubrée, University of Trento

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here):  COMMUNITY NETWORKS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. Community networks (CNs) improve connectivity while empowering Internet users. Community networks rely on the active participation of local communities in the design, development, and management of network infrastructure as a common resource, and help achieve the UN's Sustainable Development Agenda by facilitating access to information

 2. CNs give rise to new infrastructures, new governance models, new business opportunities, and facilitate the free flow of information and knowledge, filling the lacunae left by the traditional Internet access-provision paradigm.

3. The Community Network Manual is the 2018 outcome of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3). Its goal is to provide guidance on how to build, organise, and deploy CNs. It offers toolkits, guidelines, and instructions to be used by all interested stakeholders for the concrete constructions of such networks. All interested stakeholder are invited to join DC3 members for presentation of the CN Manual and to freely share it.

 Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

Community Networks are networks structured to be open, unrestricted, and to respect net neutrality.  They rely on the active participation of local communities in the design, development, deployment, and management of shared infrastructure as a common resource. They are managed democratically by group of individuals and entities such as NGOs, local businesses, and/or public administrations.

There was broad agreement amongst panellists on the benefits of Community Networks as a promising strategy allowing individuals to build connectivity. Policy and regulation should facilitate their development. 

Panellists’ talks were based on their contributions to tha 2018 Outcome of DC3 : « The Community Network Manual: How to Build the Internet Yourself » published by FGV, ITU and InternetSociety, available here http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/25696

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Reduced regulatory obligations for community networks as regards license and authorisations, as they are generally small size non for profit organisation essentially acting in the public interest. Allow more flexible use of spectrum. 

Ms Jane Coffin, ISOC

Work with different partners and communities, instead of doing the work for them.

Panellists identified the following recommendations:

• Analise regulatory experiences and identify best practices.
• Development of open-source devices for community networks
• It is key to have a support system, helping people communicate and support the community inside and the network.
• Need to scaling up, given that upscaling produces bigger networks that are stronger and more resilient.
• Improve existing laws through proposals submissions to policymakers
• It is important to share Guidelines for community networks to cope with legal requirements, as stressed in the Community Network Manual.
• Create a common platform for interoperability which could be put at  the disposal of communities, while being adapted to their need

Importantly, legal sustainability of Community Networks is also dependent on the ability of Community Networks to engage in advocacy and try to change telecom policy, which does not consider their specific needs and is tailored for large incumbents. Policy-makers and CNs should address the various regulatory hurdles that hinder the growth and development of the CN movement and cooperate to move the debate forward.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The work of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity was praised for as being an excellent venue for cooperation, synergy and elaboration of concrete outcomes. IGF should focus more on outcome oriented initiatives.   

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

80

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

40

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

None

Key message:

Emerging last mile connectivity initiatives demonstrate significant diversity, and policy approaches to support the same require as much innovation and context-specific application. 

Global Good Practice in IoT: a Call for Commitment

13 November 2018, 10:40

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.)

Open Forum/Mic

Title:
DC Internet Rights and Principles: Sustainable Futures: The Internet, Human Rights, and Environmental Issues

Date & Time:

Monday 12 November, 11.20am

- Organizer(s):

Marianne Franklin - IRPC Co-Chair, Academic

Minda Moreira - IRPC Co-Chair, Civil Society

- Chair/Moderator: Marianne Franklin - IRPC Co-Chair, Academic and Minda Moreira - IRPC Co-Chair, Civil Society

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Hanane Boujemi

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Deepti Bharthur, ITforChange, India - CS

Maureen Hilyard, Cook Islands Internet Action Group - female, CS

Michael Oghia – Youth DC - male, CS

Roel Raterink - Digital City Coalition (Amsterdam, New York, Barcelona) - male, Governmental

Theme :

Human Rights, Gender & Youth

Subtheme :

Emerging Technologies

Three (3) key messages of the discussion

• Data-Gathering and cross-border information- sharing are increasingly central to international consensus-building around climate change and approaches to tackle specific factors that contribute to global warming and local environmental degradation such as carbon emissions, toxic waste, and water pollution. These high-level consultations have taken place as the expansion of cloud computing and data-centres create their own environmental burden, e.g. need for sources of power, contribution to global indicators of global warming such as heat emissions, environmental impact when located in environmentally sensitive regions such as the arctic circle or warmer climates. 
• Related to these more recent concerns are longstanding issues around the amount of E-waste at a global level that is produced when consumer electronics, and now personal computers, mobile devices, and other network-dependent equipment are discarded without due care to toxic metals or fumes from burning . Mining of precious metals and minerals that are part of consumer electronics also have their own environmental cost, the wide use of plastics and other non-biodegradable materials for computing and network infrastructures notwithstanding. 
• As smart cities and smart grids become part of urban planning and related R&D the relationship between these large-scale infrastructures, which are based on internet access, and equipment built to manage 'big data' applications that collect and monitor consumer-uses, are linked to the protection and enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms online in ways that have, to date, not yet been fully considered as part of internet governance agendas.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

Data gathering and cross-border information-sharing are increasingly central to international consensus- building around climate change. The session discussed the specific factors that contribute to global warming and local environmental degradation linked to the digital expansion and the mass data generated by the sharing economy. 

The workshop was moderated by Ms Minda Moreira, co-Chair Internet Rights and Principles Dynamic Coalition and Ms Marianne Franklin Professor of Global Media and Politics Convener: Global Media & Transnational Communications Program.

Ms Deepti Bharthur, ITforChange , Senior researcher Associate. 

The intersection of technology and research undertaking in several countries: project looking at the rise of digital platforms and digital economy

Bharthur discussed

- the myth about digital economy where everything should be shared or owned by everyone, which results in dire consequences on the environment. The platform economy requires deep thinking about the impact on environment.

- Policy gaps: social protections in the global south are poor

- Data frameworks are caught up in the concept of free idea flows without prioritising local heritage

Mr Michael Oghia, Internet Governance Global forum for Media Development and representative of the Dynamic Coalition on Youth. 

Oghia noted that it is challenging to address sustainability issues in the context of the IGF because the policy discourse focuses on a different array of issues that do not link to the environment, energy or climate change.

Most of these issues link to the SDGs, even though there is no distinctive link to promoting sustainable energy and infrastructure. A clear plan should be in place to address the impact of data production namely high definition videos or ( on the environment. Taking a close look at the material used and focus on having a collaborative environment where all the concerned  stakeholders are willing  to recognise the issue in question 

Ms Maureen Hilyard, Cook Islands

Hilyard pointed out that countries with small population have limited income which affects their ability to integrate the digital economy. However, they rely heavily on tourism which impacts the environment. A sustainable future is a perquisite to protect the environment 

The last speaker, Mr Roel Raternik, International advisor City of Amsterdam  spoke about promoting principles at the level of cities to protect digital rights which sets standards that protect communities. They invest in projects to limit the impact of data centres using innovative ideas to use the heat produced for heating or cooling. They also focus on procurement by providing a set of standards buying digital equipment at the level of city councils. They recognise the importance of the internet, but they also believe that citizen’s digital should be a priority to address the impact on the environment.

The discussion attempted to establish a link between digital human rights and the environment. A suggestion was made to draw a constitution in every country to protect the environment in the digital age.

The right to a future should be a priority to ensure a quality of life to future generations where the environment is not contaminated by industrial waste generated by digital economy. More efforts should be deployed is the Internet Governance community to do more work in order to deal with this issue holistically taking into account the importance of protecting human rights.

There is tension between sustainable development and the race to digitalise communities. It is important to have principles for the social economy to thrive at the local level or smaller scale to strengthen the local space. For this to happen the policies implemented ought to be scaled down to reflect the need to instil values that take into account the environmental sustainability.

One of the important questions the session addressed was how to shift the environment burden from the Internet as a tool for development. The private should be social inclusive and think about environmental sustainability by design. The key is to get data policy framework right and how to build context appropriate policies and to integrate sustainability into the design of network and product chains to ensure the  protection of the environment  

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

Around 40

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

• To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

- Session Type DC

- Title:  Net Neutrality: Measuring Discriminatory Practices (DCNN)

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 2018 - 12:20 to 13:20

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Luca Belli, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV)

Organizer 2: Chris Marsden Sussex University

- Chair/Moderator:  Luca Belli, FGV & Chris Marsden, Sussex University

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Mr Serge Abiteboul, Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes (ARCEP)
• Mr Frode Sorensen, Norwegian Communications Authority (Nkom)
• Mr Marc LeBourges, Orange
• Mr Luca Belli, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV)
• Mr Chris Marsden, Sussex University
• Ms Amba Kak, Mozilla
• Ms Jordana Viotto, Université Paris-Dauphine
• Mr Simone Basso, Tor Project

- Theme (as listed here): Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here):  COMMUNITY NETWORKS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. Further research and DCNN activities should be dedicated to the analyses of discriminatory traffic management practices, in order to inform net neutrality policy debates.
2. Empirical research on Zero Rating can usefully inform Regulators' as well as policymakers' works. The fact that the DCNN Zero Rating Map has been featured into the French Telecoms Regulator (ARCEP) report on the State of the Internet is a positive example in this regard
3. Methodologies and results of such studies should be open for review, comment and improvement from researchers, policymakers, regulators and other stakeholders alike

    

    Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

    

   Several stakeholders stressed the positive impact that DCNN activities may have in advancing the elaboration of empirical research on discriminatory practices, in light of the success of the Zero Rating Map (available on www.zerorating.info), which was crowdsourced by the DCNN and whose beta version was released at the IGF 2017 DCNN session.

   Panellists presented the research they have conducted and initiatives they have led with the aim to offer concrete elements on which participants can have a constructive multistakeholder debate, analysing the latest evolution of net neutrality

   Participants agreed on the benefits of crowdsourcing measurements.

   It was stressed that the Zero Rating Map is the the first IGF outcome to have been included in an official report of a national regulator. The French Telecoms Regulator, ARCEP, which was represented by a board member has dedicated a section to the Zero Rating Map in its 2018 State of the Internet report.

   The French version of the report is here https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/rapport-etat-internet-2018...
   The English version is here https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/report-state-internet-2018...

4.  

   Durig their presentations, the first panelists focused on measures and tools to understand the quality of services offered by internet service providers and applications providers, especially speed and attempts to discriminate traffic. Many presented practical examples, such as the WeHe and OONI applications.

   The European “Net neutrality measurement tool” currently being developed by BEREC provides an example of how a consistent approach to measurement of internet access services to assess net neutrality can be facilitated across countries

   Other panelists presented more theoretical positions pointing to the need for reflection on topics such as innovation and regulation, as well as highlighting the need for more research and more data to discuss the theme of the session.

    

   One of the main concerns regarding a potential departure from net neutrality, explored by one of the panellists, is that it might steer consumers’ choice of online content towards the Content Providers (CPs) included in the zero rating plan. As CPs typically rely on traffic to generate revenues, (either from advertisement or from user payment (e.g., subscription)), zero rating raises barriers to entry to CPs excluded from the plan and might reduce the variety of CPs available to users. It can also interfere with incentives of CPs to invest in quality. In this context the incentives vary with the elasticity of demand for the zero-rated content provider and that effects might be different for distinct types of content. 

    

   Importantly, the private sector representatives highlighted that Internet Service Providers have a strong incentive to provide quality neutral Internet access, because the value of most contents available on internet access, and thus le value of internet access itself, depends of the ability of those contents to exchange together on-line through a neutral network.

    

   - Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

   Measurement of internet access services to assess net neutrality should emphasise openness and standardisation in order to foster a cross-national platform for development and research of a reliable methodology and reusable toolbox.

   Participants agreed on the benefits of crowdsourcing measurements.

   Participants stressed the benefits of the Zero Rating Map as a tool to foster further research and suggested to use more largely crowdsourced tools to verify compliance with network neutrality.

           Development of shared measurement methodologies and tools are needed in order to be able to collect ancompare more empirical data, measuring Internet access quality.

ISP representatives stressed that whether the provision of specialized services improves or degrades internet general quality should be tested by assessing if, for a given set of usages, the quality of internet services would be degraded or improved if the usage served by a specialized service was instead provided on internet: as specialized services uses optimal solutions that minimize resources for a given outcome, their provision can then be expected to improve the overall network efficiency, notably for the benefit of the general open internet quality.

Lastly, it is key to understand how the rules that we choose today will shape the direction of innovation tomorrow.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The work of the Dynamic Coalition on Net Neutrality was praised for its outcome-oriented nature. IGF should focus more on outcome oriented initiatives, as suggested repetedly over the past decade and as also stressed by President Macron's intervention.    Net neutrality continues to pose policy challenges, as there are inconsistent national practices and a lack of an internationally recognized framework to guide the approach this matte.  These fragmented regulatory policies across nations can be disruptive for the Internet as a global network. There is a need for the global community including the IGF to come up with a set of universal values and standards and with that a globally recognized framework that will support the harmonization of these individualistic national approaches

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

130

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

60

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

None

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

https://public.tableau.com/profile/zeroratingcts#!/vizhome/zeroratinginfo/Painel1

Large-Scale Broadband Measurement Use Cases

http://www.rfc-editor.org/pdfrfc/rfc7536.txt.pdf

Net Neutrality Regulatory Assessment Methodology

https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/methodologies/7295-berec-net-neutrality-regulatory-assessment-methodology

Net Neutrality Measurement Tool Specification

https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/reports/7296-net-neutrality-measurement-tool-specification

Orange analysis on the impact of interactions between contents and applications and the neutrality of networks:

https://www.orange.com/fr/content/download/48545/1388078/version/5/file/2018%2010%2024%20Net%20Neutrality%20Externalities.pdf

Position paper analying the impact of ZR on end-users' freedom of choice

https://docreader.readspeaker.com/docreader/?jsmode=1&cid=bresa&lang=fr_fr&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.orange.com%2Ffr%2Fcontent%2Fdownload%2F48222%2F1383799%2Fversion%2F1%2Ffile%2FZero%2520rating%2520and%2520end-users%25E2%2580%2599%2520freedom%2520of%2520choice%2520-%2520An%2520economic%2520analysis%2520%25E2%2580%2593%2520ao%25C3%25BBt%25202018.pdf&referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.orange.com%2Ffr%2FGroupe%2FPolitique-europeenne%2Fregard-economique%2FFolder%2FOTT-operateurs-Telecom-et-internet-ouvert&v=

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Dynamic Coalition

- Title: Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

- Date & Time: Day3, Wednesday 14 Nov, 12:30 – 13:30

- Organizer(s): Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

- Chair/Moderator: Gerry Ellis

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

- Theme (as listed here):         Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme (as listed here): Persons with disablities

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• IGF has to live up to its commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in accessing IGF meetings, including remote participation accessibility.
• IGF should consider DCAD participants’ repeating request for an improvement of its remote participation tool so that persons with disabilities especially persons with vision impairment can easily participate in IGF meetings.  
• Accessibility is related to all aspects of society, therefore more collaboration with other DCs is expected.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

There was a strong support for the view that IGF should be committed to the UNCRPD. A number of accessibility problems were pointed out by DCAD members, including but not limited to: remote participation, website (schedule format, online registration), and physical accessibility.  

It was suggested that more collaboration with other Dynamic Coalitions can be explored. Volunteers of DCAD will start on discussion with targeted DCs and will see the possibility. Further idea will be discussed at future DCAD conference calls.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Accessibility should be considered from the beginning of organizing meetings as described in DCAD Accessibility Guidelines. It has already been suggested at DCAD meeting in 2014 that persons with disabilities or accessibility experts be part of the IGF preparation process, so as to make sure accessibility is considered in all aspects of IGF meetings.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Accessibility is not just for persons with disabilities only, but everyone can benefit from it. The universal design principle 'necessary for some - good for everyone’ should be followed.  Implementing international standards will help ensure ICT accessibility. It is expected that DCAD Accessibility Guidelines submitted to IGF (available at: https://www.intgovforum.org/filedepot_download/4281/517 ) be considered when preparing IGF meetings to improve accessibility.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 30

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Around 15

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

DCAD believes that persons with disabilities, including women with disabilities, should be on an equal footing, regardless disability or gender as an essential human right. All DCAD discussions are based on this principle.

- Title:  Automated Decision Making and Artificial Intelligence

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 10:40 to 11:40

- Organizer(s): Organizer 1: Nicolo Zingales, Sussex University

Organizer 2: Luca Belli, Fundação Getuio Vargas (FGV)

- Chair/Moderator:  Nicolo Zingales, Sussex University & Luca Belli, FGV

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:  Luã Fergus Oliveira da Cruz, Youth Observatory

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Moez Chakchouk, UNESCO
• Marco Pancini, YouTube
• Vidushi Marda, Article 19
• Nic Suzor, Queensland University of Technology
• Marta Cantero, University of Helsinki
• Luca Belli, FGV
• Nicolo Zingales, Sussex University

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Geneder and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here):  Democracy

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. Further research and DCPR activities should be dedicated to the discussion of how automated decision making can be designed and implemented by digital platforms.
2. Both the more “classic” Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms and the more unorthodox Artificial Intelligence-based solutions, such as the recent proposal of AI-based proactive detection and removal of abusive content should be carefully considered for their potential benefits and risks. 
3. A promising opportunity to engage in the automated decision making debate is to provide comments on the 2018 outcome of the DCPR: the Best Practices on Due Process Safeguards regarding Online Platforms’ Implementation of the Right to an Effective Remedy, until 30 November https://www.intgovforum.org/content/dcpr-best-practices-on-..

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

The session, organised by the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility (DCPR), and led by the work of the DCPR, focused on artificial intelligence (AI), automated decision-making and online dispute resolution (ODR). Stressing the role and responsibility of online platforms and in the context of private decision-making, the session assessed what are the safeguards for the protection of fundamental rights in automated decision activities. Following those lines, the concept of effectiveness, fairness and due diligence featured in the discussion on the application of AI to automated decision-making.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

Panellists suggested the follwing points for futher reflection.

1. AI is a topic of great interest of many organisation, including the Communication and Information programme (CI) of UNESCO. A shared goal should be to reinforce online human rights through digital skills, media information, literacy and the use of AI, focusing especially in developing countries.
2. Tech companies should follow clear standards for their Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms.
3. Day-to-day governance of AI is already assisting large scale decision making and should be as transparent as possible.
4. Effectiveness and fairness are essential principles to implement and develop practices in the context of the right to an effective remedy.
5. Internal human review must always be available when decisions about individuals are automatically taken.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

More time for Dynamic Coalition session.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

https://www.intgovforum.org/content/dcpr-best-practices-on-due-process-safeguards-regarding-online-platforms%E2%80%99-implementation-of

https://rankingdigitalrights.org/index2018

http://www.unesco.org/new/en/harare/communication-information/

IGF 2018 Synthesis

- Session Type: Round Table

- Title: A policy Toolkit for Public Access

- Date & Time: Wednesday November 14^th 10:10 – 11:10

- Organizer(s): DC-PAL

- Chair/Moderator: Valeria Betancourt APC Civil Society (F)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Stephen Wyber

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Esmeralda Moscatelli, Research and Policy Officer IFLA (F)
• Don Means, GLN, Technical Community (M)
• Janet Sawaya, EIFL, Civil Society (F)
• Peter Micek, Access Now, Civil Society (M)
• Leandro Navarro Pangea, Technical community (M)
• Roger Baig Vinas, Technical Community (M)

- Theme:

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme:

Libraries, Access and Connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. Public access, notably through libraries, allows people to get online, for free, through a shared connection in a welcoming environment, with support and training on offer. This allows for meaningful and equitable access to information, empowering people to take better decisions for themselves and their communities. It is an important part of overall connectivity offers.
2. Connecting public libraries is a relatively low‐cost, high‐impact means of bringing the benefits of connectivity to communities. Nonetheless, not all libraries are yet online, and even when they are, they are dependent on public funding, and often also face particular regulatory and legal frameworks. Libraries and their communities therefore need to be aware of the issues and be active in identifying and overcoming barriers.
3. The Public Access toolkit, the 2018 outcome of the Dynamic Coalition on Public Access (DC-PAL), was the focus of discussion at the session. It aims to address the issues in an easy and community-oriented way, giving libraries, their communities and other stakeholders the background information on the financial, regulatory and technological aspects of public access they need to be able to advocate for it. By bringing together library and non-library perspectives, the session helped broaden the guide and make it more valuable for its audience.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence

There was strong agreement on the need to ensure that solutions were owned by the communities. The work of libraries as centres with a connection with the people they serve could be critical.

A number of participants underlined that we also needed to reconsider the assumption that public access could compete with private offers. This could not only pose a harmful barrier on new connectivity, but also stand in the way of take-up of digital services.

Regulation should not be interpreted in ways that benefit incumbents, but rather facilitate onward connections from libraries, including WiFi and community networks.

Public access offered important social benefits that may not be provided by markets alone, and indeed, there was a case for public (popular) ownership of the infrastructure.

Efforts needed to be made to support libraries’ ability to teach digital skills, as well as explain how to exercise rights.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps

Further work is needed to change mindsets, and ensure that the laws are interpreted in ways that favour access to the internet, or are changed so that they do so.

More work could be done to understand the role of libraries in engaging communities to develop internet access solutions.

Work on how to ensure the sustainability of non-commercial systems could represent a useful contribution.

Connectivity programmes need to be designed in a bottom-up way, leaving choice over tools and process to the community itself. Support on key issues can be offered, but locals have to lead.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

There is a need to develop a better understanding of where and how there is a need for public intervention in order to make connectivity happen.

In addition to focusing on top down regulation, we need to think about the resources and infrastructure that can be mobilised to facilitate community-based solutions.

We need to reflect on the risk that regulation developed for the private sector may harm public interest activities, such as public internet access.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

30-35

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

10-15

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The discussion included consideration of the role of public access in reaching out to marginalised communities, including women, who otherwise may struggle to benefit from commercial internet offers. Given that women are particularly heavy users of libraries in many cultures, they stand to benefit from progress on public access.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): 
Meeting of a Dynamic Coalition

Round Table

- Title: 
Schools on Internet Governance (DC-SIG)

- Date & Time: 
Tuesday, 13 November 2018, 9:00 – 10:00

- Organizer(s): 
Sandra Hoferichter, Anriette Esterhuysen, Avri Doria, Rainer Rodewald

- Chair/Moderator: 
Sandra Hoferichter

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Avri Doria

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): 
All organisers of Schools on Internet Governance (SIG), alumni’s, faculty, supporter of SIGs

- Theme (as listed here): 
Evolution of Internet Governance

- Subtheme (as listed here): 
Broadening Stakeholder participation in Internet Governance

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

This meeting is a follow up from the founding meeting during the last IGF. We will discuss the following issues:

1. Schools on Internet Governance Taxonomy: There is a great variety among the existing SIGs and the features of the various types of schools. That often makes it difficult to talk about these Schools and to describe them in a less ambiguous manner. Aim is to agree on several categories and criteria for a taxonomy. 

2. Website: We will introduce a draft website for the DC-Networkincluding tools for interaction (i.e. wiki) and ask for feedback.

3. Workplan: We will look into the tasks ahead and call for participation in the network, possibly form sub working groups.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] 

The round table and group gather discussed the web site in detail all giving recommendations for how it could be improved.

The taxonomy and data collection on existing schools was discussed and there was a general feeling that the work being done could provide the start to the development of a rich resource for people who are either starting a new school, or developing their existing school. There was also general agreement that this should be available to anyone interested, though there was a recognition that details on curricula and class presentations might be considered the intellectual property of schools and faculty.

There was general agreement, with no objections, that the group would work as a group of the whole, with Avri Doria functioning as a neutral secretariat, with service such as wiki maintenance provide by Medienstadt Leipzig e. V. The various leaders of SIGs would serve as the main drivers of the SIG.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

There was general agreement that the approach being taken to first define a taxonomy and then start collecting information on existing SIGs was the correct approach.

One the Taxonomy was further developed, work could begin on creating model curricula modules that could be used by new and continuing schools.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]'

The global proliferation of SIGs can be understood as a major element in capacity building for the IG system and for the various stakeholders and stakeholder groups.  The IGF provides a means whereby the global schools can come together yearly to discuss progress being made, which is necessary despite online cooperative work and occasional meetings at NRI of subsets of those involved in IG education.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

Over 100.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Probably at least half.

No actual count was done.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender issues were not a focus of the discussion.  The idea was capacity building for all. n Gender issues are included among the taxonomies list of subject areas for curricula building.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

- Title: DC on Youth

- Date & Time: 12 November, 12:30-13:30

- Organizer(s): Nadia Tjahja

- Chair/Moderator: Nadia Tjahja

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Su Sonia Herring

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Nadia Tjahja, YCIG/Sunium

Su Sonia Herring, SEEDIG

Charalampos Kyritsis, YOUthDIG

Auke Pals, EuroDIG

Marius Jitea, Council of Europe

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Youth Inclusion

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• We must increase recruitment for IGF attendance activities in schools and universities and finding practices to facilitate these through setting up an education network that can manage this.
• We must invest in increasing female participation.
• We must ensure that other regions beyond Europe, in particular disadvantaged and underrepresented regions, continue and become increasingly more active and represented in Internet Governance discussions.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

There was broad support for the view that youth recruitment within schools and universities should be coordinated for future IGFs. Some indicated that the word “internet governance” may cause confusion for young people and a better entry point could be “freedom of speech”, “cyberbullying”, “data protection”, etc.

There was broad support for bringing together organiser of YouthIGF’s to share common practices and outcomes.

There is a concern that the YCIG has been very Eurocentric. Others noted that female participation needs to be increased.

There was general disappointment on the manner in which session organisers engaged with the call for youth participation. Despite reassurances that youth were included as speakers, sessions did not include youth speakers.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

1. The community indicated that in terms of Youth IGF’s they would be interested in setting up a session for IGF 2019 in which Youth IGF organisers could come together to discuss and share best practices but also results from their sessions and see where they can find synergies.
2. The community encouraged to further consider recruitment of young people in schools and universities  through the creation of an education network.
3. The community would like to emphasise the role of women in tech and creating opportunities for the girl person

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

1. YCIG offered to support and help YouthIGF organisers  with a workshop proposal for IGF 2019 to collect all organisers of YouthIGF’s to come together to further discuss good practices and outcomes of their events.
2. YCIG organised a French language #JoinUs campaign which reached out to schools and universities for IGF 2018 and indicated that the campaign can only be as successful as the engagement of the community. We can consider extending it for 2019 but only with the support of the community.
3. Only concerns raised, but no concrete resolutions

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

59 people

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

24 women

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

From the 2018 overview, the YCIG board spoke about their work encouraging girls and women participating in EU Code Week. Additionally the WG on Youth Participation in Internet Governance addressed supporting women on panels.

There were multiple interventions by the audience who raised the issue of female participation in local events and IGF sessions and the need to further invest and encourage in girls and women.

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Main session

Title: Effective policies for inclusive and prosperous digital transformation – what’s needed?

Date & Time: Tuesday 13 November, 15.00-16.20

Organizer(s): Jutta Croll (MAG / DC Coordination Group), Markus Kummer (DC Coordination Group), Timea Suto (MAG) 

Chair/Moderator:

• Mr. Diego Molano, Former ICT minister of Colombia; International Consultant, Digital Transformation of Governments and Companies, Colombia
• Ms. Nadia Tjahja, Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (YCIG), Netherlands

Rapporteur/Notetaker: TBC

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Panelists

• Mr. Jackson Cheboi, Head of Cyber Investigations and Foreniscs, Communications Authority of Kenya
• Ms. Bishakha Dhatta, Executive Director, Point of View - India
• Ms Céline Saada-Benaben, General Manager France, eBay
• Mr. Andres Sastre, Regional Director, Inter-American Association of Telecommunications Companies (ASIET)
• Ms. Shamika Sirimanne, Director, UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) *tbc

Interventions from IGF Dynamic Coalitions:

• Mr. Gerry Ellis - DC on Accessibility & Disability (DCAD)
• Ms. Carla Reyes - DC on Blockchain Technologies (DC-Blockchain)
• Mr. John Carr / Ms. Marie-Laure Lemineur / Ms. Jutta Croll *tbc - DC on Child Online Safety (DCCOS) 
• Mr. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy - DC on Core Internet Values (DC-CIV) 
• Ms. Jac SM Kee - DC on Gender and Internet Governance (DCGIG) 
• Mr. Christopher Yoo - DC on Innovative Approaches to Connecting the Unconnected (DC-Connecting the Unconnected) 
• Mr. Maarten Botterman - DC on Internet of Things (DC-IoT) 
• Ms. Janet Sawaya *tbc - DC on Public Access in Libraries (DC-PAL) 
• Mr. Tracy Hackshaw - DC on Small Island Developing States in the Internet Economy (DC-SIDS) 
• Ms. Minda Moreira - Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) 
• *tbc - Youth Coalition on Internet Governance (YCIG) 

Theme (as listed here): Development, innovation and economic issues

Subtheme (as listed here): Internet for development and Sustainable Development Goals

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

This session aims to tackle the following questions:

• What are the main opportunities and challenges of harnessing ICTs and digital transformation to  positively drive the SDGs?
• What are the main elements of an enabling policy environment for supporting inclusive and prosperous societies?
• Where can we identify areas of mutual collaboration within the policy space so we can increase our efficiency, improve communication between relevant actors, and reduce redundancy?

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

Speakers in the session found broad agreement in a number of cross-cutting areas related to Internet for development. These centred primarily around the need for deeper cooperation and trust, as well as capacity building and educational measures, in order for the web to deliver on its development promise. This ranged from the message from the private sector that trust in physical infrastructure – the speed and security of Internet – needs to be established, to trust that users’ personal data is secure.

Views differed on the usefulness and future safety of the ever-widening phenomenon of the Internet of Things, with concern expressed that the gains brought by IoT were not worth the potentially considerable security risks. It was acknowledged that with discussion on how to make devices ‘talk to one another’ there should be a parallel discussion on their governance.

Raising what is often seen as a point of divergence in other discussions, the representative of the Dynamic Coalition (DC) on Child Online Safety emphasized that there is a false dichotomy between protecting children and freedom of information and expression online. The position of safety practitioners is that children should have as free and open access as possible while being protected from abuse on the web.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It was recognized from different panellists that closer cooperation between Governments, the private sector and civil society would be needed to tackle the development gaps discussed. Related to this, the speaker from the DC on Accessibility and Disability (DCAD) made a general call for avoiding silos and ‘overspecializing’ special needs, especially where access is concerned, and reminded that addressing the needs of people with disabilities addresses the needs of all people via universal design.

Finally, civil society experts on gender urged for better data collection and analysis for gender needs, emphasizing that serious holes and inconsistencies existed due to lack of gender disaggregated data. For example, this prevents us from understanding how a newly connected community uses its new access, and whether women and girls have equal access to the web.

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

One concrete suggestion was to improve the tracking and recording of gender engagement at the IGF. It was recommended increasing the compliance with gender reporting via the ‘Gender Report Cards’ integrated in IGF session reporting.

Please estimate the total number of participants.

Approx 80 people.

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Approx half the participants were women.

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session had a strong gender focus, with two representatives from civil society specialized in gender issues. The need for better data in global gender studies, the persistent barriers women and girls face to access, as well as the need to more closely examine the quality of access women enjoy, were all discussed.

IGF 2018 Main Session
Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

Session Type: Main Session

Title: Digital Inclusion and Accessibility

Date & Time: 14 November 2018, 11:30am - 12:50pm (80 minutes)

Organizer(s): 

●   Wisdom Donkor, MAG Member
●   Zeina BOUHARB, MAG Member
●   Paul Rowney, MAG Member

Chair/Moderator: 

●   Ms. Marilyn Cade, President / CEO, ICT Strategies, mCADE LLC / Former MAG Member
●   Mr. Eldrid Jordaan, CEO, GOVCHAT, South Africa /         

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Ms. Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, MAG Member, Fiji

Speakers: 

Speakers:  Digital Inclusion

• Ms. Nilmini Rubin, Vice president, Tetra Tech
• Mr. Charles Shaban, Executive Director, Abu-Ghazali Intellectual Property, Jordan
• Ms. Ankhi Das, Director of Public Policy, Facebook
• Ms. Nathalie Vuaillat, Director, Legal Counsel, eBay
• Mr. Adil Sulieman, African Union

Speakers: Digital Accessibility

• Ms. Bumi Durowoju, Snr.  Business Development Manager, Emerging Markets; AI and Intelligent Cloud Airband Initiative, Microsoft
• Dr. Mohammad Najeeb Azizi, Chairman, Afghan Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (ATRA)
• Dr. Carlos Rey-Moreno,  APC,  South Africa

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

The session which was moderated by Marilyn Cade and Eldrid Jordan lasted for eighty minutes(80) minutes and deliberate on the difficult digital transformation the world was undergoing and how to bridge the gap in the digital divide that lingered between advanced countries and the developing ones to ensure no one is left behind. 

 ● The Internet is really a powerful tool for inclusion: probably the most useful tool. On the other hand, the Internet itself, if not utilised in the right direction, will easily lead to digital exclusion. Even with availability of access, a lack of trust in the Internet will deepen the existing digital divides in various forms.

● It has taken more than 20 years to connect close to 50% of the world's population. Can we afford another 20 years to ensure digital inclusion for the remaining 50%? The UN Secretary General has emphasized that “the imperative to leave no one behind is just as relevant in the digital world” so what is the role of IGF community as a whole, and respective stakeholder group roles, as we edge toward target implementation and deliveries of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and to ensure human rights are respected for all?  

● Electricity is essential for digital inclusion.  “You cannot have the Internet without electricity.  About a billion people do not have electricity right now.

Don’t dig twice! - The environment is protected when activities to connect people to the internet are done at the same time. “Just the digging up and putting down of the road is 90 percent of the cost of the installation.  So, just doing it at the same time is huge- Ms. Rubin, Executive Vice-President of tech track in India”  

When it is hard to extend cables, try wireless and technologies which are somewhat outdated but can help join people with the internet.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

Ms Rubin Nelmini, Tetra Tech, (IEEE)

Electricity is essential for digital inclusion:

If you think about the last time you used the Internet, or you might be using it right now, the one thing that you need in addition to your device and that Internet connection is electricity.  You have to charge your devisor you have it plugged in.  In addition, electricity and Internet go hand in hand.  You cannot have the Internet without electricity.  About a billion people do not have electricity right now.  It is a huge number, and if you think four billion people do not have Internet access, there is definitely an overlap. It is almost impossible to have the Internet unless you are charging and paying for charges in different locations.

If you imagine putting down fiber optic cables for internet access, if you are doing it at the same time, you are doing electricity and you will save tons of money.  Just the digging up and putting down of the road is 90 percent of the cost of the installation.

What is interesting is that, we have had electricity with us about 140 years ago, and we still have a billion people that do not have it. Why is that?  That is not a technological problem but social problem.

Charles Shaban,

Reaching the rural Communities

“It’s not only reaching the areas, it's reaching the people with the limited accessibility and limited knowledge. It is important to have more local languages on the internet. This will help the non-English or French Speakers to reach some information on the Internet. Maybe the knowledge of the use of the internet will improve in the business sector if the HR departments make this skill a requirement for promotion

Nathalie Vuaillat, Ebay

Using Technology to build opportunities for everyone:

Underlining the power of digital skills, she pointed out that, 99 percent of sellers export internationally in more than 23 countries, On like marketplaces are the only representative of the sellers, mainly small business and medium size businesses.  Those businesses are just the essence of the economic growth.  The ICT has fully changed the retail distribution for very small businesses by allowing them to reach customers outside their local communities without having to invest in physical facilities. They strongly believe that cooperation with public authorities will anchor anyone in the world regardless their background, gender, identity, or experience to become an online entrepreneur. 

Focusing on women. Everywhere in the world, the number of women starting and running new businesses is actually growing.  Women entrepreneurship rights are higher in countries with lower level of economic development. To support women in this area, eBay, as long as Facebook has developed a program named “She trades,” which consists in providing and offer regular webinar training on eCommerce issue. 

We cannot achieve the digital transformation without the help of public authorities.

They also have a major role to play in supporting entrepreneurs towards digital tools.  One of the recommendations would be to test programs based on the combination of the digital ambassadors and innovative distance learning. 

In conclusion, digital inclusion issues can only be addressed by joint efforts.  In that regard, the private and the public sector must work hand in hand to collaborate on digital policies of today and tomorrow in favor of the training and the development of digital skills and literacy for inclusion for entrepreneurs.

Bumi Durowoju, Microsoft

Gender and women:

We have seen challenges of women inclusion. in the Internet and actually with the number of people getting on the Internet is increasing and the proportion of women is going down, because you have fewer women getting on line to the number of men getting on line. One of the biggest challenge is also to work on electricity access.

To bridge the gap in inclusion and accessibility gender wise, the progress has to be international. To integrate gender, we need to put it into the policy of women at the table when doing the policy design, doing the program design, include gender in the qualitative metrics, and in evaluation plans. 

Adil Sulieman, African Union

Opportunity, access, knowledge, and skill and policy development.

One-third of the situation in Africa in term of access to the internet, internet contribution to the GDP is 1.1 percent, 60 percent of our population live in rural area and remote area of the continent. One of the issues the Africa Union is facing is to do with spectrum. The African union is working hard with member state on the digital migration from analog to the digital television and we developed guidelines on that, and how the Country can make use of the digital dividends following the migration. 

The second component is to do with the capacity building for members on Internet Governance, and this is going to be all member states.

Dr. Mohammad Najeeb Azizi, Chairman, Afghan Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (ATRA)

Affordability and Accessibility:

There is a positive correlation between connectivity, accessibility, and economic growth both in terms of economic development and per capita economic growth.

Digital inclusion, we can have many interpretations, however, at the end of the day we will all come to one result that we really want everybody to take advantage of the ICT technologies in order to improve living conditions. However, one of the most difficult things to do is working with government Ministries and agencies to promote ideas of ICTs. For us to strife within the government sector, Education will have to be taken seriously.

This multistakeholder approach needs to be in practice within government and the government will have to work more with the private sector. Business as usual, cannot give us the results that we are looking for.  We have to be innovative with our policies. 

Ankhi Das, Facebook

Disabilities:

Disabilities should be looked at as a cognitive difference. In addition, tech plays the roles in harnessing and enabling gaps. It is not only an enabler but also something we must deal with and be responsible about.

The issue of gender came up and it was mentioned that to bridge the gap in inclusion and accessibility gender wise, the progress has to be international. It was mentioned that to integrate gender, we need to put it into the policy of women at the table when doing the policy design, doing the program design, include gender in the qualitative metrics, and in our evaluation plans. 

We have made huge investments in terms of looking at people with hearing impairment, visual impairment, and virtual blindness, what we focused on is making investments on video captioning, particularly to address the needs of people with hearing impairment.  We have looked at everyone hear, at least is aware of the rule of screen readers. Making sure people with visual impairment have the abilities to engage with different types of content online and develop skills. What we have done is working with our engineering employees as well as working with other partners in academic institutions, developed automatic alternative text formats, which helps people with visual impairment.

Dr. Carlos Rey Moreno, APC

Community Network, Access and Connectivity:

In Africa today, more than 250 million people do not have access to basic telephone.  More than 500 million people do not have access to broadband.

Internet access is a key component in thriving innovations. This is more than access and connection and being an enabling tool, it is an empowering tool, not just in gaining decent work and employment but also for social inclusion. Equally important to support Internet access is also to ensure that people have a meaningful access that can affect their lives for the better. It is, therefore, important to focus on not just technical aspects but also human [or social] aspects of connectivity. 

Challenges in access and connectivity remain and take different forms in various environments a lack of conducive regulatory environments and legislative frameworks that support last mile and rural connectivity, and new technologies in general, inadequate enabling infrastructure (including rural power and backhaul), and some commercial operators focusing on lucrative urban rather than rural connectivity, among others. High access costs due to geographies is also an issue, especially for landlocked developing countries and Small Island and developing States.

Governments need to rethink, think outside the box. One of those outside the box solutions are community networks. Group of people are organizing themselves to set up communications infrastructure to meet their communications needs. There are several around the world. Governments have a key role in facilitating the adoption of new technologies like 5G, IoTs, AI for the improvement of its population´s accessibility and connectivity. Governments should focus more on extending access and connectivity to the rural communities. Governments should therefore consider its role in allocating sufficient spectrum for mobile connectivity, especially at low bands and exploring network and spectrum.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

Please estimate the total number of participants.

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

Add your Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation as explained here.

[PDF Link]

Dynamic Coalition Coordination Group –Meeting XXXII (Face-to-Face)

Summary Report

14 November 2018

1. The thirty-second meeting of the DC Coordination Group (DCCG) took place on 14 November 2018, during the 13^th Annual IGF in Paris, France. The meeting was facilitated by Jutta Croll and Markus Kummer, with Eleonora Mazzucchi representing the IGF Secretariat. Live captioning was available during the meeting, with the transcript available here: https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2018-day-3-salle-xi-dynamic-coalition-dc-coordination-session   

2. A face-to-face coordination meeting among DCs has been convened at IGFs since 2015, when coalitions co-organized their first main session. This coordination meeting, held at the end of the last day of the 2018 IGF, took stock of the preceding days, in terms of both DCs’ main session and their individual sessions in the programme.

3. DCs had a positive impression overall of the holding of their main session. Co-organized with the MAG and focused on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), this year marked the first time coalitions had agreed to structure the session around a common theme. An SDGs focus had been decided on in DC coordination meetings leading up to the IGF, as a proposed topic under ‘Development, Innovation & Economic Issues’, one of the eight major themes of the 2018 programme. It was noted that the session this year was very well attended, particularly in comparison to last year’s session, which was lively, but with sparser participation. It was assumed that both the common theme and the invited speakers had led to more interest in participation. Also there was agreement that the tandem of two moderators had performed very well, particularly as regarded structuring the session around the SDG papers. Using a common theme, it was also noted, worked really well, as had the joint organizational effort with business community members of the MAG. In fact, the interaction with the panel of non-DC speakers, who had been selected together with the MAG co-organizers, had been constructive and interesting. It had also been noted, however, that given the limited time – at 80 minutes – there may ultimately have been too many individual speakers. Some coalitions felt this took away from the content of the session, but also may have given DCs less of a platform than in prior years. The general feeling was that in future it would be preferable to have a main session organized by the DCs, maybe enriched by having one or more non-DC ‘keynote’ speakers to set the scene. In order to reduce the number of speakers, it was suggested to have DCs pool resources and let one panellist speak on behalf of two or three DCs.

4. A few miscellaneous questions were raised regarding remote participation, general DC participation in the IGF programme, and on session durations. It was observed that remote participation seemed to have been low in DCs’ main session. The Secretariat explained that levels of remote participation in other sessions had not been overwhelmingly strong; the sessions which did feature one or two online interventions were usually pre-arranged by speakers who had not been able to attend in person. Technical issues with the IGF’s remote participation platform earlier in the meeting may have contributed to the lower engagement.

5. Due to the shorter schedule – three days versus the usual four – it had been very difficult to secure individual DC session times longer than 60 minutes for this year’s programme. However, acknowledging some coalitions’ need for more time to discuss their work and output documents, which can be quite substantial, DC coordination focal points said they would re-propose to the MAG 90-minute slots for DCs.

6. In response to the comment from some coalition representatives that the time allotted them to speak in the main session was quite short, the Secretariat emphasised that for the next IGF it could coordinate speaking roles for DC members, as experts and researchers in their respective Internet governance fields, in other programme sessions, including main ones. Reflecting on the substantive importance of discussions in workshops and similar sessions, a suggestion had been made by one DC representative that for the next cycle, the MAG consider shortening main sessions and prolonging other sessions in the programme, although this was not supported by other DCs.

7. Building on the one-page SDG papers produced by DCs ahead of the meeting, and drawing inspiration from their own process to produce written outputs, one coalition proposed DCs work together in 2019 on a common outcome document. This idea found favour with other DCs, who have agreed that work on a single theme had been successful this year. It was noted that with the earlier appointment of the new MAG, which had been announced during the IGF itself, the planning period before IGF 2019 would be longer. This would allow DCs the time – through earlier coordination meetings and with input from MAG deliberations – to discuss and agree on a common issue or set of issues for a potential outcome document. All agreed that such a project would bring positive visibility to, and highlight the value of, DCs.

8. The next DC coordination meeting will take place virtually, in approximately one month’s time. The Secretariat will share the call details with coalition members via the DCs mailing list.

Participants List

Markus Kummer (Co-Facilitator)

Jutta Croll (Co-Facilitator/DCCOS)

Eleonora Mazzucchi (IGF Secretariat)

Nico Echaniz (DC3)

Gerry Ellis (DCAD)

Marianne Franklin (IRPC)

Nigel Hickson (DC-IoT)

Peter Kimpian (DC-IoT)

Wolfgang Kleinwachter (DC-SIG)

Esmeralda Moscatelli (DC-PAL)

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy (DC-CIV)

Carla Reyes (DC-Blockchain)

Nadia Tjahja (YCIG)

Nicolo Zingales (DCPR)

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): DC Session Workshop

- Title: Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 Nov, 2018 - 11:20 - 12:20
 

- Organizer(s):
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India
Lisa Garcia, Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines
Smita Vanniyar, Point of View, India
 

- Chair/Moderator:
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Radhika Radhakrishnan, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, India
 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg (female, Academia)
Laura Breton Despradel, ISOC-RD, Dominican Republic (female, civil society)
Valentina Pellizzer, Association for Progressive Communications, Bosnia and Herzegovina (female, civil society)

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender, and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• What does the study on Gender Report Cards from the past few years of IGF tell us about the gender and gender diversity in workshops as well as the treatment of gender as a topic in these workshops.

• The need to understand emerging issues such as dataveillance, and algorithmic decision-making, and their influence in the cyberspace through a gender and sexuality lens, and strategies to address this.

• The status of ICTs and women’s rights online in the Dominican Republic, and how can we use technology and apps to disseminate more comprehensive knowledge on sexual education.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Laura, from UNFPA, discussed sexual and reproductive rights in Dominican Republic, and the efforts of organizations such as Pro Familia and apps like  Planeapp to include young girls and queer adolescents in discourses around SRHR.

Valentina from the Women’s Rights Programme, APC, discussed the work of the EROTICS network (Exploratory Research on Information and Communication Technology) initially focused on India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Key takeaways from her talk included the increasing collection and surveillance of user data by governments and other non-state actors, which can be misused (“dataveillance”) to target women and queer persons.

The stronghold of national policies and religious groups on women’s sexual rights and sexuality was a common thread that ran across both speaker’s talks.

Baldeep presented a draft research paper on the Gender Report Cards (GRCs) at IGF. There was broad support for the view that the GRCs were a substantial step towards the inclusion of and engagement with gender at IGF. However, there are challenges that remain, such as inconsistency in reporting resulting in difficulty of comparisons of categorical results.

There was also vibrant engagement from various participants present and interesting issues were highlighted. For instance, Jac from APC pointed out that all Human Rights issues tend to be clubbed into one main theme while there are multiple different themes for technical issues. Professor K. S. Park from the Dynamic coalition for Publicness also elucidated how the Right to be forgotten is being misused by perpetrators of sexual violence.  

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

There was discussion around how defamation is used as tool to silence women in many parts of the world, as truth is not always held to be a defence. Consequently, a proposal was made to set up a small global working group to gather consensus and release a joint statement on the issue (related also to the above discussion on ).

The need to have a separate Sexual Harassment policy for the IGF was highlighted and efforts to concretize the same were also outlined.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

The need to develop a new model of reporting was highlighted for the Gender Reports so that there can be a standardized manner in which analysis can be carried out across years. Another recommendation along the same lines was to collect statistics of women against total number of people present so the proportion of women could be analyzed. It was also noted that  To solve for the challenge of organizers not submitting the Gender Reports despite it being mandated, a suggestion that has been forwarded by Smita is to include the word “complete” (completed reports) in the mandate for submission of the Gender Reports.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

25

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Gender is a self-identified social characteristic and this cannot be estimated without participants identifying themselves as women or gender-variant.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The main theme of the discussion was gender. Hence, please see responses to above questions for response to this question.

Long Report

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): DC Session Workshop

- Title: Dynamic Coalition on Gender and Internet Governance

- Date & Time: Wednesday 14 Nov, 2018 - 11:20-12:20

- Organizer(s):
Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

Lisa Garcia, Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines

Smita Vanniyar, Point of View, India

- Chair/Moderator: Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Radhika Radhakrishnan, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, India

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Baldeep Grewal, Universität Würzburg (female, Academia)
Laura Breton Despradel, ISOC-RD, Dominican Republic (female, civil society)
Valentina Pellizzer, Association for Progressive Communications, Bosnia and Herzegovina (gender variant, civil society)

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender, and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

• What does the study on Gender Report Cards from the past few years of IGF tell us about the gender and gender diversity in workshops as well as the treatment of gender as a topic in these workshops.

• How data and information collected and surveillance by governments can be misused to target women and queer persons, and the need to include online expression through bodies in freedom of expression.

• The influence of the Catholic church on the discourse sexual and reproductive health and the discourse around this in the Dominican Republic, its impacts, and how technology and apps are being used to disseminate more comprehensive knowledge on sexual education, including that for queer adolescents.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words]

One of the speakers, Laura, from UNFPA, discussed sexual and reproductive rights in Dominican Republic which has immense influence from the Catholic Church. One of the impacts of this is that abortion is forbidden in all cases including when the mother is in danger and sexual education is also not conducted in schools (only 10% of which are secular). Laura also discussed the efforts of organizations such as Pro Familia and apps like  Planeapp to include young girls and queer adolescents in discourses around SRHR.

Vale from the Women’s Rights Programme, APC, used the Feminist Principles of the Internet (FPI) analytical framework to discuss the work of the EROTICS network (Exploratory Research on Information and Communication Technology) initially focused on India, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. Key takeaways from her talk included the increasing collection and surveillance of user data by governments and other non-state actors, which can be misused (“dataveillance”) to target women and queer persons. Discourse around freedom of expression also needs to include expression through our bodies online, as our bodies are becoming data in cyberspace. Thus, the user needs to be at the centre of principles on data and privacy, which is echoed by the FPI and GDPR. These principles also need to be transformed into uniform standards through an organized effort.

The stronghold of national policies and religious groups on women’s sexual rights and sexuality was a common thread that ran across both speaker’s talks.

Baldeep presented a draft research paper on the Gender Report Cards (GRCs) at IGF. There was broad support for the view that the GRCs were a substantial step towards the inclusion of and engagement with gender at IGF. When the reports were kicked off in 2011, there was negligible engagement with gender in workshops but the introduction of the reporting has seemed to fulfil its intended objectives. However, there are challenges that remain, such as inconsistency in reporting resulting in difficulty of comparisons of categorical results.

There was also vibrant engagement from various participants present and interesting issues were highlighted. For instance, Jac from APC pointed out that all Human Rights issues tend to be clubbed into one main theme while there are multiple different themes for technical issues. A speaker from the Dynamic coalition for Publicness, Professor KS Park, also elucidated how the Right to be forgotten is being misused by perpetrators of sexual violence.  

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

There was discussion around how defamation is used as tool to silence women in many parts of the world, as truth is not always held to be a defence. Consequently, a proposal was made to set up a small global working group to gather consensus and release a joint statement on the issue (related also to the above discussion on ).

The need to have a separate Sexual Harassment policy for the IGF was highlighted and efforts to concretize the same were also outlined.
 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The need to develop a new model of reporting was highlighted for the Gender Reports so that there can be a standardized manner in which analysis can be carried out across years. Another recommendation along the same lines was to collect statistics of women against total number of people present so the proportion of women could be analyzed. It was also noted that  To solve for the challenge of organizers not submitting the Gender Reports despite it being mandated, a suggestion that has been forwarded by Smita is to include the word “complete” (completed reports) in the mandate for submission of the Gender Reports, and to ensure that all session organisers complete the reports, including for DC sessions.

There was also a suggestion from Lisa Garcia on developing cooperation with the DCs at the regional level as well, and not just at the global IGF level.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

25

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Gender is a self-identified social characteristic and this cannot be estimated without participants identifying themselves as women or gender-variant.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The main theme of the discussion was gender. Hence, please see responses to above questions for response to this question.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

IGF 2018 Report
Evolution of Internet Governance, NRIs perspectives on the multistakeholder approach

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round table

- Title: IGF 2018 NRI Main Session: Evolution of Internet Governance, NRIs perspectives on the multistakeholder approach

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 11:40 to 13:00

- Organizer(s): 111 recognized NRIs in IGF 2018 cycle

- Chair/Moderator: Benedicto Fonseca, Ambassador of Brazil; and Anja Gengo, NRIs Focal Point
- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Dustin Phillipis, IGF-USA and ICWiki​

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

1. Argentina IGF, Ms. Carolina Aguerre,
2. Armenia IGF, Ms. Lianna Galstyan,
3. Asia-Pacific IGF, Ms. Yannis Li,
4. Brazil IGF, Mr. Flavio Wagner,
5. Chad IGF, Mr. Abdeldjalil Bachar Bong,
6. China IGF, Ms. Tian Lou,
7. Colombia IGF, Mr. Julian Casasbuenas,
8. EuroDIG, Ms. Sandra Hoferichter,
9. French IGF, Mr. Lucien Castex,
10. IGF Africa, Mr. Makane Faye,
11. IGF-USA, Ms. Marilyn Cade, and
12. Italy IGF, Mr. Francesco Pirro,
13. Japan IGF, Mr. Keisuke Kamimura,
14. Nigeria IGF, Ms. Mary Uduma
15. Portugal IGF, Ms. Ana Neves,
16. Russia IGF, Mr. Leonid Levin
17. SEEDIG, Ms. Sonia Hering,
18. Spain IGF, Ms. Zoraida Frias,
19. UK IGF, Mr. Nick Wenban Smith
20. Ukraine IGF, Mr. Vitaliy Moroz,

- Theme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet governance

- Subtheme (as listed here): Multistakeholder approach

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

This session addressed four pre-agreed policy questions:

1. Examples from the NRIs on how the application of the multistakeholder model to discussing the Internet governance pertaining matters, contributed to development of Internet governance. Is there an impact on policies from the Internet Governance Forum initiatives?
2. Examples from the NRIs on how the application of the multistakeholder model to discussing the Internet governance pertaining matters, contributed to development of Internet governance. Is there an impact on policies from the Internet Governance Forum initiatives?
3. How can we improve the implementation of the multistakeholder model on the national and regional levels?
4. Multistakeholder model on a global level: current status and recommendations for improvements

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The panelists brought bottom up inputs from their national and regional perspectives, especially the following as per the session policy questions:

1. Examples from the NRIs on how the application of the multistakeholder model to discussing the Internet governance pertaining matters, contributed to development of Internet governance. Is there an impact on policies from the Internet Governance Forum initiatives?
   Key Messages based on inputs from: Brazil IGF, Nigeria IGF and UK IGF:
   While the NRIs each take a different approach to influencing policy, there are some commonalities. Some NRIs aims to influence policy directly, while others aim to facilitate multistakeholder discussions alongside governments without any direct policy objective. Despite these differences they all share the objective of elevating the voice of all stakeholders. Additionally, they provide an example of the multistakeholder model that extends beyond the confines of the IGF and the NRIs​
    
2. What are the challenges we face while engineering/developing and implementing the multistakeholder model for discussing the Internet governance pertaining matters?
   Key messages based on inputs from IGF of: Asia-Pacific, Colombia, Italy, Japan, Portugal and Chad.
   Resourcing NRI initiatives was a common challenge, with funding most commonly mentioned in addition to premises in which to hold meetings and events. Difficulties with engagement and participation were also referenced multiple times, ranging from low youth participation to a lack of government engagement. The multistakeholder model struggles for relevance in some parts of the world where history and culture mean that expectations are that problems are solved in a more hierarchical manner. Linked to these problems were the lack of awareness or relevance of the IGF in many parts of the world whether at a global level or NRI level. Tools and platforms to bring in much better participation, and to explain the activities of NRIs for their respective communities are needed. Also expressed as a challenge were that some topics, particularly of a technical nature, are difficult to explore within the constraints of the multistakeholder model in that they need specific expertise which does not readily participate, either for reasons of time or patience, with the multistakeholder processes. Finally, some participants described how the terminology of ‘internet governance’ was itself a barrier in that it did not necessarily translate in a meaningful way into other languages, perhaps because of the similarity of the words ‘governance’ and ‘government’.

3. How can we improve the implementation of the multistakeholder model on the national and regional levels?
   Key messages based on inputs from: Argentina IGF, Armenia IGF, China IGF, French IGF, Spain IGF, SEEDIG, Ukraine IGF.
   Despite all of the successes of the NRIs as a whole, there was a common thread on opportunities for improvement. These can generally be categorized into four themes. First, there is a need to find models for financial sustainably. There are numerous suggestions for these solution, but there is a fundamental understanding that funding is essential to the work of NRIs. Second, there were numerous ideas about how to improve the appeal of Internet Governance, including ideas including thinking about new terminology, branding and broadening the scope of emerging technology topics such as  AI, blockchain, and autonomous vehicles. Third, there is a need to improve engagement, to bring in voices that have not traditionally been involved in the Internet governance space. There were two elements mentioned concerning this: capacity development and outreach. Schools on Internet governance and road shows were both mentioned as means to increase engagement. Lastly, there was a call to enhance the coordination among the NRIs, especially at a regional level, sharing best practices and coordinating the timing of their events.

4. Multistakeholder model on a global level: current status and recommendations for improvements
   Key messages based on inputs from IGFs of:  Africa, EuroDIG, USA and Russia.
   A lot of general support and warmth for the multistakeholder model was expressed. With the Internet being unique in both its transnational nature and rapid evolution, there was a need for new structures and ways of discussion which are more inclusive than a purely governmental process. However, there was also broad recognition that in order to stay relevant, or even survive, the multistakeholder model needs to evolve, and quickly. The interrelationship between the UN structures and the IGF is one aspect of that, but more could be done to highlight and promote examples of successes and to highlight its relevance in concrete terms. Better continuity ‘bridging’ from year to year was felt to be desirable, together with reporting of more directed and specific policy recommendations. Although it is still very fresh there was interest in the recent suggestions made by the French government for the evolution of the IGF.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

This session recommended the multistakeholder approach as effective in discussion the Internet governance matters. Through examples, it showcased that the implementation of the IGF model can lead to policy change.

However, developing processes based on the IGF core principles and procedures requires resources that are often one of the biggest problems in various communities. These are associated with funding, to stakeholder engagement and archiving meaningful broad participation within community.

It was recommended to bring the process closer to the community by adjusting the terminology to be understandable to broad stakeholder spectrum, branding the process itself, broadening the agendas with special focus on new impactful technologies.

Capacity development of community is critical and growing number of schools on Internet governance is shown to be effective for bringing the IG(F) concept to local communities and integrating it.

Having firm IGF processes on national and regional levels means firmer and more relevant process on a global level. The global IGF process need to adjust to become more effective and come up with concrete recommendation.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

The IGF is seen as a unique carrier of the multistakeholder discussion and engagement process for Internet governance under the auspices of the UN. It has to improve its working modalities to show concretely the effectiveness of the implementation of the multistakeholder process.
Global IGF is only strong as its principles are accepted and integrated on local levels. This is why the IGF processes on national and regional levels are of critical importance for a stronger and long term sustainable global IGF process. Finally, the global IGF has to continue to improve, and produce concrete recommendation for public Internet policy. The recommendation of the President Macron made during the Opening Ceremony of the 2018 IGF should be considered.

- Please estimate the total number of participants: 300-400

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 150-200

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? Session did underline the importance of stakeholder engagement in the multistakeholder process, and achieving full inclusive process of everyone.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs): Not applicable.

IGF 2018 GCSC Panel Report

- Session Type:

Panel

- Title:

IGF 2018 Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace

- Date & Time:

Monday, 12 November 2018 – 13:30 to 15:00

- Organizer:

The Global Commission for the Stability of Cyberspace

- Chair/Moderator:

Chaired by Marina Kaljurand, Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) and former Foreign Minister of Estonia;

Michael Chertoff, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC), Co-founder and Executive Chairman at the Chertoff Group, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security;

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Louk Faesen and Elliot Mayhew

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

1. Michael Chertoff, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC), Co-founder and Executive Chairman at the Chertoff Group, former Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Male)

1. Marina Kaljurand, Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC) and former Foreign Minister of Estonia (Female)

1. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, Professor Emeritus, University of Aarhus, former ICANN Board Member, and former Special Ambassador of the NETMundial Initiative – GCSC Commissioner (Male)

1. Marietje Schaake, Member of the European Parliament – GCSC Commissioner (Female)

1. Bill Woodcock, Executive Director of Packet Clearing House – GCSC Commissioner (Male)

1. Olaf Kolkman, Chief Internet Technology Officer of Internet Society (ISOC) – GCSC Commissioner (Male)

1. Christopher Painter, Former Coordinator for Cyber Issues in the U.S. State Department – GCSC Commissioner (Male)

1. Anriette Esterhuysen, Director of Global Policy and Strategy, Association for Progressive Communications – GCSC Commissioner (Female)

1. Frederick Douzet, Professor at the French Institute of Geopolitics at Paris 8 University & Chairwoman of the Castex Chair of Cyber Strategy – GCSC Commissioner (Female)

- Theme:

Cybersecurity

- Subtheme:

Norms, Cyberdiplomacy

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

During this panel, GCSC Commissioners presented the work of the Commission on norms, in particular the launch of the GCSC Singapore Norm Package, and asked for feedback from the broader IGF community. The intention was to give a general overview of the work of the GCSC in developing proposals for norms and policies to enhance international security and stability in cyberspace. Of particular interest was the feedback of audience on the 8 norms included in the Singapore Norm Package, which were developed with the express purpose of being adopted by public and private sector actors towards an architecture to improve international security and stability in cyberspace.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was support for the norms in the Singapore Norm Package, and for the process work that the Commission is undertaking to bring together stakeholders in this area. The overarching view was that international peace and security is traditionally a state-driven area, and the initiative of the GCSC to bring other voices, more specifically from the Internet governance and technical community, into this dialogue was widely welcomed. The IGF has traditionally addressed issues from an internet governance perspective, and the approach of the GCSC in implementing their 5-step process – resulting in a final report and actionable recommendations at the end of 2019 – was a refreshing addition to this debate. The contributions of the audience reflected this and questions addressed several aspects of the presentation.

Participants were interested to hear about the individual norms, each of which address a particular issue that the GCSC feels is relevant and poignant in cyberspace not just today, but potentially in the future. Many comments agreed with the position that both state and non-state behaviour should be addressed, and generally those asking questions were inquisitive about the process and justifications behind the inclusion of each norm and how they might  apply to each stakeholder acting within its own context.

Of specific relevance were comments of participants about the nature of the Singapore Norm Package, asking if it was a final document or whether the norms could be further refined and added to subject to comments received by the Commission. This indicated that there was significant interest of those consulted to contribute to the mission of the GCSC, which was seen as a positive and encouraging development.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Stakeholder engagement is a core part of the advocacy mission of the GCSC, and the IGF Panel reinforced this. The general positivity of the comments towards the norms themselves was welcomed, though the desire to provide further input prompted the Commission to launch an online Request for Consultation at https://cyberstability.org/news/request-for-consultation-norm-package-singapore/.

The GCSC will continue with its preparations for updating the Singapore Norm Package according to any feedback its receives. The IGF Panel also provided valuable knowledge and experience for conducting these forms of engagement in the future. This lent further input into the events and occasions at which the GCSC might look to present its work over the course of the next year.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

The GCSC has had the honor to present its work at the IGF in previous years, and believes continued engagement with this community on issues pertaining to international peace and security is crucial. The unique exchange of views and outcomes of these activities was testament to this.

The objective of the GCSC is to reach as many stakeholders as possible with its recommendations and ideas that contribute towards this are very much welcomed.

Other ideas related to further delineating the scope of the norms, in particular how they apply to the stakeholders whom they address and further outlining the next steps for the Commission and how this relates to the work done so far for international peace and security in cyberspace. Further explanation and engagement in this regard will go a long way to ensuring the effective participation of other actors and ensuring the lasting effect of the Commission’s contributions.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

The estimated total number of participants was 50

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

In addition to the gender balance of the Panel, the number of women was approximately 40% of the audience

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The discussion did not directly address gender issues, although there was an even gender balance in the Panel itself. The GCSC feels that the  adequate representation of women is important and the Commission has several members that are noted for their positions on these matters.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

Website of the GCSC

https://cyberstability.org/

Announcement of Singapore Norm Package

https://cyberstability.org/news/global-commission-introduces-six-critical-norms-towards-cyber-stability/

Singapore Norm Package

https://cyberstability.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/GCSC-Singapore-Norm-Package-3MB.pdf

Request for Consultation on the Norm Package

https://cyberstability.org/research/request-for-consultation-norm-package-singapore/

Future meeting of the GCSC in Geneva

https://cyberstability.org/news/gcsc-meeting-in-geneva-hosted-by-the-united-nations-institute-for-disarmament-research-unidir/

IGF 2018 Long report

Human Rights, Gender and Youth Main Session

Session Type:  Main Session

Title: “The importance of human rights as a direct link to Gender, Youth and Equality”

Date: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018       Time: 16:30 to 17:50

Organizers:

Renata Aquino Ribeiro - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

June Parris - MAG member - Private Sector - LAC

Adama Jallow - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

Miguel Candia Ibarra - MAG member - Government - LAC

Jutta Croll - MAG member - Civil Society - WEOG

Lianna Galstyan - MAG member - Civil Society - AP

Zeina Bhouharb - MAG member - Government - AP

On site Moderator/Timekeeper:

Claudio Lucena - professor State University of Paraíba (UEPB/Brazil)

Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Renata Aquino Ribeiro - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

June Parris - MAG member - Private Sector - LAC

Adama Jallow - MAG member - Civil Society - LAC

Jutta Croll - MAG member - Civil Society - WEOG

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations :

John Carr -  Male - Researcher and Online Child Safety Consultant. London United Kingdom. - WEOG

Marianne Franklin - Giganet - WEOG- Female

Minda Moreira -  Female - DC Internet Rights and Principles - WEOG

Lillian Nalwoga - President Internet Society Uganda Chapter and CIPESA - Africa - Female

Viviane Vinagre - Pre-law, gender activist - GRULAC.

Nidhi Goyal - Activist, Trainer & Researcher: Disability Rights & Gender Justice - India - Female.

Olga Cavalli - Gender Activist and Government Stakeholder - Argentina - Female.

Madeline McSherry - Public Affairs Lead, UN Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation - Female.

Remote Moderator:

Joy Wathagi  - Vice President of the Digital Grassroots- Kenya - Female.

Theme:  The importance of human rights as a direct link to Gender, Youth and Equality”.

Subthemes: Child Online Safety, Cyber Crime, Democracy, Digital Citizenship, Freedom Of Expression Online,  Online Expression, Gender Equality, Internet & Societal Challenges, Open Access, Refugees, Youth Inclusion.

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1) Human rights includes everyone. In the internet governance landscape, it is essential the protection of human rights online through strengthening policies which affect and do not exclude the physically challenged (disabled), youth, older citizens and gender balance in internet policy making.

2) The importance of using the Internet as a networking platform was also highlighted on in essences as a platform to connect people easily regardless of social, economical and physical limitations. Putting into account we all shared the same values, norms and problems and need to connect with one another.

3) The discussion also highlighted on the importance of  including those experiencing domestic abuse, child online abuse, child pornography and online bullying from all across the world on that note it was highlighted reachout to areas with vulnerable children with limited or no access to resources and susceptible to child prostitution and trafficking in places like refugee camps and underserved regions.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Introduction - Session Description

The protection and promotion of Human Rights, achieving Gender Equality and securing Youth policies for the present and next generation is in the core of the international arena, and Internet Governance is not a foreign field for that argument. Human Rights online need to be protected and guaranteed as they are applicable both online and offline, for the human conflicts are not lost in the online expression of our lives. Women and girls account for half of the world’s population and inclusive policies that ensure access for women, girls, boys and men without any distinction are needed to take humanity to a standardized level of digital literacy and to end conflicts, so to find a interconnected future which is equal to all.

This is why this main session will brought different stakeholder perspectives on how internet governance directly intersects with pressing issues on the themes human rights, gender and youth. Intergovernmental organizations, civil society groups, government representatives, academia, business stakeholders were balanced in the speakers list. The innovative format of this session was a simpler version of a "fishbowl" debate. With an extensive amount of perspectives this was one of the most comprehensive and democratic main session the IGF has ever seen.

Session Format

The format of the discussion was fishbowl inspired and 1 extra chair was added besides the speakers, so that members of the audience can also make interventions on the same level as the speakers. The format was presented by Civil Society MAG member and organizer Renata Aquino Ribeiro.

Areas of agreement and disagreement

An area of agreement was the broad support for one of of speakers who is physically challenged and was able to add to the debate in a positive way. There was also a blind participant in the audience who brought disabilities to the forefront. The discussion was diverse but everyone tending to agree on the same thing, Human rights and inclusion for all members of society. We were happy to have a youth representative to speak on behalf of the Youth. Inclusion is a part of Human rights and we have managed to do just that.

An area of disagreement was whether enough consideration is given to the inclusion of gender and youth and the disabled is happening along with also considering how to take use the internet with responsibility.

Policy questions and discussions

The session was initiated by the moderator Mr Claudio Lucena, Professor, Law Faculty at Paraíba State University (UEPB). He reminded speakers to the initial policy questions which would guide the discussion, focusing on the intersectionality of internet governance and human rights. These were the policy questions:

1. How do the themes human rights, gender and youth intersect with internet governance primarily?

2. What has been done so far in this thematic intersectional debate that should be highlighted in terms of policy?

3. What is urgently lacking in this thematic intersectional debate that should be formulated, publicized or adopted as policy?

4. How can stakeholders collaborate more to ensure this thematic intersectional debate thrives despite changes or specific laws in their countries?

5. What should be the regional concerns for policies in this thematic intersectional debate that stakeholders should always keep in mind when formulating, publicizing or adopting policy?

The panelists brought different views which were summarized by the Diplo report authored by Aida Mahmutovic (References section).

Ms Madeline McSherry, Secretariat, High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, brought three messages from the public consultations:

• The importance of focusing on human rights, while attending to human agency. This means talking about access, but also thinking about agency;

• A clear avoidance of ‘tech solutionism’, ensuring ‘we talk about how we can leverage tech for good’;  

• A return to analog structures for the protection of human rights.

Mr John Carr, Researcher on Child Online Abuse, ECPA International, highlighted both ‘the most horrible things that can happen to children anywhere on or off the Internet’ and positive possibilities that technology can offer to children, in particular children in underrepresented and marginal groups. The Internet is the only way children can access information about their rights, assert those rights, gain information about health, etc. He stressed that while ‘everybody said Net Mundial was the best expression of Internet governance principles to have emerged from human endeavour,’ no mention was made of a child in the Net Mundial statement, because no children's organizations were present in the room, and ‘others came with their own agendas.’

Ms Marianne Franklin, Educator, Giganet, noted that noticeable transformations are occurring in the higher education sector, in high schools, in primary schools, and in kindergartens, as a result of a ‘technology push’, which means both marketing and selling tools and platforms to ‘a generation that is used to going online as a matter of course.’ She also noted the right to education on and about the Internet, as well as the right to culture and access to knowledge, which is currently often based online. Finally, she sent the message to all: ‘Let people make their own minds up, whether they're three, whether they're thirteen, whether they're twenty-tree, or ninety-three.’

Ms Minda Moreira, Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles, welcomed the presence of human rights, gender, and youth topics at the main session at the IGF. All of these are important issues that have been discussed within the IGF community over the last decade. Moreira said that a safe and protected environment needs to ‘go hand in hand with empowerment.’ Empowering young people is an important focus. The right to access information needs to be fully enabled, as well as the right to voice to share ideas in an online environment free from hate speech, bullying, and disproportionate data collection.  

Ms Lilian Nalwoga, gender activist, spoke about the importance of bringing more women online. She wondered how to get more women into policy discussions. She stressed that a lot of gender-based violence online has not been appropriately addressed. She highlighted a good practice example of ‘Wiki Loves Women’ activity in March 2018, which aimed to profile successful and prominent women. It is important to find strategies to bring more women online, not just to engage in policies, but as a practical step to ensuring safe and meaningful participation.  

Ms Viviane Vinagre, Gender activist, spoke about the North America Summit, a forum like an IGF, which is multistakeholder system and which debates about the inclusion of women and girls into science, research, technological areas, and the Internet. The Summit provides lecturers in schools who teach women about human rights ‘so they know what they can fight for.’ The topics include cyber-bullying, hate speech, freedom of expression, and other subjects important for the community. She noted that it was a surprise to see the lack of information, principally in Brazil, especially in certain places where ‘they have no idea of how important the Internet is.’

Nidhi Goyal, Activist for Young Women with Disabilities, reported that in the Millennium Development Goals disability was not mentioned, while in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), disability has been specifically mentioned in goal 5. She thinks that while SDGs aim to ‘leave no one behind’, specific inclusions are still important in addressing rights of marginalized groups. Sensitivity in shared principles is important if we want to see gender, youth, and intersections included. ‘Inclusion has to become the norm,’ Goyal concluded.

Ms Olga Cavalli, Senior Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Argentina, said that with the Internet, society has gained new voices, different ways of expressing ideas, and new revolutions that can happen only through social networks. With the Internet came freedom to communicate, freedom to learn, freedom to speak, as well as access to information that did not exist before. However, she stated that ‘from declaration to action’ is a long journey.

Interventions by the audience

There were a series of interventions by the audience onsite and online. The participants were from the IGF community and some newcomers too. We had participants from the BPFs, the DCs and workshops related to the theme, as well as IGF Village organization representatives voicing their views. In the end of the session the moderator reminded of the initial policy questions and summarized the three key messages for this session. During the session the use of the tag #HRGenderYouth was encouraged and other notes from IGF Social Media Guide.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

We should include easier access for blind, deaf and those that are physically challenged. Support for wheelchairs access, lifts and sign language.We should also remember that Gender includes men, they should not be left out, as men do suffer gender bias, domestic abuse and human rights issues, they also need support.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

Earlier preparation with discussions with the host countries and MAG, include the public. To the improve online/remote participation and interventions through multilingual mechanisms. Support of Braille printed material and sign language. Involve more online participants with good linkage potential, send out emails to groups just prior to the session to give them time to log on. Educate the interested groups and participants. Using online links, some of them could not log on or connect or had issues speaking on the session.

Please estimate the total number of participants:

An estimated number of 200, including online participants. If we look at the rooms capacity the room was more than half full, some participants entered the room at various parts of the session.

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

More than half of the audience. We were happy to see that so many men shared an interest.

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

It was a core part of the discussion and it intersected with all the other themes present in the session, it connected to intersessional activities related and will feed into several outcomes. It was important that the discussion cover all aspects of Human rights, and it did so. The  panelists were varied and represented a wide range of problems and topics which added substance to the session.

This session was a huge success. Not just in the IGF community but amount other groups around the world. Barbados as an example where groups such as ‘Save Foundation, Life in Leggings and Say no to online abuse’ are active in the community. Out of this session groups that fight Human rights know that they have support from the UN and other NGOs. It is easy to feel like you are the only person out there who cares, but now interested parties know they have support. We not only have to look at all gender, but all those who face abuse in any forms. They rights of the child are also so important. Children are not always seen as important in the community, but, children of today are the adults of tomorrow. The main session was important and served a beneficial purpose.

References

Session on main schedule

https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2018-human-rights-gender-youth

Diplo report

https://dig.watch/sessions/human-rights-gender-youth

IGF Chair Draft Summary

https://www.intgovforum.org/filedepot_download/6037/1414

Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation

For each issue area covered during this session we have recorded input on the following questions:

1. What are values that digital cooperation should aspire to?

Human Rights, Gender and Youth online should be in the core of digital cooperation. Involving stakeholders on these debates and their intersectionality with internet governance is the road which needs to be taken to develop digital cooperation and strengthen partnerships in accordance to SDGs.

2. What are principles that digital cooperation should follow?

Transparency, communication and respect online should be on the principles of digital cooperation when issues like Human Rights, Gender and Youth are tackled. For child online issues, this is even more important as sometimes an intermediary (i.e. a parent sharing pictures of their children) is the actor in the process who is pivotal to how this dialogue will evolve.

3. Which digital cooperation mechanisms were mentioned during the session?

The internet as a network of support but also a reference for organizations and public policies knowledge database was emphasized by speakers. Several reports by intergovernmental organizations, governments, civil society groups and others were mentioned for consultation and mutual cooperation in new editions.

4. Based on the discussions during the session, how can digital cooperation mechanisms be improved (such as: addressing gaps in existing mechanisms, developing a cross-silo approach, increasing inclusiveness)?

The balance in multistakeholder dialogue was especially focused during the session, emphasizing the need for more gender balance in internet governance. The participation of women, young or with disabilities or non-binary gender, was indicated as a path that must be encouraged for all stakeholders in the dialogue.

5. Please indicate any other aspect related to digital cooperation that could be of relevance for the Panel’s deliberation

Considering youth and child online issues also means examining future possibilities, such as data gathered from those unable yet to understand the terms and permissions of applications and artificial intelligence tools and the possibilities to come. Education in technology as a key to internet governance and an intersectional view were ways forward presented in the discussion to increase digital cooperation.

Please click here for our long report in PDF format

-Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Special session

- Title:

Session of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network  

- Date & Time:

Tuesday, November 13, 2018, 1:30-3pm

- Organizer(s):

Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

- Chair/Moderator:

Bertrand de La Chapelle, Executive Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

Paul Fehlinger, Deputy Director of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Xavier Guyot de Camy, Project Officer, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

The session is a special format and thus did not have formal speakers or a panel. The Coordinators of the thematic Multistakeholder Contact Groups of the Internet & Jurisdiction were asked by the Secretariat to take the floor and update IGF participants on the work underway.

Among the discussants were:

-       Bertrand de La Chapelle, Executive Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

-       Paul Fehlinger, Deputy Director, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

-       Robert Young, Legal Counsel, Canada – Department of Global Affairs (and Coordinator of the Data & Jurisdiction Contact Group)

-       Wolfgang Schulz, Director, Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (and Coordinator of the Content & Jurisdiction Contact Group)

-       Maarten Botterman, Director of GNKS Consult and Board Director, ICANN (and Coordinator of the Domains & Jurisdiction Contact Group)

-       Rudolf Gridl, Head of Internet Governance Division, Germany – Department of Economic Affairs and Energy

-       Luisa Paez, Policy Advisor, Canada – Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

- Theme (as listed here):

• Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy
• Evolution of Internet Governance
• Development, Innovation & Economic Growth
• Human Rights

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Development, Innovation & Economic Growth

• Big Data

Human Rights

• Cybercrime
• Freedom of Expression

Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

• Data privacy & protection
• Internet of Things?
• Legal & Regulatory Issues

Evolution of Internet Governance

• Broadening stakeholder participation in internet governance
• Multistakeholderism

Technical & Operational Questions

• Domain Name System

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

The session of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network had two main objectives:

1. To inform about the outcomes of the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, which was organized in partnership with the Government of Canada on February 26-28, 2018, in Ottawa, and institutionally supported by the OECD, Council of Europe, UNESCO, European Commission and ICANN.
2. To update on the progress of the three multistakeholder Contact Groups that were set up to implement the Ottawa Roadmap. Over 100 stakeholders from all five continents currently work in the Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction, and Domains & Jurisdiction Contact Groups to develop proposals for operational solutions and policy standards. The result of their work will be released in April 2019 for deliberations, and serve as input for the 3rd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network on June 3-5, 2019, which is organized in partnership with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

This session allowed the I&J Secretariat to report upon the outcomes of the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, held in Ottawa, Canada, on February 26-28, 2018, and to present progress made since in the three programs of Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction, and Domains & Jurisdiction. Discussants and participants highlighted the importance of jurisdictional issues online, and expressed support for the ongoing work organized within the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network. In particular, the participants emphasized the significance of the three multistakeholder Contact Group, whose objective is to develop proposals for operational solutions, to be tabled at the 3rd Global Conference of the Policy Network, in organized in partnership with Germany’s Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs and Energy in Berlin, on June 3-5, 2019.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

The session’s objective was to inform participants about the outcomes of the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, and update on the progress of the policy development activities organized by the I&J Secretariat. No formal policy recommendations or suggestions were therefore endorsed formally during the session. Participants expressed strong support for the continued relevance and importance of the work conducted through the Contact Groups and Working Groups of the Policy Network, within the three Programs of Data & Jurisdiction, Content & Jurisdiction and Domains & Jurisdiction.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

In general, it was highlighted at the 2nd Global Conference of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network that more cooperation and policy coherence on jurisdictional issues in cyberspace is urgently needed. The IGF is a crucial moment for different stakeholders to gather, exchange, and coordinate. Moreover, the outcomes on concrete policy standards and operational solutions of the 3rd Global Conference in Berlin will be presented at the 2019 UN IGF to reach broader levels of recognition and traction.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 120 participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 50 women.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session did not specifically discuss gender issues. The purpose of the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network is to address the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet and national jurisdictions, in order to preserve the cross-border nature of the internet, protect human rights, fight abuses, and enable the global digital economy. The Secretariat strives to fulfil this public interest mission through processes with geographical and gender balances, as all outcomes are intended to benefit all people, regardless of gender or origin.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Lightning Session

- Title: Empowering women through Digital Markets: the case of Ayitic Goes Global

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 13:20 to 13:40

- Organizer(s):

Development and Cooperation Manager, Laura, KAPLAN, Technical Community, LACNIC

Head of Strategic Relations and Integration, Kevon, SWIFT, Technical Community, LACNIC

Coordinator of Development Projects, Carolina, CAEIRO, Technical Community, LACNIC

Development Projects Assistant, Beatriz, IRISARRI, Technical Community, LACNIC

- Presenter: Carolina Caeiro

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Kevon Swift

- Theme (as listed here):  Human Rights, Gender and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

This session presented an overview of Ayitic Goes Global and lessons to date. The goal of this joint LACNIC/IDRC initiative is to bridge young Haitian women from disadvantaged backgrounds with online employment opportunities.

The Project is a pilot program to test whether online work can offer sustainable livelihoods for women in Haiti and what type of capacity building it takes to get women from disadvantaged backgrounds participating in the digital economy. The program has trained its first cohort with an 86% graduation rate and is beginning to work with these women in applying for jobs online. The goal is to train a total of 300 women.
 

The discussion with the audience developed around how to effectively work with graduates from the online trainings in making their first steps in online employment and the challenges of going from a training to actually performing jobs.

IGF 2018 Report
Lightning Session #12
“Women’s Empowerment through ICTs”

- Session Title:
Women’s Empowerment through ICTs 
-    Date: November 13, 2018

- Time: 13:40pm – 14:00pm (Lightning session)

-    Session Organizer:
Lima Madomi, TechWomen.Asia (Civil Society)

-    Chair/Moderator:
Maria Beebe, Ph.D. Portland State University (Academia) 

-    Rapporteur/Notetaker:

- List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:
Maria Beebe, Ph.D. TechNation (Private Sector)
Osama Manzar. Digital Empowerment, India (Civil Society)
Lima Madomi/Anastacia Sendrea. TechWomen.Asia (Civil Society) 

-    Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

•    ICT matters for gender equality. 
•    Gender equality requires elimination of discrimination against women, ending violence against women and children, including human trafficking, and ending harmful practices against children, including forced and early marriage and female genital mutilation.
•    Gender equality issues are complex and need multi-stakeholder collaboration. 

-    If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

The presentation is summarized in the discussion below. 

-    Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

•    Why does ICT matter for gender equality? Ignite global fund for women.org provides a good visual and summary. Technology reflects the people who make it, currently most technology is designed by MEN. Women have less access to technology. For example, in 2013, the gap between men and women’s access to Internet was 200 million. In 2016, the estimate is 350 million. A two-fold increase in only 3 years. In many parts of the world, women are 21% less likely to own a mobile phone. Finally, ignite indicates that: Teams that include women are smarter, faster and more innovative. Women-led companies show a 21% ROI compared to men-led. If 600 million additional women and girls were online, the boost to GDP would be 18 billion. ICT can give women access to basic needs such as healthcare and education. The private sector plays a pivotal role in investing in community-oriented training, deploying infrastructure and delivering a wide range of ICT services to meet these needs. But there are obstacles and challenges, in part because of discrimination against women and girls. Which brings us to our second key message:  To achieve gender equality, the SDGs set several Goal 5 Targets. Given the time limitation only the first three targets were discussed: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere; Eliminate all forms of violence against all women (VAW) and girls in the public and private spheres, including trafficking, sexual slavery, forced labor, and surrogate childbearing, organ harvesting, and other types of exploitation; and Eliminate all harmful practices, such as early and forced marriage and female genital mutilation. Case studies from Afghanistan, India, and the Philippines were shared.
•    India is a country where connectivity and Internet usage is skewed. While the country has a privilege to have the third largest Internet penetration it also has a paradox of having almost 80 percent population yet to be connected. Talking about women participation in the connected world, there are more than 92 percent rural women do not even have access to mobile devices or mobile connectivity. Besides, 72 percent of all women in India do not have access to mobile. Yet there is a huge population of women who are connected to the cyber world and while they are empowered through being connected they also face various online challenges like discrimination, violence and hate speeches. The discrimination against women to get them into digital inclusiveness is largely because of patriarchal practices in India where all digital devices first accessed or provided to males or brothers or fathers or sons. From the experiences of the large-scale work of digital empowerment foundation (DEF) in India it has been learnt that young girls and women either do not have access to Internet and mobile or they get second chance or opportunity after a lot of subjugation. In the meanwhile, since women get trolled online more than men, Ministry of Women and Child Development in India have created a helpline called “I am Trolled” helpline to enable anyone to report cases of trolling and online violence that may be affecting women and children. During the period from July 2016 to November 2017, they had received 97 complains. Besides DEF who does large scale digital literacy across India including women and adolescent girls, has incorporated special module on safety and security online and also how to tackle fake news and misinformation. One of the major examples as a government initiative is using aadhaar or unique ID as a mechanism to find missing children. Additionally, Ministry of Home Affairs has made IPC 153A expanded to include punishment for hate speech to strengthen legislation and safety to women and children online.

•    Women in Afghanistan have less access to justice, legal remedies, and compensation for crimes suffered. In Afghanistan, the most prevalent form of violence against women is domestic violence. Early marriage results in the exclusion of girls from education and limits future opportunities in the labor market. Under-age girls married to older men often have no negotiating leverage in family planning and early fertility is a major cause of childbirth complications and maternal mortality. 

•    Addressing gender equality needs multi-stakeholder collaboration. An example from the Philippines showed how different stakeholders could help end violence against women. For the woman/girl, empowerment, knowing their rights, speaking out and reporting to authorities, encouraging others to fight for their rights. For the men/boy, respecting women and girls at home, workplace, and community; joining male groups promoting anti-VAW efforts, enlightening perpetrators to seek help, etc. Other stakeholders, such as government agencies, local governments, private sector, and academia have their roles and responsibilities to fulfill. 

-    Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

•    A participant asked about the issue of anonymity when reporting on violence against women in countries like Afghanistan.
•    The moderator noted that in addressing violence against women with technology, another problem crops up, as in technology-based violence against women.
•    Several participants at the end of the session wanted to know how to partner up with TechWomen.Asia.

Gender Reporting

-    Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

There were approximately 30 total participants

-    Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 15 participants were women. The panel itself was gender balanced, with two out of three speakers being women.

-    To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?
-    If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The whole session focused on women’s empowerment and why ICT matters.

IGF 2018

After Lightning Session Report

-Session Title:

“Two Networks That Expand Internet Assess: A Unique Illustration at Work Today”

- Date: Tuesday, 13 November 2018

- Time: 1400-1420

-Session Organizer:

Garland T. McCoy, President, Technology Education Institute

-Chair/Moderator:

Garland T. McCoy, President, Technology Education Institute

-Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Marina Polachek, iSchool Syracuse University

-List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Lee McKnight, Associate Professor, iSchool Syracuse University, Academia, USA

Sara Weber, Director, Employer & Corporate Relations, Syracuse University, Academia, USA

Paul Rowney, Technical Advisor, Adaptrum, Inc., Technical Community, Namibia

- Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

• Speakers detailed how both power/electricity and access connectivity were critically interdependent
• Speakers explored how their synergistic effects are essential to finish the job of bringing Internet access to the remaining billions as most live in rural areas beyond the reach of both network infrastructures.
• Importance of looking beyond the silos and examine how technology advancements in both access and electricity generation and capture have created opportunities to accelerate the campaign of universal access even in very challenging rural environments in developing countries.

If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

• There was time for only one presentation and that was of the Internet Backpack developed by Professor Lee McKnight at Syracuse University with National Science Foundation funding and designed to generate electricity, store the power and bring Internet access to rural areas where the challenges that need to be addressed are in both networks, power generation/storage and access.

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

            As this was a Lighting Session there was little time for robust discussions. That said there was discussion regarding the applications of the Internet Backpack and other similar “tools” that address both network needs (electricity and access) unique to rural areas in developing countries.

Gender Reporting

- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

There were approximately 20 total participants

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 10 participants were women and of the three presenters for the Lightning Session one was a women.

• If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

As women are largely the educators both in the schools/classrooms and later at home overseeing homework , bringing to their lives both Internet access and electricity will have a huge and direct benefit to their lives and to the lives of their families and communities.

Session Title: How blockchain can impact the Internet

Date: November 13th, 2018

Time: 14:20 – 14:40

Session Organizer: Walid Al-Saqaf , Södertörn University (Academia)

Chair/Moderator: N/A

Rapporteur/Notetaker: N/A

List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

- Walid Al-Saqaf,  Södertörn University-Stockholm (Academia, Europe)
- Renata Aquino Ribeiro, Internet Society Blockchain Special Interest Group (Civil Society, Latin America and Caribbean)

Three Key Issues to be raised

• There are misconceptions about blockchain and no clear link to how they could impact the Internet since most of the public knowledge appears to focus too narrowly on the cryptocurrency aspect connected to FinTech only

• Public blockchains have clear characteristics that make them stand out compared to traditional database systems. Those are decentralisation (being fully distrupted), immutability and transparency

• Theoretically, many areas that could benefit from any of those three characteristics would also find value in using blockchain in comparison to other centralized, hackable and black-box database structures.

Presentation:

Walid Al-Saqaf made a brief presentation describing the origins of the blockchain techology by highlighting the fact that it emerged from the creation of bitcoin and became more widely known for to its disruptive nature in allowing financial transactions across the Internet with ease and without the need for an intermediary such as a bank or an exchange/transfer service. The presentation referred to the three main characteristics of blockchains, namely their distributed nature, transparency and immutability, which in turn facilitated a number of use cases from financial transactions to real estate and property registration and from countering fake news and disinformation to tracking IoT-based supply chains.

Discussions:

Since this is a lightning talk session, there was only one point raised by a participant on the potential use of blockchain technology to counter disinformation and expose human rights violations in places of severe conflict. Walid answered by noting that Truepic is one application that uses the bitcoin blockchain to store hashes of pictures and videos in a way that proves provenance since the app also adds meta data such as the geolocation of the image/video, the type of mobile phone used and the software used to take the photo. 

Participant suggestions:

There were no suggestions from participants on the way forward but the speaker highlighted the ongoing work done by him and a co-author Malin Picha Edwardsson of Södertörn University (https://sh.se) in publishing a scientific paper on how blockchain is used to promote quality journalism and confront disinformation. He invited the attendees to contact him for potential collaboration. He also noted efforts by the Internet Society Blockchain Special Interest Group (https://isoc-bsig.org)  in connecting Internet governance issues to blockchain technology.

Estimate of the number of attendees: 15 persons

Estimate of the number of women: 7 persons

Discussion around gender equality and/or women’s empowerment: 

The session did not address the issue of gender equality or women's empowerment directly. But it highlighted the use case of blockchain in enabling journalism to fight disinformation and abuse of the Internet in propagating violent content, which may in turn limit some of the damage to women.

Format: Lightning Session - 20 Min

Title: Internet Platforms, Sexual Content, and Child Protection

Date and time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 14:40 to 15:00

Theme: Human Rights, Gender, and Youth

Subtheme: Child Online Safety

Organizer: Prostasia Foundation

Speaker: Craig Harper, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]: 

1. Pedophilia and sexual interests in children are particularly prevalent in mainstream society
2. Social isolation and stigmatization are risk factors for sexually abusive behavior
3. Internet companies and social media platforms can play an important role in the prevention of sexual abuse

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence: Although encouraged to do so, participants did not ask any questions or contribute towards discussion.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps: This session will lead into a workshop that Prostasia Foundation will be holding in May 2019 at the offices of Patreon in San Francisco. The event will be a private expert-led seminar and discussion with Internet platforms, along with representatives from marginalized stakeholder groups who are traditionally excluded from such discussions. From this event, a self-selected working group will be formed to work online to synthesize the learnings of the event in a draft, non-normative best practices document. A multi-stakeholder facilitated deliberation will then be held to further distill this draft document into a series of normative recommendations. 

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? A follow-up workshop will be proposed for the Berlin IGF in 2019 which will report back on the progress made since this initial event. 

Please estimate the total number of participants: 10

Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 0

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? Child sexual abuse is a gendered problem, affecting about 4 times as many girls as boys. Equally, the perpetrators of child sexual abuse are predominantly male bodied, and men are also more likely to be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder. The session examined the scientific evidence behind the causes of paraphilias that can contribute towards rates of child sexual offending.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): IGF 2018 LIGHTNING SESSION #16

- Title: Convention 108+ in the Digital Era

- Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 15:00 – 15:20

- Organizer(s): Council of Europe Data Protection Unit

- Chair/Moderator: Peter Kimpian

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Peter Kimpian

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Steve DelBianco, President of NetChoice, and leader at IGF-USA

Ayden Férdeline, Fellow, Mozilla Foundation

Alex Comninos, APC, VOUS.AI

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Data Privacy & Protection

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

The rights to privacy and data protection are universal human rights which must be respected throughout the world under every circumstance. For this we need solid, agile, modern, and robust international legal instruments and a workable and meaningful international cooperation which takes national specificities into account, notably when it comes to the level of privacy when using free internet-based services, the burden national legislation can impose on data subjects, and on countries’ capacities in safeguarding and enforcing privacy regulation. Flexibility in implementation should be ensured while an appropriate level of privacy and respect should be guaranteed throughout the internet to safeguard individuals against harm. Innovation and competition are key for the future of the internet and the services offered on it, so regulation should be kept at an appropriate level which does not disproportionately impact those positive processes.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

It has been discussed that compared to other jurisdictions, in the US over 2 in 3 consumers say that they trust tech platforms either somewhat or a great deal, and it seems to be clear that Americans appreciate the model of FREE services supported by ads, and are not significantly concerned about privacy when they see targeted ads[1].

Ayden Férdeline (Mozilla Fellow) advised that personal and sensitive information should not be used to manipulate individuals, and said existing data protection regulations do not succeed at safeguarding this data because they typically place the burden of protecting privacy on to individuals themselves. Most people can articulate few specific preferences about data practices because all they want is something very simple: not to be taken advantage of. He noted that in other sectors, like the automobile sector, the expectation is that industry will perform the risk assessment and protect individuals. He called upon data controllers to provide their data subjects with a reasonable baseline of respect.

In African continent where 18 countries have privacy legislation already, security often undermines data protection and privacy considerations. There are alarming trends in intercepting communications which go across border that need to be tackled. Assisting countries in enacting privacy laws and parallel empowering DPAs and strengthening the capacities for enforcement of privacy legislation are seen as urgent matters.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

To promote international standards on privacy and personal data protection

To contribute that an appropriate level of privacy and respect is guaranteed throughout the internet to safeguard individuals against harm

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

To take into consideration international legal instruments when discussing rights to privacy and personal data protection

To ensure a better understanding of national, regional specificities as regards to the right to privacy and personal data protection

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

15

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

9

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

There was no gender issues discussed during the session

IGF 2018 Report Template

- Session Type:  Lightening Session   

- Title:  ICANN and Capacity Building in Underserved Regions

- Date & Time:  Wednesday, 14^th November; 2018

- Organizer                            ICANN

- Chair/Moderator:          Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board); Technical Community  

- Rapporteur:                       Nigel Hickson

- Speaker:                               

- Theme:                                  Domain Name System / Capacity Building

Key Messages

1. That effective participation in the multi-stakeholder process (at ICANN) is enhanced through a level of knowledge in processes and practices which capacity building programmes allow;

2. That capacity building, whether in underserved or developed regions, is an on-going, and not a one-off process; it is part of a successful and inclusive multi-stakeholder policy development and assessment;

3. That the ICANN programme, targeting mainly government officials in the underserved regions, has been successful in enhancing GAC contributions, from the relevant regions, as well as enhancing generally knowledge about ICANN,

Overall Dialogue

The Lightening Session has a duration of 20 minutes and took place in an open area within UNESCO, and thus with a partly transient audience.  At any one time, there were 10-15 participants.

After Nigel Hickson called the session to order Lito Ibarra (ICANN Board Member) went through a brief presentation in which he outlined the objectives of this unique capacity building programme. It was initiated in January 2017 to strengthen diversity and lower barriers to participation in ICANN by governments. The objective was to increase meaningful participation of GAC members from under-served regions (USR). Since this GAC consists of a large number of countries which are facing different local challenges, it has been decided to adopt a regional approach in order to deliver the most appropriate content to the concerned GAC Representatives.  The approach aimed at fostering collaboration and promoting sharing amongst countries of ideas and actions to achieve regional objectives. The project had a duration of 18 months and included eight regionals workshops held in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, the Caribbean and Latin America, and the Pacific (the last in Panama at ICANN62). He went over the types of stakeholders attracted to each workshop (generally government staff made up 70% of delegates) and the range of material delivered. He noted that while the ICANN Organisation had coordinated the delivery they were greatly aided by Board and ICANN Community members. He outlined some of the key messages that came out of the process, including the problems of turnover of GAC personnel (this as a result of both staff turnover and machinery of government changes) and the complexity of the ICANN environment.

In discussion

·      Where next programmes may take part; was noted that further developments of the Programme were awaiting GAC consideration and were subject to budgetary considerations;   

·      The case for including, in the capacity building programme, sessions on IP rights; was noted this could be part of Community led sessions (say on on-going PDP processes);

Key Points from Presentation and Discussion

1. The need for a continuation of this ICANN initiative; success cannot be sustained without an evolutionary approach to capacity building;  

2. The potential for broadening out ICANN capacity building to include key Internet issues which impact on ICANN.

Participants

There were around 15 participants

Estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 5 of the participants were women

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

There were no specific gender issues discussed.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Lightning Session 19

- Title: Improving the Security of Consumer IoT: A New Code of Practice

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 13:20 to 13:40

- Organizer(s): UK Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)

- Chair/Moderator: Jasper Pandza

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: n/a

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Jasper Pandza, DCMS - Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Internet of Things

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• As we connect more devices in our homes to the internet and as we entrust an increasing amount of personal to online services, the cyber security of these products is now as important as the physical security of our homes.

• In October 2018, the UK Government published a new Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security. Its aim is to support industry with a set of guidelines to ensure products are secure be design and to make it easier for people to stay secure in a digital world.

• The guidelines within the Code of Practice can inform policy interventions on IoT security across the globe.

• Session Type: Lightning Session
• Title: The DNS and children’s rights
• Date & Time: Nov. 12th, 13.00 – 13.20 o’clock
• Organizer(s): John Carr / Jutta Croll
• Chair/Moderator: John Carr
• Rapporteur/Notetaker: Jutta Croll
• List of speakers and their institutional affiliations: John Carr, UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) UKCCIS (male)
• Theme: Human Rights, Gender and Youth
• Subtheme: Child Online Safety

Key issues for the discussion:

1. The Domain Name System is a key part of the infrastructure of the internet
2. It is managed by ICANN with Registrars and Registries as the  principal actors
3. High volumes of child sex abuse images on the internet attributable to failures to police the DNS, particularly in respect of the ownership details  of web sites
4. Only 23% of ownership details accurate i.e. accuracy the exception rather than the rule
5. Self-regulatory initiatives by banking, insurance and pharmaceuticals show an alternative

Three key messages from the discussion

1. ICANN is positioned perfectly well to help fight child sexual abuse imagery at the roots
2. When awarding a contract or license to an entity to become the registry for a country code or generic toplevel domain, ICANN should include clear requirements to have due regard to the best interests of children. Such requirements should cover, for example, a clear prohibition by the registry of the registration or use of any domain name which advertises or suggests that child sexual abuse material may be available on any domain within the registry’s purview and the establishment by the registry of mechanisms to ensure this policy is enforced, including by registrars and registrants, as requested from States by the Council of Europe Guidelines to protect, respect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment (Art. 80) adopted on July 4th, 2018.
3. The Verified Topel Level Domain Consortium should be taken as a model to set up respective procedures supported by funds from ICANN to ensure domains registered under certain generic top level domains do not infringe the rights of the child.

Further information on the session

• Number of paricipants: 15 - 20
• Gender equally represented
• Gender issues discussed in regard of female and male children both affected by CSAM.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  lightninh sessions

- Title: from open data to open algorithms... and back : A French experience

- Date & Time: nov 14th from 14h to 14h20

- Organizer(s): Niels Braley

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Amélie Banzet, head of open government for Etalab, DINSIC, Prime minister office

Maud Choquet, legal advisor, Etalab, DINSIC, Prime minister Office

- Theme (as listed here): emerging technologies

- Subtheme (as listed here): Democracy

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

Since 2011, France has had a very active policy on open data and open government developing a strong legal framework for transparency, accountability and co-creation of public digital resources.

Open data and open government policies contribute to a more open global governance.

In France, the data governance model (led by the national chief data officer), the open data platform data.gouv.fr and a strong legal framework (Law 78-753 of July 1978 on freedom of access to administrative documents; the “Free of charge” Act; and the Digital Republic Act) enabled to set the bases for a key infrastructures such as “reference data” as a public service and the principle of source codes as open data.

The new legal framework for public algorithms enforced the transparency on algorithms that take individual decisions. Moreover, the French implementation of GDPR designed rules for automated decision making. These new rules are complex to implement as they lead to many questions: what is automated decision making? Which public administration use algorithmic treatment? Are the existing practices on algorithm compliant with the law? Should we share just the source code of the algorithm or should there be more explanations added? How to best explain an algorithm? etc.

It is also leading the French administration to prepare the next public algorithms generation and to realize that reinforcing open data is necessary to make AI more accountable, in particular on questions such as gender or racial discrimination.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Public AI and algorithm accountability is necessary to protect our democracy. Citizens should be able to understand when and how automated decisions are taken concerning their lives.

AI and algorithm accountability cannot be done without a strong open data and open source code policy; and an adapted legal framework.  The data and source code used to run the algorithm can be biased, and can include discrimination bias such as gender or racial discrimination. Thus, opening these data and source code is necessary to show transparency, accountability and identify potential bias. In order to design accountable algorithm and IA, the legal framework should set rules on data governance, open data and open source codes.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

IGF ecosystem should promote public algorithm and public AI accountability. It should support the development and exchange of best practices and doctrine on rules that reinforce open data, open source codes that lead to public algorithm and AI accountability.

Many questions still need to be addressed: what is automated decision making? Which public administration use algorithmic treatment and for what reason? Who is developing the algorithms? Who should be entitled to access these algorithms? How can Government make sure that existing algorithms are not distorted? How to audit an algorithm to make sure it corresponds to the legal text?

IGF ecosystem should also work on developing best practices : is transparency of an algorithm source code enough? Should we share the source code or give more explanations? How to best explain an algorithm to citizens? Is it worth it without publishing the related data? Etc.  

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

20

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

70%

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender issues where discussed when talking about IA accountability and fighting AI discrimination, on particular gender and racial discrimination.

IGF 2018 Report for Lightning Session #23

“Frags and Rushes: Esports and the digital competition explosion”

Session link: https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2018-lightning-session-23-frags…

Timeslot: 14 November, 2018 - 14:40 to 15:00

Theme: Evolution of Internet Governance

Organizer: Chung, Jennifer (AP, DotAsia Foundation)

Speakers:

• Datysgeld, Mark (LAC, Governance Primer)
• Camacho, Salvador (LAC, Kalpa Proteccion Digital)

Objective

The session had the purpose of explaining to the IGF audience what Esports, the competitive version of video games, are and what is their relevance to the broader Internet Governance agenda.

Session report

The session began with a historical overview about the origins of Esports and how their growth took place. Mark Datysgeld explained how the practice began in the 1970s but was only made famous when Nintendo started sponsoring competitions between children, something which was featured on the movie The Wizard. Outside of that, most of the focus was on breaking records, as that was a tangible measure of skill in a given game that could be sent to magazines and such.

The scene kicked off for good in the 1990s with Quake, Counter-Strike (shooting genre) and StarCraft (strategy genre). The first big Quake tournament was held in 1997 and its prize was being able to drive the game developer's Ferrari; nowadays the prize pools of the major tournaments are in the millions of dollars’ range, so the progress can be observed in numbers.

The panelists commented on how while in Brazil these games were played in cyber café style places called “LAN houses”, in Mexico the scene was more focused on groups of friends playing locally. Only with the Internet did Esports really kick off, however, as it was the factor that enabled players from different regions to play together, and Eastern Asia saw deployment of the network quite early, which enabled South Korea to take an early lead in Esports, with a massive following of the StarCraft tournaments.

Salvador Camacho commented on how, as time went on, professionalization increased, with the assembly of leagues, associations, and major sponsorship deals. Different genres had their spotlight in different eras, with MOBA games being a hit in the early 2010s, and in the late 2010s we see a move towards so-called battle royale games such as Fortnite and PUBG. These competitive games find great success especially among a younger generation that follows them largely by means of online streaming services

Moderator Jennifer Chung brought to the table two questions that stand out in terms of Internet Governance: the business model and the matter of net neutrality. In terms of business models, it was discussed about how the monetization of games transitioned from a pay-upfront model to one centered around microtransactions.

This model can make games attractive for people initially and generate a more vibrant community, but it affects both the quality of the game and its final cost. As new gameplay modifications have to be introduced constantly to generate revenue, players that want to remain competitive need to continue spending money, only for their investment to be neglected later on because it unbalances the game, and the cycle continues, up to a point where the game saturates and dies off.

As for net neutrality, both players and spectators rely on the stability and predictability of the network order to enjoy matches. A connection with a low ping is key to keeping online matches fair and dynamic, but for that to be achieved, there are many factors that need to be accounted for, ranging all the way from quality of physical connections to the politics around prioritization of packets.

It was brought up that very few industries have the need for such time-sensitive delivery of packets. Ping times of over 100ms are common around the world, but what is considered a good Ping rate for Esports falls below the 30ms range. In that sense, would it be fair to charge extra from the players or from game developers for a prioritized delivery? Or does that ruin one of the great aspects of Esports, which is the horizontality and how almost anybody can become good at them?

While the panelists defended net neutrality, it was exposed how the question is a fair one to ask, and as Esports grow bigger, more competitive, and feature larger prizes, the discussion in bound to pick up steam at some point. Thinking up good ways to design Internet-focused policies that take into consideration gaming should be considered an important part of Internet Governance, and not a tangential footnote as it is in 2018.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Lightning Session

- Title:

Living in Digital Darkness: A Study on Internet Shutdowns in India

- Date & Time:

14th November, 2018 - 15.00-15.20

- Organizer(s):

SFLC.in (Software Freedom Law Centre, India)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Shashank Mohan, Male (Volunteer at SFLC.in - Software Freedom Law Centre, India)

- Theme (as listed here):

Technical & Operational Topics

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet Shutdowns

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1) What are Internet Shutdowns and what is the extent (how many) of such shutdowns in India.

2) What is the impact of Internet Shutdowns in India - on basic human rights, the social fabric and its economic effects.

3) The way ahead.

Short Description.

Governments across the world have been increasingly resorting to Internet shutdowns as a means to control information exchange online. Internet shutdowns are imposed for a number of reasons, though most frequently as a response to law and order breakdowns. The frequent resort to Internet shutdowns, especially in developing countries is a cause for serious concern. Between January 2012 and November, 2018, India has experienced a total of 259 Internet shutdowns. Apart from India, Internet shutdowns have also been reported in over 30 other countries, including Pakistan, Bangladesh, Mynamar, Egypt, Congo, Syria, Sudan, Burundi, Iraq, and Venezuela.

As a non-profit organization working on digital rights, one of SFLC.in’s key drivers is advocating for unhindered access to the Internet for all. In furtherance of this cause, we have been maintaining a dynamic ‘Internet Shutdown Tracker’ - https://www.internetshutdowns.in/ , which documents reported instances of Internet shutdowns in India. Though it primarily relies on published reports, information is also collected directly from residents of affected areas, and this database has become a widely used repository of information on shutdowns. In addition, we recently (May 2018) published a report called - ‘Living in Digital Darkness: A Handbook on Internet Shutdowns in India’, in which we have discussed in detail about how Internet shutdowns have grown in India, the laws and policies that determine their imposition, the problems emanating from such shutdowns and the efforts to tackle the menace of such shutdowns.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence

SFLC.in initiated their discussion by sharing a story about a girl from India who had to skip a year of higher education due to an Internet Shutdown imposed on her locality which did not allow her to fill university applications.

We then moved on to our definition of Internet Shutdowns i.e. a government imposed complete suspension of access to the Internet in a particular locality in India or the entire country, for any duration of time.

We focussed on the extent of shutdowns in India – most in the world at 263 from 2012 to date. Reasons given by governments for imposing such shutdowns are – public safety and security. But India has also been witnessing shutdowns for reasons like – avoiding cheating in exams and during public festivals. Last year the government in India enacted a set of rules for imposing Internet Shutdowns called the – Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017.

Studies show that there is a large economic and social impact due to shutdowns in India. A study conducted by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations had estimated the total cost to the Indian economy of shutdowns from 2012 to 2017 to be nearly $3.04 billion. In SFLC.in’s report on Internet Shutdowns we have captured the social impacts of shutdowns due their effect on business, human rights, and impact on the health industry.

Within the participants, there was a consensus that shutdowns shall not be imposed for reasons like avoidance of cheating in exams or during public festivals. Even in cases of public safety and security, the participants agreed that governments should follow a reporting mechanism. Some participants were of the view that in cases of national security and public safety, shutting the Internet is a reasonable and necessary course of action.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

One of the potential next steps/ recommendations was for advocacy and policy consultation with the Indian government(s) to build a reporting mechanism for imposing Internet Shutdowns. Other recommendations were around working with government(s) to ensure that shutdowns are not imposed in situations such as – avoiding cheating in exams and during public festivals. Some participants suggested that governments(s) should be consulted to ensure that they ensure compliance with the telecom suspension rules.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The IGF’s multistakeholder community can help local civil society organizations in India towards their efforts in measuring the impact of Internet Shutdowns in India and support their work towards advocating with government(s) in India to reduce the extent of shutdowns.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

10 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

2 women was present for the discussion

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The discussion briefly touched upon how Internet Shutdowns adversely affect women’s rights and their access to the Internet. The discussion revolved around the fact that of the total number of Internet users in India, only 30% are women and in times of Internet Shutdowns, women get doubly affected. The recommendation was to work at grass-root levels to advocate for more use of the Internet by women in India.

 Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Lightning Talk

- Title:

Solving Digital Divides in New Zealand: a multistakeholder approach

- Date & Time:

140pm 12 Nov

- Organizer(s):

Ellen Strickland, Internet New Zealand

- Chair/Moderator:

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Ellen Strickland, female

- Theme (as listed here):

Digital Inclusion and Accessability

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Access and connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
A range of factors create digital divides that still prevent people from benefitting from the Internet, even where access rates are high, such as in New Zealand.

Solving digital divides to ensure all people can benefit from the Internet remains an enduring challenge. 
 

Examples of efforts to meet these challenges in New Zealand were discussed.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

As a lightning sessions, discussion was as above.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. 

Recommendation for multistakeholder approaches to be used in digital divides work, with a view to research, collaboration and working locally with communities as key next steps.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

By working together.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

20 in room

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Around half

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? 

The role of gender in intersectional digital divides was discussed.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

- Title: Human Rights, Youth and Gender- Freedom of Expression. Overview in Africa

- Date & Time: 14:00-14:20

- Organizer(s): Wathagi Ndungu

- Chair/Moderator: N/A

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: N/A

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Wathagi Ndungu, Paradigm Initiative

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Youth and Gender

- Subtheme (as listed here): Freedom of Expression

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• The Copy-cat like situation that is going on in Africa in terms of policies. Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya and Zambia pretty much enacted the same policies each after the other such as OTT.
• Arbitrary arrests of digital rights defenders. This has been occurring and trending and therefore there is a need to develop a protection strategy.
• Capacity building and neeed of awareness on digital rights issues

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

-Many wanted to know more about the Digital Rights and Freedom Bill. There was a divide between those that were happy with the government regulating and those that were for self-regulation

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 word

-There is a need to educate legislators and policymakers on digital rights because they are  ones at the table making laws that cause human rights abuses.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

-Strategic litigation

-Strengthening advocacy efforts

Creating awareness especially to those that have a seat at the policy making table

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

-Thirty

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

-Fifteen

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

To some extent. We spoke on the arbitrary arrests of two female digital rights defenders and the need to protect them.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Lightning session

- Title: Can we reduce poverty with technology?

- Date & Time: Monday, 12 November, 14:00-14:20

- Organizer(s): ICC BASIS

- Chair/Moderator: Diego Molano, Chair, ICC BASIS, Former ICT minister of Colombia; International Consultant, Digital Transformation of Governments and Companies

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Timea Suto, ICC BASIS

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):  N/A

- Theme (as listed here): Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here): Internet for Development & Sustainable Development Goals

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

----- TO BE COMPLETED POST-SESSION -------

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [

150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement… - Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

- Add your Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation as explained here:

IGF 2018 Short Report

Indigenous Community Intranet
 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): 

Lightning session

- Title: 

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Date & Time: 

Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 13:20 to 13:40

-  Speaker:

Karla Velasco Ramos, Redes por la Diversidad, Equidad y Sustentabilidad A.C.

- Theme:

Digital Inclusion & Accessibility

- Subtheme:

Community Networks &/or Indigenous Connectivity

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. We must rethink connectivity
2. Have an Internet with a Concept
3. Appropriation and Self-determination 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. 

To ask ourselves “why”, “what for”, “how” and “where” is the path of building a community network. In the case of indigenous communities the “why should we have an Intranet?” question normally is because: 1) indigenous communities rethink connectivity, 2) indigenous communities prove that Internet can have a context, 3) the appropriation and self-determination are the most important parts in each one of their processes. Therefore, the first part of the presentation talks about this questionings. We’ve seen in Mexico that indigenous communities that indigenous communities decide to create an Intranet because of four things: 1) In an Intranet, they can reflect their dreams, 2) they create the Intranet through a community process, which is based on their nature, 3) They reinforce their sense of autonomy and 4) it stands for the international self-determination of the indigenous peoples. 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

This presentation recommends to have the questionings “why”, “what for”, “how” and “where” in every community networks’ process. 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The presentation showed how, with these questionings, each process of each community turns out to be completely different one from the other. It also shows the immense creativity of the indigenous peoples. This creativity can be replicated by other communities, whether they are indigenous or not. This way of thinking is very different from the other panels at the IGF, where there’s sort of a traditional mindset of how Internet works. 

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

10 participants. 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

2 women. 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

It did not discuss any gender issues. 

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: Fostering multi-stakeholder debate on Internet & Elections

- Date & Time: 13 November 2018, 12:30 to 13:30

- Organizer(s): Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br)

- Chair/Moderator: Mr Hartmut Richard Glaser (CGI.br)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Mr Jean Carlos F. Santos (NIC.br / CGI.br)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

- Ms Flávia Lefèvre, CGI.br, representative of the civil society, female

- Mr Henrique Faulhaber, CGI.br, representative of the business sector, male

- Mr Luiz Fernando Martins Castro, CGI.br, representative of Brazilian Federal Government, male

- Theme (as listed here): Media & Content

- Subtheme (as listed here): Fake News

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

1. The role of the Internet for democratic processes has been a permanent issue of the Internet governance agenda for almost twenty years. Initial utopia of unhindered and direct political participation for citizens throughout the world has progressively given room to skepticism. The Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed a systematic effort by state and non state actors to influence democratic practices elsewhere through campaigns to spread disinformation. In the aftermath of Cambridge Analytica, different countries have announced measures to combat the spread of disinformation and to secure political processes from rogue interference.

2. The Brazilian electoral process has been marked by the usage of personal data for the  massive sending of messages. Research institutes and universities showed that those messages contributed strongly with the phenomenon of information disorder, especially through WhatsApp.

3. Brazil have been facing a strong polarization of the population, with many negative externalities, including physical violence on the streets. It has become a common understanding that the fake news phenomenon is a strong element influencing this landscape of social conflicts in Brazil. Due to this context, many initiatives dealing with the information disorder topic have been developed since the beginning of the year. CGI.br argues that  a multi-stakeholder approach is necessary to address the issue and this can contribute to comprehend the problem and to consolidate initiatives. The CGI.br actions were conceived in a multi-stakeholder environment. The session made a brief presentation of this actions like the creation of dedicated council within the scope of the Superior Electoral Court mandate, and the set of activities recently developed by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), which included the release of Guide (Guia Internet e Democracia) to help general public and authorities to combat the phenomenon and mitigate its impacts.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words]

The panel focused on CGI.br's actions in the context of the Brazilian presidential elections. Although the panel focused on the Brazilian experience, there were participants from different nationalities in the audience, showing the relevance of the topic in the IGF context. While the focus of the panel was not fake news, most of the audience's input brought some thought into how to address different issues and troubles related to the information disorder phenomenon. Participants agreed that the 2018 Brazilian presidential election was strongly influenced by the massive dissemination of fake news, undermining the democratic process. But some believe that the electoral legislation and the Marco Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights, was fully disregarded and the authorities failed in not recognize the phenomenon. Some participants remembered that the Brazilian electoral law criminalizes messages and commentaries which have the specific purpose of offending the honor or denigrating the image of a candidate, party or association. So the Superior Electoral Court could have acted regarding the facts denounced by the media.

Also, there was no agreement about the role of the platforms in the electoral process and its responsibility as they are a stage for the public debates. Some speakers defended that platforms should not be liable for what happened and others think that their commercial practices may be causing damages for the democratic institutions of the country. An issue was raised on how the absence of net neutrality and business models as zero rating has influenced on disinformation.

The discussion in the room did not show agreement concerning how best to address the spread of fake news over the Internet. The general discussion indicated that the impact of disinformation in elections is a complex issue. CGI.br representatives on the table emphasized that the Internet Steering Committee advocates for a multi-stakeholder approach in understanding fake news phenomenon and the impact of the Internet on elections.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

This topic was not covered by discussions that took place during the session.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

This topic was not covered by discussions that took place during the session.

- Please estimate the total number of participants: 47 on site participants + 05 online participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 25 woman on site + 02 woman online

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Gender issues were not covered by the discussions held.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

CGI.br Internet, Democracy and Elections guide

<https://cgi.br/media/docs/publicacoes/13/Guia%20Internet,%20Democracia%20e%20Elei%C3%A7%C3%B5es>

-    Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): OPEN FORUM
-    Title: How to enable local production and local contents
-    Date & Time: Monday 12 November 2018 - from 10.10 to 11.10 AM - Room XII
-    Organizers:   EBU, WIPO, UNESCO
-    Chair/Moderator: Giacomo Mazzone (EBU)
-    Rapporteur/Notetaker: Giacomo Mazzone
-    List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
-    Danielle Cliche , Secretary to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions  (International Organization - FEMALE)

-    Paolo Lanteri, Copyright and Creative Industries Sector, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)(International Organization - MALE)
-    Alain Modot, Media Consulting Group , project Hub Africa (Private sector - MALE)
-    Gonzalo Laguado Serpa , Proimagenes colombia (partner of the “El abrazo del serpiente”, best foreign film Oscar 2015) (Governmental institution - MALE)
-    Theme (as listed here):  LOCAL CONTENT & MULTILINGUALISM
-    Subtheme (as listed here): FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION ON LINE - INTERNET FOR  DEVELOPMENT &  SUSTAINABLE DEVELOMENT

Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1) Internet -as it is today- doesn't automatically produce the conditions for the production of local content and services in local languages for community of citizens. If these processes are not governed, there is a high risk that contents already produced in some countries and some vehicular languages will be made available to everybody, while  content of local interest and in non vehicular languages will not circulate;2) Regulation and cultural policies are possible enablers to change this current dominant trend. UNESCO Convention 2005, WIPO International Treaties on Intellectual property and State intervention in cultural field are one of the key to invert the trend; 3) Successful existing models applied to local production in other sector could be easily transferred into the Internet world, such as Public Broadcasting Services model or Film funds and Creative funds experiences worldwide.

DRAFT FINAL REPORT (published on 12-11-2018)

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: How to enable local production and local contents

- Date & Time: Monday, November 12, 2018 - 10.10 to 11.10 – Room XII

- Organizer(s): EBU, WIPO, UNESCO

- Chair/Moderator: Giacomo Mazzone (EBU)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paolo Lanteri (WIPO) & Giacomo Mazzone (EBU)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Danielle Cliche , Secretary to the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions (International Organization - FEMALE)

Paolo Lanteri, Copyright and Creative Industries Sector, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)(International Organization - MALE)

Alain Modot, Media Consulting Group , project Hub Africa (Private sector - MALE)

Gonzalo Laguado Serpa , Proimagenes colombia (partner of the “El abrazo del serpiente”, best foreignfilm Oscar 2015) (Governmental institution - MALE)

- Theme (as listed here):

Media and Content

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Local Content and Multilingualism

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• While the demand/need for local content is set to remain high, creation and distribution remain more challenging, for a number of economic and technological reasons. The internet content tends to be more conducive of content in vehicular languages.
• Governments around the World understand the strategic importance of the issue. A variety of policies, including direct economic incentives, might be justified to solve this unbalance.Successful stories can be guide new endeavours.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

There is evidence that national and regional measures to support local contents and production have worked and produced effective results. 146 governments have undersigned the UNESCO convention that states that each state has the right to support creative industry and economy.

Under this framework the Public Service Broadcasting model in Europe is functioning since 80 years as a way to secure funding for national creativity and local expression, while in other part of the world, such transfer system doesn’t exists.

On the contrary African cinema and audio-visual production today is characterized by a dispersion of funds and a weakness of financing that unbalance the market leaving the lion share of quality content to international groups.  There are many possible solutions to try to fill this gap. One of these solutions, was presented at the Forum, called HUB Africa would function as a catalyser of investments and guarantee of diversity and the quality of programs offered. Could also works as a basket fund to collect public  (ACP, AFD) and private funds  (foundations)which want to invest in local content but need transparency and the guaranty to reach the wider audience (educational, edutainment).

Colombian Government has launched a flagship policy "economía naranja" by law. This is arguably the first national law to fully acknowledge the creative industries and to provide a framework for their promotion. On the side, Proimagenes, an NGOs also performing a film commission role, is devoted to the promotion of film and audiovisual content, through initiatives such as Film Development Fund and the Colombia Film Fund. The FDF disburses financing for the production of film, as well as for educating screenwriters and others.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

• Local content creation and distribution should be supported by variety of public policies, enabling regulatory framework, including copyright protection, and direct economic incentives
• More evidence and reliable data are needed to better shape concrete policy proposals – these could be achieved through cooperation
• Increased cooperation among various actors of the ecosystem (broadcasters, independent producers, public funds) could be a solution especially in regions where consolidated mechanisms of funding of the creative sectors doesn’t exists already today.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

• Local distribution capacity should be taken into account in addressing this issue
• Information gathering efforts could be undertaken
• Support and incentive the extension of “analogue” functioning mechanisms into the “digital world”

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

75

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

40%

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The session did not address any specific gender issue

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):  Open Forum  14  

- Title: La Francophonie et la transformation numérique

- Date & Time: 12.30-13.30

- Organizer(s): International Organisation of the Francophonie/Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF)

- Chair/Moderator:

Mr. Pierre DANDJINOU, RVP, Global Stakeholder Engagement, AFRICA, ICANN

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Ms Nelly KWENDE

Mr. Kossi Amessinou

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

- Ms Hary ANDRIAMBOVOANJY, iDirector of digital and economical Francophonie, interim Administrator of OIF (Intergovernemental)

- Mr Abdelkader ZIGHIED, Director of Digital Department – Agence Universitaire de la Francophonie (Technical community)

- Ms Mireille EZA, Director of Program "NORIA", Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (Parliament)

- Mr. Emmanuel ADJOVI, M. Director of OIF Regional Office for Caribbean and Latin American Countries (BRECAL) (intergovernmental)

- Ms Nelly PORTA, Assistant Director of French Langage and Cultural and Linguistic Diversity of OIF (Intergovernmental)

- Theme (as listed here):

Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here):

INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

The great accelerations of recent years with the global race to capture personal data, the rapid and continuous development of emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, Big Data, blockchains and internet of things open new battlefields that offer interesting perspectives for the Francophonie countries. They will be able to count in the coming world if they lay the bricks needed to build the industries of tomorrow.

Francophonie supports the integration of digital into public policies. She accompanied research centers and public reading. It also promoted the least available languages on the internet.

Digital technology will help to build an education industry for the benefit of member states of the Francophonie.

International Organisation of Francophonie, has a lot of supporting program to achieve this goals. All the principal department of the organisation do capacity building for the countries member.

The big fight is to increase the use of French in digital areas and then promote digital industry in French speaking countries.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

The time allowed to this open forum was to short to have efficient discussion but moreover a lot of  questions has been asked  on the session. Some of them are the following :

How to deal with GAFA without having an alternative industry? What is the regulation adapted to new challenges such as big data, the Internet of Things and artificial intelligence? What is the progress of the FinTech initiative?

One of the most important was the follow up of Erevan recommendations to turn them in concrete program and realisations.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It is important to get funds to digitize the inaccessible heritage data of the developing countries. It is important get francophonie position on social networks shutdown in Africa by the government.

OIF has to support program and project who can increase digitalisation in francophone countries and fight for more cultural and  language diversity on the internet.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

We need to create an ecosystem to have the data industry. The network of Francophonie digital ministers is being formalized and IGF ecosystem must help to build a strong plateform to help the French speaking countries  particularly the subsaharian African one to spread digital spirit and work for digital inclusion through OIF.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

50 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

20 women and 30 men

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The Francophonie has promoted women in the digital ecosystem.

Key Messages:

• AI can contribute to personalised learning, support inclusion of children with disabilities, enable quicker processing of data in health and education, but can also cause unintended biases that can have negative outcomes for children. Machine learning decision making is affected by the data systems and algorithmic design both of which depend on humans to create and in order to eliminate these biases we need stronger awareness and monitoring by all those who are involved in the design and the deployment process.
• Children and youth also need to be engaged in the process of the development and deployment of AI technologies.
• Guidelines on AI technologies that take children rights into account are needed not only for the government and the private sector but also for parents and educators.

Discussion:

There was a general consensus that this is an emerging area where more information, case studies, research is needed. Forum participants identified key gaps in research relating to representation/ case studies from the Global South, and agreed that greater emphasis on inclusionary and representative approaches to research. Participants suggested that private companies who are interested in advancing child rights (and consulting with young people in the process) could be key partners in this work (e.g. Telecompanies like Telia that have engaged youth panels). The discussion around how to better integrate young people in the AI design and development processes led to questions around how to adequately and inclusively represent young people given constraints such as: a lack of publically available data on children (especially in the global south), and the difficultly in engaging a representative sample of young people in consultative processes. UNICEF invited all the participants to contribute to building the agenda on Children and AI, to share their lessons and experiences and to work jointly on finding solutions.

Next Steps:

UNICEF explained the work currently under development i.e. the scoping of literature, documenting case studies, analysing trends which can inform the consultation with various stakeholders in order to develop a road map for the next few years. Our aim is also to develop policy recommendations for different stakeholder groups- including government, private sector, and parents/caregivers.

 - Session Type: Open Forum

- Title: Information disorder: exploring stakeholders' remedial potential

- Date & Time: 12 November 2018, 09:00-10:00

- Organizer(s): Council of Europe, European Broadcasters Union

- Chair/Moderator: Rasmus Nielsen, Director, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism / Professor of Political Communication, University of Oxford

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Elena Dodonova, Council of Europe

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

• Ms Tanja Kerševan Smokvina,  Associate Partner, Wagner-Hatfield /  expert, Committee of experts on human rights  dimensions of automated data processing  and different forms of artificial intelligence (MSI-AUT), Council of Europe
• Mr Giacomo Mazzone, Head of Institutional Relations, European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
• Mr Olaf Steenfadt, Project Director, Journalism Trust Initiative representative / Reporters Without Borders

- Theme: Media&Content

- Subtheme: Fake news

- Please state no more than three key messages of the discussion:

1. Information disorder is a characteristic feature of the environment we currently live in, and everyone is responsible. Every stakeholder group has a role to play in addressing information disorder. For efforts taken to this end to be effective, it is crucially important to develop and enhance synergies and cooperation initiatives.
2. Independent, empirical research is absolutely necessary to inform state policies and other stakeholders’ responses to information pollution. Those engaged in research must have access to all relevant data for analytical purposes, be it data in the possession of states or internet intermediaries, and including deleted data.
3. Quality journalism and traditional media have a role of key importance to play in addressing information disorder, which requires a healthy media landscape.  Reinstating trust in the media by securing its independence and sustainability, as well as strengthening relations between citizens and their national / own language media are indispensible for any endeavours to combat mis- and dis-information.

- If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

• Mr Rasmus Nielsen, moderator, opened the session with an overview of the current state of research on information disorder, mentioning also the Council of Europe report on “Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making”. This report offers a new conceptual framework for examining information disorder and provides recommendations for different stakeholders, as well as a round-up of related practical initiatives. The moderator further drew attention of the audience to the importance of taking into account the context (social, other), since it makes a difference in terms of possible risks, as well as in terms of possible solutions. Lastly, he stressed the role of independent journalism in addressing information disorder.

• Ms Tanja Kerševan Smokvina observed that information pollution not only undermines traditional media, but also creates an environment conducive to terrorism and radicalization. She highlighted that measures addressing this issue must be proportionate, as otherwise the risk of creating censorship machines is too high. She further referred to the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries which distinguishes respective obligations and responsibilities of states and of private sector companies based on the human rights and rule of law-based approach. The speaker stressed that all stakeholders have a role to play in addressing information disorder. In particular, academic research is of great importance for informing policy-making, as well as the public debate in general. Currently a lack of targeted research, e.g. regarding the effects of different narratives, as well as regarding the impact of information disorder in general, can be observed. Lastly, she observed that the majority of initiatives in place are one-stakeholder initiatives and stressed the need for developing synergies to effectively address the complex phenomenon of information disorder.

• Mr Giacomo Mazzone presented the work of the EBU in developing tools for quality journalism in the digital world applicable to the public service broadcasting world. (1) Eurovision Social Newswire [email protected] - 453 journalists from 28 countries, not only in Europe but also in the US, Japan and Algeria. The biggest collective network of UGC verification; (2) Eurovision Social Newswire - The Journalist's Toolbox. A toolkit for making verification with digital tools available on the web; (3) The Quality Journalism Initiative: a) report “Perfect Storm: The multiple challenges facing public service news and why tackling them is vital for democracy” and b) seminars at all members’ newsrooms; (4) Participation in the work of the Council of Europe expert groups on algorithms (MSI-AUT) and on quality journalism (MSI-JOQ), and in the EU High Level Group on Fake news and in the Sounding board that will watch on outcomes from the work of this group; (5) EBU’s work on safety of journalists with UN, UNESCO, HRC, IFJ, INSI, RWB. He observed that the problem of information disorder cannot be solved solely by ‘making good journalists’, that journalism today requires skills that are traditionally not part of the profession, and also that self-regulation by social media platforms has no measurable criteria of efficiency.

• Mr Olaf Steenfadt in his intervention provided an even closer look at quality journalism, and ways of reinstating trust in the media, while also highlighting the economic dimension of sustainability. He presented the ‘Journalism Trust Initiative’ (JTI) which is designed to combat disinformation online and promotes journalism by adherence to an agreed set of trust and transparency standards to be developed and implemented. He further highlighted that production and distribution of information today is twofold – through traditional channels where codes of conduct and ethical codes are in place, and through algorithmic distribution. The JTI aims at connecting the two by feeding ethical norms of journalism into algorithmic distribution of journalist content. Lastly, Mr Steenfadt highlighted the benefits of this initiative not only for media outlets, but also for advertisers in terms of protection of reputation of the brand.

- Please describe the discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

The discussions first focused on the role of civil society in addressing information disorder. Within their respective role, civil society organisations could bring important concerns to the attention of governments, raise awareness and educate people about the risks of information disorder, and also act as honest brokers bringing together different players in the fight against information disorder. The Council of Europe in different formats (expert committees, conferences, other) engages with civil society organisations and works on fostering  dialogue among different stqkeholders.

The debate further touched upon the role of the judiciary, mentioning a case of harassment of a journalist by trolls, on which a conditional sentence was rendered in Finland. Also the session discussed the need for international consensus, and criteria upon which the media can be trusted, - mentioning, alongside with the JTI, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation on protection of journalism and safety of journalists and other media actors, and Recommendation on media pluralism and transparency of media ownership.

Lastly, the session looked at wider implications of information disorder, including those for free speech, arriving at a conclusion that multi-stakeholder responses will be required.

- Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps / key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

• The session has discussed the respective roles of different stakeholders in addressing information disorder and effectively demonstrated that one-stakeholder responses have a very limited potential as compared to co-operation initiatives and synergies;
• The role of academic research in informing the debate on information disorder, and also the role of the judiciary in providing targeted responses in cases of online harassment of journalists, was highlighted;
• There was broad consensus in that independent and quality journalism plays a key role in addressing information disorder. At the same time, the session clearly demonstrated that this role can only be fulfilled in a healthy landscape, including its economic dimesion.

Gender Reporting

 - Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

The session gathered approximately 60 participants.

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

Approximately 20 participants were women.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment? If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment.

IGF 2018 Long Report

- Session Type:

Open Forum

- Title:

Technological Innovation and Internet Governance Rules

- Date & Time:

14/11/2018，11:20-12:20

- Organizer(s):

Cyberspace Administration of China

- Chair/Moderator:

Mr. Yuxiao Li

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Ms. Luman Sun

Ms. Lan Cao

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Madam Qi Xiaoxia, Director General of International Cooperation Bureau of Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)                 

Professor. Li Yuxiao, Vice-President of  Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies. the Coordinator of the  High-level Advisory Council of the World Internet Conference Organizing Committee

Mr. Paul Wilson, Direct General of APNIC

Mr. Leonid Todorov, General Manage of APTLD

Mr. Demi Getschko, CEO of the Brazilian Network Information Center, one member of the Internet Hall of Fame

Professor. Wolfgang·kleinwachter, board member of the Medienstadt Leipzig e.V

Mr. Jiang Wei, Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies

Mr. Ma Teng, Cyberspace Administration of China

Professor. Xie Yongjiang, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

- Theme:

The 5th World Internet Conference

Technological Innovation

Internet Governance

- Subtheme:

The achievements of the 5th World Internet Conference

The revolution of information technologies

Internet Governance Rules

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. The internet is becoming an important drive for innovative development and social progress, benefiting the whole humankind. The new technologies, such as AI, blockchain, Industrial internet and IoTs, have been widely used in economic, cultural and other fields. Technological innovation will surely lead to the Internet governance transformation，which in turn needs strong support of new technology. To some extent, the cyberspace has become the new area of the global governance system revolution.

2. China is going through a historic process of rapid application of information technologies. The technologies represented by the Internet have brought about new ways of social production, created new space for people’s life. The Chinese people have got more sense of gain in sharing the results of Internet development. China attaches importance to both development and governance of Internet. Now China has found a path of Internet governance with Chinese characteristics, thus contributing China’s experience to the global Internet development and governance. China’s practice of Internet development and governance will surely give a new choice for developing countries.

3. The governance and order of cyberspace are becoming ever more important. We should formulate complete cyberspace governance rules and promote the reform of the global governance system. All parties of the international community are making active efforts to seek solutions, including governments, international organizations, internet companies, technology communities, non-government institutions and individual citizens. All parties should enhance cooperation to uphold cyber security, participate in internet governance and share the achievements of governance.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad support for the view that the energization level of the Internet is playing an increasingly important role in driving and leading economic and social development. Cyberspace has become the space of activity for all human beings. So the governance and order of cyberspace are becoming ever more important.

Many indicated that we need a digital world of mutual trust and collective governance. The governments, international organizations, Internet businesses, technical communities, private sectors and individuals should all play their role through effective and constructive cooperation to build a safer and healthier global cyberspace. They indicated that the governments of all countries should be more and more dominant in the cyberspace governance.

Many indicated that there are many active issues in the Internet governance, many of which are not technical. In the future, we need more interdisciplinary discussions and research to promote the sustaining development of the Internet. We should establish deepen cooperation in technical R&D, rule and regulation making and information sharing.

Many supported  that the 5th World Internet Conference (WIC) formed some important achievements. It published the “China Internet Development Report 2018” and “World Internet Development Report 2018”. The HAC members discussed major cyberspace issues of global concern and approved the “Wuzhen Outlook 2018”. The WIC reflects both opportunities and challenges brought by the Internet to social development and national governments. Besides, There is still a lot of room for improvement. In particular, more countries and International organizations should participate in the WIC.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

With the advent of new technologies and applications that keep engendering new demands and challenges, it’s increasingly clear that the international cyberspace governance is not merely a technical issue but a holistic one. All parties, including governments, international organizations, Internet companies, technology communities, non-governmental institutions and individual citizens should all play their role through effective and constructive cooperation to build a  safer and healthier cyberspace. During such collaborative process, we must keep in mind that countries under various development stages have their respective challenges both domestically and externally. Each and every country has the right to choose its way of development in cyberspace. Policymakers are not seeking an identical way forward but the mutual trust on which the global rules and norms for cyberspace could be built.

That being said, it is highly advised that governments should play a greater role in promoting all actors to participate in international events relating to cyberspace, such as the Internet Governance Forum, the World Summit on Information Society Forum and the World Internet Conference.

All in all, the international community should work far more closely to deepen strategic mutual trust, improve the governance mechanisms and promote the implementation of rules in order to improve the global Internet governance process to reach a new stage.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

IGf serves as a way to make people understand what are the opportunities and challenges brought by ICTs to countries under their variant development stages, so as to understand their mentality and practices in the Internet governance measures. Based on such understanding, our respective roles are clear as much as the resources we need. All these shall serve as a catalyst for further dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation featuring openness, transparency and efficiency, which in turn can help us to define what a smart political resolution should be.

It is recommended to summarize and publish the consensus and divergence that existed at IGF. In this way, the IGF will substantially expand the consensus on Internet-related issues.

We should make the IGF more planable. For example, it is recommended to approve the MAG earlier so that they can start work at the beginning of the year. 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 100 participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 40 women present.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

No discussion related to gender issues.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2018-day-3-salle-ix-of20-techno…

IGF 2018 Short Report

- Session Type:

Open Forum

- Title:

Technological Innovation and Internet Governance Rules

- Date & Time:

14/11/2018，11:20-12:20

- Organizer(s):

Cyberspace Administration of China

- Chair/Moderator:

Mr. Yuxiao Li

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Ms. Luman Sun

Ms. Lan Cao

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Madam Qi Xiaoxia, Director General of International Cooperation Bureau of Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC)                 

Professor. Li Yuxiao, Vice-President of  Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies. the Coordinator of the  High-level Advisory Council of the World Internet Conference Organizing Committee

Mr. Paul Wilson, Direct General of APNIC

Mr. Leonid Todorov, General Manage of APTLD

Mr. Demi Getschko, CEO of the Brazilian Network Information Center, one member of the Internet Hall of Fame

Professor. Wolfgang·kleinwachter, board member of the Medienstadt Leipzig e.V

Mr. Jiang Wei, Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies

Mr. Ma Teng, Cyberspace Administration of China

Professor. Xie Yongjiang, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications

- Theme (as listed here):

The 5th World Internet Conference

Technological Innovation

Internet Governance

- Subtheme (as listed here):

The achievements of the 5th World Internet Conference

The revolution of information technologies

Internet Governance Rules

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. The internet is becoming an important drive for innovative development and social progress, benefiting the whole humankind. The new technologies, such as AI, blockchain, Industrial internet and IoTs, have been widely used in economic, cultural and other fields. Technological innovation will surely lead to the Internet governance transformation，which in turn needs strong support of new technology.

2. China attaches importance to both development and governance of Internet. Now China has found a path of Internet governance with Chinese characteristics, thus contributing China’s experience to the global Internet development and governance. China’s practice of Internet development and governance will surely give a new choice for developing countries.

3. All parties of the international community are making active efforts to seek solutions, including governments, international organizations, internet companies, technology communities, non-government institutions and individual citizens. All parties should enhance cooperation to uphold cyber security, participate in internet governance and share the achievements of governance.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

There was broad support for the view that the energization level of the Internet is playing an increasingly important role in driving and leading economic and social development. And we need a digital world of mutual trust and collective governance.

Many indicated that there are many active issues in the Internet governance, many of which are not technical. In the future, we need more interdisciplinary discussions and research to promote the sustaining development of the Internet.

Many supported  that the 5^th World Internet Conference (WIC) formed some important achievements. It published the “China Internet Development Report 2018” and “World Internet Development Report 2018”. The HAC members discussed major cyberspace issues of global concern and approved the “Wuzhen Outlook 2018”. The WIC reflects both opportunities and challenges brought by the Internet to social development and national governments. Besides, There is still a lot of room for improvement. In particular, more countries and International organizations should participate in the WIC.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

The international community should work far more closely to deepen strategic mutual trust, improve the governance mechanisms and promote the implementation of rules in order to improve the global Internet governance process to reach a new stage.

The governments, international organizations, Internet business, technical communities,private sectors, and individuals should all play their role through effective and constructive cooperation to build a  safer and healthier cyberspace.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

IGf serves as a way to make people understand what are the opportunities and challenges brought by ICTs to countries under their variant development stages, so as to understand their mentality and practices in the Internet governance measures. Based on such understanding, our respective roles are clear as much as the resources we need. All these shall serve as a catalyst for further dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation featuring openness, transparency and efficiency, which in turn can help us to define what a smart political resolution should be.

It is recommended to summarize and publish the consensus and divergence that existed at IGF. In this way, the IGF will substantially expand the consensus on Internet-related issues.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 100 participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 40 women present.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

No discussion related to gender issues.

Session type: Open Forum

Title: What future for the Internet?

Date & Time: Tuesday 13th November, 12.20-13.20

Organiser(s): European Commission

Chair-Moderator: Dr. Monique Calisti (Martel Innovate)

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Valentina Scialpi (European Commission)

List of Speakers:

Olivier Bringer (European Commission, M)

Michiel Leenars (NLNet, M)

Maryant Fernandez Perez (EDRi, F)

Dr. Monique Calisti (Martel Innovate, F)

Closing remarks: Pearse O'Donohue (European Commission, M)

Theme: Trust and Accountability Measures

Subtheme: Data Privacy and Protection

The Internet of the next decade will be built around the users. It will have to be a human centric Internet, an Internet of values, that ensure privacy and data control and a more inclusive, transparent and democratic digital environment for all.

Europe has developed what is probably the most advanced regulatory framework for the internet, with the General Data Protection Regulation, the eIDAS framework, rules on the open internet, and the new measures under the Digital Single Market Strategy in the areas of cybersecurity, platforms, online content, or the free flow of non-personal data. In this context, the Next Generation Internet initiative aims to build the key technology building blocks for the internet of tomorrow through ground-breaking research and innovation that is aligned with our regulatory framework. It will shape new technology developments in support of an internet of humans that responds to our fundamental needs, including trust, security and inclusion, and in general reflecting the values and the norms that we enjoy in our societies.

The European Commission has launched the Next-Generation Internet initiative, aiming at designing this internet of values. To this end we have engaged all different stakeholders that will help us build the internet of the future: top innovators, startup and civil society.

The session provided a state of play of the initiative, what will be the way forward and information on how to get involved.

The participants appreciated the effort of reaching out to new stakeholders that could contribute in building the next disruptive, breakthrough technologies.

Number of participants: 60 (of which 20 Women)

Other relevant links (URL):

https://www.ngi.eu/

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

  Open Forum

- Title:

  The multistakeholder approach in G20 and G7 discussions related to digital economy

- Date & Time:

  Wednesday, 14 November 2018 at 12:30-13:30

- Organizer(s):

  Ministry of Internal affairs and Communications (MIC) Japan and Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs France

- Chair/Moderator:

  ・Yoichi Iida(Deputy Director-General for G7 and G20 Relations MIC, Japan)

・Henri Verdie (Ambassador for Digital Affairs, France)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

・Dr. Daniela Brönstrup (Deputy Director-General, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy Germany)

・Mr. Samuel Marleau Ouellet(Director, ISED G7 Secretariat, Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

・ Dr. Valeria Escliar(Senior Policy Advisor,  Ministry of Modernization, Argentina)

・Ms. Rita Forsi,(Ministry of Economic Development. Italy)

・W20 Ms. Natacha Quester-Séméon (Etienne Parizot)

・C20  Mr./Ms. Nnena Nwakanma  (web foundation)

- Theme (as listed here):

  Development, Innovation& Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here):

  INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

  ・Vitalizing the preparatory arguments toward G20 Digital Economy Track in 2019

・Strengthening synergy with G7 work stream under French Presidency.

・Focusing on the way to make the multistakeholder approach work in digital international negotiations encouraging different stakeholders to make suggestions and proposals to the groups of G7 and G20 to take their roles in the upcoming discussions in 2019 in their agenda.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

After welcoming speech made by the moderators, representatives from governments and other stakeholders delivered presentation. In the last part, the floor was open to all participants and free discussion was held. There was broad support and consensus on the view that multistakeholder approach is crucial to discuss public policy issues pertaining to the Internet. Main specific comments from the speakers are as follows.

・It is crutial to demonstrate that the multistakeholder  approach can help overcoming various real challenges

・It is essential to not only provide the multistakeholder the opportunities to participate in G7/G20 discussion but also incorporate their views into ministerial declarations.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

There was broad support the view that multistakeholder approach is crucial to discuss public policy issues pertaining to the Internet and strengthening multistakeholder approach in various global forum like G7/G20 is needed to further progress the discussion.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Participants agreed to strengthen the multistakeholder approach in the discussion regarding Internet Governance issues.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

About 30 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 10 women participants

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Some participants stated that it is essential to take gender balance into account when adopting the multistakeholder approach to ensure diversity.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: Working together at the regional level – projects & forums

- Date & Time: 14 November 09:00-10:30

- Organizer(s): IGF Baku Secretariat/Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies
Manager/UNDP CO Azerbaijan IGF Baku Secretariat/Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies

- Chair/Moderator: Vasif Mammadov – Project Manager /UNDP

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: N/A

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Vasif Mammadov – Project Manager/UNDP (male)

Rashad Azizov – Head of Department/ Ministry of Transport, Communications and High Technologies (male)

Guest Speaker

Guest Speaker

Guest Speaker

- Theme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet Governance/Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here): BROADENING STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE/INTERNET FOR DEVELOPMENT & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. 1. We should work via innovative projects for further implementation of SDG goals; 2. Forums on Innovations should be new platforms for further expansion of IGF ecosystem; and 3. Capacity building of institutions is pivotal for the success of the IGF goals

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. Within the framework of the MTCHT’s recent activities solid successful outcomes were achieved in the sphere of ICT and transport, such as operational progresses of the North-South Corridor, TRACECA and Baku Trade Port. The goal of the relevant programmes is to provide assistance in the restoration of the transport infrastructure of the newly independent states of the region, establish shortest transport corridor connecting Europe and Asia and thereby integrate the region into the West, simultaneously serve as the platform of concentration for the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway line that was commissioned last year. Likewise more than forty government services were developed in the framework of the E-government portal, which is leading to successful foundation of Mobile Government, High frequency broadband radio communication systems were created to increase the number of frequencies for radio-electron broadcasting and public wireless internet was initiated as a pilot project.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. Consequently, based on MTCHT’s and UNDP CO Azerbaijan’s previous successful cooperation, including the abovementioned achievements of Azerbaijan in ICT and transport spheres, there are number of perspective opportunities to further improve mutual collaboration of stakeholders within scope of the “Modernization of Sustainability and Efficiency of ICT infrastructure and ICT services in the Republic of Azerbaijan” project.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? Innovative methods of IGF expansion, particularly via projects, forums and capacity building programs

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 60

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 40

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? Gender based innovative projects

IGF 2018 Report 

ICANN Open Forum

- Session Type:  Open Forum

- Title:    ICANN Open Forum

- Date & Time:  Monday; 12^th November; 2018

- Organizer                            ICANN

- Chair/Moderator:                            Cherine Chalaby

- Rapporteur:                       Nigel Hickson

- Speakers:                              Goran Marby; ICANN CEO;                             Technical Community

                                                      Cherine Chalaby; ICANN Board Chair      Technical Community

                                                      Theresa Swinehart, ICANN                             Technical Community

                                                      Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board                          Technical Community

                                                      Sarah Deutch, ICANN Board                           Technical Community

                                                      Elena Plexida, ICANN                                           Technical Community

                                                      Avri Doria, ICANN Board                                 Technical Community

                                                      Nigel Hickson, ICANN                                         Technical Community

- Theme:                                  Domain Name System

Key Messages

1. The importance on reaching an agreement within the ICANN Community on legitimate third-party access to the non-public information of registrants of domain names held in WHOIS Database;

2. The importance of the Internet Community being involved in the policy development process; especially commenting on the Reports, concerning a subsequent process for issuing new generic top-level domain names (gTLDs);

3. The importance of ICANN, and other entities from the Technical Community, providing factual information, where appropriate, to policy makers and legislators, on the effect of specific measures on the stability, security and openness of the DNS System and the Internet

Overall Dialogue

This was an open session about the work of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and our role in the broader Internet ecosystem, with the goal of engaging with the audience about the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), in relation to the WHOIS (the system of registration data associated to register domain names); and new generic top-level domains (gTLDs).

Cherine Chalaby (ICANN Board Chair) gave an overall introduction to the Open Forum, welcoming participants, introducing fellow Board members, and noting, briefly, what ICANN is about and our role within the Internet Ecosystem.  

He noted that these two topics are on the ICANN agenda, and have an impact on the wider Internet community.

Theresa Swinehart, ICANN, stated that ICANN has been bringing WHOIS into compliance with GDPR. In that vein, ICANN has engaged in several rounds of extensive community dialogue and in discussions with European data protection authorities, and has also created a temporary specification. This temporary specification is an adjustment to the contract between ICANN and their contracted parties to have publicly and non-publicly available information, to comply with the GDPR, she explained. This temporary specification has triggered an expedited policy development process in the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Theresa pointed out that the ICANN63 meeting gave the board the liberty to limit or lessen the liability of contracted parties, and explore a possible avenue for unified access that is scalable and which works globally. The ICANN Board issued a conceptual model based on community input on 20 August.  

Sarah Deutch, ICANN Board, spoke about one of the issues that resulted from the implementation of the technical specification – the third-party access to non-public registration data. The technical specification requires ICANN's parties to provide reasonable access to personal data to third parties, based on legitimate interest, as defined in the GDPR. Ultimately, she emphasised, it is up to the community to recommend a model for implementation.  

Goran Marby, ICANN CEO and President, reiterated ICANN’s neutrality in political matters, but pointed out that ICANN could provide technical help in matters of national or regional legislation. Ill thought out (but possibly well-intentioned) legislation could make it impossible for people to access the Internet, or connect to other people on the Internet. He also pointed out that a balance between transparency of the WHOIS system and the protection of privacy of data should be struck.

Avri Doria, ICANN Board, briefed the audience about the progress GNSO has made concerning discussions on the new gTLD programme. Gathering and discussing issues, some of which arose from the previous round of the programme, of which there were over 90, had lasted over year. The policy development process (PDP) Working Group has been working through them methodically, in sub-groups and in plenary, and is putting out comment periods – two have already been released and the Comment period on Geographic Names is expected very soon. One of her main impressions of the Community input was that the “gap” between Rounds of new gTLDs should be removed. There are several proposals to what kind of round the next one should be and how long it should last, and also several proposals about the succession timing of such Rounds.

Mr Leon Sanchez, ICANN Board, reiterated, in answer to a question, that the timing for the new round of gTLDs depends on the input of the community. ICANN has received comments, reviews, and advice from almost every constituency within the Community, and needs to reconcile different viewpoints before the second round of the new gTLD programme. He acknowledged that not all community members agree whether the next round should happen or not. He stressed that input from the community is key for the outcomes of the different processes that feed into possible subsequent rounds of gTLDs.

Key Points from Discussion

1. The absolute necessity of having a broad multistakeholder dialogue in the solution of complex Internet policy issues, such as GDPR/WHOIS;

2. The importance of policy makers and legislators (national, regional or global) taking into consideration the input from Technical Community, such as ICANN, when formulating regulation or policy.     

Participants

There were around 80 participants

Estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About 30 of the participants were women

To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

There were no specific gender issues discussed; though it was noted how important it was to have a diversity of voices when discussing Internet issues.

Session Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 10:10 to 11:10

Room: Salle IX

Online moderator: mr. Arnold van Rhijn, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Netherlands. 

1. Mrs. Sandra van der Weiden: Introductory presentation on the Roadmap for Digital hard and Software Security of the Netherlands

With the example of a smart washing machine some important issues of IoT-security are demonstrated. Vulnerabilities can occur in all components and the connections between those and e.g. the app to control them, or the router to distribute their signals to the internet. A second aspect is that the risks and potential impacts of security problems are largely context dependent, as demonstrated by comparing a washing machine in a home setting with the same in a hospital or powerplant.

From this example several principles for the digital security of IoT are developed:
1: Follow a product life cycle approach to establish IoT-security: from the design and development stage, via distribution, installation and usage to the disposal stage of the IoT-product.

2: IoT-security requires joint responsibility: there is no exclusive responsibility for e.g. the producer or vendor. All have to play a role. Given the limited rationality and acting capacity of users also government parties and civil society organizations have a role to play.

3: The balance of public interests needs to be taken into account. One-sided focus on safety and security may not go at the cost of freedom or economic growth.

4: A portfolio approach is needed: not ‘just’ legislation, but a broad range of policy instruments must be applied, from legislation to awareness raising, and from certification to security testing.

5: Room must be left for a complementary digital security approach e.g. for specific sectors or domains.

As relevant policy instruments are highlighted: awareness campaigns and user empowerment; national government procurement policies; liability/accountability based measures, e.g. standards and certification; product monitoring; testing and cybersecurity research; and the cleansing or removal of contaminated products. 

Disclaimer: the Netherlands’ Roadmap for Digital Hard and Software Security offers an approach, in the end we will need a program.
 

2. Panel discussion: What could IGF do to help promote security of the IoT?

moderated by Joost van der Vleuten

Panel members in alphabetical order:

1. Maarten Botterman, Netherlands: Director of ICANN / Global Future Internet Authority / Independent Strategic Advisor for GNKS (Global Networked Knowledge Society); Chair of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on IoT security.
2. Byron Holland, Canada: President and CEO of the Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA); responsible for the legal and policy environment for the domain name space in Canada and one of the voices advocating Canada’s interests in the global Internet environment.
3. Mr. Jasper Pandza, United Kingdom: Assistant Director Culture, Media and Sports - DCMS) and driving force behind the Code of Practice for Consumer IoT Security.
4. Mrs. Sandra van der Weide, senior policy advisor of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy of the Netherlands / Project Manager Roadmap Digital Hardware and Software Security.

Byron Holland:  

• In 2016 we saw the first large scale attack abusing IoT devices. Since the exponential increase in IoT devices connected to the internet, that sort of attack has the potential to be more influential. Good security of IoT devices is therefore critical. Canada has started a multi stakeholder community with participants from civil society, academia, government and private sector, that came together in Spring 2018 and divided itself into 3 working groups: one on consumer education (how to ensure that the consumer without skills is also safe), a second one on labeling standards (how to do effective labeling) and a third one on network resilience (technical group) what can network managers do to reduce their risks?
  Manufacture usage description (MUD profile).
  
  Discussion: Challenge the idea we don't have ways to protect websites.

Maarten Botterman

• Technical innovation is moving fast, complications for innovation increase and good practice are needed. You may e.g. have your tools being certified, labeled or even regulated within one country, but tools will also come from abroad. Also a pragmatic approach is required regarding transparency. I suggest meaningful transparency. That does not mean providing all data out there, but above all ensuring the user understands what he or she needs to understand. basic security, privacy. Let’s make sure we do it in a responsible way.

Jasper Pandza:

• Overall message: we need to focus on the basics, get the basics right and move forwards swiftly. You need to know what it looks like in order to develop regulatory options. Do this in a multi stakeholder process with industry, society, academia. That’s what we did in UK. We will be developing them into a global standard through ETSI, hoping to finish by February 2019. We have asked companies to implement the code.
  We should take Lifecycle into account. Software updates the important thing is transparency.
• Discussion: we need to factor in much more complex scenarios. For instance when smart washing machine is being bought 2^nd hand or when someone is hiring a house (and thus not the owner of the washing machine etc.).
  • Jasper: Communicating the outcome of the insurance to the consumer. This is setting the baselines and developing the certification scheme.
  • Walter: if something goes wrong, people will knock on the door of the government. So many fixes already have been developed, but not implemented for some reason. Incentives for industry are not sufficient, but if it would be obligatory then the industry would have to. Government should have a role in this. Autos are when used moved to other countries and then to other countries. So is this a sustainable model...
    Comment government Canada: incentives some manufacturers not aligned. But we do bring them in our initiative. The beauty is in engagement. Key is having this conversation about what works.
  • Comment: we don’t have the potential to build the internet of secure things, but we can build a secure cloud of things. You don’t want to securitise avery single pacemaker, fitbit or smart light switch. But you can secure routers and thus anything ‘behind’ that router. Much cheaper, much more flexible.
  • Question: are there any ideas on how a change of culture would be possible? Especially small companies are not going to invest in these 13 points. Is there an active role for IGF in making the suggestions on what to do and what not to do work?
• Maarten: we cannot secure the devices, but we need standards and informed choice (labeling, certification). The aim is to get consumers to make smarter choices. You cannot rely on the safety of the devices alone. Role of IGF: do not wait for the IGF, continue doing your thing.
  
  Comment from audience: continue to work on these issues. We got good examples and points from the IGF. Focus on their implementation within your different jurisdictions. Then exchange good practices, share successes and lessons learned, as all IoT-issues are cross technology and cross country. That is the biggest challenge.
• Jasper: We have to move forward. While doing so keep all informed about relevant initiatives.

---

IGF 2018 Report
“Commonwealth Open Forum - Data Protection”

- Session Title:
Commonwealth Open Forum - Data Protection

- Date: November 13th, 2018
- Time: 16:10pm – 17:10pm

- Session Organizer:
Robert Hayman, Manager, Events and Acting Manager, Capacity Development and Training, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation)

- Chair/Moderator:
Robert Hayman, Manager, Events and Acting Manager, Capacity Development and Training, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation) (In-person moderator)
Remote participation was not working for this open forum, there was no technical support in the room and as the session started late due to an earlier session over running, there was no choice but to continue without remote participation. (Remote moderator)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Saiful Siddeky, Senior Events Officer, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation)  and Robert Hayman, Manager, Events and Acting Manager, Capacity Development and Training, Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Intergovernmental organisation)  

- List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

• Alain Kapper, Senior Policy Officer – International Engagement, Information Commissioner’s Office, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Civil Society)
• Professor Mona Al Achkar Jabbour, Professor of Law, PM of Information Security Panel –WFS, Head of Lebanese Information Technology Association LITA, Member Founder of Pan Arab Observatory for Cyber Security (Civil Society)
• Mary Uduma, Managing Director, Jaeno Digital Solutions, Republic of Nigeria (Civil Society)
• Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Founder and Executive Director, Pasifika Nexus and President, South Pacific Computer Society, Republic of Fiji (Civil Society)
• Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President Multistakeholder Strategy & Strategic Initiatives, ICANN (Technical Community)
• Elena Plexida, Government and IGOs Engagement Sr Director, ICANN (Technical Community)

- Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):

• Protecting the rights of citizens is important. The rights of individuals are more efficient in the digital economy. Harmonisation of different sectors is important, harmonisation of personal data protection must be harmonised throughout all areas. There may be challenges and fears but everyone has a right to be a part of the digital economy. Awareness and cooperation at a national level is important, cooperation between private and a public sector, and at an international level cooperation between countries is important.
• The European Union data protection legislation, GDPR, is very well intended and that is to protect personal data and this is an important aspect in today's world.
• The honeymoon period is over, GDPR was adopted in 2016 and companies had a two year period to implement the processes. Companies had two years to review their process and decide whether there was a requirement to employ data protection officers, or initiate data protection impact assessments
• The commercialisation of data and value of data is the real driving force behind data protection regulations.
• Legislation that touches our daily lives needs cooperation, regulators do not necessarily understand what needs must be compromised so it is necessary to engage the wider community as a whole.
• Creating a Commissioner in each Commonwealth country may not be the way forward, no model fits all, but there must be an authority with sufficient powers to enforce the legislation.

- If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:
There were no presentations during the session. There were opening comments which have been integrated in other parts of this report, as they covered the same topics.

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

• GDPR came in to effect on the 25 May 2018. The principles enshrined in the EU Directive of 1995 have not massively changed but the scope of the new legislation goes well beyond its precedessor, notably in relation to the global territorial scope and the increased individual rights. The internet and digitalisation has changed the ways businesses and government interact, this has led to a new phase of globalisation, underpinned by the movement of data across borders. As recent reports have shown, movement of data have already superseded more traditional versions of trade, as major contributors to the economy. Data flows are important to economic growth of citizens. The role of regulators has become increasingly important to ensure the movement of data is used but not abused.

Moving on to the consumer argument, the rights of the individual rely on the unprecedented growth of personal data. Trust online also addresses issues relating to democratic governance, ethics and the fundamental rights of individuals with regards to privacy. Data can be quickly and easily transferred on to a third party to another jurisdiction, whether other principles apply. This can undermine the data privacy clause. This is of course what happened in October 2015 where the Irish authority asked the European Courts of Justice, whether data can be transferred across the Atlantic under the Safe Harbour principle without any further checks (the Schrems case). The Courts of Justice said these arguments were not valid. A new privacy framework has now come into force (the Privacy Shield), but that does not mean that the issues are resolved, we are in constant discussions with the US and we are still unclear over the transfer of data across borders to the US is a safe place to go.

In the age of borderless data flow there has never been a more important time for a global coherence on data protection and data privacy. The divergence of data across jurisdictions leads to the uneven levels of protection between jurisdictions, which leads to the need for legal controls over data across border flows and this is to prevent the growth of a more autocratic regime.

The Information Commissioners Office of the United Kingdom makes a recommendation too that there should be a more coherent regulatory approach with regards to cross border transfers But while there is no silver bullet or model to replicate at the moment, we can take a positive in that there is a lot of common groundin terms of the underlying principles (openness, fairness, purpose specification and collection limitation, use limitation, data security, accountability and individual access)

The divergences in approaches mean that we cannot consider that there is a perfect way to legislate or regulate and, as best next thing, we should ensure interoperability between the different regulatory systems.

The Common Thread Network is a forum for data protection and privacy authorities of Commonwealth countries. It has been established to promote cross-border cooperation and build capacity by sharing knowledge on emerging trends, regulatory changes and best practices for effective data protection. Currently within the Commonwealth, there are approximately 30 Commonwealth member states, with data protection legislation or policies, and this means that there are a large number of jurisdictions that do not have policies. Furthermore, there are a number of Commonwealth countries that do have a legislation but have not implemented it or have no oversight body to monitor the implementation.

The Common Thread Network exists to find commonalities and discuss together with other professionals what the issues are in terms of data protection. They hold regular meetings, and also observe the outcomes of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings (CHOGM). In last April in London, there was recommendation on cyber security and connectivity agenda for trade and investment which pushed governments to overcome barriers in regulation that had previously existed to facilitate implementation of coherent policies and improve cooperation.

• The Fijian constitution has two articles that canvass data protection and access to information. The constitution is access to legitimacy in terms of creation of end rules for the protection of data protection. Different industries are subject to different levels of intimacy that protect, whether it is the banking sector or health sectors. Fiji has a lot of sensitive information such as geospatial information and a lot of this information is sensitive and gets cached within a country. There is a telecommunications decree that limits access to private records unless you have court orders. In Fiji there was a recent scandal of birth and data records, certain birth records that have been distributed and forged for Pakistani nationals in the figure of 10,000 records.
• In Nigeria there is no such thing as data protection in the legislation, however, the Nigerian Senate has started a working group on GDPR. One working group has so far been held, a partnership of the EU has visited the Republic of Nigeria but the outcomes have not yet been shared widely. Nigeria has also forged a partnership with Oxford University and an ongoing data survey is being carried out, with the Office of the National Security Advisor they are talking to several sectors of the ICT industry with a view to expanding the economy. The regulator Nigerian Communications Commission has a dedicated approach to new media and information security but nothing has been formulated on data protection. Nigeria does not have the capacity or the capabilities to progress in the area of data protection and we need the help of outside resources to continue in this area. Awareness raising, capacity building and writing of the legislation are all areas we need help. The Nigeria CTLD has gone ahead and looked at how the GDPR will affect the registrars and registers of the CTLD and information has been published on the website, we need good advice going forward. 
• When you witness the emergence of legislations and regulations that are very well intended, such as cyber security and data protection, issues that really need to be dealt with, once you apply those to the technological environment of ICTs, you often see the unintended consequences or unintended results out of it, creating potentially a patchwork of legislation in different countries, whether it is in the Commonwealth or between the Commonwealth countries and the European Union, there may be an impact on the ability for transport of commerce or economic growth or societal matters that are being dealt with either at the national or regional level. This is something that is an opportunity for experts to help inform the establishment of regulations and legislations that are well intended but find ways to do them so that they are scalable and don't have a harmful aspect to the social and economic growth that ICT and technology and internet offer.
• With respect to ICANN, they have the Who is information, when a domain name you is registered this information is provided, that information historically had been to help find another party that might  party that might have the other name, that information was made known and allowed parties that may have that issue, to solve that issue together. Going through time, that Who is information became important in the Domain Name System and if you look at the applicability of GDPR in relation to ICANN specifically and the use of Who is in relation to the contracted parties, ICANN went through a process of looking at the contracts to make them compliant. Traditionally available information available to the public, and the identifiable part was made private and the rest public. ICANN went through a process with the community and through consultation documents established the Calzone model that was to solve many different issues, that was adopted in May in what was a temporary specification, which is a modification to the contracts, there is a publication for all the stakeholders of the community that want access to information whether that's the law enforcement agencies, intellectual property users, etc. ICANN have tried to determine whether it's possible to have a unified mechanism to determine that, one that is scalable on a global level and meeting the requirements of the GDPR.
• The European Union have issued guidance with regards to the GDPR legislation but it is not always easy to interpret how this should be observed in all aspects, cooperation is key to reaching a better understanding of the legislation.
• With respect to the management of personal data, when an institution needs data to verify operations, to prove or defend, then here the rules are different. GDPR cannot harm other sectors, otherwise it will not work. Financial institutions have a way of protecting the personal data but also using and keeping this personal data for a longer period of time. Why do they not delete, why, because they may need to prove something legally in the future.
• A question was asked whether the implementation of privacy and data protection could be standardised for all international companies, should companies such as Google, Facebook or ICANN sign separate agreements with various jurisdictions can one not be implemented across the globe.

- Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):

• There was a suggestion made that the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (CTO) should create a working group of members to help them look at the challenges and opportunities of implementing data protection and help build capacity going forward.
• A delegate from Nigeria noted, Nigeria has collaborated successfully with the CTO on cyber security essentials capacity development training and he believes CTO can also help Nigeria with data protection.
• There needs to be political commitment, as certain countries are not fully committed to taking data protection legislation forward. It is essential all Commonwealth countries must legislate on data protection.
• A comment was made by Ian Brown, Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport who said harmonisation is important and it is also important for Commonwealth countries to look at the Council of Europe Data Protection Convention 108 and its ratification by the Council of Europe and looking at the current non-member signatories such as Mauritius, Morocco, Senegal and Uruguay.

Gender Reporting
- Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:
There were approximately 30 total participants

- Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:
Approximately 15 participants were women. The panel itself was gender balanced, with five out of seven speakers being women.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?
If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:
The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. However, it did consider challenges in how technical community, government and public sector security teams can successfully cooperate with civil society organizations.

-  Add your Inputs to the UN SG High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation as explained

• There needs to be political commitment to take data protection legislation forward. It is essential all countries must legislate on data protection.
• Capacity development is essential to increase the capabilities to enable countries to tackle data protection challenges nationally as well as internationally.

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

At this IGF Open Forum session, Coalition members gave updates on the work of the FOC since the 2017 IGF in Geneva and outlined progress towards implementing the FOC Action Plan for 2018 under the German Chairmanship.

The session provided IGF participants with the opportunity to learn about FOC's new mechanism for stakeholder engagement, the FOC Advisory Network, and plans for this year's Freedom Online Conference, which will be taking place in Berlin, November 28-30.

The panel additionally discussed the issue of closing civic spaces online and discussed the FOC’s present and potential role in combatting closing civic spaces, and in ensuring multistakeholder engagement.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

AN members on the panel, Wafa Ben-Hassine and Matthew Shears, provided insights into the activities of the FOC Advisory Network in its first months of being established, including through contributions to the drafting of FOC statements, learnings and strategy calls.  Following the first submission of proactive advice of the FOC Advisory Network, the FOC issued a Joint Statement on the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2018.

Panellists discussed the various threats and challenges to civil society in the digital age, and noted the common responsibilities of governments in supporting civic voices online.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Mr von Heynitz, speaking for the German Chair, noted that governments can cooperate if they share the basic concern that human rights as upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are essential. 

Lisa Vermeer, speaking for the Netherlands, raised the importance of the Digital Defenders Partnership (DDP) which has a dedicated program focused on the swift protection of human rights defenders. The Netherlands encouraged those concerned by internet freedom issues across the world to raise FOC membership to missions and embassies, to raise awareness to the FOC. 

Germany suggested that the FOC engages further with the private sector.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Panellists observed that conventions and institutions, such as the IGF and UNESCO, could monitor the work of civil society and ensure that, in the face of authoritarian state-funded NGO’s, these institutions can support independent civil society organisations. Governments can additionally ensure that civil society can participate in multilateral forums.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

40-50 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

18-20 individuals

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The panel discussed vulnerable groups within civil society, including women and girls.

Open Forum #3 - IGF 2018 REPORT

Combating Fake News and Dangerous Content in the Digital Age: “Developing the People’s Internet in the Era of Hoax and Disinformation”

Session tittle: Developing the People’s Internet in the Era of Hoax and Disinformation

Date: November 13^th, 2018

Session Organizer/Co-Organizer:  

1. Ministry of Communication and Information Technology of the Republic of Indonesia (MCIT)
2. ID-IGF (Indonesia Internet Governance Forum)
3. SiBerkreasi (Indonesian Digital Literacy National Movement)

Chair/Moderator:

1. ID-IGF, Mr. Bhredipta Socarana
2. SiBerkreasi, Mrs. Marcella Zalianty

List of actual Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

1. Mr. Anang Latif (Indonesian Ministry of Communication and IT, CEO)
2. Mr. David Kaye (United Nations, Special Rapporteur of Freedom of Expression), assigned to Mr. Amos Toh (Legal Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur of FoE)
3. Mrs. Irene Poetranto (Citizen Lab of University of Toronto, Senior Researcher)
4. Mrs. Jac sm Kee (Association of Progressive Communication / APC, Program Manager)
5. Mr. Jake Lucchi (Googgle, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact)
6. Mrs. Julie Ward (European Parliament, British Member)

Key Issues raised at the discussion:

1. Keeping the rights of freedom of expression, drawing the line and definition while ensuring disinformation and fake news not spread further.
2. Taking legal action as the most effective ways to prevent disinformation and the spread of fake news.
3. Digital literacy to equip the community to cope with the high information age today.

Agreement achieved at the discussion:

One of the main topics discussed at this session was the importance of contextualizing the issue of finding the clear line and definition of fake news and the universal limitation of freedom of expression. This has become a problem when people use the term of fake news or disinformation, each part of the community refers to many different kind of definitions, which shows that this case is a complex multidimensional issue where people aren’t even talking about the same thing. Therefore, the solutions that need to be implemented should be vary depending on the different manifestation of the problem each community referring to. Despite that, the first step that should be taken is to research based on the context, done especially by the communities who are particularly affected. The other way that can be taken is to strengthen the media as an institution in the act of fact checking or creating alternatives narratives.

Policy Recommendation:

With fake news increasingly become an issue, there’s also increasing pressure on platform to regulate the spread of it. However, the regulation should come with a clear definition and limitation on fake news and hate speech, whether in terms of strengthening freedom of expression and information laws and data information laws which are critical as there is a huge trust deficit and skepticism in terms of institution that we have developed for truth.

Ideas that IGF ecosystem might make progress:

In order to maintain an open and democratic system, it is especially important for government, private sector, civil society as well as institutions to work together to solve such complex issues which is facilitated by a multi-stakeholder panel held by the IGF.

Estimated number of participants: 95 peoples

Estimated number of women and gender-variant individuals present: 40 women

Gender Issues discussed in this panel:

Example brought by one of the speaker, presenting a feminist woman who is in prison for painting a picture depicting tanks in the city where the Turkish government bombarded civilian targets.

Transcript: https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2018-day-2-salle-xii-of3-combating-fake-news-and-dangerous-content-in-the-digital-age-%E2%80%93

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEpFZdQnins

Notetaker / Rapporteur: Ketut Wulan Ardhaputri (BAKTI - Siberkreasi Youth Ambassador), Adya Nisita (Siberkeasi, Research Manager) and Donny B.U (Expert Staff to the Indonesian Ministry of Communication and IT)

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: #31 Assessing hate speech and self-regulation, who and how?

- Date & Time: Wednesday 14 November 2018, 9.00-10.00

- Organizer(s): Council of Europe – No Hate Speech Movement

- Chair/Moderator: Menno Ettema – Council of Europe - Anti-Discrimination Department

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Elisabeth Schauermann (Notetaker)  / Veronica Stefan (online moderator)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Jeremy McBride – Consultant for European Commission against Racism and Intolerance on ‘General Policy Recommendation No 15 Combatting Hate Speech’
• Miriam Estrin – Policy Manager for Europe, Middle East, and Africa at Google
• Anton Battesti - Head of Polilcy at Facebook France
• Tamas Dombos – Board member Háttér Society, LGBT rights organisation Hungary, member of EC group for monitoring of Code of Conduct implementation

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender and Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Freedom of Expression online

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

• Self-regulation as a tool to assess complaints of Hate speech as an expression of discrimination is new for the Internet Industry pushed for in recent policy regulations, such as German NetzDG, EU Code of Conduct.
• Self-regulation should address concerns and needs of Users, Internet Business and democratic society. Therefore is should provide for effective protection of those targeted, quick procedures, clear understanding of the reasons for take down or non-takedown for users; clarify Liability of the company visa vie self-regulatory decisions, relation between self-regulating body and law-enforcement/ regulators, balance between liability of those producing and those hosting; a democratic society calls for Independent (judiciary) oversight, transparency and appeal procedure.
• More reflection and a study can help identify promising practices that uphold a fair balance between rights and needs of users and a democratic society as a whole.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Asked what Self-regulation on hate speech should deliver, participants mentioned: balancing freedom of expression with protection of dignity and privacy; clarity of definitions and sensitivity for national/regional contexts; concerted approach, not a self-regulatory body per platform. There was fear companies concede to governmental pressures; questions about company, government or user based regulation models and realization users need to (learn to) report hate speech for it to be effective.

The needs regarding self-regulation of users affected by hate speech can be summarized as: Quick, Transparent (both of procedure and argumentation for decisions), Accessible (meaning clear reporting system and no financial barriers)

Internet Businesses strive to have open platforms, clear user guidelines and notice systems. Facebook France’s invitation for French regulators to review their assessment system underlines this and aids more transparency. Self-regulation can complement internal assessment processes to address complex cases, this would require access to topic experts, time to make the assessment, clarity on national legislation and liabilities of the company when implementing decisions of a self-regulatory body.

It was underlined that self-regulation is only one of the tools to address hate speech as outlines in ECRI GPR 15 on Combatting Hate Speech. It can be quicker and less costly but should not substitute or block possibilities to start court proceedings.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

Taking the EU Code of Conduct and the German Network Enforcement Law as examples, it was pointed out that self-regulatory bodies and platforms alike need to be transparent about their procedures, decision making processes and their outcome.

From the platforms’ side, the suggestion was brought up that state authorities as representatives of their population should work with platforms and self-regulatory bodies on achieving legitimacy and protect users’ rights.

The panel and participants voiced commitment to reconvene at the next IGF in order to follow up on progress and challenges with self-regulation in combating hate speech online.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

If self-regulation and self-regulatory bodies are suggested as a new way for dealing with online hate speech, the IGF community offers crucial resources to gather expertise from all stakeholder groups, so that platforms, intermediaries, regulators and new bodies are able to take informed decisions that protect individual user rights and the democratic society.

The IGF can work as a forum for monitoring progress and challenges that arise with applying models of self-regulation and co-regulation.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Circa 30 participants + 4 panelists, 1 moderator, 1 remote participation moderator, 1 rapporteur

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Circa 15

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

There was no direct discussion on gender issues regarding to women*, but one of the panelists offered a civil society perspective on the specific problems of people of the LGBTQ+ community with regards to hate speech and harassment online and participants were able and encouraged to speak from their personal experiences.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: The Right to Privacy in the Digital Age – The Use of Biometric Data

- Date & Time: 14 November 2018, 9-10am

- Organizer(s): Office of the United Nation High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

- Chair/Moderator: Tim Engelhardt, Human Rights Officer, (OHCHR)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Tim Engelhardt

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): 

Emilie Seruga-Cau, Head of Public Affairs Department, Directorat for Compliance, Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)

Ololade Shyllon, Advisor of the Democracy, Transparency and Digital Rights Unit at the Centre for Human Rights

Graham Webster, Fellow and Coordinating Editor, DigiChina, New America

Smitha Krishna Prasad, Associate Director, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi

Wafa Ben-Hassine, Access Now, Middle East and North Africa Policy Lead

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Data privacy and protection

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

1. Biometric data are sensitive data, requiring a high level of protection. There are enormous risks connected with biometric systems, as biometric information is by definition inseparably linked to a particular person and that person’s life, and has the potential to be gravely abused.
2. Rolling out biometric technology should be done deliberately and slowly, in a rights-respecting and protecting way. States in particular need to demonstrate the necessity and proportionality of the deployment of biometric technology. They need to have legal and other safeguards in place.
3. Finding ways for the safe, rights-respecting use of biometrics requires collaboration of experts and stakeholders from all backgrounds (e.g., technical community, businesses, States agencies, philosophers, gender experts). This requires breaking up silos.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

The session started with a brief overview of the recent report to the Human Rights Council of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the Right to Privacy in the Digital Age (A/HRC/39/29), highlighting in particular that States need to establish appropriate legal framework for protecting data privacy against undue interferences by States and businesses. The following presentations and the discussion then zoomed in on the use of biometrics. The presentations focused on a range of case studies from several countries from Africa, MENA and Asia. The participants agreed that while there may be clear benefits of biometrics technology for security, trust but also convenience, it is linked to serious risks, often affecting the vulnerable and marginalised. Biometrics should therefore be deployed with caution. States should only use biometrics for clearly defined purposes and on the basis of informed consultations with all stakeholders.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

The discussion demonstrated broad support for the recommendation not to rush the deployment of biometrics but to move deliberately and slowly. Any deployment of biometrics needed to comply with international human rights standards. This included that it needed to be done in a transparent fashion, on the basis of clearly defined laws, for specific purposes and in accordance with the necessary and proportionate principle. The discussion also highlighted the necessity to maintain effective grievance and redress mechanisms.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

The need to leave silos and work interdisciplinary and with all stakeholders was emphasised by several participants. As was pointed out in another session, digital identity is a building block of the digital society and economy. The risks and necessary legal, technical, procedural and other measures for protecting people’s privacy in the context of the use biometrics should be further investigated.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 70

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present. 35

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): OPEN FORUM

- Title: PRIVATE SECTOR "HACK BACK": WHERE IS THE LIMIT?

- Date & Time: Monday 12 November 2018 – 9:00-10:00

- Organizer(s): OECD

- Chair/Moderator: Laurent Bernat

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Lorrayne Porciuncula

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Karine Bannelier - University Grenoble Alpes, France - Female
• Kaja Ciglic – Microsoft Corp. – Female
• Alp Toker - Netblocks.org - Male
• Leandro Ucciferri -Asociación por los Derechos Civiles, Argentina – Male
• Yves Verhoeven - French National Cybersecurity Agency (Agence Nationale de la Sécurité des Systèmes d’Information – ANSSI) – Male

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): Cybersecurity Best Practices

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• What are the differences between “active” and “passive” defense and where are the boundaries between “hacking back” and “active cyber defense”?
• What is the prerogative of governments in responding to an attack and where does the scope of action of a business start and ends? Could anyone use proactive defence measures or should only “qualified” players be allowed to enter this space? Should there be any oversight?
• What are the risks of hacking back, including to the Internet and other users? Is there any way to mitigate those risks? Who would be responsible in case of damages to a third party? Is there a need for internationally agreed rules and principles in this area?

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

The OECD Open Forum brought together a panel that discussed an issue that was understood by experts to be one of the less discussed side of digital security: the "hacking back" from the private sector. It was agreed that in general, hacking back should not be encouraged or permissible, due to its potential economic, social and political collateral impacts. While the size of these practices are still unclear, since in many countries it is considered illegal, some indicated that there is a growing body of arguments favouring these kind of responses from the private sector. All agreed that in order to advance in this conversation, better frameworks and concepts are needed, as there is confusion about definitions and typology of hack back practices.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It was suggested that the first step towards finding solutions for this issue is clarifying concepts and types of hack back practices. This could be done based on the intent (e.g. exploratory, preventative, retaliatory) of, and/or the risk possibly steming from these practices.

Moreover, it was agreed that more international and multistakeholder cooperation is needed to provide guidance for technical and regulatory approaches to address private sector hack back. 

 - What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Panellists agreed that the IGF can be a very useful forum for discussions due to its multi-stakeholder approach, allowing for an informed and diverse debate of emerging issues such as the one of concepts, limits and approaches for hacking back from the private sector.

 - Please estimate the total number of participants.

50 people

 - Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

25 women

 - To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

NA.

Session Title: EU Delegation to the IGF & Youth IGF Movement

Date:   November 12, 2018      Time:13:30 – 14:30

Session Organizer: EU Delegation to the IGF & Youth IGF Movement

Moderator : Mrs Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Member of the EU Parliament & Mrs Yuliya MORENETS, Youth IGF Movement

Speakers : 

Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO

Delegation of the European Parliament 

·      Gunnar HÖKMARK– Member of the EU Parliament 

·     Julie WARD - Member of the EU Parliament 

·     Yana TOOM - Member of the EU Parliament 

·      Julia REDA - Member of the EU Parliament 

·     Jonathan BULLOCK - Member of the EU Parliament 

Members of the Youth IGF Movement (physical presence): 

Youth IGF Chad, Youth IGF Indonesia, Youth IGF Haiti, Youth IGF Lebanon, Youth IGF Portugal, Youth IGF Ukraine

Discussions points

Mrs Miapetra KUMPULA-NATRI, Head of the EU Parliament Delegation to the IGF and Member of the EU Parliament, opened the discussion by introducing the delegation and the priorities of the delegation at the IGF 2018. The importance of the exchange with the Youth IGF has been underlined from the beginning of the Open Forum, as well as the importance of the main subjects that have been announced for discussion. The discussion also focused on possible steps by the EU Parliament on implementing internet governance activities and policies in the EU and the developing world. 

Mr Göran Marby, ICANN President and CEO, underlined that in the Internet ecosystem all voices are equal, stressed the importance of the views of the young on internet governance and the fact that #EveryVoiceCounts. A long exchange focused on Internet security and the need for the young to act on cybersecurity awareness, so as to ensure other young people are informed on issues such as cookie management, among others.  

The Youth IGF Movement Representative underlined the objective of the movement and described its scope and development as well as the results achieved in 2018 (around 35 countries are part of the movement at present). 

The Youth IGF Movement Ambassadors described the movement in their countries, together with national achievements. They mentioned four important aspects that have emerged from national meetings (of which 30 took place in 2018) as concerns to be communicated to the expert community and made issues for discussion, namely:

*The importance of capacity-building programs on Internet Governance for the young (such as ICANN NextGen)

*The role of the young in cybersecurity awareness

*The responsibility of the young in the fight against fake medicines online

*The role of the young in the promotion of Digital4Her activities  

Suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways: 

1. It was strongly suggested to continue the annual and if possible bi-annual meetings and exchanges between the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and the Youth IGF Ambassadors so as to better understand the current concerns at national levels as seen by the young 
2. It was suggested to find ways to support the projects and products initiated by the Youth IGF, such as tools developed by the young to raise awareness of Internet safety (e.g. the CyberDetective game). The role of the EU Commission and the Parliament is essential in this support. 
3. The need for structured assistance from the EU to victims of cybercrimes has been brought to the table, as mentioned in a majority of the Youth IGF national meetings. The EU Parliament Delegation to the IGF has been asked to assist in the work on this element from a policy and legal perspective in the EU countries.

Total number of participants (estimated): +50

Total number of women: half

IGF 2017 Report

“The role of the regulator in promoting the deployment of IPv6”

-Sessión Title:

The role of the regulator in promoting the deployment of IPv6

-Date: November 13th, 2018

-Time: 9:00-10:00 am

-Chair/Moderator:

Edmundo Cazarez, Network Information Center (Private Sector)

Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Jimena Sierra Navarrete, IFT

-List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:

Javier Juarez, Comissioner, Federal Telecommunications Institute (Government)

Willy Ted Manga, Regional Techinal Officer, Agence Universitaire of the Francophonie (Remote Participation, Civil Society)

Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC (Private Sector)

Guillermo Fernandez, General Director of ICT, Federal Telecommunications Institute (Technical Community)

-Key Issues raised (one sentence per issue):

• Exhaustion of addressing
• Incentives and facilities for the deployment of Ipv6
• Role played by users and the industry
• Work of the regulatory body to promote the deployment of IPv6
• Participation of regulators in the digital ecosystem

-If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:

There was a presentation during the session of "Lessons learned of transition from IFT to IPV6", in where it was presented the transition from IFT to IPv6 and the background that addressed the general direction of ICT in the IT infrastructure of IFT; The IFT transition does not haves IPV4 addresses assigned.

It was said that during the transition, it was necessary the training of the staff was needed through workshops, presentations, etc., where he evaluated in different phases, 1; Internal network and 2; the use of the same network, giving a period of preparation of a year; In order for this project to be carried out, the renovation of the main telecommunications and cybersecurity equipment within the Institute was required, the ISP had to be ready to be transmitted by IPv6 (in 2016 there were only two operators that formally granted that service in Mexico) and, finally, the assignment of the Ipv6 segment was obtained.

- Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):

The discussion took place in a progress to follow about how it should be the precise deployment based on different steps, the first is the training for the implementation of IPv6 is the training of the responsible personnel for implementation This have the purpose to familiarize the staff with the concepts and logic of the protocol's operation; second, to perform an audit of all the hardware and software used in the organization. This list must include the corresponding models and versions, as well as the details on their compatibility with IPv6; third, determine the type of IPv6 addressing according to your needs. IPv6 addresses of all types are assigned to interfaces, not to nodes; therefore, each interface can use different IPv6 addresses simultaneously.; And the last, It is recommended to build a test network and implement the same services that run over IPv4.The promotion of the deployment of IPv6 is one of the actions that the Institute is carrying out with the approach of participating in the digital ecosystem. The future regulation of the digital ecosystem is a key issue, at a time when the pace of regulatory changes is not reaching the speed of transformation in the digital world. Therefore, to meet the expectations of the rapidly evolving digital ecosystem, regulators have to adapt and create more flexible, innovative and less invasive regulatory frameworks that transcend the traditional telecommunications sector to take into account the multi-faceted and multipartite nature of the world digital.

It was mentioned that this lack of transition has become a problem for years, since the rate of use of the IPV4 is running out, and almost all regions have reached the point where you are using the latest resources available policies already public implemented, with the exception of Africa which are not in the same situation; The panelist of the AUF is a clear example of the action of IPv6, the AUF is an association working in the academic field is made of regional bureau such as the one located in Yaounde Cameroon; it covered central Africa and great lakes areas; Therefore, it was necessary to understand IPv6 and implement it within their own networks; All ISPs in Cameroon have IPv6 prefixes. In Yaoundé and Ngaoundere, CAMTEL (AS 15964) is the ISP of AUF; it has been assigned the prefix 2001: 4268: / 32 since June 13, 2006 for 12 years. The training of technical personnel in 2011 had a great influence on the implementation and designation. Previously, there was the v6 routing problem with CAMTEL's upstream provider, but justification defense management was driven by the Cameroon regional manager to use IPv6 in their networks; that is why it was necessary to intervene in the deployment of IPv6 within the government, the ministries, the presidency, the regional offices and even the regulator itself.

The group discussed that it is necessary that the websites of Internet have an IPv6 configuration; otherwise, the users will not be able to access its content and is more difficult to add new devices and grow the network. The adoption of IPv6 It is not a new issue, it has been trying to be implemented for more than 10 years, many technologies help to adapt the protocol and that it is granted free of charge by network operators having an effective result in their country, for example: 1) Mexico is at 14.51%; 2) USA 34.17%; 3) Brazil 26.47%; 4) Australia 14.28%; 5) France 24.73%; Etc.

The importance of properly disseminating information on the implementation of IPv6 and the role that has technological evolution, in this sense, should be addressed to the different sectors and involved in the development of the Internet, including users, creators and generators of content, service providers, technology providers, companies, entities of public administration and international organizations, must have knowledge of the operation and deployment of the IPv6 protocol to encourage use and achieve a rapid, efficient and safe transition. Therefore, the Federal Institute of telecommunications of Mexico has been a promoter of the transition to IPv6, since in the country this transition is considered a platform for innovation, economic development and global connectivity. The activities that the Institute has carried out to promote the deployment of IPv6 the include issuance of guidelines and technical requirements.

- Two questions from the audience deserve special note due to the lengthy discussion

There was only one question. There were opening comment, which have been integrated in other parts of this report.

•  An interrogator asked if there was a problem with the IPv6 adoption rate and if this rate really reflects the growth that IPv6 has. Moreover, because this is not effective enough, because it generates a problem and not a solution for the assignment of addresses.

-Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways

(3 paragraphs)

• An audience member from a Telco in Asia noted that they had turned on IPv6 back in February, and already they saw 75% of the traffic on their cable running over IPv6. In their case, they had a clear rationale – IPv4 addresses in their region are trading from upwards of $15 USD each. On the other hand, IPv6 is practically free, so for their country there was no choice. He also noted that originally their technical team had told him a separate team would be needed to do IPv6, but they quickly discovered this was not the case.
• ARCEP, the French regulator, began promoting IPv6 two years ago, identifying six key actions it could take: training, developing a roadmap, improved coordination, providing information, and finally – preparing for the end of IPv4. A key part of ARCEP’s approach was establishing an observatory that collects information from many different links in the technical chain – transit providers, ISPs, mobile operators, hosting providers, etc. It was also noted that statistics should be at the appropriate level – national or regional statistics can quickly settle on a percentage that masks the real differences that exist between networks. In its “Annual Barometer” report that ARCEP has been handing out at this IGF, they have published statistics that look at individual ISPs. This is helpful for giving a more accurate picture of IPv6 adoption, though it really shines a light on those players who are lagging behind.
• Orange Telecom started in 2015 to repair all the problems related to the introduction of IPv6 in its infrastructure with the collaboration of all Lebanese. Counting with 40 or 50 ISPs and each ISP has its own infrastructure, with the support of RIPE and Mr. Chafic and his team at Orange Telecom, which is the public telecommunications operator in Lebanon, all the preparation problems, technically the software and hardware was resolved with the collaboration of ISPs and DSPs, data service providers have solved this problem, where only the start of the transition was expected in June 2016.

Gender Reporting

-Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

There were approximately 80 participants

-Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

There were approximately 30 women and 50 men inside the Forum, panelists were men

-To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment?

-If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women´s empowerment

- Session Type: Open Forum

- Title: Development of the Digital Economy and Emerging Technologies in Africa

- Date, Time & Venue: 13 November 2018 from 15H00-16H00, UNESCO Room VIII

- Organizer: AFRICAN UNION

- Chair/Moderator: Mr. Jamal Amin, Sudan, AFIGF-MAG

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Ms. Lilian Nalwoga, AFIGF-MAG, Ms. Loyce Kyogabirwe, CIPESA, Uganda

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer): Mr. Moctar Yedaly, African Union; Mr. Adil Sulieman, African Union, Ms Mary Uduma, Nigeria, AFIGF-MAG, Mr. Makane Faye, African IGF Secretariat

Key issues raised:

- Need for the High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation to take into account the views and needs of the African stakeholders.

- The Digital Panel should cooperate closely with the African Union to organize African consultations.

- Need to step up engendering process of Panels during the African IGF annua meetings.

- The African Union should organize a digital week during the annual African IGF and publish a yearly report of African Internet Connectivity.

Presentations
Three presentations were made respectively by:

1. Mr Gamal Amin of Sudan provided a summary of the 7th African IGF, indicating the theme of the conference, the attendance, the list of sessions and the outcome of the confference. Information is available at: afigf.africa.

2. Mr. Moctar Yedaly of the African Union described the current and planned initiatives of the African Union in relation to the Information Society, especially the new European Union supported project, PRIDA.

3. Mr. Adil Sulieman of the African IGF secretariat introduced the process of selecting hosts to the African IGF annual meetings. He indicated that there is always a bid which is sent out in January but any country could request to host before the bid is out. In this context he indicated that Nigeria had requested to host the 2020 African IGF and that we were looking for a host for 2019, preferrably from Central Africa or from a francophone country as the conference has been hosted at the North and South parts of the continent in anglophone and arabophone countries.

4. Ms Mary Uduma, member of AfIGF-MAG introduced the African IGF Charter, with particular emphasis on the compostion of the AfIGF-MAG and their role.

5. Mr. Makane Faye of the African IGF secretariat gave out the criteria for selecting AfIGF-MAG and the list of the 15 members.

Discussions
Lively discussions followed the presentations.

Gender Reporting
- The room was full and potential participants could not enter and were kindly requested by the Security Officers to leave the room. The number of participants in the room were at least ---- according to the attendance list.
- Approximately ---- participants were women. 

- There were discussions on empowering women to better participate in the African IGF conference and also to be members of the African IGF MAG.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Open Forum

- Title: Future of IGF: “The world is much better with the IGF than without it!”

- Date & Time: Monday 12 November 2018, 9:20-10:20

- Organizer(s): Internet Society (ISOC)

- Chair/Moderator: Frederic Donck, Regional Bureau Director, Europe

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Paula Real

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Thomas Schneider, representing the past IGF host-country, Switzerland

David Martineau, representing the current IGF host-country, France

Gunther Grathwohl, representing the next IGF host-country, Germany

Lynn St. Amour

Raul Echeberría 

- Theme (as listed here):Evolution of Internet Governance

- Subtheme (as listed here):IGF ORGANIZATION & ROLE

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• Since the Tunis mandate, in 2005, a lot of things have changed, a lot of new challenges have emerged and a concern that the IGF community is showing signs of fatigue is also rising. 
• There is a need to maintain the IGF as a space for dialogue in a multistakeholder fashion, with stronger participation of different stakeholders.  The IGF needs to continue to be attractive for all the stakeholders to come together to discuss facing challenges. The world is much better with IGF than without it. 

•  In order to strengthen the IGF, there was a suggested solution for creating more tangible outputs and outcomes. There is a movement in this direction which started with Geneva Messages that came out of IGF 2017 held in Switzerland, this continued with Paris key messages that outlined specific outputs from the discussions held at the 2018 meeting. 

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] 

There was broad support for the view that the IGF is an important Forum which does not need to be reinvented or replaced, although there is a need to reform and improve it in order to keep it relevant.

Many indicated that the IGF can be improved and strengthened by guaranteeing more tangible or accessible outcomes. 

Some supported more High-Level Panels and a more relevant and focused agenda, while others noted that the IGF became a space to discuss not only Internet Governance, but also “digital issues”.

There was also an advice to keep the IGF in its existing role, as a space for dialogue rather than negotiation, highlighting that the IGF cannot be turned into a top-down arena. Nevertheless, is was noted that the Forum needs to improve its political visibility with high‑level representatives of all stakeholders.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

It was suggested to continue discussing the “future of the IGF”, in particular regarding the upcoming IGF 2019, in a continued way, a work that the MAG has already started. 

There was a suggestion to increase High Level Participation, to improve IGF’s political visibility attracting representatives of all stakeholders.It was also mentioned that perhaps there is a need for more tangible outcomes, including a suggestion to hold High-level Panels in order to discuss those possible outcomes. Furthermore, there was also a recommendation to think about IGF’s outreach and how the discussions at the Forum can haven real impact after the meeting. 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

IGF Community have to actively participate not only at the Annual meeting but also in a sustained way, making sure the IGF is built to improve more interaction between stakeholders, enhancing cooperation in digital and Internet governance related issues.  The IGF needs a more cohesive agenda, with less competing sessions. There is also a need to improve intersessional work, to continue the discussions in between meetings.  IGF Ecosystem needs to keep improving and evolving.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 

50-60 px

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

25-30 women

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

There was no gender issues discussion. 

Session Type: Open Forum

Title: Measuring a free, open, rights based and inclusive Internet

Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 16:10 to 17:10

Organizer(s): UNESCO, Association for Progressive Communications (APC)

Chair/Moderator: Moez Chakchouk, Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, UNESCO

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Xianhong Hu, UNESCO

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

• Presentation by Mr. David Souter, UNESCO commissioned author of Internet Universality Indicators (UK)
• Mr. Enrico Calandro, Research Manager,  Research ICT Africa (South Africa)
• Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, Head of the Center of Studies for Information and Communications Technologies (CETIC.br) and Mr. João Brant, Ex Executive Secretary of the Brazilian Ministry of Culture and External Consultant for the Pre-testing and Piloting of UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators framework in Brazil (Brazil)
• Ms. Pirongrong Ramasoota, Vice-President of Chulalongkorn University, Member of the Content Board, Broadcast Section, National Broadcasting and Telecommunications (Thailand)
• Ms. Silvia Grundmann, Head of Media and Internet Division and Secretary to CDMSI, Council of Europe
• Closing remarks from Ms. Albana Shala, Chair of UNESCO's International Programme for Development of Communication (IPDC) Council, UNESCO
• Book launch by Mr. Guy Berger, UNESCO Director for Freedom of Expression and Media Development
• Ms. Julie Posetti, co-author of UNESCO’s Publication “Journalism, Fake News and Misinformation: Model Course for Journalism Educators and Trainers”, Senior Research Fellow, Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford (UK)

Theme: Evolution of Internet Governance

Subtheme: Broadening Stakeholder Participation in Internet Governance

Key messages of the discussion: 

• Moez Chakchouk, UNESCO: “UNESCO has been fully committed to develop the Internet Universality Indicators. Over the last 2 years, the Organization has consulted with more than 2000 experts from all the stakeholders’ communities. The final product that will be presented to UNESCO’s IPDC Council aims to raise awareness, map Internet contexts and improve national Internet policies.”
• Silvia Grundmann, Council of Europe: “This project offers an opportunity for all stakeholders to voluntary measure their national Internet development and to defend an open Internet. At the Council of Europe, we fully support this initiative, which is complementary to our work. I will present this new tool to our Member States and will invite them to implement the Internet indicators.”
• Alexandre Barbosa, CETIC.br and João Brant, independent consultant (Brazil): “The ROAM framework and the proposed Internet indicators are of high policy-relevance since they constitute an excellent tool for countries to produce data that are relevant for advancing human rights on the Internet, as well as for the UN 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development. What these indicators create is a common ground and an internationally validated framework the can – and must – be used as an advocacy tool.”

The discussion

UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information, Moez Chakchouk gave opening remarks, insisting on the fact that “this project [UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators] will provide our Member States, and other stakeholders, an internationally-recognized tool to assess Internet policies towards enhancing democracy and its building knowledge societies engaged in sustainable Development”. This vision was shared by all the panelists, including David Souter, the leading author of the Internet Indicators, who then presented the project and its key elements.

A panel of 4 experts then shared their experiences regarding the pre-testing and piloting of the indicators in Senegal, Nigeria, Brazil, and Thailand. If each national assessment has been quite different (data available, contexts…), the 4 experts agreed on the fact that “this exercise was important not only to understand the feasibility of data collection in all four dimensions of the ROAM framework, but also to better understand the role and the capacity of different stakeholders in providing access to reliable data sources, both quantitative and qualitative.”

Silvia Grundmann from the Council of Europe and Albana Shala, Chair of UNESCO's IPDC Council fully supported the initiative and said they would present it to the Council of Europe as well as to the Member States of UNESCO’s IPDC Council.

During the final part of the session, Guy Berger from UNESCO and Julie Posetti (co-author of UNESCO’s Handbook on Journalism, Fake News and Misinformation) launched a new publication which explores the very nature of journalism with modules on why trust matters; thinking critically about how digital technology and social platforms are conduits of the information disorder; fighting back against disinformation and misinformation through media and information literacy; fact-checking 101; social media verification and combatting online abuse.

Policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward

As mentioned by Moez Chakchouk, David Souter, and Albana Shala, the Internet Universality Indicators will be presented to UNESCO’s IPDC Council in November 2018 for possible endorsement. The Internet Indicators will then become an internationally-recognized tool to assess Internet policies.

Once presented to UNESCO’s IPDC Council, the Internet Indicators will be published along with an implementation guide. As suggested by the panel of experts who have conducted pre-tests and pilots of the indicators in various contexts, a shorter version of the framework (called the ‘core indicators’) will also be published. They will allow stakeholders to undertake national assessments where resources and data are very limited.

One participant asked whether the Indicators will allow for comparisons between countries and if the national assessments will be compulsory for the Member States. Moez Chakchouk answered that UNESCO has not developed the Indicators for comparisons and rankings between countries. They will be used on a voluntary basis, to help Member States and interested stakeholders to assess where there is room for improvements regarding national Internet policies.

Ideas with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress

It was mentioned several times that UNESCO’s project to develop Internet Universality Indicators was based on the multistakeholder model and sought to bring stakeholders together to participate in the dialogue, decision making, and implementation of the framework.

Estimate number of participants: 120

Estimate percentage of women present: 50%

Gender issues

The session did not directly address issues related to gender. However, some speakers brought a number of gender issues to the table, inasmuch as they were related to the context of the discussion. This was especially the case when participants talked about the cross-cutting indicators which cover gender issues.

IGF 2018 Report

Implementation of WSIS Action Lines for SDGs towards WSIS Forum 2019

1^st Physical Meeting of the Open Consultation Process

- Session Type: 1^st Physical Meeting of the WSIS Forum Open Consultation Process

- Title: Implementation of WSIS Action Lines for SDGs towards WSIS Forum 2019

- Date & Time: 12 November 2018, 12:20-13:20

- Organizers: ITU together with UNESCO, UNCTAD and UNDP (International organizations)

- Chair/Moderator: Mr Vladimir Stankovic, WSIS Secretariat, ITU

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Mr Vladimir Stankovic, WSIS Secretariat, ITU

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations:

• Ms Sasha Rubel | Program Specialist | Knowledge Societies Division | UNESCO
• Mr Torbjörn Fredriksson | Chief | ICT Policy Section | Division on Technology and Logistics | UNCTAD
• Mr Vladimir Stankovic | ICT Policy Analyst | Corporate Strategy Division | ITU
• Mr Deniz Susar | Governance & Public Administration Officer | UNDESA
• Ms Joyce Dogniez | Senior Director | Global Community Engagement | ISOC (WSIS Prizes 2018 Winner)

- Theme: Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme: Other: WSIS Action Lines and SDGs

- Key messages of the discussion. The event focused on informing stakeholders, and soliciting their suggestions regarding preparations for the 2019 WSIS Forum, with the theme Information and Communication Technologies for Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals.

• The Agenda and Program of the WSIS Forum 2019 is designed in collaboration with the multistakeholders on the basis of official submissions received during the Open Consultation Process on the thematic aspects and innovations of the format of the WSIS Forum 2019. 
• The First Physical Meeting of the Open Consultation Process for the WSIS Forum 2019 provided an opportunity for the participants to learn more about the WSIS Process, in particular, the implementation of WSIS Action Lines for the Achievement of SDGs, the WSIS Forum 2019 Open Consultation Process, WSIS Prizes 2019, WSIS Forum 2019: Photography Contest, Exhibition, Hackathon, Youth and other special tracks.
• Involving all WSIS Stakeholders (governments, civil society, private sector entities, academia and international organizations), this process aims to ensure active participation of different sectors during the event. All participants were invited to contribute by addressing Calls for Action.

- Summary of the interventions and discussions with open calls for action: Participants provided input on the potential themes for thematic workshops for the upcoming WSIS Forum. They reflected on past events and proposed ideas on additional interactive formats for the event. They discussed how to best implement the WSIS process, in an effort to align the WSIS Action Lines with the UN 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.

• Following the welcoming remarks by session organizers, the update on the Preparations for WSIS Forum 2019 was shared in the form of a presentation. Major focus of the presentation were the ongoing open Calls for Action where the participants were invited to make official submissions to the WSIS Secretariat for the Open Consultation Process before the deadline (10 February 2019), sharing their views on the thematic aspects and innovations on the format of the forum, recommending speakers, requesting thematic workshops, requesting exhibition stalls, etc.
• Participants were invited to submit their ICT-related projects for the WSIS Prizes 2019 contest until 30 November 2018, and to participate in the WSIS Photo Contest 2019.
• The session also benefited from presentation by UNDESA, the WSIS Action Lines C1, C7eGov, C11 lead facilitator, on their implementation activities; and, from the WSIS Prizes 2018 Winner in WSIS Action Line C11, Internet Society, on their experience and appreciation of the contest, inviting ICT community to contribute to the WSIS Prizes 2019.

This was followed by Q&A with muiltistakeholders present. All contributions were taken into account and will be incorporated into planning for the WSIS Forum 2019. Video of the full session can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBJ-gZPeIqQ&list=UUk0zf4oI0IsJLh1owvUQSfQ&index=40

- Please describe any suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways:

• Participants expressed enthusiasm for WSIS Forum 2019. Several noted their long-time support of the WSIS process. The group highlighted a desire to focus on innovative technologies, and their impact on information and knowledge societies.
• Some specific issues raised included lifelong learning and livelihoods, youth engagement, digital skills needed for achieving SDGs, universal access to information and knowledge, empowering economies in digital era, and financing for digitalization.
• Special tracks at the WSIS Forum and other innovative solutions were appreciated, with special mention to hackathons and its potential contribution to advancing SDGs.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

  Estimated number of participants present at the session: 24

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Estimated overall number of women present at the session: 10

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. However, it did mention the importance of gender-balanced participation, including the speakers at the WSIS Forum 2019. It was reported that WSIS Forum is increasingly benefiting from growing number of women participants. Special mention was the gender-balanced participation at the WSIS Forum hackathon.

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Outreach
 
Title: SEEDIG
 
Date & Time: 14 November, 13:30 - 15:00
 
Organizer(s): SEEDIG
 
Chair/Moderator: Sorina Teleanu, Chair, SEEDIG Executive Committee, Romania

Rapporteur/Notetaker: Jana Misic, SEEDIG intern, Serbia
 
List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- all participants

Theme (as listed here): Evolution of Internet Governance
 
Subtheme (as listed here): /
 
Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
The future course of SEEDIG should include more emphasis on the local and national levels, deeply focused topics of relevance for the region, and more outreach and building partnerships.

Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…
This was an outreach session, dedicated to updating the SEEDIG community on current and planned activities of the initiative. During the discussions, participants agreed that SEEDIG should strongly focus on its own region, with its own concrete activities, and ensure regional ownership of this platform for dialogue.
While many agreed that SEEDIG's model is strong, it was also underlined that this governance model does not assure that the work is done by itself. And the core team and the community need to find a way to ensure that the burden is shared among everybody. And the way to do that probably is to focus more on concrete activities and on building on what SEEDIG has already achieved.

Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]
SEEDIG's way forward should include a strengthened community, a more active and consistent presence in the region, more regional support (to complement the international one), more focus and relevance when it comes to topics addressed and activities undertaken, and enhanced overall sustainability

What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]
n/a
 
Please estimate the total number of participants.
30
 
Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
More than half of the participants were women.
 
- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]
N/a

IGF 2018 Long Report

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Panel

- Title:

Content blocking and filtering: a challenge for Internet growth

- Date & Time:

Nov 14, 10:00 AM to 11:20 AM

- Organizer(s) by MAG members:

Sylvia Cadena (Female, Technical Community, APNIC Foundation. Colombia/Australia)

Sumon Ahmed Sabir (Male, Technical Community, Fiber@Home. Bangladesh)

- Chair/Moderator:

Bill Woodcock (Male, Technical Community, Packet Clearing House. United States)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

• Sylvia Cadena (Female, Technical Community, Colombia/Australia)
• Bhadrika Magan (Female, Technical Community, New Zealand)

- Remote moderator:

• Carolina Aguerre (Female, Academia, Argentina)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Danko Jevtović, (Male. Technical Community, ICANN Board. Serbia)
• Sumon Ahmed Sabir (Male. Technical Community, Fiber@Home. Bangladesh)
• Peter Koch (Male. Technical Community, DENIC. Germany)
• Andrew Sullivan (Male. Technical Community, Internet Society. Canada)
• Sébastien Soriano (Male. Government, ARCEP. France)
• Irene Poetranto (Female. Academia, CitizenLab - University of Toronto. Canada)
• Alexander Isavnin (Male. Civil Society, Internet Protection Society. Russia)
• Mariko Kobayashi (Female. Youth Representative, Master student, Keio University. Japan)

- Theme (as listed here):

Technical and Operational Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Content Blocking and Filtering

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

Understanding the architecture of the Internet and how it works, and the relevance of adhering to standards and appropriate use of Internet protocols is a corner stone of any discussion around the stability and growth of the Internet.

Fast and hard approaches to deal with harmful/unwanted content on the Internet can have unintended consequences and negative impact on its operations.

The best way forward to tackle the challenge pose by harmful/unwanted content requires dialogue, collaboration and due process, respecting civic fundamental rights.

There is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The session started by setting the scene, discussing the focus of the session around content blocking and filtering, its technical implementations and operational implications.

Any mentioning of any technology does not include any judgment about its fitness for purpose or any endorsement for its utilization.

Two MAG members, Danko Jevtović and Sumon Sabir opened the session.

Mr. Jevtović stated that as the Internet developed and grew, the application of technical implementations for content blocking and filtering became almost a necessity, but it has also become clear how the use of technical deployments without following a proper due process or considering the operational implications have negatively impacted access to legal content, as well as increasing the burden on network operators to comply with such filtering and blocking requests. At the same time, the implementation of fast and hard approaches to deal with harmful/unwanted content on the Internet, seem to minimize the space for dialogue, where the interest of all stakeholders is discussed, and due process is observed.

Mr. Sabir stated the different ways that content filtering has been used for many years both at home and at work. At home, many families use gateway filtering to safeguard children. At the office, employers might block access to entertainment or social networks to avoid distractions and improve productivity. ISPs are also implementing filters and firewalls to protect their infrastructure. The growth of what might be considered as harmful content has led to some countries to request ISPs operating in their territory, to apply blocking and filtering rules for the whole country, at unprecedent scale. At the same rate that filtering and blocking techniques are implemented, ways to circumvent such techniques become available. Techniques such as filtering or blocking IP prefixes defined as the source, URI / URL blocking, DNS Blackholing are not effective as more content is transmitted via HTTPS/TLS encryption and DNSSEC implementation progresses. Requests from law enforcement to take down content have also increased significantly. The transparency reports from Google and Facebook show how almost every country in the world has submit such request, and most of them cite national security as the main reason.

The agenda for the session continued with two panellists from the Technical Community, Peter Koch and Andrew Sullivan.

Mr. Koch started his intervention with a basic concept about how the Internet works, referring to how anything that is transmitted over the Internet is chopped into small pieces called packets, that travel independent of each other.  As such, no content appears at any place in the network in its entirety, and therefore with some exceptions it cannot be inspected in total or judged in total at any point in time, except, of course, at the end point which is either the source of the traffic or the device in front of the consumer. This very same characteristic has a direct co-relation with how effective the content blocking and filtering methods can be. There are a variety of technical implementations for filter/block, from the simplest option of blocking IP addresses, block the resolution of the domain name (DNS), DNS over HTTPS, intercepting traffic, blacklisting, transport layer security (TLS), Content delivery network (CDN).

For example, to stop employees to access a website or to protect them from a phishing website, botnet mitigation or malware, can be easily done by blocking the IP address of a particular website, at their first route to the Internet, and then the traffic will not flow back and forth, and employees will not be able to access that website. Content can be replicated, technologies that help manage load spikes that help to distribute content, so IP blocking is also be easily circumvented.

Another method called blackholing. Instead doing the filtering close to the user as in the example above, the blocking of an IP address or a range of addresses is done at the ISP or IXP point. This affects all the packets going back and forth between anyone using the Internet, and those the address range in question. The further away the filtering is applied from the source, the more organizations have to interfere with the packets flow. That also means that some process should be in place to determine the ranges of addresses to block, and how many organizations should be involved so it is effective.

Blocking a website can also be done by blocking its domain name. This type of interference at the ISP level will stop the resolution of a particular domain name, will suppress the translation or the mapping of the domain name to an IP address.  However, if the user has the IP address from where the content originates and if the IP address is not blocked, they will be able to reach the content. Another method on this layer, is called domain name takedown, which means to remove the domain name from the DNS, so it will not resolve anymore. Same as the previous example, the content will still be available although unreachable as the domain name will not resolve.

On the examples mentioned, the issue about “judging” content as harmful or illegal, has been mentioned. There is no technical solution to apply such judgements, human intervention is required.

Mr Sullivan agreed with Mr Koch statements and took a few minutes to reiterate that the blocking and filtering techniques described are not removing the content from the Internet but blocking access to the point from where the content is coming from, and this can include other sources of content not identified as harmful or illegal. The Internet is a network with a common numbering and naming space, formed from many different networks. This means is not possible to block the end points from end-to-end in one place: the identified content will have to be blocked throughout all the cooperative networks, to get every network to block it, as there is no centre of control.

The blocking and filtering mechanisms described in RFC7754, written by the Internet Architecture Board, is an informational document, not a manual about how to implement them. Such technical mechanisms are not in line with the architecture of the Internet, intended to be neutral.

One of the challenges about inspecting content, is that it is very hard to say if intercepting traffic is actually legitimate, as it puts into question the validity of the exchange, for example on banking transactions where Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used to encrypt the information. When applied, filters do not work, and content can’t be blocked outside of its host.

When blocking content, the challenge is that due to the large scale, blocking techniques are proving to be incompatible with the policy goals at the macro level, like trying to prevent a house to be inundated by blocking the water at the molecular level.

Take-down notices have no technical component. They are a legal notification to a content publisher or producer, to stop publishing on the Internet, or face a penalty to be applied if a specific content is not removed from the server that host it. That is the spirit of the legislation, and there is no technical feature to be able to do that. To remove content from the Internet, it has to be removed from its source by the content publisher or producer.

In response to a question from the audience about how to ensure there is no misuse of the techniques for content blocking and filtering, Mr. Sullivan answered that there is no “evil bit” that identifies malicious packets, so in principle there is no way to make sure you are getting it right. He referenced RFC 3514 written as a joke, about the evil bit. Mr. Koch provided an analogy indicating that if access to the streets of a red-light district is blocked, ambulances and postman will also not have access. He also provided an analogy about the inability to inspect packets equating it to demolishing or closing down a whole building just because something inside that building was identified as bad, but as it was impossible to know exactly where in that address, then everything has to go.

On the following block of the agenda, the session looked at the approaches from Regulators in Europe around the content blocking and filtering, presented by Sebastién Soriano.

Mr. Soriano started his intervention by quoting Stephen Brown “information wants to be free”. This brings great opportunities around creation and exchange of information. Sadly, some individuals use this power to cause harm. These threads are defined differently by every country, according to their cultural sensitivities, balancing freedom vs. protection.

Mr. Soriano referenced President Macron’s speech at the IGF Opening Plenary, where cyberattacks, fake news specially around electoral processes, copyright infringement that threatens business opportunities and hate speech were mentioned as unacceptable uses of the Internet that are harmful and should be deal with.

In that respect, Mr. Soriano highlighted that the strategies independent regulatory bodies deal with such threats in Europe are based on two very important principles: network neutrality (defined as the non-discrimination in the management of traffic and freedom of choice for end users) and limited liability for hosting companies (defined as no legal responsibility for hosting illegal/harmful content if the company is not aware of that). In this context, if a public authority with a legitimate objective requests a hosting company to withdraw the content, then the company has to comply with such request. These requests are managed under a very clear process, respecting civic fundamental rights.

France is studying the creation of a new status for hosting companies that accelerate the propagation of content. As such, a pilot program will be implemented in 2019 where teams from different French regulators will work with Facebook to explore this proposal in more detail. He responded to a question from the audience seeking clarification about this approach, to explain that the idea is to protect content producers (such as bloggers) from being treated under the same regulations covering content accelerator platforms, such as Facebook, as they have a very different reach and impact on society. The big companies accelerating content should be covered under a different definition. He highlighted the importance of rethinking regulation in the Internet age, not to micro-manage content but to audit and verify how the content accelerator does it.

A member of the audience highlighted the delicate balance between determining what harmful/illegal content is and freedom of expression, in the context of how much the Internet can amplify access to such content. He asked if this is the first attempt to redefine freedom of expression as it applied to different media.

Mr. Soriano replied that the balance does not depend on the technology used but on the message being communicated, however the capacity the Internet has to propagate information freely and widely require specific responses. Such tensions have made possible that many countries defend more forcefully freedom of expression.

Mr. Woodcock, the session’s moderator, also provided distinctions around technical implementations that threaten the neutrality of the network, by allowing preferential treatment to some content providers while degrading performance to others as well as other implementations that provide access without restrictions or additional costs to certain content providers while charging additional costs (zero-rating). He clarified that misbehaviour among unregulated market dominant companies based in the United States has an overflow effect as regulators around the world have a difficult time enforcing regulations on them. In Europe, as there are more active privacy and individual rights regulators discussing these complex issues mostly generated by US companies, more ways to address these problems and find solutions are coming from Europe.

On the next block of the agenda, two speakers from the civil society shared their views.

Ms. Poetranto started her intervention referencing the work of the CitizenLab of the University of Toronto, done in collaboration with the Berkman Centre of the University of Harvard to investigate and expose Internet filtering in over 70 countries around the world. The Open Net Initiative research found that censor the Internet in different ways and intensities, often under arguments compelling and powerful as mentioned before by Mr. Sabir and Mr. Soriano (copyright protection, false news, national security). She added the preservation of cultural norms and religious values to the list of reasons mentioned.

Their research has documented widespread use of Western made software solutions such as BlueCoat (US company) or NetSweeper (Canadian company). They have also found relevant issues about accuracy of such deployments as defined by under-blocking or over-blocking. The first one, when the technology fails to block access for all the targets, while over-blocking refers to block content that was not intended to be blocked. One of the main problems identified is the incorrect classification used to apply such filters. The other problem identified was the lack of transparency and accountability when automatization is applied. As governments partner with such companies, the danger of any of these problems when such content filtering schemes are applied nationwide is very explicit.

On their most recent publication in April 2018, a pattern of mischaracterization by NetSweeper’s use of a category called “alternative lifestyles” results in over-blocking of LGBQ content of non-graphical nature such as media or cultural groups, HIV-aids prevention organizations, and non-pornographic websites, which has serious human rights implications. The filter can also be set for specific countries.

The CitizenLab continues their research in this area despite great risk. In 2015, they were sued by NetSweeper, as they published a report about the use of such tools in the state-owned and operated YemenNet. The lawsuit sought over 3M in damages and it was discontinued in its entirety in 2016.

Ms. Poetranto concluded her intervention highlighting there is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.

Mr. Isavnin focused his intervention on his experience analysing content blocking and filtering in Russia over the last 6 years. There is a set of federal regulations, and content producers are required to take content down if requested. If content is not removed, the ISPs are obliged to restrict access. He warns about the fact that once content filtering starts to be an accepted practice in a country, it will never stop, and the resources required will only increase. In Russia, what started with a limited set of reasons why to filter or block content. The reasons as well as the number of agencies involved have only continue to grow. However, there is no evidence to support that filtering and blocking have worked for the reasons intended: no reduction on suicides, or prevention of terrorist or drug related crimes. A statistic from the European Union indicates that taking down sites increases revenues for content producers.

The ambiguity and lack of clarity of what to block/filter leads to real operational expenses to remove blocked resources. One of the most popular French video hosting sites, DailyMotion, is blocked in Russia without a clear way to take them out of the list.

As huge IP ranges were blocked trying to control access to Telegram messengering, it turns out that meant that because of shared hosting arrangements, over-blocking went up to 95% of the sites hosted on those IP ranges. As there is a strict enforcement and massive fines applied by the government, ISPs have resort to over-blocking. There are also huge range of resources devoted for further inspections. This has a direct impact on the technical capacity that an ISP requires to legally operate in Russia: more computational power, more auditing power, more special equipment. This has also led to misused of blocked IP addresses, appropriating them for use under internal infrastructure or to redirect other content to be displayed for advertisement using those blocked systems. The other risk for the operators is to play an active role on censoring of the political opposition.

Mr. Isavnin stressed how RFC7745 is used in some countries as an IETF approved manual for blocking content and because of that it is important that the IETF and the IAB show a stronger position against the use of these techniques.

Mr. Isavnin answered a question from Mr. Woodcock about how the costs of such implementations are covered. He stated that the blocking laws were passed in Russia without further spending of federal budgets required, so all costs are incorporated into what the ISP charge the end-user, at least doubling up the price so it makes it less affordable.

A member of the audience raised a question about DNS over HTTPS. Mr Koch explained how this technology is facilitating the mapping of domain names would be done over the browser (like accessing a web page) instead of the DNS, which will circumvent interception. A technology called “safe browsing” allows users to identify the real content circulating over the HTTPS session. DNS over HTTPS is rather complex and is endorsed as an "anti-censoring" mechanism, just the opposite of blocking.  However, the concentration that might result from its adoption by a small number of providers could, however, enhance blocking opportunities for the lower number of points of influence. This does not refer to naïve or idealistic architectural purity, but as a clear risk for Internet growth. DNS over HTTPS is considered a form of encryption. Mr. Woodcock mentioned the battle between the standards for DNS over HTTPS versus DNS over TLS and how in his view it is more likely that DNS over TLS will prevail. It is more widely deployed, commercially offered through the Content Distribution Network providers. Privacy is treated as part of what the user can choose to pay from such service. Mr. Sullivan highlighted that many other popular services over the Internet use the same approach, by transferring a certain type of content over the web that is actually not web content: one protocol inside another. It is a very effective way to circumvent filtering and blocking, passing content over the most used protocol, which makes very costly to filter everything: to use a protocol that we can’t afford to filter.

To finalize the panel interventions, Ms Kobayashi brought to the session the impact that the adoption and deployment of these blocking and filtering techniques have on the youth. She mentioned three main consequences: 1) young Internet users are growing with a limited view of the world, that may limit their ability to effectively articulate informed opinions, to participate in political processes; 2) these limits their possibilities to develop business, to innovate and create, and 3) to share their own ideas. The role of the youth, by asking questions from all stakeholders can help to establish dialogue. Young engineers have also been involved in the support for standardization of end-to-end encryption over the Internet.

To wrap up the session, Ms. Cadena, one of the organizers of the session, invited the participants to continue the dialogue because the Internet is built by an ecosystem of organizations that are actively engaged in this process, and the more we continue the dialogue, the better the Internet is going to be.

In summary:

• The Internet is a network with a common numbering and naming space, formed from many different networks. The information that flows through the Internet, wants to be free. Content blocking and filtering are a reality today, but it is not possible to control everything in the network. There are clear tensions between freedom of information and protection against security threats, as requests to network operators to remove or to take down content increased. As such, it is key that due process, a transparent and accountable process with unambiguous and clear rules and guidelines, is carefully followed to address the concerns of users and governments while continue to support the development and growth of the Internet.
• Authoritarian governments as well as democracies filter and block Internet content in different ways. These requests are increasing for reasons ranging from national security concerns to control the dissemination of phishing websites, malware, and botnets. However, there is no factual evidence that blocking or filtering actually works to lowering suicide rates, terrorism, while there is clear evidence that collateral blocking is hindering access to valuable information and that has been used as a tool to repress freedom of expression, quash dissent and opposite political views. On the other hand, there is evidence of the additional cost to establish government agencies to manage blocking and filtering.
• There are a variety of technical implementations to filter/block, like blocking IP addresses, block the resolution of the domain name (DNS), DNS over HTTPS, intercepting traffic, blacklisting, transport layer security (TLS), Content delivery network (CDN) as well the not-so-technical solutions of a notice and take down system. Such technical mechanisms are not in line with the architecture of the Internet, intended to be neutral.
• Consideration to intermediary liability is part of the framework to consider when addressing issues around content blocking and filtering to understand the burden placed on network operators to have the skills, the computer power and the budget to cover the legal costs to comply with such regulations. It is worth noticing how these costs can double the operational costs which in turn can reduce affordability for users. The review of the existing regulatory definitions to characterize content producers can offer avenues to explore and alternative solutions about the ways to protect and accelerate content provision that supports the growth of the Internet.
• There is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.
• As a result of these practices, young Internet users are growing with a limited view of the world, that may limit their ability to effectively articulate informed opinions, to participate in political processes, to develop business, to innovate and create, to share their own ideas.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

The challenge posed by harmful/unwanted content to preserve the open and stable Internet that continues to grow, requires an understanding of the architecture of the Internet and how it works, and the relevance of adhering to standards and appropriate use of Internet protocols when reviewing the design and adoption of regulatory frameworks, definitions around content production, etc.

Fast and hard approaches to deal with harmful/unwanted content on the Internet have unintended consequences and negative impact on its operations and limit its potential.

Consideration to intermediary liability, to the burden placed on network operators and how that can reduce affordability for users is required, as well as unintended negative impact on how the Internet users, in particular the youth, can grow with a limited view of the world, limited to participate in society, innovate and share ideas.

France is studying the creation of a new status for hosting companies that accelerate the propagation of content. As such, a pilot program will be implemented in 2019 where teams from different French regulators will work with Facebook to explore this proposal in more detail.

There is great need for careful, responsible, peer-reviewed and evidence-based research around content-blocking and filtering and its real implications on censorship and surveillance.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

As the best way forward to tackle the challenge pose by harmful/unwanted content requires dialogue, collaboration and due process the IGF offers a unique space to bring together the views, knowledge and expertise from different stakeholders and disciplines to understand the problems and come with solutions, together.

The IGF has a key role to facilitate the discussion around all these issues and bring light to the perspectives of various stakeholders.

The IGF is the best venue to discussed current practices and their possible consequences of different approaches and do all that for the benefit of Internet and, of course, for the UN sustainable development goals.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 100 people were present in the room.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Around 25 women were in the audience.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The session referred to the technical and operational issues around content blocking and filtering. No specific discussion took place around gender on this session.

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): 

Workshop

- Title:

Well-being in the Digital Age (OECD Going Digital Project)

- Date & Time:

12 November, 10:30-12:00

- Organizer(s):

Molly Lesher, Carlos da Fonseca and Marc Rotenberg

- Chair/Moderator:

Molly Lesher

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Molly Lesher

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Speaker 1: Fabrice Murtin, OECD (male)
• Speaker 2: Molly Lesher, OECD (female)
• Speaker 3: Mónica Aspé, Ambassador of Mexico to the OECD (female)
• Speaker 4: Carlos da Fonseca, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Brazil (male)
• Speaker 5: Claire Milne, Antelope Consulting (female)
• Speaker 6: Valeria Milanes, Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (female)
• Speaker 7: Makoto Yokozawa, Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD (male)
• Speaker 8: Katie Watson, Internet Society, The Internet Society (female)

- Theme (as listed here):

Development, Innovation & Economic Issues

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet & the Environment; Internet for Development & SDGs

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

• Connectivity underpins a positive and inclusive digital transformation.
• Three issues were identified as being critical to promoting well-being in a technology rich environment: skills, trust and quality work.
• The multi-stakeholder model was identified as essential to ensuring well-being in the digital age.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

Well-being in the digital age is multi-faceted, and has varying ramifications for individuals and society as a whole. In particular, differences in quality access and connectivity persist across geography, while other factors like gender, age, income and level of education are often significant in determining the confident use of digital technologies. All panellists agreed that digital technologies could provide positive contributions for society, especially in terms of well-being, insofar as these technological tools are used appropriately provided that there is effective policy guidance. While many issues were mentioned, three stood out as being essential to ensuring well-being in the digital age.

First, skills were identified as one of the keys to making digital transformation positive and inclusive, and there was broad agreement that women and people of ethnic minorities are particularly impacted. Second, trust – including privacy, security and consumer protection – was identified as another important aspect to making digital transformation work for societal well-being. Indeed trust is earned when actions meet words, which is something that was widely agreed upon. As such, it was widely agreed that all stakeholders must work collaboratively in order to create a trustworthy and safe environment for the use of digital technologies and data. Third, quality work was identified as critical to promoting well-being in a technology-rich environment. In particular, participants highlighted that quality work is not just about a pay check, but about workers’ feelings of self-worth.

Participants agreed that ensuring that actors from bodies with diverse interests, from civil society to the business community, can help to ensure that policies are made with diverse and wide-ranging positive impacts. Ultimately, granting quality access and promoting the effective use of digital technologies across all portions of society will be a step closer towards ensuring well-being in an increasingly digital world.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

While the OECD work to measure well-being from a digital perspective was much appreciated, the complexity of such an exercise requires the international community to work together to continue to push the well-being measurement agenda forward. This requires co-operation and co-ordination by the international statistical community and beyond. Participants also noted the need to expand access to digital technologies to all aspects of society, including rural and remote communities and those in the developing world. However, the panellists also noted that the benefits of digital technologies come from their use, which are often predicated on having digital skills. Therefore, initial policy recommendations must be primarily be two-fold. First, to provide access to digital technologies and, second, to provide tools and create environments in which to acquire the necessary digital skills needed for digital transformation. This would promote a holistic digital transformation of society with the intent of minimal drawbacks on societal well-being, whilst also striving to dispel any negative repercussions caused by a digital divide between those that possess digital skills and those that do not.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

The panellists repeatedly mentioned the need to include many diverse communities and perspectives in the digital policymaking process, and affirmed the role of the multi-stakeholder process. To this end, the IGF eco-system can help to foster discussion and come to agreement on the cross-cutting issues associated with well-being in the digital age, including digital skills, trust and more. Moreover, it cannot be denied that, thanks to the United Nation’s wide-reaching convening power, the IGF’s geographical positioning at the UNESCO’s Headquarters in Paris this year meant that high-level officials and policy-makers were guaranteed to attend and therefore participate and foster progress on issues such as internet governance, which have proven to be so crucial in today’s digital transformation.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

55-60

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

20 (approximately 40%)

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The panellists underscored gender as a significant dimension that determines access to and the use of digital technologies, and noted that the digital gender divide constituted a major risk for well-being in the digital age. Other particular gender issues were discussed, including that men tend to work longer hours in digital intensive jobs than women. Conversely, however, it was also mentioned that digital transformation allows more women to access and leverage digital skills than ever before.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/topics/well-being/

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Panel  

- Title:

AI and Ethics: privacy, transparency and construction of knowledge

- Date & Time:

5 pm – 6:30 pm on 13^th November.

- Organizer(s)

Yik Chan Chin Xi'an Jiao-tong Liverpool University
Ansagar Koene, University of Nottingham

Kuo-wei, Wu APNIC
Yang Shen, School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University

- Chair/Moderator:

On Site Moderator: Dr. Wu Kuo-wei, APNIC
Online Moderator: Mr. Le Song

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Dr. Yik Chan Chin and Prof. Changfeng Chen             Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and Tsinghua University 

Dr. Ansgar Koene                                      University of Nottingham   

Mr. Jasper Wang, Deputy Editor of Sina Weibo, Editor-in-chief of Weibo Think Tank in China.

Dr. Félicien Vallet,  a privacy technologist at the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the French data protection authority.

Mr. Yuqiang Chen,  the co-founder and chief research scientist of the 4th Paradigm.

Mr. Jake Lucchi, Head of AI, Public Policy, Google Asia Pacific.

- Theme (as listed here):

Emerging Technologies

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet Ethics

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

What are the most prominent ethical issues in related to the AI development and application?

What is the current landscape of policies and regulations of AI ethics in China, EU and USA?

What is the necessary policy environment to ensure the ethical development of AI?

Panel  

AI and Ethics: privacy, transparency and construction of knowledge

5 pm – 6:30 pm on 13^th November.

Yik Chan Chin Xi'an Jiao-tong Liverpool University
Ansagar Koene, University of Nottingham

Kuo-wei, Wu APNIC
Yang Shen, School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University

On Site Moderator: Dr. Wu Kuo-wei, APNIC
Online Moderator: Mr. Le Song

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

Dr. Yik Chan Chin and Prof. Changfeng Chen             Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and Tsinghua University 

Dr. Ansgar Koene                                      University of Nottingham   

Mr. Jasper Wang, Deputy Editor of Sina Weibo, Editor-in-chief of Weibo Think Tank in China.

Dr. Félicien Vallet,  a privacy technologist at the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the French data protection authority.

Mr. Yuqiang Chen,  the co-founder and chief research scientist of the 4th Paradigm.

Mr. Jake Lucchi, Head of AI, Public Policy, Google Asia Pacific.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

Our panel involved stakeholders from the government agency (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)),  IT and AI companies (Google, 4th Paradigm, and Sina Weibo)  and academia/civil society (Xi’an Jiao-tong Liverpool University, Tsinghua University and Nottingham University, and IEEE working group on Algorithm Bias) . Speakers’/organisations’ geographical origins cove both  Asia and  Europe.

The panel first discussed the AI policy and ethical frameworks developed in China, France as well as by professional organisation- IEEE, and the underpinning importance of developing the ethical standards.  It is understood that the ethical framework of AI is still in the process of discussion and formation, there is no compressive standard has been proposed by

Secondly, we discussed the consultation done by the governmental agency such as CNIL (the French Data Protection Authority)  in producing digital technology ethics, i.e. the digital republic bill 2016 and its widely inclusive approach in conducting the process.  Two important founding principles- fairness and continued attention and vigilance were discussed. Most importantly, we discussed six policy recommendations made by CNIL in how to address the AI ethics.

Finally, three-panel speakers from private sectors including Google, Sina Weibo, and 4 Paradigm shared their companies’ policy and practices in addressing AI ethical issues – such as privacy protection, preventing algorithm bias and improving algorithm’s fairness and accountability.  

There was broad support for the view that it is important and in need to have international discussions of AI and algorithm 's industrial standards, regulation and ethical guidance.  The similar discussions have already been undertaken in different countries and regions.  The discussions must include different stakeholders of different backgrounds. And also at the national level,  it has to set up a shared ethical code and normative framework.

Panel members also showed concerns on the potential chilling effect on freedom of expression caused by actions taken to refute fake news, an action such as credit rating of online users, when users may not have the capacity to have their stories fact-checked before releasing it.  

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

Panel members and workshop participants highly endorsed and praised the importance of involving different stakeholders including academia, industry actors, NGOs and policymakers from different geographic regions in discussing and addressing AI ethics. While European and American actors were often presented in the IGF forum, actors from Asia and other regions are less presented, and in particular in the discussions of ethical issues. Taking into the accounts of participants' feedback and the importance of cultural diversities in ethics research and debates, the panel members and the organiser are exploring the opportunities to form a cross-countries-cross-sectors research collaboration in AI ethics (EU-China, and industry-government-academics).  

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

 The IGF provided an open platform to allow the different stakeholders to involve in this debate of AI ethics. This open platform is important for both policy deliberation and public education purposes. It would be helpful if IGF could have more policymakers involved. 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

The total number of participants is between 50-60, which is the maximum capacity the room VII is allowed. Half of the participants queening outside the room was not allowed to enter by the UNESCO security staffs ( we guess it is because of the safety concern). 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

We had 2/3 participants in the room were men and 1/3 were women. 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Our session did not discuss gender issues. 

Long Report

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.):

Panel  

- Title:

AI and Ethics: privacy, transparency and construction of knowledge

- Date & Time:

5 pm – 6:30 pm on 13^th November.

- Organizer(s)

Yik Chan Chin,   Xi'an Jiao-tong Liverpool University
Ansagar Koene, University of Nottingham

Kuo-wei, Wu APNIC
 

- Chair/Moderator:

On Site Moderator: Dr. Wu Kuo-wei, APNIC
Online Moderator: Mr. Le Song

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Dr. Yik Chan Chin and Prof. Changfeng Chen             Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University and Tsinghua University 

Dr. Ansgar Koene                                           University of Nottingham   

Mr. Jasper Wang, Deputy Editor of Sina Weibo, Editor-in-chief of Weibo Think Tank in China.

Dr. Félicien Vallet,  a privacy technologist at the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL), the French data protection authority.

Mr. Yuqiang Chen,  the co-founder and chief research scientist of the 4th Paradigm.

Mr. Jake Lucchi, Head of AI, Public Policy, Google Asia Pacific.

- Theme (as listed here):

Emerging Technologies

- Subtheme (as listed here):

Internet Ethics

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

The 3 ‘Key Messages’ that are asked for essentially refer to the policy questions or policy points in your session. You should revise these if they in any way change once your session is

What are the most prominent ethical issues in related to the AI development and application ?

What are current landscape of policies and regulations of AI ethics in China, EU and USA?

What is the necessary policy environment to ensure the ethical development of AI?

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

Our panel involved stakeholders from the government agency (Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertés (CNIL)),  IT and AI companies (Google, 4th Paradigm, and Sina Weibo)  and academia/civil society (Xi’an Jiao-tong Liverpool University, Tsinghua University and Nottingham University, and IEEE working group on Algorithm Bias) . Speakers’/organisations’ geographical origins cove both  Asia and  Europe.

The panel first discussed the AI policy and ethical frameworks developed in China, France as well as by professional organisation- IEEE,  and  the underpinning importance  of  developing the ethical standards.  It is understood that the ethical framework of AI is still in the process of discussion and formation, there is no compressive standard has been proposed by

Secondly, we discussed the consultation done by the governmental agency such as CNIL (the French Data Protection Authority)  in producing digital technology ethics, i.e. the digital republic bill 2016 and its widely inclusive approach in conducting the process.  Two important founding principles- fairness and continued attention and vigilance were discussed. Most importantly, we discussed six policy recommendations made by CNIL in how to address the AI ethics.

Finally, three-panel speakers from private sectors including Google, Sina Weibo and 4 Paradigm shared their companies’ policy and practices in addressing AI ethical issues – such as privacy protection, preventing algorithm bias and improving algorithm’s fairness and accountability.  

There was broad support for the view that it is important and in need to have international discussions of  AI and algorithm’s  industrial standards, regulation and ethical guidance.  The similar discussions have already been undertaken in different countries and regions.  The discussions must include different stakeholders of different backgrounds. And also at the national level,  it has to set up a shared ethical code and normative framework.

Panel members also showed concerns on the potential chilling effect on freedom of expression caused by actions taken to refute fake news, an action such as credit rating of online users, when users may not have the capacity to have their stories fact-checked before releasing it.  

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

The policy recommendations include:

To develop a shared ethical code and normative framework of AI at the private sector as well as at the national level;

Protect minorities’ rights and avoid majoritarian tyranny

Prevent AI from doing evil by developing more powerful regulations tools and more regulations in collecting unethical data.

Different stakeholders from different sectors and disciplines need to be included in the process.

Making algorithmic systems comprehensible

Improving algorithmic system’s design: to prevent the black box effect; to empower individuals with more autonomy

Creating a national platform in order to audit algorithms: To ensure the compliance with the law and the fairness and accountability of AI systems

Increasing incentives for research on ethical AI: to foster research in computer sciences and engineering (such as explainable AI) as well as in social sciences ; to create fairer systems and raise the collective awareness

Strengthening ethics in companies: to organize dialogues between practitioners, specialists, stakeholders and communities involved; to deploy new governance tools such as ethics committees

Construction of moral agency.

Fostering education: to address everyone involved in the algorithmic chain: system developers and designers, professionals, citizens, etc. to make sure everybody understands what is at stake

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The IGF provided an open platform to allow different stakeholders to involve in the debate of AI ethics. This open platform is important for both policy deliberation and public education purposes. It would be helpful if IGF could have more policymakers involved. 

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

The total number of participants is between 50-60, which is the maximum capacity the room VII is allowed. Half of the participants queening outside the room was not allowed to enter by the UNESCO staffs (we guess it is because of the safety concern). 

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

We had 2/3 participants in the room were men and 1/3 were women. 

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Our session did not discuss gender issues. 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

Workshop organisors are exploring funding opportunities for a cross-countries-cross-sector research collaboration in Internet governance and AI ethics based on the session’s discussion.

Participants also reported the session’s discussion and its policy recommendation via their organisations’ platforms.

For instance, the report by the AI company “the 4th Paradigm”:

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MzAwMjM2Njg2Nw==&mid=2653146249&idx=1&sn=73b254eae8eb33b9ec2891617366668a&chksm=811ce075b66b6963fa6d4ed5f692ae5c074a42dc3826bf25a8e03bf8fc36cfc49b1068126e8a&mpshare=1&scene=1&srcid=1123mjP52tHSJnMwfVjA4vgF#rd

IGF 2018 Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

Long Report Due: 23 November 2018

[sample report here]

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round Table - 90 Min

- Title: Balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights & Economic Development

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 12:10 to 13:40

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: Carolin Weisser, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre
Organizer 2: Barbara Marchiori de Assis, Organization of American States
Organizer 3: Belisario Contreras, Organization of American States (OAS)
Organizer 4: Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International
Organizer 5: Amalia Toledo, Karisma Foundation

- Chair/Moderator:

Onsite Moderator: Kerry-Ann Barrett, Cybersecurity Policy Specialist, Cybersecurity Program, Organization of American States (OAS) (Female)

Online Moderator: Carolin Weisser Harris, Lead International Operations, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Female)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Matthew Griffin, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Lisa Vermeer, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Netherlands (Female)

Speaker 2: Prof William Dutton [intgovforum.org], Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

Speaker 3: Claudio Cocorocchia, Acting Head of Information and Entertainment System Initiative, Global Leadership Fellow, in World Economic Forum. (Male)

Speaker 4: Angela Mckay, Senior Director, Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, Microsoft (Female)

Speaker 5: Leandro Ucciferri, Lawyer and Researcher, ADC (Male)

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

Over all the panellist discussed a wide ranging issues.  Some of the discuss

1.       They addressed the relevance of balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights and Economic Development issues and explored best practices applied in different regions and stakeholder groups.

2.       The panel explored the cross-sectional issues that should be discussed when considering economic development, multi-stakeholder involvement and human rights.

3.       They examined the fact that cybersecurity is one those topics that affect the ecosystem that supports development.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

There was general agreement from the panel that empowering digital citizens and rethinking how we engage on issues that have an impact on cybersecurity is critical.  There was also consensus on the need to have not just a vertical multistakeholder concept but an inclusive multi-disciplinary and wide-raging dialogue in order to have meaning policies.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

Some of the policy considerations were practical in nature and included:

·       Be aware that not everyone in the room is speaking the same language. Ensure everyone with the different background speaks to each other.  It was noted that a broad set of arguments brought about by a broad set of actors is best to ensure impact. As such actors need to work together to push and fight back against cyber threats.

·       It is important to have a broad inclusive dialogue to ensure that human rights considerations and economic development work in tandem.

·       Having a human rights perspective is not incompatible with the economic perspective on cybersecurity development.

·       Conversation between people, government and industry need to be managed to reflect rights and values in law.

·       You can implement security and human rights parallel, they're not exclusive. At the same time, there will be trade-offs and the trade-offs are something that the society has to be involved in in making helpful decisions to represent, again, the values of a particular geography and context.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

During the discussion some key concepts emerged which can be considered for future workshops:

·       Measuring the impact of cybersecurity incidents that affect civil society groups should inform cybersecurity policies;

·       Ecology of Games – each of the policy areas have a variety of stakeholders shaping the policy in other areas directly or inadvertently. The outcome of those efforts shape security.

·       Security and Human rights can operate in parallel.

·       Need to overcome the language barrier between the stakeholders in terms of ensuring everyone is talking about the same issue

·       Ethical development – Human rights should be built in by design to economic development plans and cybersecurity investment.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

There was approximately 42 participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

·       Audience: 23 females, 19 Males

·       Panel: 3 Females, 3 Males

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

IGF 2018 Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

Long Report Due: 23 November 2018

[sample report here]

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round Table - 90 Min

- Title: Balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights & Economic Development

- Date & Time: Wednesday, 14 November, 2018 - 12:10 to 13:40

- Organizer(s):

Organizer 1: Carolin Weisser, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre
Organizer 2: Barbara Marchiori de Assis, Organization of American States
Organizer 3: Belisario Contreras, Organization of American States (OAS)
Organizer 4: Alexandrine Pirlot de Corbion, Privacy International
Organizer 5: Amalia Toledo, Karisma Foundation

- Chair/Moderator:

Onsite Moderator: Kerry-Ann Barrett, Cybersecurity Policy Specialist, Cybersecurity Program, Organization of American States (OAS) (Female)

Online Moderator: Carolin Weisser Harris, Lead International Operations, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Female)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

Matthew Griffin, Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Lisa Vermeer, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs the Netherlands (Female)

Speaker 2: Prof William Dutton [intgovforum.org], Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, University of Oxford (Male)

Speaker 3: Claudio Cocorocchia, Acting Head of Information and Entertainment System Initiative, Global Leadership Fellow, in World Economic Forum. (Male)

Speaker 4: Angela Mckay, Senior Director, Cybersecurity Policy and Strategy, Microsoft (Female)

Speaker 5: Leandro Ucciferri, Lawyer and Researcher, ADC (Male)

- Theme (as listed here): Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

- Subtheme (as listed here): CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

Over all the panellist discussed a wide ranging issues.  Some of the discuss

1.       They addressed the relevance of balancing Cybersecurity, Human Rights and Economic Development issues and explored best practices applied in different regions and stakeholder groups.

2.       The panel explored the cross-sectional issues that should be discussed when considering economic development, multi-stakeholder involvement and human rights.

3.       They examined the fact that cybersecurity is one those topics that affect the ecosystem that supports development.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

There was general agreement from the panel that empowering digital citizens and rethinking how we engage on issues that have an impact on cybersecurity is critical.  There was also consensus on the need to have not just a vertical multistakeholder concept but an inclusive multi-disciplinary and wide-raging dialogue in order to have meaning policies.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]

Some of the policy considerations were practical in nature and included:

·       Be aware that not everyone in the room is speaking the same language. Ensure everyone with the different background speaks to each other.  It was noted that a broad set of arguments brought about by a broad set of actors is best to ensure impact. As such actors need to work together to push and fight back against cyber threats.

·       It is important to have a broad inclusive dialogue to ensure that human rights considerations and economic development work in tandem.

·       Having a human rights perspective is not incompatible with the economic perspective on cybersecurity development.

·       Conversation between people, government and industry need to be managed to reflect rights and values in law.

·       You can implement security and human rights parallel, they're not exclusive. At the same time, there will be trade-offs and the trade-offs are something that the society has to be involved in in making helpful decisions to represent, again, the values of a particular geography and context.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

During the discussion some key concepts emerged which can be considered for future workshops:

·       Measuring the impact of cybersecurity incidents that affect civil society groups should inform cybersecurity policies;

·       Ecology of Games – each of the policy areas have a variety of stakeholders shaping the policy in other areas directly or inadvertently. The outcome of those efforts shape security.

·       Security and Human rights can operate in parallel.

·       Need to overcome the language barrier between the stakeholders in terms of ensuring everyone is talking about the same issue

·       Ethical development – Human rights should be built in by design to economic development plans and cybersecurity investment.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

There was approximately 42 participants.

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

·       Audience: 23 females, 19 Males

·       Panel: 3 Females, 3 Males

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

- Title: Towards a Decentralized Internet Constitution?

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 16:40 to 18:10

- Organizer(s): Dennis Redeker, Mauro Santaniello, Francesco Pirro

- Chair/Moderator: Dennis Redeker

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Dennis Redeker

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Lisa Garcia, Foundation for Media Alternatives (female)
Speaker 2: Primavera De Filippi, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School (female)
Speaker 3: Suzor Nicolas, Queensland University of Technology (male)
Speaker 4: Guy Berger, UNESCO (male)
Speaker 5: Andrea Beccalli, ICANN (male)

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): DEMOCRACY

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

1. Digital rights declarations and other documents written to advocate for human rights protection in a digital age ("digital constitutionalism") are proliferating locally and on the level of the nation-state. This moves agency and discourse in this field away from international and global fora of Internet governance (like IGF) toward more peripheral arenas of public policy. Across this fragmented constellation of initiatives, a common set of universal principles and rights can be identified, and further research and discussion should be encouraged on the topic.

2. Another decentralizing tendency (that seems at first unrelated) is the development of a decentralised cryptographically organized infrastructure (e.g. blockchain technology). However, with its self-enforcing smart contracts, the technology may be a crucial location for contestations over which and how digital rights should be protected online (e.g. automated fines if data is leaked by a data collector). The discussion's outcome emphasized the need of a multistakeholder approach able to inform the design, the scope and the kind of authority embedded in design choices.

3. These two developments, if taken together, create tensions: Advocacy for digital rights on the local level produces momentum for local realization of human rights on the Internet, while blockchain-based smart contracts have the potential to permeate (national) borders and entrench certain norms transnationally, ignoring whatever political communities have decided locally/nationally.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The discussion on digital constitutionalism and blockchain technology dealt with the role of the nation state, civil society and of multistakeholder governance bodies. While some contributions on blockchain stressed that a reliable central authority is important in a well-functioning governance system on blockchain, others said it is important to move on in a multistakeholder mode in order to include more and broader interests at the intersection of human rights and the development of emergent technologies like blockchain. It can be considered agreed broadly, that blockchain technology per se will not solve the challenges regarding human rights on the Internet.

Concerning digital constitutionalism, it has been highlighted that the variety of initiatives, with their own different perspectives and drafting processes, are social processes reflecting the tensions between, on the one hand, contingent and specific needs of power limitation and, on the other, the protection of a universal set of fundamental rights within a transnational network (cfr. UNESCO's Internet Universality Indicators).

A common issue underlying both the reasoning about blockchain technology and digital constitutionalism was represented by the kind of authority required to enforce human rights, while the issue of decentralisation - enabled by the blockchain or represented by recent initiatives of digital constitutionalism- was treated as an enabling, not a determinant, factor.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

While no concrete policy recommendations were agreed among the participants, there is this strong conviction that further discussion needs to be promoted around this topic. There was a comprehensive and inclusive discussion, but no specific human rights digressions were discussed in detail with regard to blockchain technologies. Consequently, more policy-oriented discussions should follow, e.g. focusing on one particular application or one particular human right.

A useful platform from which to start discussion about policy recommendations is represented by the 2017 UNESCO's work on multistakeholderism (van der Spuy, “What if we all governed the Internet? Advancing multistakeholder participation in Internet governance, UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom), which was briefly presented and distributed by one of the speakers. The work presents a useful framework to conceptualise a set of basic values for multistakeholder initiatives – including inclusion, diversity, transparency, equality, flexibility and relevance, privacy and security, accountability and legitimacy, responsiveness - and to operationalise them into meaningful indicators. It identifies eleven policy recommendations, which are broadly shared by workshop's participants.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue?

Since the IGF is a forum for policy debate, it will be the proper institutional setting in order to discuss human rights and new technologies both at a conceptual and a concrete level. The IGF ecosystem may provide room for the ongoing discussion, whose relevance is expected to dramatically increase in the next few years. The network of knowledge, interests and competencies the IGF is able to produce and feed, also beyond the annual meeting, represents a fundamental resource in order to develop a human rights-based approach to Internet governance and to the design of emerging technologies. The challenge faced by the IGF community with reference to the topics addressed by participants, is to rapidly elaborate clear and comprehensive recommendations and to gather around them political consensus.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

60 (onsite)

15 (remote)

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

About half the participants were women; the audience showed great diverse across a number of factors.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion?

The discussion included one contribution that dealt with the Feminist Principles for the Internet, a specific initiative to include critical gender-issues into the debate on human rights and governing principles online.

- Session Type: Roundtable

- Title:  Refugees digital rights :Necessities and Needs

- Date: 11 ^th Nov,2018

Time: 12:20 -1:20

- Organizer(s):

Egyptian Foundation For Refugees Rights (EFRR)

 African Civil Society on information Society (ACSIS)

- Chair/Moderator: Mr. Ian Brown

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

1. Mohamed Farahat(Male) Egyptian Foundation For Refugees Rights (EFRR) & African Civil Society on information Society (ACSIS)

2. Ms. Xianhong Hu (Female) (UNESCO)

3. Dr. Cisse Kane (Male) African Civil Society on information Society (ACSIS)

4. Aron Martain PhD Research Fellow in Data Ethics,Tilburg Law School

- Theme (as listed here):  Human Rights, Gender & Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): Refugees                                    

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

For refugees Connectivity is not a luxury. The digital rights are very important for refugees in host countries , to what extent the exited legal framework is relevant to ensure refugees digital rights ?

In education. Connectivity would enable refugees to take part in online training courses and access education remotely—and, for refugee students at the secondary and university levels, it will enable them to continue their disrupted education. Without connectivity, millions of displaced children won’t get the education to improve their skills and knowledge

In Livelihoods / self-reliance. Besides, Connectivity would make it much easier for refugees to create and sustain their own businesses, as well as make remote work possible, which will be particularly important in situations in which there are constraints on the right to work or limited opportunities in the local economy, and to what extent  access to internet could change the refugees life in host or resettlement countries.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

Mr Mohamed Farahat, Lawyer, Egyptian Foundation for Refugee Rights and African Civil Society on Information Society (ACSIS), said that the main challenge for refugees in any county is limited access to the Internet and to education, which makes it impossible for families to reunite. Access to the Internet is the last resort for displaced people to communicate about important issues and challenges in both the host and the county of origin. Farahat added that the one of main legal challenges in the same context is the impact of national digital crime legislation on the refugees international protection which could lead to deport refugees back to their country of origin which could put them in the riske of torture or and kill .  

Mr Ciss Kane, Chair, African Civil Society on the Information Society (ACSIS), stated that there is an ongoing debate about the relationship between the rights online and the rights offline, but, ‘all the rights offline should be also implemented online’. Kane noted that for refugees ‘the Internet is a luxury when in most of the cases they do not have clean water, toilets, cannot settle’. He suggested that the use of ICTs is probably the best way to ‘weight on the processes’ related to refugees in order to ‘make them have their own rights in all aspects’. The year 2019 will be ‘the year of refugees and displaced persons’. He reminded about the importance of access and cost-effectiveness, and the local content. ‘Sometimes they don't have a penny to have connection and they need to be in touch

Ms Xianhong Hu, Assistant Programme Specialist, UNESCO, noted that UNESCO is advocating for the Internet, fundamental principles, and information to be developed based on human rights that should be accessible by all. Hu noted that she thinks that digital rights need to be equally applied to refugees. ‘When a refugee comes to a country, they first have to ask for water and a shelter, but then they ask for a WiFi and a connection.’ She stated that the ICT and the Internet are central to satisfying refugees’ basic needs and address their well-being. She mentioned the following rights to keep in mind when we talk about refugees digital rights: freedom of expression, freedom of information, privacy and personal data protection. She said that barriers in using the Internet need to be removed for both women and children.

Mr Aaron K. Martin, PhD Research Fellow in Data Ethics, Tilburg Law School, joined the session via video link. He noted that it is crucial for refugees to be able to register for their own SIM card when in a foreign country, and to use bank cards. In Bangladesh, refugees are forbidden to have a SIM card and are even being imprisoned if found with one in their possession.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

1. Farahat  recommended ‘amending the 1951 Convention’ by adopting new instruments which would relate specifically to rights of  forced displaces people in connection to the digital rights.

Ms Xianhong  recommended that following rights to keep in mind when we talk about refugees digital rights: freedom of expression, freedom of information, privacy and personal data protection. She said that barriers in using the Internet need to be removed for both women and children.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

35-40 persons out of 45 available places in the room , the session had a full room by participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

60% women and 40 % men

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

The gender issues has discussed during the session , Ms Xianhong  has shed lighted on this issues the main discussion point on that regard was about if there is specific statistic about the gender balance in context of refugees digital rights specially access to internet. The gender issues has covered during the session from other aspect when of audience spoke about the importance to consider  the livelihood component when speak about refugees digital rights , in this issue there was agree between the participants digital rights and access to internet is vital for refugees women specially for single mothers specially in the case of access to work being not allowed for refugees in host country , as women could start their own work and projects through internet , So the recommendation was it is very important to secure   access to internet for women refugees.  

Pre-Session Synthesis

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): debate (90min)

- Title: Net neutrality vs. 5G and new technological challenges

- Date & Time: November 13^th, 2018/ 11:50am – 1:20pm

- Organizer(s):
Laura Létourneau (regulatory authority)
Jean Cattan (regulatory authority)

- Chair/Moderator:
Laura Létourneau (onsite moderator)
Jean Cattan (online moderator)

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Jean Cattan

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Carol Anderson, AT&T - Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), female

Estelle Massé, Access Now - Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), female
Lisa Felton, Vodafone - Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), female
Luca Belli, FGV, Center for Technology & Society - Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), male

- Theme (as listed here): Technical & Operational Topics

- Subtheme (as listed here): Net neutrality

- [PRE-REPORT] Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

• With 5G, Internet Service Providers have the technical capability to provide a broad range of qualities of service, tailored to the diverse requirements from vertical applications. Technologies such as network slicing and edge computing allow for the development of several innovations: tele-surgery, automated driving, virtual reality etc.

• Net Neutrality is a set of fundamental principles guaranteeing non-discrimination in access to the internet. The impact of rules prohibiting or limiting certain practices on the development of cutting-edge broadband services as 5G is a subject of debate.

• Assessing how Net Neutrality applies to 5G in some concrete use cases is the way of ensuring a sound development of this new technology. This debate should be the starting point of an ongoing dialogue between operators, regulators, civil society and academia.

- [REPORT] Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

- Operators are committed to maintaining an open internet. Operators participating to the debate don’t block or throttle traffic (except as permitted or required by law).

- According to some operators, there is no need to change the European Open Internet Regulation to deal with 5G. Only the BEREC guidelines need to be clarified or amended in some aspects. It is about evolution not revolution.

- Operators believe these changes are needed in order to safeguard the rights of consumers to choose the services they want to access and to maintain a diverse, open and innovative internet ecosystem.

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

There is a broad agreement among regulators, civil society and operators that innovation, 5G and net neutrality shall be all promoted.

Net neutrality is enshrined in the constitutional design of the internet, i.e. a general purpose network. It puts intelligence at the edge and is now the basic foundation of democracy and competition.

There has been a discussion on what 5G will bring in addition to previous mobile generation. Operators tend consider that 5G will be quite distinct from previous technologies since it is not about going faster but having more control on many parameters. It may also offer a better reach to rural areas.

On the other hand, emphasis has been put on the fact that 5G, just as 4G, needs infrastructures and deployment. 5G may also take many years to be deployed. Also, the use cases accessible through 5G were already taken into account during the drafting of the Guidelines.

According to some operators, BEREC guidelines create barriers to innovation, by including prescriptive requirements or failing to address new issues – examples given include:

• Defining “necessary” as a service which does not work on the best efforts internet, which fails to take into account the needs of specific services e.g. agriculture cases which may require higher latency and lower power, virtual reality which may require additional quality to prevent nausea in end users
• Requiring operators to ensure specialised services will not impact current or future internet access services in advance, which may have the inefficient result of discouraging efficient sharing of network resources and which fails to take into account investment already made in 5G resources
• Failing to take a technology neutral approach. For example by prohibiting sub-internet offers other than services limited by a device – but failing to make it clear that this does not prohibit other internet of things services , for example, machine to person services set up in the network on the request of the end user (e.g. connected car communicating to a service centre).
• Addressing new issues such as the fact that this will be the first time that we move to software-managed networks to adjust to users’ needs. New players other than operators may also be able to control the quality delivered.

For the civil society:

• 5G could be an extraordinary opportunity to increase connectivity but the practical sides need to be examined in more detailed before one can say whether and how it would impact net neutrality. Net neutrality is at the core of the functionning and availabibility of the internet, all new technology should adapt to it. Deploying 5G all over the territory will be extraordinary costly. For long, 5G may only be used as an updated 4G, to which the current framework is perfectly fit to regulate.

• 5G uses cases presently put forward were already taken into account during the drafting of the Open Internet Regulation and BEREC guidelines and therefore can and should be developed in line with net neutrality. As we don't see the type of changes that would make the technology differ from what has been considered so far, it is more to 5G to adapt to net neutrality, and not the other way round. We need to examine how much these services are so new that we need to rethink the whole structures that has been agreed upon.

• The framework already makes sufficient room for 5G to be deployed. All frameworks allow differentiated treatment as long as this is not discriminatory, meaning as long as this does not target specific users, services, or applications.  So you can utilize the full potential 5G shaping traffic.  Article 3.3 already states that discriminatory reasonable traffic management is feasible as long it is transparent, it doesn't target specific services and it is justified by the specific nature of the traffic. It is the same thing in Brazil, where  differentiation is possible as long as it is compatible with international standards, meaning IETF standards (RFC 6057 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6057).

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

What is now needed is a common understanding of use cases on one side and of the framework on the other. This is all the more important at a time when the BEREC guidelines and/or the European Open Internet Regulation will be put under examination.

While for operators 5G appears as an opportunity to clarify the standards already integrated in the framework, representatives of civil society and academia highlighted that the framework is technologically neutral and that it is up to 5G to be brought in line with the guidelines. All speakers however agreed that it matters to have more guidance from regulators for operators when offering new services that enable innovation across a range of industrial and consumer sectors.

There was an agreement among all speakers that the EU net neutrality law is a positive framework that should not be re-open or re-negotiated. 5G can be delivered in line with the EU Regulation.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

A multistakeholder approach to the discussion and ongoing review of the BEREC Guidelines would make them more robust, adaptable and future proof.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 80/90 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Mostly male (other than on the panel)

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

No

Date & Time:
November 12th, 2018; 10:40-12:10
 
Organizer(s):
Steffen Leidel (DW Akademie)
Lena Nitsche (DW Akademie)
Julius Endert (DW Akademie)

Chair/Moderator:
Steffen Leidel (DW Akademie)
 
Rapporteur/Notetaker:
Julius Endert (DW Akademie)
Lena Nitsche (DW Akademie)

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
Osama Manzar (Digital Empowerment Foundation),male
Sarah Kiden (Mozilla Foundation), female
Mary Rose Ofiango (Women Empowerment Phillipines, technocal community, female
Talal Raza (Media Matters for Democracy), male
Daniel O'Maley (Center for International Media Assistance), male
 
Theme:
 Digital inclusion & Accessibility

Subtheme:
Digital Capacity Building
 
Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]
- Digital inclusions means more than technical access to the Internet. In order to understand the barries and drivers for citizens participating in the digital spehere, you need to gain deep insights into various fields influencing digital inclusion.
- DW Akademie developed a model of digital inclusion consisting of five thematic fields: Access, Digital Rights, Media and Journalism, Society and Innovation that describes more than 100 attributes to assess digital inclusion on a country basis.With the help of the model, we can highlight challnges to digital inclusion in the five respective fields.
- Points for discussion: What are approaches to overcome challenges regarding digital inclusion in the future? What are the neglected aspects that keep people from participating in the digital sphere?

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words]

There was a broad support of the view that it is not enough to support access to the Internet, people need to have a meaningful access that can change their life for the better. Meaningful access is seen as being connected to media and information literacy, quality content and a free media environment. Panelists also noted that digital inclusion can lead to exclusion and mentioned that when digital literacy programmes are being introduced, those who haven’t got access already, won’t benefit from it. 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.  Promising solutions included community networks, public broadband access, flexible spectrum allocation, consumer focused initiatives, capacity building, universal design and multistakeholder approaches.  Participatnts discussed that issues influencing digital inclusion are mutually influencing each other, for example in some countries aspects of media sustainability - for example special licensing fees for bloggers - could cut down independent voices and lead to self-sensorship of users. That is why the multi-stakeholder model was agreed to be the most promising solution to discuss issues of digital inclusion. 

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

Digital inclusion is multifacted, it involves many stakeholder and the issues that lead to digital inclusion vary between countries. With regards to the many overlapping issues and thematic fields involved, panellists and participants agreed that the multi-stakeholder model should be the method to be followed. Short-sighted solutions for digital inclusion might lead to digital exclusion in the end.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Around 80 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

50 % women, 50% men

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

In the topic of digital inclusion, gender-related issues were seen as a cross-cutting issue relevant to issues such as internet access, digital security – especially for female journalists. Also cyber mobbing was discussed as an important barrier towards more digital inclusion of women.

Relevant links:

DW Akadmeie project #speakup barometer that assesses aspects of digital participation and digital inclusion worldwide: www.dw.com/barometer

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Round table 

- Title: WS #156 What does the data say? Analyzing the Gender Digital Divide

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 09:00 to 10:30

- Organizer(s): 
- Organizer 1: Claire Sibthorpe, GSMA
- Organizer 2: Sharada Srinivasan, University of Pennsylvania    
- Organizer 3: Ursula Wynhoven, International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

- Chair/Moderator:
    - Onsite Moderator: Judith Mariscal
    - Online Moderator: Sharada Srinivasan

- Rapporteur/Notetaker:
- Muge Haseki 

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):
- Speaker 1: Aileen Agüero, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
- Speaker 2: Alison Gillwald, Civil Society, African Group
- Speaker 3: Muge Haseki, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
- Speaker 4: Claire Sibthorpe, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
- Speaker 5: Helani Galpaya, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth 

- Subtheme (as listed here): Gender Equality 

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [300-500 words]

Some key messages from the discussion were the following:
1.    There is a gender gap in phone ownership and Internet use in countries of Asia and Africa such as Pakistan, India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Rwanda and Mozambique; according to the After Access survey, it exceeds 30%. However, regarding the urban-rural gap, South American countries also show large gaps which indicates that there are more challenges besides the gender dimension. In this sense, it is important to recognize and identify the importance of equality in the access and use of the Internet for social and economic development of groups with disadvantages, in this case women and their adequate inclusion in the contemporary world. In addition, these gaps mask deeper issues that must be studied considering additional methods such as qualitative research.
2.    Data analysis at the regional level shows that education and income are important determinants of gender inequality in Internet use. This would indicate that women are less likely to use this service, which is further supported by the findings that women lag behind men in using the internet for various purposes such as social networks or transport and e-commerce applications. In short, people with higher levels of income and education are more likely to be online in these regions, besides other factors such as social or cultural norms. 
3.    The data shows that it is important to work in providing an adequate infrastructure that allows to expand coverage, as well as to focus on barriers to use the Internet such as affordability. In this sense, case studies show potential in providing insights on the challenges and lessons from grassroots projects that are currently deployed in the field.
- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [300 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

During the panel, some discussions emerged about topics with great relevance, such as intersectionality, skills and cultural factors that contribute to digital inequality.
First, some people indicated that the non-binary conceptions of gender should be considered, that is, people who have a different gender identity  that is not  masculine or feminine. In other words, it is important to go beyond the binary gender conceptions and not only focus on inequality between men and women.
Traditional binary gender indicators also tended to treat women as a homogeneous group, whereas from an access, and beyond access perspective poor men and women were more likely to have issues in common, than women across different income and education levels.
In the discussion it was agreed that gender should be seen as a transversal issue, with the requirement of the cooperation of multiple actors to face the challenges of each particular reality.
Another debate developed as a consequence of the first discussion. There was broad support for the opinion that intersectionality is relevant to understanding the different levels of marginalisation of people and its effect on the use of the Internet. Thereby, intersectionality helps to separate more accurately the different realities in which people find themselves and provides better insights into the policy intervention required to redress digital exclusion. 
Finally, some of the methodological issues were raised with regards to very different claims about gender inequality. The importance of demand side surveys was identified as the only way to move beyond descriptive statistics which besides often not being accurate, in their national aggregation mask national and other inequalities within categories of people.  Nationally representative surveying enabled the modelling of data that could reveal the underlying factors determining inequality.  However, there are many questions that cannot be answered by quantitative methods. The challenges and importance of assessing non-quantifiable  factors, such as culture in  explaining digital inequality  was raised and the importance of qualitative methods better able to elicit this evidence highlighted. 

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [200 words]
Some suggestions for policy recommendations are:
1.    Consider the elaboration of quantitative and qualitative research where either do not exist, because they are complementary and necessary to provide more holistic explanation for digital inequality.
2.    Keep in mind what the drivers of digital inequality are and what women and men with particular characteristics experience, because neither is a homogeneous group.
3.    Understand the dangers of ICT use for women; for example, harassment or some type of online violence against women.
4.    Examine and study the demand side of ICT, not only access and use, but also other factors, such as digital literacy or education, which are determinants for digital inclusion and the reduction of digital gender inequality.
5.    Analyse the stimulants of the demand of ICT devices, such as the reduction of taxes or tariffs of the Internet, mobile phones, etc.; in such a way that the income barrier can be reduced and both men and women can connect to the digital world, as well as the reduction of the gender gap in Internet access.

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [150 words]

The issue of gender and, particularly, gender inequality online should be considered as a reflection of offline structural inequalities, that is, inequalities according to income, education, geographical location, etc.

- Please estimate the total number of participants. 
    30

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.
Impossible to determine but predominantly women.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words] Focus of the session.

In particular, the relevant gender issues in the session discussed were the consideration of non-binary gender both for analysis purposes as well as for policy recommendations. 

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):
www.afteraccess.net
 

Chairs:

• Divina FRAU-MEIGS, Savoir*Devenir
• Lucien M. CASTEX, Internet Society France

Panelists:

• Speaker 1: Rasmus Nielsen, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), University of Oxford
• Speaker 2: Paula Forteza, French Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Deputée
• Speaker 3: Denis Teyssou, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Agence France Presse AFP
• Speaker 4: Jean-Baptiste Piacentino, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), QWANT
• Speaker 5: Emmanuel ADJOVI, Intergovernmental Organization, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC), Organisation internationale de la Francophonie
• Speaker 6: Ahmet Murat Kilic, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization, Council of Europe

Information disorders have been rising with the emergence of social media and big data analytics and Artificial Intelligence. Their scope ranges from rumor to propaganda to cyber hybrid threats. They encompass issues of radicalization, hate speech and other forms of intimidation of populations. They potentially present risks for democratic processes and national sovereignty while presenting other societal costs that can undermine trust in the “information society”. Information disorders are varied and they don’t have a single root cause. Some of them have been enabled by the development of social media but this does not exonerate some political actors, and extremist groups in the civil society actors. They have caused disruption in elections and referenda, they have undermined confidence in the news and information sector, they have sought, directly or indirectly, to take control over media images and representations.

The organizers intention of this workshop was to create a dialogue with the panel of experts and to favor the participation of the audience focusing on solutions enacted and proposals to address the information disorders.

There was consensus that the issues for the multiple information disorders are diverse and need to be put into context in order to tailor responses:

• Social networks have a lot of responsibility as platforms. These same tools that are used for positive social movements and exchange of ideas, have also proven susceptible to manipulation and massive disinformation.
• There were also questions about if GAFA’s monopolistic powers, lack of transparency, and freedom from accountability as an impediment to solving these problems.
• Economic incentives created in an ad-based internet environment was also acknowledged as a problem.
• Images and videos are becoming more and more important for spreading disinformation as increasingly sophisticated image manipulation tools are being developed with the help of artificial intelligence. These are harder to track than word-based articles and can provoke a stronger emotional response.
• A crisis in confidence of authority within countries allows fake news to be more effective. Research has shown that in countries where confidence in public institutions is higher, disinformation campaigns are far less accepted by the population.

There was a lot of a discussion about what solutions were most effective:

• Self-regulation
  • One form of self-regulation is by the user themselves who can seek out alternative platforms. Choosing alternative search engines can be a key solution for individuals making sure that their searches are not tailored to their preferences.
  • Increased transparency from social networks so that researchers can see the full scope of the issue.
  • Increased funding (both public and private) to help researchers and media professional both analyze issues and develop tools for fact-checking as well as MIL actions.
• Governmental regulation
  • Discussion of a diversity of laws passed in various countries to regulate the situation. While there was debate still on which governments regulations were most effective, there was a call for these laws to respect fundamental human rights and to be flexible to meet the ever-changing technological tools used to spread disinformation.
• Co-regulation (multi-stakeholder)
  • A multi-stakeholder dialogue is essential to tackle the issue and come to grips with it: dynamically monitor and identify emerging issues, building solutions…
• Continued multi-stakeholder dialogues should not be used as an excuse for inaction but to monitor progress and find solutions through this soft-power approach.
• The promotion of Media and Information Literacy programs was a common theme by the panel and audience. There were repeated calls for governmental and civil society to promote these programs. There was also an acknowledgement that it was not the single solution but one of many.

Perspective for the future:

After two years of information disorders being a prominent global issue and inspiring many multi-stakeholder discussions, this workshop highlighted the array of experimentation and ideas being enacted or proposed on multiple levels of society. As the breakdown of the information society has multiple causes, it is important to continue to take the time to analyze the context at every level and for governments, civil society and international organizations to create agile policy that can adapt to future technologies. The consensus called for an increased funding for media and information literacy programs, dedicated academic research as well as support for journalists and fact-checkers. These issues are far from being resolved and there is a need for future conversations and actions in the coming years.

IGF 2018 Pre-Session Synthesis & Short Report Template

Pre-Session Synthesis Due: 2 November 2018

Short Report Due: Within 12 hours of when session is held

[sample report here]

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

- Title: Accountability for Human Rights: Mitigate Unfair Bias in AI

- Date & Time: 13 November 2018.  09:00 – 10:30

- Organizer(s): Bernard Shen, Microsoft Corporation

- Chair/Moderator: Bernard Shen and Camille Vaziaga, Microsoft Corporation

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Bernard Shen, Microsoft Corporation

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Scott Campbell, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Speaker 2: David Reichel, EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)
Speaker 3: Layla El Asri, Microsoft Corporation
Speaker 4: Wafa Ben-Hassine, Access Now
Speaker 5: Sana Khareghani, Office of Artificial Intelligence, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), HMG

- Theme (as listed here): Human Rights, Gender & Youth

- Subtheme (as listed here): “Internet & Societal Challenges”; “Gender Equality”; and “Reduced Inequalities”

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion. [150 words or less]

·        Technology can help detect unfair bias and human rights violations.

·        Build trust with people impacted by AI through transparency -- designing AI that includes explanation of its recommendations (e.g., characteristics that influence the AI recommendation or prediction).

·        Important not to leave out parts of the world from the benefits of AI (e.g., due to lack of access to the internet, etc.)   

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence. [150 words] Examples: There was broad support for the view that…; Many [or some] indicated that…; Some supported XX, while others noted YY…; No agreement…

There was broad consensus on the importance of a multi-sectorial and multi-stakeholder approach.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps. [100 words]

·        Importance of conducting human rights impact assessments.

·        States actors have a higher duty to protect human rights than non-state actors.  Therefore, state actors’ use of AI (e.g., in law enforcement and criminal justice) need to meet a far greater duty of care and responsibility.

·        Peer-learning: creating an environment in which human rights can be discussed among peers (e.g., peer-to peer programs for companies).

- What ideas surfaced in the discussion with respect to how the IGF ecosystem might make progress on this issue? [75 words]

·        On-going multi-stakeholder dialog, collaboration, and relationship/trust building is critical.

·        Conferences tend to segregate into those for policy experts and those for data scientists.  Data scientists are investing a lot of research on how the science can help humans better address unfair bias or other risks.  We need more cross-pollination, dialog and understanding between the two communities.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

130

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Approximately half.

- To what extent did the session discuss gender issues, and if to any extent, what was the discussion? [100 words]

Much of the discussion on unfair bias used gender bias (as well as age discrimination) as the context (e.g., including bias in job hiring, and insurance premiums).

- Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Panel – 60 minutes

- Title: Multi-stakeholding cybersecurity in Africa

- Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 17:20 to 18:20

- Organizer(s):

Anri van der Spuy, Research ICT Africa, Civil Society, African Group, female

Enrico Calandro, Research ICT Africa, Civil Society, African Group, male

- Chair/Moderator:  Enrico Calandro

- Rapporteur/Notetaker: Anri van der Spuy

- List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

Speaker 1: Koliwe Majama, APC, Civil Society Organisation, African Group, female

Speaker 2: Michael Nelson, Cloudfare, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), male

Speaker 3: William Dutton, Oxford Martin School, Academia, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), Male

Speaker 4: Matthew Shears, Global Partners Digital, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG), male

- Theme: Cybersecurity, Trust and Privacy

 - Subtheme: CYBERSECURITY BEST PRACTICES

- Please state no more than three (3) key messages of the discussion.

• The successful implementation of a collaborative model for cybersecurity strategy development and implementation resides in agile adaptability, transparency, and trusted information sharing among and between all participations;
• Cybersecurity collaborations should display both vertical and horizontal collaboration between stakeholders, be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and be sufficiently  flexible in order to adapt alongside evolving cyber risks and technologies.
• Participation should extend not only to public and private sector entities who tend to own and control critical information infrastructure, but also stakeholders from other sectors (e.g. the banking and finance sectors, business process outsourcing (BPO), health, tourism, energy sectors) and non-for profit stakeholder groups (e.g. the technical community, academia, and civil society)

- Please elaborate on the discussion held, specifically on areas of agreement and divergence.

The session was moderated by Dr Enrico Calandro, Senior Researcher, Research ICT Africa (RIA).

Ms Anri van der Spuy, Associate, Research ICT Africa, talked about the why cybersecurity is a particular concern at RIA and in Africa, highlighting that there is an increasing interest in cybersecurity in Africa. This could be attributed to governments increasingly realising how central the Internet is to economic development. She noted that challenges in Internet governance also apply to cybersecurity, hence the need for fast response rates, expertise, flexibility and resources. Generally, few countries have cybersecurity strategies and many citizens lack education and digital literacy skills. She mentioned that the nature of the cyber environment means that it is difficult to deal with cyber risks as governments are involved to protect public interest and private sector owns a lot of technological infrastructure.

Ms Spuy shared research conducted by RIA on collaborating models for cybersecurity in Mauritius. According to the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Global Cybersecurity Index 2017, Mauritius is ranked as the top country in Africa and has become a regional hub for cybersecurity. Findings from the research show an improvement in public-private partnerships though still facing shortcomings, some parties being more dominant than others, the need for broader participation and no mention of digital rights.

Provisional policy recommendations include flexibility, transparency, information sharing, descriptive rather than prescriptive arrangements and involving stakeholders who find it difficult to participate and are vulnerable to cyber harm.

Responding to Dr Calandro's question on the need for multistakholder collaboration in the cybersecurity domain, Prof William Dutton, Oxford Martin Fellow, The Global Cyber Security Capacity Centre, said that the Mauritius example shared was a great example for collaboration. He however noted that there are a lot of criticisms to the multistakholder model and one of the complaints is about limited communication, yet cybersecurity capacity building involves communication. He highlighted that the Global Cybersecurity Center is setting up hubs in different parts of the world in order to scale up. Prof Durron added that the security discussion is often removed from reality and as such, the people discussing do not know anything about users or the developing world.

When asked if the multistakholder is emerging in practice, Mr Arthur Gwagwa, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Intellectual Property and Information Technology Law (CIPIT), mentioned that policy formulation in Africa is half-hazard.  He added that Internet governance (IG) in most cases is running parallel to cybersecurity such that IG issues are discussed in public while cybersecurity discussions often do not involve everyone. He emphasised the need for different approaches to different threat models because different threats lead to different ideas of harm.

Ms Koliwe Majama, Consultant, Association for Progressive Communications (APC), mentioned that there are no frameworks for encouraging civil society engagement in cybersecurity in Africa, and the law-making process is not always clear. She referred to the African Union Article 27 that would generally be categorised as multistakeholder, but Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), are not inclusive. She gave an example of the Zimbabwe CERT which had mostly government/defence and state security but no technical, women's/children's rights representatives. She concluded that civil society needs to ensure that the end-user is being represented and that the discussion is inclusive.

When asked if capacity building is an effective tool for multistakholder participation, Mr Matthew Sheers, Director, Cyber, Global Partners Digital (GPD), mentioned that GPD undertakes programs to build cybersecurity capacity in Latin America, Africa and other developing regions. He referred to GPD's recent report on mulltistakholder approaches to national cybersecurity strategy development, which had been done in 4 countries: Mexico, Chile, Kenya and Ghana. He acknowledged that the key recommendations raised by RIA match with GPD. He noted that in many countries, multistakeholder only includes government and the private sector, but there is need to work across stakeholders and team with particular groups like the technical community.

Mr Michael Nelson, Tech Strategy, Cloudflare, mentioned that Cloudflare protects websites by filtering content coming to them, for example botnets, and distributing content from websites across 150 centres, 9 of which are in Africa. He encouraged the need to build the Information Technology (IT) consultant industry in the content and allow foreign companies to invest.

- Please describe any policy recommendations or suggestions regarding the way forward/potential next steps.

The following policy recommendations were made:

• The successful implementation of a collaborative model for national cybersecurity strategies resides in agile adaptability, transparency, and trusted information-sharing among all participants;
• Cybersecurity collaborations should display both vertical (e.g., between overseeing organisations and other stakeholders) and horizontal (e.g., between peer stakeholders) collaboration between stakeholders, be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and be sufficiently flexible in order to adapt alongside evolving cyber risks and technologies;
• Participation should extend not only to public and private sector entities who tend to own and control critical information infrastructure, but also stakeholders from other sectors (e.g. the technical community, the banking and finance sectors, business process outsourcing (BPO), health, tourism, energy sectors) and not-for-profit stakeholder groups (e.g. academia and civil society);
• Special steps must be taken to involve stakeholders who could find it difficult to participate or who are more vulnerable to cyber harm, including civil society organisations and marginalised communities who may be more at risk of cyber threat;
• Not only commercial interests should drive private sector stakeholders to participate in collaborative cybersecurity effort. Also, the private sector should innovate and mitigate threats, building security into applications and systems along with the need for raising awareness.

- Please estimate the total number of participants.

Approximately 60 participants

- Please estimate the total number of women and gender-variant individuals present.

Approximately 2/3 women.

- Session outputs and other relevant links (URLs):

https://researchictafrica.net/2018/11/08/igf-panel-discussion-on-collab…

https://dig.watch/sessions/multistakeholding-cybersecurity-africa

Session Type (Workshop, Open Forum, etc.): Workshop

Title: WS #172 Accessibility Improved: building inclusive societies with AI

Date & Time: Tuesday, 13 November, 2018 - 11:50 to 13:20

Organizer(s): 

• International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS);
• Association for Accessibility and Equality, Kenya;   
• Latin American Internet Association (ALAI), Uruguay.

Chair/Moderator:

• Ms Carolyn Nguyen, Director, Technology Policy, Microsoft - private sector, WEOG

Rapporteur/Notetaker:

• Ms Sophie Tomlinson, ICC BASIS - private sector, WEOG

List of speakers and their institutional affiliations (Indicate male/female/ transgender male/ transgender female/gender variant/prefer not to answer):

• Ms Olga Cavalli, Advisor, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Argentina - government, GRULAC
• Ms Susanna Laurin, CEO, Funka, Sweden (remotely) - private sector, WEOG
• Mr Gonzalo Navarro, Executive Director, Latin American Internet Association - private sector, GRULAC
• Mr Nobuhisa Nishigata, Economist / Policy Analyst - Artificial Intelligence, OECD - International Organization, APAC
• Mr Christopher E. Wilson, Senior Manager, Public Policy, Amazon - private sector, WEOG