Looking at norms developed in other fields can provide useful lessons for better development, implementation and respecting of norms in the area of cybersecurity. 

The development and implementation of norms should include both policy / diplomatic professionals as well as technical experts.

Norms development should be open and inclusive in order to include developing countries and stakeholders.

Ms Concettina Cassa welcomed participants and explained the purpose of the IGF Best Practice Forums, and specified that the IGF 2020 BPF Data and New Technologies in an Internet Context focussed on best practices related to the collection and use of users’ data by new technologies that contribute to ensure that the data is used to provide benefit and not to harm users.

Mr Wim Degezelle presented the Data and New Technologies Issues Card developed by the BPF as a tool to structure stakeholder discussions on the topic. 

Ms Emanuela Girardi introduced the case studies submitted to the BPF: Ms Verónica Arroyo presented the ‘Dos and don’ts for COVID-19 tracing apps’ developed by AcessNow for lawmakers and governments.  Mr. Ricardo Chavarriaga shared the experiences of the CLAIRE COVID-19 TaskForce. Mr. Cathal McDermott focussed on Microsoft’s privacy principles related to the collection of data to tackle COVID-19.

Mr Michael Nelson led a panel discussion on concepts and mindsets and their impact on policy discussions.The roundtable discussion involving all session participants reflected on some frequently used buzzwords and catchphrases, such as ‘cyberspace’, ‘data governance’ ‘ethical artificial intelligence’, ‘data sovereignty’, ‘data is the new oil’, etc. and discussed if they limited, better defined or replaced by new concepts.

The session ended with a discussion, led by Ms. Concettina Cassa, on where in the institutional and Internet governance landscape is a suitable place for policy discussions related to the use of data and new technologies, and how could be avoided that too many talks and processes exist in parallel.

The session tackled the subject of gender at the IGF with a thematic focus on violence, harm, pleasure, and consent. Results from the report put together by the BPF were shared, along with the survey methodology. Overall, the findings show that gender issues tend to be discussed mostly in conjunction with the issue of access and there is a lack of disaggregated data for gender-diverse participants. There was also broad discussion on approaching gender and consent issues online with more positive framing to foster empowerment and focus on subjects such as pleasure. Lastly, speakers and participants also discussed whether a feminist discussion should be included or delineated from the gender and access discourse.

A recurring issue that was raised during the session is the continued silos of various gender subjects at the IGF. Speakers in the session stressed the need to involve more discussions on solutions to gender issues from a policy level in order to make progress on the subject matter. Repeated various speakers also brought up the matter of expanding beyond the UN and the IGF to reaching out to broader communities to instigate lasting change and empower women and gender diverse people. In terms of data, there is overall consensus that more needs to be collected and better disaggregated.

• There was broad support for the view that problems of media sustainability are interconnected with the ecosystem of Internet governance.
• It was agreed that sustainable funding and business models for media must be achieved together with different stakeholders within the IGF ecosystem.
• Legal obligations and policy regulation were seen as needed in order to guarantee data protection, non-violation of human rights, and access to independent media.

Areas of broad support/agreement:

• Alternative models of providing connectivity are necessary.
• Community Networks are an efficient alternative to typical models of connectivity, especially for rural or neglected areas.
• COVID19 has accentuated the importance of connectivity for the full enjoyment of personality and citizenship rights. The pandemic is a harsh reminder that without internet connection, people are estranged from opportunities and services. Half of the world still experiences this disconnect, because of a lack of infrastructure and appropriate policies.
• Internet access is a basic right and a public good.
• Community Networks require specific public policies in order to be feasible.
• “Meaningful connectivity” requires more than the simple capacity to access the internet sporadically, under limited infrastructural and technical conditions or with a reduced scope.
• When freeing up more spectrum or implementing spectrum sharing schemes, regulators should allow for the implementation of Community Networks.

Areas of no agreement/areas needing further discussion and development:

• Talking about providing “access” to the internet fits into a conceptual framework that allows for disparities in the real capabilities of internet connectivity. This is due to the fact that “access” may refer to access to concentrated information silos. This means that it is also necessary to de-concentrate the internet, and Community Networks are an efficient way to do so, because they create little “portions” of the Internet connected to the greater whole - the way the Internet was actually meant to be.
• There are context-specific characteristics to meaningful connectivity. For example, the choice of device - a smartphone or a desktop computer, for example - may significantly change from one context to another based on privacy considerations.

The session discussed key perspectives and dimensions of access to content and information, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes connectivity infrastructure and capacities of libraries and similar facilities which help deliver this access, digitisation and digital content delivery and access models, and relevant Intellectual Property policy frameworks.

There was a broad agreement among the panelists that access to key content is an high priority, especially since the demand and need for it has grown rapidly. Taking measures that help ensure equitable digital inclusion and access to content and information is therefore crucial.

The panelists discussed policy frameworks and practices that can help support public access and digial inclusion through public access, and emergency measures that have been taken by various stakeholders (governments, libraries and library organisations, NGOs and publishers) to ensure access to key content during the pandemic.

* Areas of broad support/ agreement: - Discussed the different entry points for youth to join the IG spaces by sharing the journeys of the panelists and agreed that there are no specific steps to follow. 

- The difficulty of being noticed as youth and new comers in virtual conferences and the limited possibility on networking. 

- The difficulty of keeping youth involved in the IG spaces after participating in a youth program or receiving a fellowship and maintain a sustainable and meaningful participation.

- Young activists could sometimes prioritize issue from their personal views without checking the youth priorities. 

- Youth inputs are not taken seriously during discussions and they are not invited to panels.

- The  youth participation is not well-shaped as the voices of youth are not organized

* Areas of no agreement: - A Debate on whether or not Youth should have their own Stakeholder Group.

- Youth Programs and fellowships don't have an effective approach 

1. Summary of Gender Report Cards (IGF 2019)

2. Data, privacy and boundary management

Speaker Dr. Anja Kovacs highlights in her essay highlights the concept of 'privacy as boundary management' as being central to whether and how we share our data, what happens with our data, what information about ourselves do we want to share or not share, etc. However, the concept of boundary management doesn’t reflect much in traditional conversations about privacy. In most dominant discourses, data is treated as a resource - separate from the medium that generates it. This has severe implications on a person's agency, privacy and rights. Boundary management is not only important because it allows us to control what we share with others but this control is crucial to living a life of dignity.

3. Gendered implications of data collection by apps

In her essay, Sadaf Khan reflects on menstrual apps, how they track data, and the gendered implications around it. People’s consent to data collection by apps is often not informed consent - they are not fully aware that the apps are ‘authorised’ to share their information, comment and stories. What do these apps do with the data? Who handles the data? Who has access to it? How is it used? For how long is it stored?

4. Feminist values for building transfeminist futures

As Joana Varon reflects in her essay, what would the future look like if algorithms that command our daily interactions were developed based on feminist values? What if the technologies we cherish were developed to crash, instead of maintain, the matrix of domination of capitalism, hetero-patriarchy, white supremacy, and colonisation? How can we build technologies based on feminist notions of consent? How can we use feminist frameworks and values to question, imagine and design tech?

• Covid-19
• Misinformation
• Regulatory interventions to limit the spread of misinformation online 
• Industry approaches to limiting the spread of misinformation online
• Data leakage and data breaches associated with covid-19 data
• Covid-19 related DNS abuse
• Existing procedures for sharing information on DNS abuse in crisis situations
• Measures taken by registrars to prevent the Spread of Covid-19 related misinformation
• Need for continued dialogue between community of registrars
• Movement of offline problems online
• Closing the digital divide
• Messaging services and online platforms as critical infrastructure
• Importance of encryption 
• Encryption ‘backdoors’
• Partnerships between tech companies and health authorities (International and domestic)
• Search engine optimisation and the spread of misinformation
• Third party links and misinformation
• How platforms are helping spread misinformation 
• Advertising and misinformation
• Cybersecurity risks generated by working from home 
• EU Code of Practice on Disinformation
• 1 Year review of EU Code of practice on Disinformation

What can we do, how do we use the Internet to foster collaboration in our response to COVID-19? There
is good collaboration in the search for vaccine against the COVID-19 disease, but in other spheres, for
e.g, in using the Internet in the educational setting yet, the tools are not quite right, teachers don't have
the training, the students, they're often uncooperative or outright, you know, misbehaving. We have a
lot of work to do to learn to adapt this technology in a way that makes it more useful. COVID and this
pandemic, it is a gamechanger. The adaptability and the inventiveness of this generation instils hope.
The potentials are enormous.Technical expertise is needed to sort of keep the options open, free and
open source, affordable, apps that don't force you to upgrade your equipment, because of age-old,
decade-old rivalries between large corporates, that's a thing coordinates from the technical expertise
that is brought to the table, it is really important to hear this from the technical experts and formative
influencers and and how the infrastructure operates. It is a resilient infrastructure on the whole. In the
context of increasing traffic, some solutions were identified, that of bringing content closer to
consumers, by global content providers, that of optimizing traffic roles and creating conditions for rapid
expansions of bandwidth. There are cultural aspects as well and due to the COVID crisis there is an
increased need for us to be online, not only as individuals but as communities or as Classes, groups.
There are different ways of using these portals and devices.

Before this DC-ISSS launching workshop several preparatory meetings have taken place to decide on the most urgent topics to start work on. These were presented in the day 0 workshop #19 'Let's Work!' and the comments made have been taken into account. This launch was used to present on the urgency of deploying security related Internet standards and ICT best practices in general, after which the working program and main policy questions were presented. All the debates had taken place in the previous sessions. The work programme of the DC-ISSS is seen as ambitious but has full agreement on the three identified Working Groups and the identified topics and questions within the Working Groups, as presented above here.

Areas of broad support/agreement:

• COVID-19 has significantly increased internet usage and connectivity demand. More than ever, people need the internet to stay connected to their professional, social and cultural environments.
• The current connectivity infrastructure has successfully dealt with the sudden increase in traffic load, without major breakdowns in connectivity worldwide. The problem is lack of access more than traffic load.
• End-user's rights must be safeguarded and Net neutrality rules are key.
• Net neutrality is an essential element of Internet Openness but to preserve openness more must be done e.g. the coalition should consider working on Interoperability and on device neutrality.

• - Areas of broad support/agreement:

• Platform governance: may mean how platforms govern societies or how societies govern platforms. It may also include the platforms' technological architectures and design.
• When it comes to Artificial Intelligence and Facial Recognition, the social risk of these technologies is increased. The design of the system must encompass different views in order to avoid blind spots in this sense. We need to look at accountability of a system, not only explainability - understand how the system was put together.
• Terrorist content is more than cyberterrorism. Fear-inducing information and extremist discourse are characteristics of the concept, which makes it a difficult distinction from hate speech, but a very important distinction.
•  Areas of no agreement/areas needing further discussion and development
• How to manage private and public order when it comes to content moderation online?
• Methodological challenges and choices of the authors when writing the entries and defining the concepts on the Glossary - which is still in its draft version and open for modifications until december.

Block chain opportunity  for the Ehealth care space was presented . A discussion of the data types supported by this technology,  as well as the typical types of records conducive to management by block chain were noted  .  The opportunities for data sharing,  and issues for privacy were also noted ,

Mobile Technologies as a tool for bridging the Digital Divide were discussed within the context of ehealth.

How Machine Leaning is conducted was reviewed and the risks for data input, processing and output discussed and illustrated with examples in to eHealth.The quality of the algorithms and risk of data bias was noted with extension to AI. New Technologies such as Quantum Technologies , Holograms and their uptake in the public Ehealth Space were also noted.

The value of stakeholders understanding each other when developing policy, procedures and technology was highlighted within the context of building trust, so as to speed up evidence based effective end results.

The value propositions for multi-stakeholders were illluminated by show casing the ability of these Emerging Technologies to assist with speed to achievemnt of SDG#3 for universal  health care services globally ,in innovative new ways, wirh  opportunities to transcend issues such as complexities in data sharing, intellectual property, start up costs and so forth, while providing efficient, auditable, effective solutions within the clinical and administrative spheres of ehealth.

Further work in ethics, in all of the existing technologies and emerging technology areas was stressed.

- General consensus it that Internet Governance, Human Rights, and the Environment are fundamentally linked, underscored by the 2020 global pandemic and its impact on commitments to address climate change urgently.

- There was broad support for initiatives to address rights and environmental implications of supply chains

- Broad agreement for a cross-sector, multistakeholder strategy which requires strong advocates from all sectors and regions.

- That the technical community and private sector actors must be on board was strongly supported.

- Most supported a approach that includes tackling E-waste (Basel Convention) but is not confined to recycling or zero-carbon policies

- The meeting agreed that Global North historically generates and the Global South is expected to fix the environmental hazards of ICT manufacture and inbuilt obsolescence.

Digital Divide

• There was broad agreement that the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened existing inequalities and divides.

Education

• There was agreement that Internet governance capacity building is becoming increasingly relevant worldwide as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Education on Internet Governance must become widespread.
• There was agreement that education and youth as a whole were harmed by national political crisis originating from mismanaged responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Fundamental rights

• There was agreement that online accessibility benefits far more than just persons with disabilities. Live transcripts were provided as an accessibility measure originally targeted at people with hearing impairments, but now a vital resource for data mining after events for people both with and without disabilities.
• The need for fundamental rights online was linked to the issue of education: without access to connectivity, freedom of speech, and basic human rights, education opportunities, particularly during the time of COVID-19, cannot be equally and fairly available to all.

Future of IGF

• There was strong consensus that, just as the BPFs and NRIs are already widely recognised to be, the Dynamic Coalitions are a vital component of the IGF and its intersessional processes. Support for Dynamic Coalitions, and collaboration between Dynamic Coalitions, should be strengthened as part of the IGF+ model and the DCs can, in turn, contribute to developing the IGF+ model.
• It was reported that at the Parliamentarians Roundtable (10 November), parliamentarians expressed interest in engaging with the Dynamic Coalitions intersessionally. Dynamic Coalitions were encouraged to make use of this opportunity, to advocate on issues that Dynamic Coalitions are working on directly with lawmakers. 
• It was noted that it is essential to have representation of youth in IGF intersessional activities as youth should be involved in decisions affecting their future and active youth involvement helps to avoid tokenism in multistakeholder discussions.

Affordability in the context of Asia Pacific region, need to take into account 3 elements:

1. Natural disaster that are common in this region, so the cost for preventing and recovery have impact with Affordability
2. Complies to regulatory requirements, particularly regarding online safety and recovery
3. Build local capacity to plan, deploy and maintain infrastructure

There are different realities in different regions, inside regiones, and also inside countries, regarding connectivity

For Internet to be useful, content and service need to be relevant. Local content is usually a problem in developing countries.

Another important key aspect besides connectivity is power. As an example, in Africa, citizens suffer from frequent power cuts. Besided, the majority of operators are nonAfrican operators, and most of the time have been guided by the return of investment rather than looking at the ICT as mean of developing of the continent.

GSMA mention three reasons why most African countries are suffering this situation: 1. Affordability (cost of devices, energy), 2. Lack of digital skills and literacy, 3. Lack of content in local language, particularly outside US, Europe and China.

Internet Connectivity has never been more important than this COVID time, in order to satisfy basic needs. Social relationships, economic activities.

Affordable and meaningful access means that “everyone has access to Internet every day, with enough (ideally unlimited) data, with a fast connection (at least 4G equivalent) and with appropriate device.

The current business model is encouraging the service providers to improve the access whenever people is connected with more speed and newer technologies and not as much in reaching those areas where people are not yet connected.

TBC

TBC

The session discussed the overall landscape of cybersecurity issues within the context of National and Regional IGF initiaves and their communities. Central aspects discussed included the mechanisms and frameworks put in place in each country as means to organize cybersecurity, as well as cooperation mechanisms and efforts in local, regional and global levels. There was broad agreement on the need for improving capacity building, education and training, as well as create a culture of cybersecurity in Countries and communities. Participants were mindful of diverse initiatives addressing definitions and basic concepts for cybersecurity, as well as the involvement of international organizations in capacity building programs. There was also a call for action in cooperation in all levels.

TBC

TBC

TBC

TBC

TBC

Experts and scholars from China, the United States, Russia, Germany, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Malaysia, and Syria had in-depth exchanges on the impact of the epidemic on cyberspace, the role of Internet technology in the fight against the epidemic, and the trust building mechanism in cyberspace. To begin with, the Internet has enhanced mankind's ability to fight the epidemic, and technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing and big data are playing a key role in epidemic prevention and control. Besides, the wide application of information technology also raises the concern on its security and personal data protection, with the trust deficit in cyberspace continuously increasing. What's more, as the epidemic continues to spread, all parties in the international community should give full play to the value of the internet, enhance the capacity of digital technology to fight against the epidemic, and build a trust mechanism based on the principles of responsibility, transparency, respect, understanding, openness and cooperation.

The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled’ was signed on the 27^th of June of 2013 and in few years made it possible to exchange accessible books among member countries. It represents one of the best examples of an ambitious, pragmatic and impactful multilateral treaty that the international community was able to agree upon in recent years.

The Accessible Books Consortium (ABC), is a public-private partnership led by WIPO. The platform brings together all key players to implement the objectives of the Treaty. ABC offers three services which are; ABC Global Book Service, Capacity Building ad Inclusive Publishing.

it was also explained that there’s no one way to be deaf, so people use different modalities to communicate depending on their conditions and concrete situation.  There are many different ways to access content and many software tools which don’t support all formats. Often publishers don’t invest in alternate formats

The session discussed the ‘attention economy’ business model in the context of the digital age. Embracing massive data collection and various uses of algorithmic systems and processes to manage attention of individuals and groups in the pursuit of economic/other interests, this business approach produces profound multi-layered impacts on freedom of expression and on information environment.

Such use of digital technologies impacts freedom of expression at several levels. At the individual level, behaviours and communication patterns are increasingly facilitated, structured and shaped by online platforms and social media. In the context of newsrooms and media outlets, the emergence/empowerment of digital platforms has reversed the flow of advertising revenues, prompting a structural shift within media markets and putting into question the sustainability of traditional media, also undermining conditions for quality journalism. At the broader societal level, algorithmic systems and data-based micro-targeting tools shape social, economic and political lives, contribute to information disorder and erode trust in the media and in democratic institutions.

The overall impact on information ecosystem remains largely underestimated. While regulatory efforts are directed at the consequences, causes remain largely unaddressed. Reliance on self-regulation by business platforms allows the latter to only introduce measures that leave the model intact, while focus on the speed of deletion of harmful online content translates into real risks to human rights.

With growing demand for digital services respectful of human rights among wider audiences, we witness the emergence of business initiatives that commit to transparency and data/privacy protection. With forces unequal, compared to major digital platforms, such initiatives have however proved economic viability.

Larger awareness about the root causes of critical shifts in the media and information environment is crucial. Further discussion on the ways to ensue digital platforms’ accountability is needed. Journalism must reinvent and reassert itself, both in equipment and relevance

UK Digital Envoy Kevin Cunnington joined a panel of experts from industry, academia and the UK communications regulator to discuss the emerging ‘online safety technology’ sector in the UK and opportunities for a growing international market.

The panel discussed how the regulatory framework proposed in the UK’s Online Harms White Paper had made space for a serious dialogue on online safety, and created an ecosystem for the safety tech sector to thrive. The panel discussed how safety tech can tackle a spectrum of harms and invited a global dialogue on standardised performance indicators, stretch goals for technology and encouraged international information sharing to benchmark high regulatory expectations on the technology available now and in the future.

The FOC is developing a Joint Statement on Spread of Online Disinformation. This discussion focused on disinformation around elections and content moderation efforts by governments and private sector alike. Speakers included representatives from the governments of Finland and the UK and a representative from Facebook. All speakers agreed that multistakeholder approach is needed to battle disinformation in a way that is in line with the international human rights law.

Digital self-determination is a human-centered and rule-based concept that aims to encourage citizens to become active as co-creators of their digital environment. One of the issues discussed was the relation between digital self-determination and digital sovereignty. While digital self-determination concerns the actor (individual, company, public cooperation), digital sovereignty relates to the question of infrastructure. Access to the digital infrastructure (clouds, hardware, etc.) on a national or international level is a prerequisite for the exercise of digital self-determination. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that suitable and high quality infrastructures and platforms are established, which are widely accessible, not only in highly developed industrial states, but also in developing countries.

Another issue discussed was the relation between regulation and innovation and the right balance thereof. It was stated that too much regulation eliminates the competition that is essential for the development of high quality products (infrastructures) as mentioned above. However, the aspect of social inequality and structural discrimination was also emphasized. It is important to design data rooms in an inclusive and fair manner in order to allow equal participation and access.

The discussion then lead to the question of which data can be seen as resources (“data as the new oil” vs. “data as the new air”). Data can be seen as a resource of its own kind: their existence is global, they are of a high instrumental value and they can be used in various manners. For the view of data being a resource sui generis speaks the fact that they cannot be consumed. On the contrary: the value of data increases the more it is shared. In this context, the great value of data sharing was pointed out.

Finally, the aspect of digital self-determination in developing countries was mentioned, where the perspective is a different one, but where strengthening local and regional initiatives is even more important. It was emphasized that the further development of digital self-determination must be considered in the context of human rights.

Broad areas of agreement: 

• Tech companies, governments and civil society must work together through multi stakeholder initiatives to tackle online gender based violence
• Responses to OGBV must consider local context 
• Responses to OGBV must consider how women with multiple and intersecting identities experience online violence
• Online and offline violence are connected
• OGBV is not an individual issue, but one of structural power 
• OGBV leads to violations of women’s rights online including the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly

Areas needing further discussion:

• The role of machine learning in tackling OGBV

  • Machine learning can allow for quick removal of harmful content, and can get better and better as more people report abusive content. Those reports contribute to the ML training set
  • Machine learning can risk amplifying or reinforcing bias, and lacks contextual understandings. It must be used in conjunction with other forms of moderation, and maintain a human-centered approach. 
• The intersection of legal interventions and OGBV
  • Many legal frameworks have gaps on issues of online abuse; laws either do not mention it at all, or fail to adequately extend existing related offline legislation to online cases

Early on in the European Commission’s (EC) response to this emergency outbreak, it adopted a Recommendation to support Member States in exiting the COVID-19 crisis and supported European Member States in preparing and implementing a common European Toolbox for the use of mobile applications for contact tracing and warning. The discussion at the IGF open session focussed on guiding principles, including that apps should be voluntarily installed and that the information provided voluntarily; they should be effective, without tracking people’s movements; data should not be stored longer than 14 days, a retention period which corresponds to the contagion period. Discussion of principles also covered the preservation of privacy of the users and interoperability, which is important as  the disease does not know national boundaries.

There was unanimous agreement that the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst tor the digital transformation. All the participants also recognised that the crisis has starkly revealed existing and increasing digital divides that build on existing socio-economic and geographic divides.

The panellists stressed that while the crisis has accelerated the transformation (“two years of progress were achieved in two months”), the journey through the digital transformation is only at the beginning. The forthcoming OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020 shows that despite the progress, there are divides still to be bridged in connectivity and effective use of the Internet, that digital security and privacy risks are increasing and that policy action is needed to shape an inclusive digital transformation.

Participants discussed how the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased online activities resulting from lockdowns and social distancing have put an unprecedented pressure on the networks. They also reported on the increased digital security risks, on the raised level of awareness of personal data protection among the population and on the use of Artifical Intelligence in healthcare. Participants reported on the government responses and on industry initiatives to meet the increasing connectivity demand, to raise awareness and preparedness for digital risks, and to adress the skills gaps.  Civil society also reported on the need to balance emergency measures with respect of human rights and democratic values, and to design the right system of checks when deploying technologies to monitor and contain the spread of the virus. 

Panelists agreed about:

1. Data is a commodity and is generated and, therefore, owned by us, the individual. As such, we have to demand our rights. Trust has to be earned.
2. Enforceable laws are needed, and the general public has to think about how it will give its data to companies. People need to know what is happening to their data, and governments need to protect the people. 
3. The need for collective effort on the part of governments, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community to [achieve] personal sovereignty.
4. Data must be seen and owned by us and used with our permission, supported by enforceable laws to help us. 
5. Standards can play a critical role in scaling solutions; including in empowering people, in helping to create digital literacy frameworks, which help empower people with the necessary skills. 
6. Human dignity needs to be at the core of our thinking whereby the technology should serve people's needs and their communities. 
7. It is possible for companies to build customer trust within a model of data sovereignty. 
8. Consumer data use that leaves out individuals who do not fit into set profiles is a concern. 
9. IEEE and IGF are excellent fora in which to discuss the topic of child online protection.

• Technical Internet Governance is focused on how the Internet operates, involving more than the technical competences relevant to ICANN.
• A common goal of the technical community is to ensure that the Internet is singular, unified, interoperable as the next billion comes online, and to support and preserve continued innovation through the international multistakeholder model
• No stakeholder can run the Internet alone, community participation in ICANN discussions and policy-making processes is key.
• ICANN is technology-neutral and supports the bottom-up multistakeholder process informed by objective and unbiased data-driven analyses.
• ICANN monitors proposed and new technologies, and how they would have an impact on the DNS and ICANN’s mission.
• ICANN’s role is to clarify and position itself as a technical non-profit organisation and help legislators, policy makers and regulators understand how the Internet functions to ensure that the Internet continues to develop safely, securely and in a stable manner..
• As discussions are taking place in new places and by actors previously not involved in ICANN, ICANN has broaden its engagement and helps decision-makers on all levels avoid triggering unanticipated consequences: in International Governmental Organization initiatives, Standardization bodies and regulatory initiatives at regional and nation levels.
• Governments have already recognized the importance of the DNS and ICANN’s role through their active participation in the Government Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN. ICANN’s mission should be discussed there rather than in a UN setting.
• Standardization of the Internet has to stay in the existing ecosystem based on a multistakeholder model, such as IETF.
• ICANN has undertaken a key initiative this year, the DNS Security Facilitation Initiative Study Group. Its aim is to provide recommendations to the ICANN CEO and is made up of a number of cross-functional participants with technical expertise.
• DNS stability and security involves a lot of cooperation, with a clear cross-functional multi-community participation.

The keynotes speech by Mrs Mariam Barata, stresses the importance of the Internet in Indonesia; Moreover, ICT Infrastructure development should benefit the Science, Technology, and Industries in the country as well as the Digital economy.

The first speaker, Mr. Arthit Suriyawongkul, emphasized an interesting borrowed term of Four Freedoms from the European Single Market. Free movement of goods, capital, services, and person. We note how the pandemic from COVID19 influences the change of control over the parcel, payment, work/study from home, and the traveling/social life. We observe the transactions of personal data over these changes. They also influence the privacy of each person since the limit between work life and personal life is blurred.

These transactions also caused an increase in the number of borders for more control. Therefore, cross-border implications exist due to data-driven discriminations. It is worth noting that these implications cause consequences including privacy. The ultimate catch is how the existing data protection mechanism evolves to catch up with the new reality.

Further, Mr. Edmon Chung, the second speaker, added more to Arthit's presentation, regarding our online ID. User's own digital private spaces belong to the companies. Even personal data are distributed to advertisers. There was this interesting statement from Edmon, "Customers are not the users but the companies that pay for advertisements."

Related to these issues is related to privacy in the digital domain, data sovereignty means the user owns his/her data and fully control them. The issue of personal data is just one part of the things but the bigger issue is the privately owned public spaces.

Everyone agreed that is is important to act at the global level to impulse a common dynamic and propose shared solutions, standards, tools and initiatives. However, every action should be adapted to the local level, depending on local specifities and issues.

Moreover, the speakers underlined the need for cooperation between institutions and relevant stakeholder to tackled the issue. Data collection, transparency and education are essentials elements of the solution.

Everyone is of the opinion that much remains to be done and that we must collectively ask ourselves what model to follow to meet our climate commitments.

Some speakers insisted on the need to raise consumer awareness, while others preferred not to give so much responsibility to consumers but rather to industry and to the business model of certain content providers in particular, based on abundance, in opposition to what action for the environment requires.  

At our session there was a common agreement to address urgently the inclusion of women and gender diverse communities in Internet Governance through the implementation of several strategies: a. develop digital literacy programs, b. anti-harassment policies; which will have an impact on c. amplifying the list of topics discussed at the IGF. There was an interesting point mentioned at the session: take into consideration  the inclusion of people with disabilities at the IGF especially hear impaired persons, persons with dyslexia; and keeping in mind the crossover between gender diversity and cognitive disabilities. One participant also mentioned we should work on possible solutions regarding multilingualism such as having at each session interpretation into the 5 UN official languages besides the inclusion of a sign interpreter. Another participant mentioned it is need to tackle the tokenism problem when it comes to the inclusion of youth in IG.
 
In relation to the digital literacy for rural, remote and indigenous areas; it was remarked there should be a joint effort to foster their inclusion as their voices are crucial in the policy making processes.
 
Regarding the economic aspect of inclusion, due the lack of time we could only obtained one input saying there should be some mechanisms like programs to help small businesses in making their operations online. 
 
About measures that can be taken to ensure digital rights, there was a common agreement on: a. having an ombudsman to make sure of the accountability of principles; b. necessary and proportional intervention in accordance to International Human Rights Law; c. algorithm transparency in policies.
 
Finally, we discussed shortly the design of the online campaign with accessibility features, however we will publish a call for inputs on the campaign after the IGF at the Youth SIG in order to request further ideas.

Areas of agreement:

• The use of the Internet for purchase of medicine is increasing at a rapid pace, and this has been further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• There is no global (and mostly no interregional) regulatory framework in place to ensure the safety of consumers, often leading to outright prohibition of transnational purchases.
• There is a significant number of rogue online pharmacies selling falsified or substandard medicines, and more action needs to be taken to balance their incentive.
• An important issue relating to this theme is the lack of a clearly defined role for intermediaries, such as is the case of registries and registrars, which are vital, yet lack defined procedures to deal with or identify which are legitimate or illegitimate online pharmacies.
• The existing TLD that declared it was specifically for pharmacies (“.pharmacy”) has proven to be disinterested in the issue and thus, it is insufficient to cover both existing use-cases or to address the problem of rogue actors.
• The IGF is proving to have the potential to be ‘the suitable home’ for furthering dialogue and debate in this area, serving as a neutral space where all actors can engage.

Areas of no agreement:

• As there are many different levels where action can be taken, from the local to the global, it is as yet unclear where the starting point is that will yield the most optimal outcomes.
• The DNS can be leveraged to minimize problems, but the models that need to be put in place (white/black lists, trusted notifiers, and so on) have still to be agreed upon, signaling that more studies need to be carried out.
•  It is yet unclear how to address this issue from a global perspective, accounting for the significant variances in development of different nations vis-à-vis the maturity of their respective markets.

5G technology development will bring challenges and opportunities for energy consumption. The panelists elaborated and discussed these issues from different perspectives.

Dr Chih-lin I gave a brief overview of 5G construction of China Mobile. Although the energy consumption of 5g base station is about three or four times that of 4G base station, its actual energy efficiency is higher, that is to say, it can carry more traffic with the same power consumption.

Dr Daniel Schien introduced that the supply chain of digital services is a complex system, so it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of its energy consumption. For the green development of 5G, we hope to use as much renewable energy as possible in the cellular network. In addition, a comprehensive report on energy consumption allows operators, media, consumers and the public sector to make better decisions.

MR Moore Steven introduced that the potential development of 5G will contribute to carbon emission reduction in other industries, such as intelligent agriculture, intelligent buildings and energy sectors, which will all rely on interconnected networks to ensure intelligent manufacturing and intelligent energy management.

MR Mieczkowski Piotr mentioned that in the EU, people are discussing the EU green agreement, that is, large-scale digitization of the energy industry. Without the smart grid, the Internet of things and 5G connectivity, this agreement would not have been possible.

MR Roberto Zambrana mentioned that some countries in the southern hemisphere, such as Latin America and the Caribbean, were far behind in 5g. Multilateral agreements between governments in different regions of the global south are needed to implement a joint strategy to establish a common regulatory framework for all Internet mobile broadband services, including 5G.

At the beginning of the workshop, attendees were invited to take part in a poll seeking answers to two questions: how willing they are to share their data and what barriers prevent them from doing so. 63% of respondents indicated they are somewhat willing to share data, if there are special circumstances (such as the COVID-19 crisis). 92 % noted trust and security concerns as barriers to datasharing. The issue of trust was thus at the heart of the discussion.

During the session speakers shared various examples to illustrate the benefits of data sharing and underline the importance of trust. Many noted COVID-19 tracing apps as most visible examples, but highlighted also use cases such as:

• the Johns Hopkins University interactive dashboards on the spread of the virus that inform policy decisions and decisions on provisioning critical medical resources;
• sharing insights on mobility patterns to inform social distancing measures;
• collaborations to share data and AI tools for medical researchers; projects to provide accurate information to the public;
• extracting insights from personal datasets while protecting privacy ;

and many more.

Speakers agreed that trust is the main enabler of data sharing. At the same time, they noted that there is a lack of understanding when it comes to what data is being shared and how. Panelists suggested that efforts should be taken to improve data literacy and foster a culture of data sharing in organizations.

Panelists highlighted the role of collaboration between different stakeholders involved in data sharing. Examples of cooperation between governments, business and civil society illustrated that the multistakeholder approach is effective, especially in the face of crisis.

Speakers also underlined the need for strengthened international collaboration to ensure cross-border data free flow with trust, as introduced by the G20 Japan Osaka Track in 2019.

This session addressed relevant issues that fall under the Thematic Track of Trust, but also touched upon Thematic Tracks “Inclusion” and “Data”. More specifically, it discussed the way social media platforms have reshaped the way we interact online, express ourselves and possibly affect others. In line with this, issues such as identity, data privacy, disinformation, freedom of expression and youth participation were discussed. 

This session on ‘Elections in times of disinformation’ covered three key aspects of disinformation that pose new challenges to democracies and inclusive governance including the expanding volume of information being produced, its geographical scope and reach, and the rapidly changing information landscape. The expert speakers discussed the role of new communication strategies used by political candidates, micro-targeting political messages on mobile devices, and undermining traditional media, as some of the main factors causing electoral mistrust today.

In terms of good practices and recommendations to fight the spread of disinformation, the session underscored the importance of agile channels of coordination and communication across all media and electoral stakeholders, especially at the national level. There is a crucial need for widespread media and information literacy to empower audiences and citizens with the accurate tools to stop the repetitive sharing of falsehoods. The speakers also cautioned against excessively restricting legitimate expression and encouraging a robust public debate through evidence-based content moderation and fact-checking.

Concluding with a discussion of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on elections, a key takeaway was that building trust in public institutions such as electoral commissions is a major factor that determines the credibility of elections. Most countries are continuing to host elections with precautionary health measures in place. Therefore, information about essential sanitary measures and health information must be communicated accurately and in a timely manner, to conduct elections smoothly.

There was broad support for the view that online education is a huge opportunity for development. There is a need to invest in capacity – infrastructure, human resources, policies, guidelines. There is a need to adopt new pedagogical models and develop new curricula. It is important to find inclusive solutions for fair online education, especially at the time of COVID-19 pandemics. Panellists also agreed that due to the rapid growth of pandemic cases in this emergency, many people have to study from home over information networks. Especially, challenges of fair online education are well identified. Moreover, they agreed that poor internet connection, lack of Technological resources (e.g., laptops), noisy environment and human capital, vulnerable groups could cause inequalities in education, which require more efficient and inclusive solutions to reduce when facing these kinds of accidents. Further discussions are needed on the detailed description for the implementation of fair online education at the operational level.

Mr Thierry talked about how the private sector also promotes open access policies, complementing the social purpose of the companies with its aim. The sharing of data between the public and private sectors has always been done, approaching some government initiatives that facilitate this sharing. In pandemic times, while it’s possible to go after more profits, it seems wiser to private sectors agents to try to be more flexible to make it easier to fight pandemic-related issues.

Ms Mariana Valente talked about the importance of opening academic databases to civil society. She talked about how digital technologies created the possibility of sharing knowledge and works, but this didn’t come with the legal possibility of sharing, because copyright law posed some barriers. She mentioned that open licenses are not enough, and the academic ecosystem needs to have an active role to stimulate open access, recognizing and promoting these type of initiatives.

Mr Elnur pointed out how the theme of the session is especially relevant to the youth. He remembered how youth starting to research have great barriers in getting access to protected academic texts, mostly because they do not have the same level of access or the same financial resources as older researchers have.

Ms Vivian Moya presented how the government can help to develop access and mediating the involved interests. She started with a brief introduction about how copyright works (and what are its aims) around the world, with higher or lower levels of copyright protection depending on national legislation.

• The “tech for good” debate is dominated by assumptions, which include activists as women who aren’t tech-savvy and lack safe spaces to learn about tech; and tech experts as men who lack the capacity to translate their knowledge to the world outside of their bubble. Encouraging safe communications between developers and users ensures bridging the gaps between both worlds. Listening more than talking is an effective way to ensure that activist and community’s needs are taken into consideration by tech providers. 
• Inclusivity is key to enable young women and men to fully participate in social, economic and political life and bridge the digital gender gap. Inclusive online platforms can be a catalyst to fulfil this potential; combined with offline work to reach those not connected online.  

• Inclusive teams (from all relevant socio-economic groups and genders in society) ensure that media coverage is inclusive; 
• Inclusive content ensures a diversity of women’s voices are heard and gender norms are challenged, and men and boys are engaged to effectuate inclusive change;  
• Inclusive media ensures low literate audiences are reached by making content as visual as possible (through videos, vlogs, podcasts); 
• Inclusive tech makes sure platform users spend a minimum of data for maximum result, as data is a luxury in many countries; 
• Inclusive partnerships with organizations who work offline ensures reaching women who are not connected online. 

• SMART targeting can be a tool for gender inclusiveness. By making sure content is aimed specifically at women and reaches them first allows them to start the conversation and provides a safe space to do so, this can increase women’s engagement on online platforms significantly. These strategies can be used to include women, but also a range of intersectionalities such as race, ethnicity, socio-economic background etc. 

The workshop focused on the human-media practices and analysed what steps must be taken to build good digital citizenship. It tackled various aspects of culture processes that exist and develop within the global network with the special focus on the individuals facing the digitalisation of the everyday life. The discussion was also devoted to the identification and description of diverse systems of using digital technology in the context of media-related practices and their correlation with various aspects of family life.

The two approaches to the virtual space were discussed: one that compares the old days of centralized media with new media that wants to see in digital technology the source of equitable access to knowledge and equalization of social opportunities, and the second that sees the recipient of the network locked in an information bubble. These contradictory theories were an important part of the discussion especially, taking into consideration the time of pandemic, that for one would be seen as the conviction of individuals on profiled internet and for others would focus on access to knowledge, friends, culture, information.

Another issue raised was the problem of sustainable development in the context of digital technology related to access to devices and media competence in using the network. It was discussed how to secure common access to technology and digital skills to make societies equal as internet users and enabling them effective participation in the changing world.

The panelists also discussed new opportunities that may be associated with the post pandemic situation and the possible ways on how to use this newly created potential.

During the workshop a discussion with the audience was also facilitated and activated by kahoot quizzes prepared by speakers. Questions referred to the digital citizenship education of children and the prevention digital gap in the time of COVID-19.

Areas of broad support:

• Ensuring security and trust in global supply chains for ICT products and services is essential for the digital transformation, however, sophisticated, targeted cyberattacks can undermine this process and pose a serious threat.
• Governments, particularly those in the Global South, and SMEs often lack the capacity and resources to manage ICT supply chain risk effectively.
• Transparency about ICT security and related processes, including how security vulnerabilities are handled, is extremely important.
• Certification for modern ICT products and services is one of the solutions to enhance ICT security and, therefore, a buyer’s confidence in digital products.
• Building trusted multi-stakeholder ecosystems/partnerships are important for capacity building, awareness-raising, and, therefore, effective mitigation of ICT supply chain risks.

Areas needing further discussion and development:

• Enforcing good security practices and responsible behavior requires effective accountability measures across the ICT ecosystem. Further discussion is needed regarding the design, implementation, and enforcement of accountability measures. Establishing universal criteria for assessing security and trustworthiness for ICT and vendors can provide practical guidance for government and SME ICT buyers. These risk-informed criteria help buyers to select trustworthy technology.
• TechNationalism and the increasing politicization of global ICT supply chains have led to calls for economic and technological decoupling, which poses a host of challenges, including the fragmentation of the Internet. Further discussion is needed to define effective, widely accepted ICT supply chain risk approaches and measures that take national security concerns into account while balancing commercial interest and innovation.
• It is an open question if the ICT security certification is sufficient for building confidence and trust in technology. There were also different views if the certification and ICT supply chain security overall should be voluntary and based on voluntary industry commitments or required by law. 

Areas of broad support/agreement:

1) Uncertain and discredited information and news undermined the public trust

2) Media and social media played a major role in helping people stay in touch, mobilised resources, and helped migrants, economically impacted people, and displaced people. And social media became the major resource for COVID-19 information, thus increasing social media activity multifold. social media platforms can empower the  credibility of the media if using properly.

3) To build trust online, there is a need to connect everyone meaningfully, and focus on media literacy and governance. Businesses need to be more transparent about their initiatives，and social media platforms  need to be more transparent on their takedown policies.  It is not enough only to be aware about data protection and privacy , there are  well-recognised limits and public health emergencies are one of them. The  public needs to understand the broader online ecosystem and how the social media platforms work and how they are funded.

- Areas of no agreement/areas needing further discussion and development

Whether social media platform should be treated as media and subject to similar or different regulations like other media organizations ?

(1) Most speakers agreed on positive sides in using ICT for pandemic prevention and control, and socioeconomic recovery. Some emphasized that ICT use should fit in a broader and comprehensive public health strategy. It is necessary to strictly follow data protection rules and principles to prevent overuse or excessive collection. Data protection is not a "yes" or "no" but a "how-to" exercise even in crises. Some said their countries recognized efficiency using ICT, but new controversies appear. Some underlined available non-digital tools could be preferred in given contexts.

(2) Experts focused on relationship between public interests and privacy protection. Some thought we should incorporate in public interests all rules and conditions for  privacy and personal data protection. All agreed the priority of all nations is to overcome the pandemic. No public safety, no personal interests, and vice versa. Personal data/information and privacy is a universal fundamental right enshrined in art 12 of UDHR and other important international instruments. There are privacy-friendly solutions to strengthen efforts today in avoiding chilling effect on rights to privacy tomorrow.

(3) Some thought we should respect different national conditions in different countries and regions. We are facing digital and privacy protection gaps to be tackled and preferably closed. Therefore, we should understand each other deeper.

(4) Some emphasized exceptional measures by governments must be provided by law, respect the essence of fundamental rights and freedom, and be necessary and proportionate in democratic societies. Manners addressing health crisis would test resilience of data protection principles as key components of effective functioning of democracies. One speaker underlined that the future lies in our capacity to react promptly to new challenges without undermining our core values and putting societies at greater risks. Another speaker from developing country emphasized policy making should be based on national facts.

Open data policies should be able to provide frameworks for opening up access to government data and provide governance mechanisms. Policies from governments should always highlight the requirements for the successful implementation of open data for all people including Women and Persons with disabilities. These policies must aim at making all public sector data open by default with exception to personal identifiable information and data with security or commercial or intellectual property rights or environmental restrictions. Women and Persons with Disabilities lack enough representation when it comes to data policy formulation and implementation with the perception that they cannot use technology due to varied reasons of the society. This therefore means Women and Persons with disabilities must have ICT tools and Infrastructure to be able to access the Open Data on Government platforms.

Speakers covered:‎
•    Experience of international law enforcement in terms of child sexual abuse and exploitation ‎during the global COVID19 response, in particular ‘lockdown’ – summarizing findings from the ‎INTERPOL’s September report.‎
•    Frontline experience from Sawa, the Palestinian child helpline, which supported an increased ‎number of children contacting them during lockdown about physical and sexual abuse at ‎home, anxiety about economic fallout issues (not enough money for food, unable to afford ‎connectivity to continue lessons), and suicidal ideation.‎
•    Research findings on children’s experience of COVID, including access to education and social ‎groups; reflections on some of the issues facing these and the fact that in our rush to respond ‎to a crisis, children’s views on how their online spaces has, again, been overlooked. ‎
•    Experience of a young leader and UNICEF volunteer from South Africa, who explained how ‎young people who have connectivity have been able to continue to enjoy many of their ‎fundamental rights by moving them into the digital world (for example, online learning, virtual ‎workshops, and mentoring taking place via WhatsApp) – but underscored that the less ‎privileged young people, without connectivity, missed out and became further disadvantaged. ‎
•    Younger children’s online lives: Children are increasingly online – and younger children who ‎were not previously connected came online during lockdown, and are now likely to remain ‎connected, even if prior to the pandemic they would perhaps not have been allowed so young ‎‎– Uri Sadeh.‎
 

PwD and especially older people have been affected discrimination in digital access to a greater extend during the  pandemic. It has highlighted the tremendous deficiencies and exposed gaps in the accessibility of strategic services in education, government and health services infrastructure and content.There is a delay in adopting and implementing WCAG, signifying that web accessibility is not a priority.  Lack of accessible information creates a risk to managing the pandemic and a risk to people’s health, wellbeing and the saving of lives. There is lack of education of IT people, policy makers etc. on how to make accessible digital contents and services. The need of direct involvement of PwD in the design of products and services, policy development, standardization etc. (Nothing about us without us) as it enables to get the benefits of Artificial Inteligence (AI) and don't have inaccessible technologies that that we have to chase behind and retro-fit and make accessible again. There is a need to include people who understand about disability, social issues, the limitations, rights. In some health hazards, risk and emergency situations it is not acceptable that there’s a limited access to full and accurate information - to have the best results it’s worth supporting a combination of technology providing captions and the work of captioners. AI is a game-changer but it's not 100% accurate. To have an effective design of technologies we have a very good balance between all of these interests and needs. Opportunities offered by Video Relay Interpretation ( VRI) have been presented and how they can support inclusion of persons wish sensory issues, deafness and vision loss. Digital Accessibility Rights Evaluation Index (DARE) was presented by G3ict representative showing slow progress but some areas of optimism that we are moving in the right direction.

There was broad support for the view that the protection of users’ Internet data is not easy under multiple different jurisdictions. Several approaches were mentioned to address this issue: Most of the interventions supported the coordination of the efforts to harmonize the existing legal frameworks and try to build on the agreed on principles while some participants argued that the only way to reach real Internet data protection is to reach an international binding regulation.

There was overall agreement on that:

Administrative, national statistical and big data need to complementary, one will not substitute the others.

There are still significant limitations in data availabitity, particularly  in the African region. In countires with low levels of digitalisation there is also scarcity of big data.

One-off initiatives are not sustainable - such as it is the case of several COVID-19-related data sharing models.

“Data sharing” does not literally mean “sharing datasets”, it might be enough to share statistics derived from those datasets.

No significan points of disagreement were identified. 

The panelists agreed that regions approach and operationalize capacity building differently in practical terms, however, it was also recognized that more cross-regional sharing would be beneficial where possible. Examples included interregional organisations (ASEAN, ECOWAS, EU) or more developed countries (Singapore) in certain regions sharing best practices and building capacities for lesser countries from the same region. Krey criteria for successful and sustainable capacity building comprise legitimacy, trust and respect, according to the panelists. Relationship building was also mentioned as an important contributing factor. However, panelists warned that one can only be as strong as the weakest link, therefore it makes sense to not only become stronger within your country, within your subregion. To really have a proper open, secure, safe system, one must really cooperate between regions. This would also help to address closing gaps between regions on CCB. Furthermore, national buy-in is essential. This would ensure reciprocity and a two-way street from with both partners benefit. 

However, it was also stressed that the differences among regions are significant (geography, economics, politics & culture) and best practices are not applicable to every region. The Pacific region was named as an example where countries differ enormously and best practice sharing would not be very successful. Lastly, another important criteria constituted the involvement of multiple partners for sustainable capacity building, which is still lacking in general. 

Overall, multistakeholder initatives such as the Paris Call for Trust and Stability in Cyberspace or multistakeholder organisations such as the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise were named as great platforms that could support on cyber capacity building across regions. Interregional fora such as the EU-India dialogue were cited as successful exchanges on CCB.

• During the pandemic, the use of various digital tools and platforms has visibly increased. The majority of the respondents indicated that they had discovered Zoom during the Lockdown.
• Worldwide, 71% of young people between the age of 15-24 use the internet compared to 48% of the total population.
• Digital divides also mirror prevailing economic gaps, inequalities exist between developed and underdeveloped countries.
• A possible prolonged pandemic, and its multiple effects in the mental health well-being of individuals and communities.
• We need a more inclusive but also standardised approach to digital competencies for all.

• The crisis has exacerbated widespread educational inequalities due to factors relating to gender, immigration, or learning difficulties and special needs.
• National education policies should mandate ministries and schools to provide digital literacy involved in the national education system.
• Empower teachers, trainers and facilitators in the effective use of digital technologies.
• Joint efforts between the Private Sector and Private Sector plays a crucial role in identifying and implementing technology-relevant approaches to resolve these challenges ensuring appropriateness and sustainability.

• We have to train teachers in the use of digital tech not in using off suites and  software, but how to use this amazing kit and resources are available on it, to empower and enable young people and also with vocational training, older people, to learn.  So it's not just giving them digital skills but enabling them.
• We can be much more positive and we can rethink education for the future and use of digital technologies, and make sure that in the future, when some pandemic occurs, we can move seamlessly into new resilient education systems that use digital technology to serve the interest of everybody.

- Participants agreed that the ICT sector can play a key enabling role in achieving environmental sustainability, including for example through next generation connectivity (5G technology, fibre networks), improve the operations of existing mobile and fixed networks, improve the energy efficiency of data centres, use of renewables in the sector. The use of data to inform sustainable policy decisions is a key aspect too.

- To boost innovation and to push digitalisation across sectors of society, it is important having the right pro-investment approach to support the private sector, for example to accelerate roll-out of 5G and fibre networks. Green financial aspects care crucial should be considered and incentivised.

- Rebound effects remain a considerable challenge, with increased energy consumption and higher demand risking to offset the gains made by more sustainable technologies 

- There are already many positive initiatives in place in both the public and private sectors, and these include governance structures, data sharing mechanisms, modelling and monitoring, smart cities, voluntary labelling, digitally enabled sustainable business models, and ensuring a sustainable supply chain 

- There are important common areas and fora for collaboration to achieve the aims of environmental sustainability, including digital imaging of the earth for monitoring, data sharing to enable the circular economy, accurate indicators, and the involvement of all actors in the ecosystem 

- Participants also acknowledged the challenge that digital technologies can pose for the environment, including disproportionate distribution of e-waste, accentuating further the North-South divide 

There is currently a lack of data and regulations to measure the environmental impact of the digital transition (few data are measured and/or provided).

Addictive design could stimulate a higher consumption caused by degital services and content.

Policies regulating the environmental impact of ICT should be adapted to the different countries.

Advocacy: It is acknowledged that youth movements have been drivers of the environmental justice discourse, however in Internet Governance spaces, youth have not been as active in the discussion. However, the call to action can only be realised with resources for campaigns etc., so these movements often leave out marginalised groups.

Regulation: There was agreement that regulation is a key factor in fostering sustainability, so legislative bodies should be take into account scientific findings, as well as civil society advocacy. It was also agreed on that political decision makers have not yet fully formed action plans, or the ones that are put out are not ambitious enough given the urgency of environmental action.

Innovation: It was a call to the private sector to foster innovation that is environmentally friendly and fair in order to pro-actively address environmental challenges. It was also agreed on that businesses and start-ups should be active parts of policy deliberation, as they are the stakeholders to then implement measures. It was concluded that the Internet Governance approach to multi-stakeholder processes can be a model for digital sustainability.

Eurocentricity: It was brought up by the panel that, currently, the discourse around environmental justice, and digital sustainability specifically, is dominated by a euocentric focus. However, Asian and African initiatives were presented, and there was agreement that there needs to be more interregional policy dialogue in order not to reinforce inequalities.

Transfer: Overall, there was agreement that both youth movements for environmental justice, and Internet Governance fora address different stakeholders. In order to implement digital sustainability in Internet governance spaces, it requires clear advocacy, effective communication, and the inclusion of scientific stakeholders. Youth movements for sustainability, such as Fridays for Future, should be invited to participate in multistakeholder environments such as the IGF.

• Privacy laws and regulations, such as the Convention 108 of the Council of Europe, have been designed to facilitate data flows. These normative frameworks contribute to international trade by enabling companies to move data across borders.
• Although there are strong commonalities between privacy norms, there are a variety of different mechanisms in place to transfer data across borders. Work on interoperability between these data transfer models is ongoing and will further contribute to data flows and trade.
• For a data privacy law to be successful, it must provide effective protection for individuals, and, at the same time, it should provide organisations with the freedom to operate, innovate and comply in a way that makes sense for their business models.
• Moving copies of data is no longer the only way to create value from that data. Decentralized artificial intelligence permits to generate insights from different sources of data without requiring access to these data, thus guaranteeing privacy and security. Technology will increasingly provide regulatory compliant solutions to many of the issues related with data protection.
• The Internet is composed of five fundamental components, and any government measures that undermine one of these elements affects the entire Internet infrastructure. These components consist of an open and accessible global infrastructure with a common protocol; common IP identifiers; an open architecture to guarantee interoperability; a decentralized routing management allowing optimized costs; a general purpose rather than a specialized so the Internet can adapt to its evolving community of users and applications.
• Data localisation requirements, for instance, undermine the decentralized routing management of the Internet. Also, aligning routing policy with the requirements of different jurisdictions creates needless complexity and inefficiency, as routing could no longer employ the technical features that generate connectivity, resilience, and optimized flow

• Cost of data
• Trust issues when data sharing
• Incentives to encourage data collection
• Privacy and security of data
• Roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders
• Disaggregation of data - gender 

• What about current connected health use-cases is encouraging and what do still needs to be addressed?

• Whether this is a trend that should or will last beyond the public health crisis.

  • The panel agreed that the trend will last and has plenty of positives.

• How much are the current AI use cases in healthcare built on "hype" and how much are real benefits to patients.

  • Panelists agreed there are many positive use-cases, but there needs to be care taken to ensure that policymakers continue to be skeptical, instead of "cheering on" AI uncritically.

• The need for human intervention into AI systems.

• The additional privacy and security threats that the provision of healthcare over the internet brings.

  • Panelists agreed on the existence of a new threat but disagreed about the solutions to mitigate them.

• The inclusivity challenges that arise when healthcare is provided over the internet.

  • Panelists offered several different solutions, including broad-based technology education campaigns and universal broadband deployment.

Areas of broad support/agreement:

• Designing ICT inclusively from the start following the principles of Universal Design will ultimately benefit everyone through increased usability/user-friendliness.
• Including persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups in digital development efforts is vital for reaching the SDGs.
• The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital exclusion and underscored the need to develop inclusive solutions.
• A lack of awareness about accessibility and its social and business benefits is regarded as a major obstacle in all stakeholder groups: governments, private actors, civil society organizations. Among persons with disabilities there is a lack of awareness about accessibility features and insufficient skills for their usage.
•  A lack of disaggregated data about persons with disabilities, also with regard to ICT challenges and opportunities creates an enormous challenge for designing and implementing policies. Better data could also be an incentive for the private sector.
• Cognitive disabilities are to be treated differently with regard to accessibility. Care-givers or family members should be involved to identify their needs.
• Perspective on digtial accessibility needs to change: Shifting away from a perception of an extra effort and special intervention. Normalizing inclusive design for all should be the goal.

Areas of no agreement/areas needing further discussion and development

• What role does innovation play for digital inclusion of persons wiht disabilities? Differing perspectives: Innovation alone does not solve crucial matters of social exclusion, but can be a valuable approach for convincing the private sector.
• What means accessibility for persons with different types of disabilities?

This session identified key barriers that businesses are facing when reopening during the COVID-19 crisis and transitioning to the digital economy. For instance, entrepreneurs and small businesses across emerging markets are struggling to participate in the digital economy due to existing challenges of accessibility and affordability of the internet as well as a lack of digital skills. At the same time, inadequate or absent policies and regulatory frameworks that facilitate competitiveness and access to global markets continue to undermine the development of an inclusive digital economy. To address these challenges, multi-stakeholder dialogues on digital transformation at the local, regional, and international levels must be a key priority to ensure inclusive digitally-enabled economic growth in the post-COVID-19 era.

The panel featured representatives from the tech sector, civil society, academia, NGOs, as well as WHO and UNESCO.

Speakers agreed that there is a crucial need to foster multi-stakeholder partnerships and cross-sectoral collaboration, to ensure that the Internet remains an open space for the exchange of reliable information.

Julie Posetti (ICFJ) summarized the types of COVID-19 disinformation and responses to the current “disinfodemic”, based on her contributions to the Broadband Commission’s report “Balancing Act” and two UNESCO policy briefs.

Tina Purnat (WHO) called for crafting a public research agenda to manage and respond to both infodemics and disinfodemics.

Beeban Kidron (5Rights Foundation) underlined the relevance of such research, arguing that disinformation types cannot be separated from one another and have an encompassing impact on a multitude of crises, including on children’s wellbeing.

Guy Berger (UNESCO) stressed the need to understand cultural aspects of information as part of a human condition which includes norms, emotion, fear, aspirations, identities, and culture. Piotr Dmochowski-Lipski (EUTELSAT IGO) stressed that national interpretations could negatively impact the efficacy of policy-making processes and international standards.

Stephen Turner (Twitter) presented Twitter’s recent content moderation decisions that were made with the intention to detect and delete harmful content concerning COVID-19, based upon the challenges such content presents, and how users interact with it. He also presented Twitter’s partnerships with international organizations such as UNESCO on issues of media and information literacy.

Cristina Tardáguila (IFCN) pointed to social media platforms developing disinformation policies only for selected countries. She advocated for more work in designing global approaches to disinformation in the online sphere, as well as a focus on information literacy.

Claire Wardle (First Draft News) advocated for more qualitative research in the field in order to strengthen the empirical foundation on which to base actions against disinformation.

The discussion focused on the interconnections between human rights, environment and Internet connected technologies and looked into concrete steps to achieve an effective multi-stakeholder collaborative effort to ensure human rights and sustainability by design.

The speakers agreed that only concerted solutions resulting from multi-stakeholder collaboration could lead to effective change and that more needs to be done to promote dialogue and shared experiences, but that spaces, such as the annual IGF and the NRIs already exist to foster this dialogue.

The panel reflected upon the causes that are currently hindering cross sector collaboration – since the solutions and the skills for a sustainable ICT already exist, but are scattered among the different stakeholder groups – and highlighted issues of culture, values, and priorities. In particular, they highlighted the lack of accountability and the failure to take responsibility, which leads to masking problems rather than solving them. Also stressed was the scattered and unclear information on sustainability, the lack of a concerted strategy of repairability, and the reliance on a business model that promotes rampant consumption and product obsolescence, which forces consumers to waste their existing and perfectly working products by replacing them for new ones. This scenario is leading to ever growing  demand of consumption and of e-waste generation and the use of precious natural resources that not only have a  huge negative impact on the sustainability of the planet, but also on the full enjoyment of human rights with disastrous consequences to populations affected by the scarcity of their natural resources, affected by the hazards of e-waste, or working in degrading conditions to provide the raw materials needed for the ever growing  demand of production of new technologies.

Supply side

• The biggest expansions for creating customer choice and competition in the Domain Name Space have been the introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and the new gTLD program by ICANN
• Every developer should have strong understanding of UA in their skills set giving them a competitive advantage.
• There is power in standardization and interoperability for businesses who want to operate globally
• Governments could lead by example by supporting e-government services and systems in local
• The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) within ICANN has already made a working group on UA issues.
• Through the Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG) and ICANN, efforts have been made to further advance UA but it has not been enough
• The introduction of Hindi email addresses by the local government of Rajasthan, India, has led to be able to communicate directly with 7 million people who had ASCII email addresses but were unable to operate them

Demand side

• UA is a tool for end-users to enrich their online experiences
• Awareness can be raised by targeting and doing outreach towards specific groups, such as governments or local initiatives. Local and regional applications would benefit local and regional users
• Targeted capacity building could be offered on how the DNS works and operates, and why UA is relevant.
• UA could also be integrated in university courses for social sciences, internet governance, international relations and computer sciences
• Despite over 2 million registered domain names in China, most browsers, social media and messaging platforms do not support IDNs making their use not practical as potential traffic and customers might be lost
• Chinese Domain Names Initiative (CDNI) was founded in January 2020 by registries, registrars, industry associates and internet companies to promote a better understanding of UA and move froward together.

We have addressed the issues of multilingualism in the Internet from different points of view. Points of agreement include:

• translation is sometimes insufficient, in particular when dealing with interaction between "minor" languages;
• social media are targeting the broader population and therefore might even amplify the problem for minorities, but the rise of local social media could better address the development and promotion of local languages and scripts;
• favouring multilingualism on the Internet requires broad actions from different stakeholders;
• there is still a lack of understanding about the differences between languages and writing systems;
• multilingualism on the Internet cannot be achieved only with the implementation of technical solutions - although technical solutions are a prerequisite;
• developing multilingual capabilities on the Internet is a huge task and requires co-ordinated efforts by multiple stakeholders.

There have been no real disagreements, but from the debate it was clear that different speakers were attaching a different priority to different aspects.

The audience has been polled about their mother tongue and related script - or writing system - and how this relates to their Internet presence. Most people are comfortable with the current situation, but the overarching question is if the IGF participants are a representative sample of the global population.