Received Open Forums

IGF 2019 OF #3 African Union Open Forum

Description

The AU Open Forum aims at discussing accomplishments of the African IGF 2019 in relation to digital inclusion. The Forum will focus on the Internet Governance Capacity Building activities of the AU-EU Project entitled Policy and Regulatory Initiative for Digital Africa (PRIDA), which deals with capacity building for digital inclusion at the national, sub-regional and regional levels.

Organizers

African Union

Speakers

Makane Faye, African IGF Secretariat; Halime Assadya Ali, Chair African IGF Organizing Committee, Chad; Adil Sulieman, African Union Commission; Margaret Nyambura, PRIDA; and Mary Uduma, African IGF-MAG

Online Moderator

Salyou Fanny, Cote d'Ivoire

SDGs

GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The African Union in cooperation with the European Union is implementing since the beginning of 2019 the Policy and Regulatory Initiative for Digital Africa (PRIDA) aimed at building capacity of various stakeholders for digital inclusion at the national, regional, continental and global levels. What is the philosophy and Vision of this project? What are the milestones and the concrete outputs of the project, if any? Did the project reach its objectives and what are the next steps?

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

On the African IGF 2019
The following positive elements were widely acknowledge by participants: high profile opening and closing ceremony; large number of participants; hosting of the first African Youth Forum and active engagement of youth (62%) which outnumbered by far the other age groups; hosting of a caucus of elders, delivering of an African IGF Award.  Participants recommended that this trend in supporting youth be escalated in the next African IGFs and that the forums continue to be opened and closed by very high level officials and hosted in 5 stars hotels.

On the other hand, many participants questioned the low number of female participants (22%). Also some wondered if the African IGF had a policy in favor of the disabled and why its website did not include tools for the blind. The secretariat promised to consult with some of the disabled leaders in order to craft guidelines on access for the disabled. One participant provided information on dot Africa implementation.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

One unanimous observation was the need for IGF to make available interpreters in English and French to be hired by session organizers to make sure that the diversity and language dimensions are adhered to in line with the IGF principles, hence making better use of time allocated and available intellectual resources.

Need to take into account the situation of the disable in the African IGF process and on the use of its website and in the PRIDA strategy and outputs.

Need to increase women participation in IG process and sustain the trend in youth involvement.

Empowering policymakers, diplomats and legislators to be able to take full part in the IG process, to understand IG policy issues and enact the right policies and laws.

6. Estimated Participation

Over 200 participants took part in the Forum, including three Ministers and over 20 Parliamentarians.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

Gender issues were discussed by several participants who raised concern on the low level of women participants in the 8th African IGF held in Ndjamena, Chad from 10-12 September 2019. One suggestion was to make mandatory inclusion of at least one women in any delegation the African IGF. Another was to promote application of females while looking for fellows to take part in the African IGF. It was also suggested to reserve a quota for women when fellowships are available and one selecting candidates.

8. Session Outputs

The following outputs are posted on: www.afigf.africa: 

  1. Facts and Figures - The African Internet Governance Forum 2019
  2. PRIDA Internet Governance Implementation Strategy and Planned Activities
  3. Report of the African Union Open Forum 2019

IGF 2019 OF #4
Cybersecurity investigation into vehicular communication

Description

The purpose is to examine cybersecurity of data information exchange between cars following a V2V scenario.

Organizers

Innov'COM
Innov'COM Laboratory of Sup'COM Tunisia

Speakers

Houda CHIHI senior researcher in ICT affiliated into Innov'COM Laboratory of Sup'COM Tunisia

Online Moderator

ISOC chapter of Tunisia

SDGs

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-Being
GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

IGF 2019 OF #5
Looking beyend the isolation - The LLDC´s and the World

Description

Landlocked Developing Countries still face a visible underperformance in the access of quality and affordable connectivity, based on the dificulties of developing or accessing critical infrastructure and capacity building for governmental systems and empowering of individuals. This result in a higher challenge to achieve the SDGs, and particularly SGDs regarding the ensurance of Human Rights and the Rigth to development. For this there is for the Global IGF to undesrtand the particular needs of the LLDC's in order to connect and interact with the world and, trough international cooperation, fulfill the commitment towards its peoples and the SGD 2030 Agenda.

Organizers

Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República del Paraguay

Speakers

Invited insitutions:

Foreign Affairs Ministry of Paraguay

International Telecommunications Union

Internet Society (ISOC)

LLDC Contries Representatives (TBC)

Online Moderator

MIGUEL CANDIA IBARRA

SDGs

GOAL 1: No Poverty
GOAL 2: Zero Hunger
GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-Being
GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The session aims to discuss connectivity, availability, affordability and quality of ISP general services and ICTs public policies regarding sovereignty and development issues for Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) that, due to its geographical position, are bound to adopt and adapt policies and actions towards solving the higher costs and lower access to technology, broandband availability and internet quality that result en less development levels and competitiveness in a connected world.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support on the differenciated scenarios and diffulties LLDCs face to develop. Particularly those that also are Least Developed Countries (LDCs). The interaction between the floor and the panelists from DiploFoundation (GIP), Nepal, Uganda and Paraguay were patent proff of the fact that the geographical position and geopolitical as well as economical situations affects largely the realizarion of the right to development in these countries.

IGF 2019 OF #6
ICANN - DNS, Threats and Opportunities

Description

ICANN would be delighted to host an Open Forum with a theme closely connected to the Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience of the Internet and thus linked with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 16. While this Session will allow a significant opportunity for delegates to pose any questions to the ICANN CEO and President, as well as the Chair of the ICANN Board, the main focus will be on the overall Internet environment and the threats that have emerged recently for the stability and security of the Internet. It will also address the recent initiative by ICANN to track legislation and regulation that could harm the fostering of an open, secure and single Internet; and thus allow opportunities to prevent unintended consequencies

Organizers

ICANN

Speakers

Goran Marby; CEO and President; ICANN Theresa Swinehart, Senior Vice President, Multistakeholder Strategy and Strategic Initiatives

Online Moderator

Vera Major, ICANN

SDGs

GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions: 

1. How the DNS has become a key component of the future openness, security and stability of the Internet; 

2. The threats that ICANN faces and the approach benig taken with the Community and other actors on such issues as DNS abuse and DNS Security; 

3. What are other key strategic priorities for ICANN looking forward? 

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The Session focussd on ICANN’s 2020-2025 Strategic and Operational plans that include security, development of the DNS system, global development and improvement of the multistakeholder system, with a focus on the potential of the DNS in terms of threats and opportubnities. There was much optimism about the future of the DNS (such as grwoth in IDNs and local scipts) but also concern on the damage of DNS abuse; not least how it affects trust and confidence.  

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

There were no specific Recomendations as such; though an agreement on the importance of tackling DNS abuse (across multiple fronts) to enhance future confidence in development and use of DNS.  

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

ICANN is active in monitioring DNS abuse; we have established a project (known as Domain Abuse Activity Reporting (DAAR) with details posted at https://www.icann.org/octo-ssr/daar-faqs

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

In terms of making progress there was a broad consensus that stskeholders had to be active on all fronts ; not least at ICANN, 

6. Estimated Participation

There were around 20 on-line particpants and about 200 in room. 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

There were no specific gender issues rasied.  ICANN encourages a diverse gender balanced stakeholder particpation 

IGF 2019 OF #7 Partnership for Inclusion in Lebanon

Description

OGERO is the executive arm and engine of the Ministry of Telecoms. Our network constitutes the backbone of all telecom networks in Lebanon including mobile, dsp, isp and others. Ogero continue to improve and expand its services including voice and data based on fiber optics. In the near future, ogero will move from connectivity offers to converged packages (voice, Internet, entertainment, TV programs and other) End users will be able to set their own packages and can use a variety of devices from fixed or mobile access. At Ogero we acknowledge the role of ICT and Internet as horizontal enablers for development and a cross cutting means for implementation and accordingly, we are aligning our core business strategies to accelerate progress in addressing the United Nations Sustainable development goals. For this we are working in collaboration with the Private Sector, Technical Community and the Civil Society to reach our vision of digital future, utilizing innovative technologies for the benefit of the Lebanese citizens across our country. While there may be a growing number of initiatives at local, regional and international levels aiming at improving Access, much needs to be done to ensure universal and inclusive meaningful access.

Organizers

OGERO Telecom, Gov, Lebanon

Speakers

Ms. Layal Jebran, ISOC, Technical community Mr Marc Nader, Data Consult, Private Sector Mr Antoine Aoun, MoT, Gov. Ms. Zeina Bou Harb, Ogero, Gov. Ms. Roula Mekhael, Maharat, NGO

Online Moderator

Christelle Abi Aad

SDGs

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-Being
GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

This session will provide some examples that responds to the following questions:

- What's the role of ICTs in enabling Development and how can Internet accelerate progress towards reaching the different SDGs?

- Who's responsibility is the Access and what other stakeholders are involved? Importance of national cooperation and partnerships

- Beyond mere connectivity how can meaningful access be implemented to ensure everybody is included?

IGF 2019 OF #8
Trust, norms and freedom in the Internet

Description

In 2018, the world reached an important milestone – more than 50% of its population had access to the Internet. Open and interoperable internet has provided a platform for enormous economic development and political progress globally. Non-discriminatory access to and accessibility of the Internet are crucial for enabling and promoting the right to freedom of expression, assembly and association. It is critical that the stability of this platform is maintained by managing the increasing challenges. For many states, open, free and accessible cyberspace is part of their democratic identity; for some, Internet governance may seem to be yet another tool for executing state control.

Organizers

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia

Speakers

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia in cooperation with other stakeholders

Online Moderator

Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar

SDGs

GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

IGF 2019 OF #9 Strengthening Digital Ecosystem for Better Digital Inclusion

Description

In today's digital era, certainty and guarantee for digital inclusion is needed. Digital inclusion is a framework for assessing and considering access to opportunities in a digital era. Digital inclusion requires availability: a). availability of high-speed internet access infrastructure, b). digital literacy education program for acceleration of adoption, and c). information technology specifically in the form of online service platforms and useful applications. Of course the three things above require a very strong adhesive, in the form of multi-stakeholder collaboration work. Multistakeholde work of course has become something that is accepted and appreciated by various parties as a way of being transparent, accountable and legitimate in order to achieve common goals. Internet access, digital literacy and information technology services, along with multistakeholder collaborative work form an ecosystem, a digital ecosystem, which of course will differ in challenges and opportunities from one country to another. For this reason, it is necessary to exchange ideas and brainstorming from related parties so that collaborative work in each country can strengthen the digital ecosystem, and of course, ultimately can support the realization of digital inclusion.

Organizers

indonesia
Organizers: Ministry of Communication and Information Technology of the Republic of Indonesia (MCIT) Co-organizers: - ID-IGF (Indonesia Internet Governance Forum) - SIBERKREASI (Indonesian Digital Literacy National Movement)

Speakers

(proposed speakers, alphabetical order) - Mr Arnold can Rhijn (Netherlands Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, Senior Policy Coordinator Global Internet Governance) - Mr Anang Latif (The Telecommunication and ICT Accessibility Agency of Indonesia, CEO) - Mr Dedy Permadi (Indonesia Digital Literacy National Movement SIBERKREASI, Chairman) - Mrs Irene Poetranto (Citizen Lab of University of Toronto, Senior Researcher) - Mr Jake Lucchi (Googgle, Head of Online Safety and Social Impact) - Mrs Stephanie Borg-Psaila (Geneva Internet Platform, Interim Director) - Representative from ID-IGF

Online Moderator

Indriyatno Banyumurti (ID-IGF)

SDGs

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

IGF 2019 OF #10
How ready is LAC for cyber challenges?

Description

This Open Forum aims to provide a comprehensive picture and update on the state of cybersecurity in 32 countries Latin America and Caribbean countries. In 2018, the Cybersecurity Program of the Organization of American States, in partnership with the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), deployed the Cybersecurity Capacity Maturity Model for Nations (CMM) and collected data to assess countries’ maturity level regarding (1) cybersecurity policy and strategy, (2) culture and society, (3) education, (4) legal and regulatory frameworks, as well as (5) standards and technologies. This is the second edition of this one-of-a-kind study of the Americas, built based on a multi-stakeholder consultation, carefully balancing the need for security to enable social economic growth and sustainability, while respecting the right to free expression and the right to privacy.

Organizers

Organization of American States (OAS)

Speakers

Belisario Contreras, Cybersecurity Program Manager, Organization of American States (OAS)
A representative of Government
A representative of the Civil Society
A representative of the Private Sector

Online Moderator

Kerry-Ann Barrett

SDGs

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

IGF 2019 OF #11 Data Governance and Competition

Subtheme
Description

The Open Forum will contribute to the global discussion about data governance by presenting and discussing the work of specialized advisory groups and committees in different countries, such as the UK Digital Competition Expert Panel, the authors of the BRICS-Report "Digital Era Competition", the EU Special Advisors on Competition Policy in the Digital Age and the German Federal Commission on Competition Law 4.0.

Organizers

Federal Ministry of Economics and Energy (Germany)
Martin Schallbruch, ESMT Berlin

Speakers
  • Moderator: Philipp Steinberg, Director General for Economic Policy, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
  • Speaker:
    • Philip Marsden, Deputy chair of the enforcement decision making committee of the bank of England, Professor at College of Europe, Member of the UK Digital Competition Expert Panel
    • Ioannis Lianos, Chair of global competition law and public policy at University College London, Co-author of the BRICS-Report "Digital Era Competition"
    • Heike Schweitzer, Chair for Private law, European Economic law, and Competition Law at Humboldt University of Berlin, Member of the EU Special Advisors on Competition Policy in the Digital Age
    • Martin Schallbruch, Deputy Director of the Digital Society Institute at ESMT Berlin, Co-Chair of the German Federal Commission ‘Competition Law 4.0’
Online Moderator

tbd

SDGs

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-Being
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Key policy questions:

  • How should governments react to the growing economic and market power of big tech companies? By breaking up big tech companies, regulating digital industries, or just observing the developments and leaving it up to international competition?
  • Do we need an access to data for competitors in order to retain competitive pressure? If so, to which kind of data should such an obligation apply?
  • As data is an important value-adding factor – who should reap the benefits out of the personal data of consumers?

The open forum 11 “data governance and competition” aims to discuss the competitive situation in the digital economy and the role of access to data for competition. To this end, advisory groups and committees on digital competition policy from different countries will present their findings.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Due to the rapid change and evolution of digital markets, there was broad support for speeding up competition proceedings and using interim measures more extensively. The speakers also agreed on the view that there is a need to further develop the existing instruments of competition policy in order to reflect the higher complexity of multi-sided markets and to go beyond classical price theory (especially the BRICS-Report recommended to take greater account of value chains and vertical power).

A controversial debate arose on the effects of data access on innovation: The key issue was the tradeoff between innovation incentives of data exclusivity and the possibility of anti-competitive behavior. Moreover, the experts described briefly the discussion on "killer acquisitions": On the one hand a strict merger control is crucial in order to prevent the accruement of exceeding market power; on the other hand being bought by a major platform company is a strong incentive for many startups to delevop innovative products.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

The panelists recommended that governments should establish a pro-competitive ex-ante regulatory environment in order to complement the “traditional” instruments of competition law. This ex-ante regulatory structure should comprise rules on data portability and interoperability as well as a code of conduct for dominant platform companies (e.g. prohibiting measures of self-preferencing). Moreover, they suggested strengthening consumer power regarding personal data (e.g. establishing "data trustees").

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

The reports that have been debated during the open forum deal with the respective issues. On national and supranational level, we observe several legislative initiatives to modernize competition law or regulate specific tech sectors (taking competition issues into account).

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

The key ideas have been to develop a toolkit approach (in order to modernize the analyses of digital markets and contractual relations) that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, to modernize competition law (see above), and to use regulatory sandboxes in specific sectors.

6. Estimated Participation

approximately 80 to 100 participants (approximately 50% female and 50% male)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

Gender issues have not been discussed explicitly.

8. Session Outputs

Due to the limited time of the open forum (60 minutes), the key outputs are the policy recommendations that all participants could agree on (confer item 3 “policy recommendations”).

IGF 2019 OF #13 Human Rights & AI Wrongs: Who Is Responsible?

Subtheme
Description

The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on human rights and the viability of our democratic processes has become starkly visible during the Cambridge Analytica scandal and is increasingly debated since. Countries committed to protecting human rights must ensure that those who benefit from developing and deploying digital technologies and AI are effectively held responsible for their risks and consequences. Effective and legitimate mechanisms are needed that will operate to prevent and forestall violations of human rights and to promote an enabling socio-economic- environment in which human rights and the rule of law are anchored. Only legitimate mechanisms ensure that we can properly, sustainably and collectively reap the many benefits of AI. This open forum addresses the following questions: Who bears responsibility for the adverse consequences of advanced digital technologies, such as AI? How can we address the ‘control problem’ that flows from the capacity of AI-driven systems to operate more or less autonomously from their creators? What consequences stem from the fact that most data processing infrastructures are in private hands? What are the effects of the increasing dependence of public services on few, very large private actors? The open forum will discuss the respective obligations of states and responsibilities for private actors regarding the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of AI and machine learning systems. It will also explore a range of different ‘responsibility models’ that could be adopted to govern the allocation of responsibility for different kinds of adverse impacts arising from the operation of AI systems. As background resources, the debate will build on the Council of Europe study of the implications of advanced digital technologies (including AI systems) for the concept of responsibility within a human rights framework and on the draft Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems, available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/msi-aut

Organizers

Council of Europe
Council of Europe (CoE)
EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA)

Speakers

Keynote scene setting and moderation:  Jan Kleijssen, Director, Information Society – Action against Crime, Council of Europe

Speakers: 

- Joe McNamee, member of the Council of Europe Committee of experts on human rights dimensions of automated data processing and different forms of artificial intelligence (MSI-AUT)
- David Reichel, Social Research - Research & Data Unit, FRA
- Cornelia Kutterer, Senior Director, EU Government Affairs, Privacy and Digital Policies, Microsoft
- Clara Neppel, Senior Director, European Business Operations, IEEE

Online Moderator

Peter Kimpian

SDGs

GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
The open forum will discuss the respective obligations of states and responsibilities for private actors regarding the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of AI and machine learning systems. It will also explore a range of different ‘responsibility models’ that could be adopted to govern the allocation of responsibility for different kinds of adverse impacts arising from the operation of AI systems.
It will address the following main questions:
- Who bears responsibility for the adverse consequences of advanced digital technologies, such as AI? 
- What consequences stem from the fact that most data processing infrastructures are in private hands?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The panellists discussed a range of issues related to attribution of responsibility for adverse human rights effects stemming from application of AI technologies. The debate, in particular, touched upon the potential of regulation and of self-regulation for effectively addressing the issue. There was broad consensus that only clear regulatory frameworks are capable of serving as a firm ground for the rule of law-based approach which is key for the protection of human rights. There was further agreement that such clear regulatory frameworks are of interest for businesses as much as for the users as they privide concrete instructions on what needs to be done for human rights protection.

It was emphasised that a lack of understanding of what AI is and how it functions creates a lot of mystification around the technology. Concrete information is needed to  inform regulation - e.g., false positives/negatives need to be evaluated in real numbers.

The concepts of informed trust and of responsible AI were introduced. The panellists outlined in very clear terms what the technical community and the business community can do to ensure effective and enforceable accountability.

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

The panellists agreed that:

- there is a need for impact assessment - in concrete areas (such as ADM, facial recognition or incurred data use) and in measurable terms, encompassing a full range of human rights and a whole life cycle of AI technologies;

- there is a need for a clearer understanding of what we mean by transparency, accountability and other key principles;

- empowerment of users must be one of the key elements of relevant policies introduced by governments and private actors alike;

- there is a need for effective multi-stakeholder cooperation, in particular in bridging the gap between the tech community and the legislature.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

IEEE representative informed the audience about the ongoing work on a set of technical standards on how to put ethics into the code, and about the currently starting work on a certification system.

The Council of Europe has prepared a draft recommendation of the Committee of Ministers on the human rightys impacts of algorithmic systems.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

The need for quality and targeted research, for effective multi-stakeholder cooperation and for a comprehensife revision of the existing regulatory frameworks with a view to identifying areas where safeguards for human rights protection are mission were mentioned as indispensible condition for progress.

6. Estimated Participation

Onsite participation: approximately 250 participants, gender balance - roughly 50/50 (%)

Online participation: no information. No questions from online participants.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

The session did not directly discuss gender issues. It touched, however, on other vulnerable groups - in particular, children - that need special protection in the digital environment. The discusion also strongly emphasised that discrimination is one of the most severe risks stemming from the use of AI technologies, as the latter tend to amplify existing inequalities and biases.

IGF 2019 OF #14
Online Protection of Underage Users

Description

It is proposed to invite government officials, representatives of international organizations, scholars and representatives of internet enterprises to discuss issues related to children's online protection, to call on the whole world to join hands to pay attention to protect the legal rights and interests of minors in cyberspace. We look forward to fully exchanging international experiences, discussing practical solutions, achieving a series of fruitful consensus on the protection of minors online through IGF, especially on this forum. 1) Provide an in-depth exchange of experiences and practices in protection of children online and listen to their own ideas and suggestions; 2) Discuss the measures of children online protection such as policies, laws, economics as well as technology, and try to find out a feasible ways to strengthen the social co-governance; 3) Initiate a proposal for children online protection to promote the construction of a trustful and safety environment; 4) Promote the national legislation of children online protection,facilitate the participation of the children in the relevant decision-making process,raise the awareness of children, parents or guardians, educators and all the other stakeholders on protecting children from online risks while promoting the benefits of technical advancements for children.

Organizers

Cyberspace Administration of China
Bureau of Policy and Regulations,Cyberspace Administration of China

Speakers

1. Jasmina Byrne, Chief of Policy, Office of Global Insight and Policy, UNICEF;

2.ZHANG Jiyu, Executive Dean of Future Rule of Law Institute, Renmin University;

3.WANG Lei, Secretary General, Sina Internet Law Institute;

4.Bernd Holznagel, Professor, University of Münster;

5.Zhou Hui,Assistant Professor of Institute of law of China Academy of Social Sciences;

6.HE Bo, Researcher, China Academy of Information and Communications Technology.

Online Moderator

HE Bo

SDGs

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-Being

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. What are the problems and challenges of online protection of underage users?
2. Sharing the experiences and practices of online protection of underage users.
3. How to use the laws and policies to strengthen the online protection of underage users?

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The Internet is changing the production and life of human beings, and driving social and economic development.With the increased access to the internet, social media platforms and online games children are encountering new forms of risks from violence and abuse.

There was broad support for the view that legislation is an efficient way to enforce the online protection for the underage users. Speakers from Germany and China introduced their domestic legislation and practical achievements of the online protection of underage users. Some proposed that online protection of underage users should include two sides, one is to control the negative impacts, and the other is to promote positive guidance. Some hold the opinion that there are some common problems in children's information protection, such as reducing the experience of children’s online services, constituting reverse discrimination against children's users and so on. Some raised up that purely online solutions won’t be effective to keep children save from online violence. We also have to pay attention to offline causes of violence and develop measures that address children's life circumstances, context, availability of support networks and broader family and child support. Both the presenters and participates agreed that an integrated child protection system can be achieved only through the cooperation of all stakeholders. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

Social-cultural recommendations: 1) Greater evidence and understanding is needed of the interplay between offline and online violence and its causes and how the multi-stakeholder approach that includes governments, the private sectors, families and children can effectively prevent violence and protect children from harm. This includes both education and awareness raising but also recovery and support services that take into account both online and offline risks; 2) Internet has no boundaries, online protection of underage users is a common issue all around the world, to prevent and respond to violence and abuse of online underage users needs jointly efforts from stakeholders of the whole world; 3) Online protection of underage users should include two sides, one is to control the negative impacts, and another is to promote positive guidance.

Governance issues recommendations: 1) Monitor the applications of the legislation related to online protection of underage users in cyberspace and confirm the age ratings; 2) Consider different opinions regarding the potential effects of technology on children’s growth and development.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

The presenters discussed the common problems in children's information protection system in different countries and suggested that we could address more attention to the following issues: 1) reducing the experience of children’s online services and constituting reverse discrimination against children's users; 2) high social cost of identifying children's age and obtaining guardian's consent; 3) the sharing of platform responsibility and guardian responsibility.

Two presenters introduced the Regulation on the Protection of Children's Personal Information Online, which was the first legislation in China specifically aim at children's online protection. The law sets out strict requirements for network operators that collect, store, use, transfer, or discloses the personal information of minors under 14 years old.

A professor from University of Münster introduced The Three-Level Protection System of Minors in German Media Law: 1) absolutely illegal contents–particularly dangerous contents; 2) prohibited contents – seriously harmful contents; and 3) contents detrimental to the development of minors.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

To strengthen the online protection of underage users, the presenters had shared their experiences and pointed out that the rapid development of the Internet provides infinite possibilities for the growth of underage users, while the protection of underage users in cyberspace is still not enough. Some contents in cyberspace have a fierce conflict with many traditional educational concepts, especially some traditional educational principles and concepts in both China and many other countries in the East. It is still necessary to strengthen the control and guidance of access sites and equipment to control the negative impacts and promote positive guidance.

6. Estimated Participation

There were around 100 participants attended this forum in Convention Hall I-C in person.

There were 97 online participants.

There were nearly 50 women present this forum onsite.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

There was no gender issue discussed in this forum.

8. Session Outputs

Outputs of IGF 2019 OF #14 Online Protection of Underage Users: https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2019-of-14-online-protection-of-underage-users

IGF 2019 OF #16 Collaborative Multistakeholder Approaches in Cybersecurity

Description

Collaborative multistakeholder model at national, regional and global level in creating Cybersecurity strategies provide the framework to support an all encompassing approach to protect the Cyberspace infrastructure, its content, users and create cyber resilience. It states national priorities and goals, assigns roles and responsibilities and resources. A particularly important issue stems from the increased tying of ICT with critical infrastructure sectors and systems such as energy, transport, finance, healthcare, telecommunications, food and water supply. Many new areas are added to the list as “essential services”, some of the “e-“type (like e-health, e-commerce, etc). With robust cybersecurity frameworks in place, countries can better leverage the opportunities offered by ICT for socio economic development. We recognise however that implementation and budget allocation for cybersecurity activities presents a significant challenge for states. This proposed forum will therefore address how countries can build national cybersecurity systems with a multi-stakeholder cooperation and engagement framework beyond borders.

Organizers

Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation
 

Speakers

1.Gisa Fuatai Purcell, Acting Secretary General, CTO 2.Kathryn Jones, Senior Policy Advisor, International Cyber Security, Cyber Security and Data Protection Directorate, UK Government 3.Dr. Martin Koyabe, Manager Technical Support & Consultancy, CTO

Online Moderator

Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisations

SDGs

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. What role can different stakeholders play in cybersecurity capacity building? Resource challenges and what can be done to address the challenges?
  2. What are the needs and requirements in achieving a multi-stakeholder initiative in Cybersecurity?
  3. How can Governments use emerging technology in addressing issues of trust, privacy and data protection?
  4. What is the role of national CSIRTs/CERTs in enhancing cyber resilience?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support for inclusive and multistakeholder approaches to cybersecurity strategies. Cybersecurity challenges are broad and interrelated but there is still scarce examples of implementing the model maturity model of cybersecurity.

Many indicated that there is need for clear programmes and approaches to assist with practical implementation of cyber security. There was alot of support for cybersecurity collaboration and  capacity building and capacity sharing.

In the Latin America there is a wide engagements of public safety through public and internet actors through technical cooperation and CSIRT building. There is need to work more cohesive with law enforcement and support police investigation and prosecution of cyber crime.

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

Capacity building of law enforcement to collect and present evidence (data involved),

Raising awareness raising of users on the threats in cybersecurity and have reporting mechanism for cyber crime among users.

Awareness raising of users especially in rural areas on online safety is crucial and civil society has a concrete role in implementing cybersecurty

strategies.

Strengthen cybersecurity for elections.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

Efforts of the Commonwealth Secretariat in implementation of the Commonwealth Cyber declaration os 2018. There are four broad programmmes in this relation which are:

  • Africa focused on Gambia, Kenya and Namibia conducting cyber capabity and cyber resilience to identify key areas for legislative focus
  • Carribean focused to build capacity of judges, prosecutors on electronic evidence
  • A programme to strengthen cyber security internationally for Commonwealth countries.There are barriers in moving electronic evidence across borders
  • Strengthening cybersecurity in elections by working with country partners to develop guides.
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

Cybersecurity actors and local communities can work together to build effective strategies.

Countries should share the cybersecurity challenges in order for them to be addressed.

Having a reporting mechanism for cybersecurity can assist in tracking progress and a sustanable model for capacity building in cyber security.

6. Estimated Participation

Around 100 participants onsite.

More than a third of the participants were women.Ge

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

Gender issues were discussed in relation to awareness on cyber threats and capacity building to users on skills gaps where more women than men lack the cyber security skills.

8. Session Outputs
  • There is need for increased capacity building of law enforcement to collect and present digital evidence (data involved),
  • Raising awareness of users especially in rural areas on online safety is crucial and civil society has a concrete role in implementing cybersecurty strategies.
  • Countries should strengthen cybersecurity for elections programmes
  • Cybersecurity actors and local communities can work together to build effective strategies and share the cybersecurity challenges in order for them to be addressed.
  • Having a reporting mechanism for cybersecurity can assist in tracking progress and a sustainable model for capacity building in cyber security.
  • There is broad support for inclusive and multistakeholder approaches to cybersecurity strategies. Cybersecurity challenges are broad and interrelated but there are still scarce examples of implementing the model maturity model of cybersecurity.
  • There is need for clear programmes and approaches to assist with practical implementation of cyber security. There is a lot of support for cybersecurity collaboration and capacity building and capacity sharing.
  • In the Latin America there is a wide engagement of public safety through public and internet actors through technical cooperation and CSIRT building.
  • There is need to work more cohesive with law enforcement and support police investigation and prosecution of cyber crime.

IGF 2019 OF #17 Formulating Policy Options for Big Data and AI Development

Subtheme
Description

Organizer: UNESCO

09:30-10:30. Wednesday 27 November 2019, Convention Hall I - D Sonnenallee 225, 12057, Berlin, Germany

Description

UNESCO takes the occasion of the IGF to launch and present the findings of its new publication, ‘Steering AI and Advanced ICTs for Knowledge Societies: A ROAM Perspective’. The Internet Governance Forum provides a platform for policy discussions on questions around human Rights, Openness, Accessibility and Multistakeholder participation in the development and deployment of AI and other advanced ICTs. 

The open forum is being organised within the context of promoting global digital cooperation in line with the recommendations of the Report of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation that recognises UNESCO’s ROAM framework for its human rights focussed approach to guiding AI development. The discussion contributes towards two objectives concerning i) the development of human capital and social capabilities; and ii) policy, law and human rights of the UN system-wide strategic approach and roadmap for supporting capacity development on artificial intelligence.

A panel discussion involving high-level multistakeholder representatives from a variety of regions, sectors, and areas of expertise serves as an opportunity for representatives to discuss central concepts of the publication. Representatives will come from the governmental and intergovernmental organisations, civil society, the private sector and the technical community and can discuss the ways in which they intend to utilise the publication to form and inform respective policy in a conductive manner to enhance human rights and inclusive knowledge societies, and in accord with UNESCO’s Internet Universality ROAM principles.

The process would be supported by the UNESCO secretariat with the objective of putting into practice a multistakeholder process for addressing issues concerning the development of AI and advanced ICTs in line with the rights, openness and access dimensions.

Expected Results

  1. Advocate for a human centred approach in the development and use of AI and other advanced ICTs
  2. Facilitate Multistakeholder discussion around issues concerning human Rights, Openness and Accessibility in the context of AI and other advanced ICTs
  3. Advance the use of the policy options proposed in the ‘Steering AI and Advanced ICTs for Knowledge Societies: A ROAM Perspective’ to address the challenges presented by the development of AI by different actors, including governments, civil society, private sector, academia, technical community and international organisations.

 

 

Key questions:

In steering the development of AI in a manner that protects the ROAM-X principles, the following concerns and key questions arise:

  1. What are the core human rights in relation to big data and AI?
  2. How to address specific concerns regarding freedom of expression and access to information, and privacy?
  3. How to ensure that data used by algorithms for decision-making is representative? How to develop built-in mechanisms for monitoring discrimination based on data and algorithms?
  4. How to mitigate and prevent the digital divide from widening further in relation to big data and AI development?
  5. How should a multi-stakeholder approach be put in place at national and international levels, to formulate inclusive policy options for harnessing AI and big data?
  6. How to strengthen access to data to reduce entry barriers for new startups? (Private sector dimension)

Background document: Steering AI and Advanced ICTs for Knowledge Societies: A ROAM Perspective

https://en.unesco.org/system/files/unesco-steering_ai_for_knowledge_societies.pdf

Link to forum event: https://igf2019.sched.com/event/SU3C/of17-formulating-policy-options-for-big-data-and-ai-development

Report link to previous forum event: IGF 2018 OF5 Measuring a free, open, rights-based and inclusive Internet.

https://www.intgovforum.org/content/igf-2018-of-5-measuring-a-free-open-rights-based-and-inclusive-internet

Organizers

UNESCO

Speakers
  • Ms. Constance Bommelaer de Leusse, Senior Director of Global Internet Policy and International Organizations at The Internet Society (ISOC)
  • Mr. Alex Comninos, ICT Policy Researcher at Research ICT Africa
  • Ms. Jai Vipra, Tech Policy Researcher at IT for Change
  • Mr. Robert Krimmer, Managing Director and Founder at E-Voting.CC
  • Ms. Izzy Ferrandez, Co-founder & CTO of GreenFeast, Teens in AI Ambassador

Presenter and Moderator: Ms. Xianhong Hu and Mr. Guilherme Canela, UNESCO

Online Moderator

Mr. Prateek Sibal, UNESCO

SDGs

GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Many indicated that there should be more efforts and more thoughts on how to develop better transparency and accountability mechanism for AI policy. It was noted that it is not new that policy runs behind technology and that a human rights-based approach and an ethical framework was needed. It was a consensus that there is a gap between technology and policy, with surveillance being a key concern. The global digital divide was also highlighted, particularly with concerns on data sovereignty and network sovereignty which is especially important for African economies where there is no national capacity to hold data or to regulate. Many raised the issue of the concerns for the relationship between technology and elections and the urgency to develop policy to protect democratic elections.

IGF 2019 OF #18 Personal Information Protection

Subtheme
Description

It is proposed to invite government officials, representatives of international organizations and enterprises, scholars to discuss issues on personal information protection, to call on the whole world joining hands to focus on to protect the legal right and interest of everyone. In this forum, we will fully exchange international experience, discuss practical solutions, strengthen international cooperation and jointly maintain cyberspace security. At the same time, we will introduce China’s achievements on personal information protection, expound our ideas on personal information protection, put forward China’s plans and contribute Chinese wisdom for personal information protection. (1) Provide in-depth exchanges on experiences and practices of personal information protection. (2) Discuss measures of personal information protection such as policies, laws and regulations, as well as technologies, and promote international cooperation and governance. (3) Initiate a proposal for personal information protection to further promote the construction of a trustful and sound network environment. (4) Promote and improve the legislation of personal information protection, raise the awareness of internet users, governments, enterprises and all the other stakeholders on personal information protection.

Organizers

Bureau of Policy and Regulations, Cyberspace Administration of China

Speakers

1. Gu Haiyan, General Counsel of Legal Department, Sina.com Technology(China)CO.,Ltd

2. Liu Canhua, Assistant Professor of  Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

3. Liu Jian, Senior Legal Director of MeituanDianping

4. MarlenaJankowska-Augustyn, Assistant Professor of Department of Private and Private International Law, Faculty of Law and Administration at University of Silesia in Katowice

5. Tanja Boehm, Director of Corporate, External, and Legal Affairs, Microsoft Germany

6. Zhou Hui, Deputy Secretary-General of China Cyber and Information Law Society

7. Zhang Jiyu, Associate Professor of Law School, Executive Director of Law and Technology Institute, Renmin University of China

Online Moderator

Li Min

SDGs

GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. Protection and the commercial use of personal information.

2. AI and the protection of personal information.

3. The international rule of personal data protection. 

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support for the view that legislation is an efficient way to enforce the online protection for personal information. Speakers from Germany and China introduced legislation and shared experience about the online protection of personal information.

Some participates introduced the draft of the Personality Rights Section of the Civil Code of China, suggesting to distinguish between privacy and personal information and maintain the openness of personality right system, including the openness of privacy and personal information. Some compared the legal definition of data in different countries. Some proposed that there are three general principles of commercial use of data:principle of user consent and transparency, principle of data security, principle of creating commercial interests and values.

Participators agreed that GDPR is an important step forward in protecting privacy rights not only in Europe but also around the world, and GDPR compliance matters. Some participators emphasized the importance of managing user’s data in accordance with the law of the land. Some discussed the Data Subject Rights according to GDPR, including the right to know what data is being collected, the right to correct the data, the right to delete the data and the right to take it somewhere else. Some believed that the key requirement of GDPR for companies includes three aspects: the duty to inform data subject, the duty to remove data and the duty of data breach notification. Some argued that it is necessary to extend the rights that are at the heart of GDPR to all of customers worldwide.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

Openness of the personality interest system is essential for the new era protection of information; only the multiple measures of regulation could solve new problems.

Presenters suggested that the law, or the new regulations, should promote the openness of the personality interests system. From the perspective of historical development, the type and specific content of personality rights have gradually enriched with the economic and social development and have been confirmed by law. Modern society has entered an era of Internet and big data, and the development of science and technology is changing with each passing day. This has also led to the emergence of many new types of personalities which should be protected by law. Presenters recommended that the definition of privacy and the scope of protection of personal information needs to evolve from a purely static model to a dynamically determined model to cope with the new problems that may arise in the future with new developments in technology or its application. It was recommended that the government should cooperate with the business companies to protect the rights of personal information, and ensure that legal rules related to online protection of personal information are effectively observed and enforced.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

Presenters from two companies shared their successful experience with regard to data protection. Below is the summary of their practice:

1) Six key privacy principles:

  • Control: To put users in control of their privacy with easy-to-use tools and clear choices.
  • Transparency: To be transparent about data collection and use so users can make informed decisions.
  • Security: To protect the data through strong security and encryption.
  • Strong legal protections: To respect users’ local privacy laws and fight for legal protection of their privacy as a fundamental human right.
  • No content-based targeting: Not using users’ email, chat, files or other personal content to target ads to them.
  • Benefits to you: When collecting data, Microsoft will use it to benefit the users and to make their experiences better.

2) Improve from three aspects:

In technology aspect, complete technical tools and privacy protection specialization, such as pseudonymization, data access permission system, data secure risk monitoring system, finding sensitive data, data leak-proof, data encryption etc.

In regulations aspect, build a data sorting and classifying system, and set up rules of data security management process.

In management aspect, set access control mechanism, making sure that only authorized staff could reach client’s personal information.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

To strengthen the online protection of personal information, the presenters had shared their experiences and pointed out that we are facing an updated version of cyberspace and it is necessary for all stakeholders to work together. In the new era protection of information, there are four main changes as to the cyberspace. First is the fast development of cyberspace itself, i.e., integrating internet, mobile networks, IoT, block chains, big data, AI and etc. The others are the integration of cyberspace and real space, the increasing popularity of artificial intelligence algorithms, and the digitalization of social economy, people's behavior and everything. To deal with these changes, personal information protection has to be promoted through the mix of multiple regulatory modalities including norms, market, law, policy, technology and etc.

6. Estimated Participation

There were around 60 participants attended this forum in Convention Hall I-C in person and 95 paricipants online. There were nearly 30 women present this forum onsite.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

There were no gender issues for this forum.

IGF 2019 OF #19 Human rights and digital platforms – contradiction in terms?

Description

With the digital transition that we are witnessing, businesses and human rights interrelate more and more. New technological solutions render massive amounts of information and services accessible at our fingertips and add unprecedented convenience to our lives. But they can also challenge individuals’ privacy, pose new threats to safety and security, and produce undesirable effects on vulnerable groups such as children, on democratic processes and on the overall wellbeing of societies. Being major actors that both foster and implement innovation, businesses have a major share in responsibility for the impact – of direct, immediate and global nature, - that modern technologies bring with them.

In line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and the “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, digital platforms should respect the human rights of their users and affected parties in all their actions. This open forum will discuss to what extent these principles are abided in relation to the use of digital technologies. While considering the interdependence of all human rights, the open forum will focus specifically on the rights to privacy and to data protection which are among those that are the most affected. It will examine the different ways in which they are impacted by the functioning of digital platforms, their business models and practices, and will look at the respective roles of businesses and state actors in the protection of these rights.

While on the internet the actual increase in privacy-related risks and infringements is unprecedented, it appears that substantive debate on the related roles and responsibilities of digital platforms which are at the epicentre of these developments, is somewhat missing. Discussions mostly arise with regard to specific incidents, such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal, and often focus only on a very narrow perspective such as the amount of fine issued by a regulator. Landmark international instruments, such as the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (Convention 108) continue to be seen as having a bearing on legislators only. In the meantime, ‘free’ services offered in exchange for personal data have become a widespread practice and a basis for highly profitable business models. As a result, they are hardly ever subjected to a thorough critical assessment as to compatibility with international privacy and data protection standards.

The situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the concept and level of protection of those rights vary considerably from country to country, from region to region. In such circumstances, which standard is to be followed by online platforms? National? Regional? Sectorial? Global?

Furthermore, legislative solutions related to the protection of privacy and personal data range from strict regulation imposing extraterritorial jurisdiction, heavy fines on data controllers, or nationally controlled and forced data localisation regimes to free flow of data schemes with appropriate level of protection guaranteed. Left on their own to find solutions that comply with applicable legislation, satisfy their customers and maintain the profitability of their professional activities, what approach shall digital platforms take?

The open forum will aim to contribute to an inclusive dialogue between different stakeholders and representatives from various regions to take stock of the different expectations, concurring interests and diversity of views on what governments and other state actors should do and what digital platforms should do to guarantee the right to privacy and data protection. It will look at national and regional differences in the interpretation of the right to privacy and to the protection of personal data, and notably at the differences in the practical implementation of the underlying legislation. Taking stock of the international frameworks and practices that are already in place, the open forum will discuss how they can best serve the protection of internet users’ rights. It will also pay attention to the role of businesses in relation to accessions by states to existing international data protection frameworks and to the ways how businesses can adjust their policies to meet the privacy expectations of their customers.

Starting from the premise that the protection of privacy and personal data is fundamental to the enjoyment and exercise of most internationally recognised human rights and fundamental freedoms, the open forum will seek answers to the following questions:

  • What are the responsibilities of business platforms vis-à-vis the right to privacy and data protection? What would be the level of privacy and data protection they should aim for on the internet? Which standard should be followed by internet intermediaries? National? Regional? Sectorial? Global?
  • Are business models based on ‘free’ services offered in exchange for personal data compatible with international privacy and data protection standards?
  • Which measures are to be taken by intermediaries to guarantee an appropriate level of protection and the overall effective exercise of data subject's rights?
  • What should governments do to ensure that the expected level of protection is met by digital platforms? How can they ensure this outside of their borders?
  • Are the measures that are taken by countries regional organisations so far addressing those issues adequately? Where are the gaps?
  • Is a global treaty for privacy needed or does the convergence of privacy laws suffice?
  • To what extent are national and regional differences to be considered when determining the level of protection? Is privacy really a universal human right or a privilege for some countries’ citizens?
  • What are the measures businesses have already taken? What are good and bad practices?

 

Background paper

Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (CETS No. 108)

Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2018)2 on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries

 

 

Organizers

Council of Europe

Speakers

Moderator:

Joe McNamee, independent expert, member of the former Council of Europe Committee of experts on internet intermediaries

Speakers:

Jan Kleijssen, Director, Information Society – Action against Crime, Council of Europe

Alexandria Walden, Global Human Rights & Free Expression Policy Counsel, Google (TBC)

Fanny Hidvégi, Europe Policy Manager, Access Now

Rami Efrati, Senior Cyber Fellow, Tel-Aviv University and  former Head of the civilian division, Israel National Cyber bureau, prime minister’s office 

Florence Raynal, Deputy Director, Head of Department of European and International Affairs, CNIL

 

Online Moderator

Peter Kimpian, Council of Europe

SDGs

GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

This open forum will focus specifically on the rights to privacy and data protection – as impacted by the functioning of digital platforms, their business models and practices, and the respective roles of businesses and state actors in the protection of these rights. It will aim to clarify the commonly acceptable level of protection of these rights, and the necessary steps to be taken by businesses and state actors to meet this level. It will address the following questions:

  • What would be the appropriate level for privacy and data protection on the internet?
  • What are the responsibilities of digital platforms vis-à-vis the right to privacy and data protection?
  • What should states do to ensure that the expected level of protection is met by digital platforms?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The panelists agreed that the level of privacy and data protection is very uneven across the globe. There was also wide consensus among the panelists that self-regulation by private actors is not enough to solve data and privacy protection issues on the internet. While international legal instruments, such as the Council of Europe Convenion 108, and also the EU GDPR, regulate the field, closer cooperation between governments and private actors was deemed necessary to ensure meticulous implementation. Some panelists felt that there was a need for more regulation too - e.g., for completing the GDPR reform.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

Several lines of action were mentioned by the panellists:

- a systematic reform addressing micro-targeting;

- completing the GDPR reform;

- careful regulatory framing for facial recognition other AI-based technologies;

- closer attention to safety and security of vulnerable groups (in particular children and women) in the online environment.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

The Council of Europe has recently finalised the modernisation of its Convention 108, which now offers reinforced protection for individuals, in coherence with other relevant frameworks, such as the GDPR.

CNIL informed the participants about the ongoing work on a "one stop shop" system of work for DPAs which is also meant for improving cooperation with other stakeholders.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

The panel agreed that enforcement of existing legal frameworks was crucial for advancing the protection of human rights in the digital environment, in particular the rights to privacy and data protection. Meticulous abidance by law and its enforcement is equally needed both from the side of government and private actors.

6. Estimated Participation

Onsite participants - approximately 200, gender balance - roughtly 50/50 (%)

Online participants - unknown. No questions from online participants.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

The session, among other things, discussed how to address violence against women on the internet, which is currently largely left unpunished. A representative from Google informed the audience about the tools that the company employs to address the issue. 

IGF 2019 OF #20 Algorithmic Impact Assessments - a key to transparency?

Subtheme
Description

The Open Forum will introduce the concept of Algorithmic Impact Assessments (AIAs) and engage participants, via concrete cases of use of AI by public institutions, in “designing” such Assessments in terms of procedures, criteria to be used and impact indicators. The underlying assumption for the Open Forum session is that Algorithmic Impact Assessments should be compulsory prior to implementing AI-driven technological solutions by the public administrations. Their introduction will increase algorithmic transparency because every affected party will be engaged from the very beginning in the process of their creation. The parties (in particular users/citizens) would know what the government wants to achieve, how it will measure the results, what groups will be impacted, what risks can occur and by which means they can be prevented. The AIAs, if done in a responsible way, should also provide the ground for refusing the implementation of algorithms, when risks are likely to be higher than benefits. Policy questions: how should Algorithmic Impact Assessments look? Which institutions should be entrusted to verify them? What questions should be asked before creating and using algorithmic systems, and how to measure the impact? How to ensure stakeholder involvement in the process?

Organizers

Council of Europe
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance; ePaństwo Foundation (Poland)working on government transparency and data, Amnesty International

Speakers

Krzysztof Izdebski, Policy Director of ePaństwo Foundation (Poland) Merel Koning, Senior Policy Officer Technology and Human Rights, Amnesty International Prof. Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, Professor of Law, Radboud University, NL

Online Moderator

Sandrine Marroleau

SDGs

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

IGF 2019 OF #21 Arab perspectives on Digital Cooperation and Internet Governance Process

Description

It has become self evident that many of today’s ills of the digital realm could not be tackled and mitigated without the enhanced and full participation of all communities around the world, with ‘no one left behind’. Full digital inclusion of all community is key to reaching workable solutions that are sustainable, effective, and scalable across borders.

Several forms of the Digital Divide evolved in recent years, with gaps emerging, and with existing gaps exacerbated. The fast pace of new technologies has widened these gaps, both in adoption of these technologies and in developing policies around them. This has made it more urgent than ever to address the barriers such as infrastructure, affordability, digital skills, content and its creation, among other barriers.

Realising the SDGs for everyone by 2030 will depend on empowering people across gender, languages, accessibility needs, geographies, affordability levels, and communities to effectively adopt digital technologies, and maximise the benefit of its use across sectors like health, education, etc.

As part of the UN Secretary-General efforts to facilitate an agile and open consultation process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital cooperation, with the options discussed in the Report of the UN SG High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation entitled “Age of Digital Interdependency”, and the suggestion of an initial goal of marking the UN's 75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation,”  this Open Forum aims at: 

  • Launching an Arab Consultation Process to discuss shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture; and related regional implications. 

  • Exploring appropriate architectures, existing or new, that provide for a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age.

  • Discussing which platforms across the Arab region are addressing digital inclusion challenges for all stakeholders to overcome barriers; and how to develop the appropriate Digital Cooperation conceptual approach in the Arab Region, inspired from the outcomes of the UN SG Panel and Report.

  • Preparing for an Arab event in Q1-2020, building on this open forum, to outreach to the Arab IGF community, and build consensus and momentum at the Arab level, with the aim to contribute to the UNGA75, and envisaged global commitments.

Organizers

UNESCWA
League of Arab States and UNESCWA

Speakers

Moderator(s):

Mr. Qusai Al-Shatti (Rakmana, Civil Society)

Mr. Ibaa Oueichek, Syria Gov

Ms. Mirna Barbar, ESCWA, IRO

Guest Speaker:

Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director, Secretariat of the High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation (ex officio)

Panelists:

Ms. Hanane Boujemi, Vice-chair of Arab IGF AMPAC

Ms. Christine Arida, NTRA, Egypt Gov, Arab IGF AMPAC

Mr. Hisham Aboul Yazed, NTRA, Egypt Gov, Arab IGF Secretariat

Mr. Fahd Batayneh, ICANN (Technical Community)

Mr. Chafic Chaya, RIPE NCC (link to Bio) (Technical Community)

Coordinator:

The Open Forum was submitted and coordinated by Ms. Zahr Bou-Ghanem, ESCWA, IRO

Online Moderator

Ms. Mirna Barbar, ESCWA, IRO

SDGs

GOAL 1: No Poverty
GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

During this Open Forum, the main partners, experts and speakers from the IG community will discuss the following areas of interest or policy questions:

  • Assess the need and explore the opportunities to launch an Arab Consultation Process to discuss shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture; and related regional implications. 

  • What are the best appropriate architectures for a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation that fit with the fast-changing digital age in an agile matter? 

  • Inspired from the outcomes of the UN SG Panel and Report on DC, how to develop the appropriate Digital Cooperation conceptual regional model?

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The forum started by an overview of the main components of the UN SG High-Level Panel report on Digital Cooperation entitled “Age of Digital Interdependency”, and experts supported its main findings and highlighted its importance. Experts also highlighted areas where more cooperation is needed in the region through bottom-up, transparent, inclusive and multi stakeholder approach. There areas includes data protection, cyber security, legal frameworks.

The Open form on “Arab Perspectives on Digital Cooperation and the Internet Governance Process” came in line with the call of the United Nations Secretary-General for facilitating an agile and open consultation process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital cooperation. It tackled options for these mechanisms, including those presented in the Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation.

Discussions yielded policy recommendations on regional priorities requiring increased cooperation in the digital field and the related mechanisms. ESCWA also announced current preparations for the Fifth Arab IGF, to be held in Cairo in January 2020.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

Based on the discussions, the main policy recommendations towards better digital cooperation and digital inclusion, can be summarized by the following:

  • Importance of bottom-up and multi stakeholder approach based on transparency and inclusiveness principles,
  • Increase the impact of the IGFs at regional and global level by promoting concrete outcomes and recommendations.
  • Consider taking into consideration discussions happened at national and regional level and linking the grass roots needs to policy making process at the global mechanisms.
  • Synergize the efforts and increase coordination between the different initiatives that are taking place in the region.
  • More synergy among regional organization towards strengthening the community and addressing the main identified challenges.

The main components of the report on Digital Cooperation - Age of Digital Interdependency, were overviewed by Mr Yovan Kurbalija. After a comprehensive discussion of the scenarios suggested in the report to enhance the digital cooperation, experts showed great interest and supported the report findings. Experts also discussed several issues related to the regional needs and priorities and highlighted areas where more cooperation is needed. The main areas that were identified include among others, data protection, cyber security, legal frameworks. 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

The open forum discussions paved the way towards a wider Arab consultation process to outreach to the Arab IGF community and build consensus and momentum at the Arab level. In this context, a dedicated session is planned during the upcoming Arab IGF V scheduled to be held in Cairo, Jan 2020. The session will aim at discussing shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture; and related regional implications. Experts will also have the chance to discuss and explore appropriate architectures, existing or new, that provide for a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age. The discussion will lead to the identification of regional platforms that are adequately addressing digital inclusion challenges for all stakeholders to overcome barriers. Inspired from the outcomes of the UN SG Panel and report, discussion will also focus on the development of the appropriate Digital Cooperation conceptual approach in the Arab Region.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

To follow up on the ideas discussed during the open forum, an Arab Consultation Process is under preparation to discuss shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture; and related regional implications. This process can be included under the work of the Arab IGF process.

Under the framework of the Arab IGF process, partners started working together to follow up on the main focus areas and core ideas discussed during the open forum. This is with the expectation to launch and Arab Consultation Process to discuss shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture and related regional implications. This process will also be more discussed and explored during a dedicated session is planned during the upcoming Arab IGF V scheduled to be held in Cairo in Jan 2020.

6. Estimated Participation

Onsite participants: 30

Online participants: 1

Women participation: 15 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

There was no specific focus on gender dimension.

8. Session Outputs

The open forum on “Arab Perspectives on Digital Cooperation and the Internet Governance Process”, came in line with the call of the United Nations Secretary-General for facilitating an agile and open consultation process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital cooperation. It tackled options for these mechanisms, including those presented in the Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation.

Discussions yielded policy recommendations on regional priorities requiring increased cooperation in the digital field and the related mechanisms. ESCWA also announced current preparations for the Fifth Arab IGF, to be held in Cairo in January 2020. 

The main policy recommendations highlighted by the experts during the open forum:

  • the importance of the bottom-up and  multi stakeholder approach based on  transparency and inclusiveness principles,
  • Increase the impact of the IGFs at regional and global level by promoting concrete outcomes and recommendations.
  • Consider taking into consideration discussions happened at national and regional level and linking the grass roots needs to policy making process at the global mechanisms.
  • Synergize the efforts and increase coordination between the different initiatives that are taking place in the region.
  • Increase synergy among regional organization towards strengthening the community and addressing the main identified challenges.

IGF 2019 OF #22 Trust, Norms and Freedom in Cyberspace

Description

Concept Note

International cooperation is the key to a successful digital state. It is also the goal of cyber diplomacy, which has become one of the key topics of international politics. It combines international security, internet governance, capacity building, and human rights online. Many states that support the multi-stakeholder governance model of the internet have made internet freedom one of their human rights priorities. Therefore, the underlying notion is that people should have the same rights online and offline and these rights must be protected. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and security online are complementary concepts.

This open forum under the third programme theme of IGF 2019 with the focus on security, safety, stability and resilience will analyse the links between trust, norms and freedom in cyberspace. Taking place only a few days before the first meeting of the new UN GGE, the panel will create a platform for an exchange of thoughts and further analysis on how the existing norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace relate to the work of non-governmental organisations and the private sector.

The panel will focus on the ongoing discussions regarding the norms of cybersecurity (and internet governance) while keeping in mind the aim of preserving a free, open, and secure cyberspace. The key points of the discussion will emerge from the notion that there is a need to further discuss the implementation of norms of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace. The protection of human rights and basic freedoms in cyberspace is the underlying principle of internationally recognised cyber norms. The GGE, among others, has confirmed that states must comply with their obligations under international law to respect and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Organizers

Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ms. Pille Kesler, Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Speakers

Speaker 1: Amb. Heli Tiirmaa-Klaar (Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a representative of the next UN GGE 2019-2021);

Speaker 2: Ms. Carmen Gonsalves (head of the International Cyber Policy Department at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and a representative of the next UN GGE 2019-2021)

Speaker 3: Ms. Mallory Knodel (Head of Digital for ARTICLE 19); 

Speaker 4: Mr. Goncalo Carrico (AT&T, Associate Director EU Affairs);

Moderator: Mr. Matthew Shears (member of the Board of ICANN).

Online Moderator

Mr. Matthew Shears

SDGs

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The questions in this OF emerge from the general cybersecurity framework put forward by the previous GGE reports from 2010, 2013, and 2015:

  1. On norms and human rights:
  • In what ways could the OEWG and GGE processes support the protection of human rights?
  • How can the norms of responsible state behaviour that have been established and agreed upon in the 2010, 2013, and 2015 UN GGE reports contribute to freedom in cyberspace?
  1. On confidence-building measures (CBMs) and human rights:
  • What role do the UN GGE CBMs play in building trust in cyberspace between:
    • States?
    • Other stakeholders?
  • How can the GGE and OEWG processes contribute to accountable cyberspace?
  1. On capacity building and human rights:
  • What measures are being taken and at what level to achieve greater cybersecurity capacities?
  • What is the role of different actors in building cybersecurity capacities?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad agreement among panellists on the importance of human rights to cybersecurity and of integrating human rights into the discussions on cyber norms. At the same time there was also concern expressed that respect for human rights has not improved since general recognition in a 2016 UN resolution that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Panellists suggested that the need for far greater coordination was never greater. There was hope that UN GGE and UN OEWG would work with existing cybersecurity norms and confident building measures. Multistakeholder engagement in cybersecurity norms  and CBMs was seen as critical. There was agreement that cybersecurity and human rights are not inherently in opposition or at odds. 

6. Estimated Participation

80 (45 women) onsite participants

IGF 2019 OF #23
EQUALS in Tech Awards

Description

The annual EQUALS in Tech awards are organized and presented by the EQUALS Global Partnership – a network of 90+ organizations, companies, UN agencies and research institutions – whose founding partners include the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), UN Women, International Trade Centre, GSMA, and United Nations University. Together, the partnership works to bring the benefits of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to women and girls, and to help women succeed in the tech sector.

The sixth annual EQUALS in Tech Awards celebrate initiatives that are closing the gender digital divide. This year, the number of categories will still reflect the structure of EQUALS, the Global Partnership to Bridge the Gender Digital Divide.
• Access: Initiatives related to improving women’s and girls’ digital technology access, connectivity and security
• Skills: Initiatives that support development of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) skills of women and girls
• Leadership (2 subcategories):
o Initiatives focused on promoting women in decision-making roles within the ICT field
o Initiatives promoted by tech sector companies to bridge the digital gender divide
• Research: Initiatives prioritizing research on gender digital divides and producing reliable evidence to tackle diversity issues within STEM and computing fields

Winners will be flown from around the globe to attend and receive their awards at the ceremony, to share their inspiring stories, and to build their professional networks with other winners and attending EQUALS partners. The awards demonstrate just how impactful ICTs can be for women and girls to improve their personal and professional lives.

Organizers

International Telecommunication Union
Carla Licciardello, International Telecommunication Union

Speakers

Potential Speakers:
GSMA & ITU (Mats Granryd & Houlin Zhao)
Germany BMZ or GIZ (TBC)
ISOC (Andrew Sullivan)
UN Women (Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka)
UNU (David Malone)

Online Moderator

TBC

SDGs

GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

IGF 2019 OF #24 Business and Human Rights in Technology Project: Applying the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to digital technologies

Subtheme
Issue(s)
Description

Context

The past decade has seen many examples of the positive social, economic and political impact of the internet, social media, mobile technologies, automation, artificial intelligence and other new digital technologies. These positive impacts include empowering civil and human rights activism, healthcare breakthroughs, making transport and logistics more environmentally sustainable, to name but a few. But more recently, the shadow sides of these very same innovations have come sharply into focus, including infringements on privacy, contributing to exacerbating ethnic conflict and dissemination of hate speech, undermining democratic processes, enhancing state surveillance, putting children at risk, facilitating live-streaming of abhorrent acts like the Christchurch terrorist attack, online violence against women and LGBTI persons and others, and “algorithmic discrimination” (whether in the job market, the criminal justice system or in access to public services).

 

These challenges are increasingly seen through the lens of human rights risks, not just ethical dilemmas. The lens has widened to bring into view issues related to corporate responsibility and accountability and associated questions of governance and public policy.

 

Understandable public concern has led to calls on both policy makers and tech companies to take effective action to prevent and address harm, resulting in a broad range of regulatory and policy initiatives. However, as such demands for regulation and other interventions in the digital space grow, public and private responses risk being ad hoc, fragmented and not aligned with international standards.

 

It is in this context that UN Human Rights has initiated the Business and Human Rights in Technology Project (hereinafter “the B-Tech Project”). The B-Tech Project will contribute to addressing the urgent need voiced by companies, civil society and policy makers to find principled and pragmatic ways to prevent and address human rights harms connected with the development of digital technologies and their use by corporate, government and non-governmental actors, including individual users.

Through an inclusive and dynamic process of dialogue, consultation and research, and building upon existing initiatives, emerging good practice and expertise, the Project will result in outputs made available on an ongoing basis. The different deliverables will be short and action-oriented, with a focus on policy as well as practical applications, and be applicable across different technologies and companies.

Following informal consultations held in the spring with a range of actors from civil society, business, States and other experts about its scope, including a multi-stakeholder consultation in the margin of RightsCon last June during which a draft scoping paper was discusssed and then open for public consultaiton, UN Human Rights has finalized the project’s scoping paper.

The scoping paper  sets out four broad inter-related focus areas:

1. Addressing human rights risks in business models;

2. Human Rights due diligence and end use;

3. Accountability and remedy; and

4. “A smart mix of measures”: exploring the regulatory responses and policy responsed to human rights challenges linked to digital technologies

All useful information about the B-Tech Project, including the scoping paper, ca be found on its dedicated portal at : https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Business/Pages/B-TechProject.aspx

Aim of the session

Few months after the launch of the project, the IGF Open Forum session will offer the opportunity to present the B-Tech project,  provide an update on the process and an opportunity to reflect, discuss and invite feedback from the participants on each of project’s focus areas.  

 

Organizers

OHCHR

Speakers

Mr. Mark Hodge, consultant, B-Tech Project (UN Human Rights Business and Human Rights in Technology Project)

 

 

Online Moderator

Mark Hodge

SDGs

GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Tthe IGF Open Forum session will provide an update on the process and an opportunity to reflect, discuss and invite feedback from the participants on each of the B-Tech project’s focus areas.  In particular, during the session, will be discussed:

  • some of the most salient human rights issues that have been identified so far and which are related to the development and application of digital technologies;
  • how the UNGPs offers a framework for identifying,  mitigating, and remedying the human rights risks posed by these technologies.

IGF 2019 OF #25
Technological Innovation and Challenges to Data Governance

Subtheme
Description

As the new round of global technological revolution and industrial transformation unfolds, modern information technologies represented by Artificial Intelligence, 5G and Big Data have made continuous breakthroughs, injecting new impetus into global economic development. At the same time, with the accelerated popularization and application of data-driven new technologies, regulatory, legal and ethical issues ensue and cross border, profoundly impacting global data governance, cyber security and sustainable development, and dealing fresh demands and challenges to global Internet governance system and rules. Against the back drop of mounting factors and uncertainties in cyberspace as well as the data governance model to be improved, countries across the world should enhance exchanges and cooperation, through open, interactive and diversified international dialogues to explore data governance mechanism and trustworthy use of new technologies, with a view to promoting global digital development and the building of a more fair and reasonable global Internet governance system. The proposed Open Forum seeks to engage high-level delegates and distinguished experts from governments, international organizations, enterprises, technical communities and think tanks in the global Internet sector. Through in-depth discussion centering on development opportunities and challenges to global social and economic progress brought about by AI, 5G and other Internet technological innovations, this Forum will examine and share ideas on issues such as the impact of data governance policies and trends on the development of new technologies across the globe, international rules making on data governance and new technologies as well as the relationship, role and position of the public and private sector in data governance mechanism. It also encourages best practice sharing on data governance and personal information protection for all parties and exploration on a collaborative data governance model with multi-party participation, in a bid to promote a data governance mechanism at the global level that contributes to a peaceful, secure, open, cooperative and orderly cyberspace and a community with a shared future in cyberspace.

Organizers

Cyberspace Administration of China
Cyberspace Administration of China
Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies

Speakers

Madam Qi Xiaoxia, general director of Bureau of International Cooperation, Cyberspace Administration of China. Prof. Louis Pouzin, father of France Internet. President of OPEN-ROOT. Dr. Demi Getschko, CEO of the Brazilian Network Information Center, Member of the Internet Hall of Fame. Ms Zhang Xiao, Standing vice secretariat general of the world internet conference, deputy director of the CNNIC. Prof. Luca Bell, Fond of Getulio Varga, Brazil. Prof. Henry Gao, Associate Professor of Law, Singapore Management University. Mr. Hong Yanqing, Senior Researcher at Law and Development Academy at Peking University

Online Moderator

Delegate from Cyberspace Administration of China

SDGs

GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 12: Responsible Production and Consumption
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1.Examine and share ideas on the impact of data governance policies and trends on the development of new technologies in the World. Countries across the world should enhance exchanges and cooperation, strengthen  open, interactive and diversified  international dialogues. With a view to promoting global digital development and the building of a more fair and reasonable global Internet governance system.

2.Discuss data governance and the new technology of international rulemaking, data governance mechanism in the relationship between the government and enterprises, role and positioning issues.

3.Share practical experience in data governance and personal information protection, explore a model of collaborative data governance involving multiple parties. Promote the establishment of a data governance mechanism at the global level that promotes peace, security, openness, cooperation and order in cyberspace, so as to make the community of Shared future in cyberspace more dynamic.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The forum carried out in-depth discussions on the impact of data governance policies and trends in countries around the world on the development of new technologies, the formulation of international rules on data governance and new technologies, and the relationship, role and positioning of governments and enterprises in the mechanism of data governance. The first view is that the government can strengthen Internet governance in combination with the multi-stakeholder Internet governance model. Some introduced the model of Internet governance in Brazil, that is, the governance model of multi-stakeholders, and expressed the hope that the platform IGF could play a more advantageous role of multi-stakeholders, but he also showed that the root of the Internet governance model lies in control. The second view is that the different data governance policies in different countries have their deep social roots. Some compared data governance policies in the United States, Europe and China, which represent the demands of governments, capital and individuals respectively. The United States focuses on the free cross-border flow of information, the European Union focuses more on human rights, and China focuses on the cyber sovereignty or cyber security. Some compared the Cyber security law in China and GDPR data governance principles, think that both are in order to protect the personal information for the purpose, to individuals, data, storage limits and similar law and transparency, and in the relevant provisions of the personal information protection, etc. The third view is that the BRICS should strengthen their consensus on data protection norms and hope to further consolidate the achievements of the BRICS summit in 2017, and form a Internet data protection to the BRICS specification.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

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.

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.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

This forum shows that cyberspace is becoming a vast jungle for various forces and interests of human society, an arena for the game of great powers and a new stage for the competition of national interests. China-US relations are an important variable affecting the international order in cyberspace. During the forum, although there is no special forum on China-US relations; But inside and outside the conference hall, delegates from various countries could be heard discussing china-us relations. As the United States to abandon the original leading responsibility in international governance system in cyberspace, a global Internet governance system change into the key period, accelerate the establishment perfect rules of cyberspace system become the common pursuit of the international community, governments and all kinds of main body in succession to occupy a place in this process, in order to win the future development of the initiative. 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

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. 

6. Estimated Participation

About 200 onsite and online participants.About 100 women present onsite and online.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

Genderissues were not discussed at the forum.

IGF 2019 OF #26 FOC Open Forum

Description

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) is an intergovernmental coalition of 30 countries committed to advancing Internet freedom – free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide. This Open Forum will provide IGF participants with the opportunity to learn more about the FOC's activities under Ghana's Chairmanship of the Coalition, the implementation of FOC activities under the Program of Action for 2019-2020, including the upcoming FO Conference in Accra. This session will include a discussion on the FOC's Joint Statement on Disinformation, and its recommendations to stakeholders. In this session IGF participants will be encouraged to engage directly with the panellists of FOC and FOC Advisory Network Members and to discuss the FOC's priorities and activities. Participants in the session will be invited to pose questions and comments and participate in a lively discussion on promoting and protecting human rights in the face of ongoing and emerging threats to freedom online.

Organizers

Freedom Online Coalition Support Unit
This session is being submitted by the FOC Support Unit and the governments of Germany, Ghana and the US:
Rainer Schmiedchen, Federal Foreign Office, Germany
Emmanuella Darkwah, Ministry of Communications, Ghana

Jordyn Arndt, US Department of State

Speakers
  • Albert Antwi-Boasiako, National Cybersecurity Advisor, Ghanaian Ministry of Communications;
  • Mallory Knodel, Head of Digital, Article19
  • Elonnai Hickok, Chief Operating Officer, CIS;
  • Rauno Merisaari, Human Rights Ambassador, Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and
  • Charles Bradley, Freedom Online Coalition Support Unit (Moderator).
SDGs

GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) is an intergovernmental coalition of 30 countries committed to advancing Internet freedom – free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide. This Open Forum session will provide participants with the opportunity to learn more about the FOC's latest activities under Ghana's Chairmanship of the Coalition and the FOC's priorities under the Program of Action for 2019-2020. In this session IGF participants will be encouraged to engage directly with the panellists, consisting of FOC Members and Members of the FOC Advisory Network. Participants in the session will be invited to pose questions and comments, and participate in a lively discussion on promoting and protecting human rights in the face of ongoing and emerging threats to freedom online.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The discussion focused on Ghana's chairmanship of the coalition and the the  priorities under the FOC's Program of Action 2019-2020, including digital inclusion, disinformation, artifical intelligence and cybersecurity and human rights. The current Chair provided an update and overview of the upcming Annual Freedom Online Conference. 

The focus of the FO Conference 2020, Achieving a Common Vision for Internet Freedom, recognises the significance of convening key actors to renew commitments and pathways towards a rights-respecting framework for Internet freedom through achieving certain key goals.  

The Conference will provide a unique forum to re-examine the state of play of current and arising challenges to freedom online, exchange perspectives and identify possible solutions. With Ghana at the helm, the Conference will put particular emphasis on reviewing the current state of digital rights across Africa, outlining strategies for improving digital rights on the continent, and globally.

There was also discussion about the importance of multistakeholder engagement with many of the members of the FOC Advisory Network participating in the discussion. 

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

Responding to the challenges for Internet freedom and human rights online, FOC Members continue to work closely together to coordinate their diplomatic efforts, shape global norms, and engage with civil society and the private sector to support Internet freedom – free expression, association, assembly, and privacy online – worldwide. 

The Annual Freedom Online Conference is the flagship event of the FOC, bringing together governments and stakeholders from around the world to discuss the most urgent challenges to the realization of human rights online. In 2020, the Conference will take place at the Kofi Annan International Peacekeeping Training Centre in Accra, Ghana from 6-7 February.

6. Estimated Participation

50 participants

IGF 2019 OF #27 The Future of Artificial Intelligence and Sustainable Development

Subtheme
Description

Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a range of new opportunities to achieve the global Sustainable Development Goals. However, without the necessary capacity, technology and data to train AI, countries may miss out on the immense potential AI has to offer in the future. In addition, existing policy frameworks in many countries need to be updated to reflect the technological development of AI technologies. Against this background, the session launches the international project “FAIR Forward – Artificial Intelligence for All” by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The project strives for a more open, inclusive and sustainable approach to AI on an international level. On this occasion, stakeholders from government, international organizations and the private sector present their work and projects on artificial intelligence including in the area of responsible AI, AI-driven voice interaction, mobile data and ethical policy frameworks.

Organizers

GIZ - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit
Robert Kirkpatrick, Director, UN Global Pulse Johannes Wander, Advisor Sector Programme Digital Development, GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit Andreas Foerster, Head of Digital technologies for development unit, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

Speakers

Audace Niyonkuru, CEO, Digital Umuganda

Michael Krake, Director, Private Sector, Trade, Employment, Digital Technologies, German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development

Mila Romanoff, Lead Data Policy and Governance, UN Global Pulse 

Balthas Seibold, Head of FAIR Forward Sector Programme Digital Development, GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit

Lukas Borkowski, European Partnerships Lead & Country Director Madagascar, Viamo

 

On-site moderator

Wadzi Motsi-Khatai

 

Online Moderator

Johannes Wander, Finn Hagemann

SDGs

GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Guiding policy questions for our speakers include:

  1. How can we foster international cooperation and peer-learning on the use of ethical artificial intelligence?
  2. How can we promote technical expertise and open training datasets for local artificial intelligence development?
  3. How can policy frameworks and governance approaches ensure the responsible development and use of artificial intelligence?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

This Open Forum was jointly hosted by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development and UN Global Pulse. BMZ unveiled its new project “FAIR Forward. It strives for a more open, inclusive and sustainable approach to AI. A speaker from Ruanda showed, how better open access to African language data can enable the development of AI-based voice interaction in local languages. The aim is to empower marginalized groups and enable local innovation. UNGP presented its work in Africa: Supporting political frameworks for a value-based AI and better data protection e.g. in Ghana and Uganda. There was broad support for the initiative, in particular on creating open datasets of marginalized languages. It was added that attention has to be paid to the choice of languages, particularly the amount of people who speak the language as well as the state of digital development of communities and accountability of AI systems.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  • Support initiatives to build open voice datasets of languages that the private sector does not cover or provide publicly for economic reasons to allow for inclusive AI development
  • Further focus on countries and regions that have been left behind in the development of AI technologies so far
  • Focus on languages that are spoken by many people i.e. Swaheli
  • Avoid exploitation of datasets and allow for equal and open access to the datasets
  • In terms of policy frameworks, new regulation has to be tailored for the local context and shall not be simply copied from other countries without adaptation.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

Initiatives that support the strengthening of local knowledge and educational offers on AI development, creating freely available data for local AI innovation and helping to shape the political framework for a value-based AI and better data protection are:

  • BMZ FAIR Forward
  • UN Global Pulse
  • Digital Umuganda
  • VIAMO
  • Mozilla’s Common-Voice project
  • IDRC, Knowledge for All
  • SIDA: Artificial Intelligence for Development
  • UNESCO: Artificial intelligence with human values for sustainable development
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

In order to allow for an inclusive future of AI, the project “FAIR Forward – Artificial Intelligence for All” has been started and will run for three years. Mozilla’s Common-Voice project is underway to not only collect but also to make open-source voice databases on various languages publicly available. The project is continuing to seek active input and advice from the IGF ecosystem.

6. Estimated Participation

Total onsite: 110

Total online: 8

 

Please estimate the total number of women present onsite and online.

Total onsite: 32

Total online: Cannot indicate online number of women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

Voice powered Artificial Intelligence allows to build services that better serve underprivileged groups and women. One example discussed at the session was VIAMOs 3-2-1 system of information on breastfeeding and child healthcare for mothers.

IGF 2019 OF #28 Internet Governance with and for the Citizens

Description

----------- Internet Governance with and for the Citizens: Setting the Agenda for IGF2020 -----------

Humanity deserves and asks for better governance. Both citizens and decision makers are ready to experiment with new approaches. Decisions taken on behalf of 7+ billion human beings require to augment the traditional expertise with the vision and experience of ordinary citizens that will enrich, legitimize and strengthen the decisions. New forms of political non-partisan dialogue between citizens, decision makers and experts are one of the most promising solutions to improve governance towards a more inclusive, more trustful and less divided society, at all levels, from local to global. By relying on such processes, decisions become more in tune with the complexity of our age, more legitimate and more sustainable. Decision makers gain in legitimacy, insights and transparency. Citizens enter the realm of complexity of decision making and get the feeling of being respected and considered by the political sphere. Both are strengthened by this unique interaction.

------------------------------------------ Bringing Citizens into Internet Governance ------------------------------------------

The Global Citizens’ Debate on the Future of Internet (https://www.wetheinternet.org) aims at opening a dialogue between the Internet Governance community and ordinary citizens of the world.

In June 2020, thousands of citizens selected to represent the diversity of their country will gather, inform themselves and discuss core questions related to the future of internet and articulate their wishes, concerns, arguments and opinions.

This full scale Dialogue will build upon a series of preliminary conversations and workshops organized in 13 countries on 4 continents in 2018 and 2019 that have raised topics that are of high concern to both citizens and decision makers.

---------------------- Goal of the Open Forum ----------------------

The Open forum aims at:

1. Presenting the results of the preliminary conversations and the workshops to the Internet Governance Community in order to transform them into actionable actions and discussions for the multi-stakeholder process.

2. Reflecting the method in order to improve it and to understand how to best integrate it in the Multi-stakeholder process in the coming years.

3. Launch the Full scale process for 2020.

---------------------- Program ----------------------

The Forum will be shaped as a participatory event: participants will sit at tables and discuss the results of the debate in order to transform them into actionable learnings and actions for them.

1. Opening (15’) Short presentation of project and process (Missions Publiques). Feedback from core partners of the Advisory Board and national partners of the project.

2. Discussion / Break-out groups (45’) Participants are randomly split into groups of 5 (maximum diversity). In each group, a facilitator and a note taker guide the discussion. They discuss the following questions (not exclusive): How do these results inspire me for my strategy, my advocacy, my position? What do they mean for us as a community? What are most meaningful results in relation with the IGF agenda?” Which discussions do they impulse, which actions?

3. Presentation of results of the groups and conclusion (30’) Participants gather in plenary, note takers present the key results of their group.

Online participation will be organized as a mirror of the f2f participation: 1. E-Opening (15’) The remote participants will be in a listening position and will be in the virtual room. Two of the feedback in the beginning will be delivered by remote participants: One organizer and one participant. 2. E-Discussion / E-Break-out groups (45’) Online participants will be invited to join virtual rooms (links will be provided at the beginning of the session - participants will be dispatched in function of the first letter of their country of origin). In each group, a facilitator and a note taker will guide the discussion. The virtual group will discuss the same two questions as the f2f groups. 3. E-Presentation of results of the groups and conclusion (30’) Online participants will join back the plenary, remote note takers will present the key results of their group.

Organizers

Missions Publiques
Berger, Cathleen - Mozilla - Global - Private Sector

Castex, Lucien - Internet Society France - Civil Society

Cassa, Concettina - Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale - Italy - Government

Gatto, Raquel - ISOC - Global - Technical Community

Gerlach, Jan - Wikimedia Foundation - Civil Society

Eniola - World Economic Forum - Global - Other

Oyako, Arthur - African Freedom of Information Center - Uganda - Civil Society

Scialpi, Valentina - DG Connect - European Commission - Europe - International Organization

Senges, Max - Google - Germany - Private Sector

Shcherbovich, Andrey - National Research University, Higher School of Economics - Russian Federation - Academics

Speakers

Nota Bene: see methodology: All participants to the Forum will be “speakers”. The list of persons below is the list of persons that are at the core of the process and will act as table facilitators and resource persons during the discussions. There will be no frontal input apart from the introduction. Berger, Cathleen - Mozilla - Global - Private Sector Bruns, Eike - Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie - Germany - Government Castex, Lucien - Internet Society France - Civil Society Cassa, Concettina - Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale - Italy - Government Cervellini, Silvia - Delibera Brazil - Brazil - Civil Society Farooque, Mahmud - Arizona State University CSPO - USA - Academics Gatto, Raquel - ISOC - Global - Technical Community Gerlach, Jan - Wikimedia Foundation - Civil Society Hussain, Faheem - School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University - Bangladesh - Civil Society Ikebe, Yasushi - Miraikan (Tokyo National Science Museum) - Japan - Academics Mafe, Eniola - World Economic Forum - Global - Other Oyako, Arthur - African Freedom of Information Center - Uganda - Civil Society Scialpi, Valentina - DG Connect - European Commission - Europe - International Organization Senges, Max - Google - Germany - Private Sector Shcherbovich, Andrey - National Research University, Higher School of Economics - Russian Federation - Academics We will invite to this event 5 participants of the Citizens Debates. They will be chosen so as to represent the 5 continents.

Online Moderator

Morgane Fleury

SDGs

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can the multi-stakeholder discussion taking place at IGF can be reinforced by the inputs of a structured view of citizens of the world on the Future of the Internet?

  2. How can we address all the issues pointed out by ordinary citizens in a renewed decision model?

Participants to the Open Forum will critically comment the first results of the 5 Workshops implemented in 2019 by Missions Publiques and the project partners’ coalition in Rwanda, Japan, Brazil, Germany and in the Rohingya Refugee Camp of Cox Bazar (presentation video). Participants, within their spheres of influence, will discuss links between the policy they are conducting and the Global Citizens’ Dialogue’s results.

 

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The discussion revolved around the three topics discussed during the Citizens’ dialogues; Disinformation, Digital Identity and Internet Governance. Within the broad spectrum of participants, ranging from UNESCO to Google, national partners, ISOC, the German Ministry of Economy and the World Wide Web Foundation, there was a broad agreement that having the voice of citizens within the IGF discussions is essential knowing that, as users, they will bear consequences of IGF’s discussions.

As citizens expressed their fears regarding the spread of disinformation worldwide, they pointed out education as the best tool to tackle disinformation. However, as crucial as education was seen by the participants, they believe that other problematics need to be considered to solve the disinformation issue. Disinformation can be spread by well-educated people; education isn’t a 100% efficient shield if it doesn’t come with critical thinking in back-up.

On digital identities’ governance, as citizens were keen on supporting a co-decision model, the need for a security/privacy coexistence, a renewed debate on encryption, as well as a strong authentication or an internet users’ license were discussed by the panellists. Moreover, in tune with the contract for the web’s recent launch by the World Wide Web Foundation, users’ responsibilities were mentioned as well as their rights to transparency and a greater understanding of the issues.

On the strength of these discussions, Antoine Vergne, on the behalf of Missions Publiques, announced the launch of the full-scale process. In June 2020, citizens’ dialogues will be implemented in 100+ countries.

More information: https://www.wetheinternet.org/

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

On the strength of these discussions, Antoine Vergne, on the behalf of Missions Publiques, announced the launch of the full-scale process. In June 2020, citizens’ dialogues will be implemented in 100+ countries.

6. Estimated Participation

There were roughly 40 participants present onsite, the gender balance was good.

IGF 2019 OF #29
Public Service Internet, how media could fix the cyberspace

Description

During the last 12 months we have assisted to a wide growth of the consciouness that the idea of Internet as public space has been put at risk by the greedyness of some companies, by the mass surveillance of some governments and by the misuse by some states or by groups of pressure. Public Service Broadcasters members of the EBU in Europe (as well as their fellows in other parts of the world)have started to build new models of Internet communities based on the same values and principles of human rights that are inspiring Public Service Broadcasting since near 100 years. These principles -based on human rights- are: openness, transparence, accountability, access to culture, correct information, sustain to local contents and language, creation of communities for good and not for profit, respect of privacy, support of social cohesion, and more recently, digital literacy and fight to digital divide. During the last year many initiatives (alone and in partnerhip with other institutions) have been promoted to start to build the PSI or Public Service Internet, within our membership, but also in partnership with civil society, industry and tech community, or even promoted directly by civil society organization inspired by the Public Service model. BBC has launched the PSI (Public Service Internet) initiative. In the Netherlands has been launched the project Public Spaces, in Germany ZDF has launched a portal called ZDF Kultur common to all cultural institutions of the country and so on. Similarly, also within EBU, have been launched project Eurovox for setting standard for vocal personal assistant to guarantee pluralism; or project PEACH for algorithms of personalization and recommandation respectful of citizens' privacy; project Eurovision Social newswire to debunk fake news; project for Big Data journalism, to support initiatives of investigative journalisms that work through algorithms to chase data through big data; project Journalism Trust Initiative with RWB and UNESCO on disinformation and so on. The Open Forum PSI will be used to present some of these initiatives and to interact with other organizations with whom we are cooperating on these issues, such as UNESCO (that has just released the Indicators on the quality of Internet), Council of Europe (that is producing reports over A.I. and media), WIPO (support to protection of authors' rights and broadcasting treaty), etc.

Organizers

EBU
European Broadcasting Union (EBU) - Union Européenne de Radiotélévisions
co-organizers:
UNESCO and WIPO

Speakers

PANEL:

Moderators: Giacomo Mazzone (EBU) and Elena Perotti (WAN-IFRA)

Speakers:

Jan Kleijssen, Director of Information Society - Action against Crime, Council of Europe

Antonio Arcidiacono, Director T&I, EBU

Bill Thompson, BBC Research and Development (from remote) – responsible of the project PSI  - Public Service Internet at the BBC.

Geert Jan Bogaerts, VPRO – Public Spaces (Chairman PublicSpaces Foundation)

Stefan Müller, ZDFkultur - (HR Kultur)-
Paolo Lanteri, WIPO (Copyright Law Division )
Xianhong Hu, UNESCO (program specialist at Division of Freedom of Expression )

Online Moderator

Victor Owade, WIPO

SDGs

GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1) Which are the conditions that are indespensable for providing a "Public Service Internet (=PSI)" comparable to the standard of the existing "Public Service Media" and of Quality Journalism ? what needs to be fixed first in the current cyberspace ?

2) How could "PSI" contribute to fix the problems of polarisation and fragmentation in digital societies ?

3) How we could measure the impact of this renewed mission of PSM - Public Service Media ?

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support by all participant about the fact that the future of Internet will have to be based on trustful relations of citizen with their on-line experience. Public Service Broadcasters have a vast experience in building these trustful relations. Three different experiences were presented in the session:  the BBC project called PSI (Public Service Internet) that will become operational on 2022, in coincidence with the 100th anniversary of the first radio broadcasting; the ZDF experience called ZDF Kultur that is offering a cultural on-line experience to German viewers; and Public Spaces, a project promoted by Dutch public broadcasters that see working hand in hand national broadcaster like VPRO and civil society organizations of any kind, with the common scope to offer to internauts a safer experience over the Internet, where all human rights are fully respected.

The three experiences of on-line public services have been complemented by the report about three experiences of standard setting about what could be considered a safe internet experience promoting public interest. Council of Europe mentioned some important recommendations that will be taken in the next months by this organization, about safety of journalists, quality journalism and pluralistic media ecosystems.

WIPO announced various initiatives aimed to make copyright and authors' rights over the Internet simpler and automatized, so that would become easier to ensure the remuneration of creators. While UNESCO presented its Universality indicators for a safer internet, that include public service offer on-line among its indicators.

EBU Technology’s Director presented some experiences of application of A.I. to the media sector, in order to overcome languages barriers and an innovative system of recommendations to viewers and listeners in order to offer them the desired programmes but without giving away in exchange personal data.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

The panel agreed that Council of Europe announced recommendations could play an important role to create an healthier environment for media in the digital societies of tomorrow. and that the general adoption of UNESCO's Universality indicators across the world, could create the basis for a quality based evaluation of which are the societal needs that media in the digital era could (and have to) satisfy.  WIPO announced specific Treaties under discussions, that are all aiming to make remuneration of "rights holders" easier and more transparent and equitable (including, for instance, the Treaty of brodcasters rights over the Internet).

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

BBC The PSI project of BBC is currently in the development and definition phase. The full project will be deployed by 2022, when BBC will celebrate its 100th anniversary.

ZDFKultur is focusing on Culture as one of the main societal glue and involve many cultural institutions of the country, such as museum, collections and cultural centers.

It includes also some specific actions to address hate speech and misinformation over the internet.

VPRO / Public Spaces  Public Spaces is the project of creating a Public Service Internet model over the Netherlands, open to media but also to civil society community to promote diversity and social cohesion over the Internet.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

The current experiments conducted by pioneering broadcasters that are trying to define how Public Service experience could be recreated in the on-line world, need to be generalized and become the norm among all Public Service Broadcasters/Media. In this sense existing barriers to the digital evolution of broadcasters into full media actors need to be removed from legislations and from regulation all across Europe. The proposal of the Dutch Public Spaces experience to deliver "badges" to services, to media and to public actors that perform in society according to certain shared ethical principles, could be a path to move in the right direction even faster than expected.

6. Estimated Participation

The room has a capacity of around 100 seats and was fully occupied. Remote participation was mainly ensured by two speakers connecting via Zoom from London and Geneva taht monopolized the line most of the time.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

In the Berlin panel there were two women out of a total of 7 (among panelists and moderators).

IGF 2019 OF #31 Bridging digital in a large humanitarian organization

Description

Since its launch in 2014, Missing Maps has been supported by a growing network of of humanitarian  organizations and volunteers that collaboratively put the most vulnerable places on the map. Working with a variety of actors allows for us to collaboratively learn about open (map) data opportunities  and challenges, as well as its potential to mitigate suffering and loss in humanitarian contexts. 

This session will familiarize participants  with the Missing Maps project, and explore, the landscape of digital transformation through the largest humanitarian network, the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. In addition, we will showcase how local community members, as well as remote volunteers can join forces and collaboratively work towards common objectives. This will include hands-on, interactive opportunities to contribute to humanitarian activities, via the use of the MapSwipe app supporting humanitarian activities all over the world one wipe at a time.   

 

 

Organizers

IFRC
International Federation of Red Cross Red Crescent Societies (IFRC)

Speakers

German Red Cross (Katharina Lorenz, Stefan Scholz, Lucyy Price), IFRC (Jeremy Mortimer, Margarita Griffith) 

Online Moderator

Heather Leson

SDGs

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

key questions:

1. how can we support and sustain digital contributors to collaborate with local communities for climate action?

2. How can the IGF help us improve digital inclusion to support humanitarian action?

IGF 2019 OF #32 EQUALS Research Open Forum on Gender Digital Equality

Description

This open forum will reflect on the activities of the EQUALS Research Group led by UN University Institute on Computing and Society (UNU-CS). EQUALS is a global partnership co-founded by ITU, UN Women, GSMA, the International Trade Center and UNU to close gender digital gaps. With over 60 partner institutions worlwide, EQUALS consists of three Coalitions on Access, Skills, and Leadership, as well as a crosscutting research group. EQUALS partners will discuss the themes of the Research Group’s March 2019 report (Taking Stock: Data and Evidence on Gender Equality in Digital Access, Skills, and Leadership), share their contributions to generating relevant data and evidence, and discuss evidence-based pathways to gender digital equality.

Organizers

UN University Institute on Computing and Society (UNU-CS)

Speakers
  1. Anne Igeltjørn, Global Universal Design Commission Europe

  2. Ruhiya Seward, International Development Research Center

  3. Daniel Kardefelt Winther, UNICEF-Innocenti

  4. Tamara Dancheva, GSMA

 

SDGs

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can different stakeholders ensure that new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence, blockchain, 5G and other innovations do not replicate existing gender digital inequalities? 
  2. How can we address the socio-cultural issues that translate into gender digital inequality? 
  3. What can be done to help ensure better gender-disaggregated data on digital access, use, skills, and leadership?

Participants will critically examine the root causes of gender digital inequality and imagine the future of technology and its implications for gender equality. Participants should make commitments to advance policy and practical changes that promote gender digital equality within their spheres of influence.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad agreement that technology alone cannot solve the digital gender inequality gap and that a multi-stakeholder approach coupled with more evidence driven policy making is needed in order to overcome the barriers to gender inequality in digital access, skills and leadership. Many also indicated that more participation by women as entrepreneurs, inventors and business leaders would help to redress the wider deficit in female leadership and provide much needed role models for girls in education and early careers.There was also an agreement that while mobile connectivity is spreading quickly it is not spreading equally. There was no agreement on how to approach the issue lack of internationally comparable gender-disaggregated data on most ICT indicators especially for developing countries.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

We need to be able to influence policy ecosystems as much as possible but in influencing those policy ecosystems, we need leaderships that are receptive. We also need to encourage more data collection on basic gender-disaggregated indicators especially in the digital space. It is also important to include women in the decision-making process.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

Initiatives in the digital space which were mentioned during the discussions include "Disrupting Harm", the Feminist Internet Research Network, "Harras Map" mobile application and UNICEF's recently launched Global Kids Online Report.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

Progress can only be achived if more women are included in the decision-making process and if gender is an aspect of the design of new technologies from the very beginning.

6. Estimated Participation

There were roughly 30 participants present onsite and 1 participant online. Out of those participants, around 20 were women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

The discussion focused solely on gender issues as it aimed to present key findings from the EQUALS Research Group report titled “Taking Stock: Data and Evidence on Gender Equality in Access, Skills and Leadership”. Participants discussed the main barriers to digital inclusion for women such as affordability and lack of basic digital skills. Some of the solutions identified were including ICT skills as part of early educational programmes and ensuring relevant online content.
 

IGF 2019 OF #33 Developing policy guidelines for AI and child rights

Subtheme
Description

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As the global community reflects on progress made, one change to the world of 1989 will significantly impact the next 30 years for children’s rights: artificial intelligence (AI). Progress in AI systems, unprecedented amounts of data to train algorithms, and increased computing power are expected to profoundly impact life and work in the 21st century, raising both hopes and concerns for human development. A number of governments, businesses, civil society organizations and researchers are rightly concerned about the future of AI for societies. They recognize the current window of opportunity to lay down ethical and policy safeguards, and to practically develop the software, algorithms and data standards needed to maximize the benefits while limiting the risks of an AI future. Yet, in our initial findings, the impact of AI on children is largely missing from these concerns and efforts. It appears that for governments, the private sector and civil society, there is a policy vacuum for considered and practical guidance on AI and children (see https://medium.com/politics-ai/an-overview-of-national-ai-strategies-2a…). A key program for UNICEF will be the development of a policy guidance for governments, businesses, the non-profit sector and the Organization itself, which, if applied, will create environments that support the safe and beneficial use of AI systems for children’s development. UNICEF will lead the creation of the guidance in partnership with a range of external stakeholders, including the Berkman Klein Centre, the IEEE, and interested governments. Beyond creating guidelines, a key challenge is how to translate them into practice. Implementing guidelines poses difficult decisions, such as finding the balance between the right to privacy and the benefits of big data-fueled interventions that can protect children. The guidance will thus be piloted with policy makers in select countries for validation and learnings as broad principles are adapted to different country contexts. Such implementation will create case studies for other countries to learn from, as well as provide feedback that can inform subsequent versions of the guidance. Please see the attached concept note for more information on the overall project. As the IGF will take place during the project, the proposed Open Forum policy question is: What policy frameworks are needed to ensure that AI enables the realization of child rights and respects the key principles enshrined in the CRC? Between now and the IGF in November, UNICEF will co-host a AI and child rights workshop with the World Economic Forum in San Francisco in May, host a workshop in New York in June, and collaboratively develop the draft guidelines with governments. In the Open Forum UNICEF, along with the Berkman Klein Center, will present the workshop outcomes and draft guidelines – as a work in progress – and seek further input and collaboration with the audience. The session seeks diverse inputs and will also convene some of the few governments working on AI guidelines or principles that have a specific focus on youth. This critically important work will be strengthened by thematic and regional variations in the session, and contribute to putting child rights on the AI policy agenda. The work is directly linked to the Data Governance theme of the IGF, sharing emerging approaches to ensure the development of child-centric data governance frameworks at national, regional and international levels.

Organizers

UNICEF
Sandra Cortesi, Director of Youth and Media, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University

Speakers

Steven Vosloo, Policy Specialist - Digital Connectivity, Policy Lab, UNICEF Jasmina Byrne, Chief, Policy Lab, UNICEF Sandra Cortesi, Director of Youth and Media, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University Speakers from a diversity of governments working on AI policies, such as: Finland, Colombia (Armando Guio), United Arab Emirates (names to be confirmed in the coming months)

Online Moderator

Alexa Hasse

SDGs

GOAL 5: Gender Equality
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

QUESTIONS:

  • What role do human and child rights play for you when designing, developing, implementing, and evaluating AI systems?
  • Have you thought about child rights when developing and/or implementing AI strategies? If so, how? If not, why not?
  • How would policy guidance in this context be most useful (content, format, etc.)?

EXPECTATIONS:

  • Better understand the needs of government, business, and civil society when it comes to the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of AI systems upholding child rights.
  • Brainstorm ideas for how child rights can be promoted when creating AI policies. 
  • Gather inputs on how the policy guidance can be most useful to government and business (content, format, etc.).
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad consensus that:

  • There is a need to focus on the impact of AI on children, since children represent 1/3 of all internet users and are active users of AI-based systems.
  • Policy guidance is needed in this area to help policymakers and industry interpret ethical AI principles into practice for children.
  • Different regions and countries have specific needs and the way in which AI systems are provided and regulated for children need to be localized.
  • The ICT industry and big tech companies play a crucial role in how AI systems are used by and for children, and need to be part of these efforts.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

UNICEF will lead the creation of an AI and Children Policy Guidance working with a range of external stakeholders, including the Berkman Klein Centre, the IEEE, 5Rights Foundation, the World Economic Forum, and interested governments. The draft policy guidance will be shared in June 2020. After that governments and companies will be invited to pilot the guidance and provide feedback.

6. Estimated Participation

An estimated 30 people attended the session in person. The following presented:

Sandra Cortesi, Director of Youth and Media, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University 
Steven Vosloo, Digital Policy Specialist, Office of Global Insight and Policy, UNICEF
Armando Guio, Fellow, Berkman Klein Center (and previous advisor to the Government of Colombia on their AI strategy)
Sabelo Mhlambi, Fellow, Berkman Klein Center
Karuna Nain, Global Safety Programs Manager, Facebook

The session was moderated by Jasmina Byrne, Chief, Policy Unit, Office of Global Insight and Policy, UNICEF 

IGF 2019 OF #34 Enhancing Digital Inclusion Through Digital Governance

Description

Digital inclusion is a social inclusion in the 21st century that ensure individuals and disadvantaged groups have access to, and skill to use Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Students nowdays are called ‘digital native’ or a group of students that have great understanding of modern technology, particularly the Internet. Students of the current period were raised along the rapid advancement of information and communications technology resulting in their being accustomed to using ICTs (including the Internet) for resolving their daily tasks and chores. The idea of digital natives has been accepted by the public and adopted by numerous educational institutions, as seen in their strategic plans designed for developing their curriculum and education system. But, unfortunately, the digital native concept has very little evidence to prove the idea that “students inherently know how to use technology, especially in how to process online information from the internet”. The unequal understanding of the use of Internet by students in the academia has led to a weakness of evidence in support of the argument pertaining to the digital native concept in the society. The difference in students’ experiences and preparedness is caused by several factors, such as: access to technology; economic conditions; and less educated parents. Therefore, the governments are, hence, expected to become institutions that act as a mediator between technological advancements and students in the era of digital disruption. What is meant by mediator is that the institution should continue to innovate in providing and developing an education system that includes students’ mastery of digital skills. Solution for those problems is to increase the government role to implement digital literacy education for students in Indonesia. One of the best way is to strengthen the implementation of digital governance. Digital literacy is very important to be implemented in the primary, secondary, and even tertiary educational system because digital literacy matters as it helps student learning and citizenship by teaching students how to fine, evaluate, use and create digital content in meaningful ways. Digitally literate students will confident using digital content and tools in their learning. Digital literacy skills enable them to: find and access digital content that is fit for purpose; analyse and combine information to develop their own understandings; create and share digital content in purposeful ways. To better understand digital literacy, an understanding of the issues pertaining to digital literacy implementation is necessary. There are also impeding factors instigated by the government and the community in the implementation of digital literacy. Firstly, there is the matter of government readiness, which is an internal issue of the government in its implementation of digital governance. Secondly, the digital divide may also be considered an impeding factor which originates from within the community itself in relation to the implementation of digital governance. However, from a number of existing studies, it can be surmised that government readiness on implementing digital governance may be measured based on some of the following items: infrastructure availability, both physical and non-physical; civil servant aptitude in operating ICT; national income, which influence the country’s access to technology; and government collaboration with other stakeholders in implementing digital governance policy agenda.

Organizers

IGF Indonesia
Organizers : Indonesia – Internet Governance Forum (ID IGF) Co-Organizers : 1. Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT) of the Republic of Indonesia 2. Indonesian Digital Literacy National Movement: SIBERKREASI

Speakers

Proposed Speakers : 1. Mr. Cédric Wachholz, Programme Specialist, Communication and Information Sector, Knowledge Societies Division, UNESCO* 2. Mr. Gridl Rudolf, Head of Unit, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, Berlin* 3. Dr. Jovan Kurbalija, DiploFoundation* 4. Mrs. Mariam F. Barata, Director of Application Governance, MCIT Indonesia and Coordinator MAG Indonesia IGF 5. Mr. Muhadjir Efendi, Ministry of Education and Culture Repbulic Indonesia* 6. Representative from Google 7. Representative from SIBERKREASI Digital Literacy National Movement (WSIS 2018 Champion)

Online Moderator

Rizki Ameliah

SDGs

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

IGF 2019 OF #35
Strengthening Digital Transformation through Digital Securit

Description

The unstoppable development of internet and easy access to social media today is shadowed by the spread of fake news. This emerging phenomenon has become such a worry for government around the world. Looking at trust in the media, it is important to recognize that not all countries place the same level of their awareness of misinformation and disinformation. Tackling the spread of online fake news is not an easy task for government. Increasingly, policymakers around the world are searching new ways to deal with this problem. Instead, policymakers around the world should look forward initiatives and mechanisms that would encourage the formulation of regulation to deal with harmful forms of content.

At the global level, one-time MIT researchers reviewed a Twitter data set from 2006 to 2017, and analysed about 126 thousand rumours spread by around 3 million users. Then the fact is that the correct dissemination of the story (including clarification news) takes 6 times longer than the hoax to reach the level of exposure with the same number of people. Not only that, false news turns out that 70 percent is more retweeted than the actual story version

Indonesian government hold weekly ‘fake news’ briefings which aims to, at least, minimize the spread of disinformation in the social media. It also designed encourage Indonesians to think more critically about the news they consume. In addition, MCIT have designed a website called ‘stophoax.id’ that can accessible for public to cross-check the news and post the fake information that have been analyzed by the ministry’s team. Moreover, the National Police, particularly through its cyber crime directorate, have a procedure to be followed for fake news prevention called ‘preventive measures’, that is boosting digital literacy and diction so that the people can be wiser, smarter and more polite in using social media. According to forecast, the number of internet users in Indonesia is projected to grow to 150 million in 2023 (107 million by now). In 2014, it was estimated that around 87 percent of households in Indonesia had a mobile phone. Smartphone ownership in Indonesia has risen from 32.6 to 43.2 percent between 2014 and 2017. The number of smartphone users in Indonesia could reach as high as 96.2 million by the year 2021. But digital literacy has not followed.

In January 2019, Ministry of Communication and Informatics of Indonesia stated there were 175 hoaxes, and increasing to 353 news in February. The fact was so apprehensive considering Indonesia as the fourth most populous country on earth, and poses a large and fast-growing market for mobile technologies.

Some strategic steps could be implemented by governments such as: deeper systematic issues on how social media algorithms incentivize the spread of false or other forms of negative content; implement positive intervention include verifying the identity of people and organizations; regulation for social media and online news platform companies to create a public archive of all advertisements bought and sold to hold certain groups accountable for any dark advertisement.

Organizers

Ministry of Communication and Information Technology Republic of Indonesia
Organizers :
Ministry of Communication and Information Technology (MCIT) of the Republic of Indonesia

Co-Organizers :
1. Indonesian Digital Literacy National Movement: SIBERKREASI
2. Indonesia – Internet Governance Forum (ID IGF)

Speakers

Proposed Speakers :
1. Mr. Thomas Schneider (Ambassador and Director of International Affairs, Swiss Federal Office of Communications (OFCOM), Federal Department of the Environment, Transport, Energy and Communications (DETEC)*
2. Mr. Semuel Abrijani PAngerapan, Director General of ICT Application, MCIT Indonesia
3. Dr. Stephanie Borg Psaila, Interim Director, DiploFoundation*
4. Mr. Ryan Rahardjo, Google Indonesia*
5. Representative from European Commision
6. Representative from MAG Indonesia IGF

Online Moderator

Ivana Maida, Representative from SIBERKREASI Digital Literacy National Movement (WSIS 2018 Champion)

SDGs

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

IGF 2019 OF #37 Future Internet Governance Strategy for the European Union

Subtheme
Description

The interactive panel session at the Internet Governance Forum 2019 will include experts from different stakeholder groups to discuss their perspectives on the future of internet governance and the role of Europe, and aims to encourage audiences to join the conversation.

Fostering digital transformation is higher than ever on the political agenda of the European Union and has been identified as a priority for unlocking future growth in Europe. Cutting-edge digital technologies such as artificial intelligence or distributed ledger technologies do not only promise economic advantages, they are also shaping the structure of our society. 

This rapid diffusion of digital technologies asks for increased inclusive, multistakeholder and multidisciplinary collaborations to manage the internet, implementing new governance mechanisms that are fit for purpose for these new challenges.

Internet governance is now a top priority of several different public institutions and is becoming central to the geopolitical debate. The EU, as an important global actor, will play a fundamental role in setting standards and regulatory frameworks, as well as becoming a global trusted hub for ethical technology development.

The panel discussion will then unfold around few main questions:

  1. Does internet governance still appeal to all stakeholders, working together to foster on the internet the values that Europe holds dear: openness, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, cooperation, and the protection of data?  
  2. What concrete governance steps need to be taken for ensuring that innovation is driven by an ethical, sustainable and human-centric internet? 
  3. What role will the EU play as a global actor of internet governance in the coming decade? 

The session opens a window for discussing fundamental values that lead the way towards a new approach in internet governance. Moderated by Antoine Vergne (Missions Publiques), the Open Forum panel will consist of five experts with diverse backgrounds relevant for the future of internet governance.

Organizers

European Commission

Speakers

Panelists:

  • Andrea Beccalli, Director Stakeholder Engagement at ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)- Technical community
  • Olivier Bringer, Head of Unit “Next-Generation Internet”, DG CNECT, European Commission-  International organisation
  • Maarit Palovirta, Director of Regulatory Affairs at ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators’ Association)-  Private sector
  • Dr. Julia Pohle, Senior Researcher at WZB Berlin Social Science Center- Academia

Moderator:

Antoine Vergne, Missions Publiques

Online Moderator

Nina Van Der Giessen

SDGs

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. Does internet governance still appeal to all stakeholders, working together to foster on the internet the values that Europe holds dear: openness, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, cooperation, and the protection of data?  
  2. What concrete governance steps need to be taken for ensuring that innovation is driven by an ethical, sustainable and human-centric internet? 
  3. What role will the EU play as a global actor of internet governance in the coming decade? 
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Discussions evolved around the collective efforts of different stakeholders in working together to foster on the internet the values that Europe holds dear: openness, inclusivity, transparency, privacy, cooperation, and the protection of data. It addressed the concrete governance steps that need to be taken for ensuring that innovation is driven by an ethical, sustainable and human-centric internet. It also touched upon EU’s role as a global actor of internet governance in the coming decade.

One of the panellists, Dr. Julia Pohle argued that there is an increased interested by high-level stakeholders in the Internet Governance Forum. According to her, we experience a transitional phase, in which technical and clear objectives of internet governance (set 15 years ago) are now diversifying and diffusing into political/economic and social issues as well. Platformisation and digital scandals such as Cambridge Analytica affect the societal trust in the internet’s open characteristics.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

Issues today under the name of “internet governance” go far beyond the infrastructural components, applications and services of the internet. Therefore, Internet governance is transforming into to a broader definition of governance, better defined as digital governance. Concrete examples are automatic driving systems and localization of health related data, which do not address open/transparent characteristics of the internet.  Taking the ambitious goals of the European Green Deal and the UN Sustainable Development Goals into consideration, environmental sustainability should be prioritized on the internet governance agenda. Relevant to address in upcoming discussions on the future of internet governance, is therefore: how can we use ICT to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs).

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

Fostering digital transformation is higher than ever on the political agenda of the European Union and has been identified as a priority for unlocking future growth in Europe. Cutting-edge digital technologies such as artificial intelligence or distributed ledger technologies do not only promise economic advantages, they are also shaping the structure of our society.

6. Estimated Participation

150, balanced gender ratio

8. Session Outputs

During the 14th Internet Governance Forum in Berlin (25-29 November), Unit E3 “Next Generation Internet” held an open forum panel session with constructive discussions on the future of the internet. The session opened a window for discussing fundamental values that lead the way towards a new approach in internet governance. The multidisciplinary panel consisted of Andrea Beccalli (ICANN), Olivier Bringer (European Commission), Maarit Palovirta (ETNO), Dr. Julia Pohle (WZB Berlin Social Science Center) and was moderated by Antoine Vergne (Mission Publiques). Over 150 people participated. Critical questions from the audience involved topics such as: decentralisation, data privacy and ICT sustainability.

IGF 2019 OF #38 Exceptional Access and the Future of the Internet Security

Description

IGF 2019 OF #38 Exceptional Access and the Future of the Internet Security

The Internet Society Open Forum is dedicated to IGF participants that share the common goal of advocating for an open, globally-connected, trustworthy and secure Internet for everyone, and to our own Internet Society community comprised of chapters, organizational and individual members.

Encryption is a critical tool that helps keep people safe online by protecting the integrity and confidentiality of digital data and communications. Encryption technologies secure web browsing, online banking, and critical public services like electricity, elections, hospitals and transportation –and every citizen that relies on them. The Internet Society believes that strong encryption should be the norm for Internet traffic and data storage.

Despite the benefits of strong encryption, some governments have created policies or laws that undermine encryption and digital security, while others have expressed interest in similar measures.These measures aim to give law enforcement and intelligence agencies "exceptional access," the power to intercept and access encrypted communications or ask companies to do it for them. Exceptional access (sometimes called "lawful access") puts the security of Internet communications and data at risk and creates new vulnerabilities and cyber threats, jeopardizing the future of digital economy.

The Internet Society and the wider Internet community have continued to fight for strong encryption. In 2014, the Internet Architecture Board issued the statement on Internet Confidentiality, which was endorsed by the Internet Society Board of Trustees. The Internet Society also signed the Secure the Internet Letter. In our Global Internet Report 2017: Paths to Our Digital Future, our community raised concerns on government practices interfering with or weakening encryption. Internet Society chapters and individual members have actively opposed threats to encryption in their countries, whether in Australia, Germany, or elsewhere. In August 2019, the Internet Society, and thirty five other partners,signed an open letter alling on the G7 leaders not to undermine the security of encrypted services. Similarly, on Sep 4, 2019, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released the statement titled “Avoiding Unintended Harm to Internet Infrastructure” discussing possible unintended effects policy and regulatory proposals may have on the Internet. 

At this crucial moment for cybersecurity policy and the future of the Internet, the Open Forum will bring an opportunity to promote an interactive and collaborative session to tackle a key question: How can we further work together to promote and defend encryption from the threat of exceptional access?

Organizers

Internet Society

Speakers

Lead/Facilitator: Frédéric Donck, European Regional Bureau Director (Internet Society)

Speakers:

Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Senior Vice President of Strategy and Implementation (Internet Society)

Representative from ECO

Representative from ISOC German Chapter

Online Moderator

Nick Hyrka

SDGs

GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

At this crucial moment for cybersecurity policy and the future of the Internet, the Open Forum will bring an opportunity to promote an interactive and collaborative session to tackle a key question: How can we further work together to promote and defend encryption from the threat of exceptional access?

Questions for Breakout Groups

  • Is encryption under threat or likely to be under threat in your country? Why or why not?
  • What’s the type of threat?
    • Legal (FBI vs Apple), Policy (intermediary guidelines in India), Legislative (AA Bill or Investigatory Powers Act), etc.
    • Reasoning: Misinformation and Fake News (content moderation), terrorism, crime, etc.
  • What can you do, working with others in your small groups, over the next year, to protect strong encryption?

IGF 2019 OF #39
Artificial Intelligence – from Principles to Practice

Description

The transformation of society, government and industry being driven by AI systems requires coordinated and forward-looking public policy frameworks that are informed by government, industry, policy, technical experts and the public, to shape human-centric development and deployment of AI. This Open Forum will inform participants about the OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence and seek feedback on priority areas for AI public policy and ideas for multi-stakeholder co-operation.

The OECD’s Committee on Digital Economy Policy agreed to form an AI expert group (AIGO) in May 2018, which completed its recommendations to the OECD in Dubai in February 2019. The OECD’s Committee on Digital Economy Policy then built on the recommendations to develop the first intergovernmental Recommendation for AI in March 2019, that is expected to be adopted at the annual OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in May 2019.

The Recommendation promotes human-centric AI that fosters innovation and trust. Complementing existing OECD standards in areas such as privacy, digital security risk management, and responsible business conduct, the Recommendation focuses on the features specific to AI and sets a standard that is implementable and flexible, so as to stand the test of time in a rapidly evolving field.

The Recommendation identifies five complementary value-based principles for the responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI that are relevant to all stakeholders: inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being; human-centred values and fairness; transparency and explainability; robustness, security and safety; and accountability. It further calls on AI actors to promote and implement these principles according to their roles.

In addition, the Recommendation provides five recommendations to policy makers pertaining to national policies and international co-operation for trustworthy AI, namely: investing in AI research and development; fostering a digital ecosystem for AI; shaping an enabling policy environment for AI; building human capacity and preparing for labour market transformation; and international co-operation for trustworthy AI.

The OECD has started to move from principles to implementation with the second leg of our work on AI: the AI Policy Observatory to be launched in 2019. Through the Observatory, the OECD is working with a wide spectrum of partners from governments, industry, policy and technical experts and academia. The Observatory is a multidisciplinary, evidence-based and multi-stakeholder centre for policy-relevant evidence collection, debate and guidance for governments, while providing external partners with a single window onto policy-relevant activities and research on AI from across the OECD (more information on: http://oe.cd/ai)

Content of the Session

The first part of the session will focus on presenting and discussing the content of the OECD Recommendation on Artificial Intelligence and its role in helping to shape an international AI policy framework. Following an introduction to the Recommendation, Governments from several countries will provide their perspectives on its content.

In the second part of the panel, partner IGOs and technical, business and civil society representatives will be invited to discuss priorities to help policy makers move from principles to practice and priorities for the AI Policy Observatory. Interventions will build on the advanced initiatives underway including the IEEE’s Initiative on the Ethical Design of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, the Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society, the EC and UNESCO’s work on AI.

Interventions

1) The international AI policy framework and the role of the OECD principles for artificial intelligence:

Ms. Audrey Plonk, Head of Digital Economy Policy Division, OECD, will welcome speakers and participants to the OECD Open Forum on AI along with Mr. Yoichi Iida, incoming CDEP Chair, Japanese Ministry of Internal affairs and Communications (MIC-Japan), who will moderate the session. 

Ms. Karine Perset, Administrator – AI Policy, Digital Economy Policy Division, OECD, will present the process to develop the AI principles and next steps for the OECD to help implement the Principles (5 minutes). 

Ms. Makiko Yamada, Vice Minister, MIC-Japan, will presenta the origin of the AI Principles at the G7 in Takamatsu and the significance of the principles including in the G20 process (5 minutes).

2) Priorities for international and multi-stakeholder cooperation in moving from principles to practice, including through the AI Policy Observatory 

Mr. Rob Strayer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy, will provide the US Government perspective on the principles and the importance of helping countries to implement the principles, in particular through the OECD AI Policy Observatory (6-7 minutes).

Ms. Carolyn N’Guyen, Director of Technology Policy, Microsoft, will provide business perspective on priorities to implement the AI Principles (3-4 minutes).

Mr. Mina Hanna, Co-Chair of the "Policy Committee of the IEEE Standards Association's Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems", will provide technologists' perspective on priorities to implement the AI Principles (3-4 minutes).

Ms. Valeria Milanes, Executive Director of ADC (Association for Civil Rights) and CSISAC Steering Committee member, will introduce a civil society perspective on priorities for AI policy and implementing th OECD Principles (3-4 minutes).

Ms. Sasha Rubel, Programme Specialist, Knowledge Societies Division, Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO, will introduce UNESCO's perspective on priorities for AI policy and the linkages between UNESCO's work and the OECD's (3-4 minutes). 

Ms. Katarzyna Gorgol, Adviser, Digital Affairs and Telecommunication, Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations, will introduce the European Commission's perspective on priorities for AI policy and implementing the OECD Principles and EC's ethical guidelines (3-4 minutes). 

3) Discussants:

Mr. Charles Chew, IMDA (Singapore) will intervene on key AI governance developments in Singapore, Singapore’s participation in AIGO and in G20 (2 minutes).

Ms. Xiao Zhang, from CNNIC/CAC (China) will intervene on China’s priorities for AI development and on the G20 AI Principles (2 minutes).

4) Discussion: The Chair will moderate a short discussion and if possible take 1 or 2 questions from the floor (20 minutes). 

Diversity: This open forum is designed to provide diverse perspectives. It is balanced first in terms of stakeholder groups, with intergovernmental organisation representation through the OECD, UNESCO and the European Commission; private sector representation through Microsoft; technical community representation through the IEEE, and civil society representation through CSISAC. In terms of gender, the workshop will be balanced with the participation of at least three women. Participation of speakers from Asia, North America, Europe will ensure that the panel is geographically diverse.

Organizers

OECD

Speakers

• Mr. Yoichi Ida, incoming CDEP Chair, Japanese Ministry of Internal affairs and Communications (MIC-Japan). 

• Ms. Karine Perset, Administrator – AI Policy, Digital Economy Policy Division, OECD. 

• Ms. Makiko Yamada, Vice-Minister, MIC-Japan.

• Mr. Rob Strayer, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Cyber and International Communications and Information Policy, United States.  

• Ms. Carolyn N’Guyen, Director of Technology Policy, Microsoft.  

• Mr. Mina Hanna, Co-Chair of the "Policy Committee of the IEEE Standards Association’s Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems". 

• Ms. Valeria Milanes, Executive Director of ADC (Association for Civil Rights) and CSISAC Steering Committee member.  

• Ms. Sasha Rubel, Programme Specialist, Knowledge Societies Division, Communication and Information Sector, UNESCO.  

• Mr. Katarzyna Gorgol, Adviser, Digital Affairs and Telecommunication, Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations. 

Onsite Moderator: Yoichi Iida

Online Moderator: Nobu Nishigata

Rapporteur: Karine Perset

Online Participation:

Remote participation will be facilitated by the remote moderator who will frequently communicate with the remote participants throughout the session to ensure their views/questions are reflected. The workshop will be promoted in advance and during the IGF on the OECD websites and via social media, through the hashtag #IGFOECD.

Discussion facilitation:

The moderator will set the stage by providing context for the workshop, will make sure all the different perspectives are represented throughout the discussions and about halfway through the session will seek input and questions from the floor as well as from remote participants.

Online Moderator

Nobu Nishigata

SDGs

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The OECD’s AI Principles articulate five values-based principles (Inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being; Human-centred values and fairness; Transparency and explainability; Robustness, security and safety; and Accountability) and five recommendations for policy makers (Investing in AI research and development; Fostering a digital ecosystem for AI; Shaping an enabling policy environment for AI; Building human capacity and preparing for labour market transformation; and International co-operation for trustworthy AI).

The session planned to discuss priorities in the implementation of OECD’s AI Principles from various perspectives, including that of governments, business, the technical community, civil society and intergovernmental organisations. The session also planned to discuss the role of –and priorities for– the OECD’s AI Policy Observatory (OECD.AI), which is being developed as a collaborative platform on AI policy. Launching in February 2020, it aims to facilitate knowledge-sharing, measurement and analysis.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support for the AI Principles adopted by the OECD in May 2019. Speakers highlighted the complementarity and consistency between the OECD AI Principles and many other initiatives in Japan, the US, the IEEE, the Public Voice, UNESCO, the European Commission (EC) ethical guidelines, as well as Singapore and the G20 AI principles.

The OECD presented a ‘sneak preview’ of its AI Policy Observatory (OECD.AI) for launch in February 2020, including features such as guidance on the implementation of the OECD AI Principles, analytical resources across policy areas, trends and data and a database of national AI policies, along with country dashboards. There was a broad support of, as well as strong enthusiasm for, the OECD’s work in developing the policy observatory.

Speakers provided perspectives on the implementation of AI Principles and priorities of the work of the Observatory and there was broad agreement among all participants on:

-  the importance of promoting innovation through AI and at the same time putting in place appropriate oversight to ensure human-centric, responsible AI that respects basic human rights including privacy, as well as fairness and accountability and

 -  the importance of context and risk management approaches when implementing high-level principles for AI, for example, explainability may be critical or not depending on the use context.

Participant from national governments emphasised the importance of AI principles as a foreign policy priority, including in Japan and the United States.  EC presented following priorities on AI: 1/ encouraging investment in R&D, 2/ ethical frameworks, 3/ labor markets and improving skills through training.

There was discussion on the dual use nature of AI, that a tool that can be used as an enabler of good and poverty reduction but also for authoritarian purposes. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

There was broad agreement on the need to move from high-level principles to practical implementation. Singapore presented its “Model AI Governance Framework” as an example. There was strong expectation that  the OECD would continue to lead the international policy discussion on AI through the work on AI Policy Obsevatory (OECD.AI) to provide a collaborative platform on AI policy to facilitate knowledge-sharing, measurement and analysis in multi-disciplinary and evidence-based manner with global multi-stakeholder partners. Among others, Microsoft, which working closely with the OECD to provide live data of AI research and demand-supply of AI talents, emphasised the value of the Obsevatory to help evidence-based policy making.

There was also broad consensus on the importance of public-private partnerships and multi-stakoholder approaches to AI policy, acknowledging the role of all stakeholders in the AI lifecycle and the implementation of principles for trustworthy / human-centric AI. The IEEE, Microsoft and others emphasised their engagement in, and support for, multi-stakoholder approaches to AI policy making.

With respect to future contributions, the OECD looks forward to continuing to input into the IGF, including on development regarding the AI Policy Observatory.  

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

The examples provided in the session included: the OECD AI Principles of May 2019 that set the  first inter-govenmental standard for AI-related policy making; the OECD AI Policy Observatory that will constitute a collaborative platform on AI policy to facilitate knowledge-sharing, measurement and analysis; the Japanese government initiatives to lead discussions on AI in the G7 and G20; the Japanese government AI strategy; the US Government AI strategy “AI for American People”; Microsoft’s AI Principles; the IEEE’s Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems and development of P-7000 series of technical standards; UNESCO’s report on ethics of AI as well as the work to develop a standard-setting instrument on the ethics of AI; the Public Voice ‘Universal Guidelines on Artificial Intelligence’, as well as the policy and investment recommendations and ethics guidelines for Trustworthy AI developed by the European Commission’s high-level expert group; the Model AI Governance Framework developed by Singapore and initiatives in China such as the guiding principles toward the development of responsible AI.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

Some examples of multi-stakeholder collaboration were presented during the session, including: the multi-stakeholder process of the OECD’s expert group to scope the OECD AI principles, Microsoft’s engagement in the development of the OECD.AI Policy Observatory and its project in Singapore to develop principles for responsible AI in the financial sector, the activities of “The Partnership on AI to Benefit People and Society”, IEEE’s engagement in the policy development in US such as work with “AI Caucus”, the creation of the high-level expert group within the EC (EU-HLEG) and collaboration between the OECD and the European Commission as well as between the OECD and UNESCO. There was broad agreement that such collaborations are key to tackle global issues on AI, and that they should emphasise multi-stakeholder engagement, inter-disciplinarity and global participation. 

6. Estimated Participation

About 150 participants onsite, of which about half were women. We could not identify online participants from the session site.   

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

The discussion on gender and AI systems was led by Ms. Sasha Rubel from UNESCO, who explained how: (1) AI algorithms could embed gender bias due to uneven representaion of women in the dataset, (2) women’s participation in research, development and use of AI systems should be encouraged. “Women & AI Daring Circle” led by Microsoft is an example to facilitate women’s participation in this field. 

8. Session Outputs

OECD’s work on AI: http://www.oecd.org/going-digital/ai/

OECD’s AI Principles: https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449

G20 AI Principles:

https://www.mofa.go.jp/policy/economy/g20_summit/osaka19/pdf/documents/en/annex_08.pdf

US Government AI strategy: https://www.whitehouse.gov/ai/

Microsoft AI Principles: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/ai/our-approach-to-ai

Women & AI Daring Circle, led by Microsoft : http://www.womens-forum.com/initiatives/women-and-AI

IEEE “Ethically Aligned Design”: https://ethicsinaction.ieee.org/

The Public Voice “Universal Guideline for Artificial Intelligence”: https://thepublicvoice.org/ai-universal-guidelines/

European Commission “Policy and investment recommendations for trustworthy AI”: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/policy-and-investment-recommendations-trustworthy-artificial-intelligence

European Commission “Ethics guidelines for Trustworthy AI”: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai

UNESCO “Preliminary study on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence”:

https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000367823

UNESCO’s work on AI and ethics: https://en.unesco.org/generalconference/40/results

Singapore Government “Model AI Governance Framework”:

https://www.pdpc.gov.sg/resources/model-ai-gov

IGF 2019 OF #40 EU Delegation & Youth IGF Movement

Description

The main idea of the present proposal for an Open Forum is to share with the IGF multistakeholder community the concept and the outcomes of the Youth IGF Movement meetings that took place around the world. The format of the Open Forum is intended to be a debate between the Youth IGF Movement leaders and experts of the Information Society, namely the members of the EU Delegation to the IGF, as well as the representatives of the Asia-Pacific community, African countries and Latin America. We would like also to invite the leaders of the private sector for discussion with these young leaders. The Open Forum welcomes the representatives of other youth initiatives to enagage in an inclusive dialogue with the experts of the IGF community. The discussion between the experts and the young representatives will be focused on the main outcomes of the meetings organised by the young at national and regional levels. A number of pilot projects that have been created by the youth as a result of national and regional YIGF meetings will be presented. One of the focus points will also be to see how the recommendations which emerged from the Open Forum in 2018 have been taken into consideration at national and regional levels and what are the achievements. The Open Forum will also focus on the role of the youth on raising awareness on Internet safety.

Organizers

TaC-Together against Cybercrime International
EU Delegation to the IGF

Speakers

EU Delegation, incl. EU Parliament MEPs Nigel HICKSON - ICANN, VP Lori S. Schulman - INTA, Senior Director RIPE NCC (TBC) African Union -Moctar YEDALY, Head of Dpt. Youth IGF Algeria Youth IGF Indonesia Youth IGF Haiti Youth IGF Lebanon Youth IGF Portugal

Online Moderator

Ms SOUAD Abidi

SDGs

GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Full report available HERE.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Full report available HERE.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

Full report available HERE.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

Full report available HERE.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

Full report available HERE.

6. Estimated Participation

Full report available HERE.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

Full report available HERE.

8. Session Outputs

Full report available HERE.

IGF 2019 OF #43
Open Forum on conflict prevention, cooperation and stability

Description

The EU recognizes that the interconnected and complex nature of cyberspace requires joint efforts by governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, users and academia to address the challenges faced and calls on these stakeholders to recognize and take their specific responsibilities to maintain an open, free, secure and stable cyberspace. In this context the EU intends to organize an Open Forum at the upcoming IGF in Berlin on the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders in promoting "conflict prevention, cooperation and stability in cyberspace". This Open Forum will address the need for responsible normative behaviour by all stakeholders and should provide an outlook to further cooperation on the implementation of such behaviour within the mandates of each respective community. Different speakers are to contribute to an interactive panel discussion. Speakers are to be confirmed but we are aiming to have a speaker coming from each community, i.e. governments, private sector, civil society, technical community and academia. These various perspectives should provide an overall reflection on what it means to contribute to "conflict prevention, cooperation and stability in cyberspace" and what activities should be undertaken within the responsibility of each stakeholder to further contribute to this objective.

Organizers

European External Action Service

Speakers

Speakers are to be confirmed but we are aiming to have a speaker coming from each community, i.e. governments, private sector, civil society, technical community and academia.

Online Moderator

Rory DOMM

SDGs

GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

IGF 2019 OF #44 Disinformation Online: Reducing Harm, Protecting Rights

Description

This session will be a 60 minute discussion on approaches to tackling disinformation.

This session will consist of short presentations from each of the four speakers, each focusing on a different policy angle. The discussion will then be opened to the floor. The session will focus on the following areas, with suggested questions for panellists below:

  1. Addressing vulnerabilities in the online environment: public pressures, technological solutions and industry’s role.

  • How can technology be used to tackle disinformation? 

  • What role should service providers play in tackling disinformation on their platforms?

  • How can Internet platforms and media outlets work together to fight disinformation? 

  1. Developing regulatory approaches to tackling disinformation while upholding freedom of expression.

  • What is the role for regulation in tackling disinformation?

  • How can regulatory regimes ensure freedom of expression is protected? 

  1. Audiences: Impact, public perspectives on the problem, and the role of education.

  • How can audiences’ resilience to disinformation be increased?

  • Who are the vulnerable audiences?

  • Are audiences informed about disinformation? How do the public perceive the problem? 

  • How can the impact of disinformation on audiences be measured?

  1. Emerging challenges, deepfakes and VR technology: an international approach

  • What are the key emerging challenges in this area? 

  • How should we collectively responding to emerging technological challenges, and those that do not yet exist?

  • How can we respond to wider forms of online manipulation?

Organizers

Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, UK Government
Atlantic Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab)

Speakers

Moderator: Jakub Kalensky - Senior Fellow, Digital Forensic Research Lab

  • Damian Tambini - Associate Professor, London School of Economics

  • Miranda Sissons - Director of Human Rights, Facebook

  • Sebastian Bay - Senior Expert, NATO Stratcomms

SDGs

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-Being
GOAL 4: Quality Education
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 10: Reduced Inequalities
GOAL 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The challenge of disinformation: how can we reduce harm and protect human rights?

Disinformation is a multifaceted problem with no single solution. It is a global issue, with many countries concerned about its potential harmful impact on security, health and societal cohesion. The objective of this panel session is to discuss approaches to tackling disinformation, drawing on international examples and views from government, industry, civil society and academia, and encouraging cooperation and collaboration among partners.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The panel discussed the increasing issue of disinformation and manipulation online, with agreement that hostile actor tactics are regularly evolving and that, to counter this, diverse partnerships with representatives from a range of sectors is needed. There was significant discussion on efforts by platforms, particularly by Facebook, with recognition that while the platforms had taken significant steps more could be done. The increasing number of companies selling manipulation services online was raised, with some debate on the need to regulate such companies. Participants agreed that it was critical that the impact on human rights was closely considered before action is taken.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

The debate considered that Governments may wish to explore putting additional requirements on social media platform, including potentially changing the liability of platforms, increasing regulation to set consistent standards or reviewing competition policy. The panellists also consider other steps which could prevent disinformation, including  support for high quality journalism and increased provisions for media literacy. Other issues discussed included whether platforms could take steps like increasing transparency, granting data to researchers, or introducing content labelling to increase awareness of potential source biases. There was wide agreement that the whole community could consider standardising the terminology being used to describe these issues. 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

The discussion highlighted a number of measures that are already being taken, including:

  • A Whatsapp announcement on suing commercial companies who seek to undermine their platform

  • Facebook measures, including the new content oversight board, the ‘remove, reduce, inform’ policy, increased takedowns of inauthentic coordinated behaviour which are then publicly announced, and increasing partnerships with researchers.

  • The International Factchecking Network which is professionalising standards for fact checking organisations

It was also noted that some countries are introducing legislation to counter disinformation, including Vietnam, Singapore and Nigeria.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

The discussion outlined that progress could be significantly improved through increased partnerships between the various communities who are considering disinformation. This should include experts from cyber, tech, human rights, media and journalism. In addition, greater understanding of how users interact with information on social media platforms could be improved, including understanding the cues that that users need to make decisions about the veracity of content. 

6. Estimated Participation

Please estimate the total number of onsite and online participants: 140

Please estimate the total number of women present onsite and online: 60

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

There was some discussion on the need to protect human rights on social media platforms, and particularly protecting the right to freedom of speech but also that there should be some recognition of a need to be able to access truthful information. There was no specific discussion on gender. 

IGF 2019 OF #45
Information Sharing 2.0: privacy and cybersecurity

Description

It is widely recognized that sharing actionable information – information about vulnerabilities, malware indicators, and mitigation measures promotes cybersecurity. As cybersecurity law and policy has evolved, questions have been raised about the privacy implications of information sharing among organizations and between them and CSIRTs. Certain legislative texts such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation and the US Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015 tackles this uncertainty directly, by clarifying the conditions under which such information sharing is allowed. Still, there remain unanswered questions about the collection, use and sharing of such information, in light of heightened sensitivity to privacy protection in recent years. The aim of the discussion is to explore the intent and effects of leading legislative texts such as the GDPRand the CISA rules, in search of examples of balanced legal rules that can promote both cybersecurity and data protection. Drawing from the best practices put forth by the participants and comments from the audience, the panel will deal with the intent and pragmatic deployment of these and similar rules. The experiences shared can hopefully inform the global cybersecurity-privacy conversation for the benefit of stakeholders - CSIRTs, law and policy makers, privacy professionals and private companies - across the globe, in designing legal rules in this area. . The international community, by being receptive to such input, could enable the development of better global interfaces between domestic policies to enhance cybersecurity. Such an approach can constitute a fertile terrain for effective international conversations on cybersecurity to take place. Guiding questions: o What were the underlying considerations and legal factors behind the relevant provisions of the GDPR, CISA and other relevant legislative texts? o In practical terms, how have these provisions been understood and implemented by the private and public sector in the context of cybersecurity? o A majority of the processing activities in the cybersecurity context is focused on machines and not on their users, and the data collected is mainly technical. How does that affect the analysis of applicable data protection laws? o What are the main lessons for developing cyber law and policy? o What are the main issues to take into account for global interoperability in this area?

Organizers

Israel National Cyber Directorate

Speakers

Isabel Skierka, Researcher, Digital Society Institute (DSI), ESMT Berlin (Moderator) Mr. Amit Ashkenazi, Head of the Legal Department, Israel National Cyber Directorate  Andrew Cormack, Chief regulatory adviser, Jisc technologies, https://www.jisc.ac.uk/staff/andrew-cormack

SDGs

GOAL 3: Good Health and Well-Being
GOAL 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure
GOAL 17: Partnerships for the Goals

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

What are the challenges and opportunities of information sharing?

How do different jurisdictions treat this issue?

What are lessons for promoting cooperation and information sharing

 

 

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The discussion dealt with untangling some of the conceptual issues related to cybersecurity and privacy, and how to carry out this exercise, when promoting domestic policy.

 

There was broad support for the utility of the discussion, and additional relevant examples were brought up.

Long post-session report phase            

The discussion aimed to highlight the role of domestic legislation and legal rules in order to support cyber defenders. The conclusion was that the EU General Data Protection Regulation serves as an important example in that it clarifies in Recital 49 that information processing and sharing for a cybersecurity purpose is legitimate. Thus it recognizes that cybersecurity protects privacy by preventing attackers illegally accessing  personal data. This specific rule has value because it reduces the level of legal risk to cyber defenders, and reduces some of the complexities that inevitably accompany modern data protection regimes. Thus this policy serves to promote defense.

 

By abstracting from the concrete issue to a more general view of law, technology and policy of this specific issue, the session also highlighted the value of pragmatic dialogues and concrete solutions between technologists and lawyers. Promoting these conversations has value both for domestic policy making, and can also assist promoting better global interoperability of legal frameworks.

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

From a governance point of view, there is room for more focused discussions on issues which can support cyber defenders. Thus there is value in mapping legal constraints or challenges to cybersecurity best practices. Based on this mapping, there is value in having a multistakeholder,multi jurisdictional discussion amongst relevant professionals to discuss the contours of the issue, and to enable to better scope it. Based on this exercise, productive discussions can be conducted to promote common understandings and ways forward.

 

 

 

Long post-session report phase

             

Many governments are promoting, developing and deploying domestic cybersecurity polices. In this context, government has a role not only as a regulator or operator of the national CSIRT, but also as an institution that can convene stakeholders, assess the need for clearer legal rules, and creating domestic legal change when necessary.

 

The IGF can support these processes as part of a global multistakeholder discussion by bringing together different professions and groups, and global perspectives.

 

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

Short post-session report phase (due 12 hrs after the session concludes): Please share any examples, projects, initiatives mentioned that are addressing the issues tackled in the session. [max. 100 words] 

 

During the session, participants discussed the issue of access to WHOIS registration data, which holds details about the registrants of internet domain names. This data supports decisions about the level of risk from a certain domain name. As a result of data protection analysis, access to this data has changed, and some participants commented that this issue should be revisited.

Long post-session report phase (

During the IGF 2019 there was a parallel discussion about "Use and Misuse of the DNS", which also analyzed in a pragmatic manner the issue of preventing misuse of the DNS system while following accepted principles related to content.

 

This lead to the conclusion that there are other technical and legal issues which affect cyber defenders and that robust discussion can promote dealing with them.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues

Some issues require further technical-legal discussions within the domestic context. The IGF can help in promoting  consistent terminology and analysis, as well as interoperability.

Long post-session report phase

 

The IGF 2019 in Berlin served as an excellent venue to meet global stakeholders, hear viewpoints, share views and allow reflection on the issues from the IGF's unique place in the governance discussion. The themes discussed in the session connected to the general themes in this area, and raised the interest of industry, academia, and non governmental organizations. As such they have proven the discussion valuable and therefore is seems useful to promote this type of discussion in an even more developed manner towards the next IGF.

6. Estimated Participation

Onsite participants - 50. 

Women - half. 

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues

There was no discussion of gender issues. 

8. Session Outputs

The IGF 2019 in Berlin served as an excellent venue to meet global stakeholders, hear viewpoints, share views and allow reflection on the issues from the IGF's unique place in the governance discussion. The themes discussed in the session connected to the general themes in this area, and raised the interest of industry, academia, and non governmental organizations. As such they have proven the discussion valuable and therefore is seems useful to promote this type of discussion in an even more developed manner towards the next IGF.

Mr. Cormack posted his ovservations here: https://community.jisc.ac.uk/blogs/regulatory-developments/article/laws-help-security-and-incident-response

By abstracting from the concrete issue to a more general view of law, technology and policy of this specific issue, the session also highlighted the value of pragmatic dialogues and concrete solutions between technologists and lawyers. Promoting these conversations has value both for domestic policy making, and can also assist promoting better global interoperability of legal frameworks.

 

These conclusions fit in with some general reflections in this area that came up during the discussions in the 2019 IGF.

First, the concerns about greater divergence and legal unclarity, as described in the "Internet and Jurisdiction Global Status Report" [https://www.internetjurisdiction.net/news/launch-of-worlds-first-intern…]. This report highlights the risk of growing fragmentation because of legal issues that apply to the internet.

In the context of the session on information sharing, a recurring theme that came up was that even when  there is actually no legal conflict between cybersecurity and privacy, the perceived lack of clarity on this issue can by itself have a chilling effect on activities which are legal and socially positive.

Second, the importance of having a constant dialogue between technologists and lawyers. As the importance of technology in society rises, so does risk and legal risk, and these need to be handled. Legal advisors to National CSIRTS face these challenges constantly, and therefore are faced with new challenges and need to create new balanced frameworks to support the cybersecurity mission.

Third, the institution and mechanism for creating more clarity and facing these new challenges can be different between jurisdictions, and depends upon societal factors. While legislation seems the first choice, the issue of technological neutrality and enabling innovation may require other choices, or combination of intuitions.

Fourth, whatever the process for arriving at more clarity, it needs to be inclusive and transparent, and involve a multistakeholder approach.

Finally, having similar discussions and hopefully similar or compatible legal answers across jurisdictions can promote clarity for domestic professionals which may be under foreign rules, and for cross border cooperation.

Whereas there are dedicated organizations to deal with technical aspects of cybersecurity, there is a need to complement this discussion with the policy and legal aspects that can support them, in a multistakeholder fashion. The IGF can promote the global discussion and practical measures that will promote stability and security.