IGF 2019 Reports
Public Health Online: Shadow Regulation-Access to Medicines
1. How do we move beyond the Brussels Principles for the Sale of Medicines Over the Internet [www.brusselsprinciples.org] towards standards and guidelines that aim to protect public health and consumer choice? We hope to survey outstanding digital governance and regulatory challenges, while exploring potential regulatory, legislative and policy opportunities.
2. The Internet & Jurisdiction Global Status Report 2019 highlights the lack of international coordination and coherence to address cross-border legal and regulatory challenges associated with the Internet. Can the multi-stakeholder approach that led to the Brussels Principles serve as a model for advancing the discussion of digital governance of internet pharmacies?
3. What are the opportunities and challenges associated with the dot-pharmacy top-level domain as a digital governance approach to regulating internet pharmacies? We hope to examine how the dot-pharmacy domain is managed, including how minor adjustments could enable a ‘white list’ model that would improve consumer safety and choice.
The panel discussed a practical case study on Internet pharmacies that reflected key challenges posed by German Chancellor Angela Merkel on translating rules from the physical to digital realm.
There was broad support among panelists and the audience that consumers should be able to acquire safe and legally manufactured medicines online. Little progress has been made in harmonizing rules and standards to enable such access to safe and affordable medicines over the Internet; a norm-based approach based on the right to health was seen as more favorable than the current restrictive enforcement approach. Panelists also recognized a “hybrid regulatory regime” formulation that provides for intermediaries and pharmaceutical industry influence, largely outside the purview of Internet users.
Since adequate regulation of online pharmacies has been limited at a global scale, confusion persists on the difference between rogue medication markets vs. legitimate Internet pharmacies. This has impeded the ability to generate trust in this important sphere.
It was also argued that the debate of health online has a basis in broader human rights questions, while touching on core Internet governance themes such as jurisdiction, responding to content abuse, and online security.
Panelists also agreed that there is a need for cross-national and international institutional approaches to defining frameworks that reconcile jurisdictional limitations.
There was consensus that the multi-stakeholder approach presents opportunities to further the development of standards and best practices. Credentialing and accreditation of online pharmacies should be global in scope, unbiased and targeted at blocking rogue actors.
The role of intermediaries was also noted, with the “.pharmacy” gTLD holding the potential to ameliorate matters, as well as pilot Trusted Notifier programs aimed at appropriate rapid takedowns.
A significant variety of stakeholders agreed that a whitelist model has better potential to protect consumers, to remove rogues actors, than blacklists.
Organizational: The Internet increasingly shapes the lives of billions of people around the world, including the right to health. At the same time, the theme maintains little visibility within Internet governance, including the IGF. The subject should be given more attention by organizers, and receive space to be discussed at a main session or as a high-interest topic, so that the audience can engage this practical case study about access and health that shares many of the broader conversations across the Internet governance community.
Technical: It is critical to address malicious actors and “rogue pharmacies” that undermine the safety and choice of consumers online. This can be achieved by: exploring Trusted Notifier programs within registries, registrars and hosting providers; creating blacklists to slow down criminals, while pursuing whitelist approaches that facilitate trust and improve access among consumers. These technical approaches need to be discussed among relevant stakeholders in order for legitimate norms to be made viable.
The panelists dedicated significant time to discussing the ‘Brussels Principles on the Sale of Medicines Over the Internet’ (www.brusselsprinciples.org). This was the product of two years of debate and discussion at RightsCon Brussels (2017) and Toronto (2018), as well as consultations with state-, non-state and technical experts. The outcome was seven principles that reflect human rights norms, in order to ensure “policies that affect online access to medical products aim to be evidence-based and patient-centered, including consideration of the fact that affordability and local availability can be significant barriers to access” [Principle V]. The Brussels Principles were also cited in the Internet & Jurisdiction Global Status Report 2019 as an innovative example of norms informing Internet governance rule-making.
Another relevant initiative is the multi-year research program at York University (Canada) that focuses on regulatory approaches to Internet pharmacies. This project is led by one of the IGF panelists (formerly of the World Health Organization), who also presented a comprehensive discussion paper that stimulated significant discussion. A range of private and non-profit organizations are also actively engaged on this issue. A forum like IGF, however, is essential to facilitate a multi-stakeholder approach to balance competing interests.
IGF: Despite significant interest by community members, the IGF ecosystem has been largely disconnected from debates of health online. Organizers have an opportunity to facilitate dialogue at future events by expanding programming around practical case studies. In addition to endorsing the normative and forum-setting role of the UN, the increased visibility could also stimulate necessary multi-stakeholder engagement to address cross-jurisdictional issues with significant human impact.
ICANN: As the community moves towards discussions concerning DNS Abuse, the time is right to explore Trusted Notifiers programs, while further seeking avenues to better define the role of new gTLDs such as .pharmacy for the Internet as a whole.
Academia: research and policy streams are emerging at the intersection of Internet governance with regulation and global health, including the well-received discussion paper presented during the panel. Further opportunities include dialogue on collaborative, evidence-based approaches to cascading norms into standards and best practices.
Participants: 20, Women: 10.
The session discussed access to health online in relation to all people.
Unpacking Digital Trade Impacts: Calling all Stakeholders
What are the implications of today’s emerging international trade policies for the Internet and those who use it around the world?
To what extent do policy discussions and policies of international trade reflect human rights?
What multi-stakeholder policy advice should be taken into consideration in the formulation of digital trade norms and agreements?
1. Definition of digital trade. Disagreement on whether it was a useful framing. Despite this, one participant noted, trade forums do influence internet governance; the choice to disregard the concept and not engage at these forums means their influence will be lost.
2. Impact of digital trade. Data flows were the primary focus from multiple participants: privacy vs. free flow of data. Wider than simply internet governance: issues covered included internet-enabled platforms like Uber. These are important issues for developing countries.
3. Influencing digital trade. There was agreement among two participants that civil society groups should engage in their chosen area of expertise and not over-extend. If digital trade is within that focus, one described a coalition building method that had influenced the G20 previous. One audience member from the WTO described WTO efforts to spread information on the topic.
1. Overarching governance issue: IGF would benefit from reporting from digital trade-related organizations (WTO, OECD, G20) at the annual Forum, so that civil society organizations that may not be able to attend diffuse meetings across multiple organizations can be informed in order to decide if they should engage at particular forums.
2. Economic and governance issue, best dealt with at WTO, OECD, G20, and member states: provide funding and open processes for civil society organizations to meaningfully participate in setting agendas and substantive deliberations on digital trade issues.
Open Letter to G20, initiated by Internet Society, Mozilla, and World Wide Wide Foundation: https://g20openletter.org/open-letter; https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2018/08/01/g20-digital-process-trust-requires-more-transparency-and-inclusion/
Cathleen Berger from Mozilla described her efforts to build a large coalition of NGOs to influence the agenda at the G20. Mozilla is now consulted by the G20. Civil society organizations interested in influencing proceedings there may benefit from contacting her.
35 total participants, 15 women.
The session did not touch on gender issues.
WTO staff suggested interested parties consult the Electronic commerce site, where she posts events and informative links on the left: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/ecom_e.htm
Policy Questions
(i) What should ICANN and other bodies be doing to enhance the multi-lingual aspects of the Internet through the DNS;
(ii) What effective measures should be taken to ensure Universal Acceptance of all domain names;
(iii) What are the next steps for all parties to work together to enhance Universal Acceptance
The discussion clearly demonstrated the problem faced by both those advocating for an Internet with diverse linguistic content and those involved in advoating for Universal Acceptance. Essentially there is market failure as there is insufficient incentives for developers, operators or DNS players to make their systems UA/IDN friendly given the low take up for such names, itself because of lack of UA. Latter demostatred by dreaful fact that 81% of IDNs taken up "parked".
The Session clearly demostated the problem, the mechansims for addressing it, not least through the UA Steering Group and the focus needed on the public sector. Was clear that "market"; or guidance and advice are not going to solve the market failure.
The overall problem of poor take up of IDNs and critical need for Universal Acceptance are being addressed by the UASG (as described by Dr Data in Session) and the Dynamic Coalition on DNS issues (DC-DNSI) that has taken up the cuase of Universal Acceptance.
It was identified that both a bottom-up and top-down appraoch is needed. In latter case the use of porcurement and standards are one potential vehicle for mandating service porvision that recognises all domain names.
There were eight on-line Patticpants (2 women) and around 80 present (roughly 35-40% women.
No specific gender issues
- How can we develop the Internet in Small Island Developing States (SIDS), while at the same time, overcoming the ongoing challenges of inclusion, access, and accessibility?
- Will the global trend of increased regulatory actions by state actors affect the future of the Internet in SIDS?
It is expected that the DC-SIDS would discuss what have been the major achievements, opportunities, challenges and obstacles to the development of the Internet in SIDS over the last 12 months and work towards ratifying a concrete plan of action to make meaningful advancements in 2020.
The session started with the moderator, Tracy Hackshaw, DC-SIDS co-coordinator from the Caribbean region, introducing the agenda for the round table discussion and inviting updates from DC-SIDS participants on how the Internet ecosystem in the island states have been shaping up, with reports from local and regional Internet Governance-related Projects.
DC-SIDS co-coordinator, Maureen Hilyard, from the Pacific region shared a report from the Pacific Islands focused on bolstering cooperation between different island states for a more inclusive internet ecosystem. The contributions of different entities like ICANN, Internet Society, APNIC and Dot Asia was discussed in capacity of their support to the development of Internet in the island states.
One of the participants, a Director with Trinidad & Tobago Multistakeholder advisory group raised the concern of how creating awareness of Internet Ecosystem within different entities could be obtained with people from different backgrounds trying to assess the challenges of Internet and at times there might arise a conflict which may be difficult to handle and is left to the discretion of a single entity like the Government. The engagement of Youth and provisions for people with disabilities in the island developing states was discussed with possibilities of innovations like brail keyboards and smart sensors to assist them. The participant from Nicaragua shed some light on the projects pertaining to Internet development, advocacy, human rights, and technology being used in rural area development which can be replicated similarly in small island states for the betterment of Internet services.
Inputs were also generated on how civil sector society, the government, the technical community and the private stakeholders have been trying to abridge the gap of deployment of Internet services into the island developing states and how they can further take initiatives to disseminate more information for the people of island states and also foster the growth of Internet in these regions.
The formal adoption of Dynamic Coalition on Small Islands Developing States (DC SIDS) Action Plan was discussed with inputs from all participants and the possibility of forming sub committees to implement action plan in various island states was also included in the talks. A suitable platform for collaboration and knowledge transfer through a website for “Dynamic Coalition on Small Islands Developing States” (DC-SID) in the Internet Economy was discussed and a call for volunteers to assist in building the same was also initiated in the session.
Participants from Maldives, Jamaica, Australia, the Philippines, the Caribbean, Nicaragua, South Africa, Japan, Trinidad & Tobago, Egypt and India provided their inputs on how the telecom and the internet have been shaping up in their respective territories or SIDS, and contributed to the DC-SIDS action plan by discussing the challenges and future course of how the Internet economy could be made more prosperous with contributions from different sectors in the SIDS.
Participants from Maldives stressed upon how the role of civil society’s has been negligible in the space of Internet Governance and how technology can be leveraged to reach out to more people in the island states. The Caribbean and the Philippines region advocated for a multistakeholder approach with a capacity building framework, so that some amount of pressure is relieved from the Government’s side and processes shape up swiftly without any hindrance.
The South African participant abreast the participants on how physical infrastructure is essential for setting up internet exchange points on the basis of feasibility studies done in the small island states.
Development of DC-SIDS Website
-
Practical way of getting things done, need a platform where they could collaborate
-
Development of Content of the website (Sala agreed to lead, additional volunteers required)
Platform to support IGFs in SIDS regions
- Agreement reached to establish a Platform to support IGFs in SIDS regions (Pacific, Indian Ocean, Caribbean, Africa)
- Recommendation received to establish a dedicated SIDS IGF (Rhea Yaw Ching volunteered to lead)
Onsite Participants: 25
Remote Participants: 2
Women: 13 (present) 2 (online)
Female participants from Nicaragua, Australia and Mauritius also raised voices for the cause of gender inclusion and the involvement of women in ICT and Internet Governance, as they believed it would give a push to the marginalized sector in the island states to stand up for their cause and advocate better for the use and penetration of Internet.
PACIFIC ISLANDS
2019 has been an active year for Pacific involvement in the internet economy from the perspective of the organisations in which I and my Pacific colleagues are involved. What we first demonstrated is that originating from small island communities in the Pacific does not restrict one’s opportunity to become a leader within large international organisations like ICANN which manages and allocates domain names and IP addresses globally. I was very honoured that my ALAC colleagues elected me to be their Chair for 2019, and again for the upcoming year. It has enabled me to use my organisational management skills which I did by distance learning from Rarotonga through Massey University in New Zealand.
My Cook Islands colleague, Pua Hunter, was also elected at the recent ICANN meeting to be a regional Vice-Chair for the Government Advisory Committee (GAC). She is already the Chair of the GAC’s Underserved Regions Committee. Such leadership roles have also been achieved by others from SIDS in other internet-related organisations to show that being from small islands mean does not necessarily mean that we will go unnoticed if we are prepared to be active in our commitment and passion for what we are attempting within and for our regions.
The Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society got a boost at the elections last year, when 4 former PICISOC Board leaders returned to the Board, to try to rejuvenate and boost its membership to become more active within their Pacific communities. The Board has re-established its website and started populating it with local articles about successful IT-related activity on the more active islands — particularly in Fiji where many leading Pacific organisations hold their events. The greatest success for us has come about through successful women in IT who have written about their achievements and put them on our website.
One notable success has been a NZ Unitech graduate from Nauru, Branicia Itsimaera who is the only woman working in the area of IT on her small island of Nauru. She now has a Bachelor of Computing Systems degree. This is not an easy achievement in anyone’s world but when you come from a small island developing state and you are a woman, this is particularly significant.
During the Asia Pacific Regional IGF which was held in July in Vladivostok, Russia, PICISOC was represented by two Board members, Maureen Hilyard of the Cook Islands and Anju Mangal of Fiji. We picked up a new recruit, James Ah Wai from Samoa, who although a first time attendee of any IGF event, took to his speaking tasks like a duck to water. He came from a background of general interest in internet governance, and soon after his return to Samoa took on the role of President of their newly formed Samoan Information Technology Association.
One significant event for Pacific Islands school students this year was the participation of 11 countries from the Pacific region in the FIRST Global Challenge, an international Olympics-style robotics event established three years ago to encourage children to pursue science and engineering careers. FIRST stands for “For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology”. Samoa finished first of the Pacific Islands contingent with a ranking of 26 out of 193 countries, Cook Islands came second of the Pacific participants in a very creditable 30th place for their first time in the competition.
Another development that has happened for the Cook Islands is the establishment of a Centre of Excellence in information technology. This is a joint collaboration project of Government of India and the Government of Cook Islands to offer specialized training programmes in the field of ICT to the citizens of Cook Islands, where each programme is customised to meet the needs of the local business community. This is a major move forward for international collaboration where the outcomes of the donorship are specifically beneficiary-country-centric.
CARIBBEAN
Trinidad & Tobago
The Trinidad and Tobago Multistakeholder Advisory Group (TTMAG ; https://mag.tt/) convened the third annual Trinidad and Tobago Internet Governance Forum (TTIGF) on January 25th, 2019 from 9AM to 5 PM at the Trinidad and Tobago Chamber of Industry and Commerce, Westmoorings, Trinidad and Tobago. The theme of TTIGF2019 was “The Internet of Trust” in keeping with the International Internet Governance Forum 2018.
There were 85 face-to-face attendees including panellists, special invitees and TTMAG Directors, and 270 views of the livestream via YouTube.
The TTIGF 2019 featured three panel sessions :
-
Caribbean Data Protection Regulations (CDPR)
-
Cultural Factors in the Caribbean Affecting Trust & Privacy for Digital Security
-
Using Technology to Increase Trust in Public Institutions
-
Open Forum
The meeting report and recordings are available at https://igf.tt/trinidad-and-tobago-internet-governance-forum-2019/
GUYANA
The Ministry of Public Telecommunications, in collaboration with the ITU has recently completed a skills training programme for local web developers to develop applications with features to facilitate access by Persons with Disabilities (PWDs). The University of Guyana is currently exploring the possibility of integrating the training programme into the Computer Studies curriculum. Part of the overall support the Ministry of Finance is also granted VAT exemptions for PWDs purchasing smartphones and related devices.
The Ministry of Public Telecommunications via its agency the National Data Management Authority is in process of providing internet access to over 150 communities in the Hinterland areas some 250+ miles away from the Capital City, Georgetown. The overall goal to provide connectivity to close to 300 hinterland communities in the south of Guyana. The Ministry is also conducting trainer the trainer sessions to begin the process of ICT training at the community level.
The Council of Trade and Economic Development (COTED) Ministerial meeting in November agreed to propose to the Caricom Heads of Government that a combined approach be made to the regional telecommunication firms to eliminate roaming charges throughout the Caribbean region.
National Roundtable discussion to begin in December on the development of eCommerce legislation and the draft National ICT strategy. The roundtable discussions are intended to reflect the views of the Private Sector, Academia and Civil Society
St. Vincent & the Grenadines
The Internet Society St. Vincent and the Grenadines Chapter convened the 2nd Internet Governance Forum on April 12, 2019 under the theme, “the pressing need for security of the Internet of Things (IoT)”. It was held at the SVG Community College, targeting the student who attended the college. The key discussion points were the following:
1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) with IOT devices
The use of artificial intelligence (AI) with IOT devices drives the reason why the IoT devices should be secured. AI is known as the third phase of digital evolution. It is utilised in many areas and platforms such as Google AI, Amazon Echo, Facebook, elevators that interact with occupants to detect safety, smart cities to interface with people living in the city and drones now have the ability to move around obstacles.
2. IoT and Policing
The need to use innovative technology to solving crime is paramount. Technology is important in the transformation of the police force in St. Vincent the Grenadines. Hence, the police has an important part to play in the security of the IOT by sensitizing the public of internet safety and integrating technology to solve crime and ensure public safety.
IoT will provide real time information of licenses of vehicle owners and license plates and also will provide a link to databases use for criminal investigate.
Benefits of integrating IOT in law enforcement include, the digitizing of data, increase the ability to identify suspects and solving problems faster and finding ways to work smarter and harder. It will uncover issues before they arise and become widespread.
3. Securing devices
Several challenges in securing devices: were discussed. These include:
· Critical functionality
· One attack can be replicated across all devices
· Security assumption-there is a myth that embedded devices are not target of hackers
· Devices deployed are not easily updated or patched
· Long life cycle of embedded devices is typical longer than PC or consumer devices
· Propriety industrial specific protocols
Security requirement must take into consideration the cost of security, economic, social, environment consequences. Security must be considered in early stage of device designs. Security features that should be considered include: secure boot, security code update, data security, user authentication, secure communication, protection against cyber attacks, intrusion, detection and security monitoring, embedded security management, device tampering detection.
Digital skills training for girls
Caribbean.Girls.Hack Digital Skills Training
The Caribbean.Girls.Hack – 2019 Hackathon (CGH), celebrates the ITU Girls in ICT Day, giving hundreds of girls in High School and Universities a 2-month immersive and interactive experience in the use of technology to address SDG issues affecting them in the Caribbean. This year participating countries included Jamaica, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Supporting the global Girls in ICT movement, empowers girls and young women, giving them the confidence to pursue ICT studies and careers, and fosters a more dynamic technology sector, providing extensive benefits for companies and our overall economies at large.
SheLeadsIT-Caribbean Girls Hack is a member of the ITU EQUALS Skills Coalition and will continue to push forward with EQUALS initiatives seeking partnerships to implement initiatives to bridge the gender divide across the region.
To date, SheLeadsIT-Caribbean Girls Hack has achieved a 600% growth in 3 years, over 3500 participants across 6 countries (including Guyana) participated, using technology to build innovative products including websites, mobile apps, short films & videos, podcasts as well as learning about robotics and drone technology. Through virtual features students heard from female role models in technology from Google, LinkedIn, NASA, Facebook, Web Foundation, Microsoft and others, inspiring them to look beyond conventional career roles and to take full advantage of the new opportunities offered by the digital revolution. Here are the highlights:
2019 videos:
Trinidad: http://www.looptt.com/content/watch-saghs-girls-dominate-caribbean-girls-hack-2019
Jamaica: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1DrRvxHVIFnvGxCAg1zdg2bweO00NnBGu
2018 Video: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PVQRIsHEGRsB9835JQRgHSl11U5KrORM
Caribbean Regional Hackathon To Date
Key facts:
-
Over 3500 participants across 6 Caribbean countries
-
Over 60 Schools, Universities and Colleges
-
Activity challenges using multiple ICT tools to address specific regional issues including gender-based violence, cyber-bullying, environmental management and climate change and resilience
-
29 Sponsors/Supporters/Partners from key private sector entities, public sector and academia
-
Over 80 Technology Mentors
-
65 Local, Regional and International role model Technology Virtual Speakers
Highlights:
-
SheLeadsIT-Caribbean Girls Hack (CGH) member of the ITU EQUALS Skills Coalition
-
CGH Alumni 2019 to be featured as the exclusive Youth in Caribbean Disaster Management Speakers using tech in climate change solutions created at CDEMA Conference December 2019
-
CGH Barbados Winners featured as exclusive youth speakers at Smart Barbados IGF and ISOC Barbados Conference (October 2019)
-
CGH Alumni 2019 featured as the exclusive youth speakers presenting tech solutions at UNECLAC Subregional preparatory meeting of the XIV Regional Conference on Women in Latin America and the Caribbean (June 2019)
-
CGH Alumni 2019 Winner receives prestigious Microsoft Scholarship Grace Hopper Award, as one of ten chosen worldwide, attending Grace Hopper Celebration Conference (October 2019)
-
3 Hackathon Alumni selected and participated in the Huawei Seeds of the Future focused on developing local ICT talent, enhance knowledge transfer in the telecommunications sector, and encourage regional participation in the digital community (August 2019)
-
Trinidad teams met with the President of Trinidad and Tobago Ms. Paula-Mae Weekes with regional partner RSC Tech Clubs
-
Google technical training webinars, Google Experts Onsite Townhall Chat with students and Google Prizes
-
LinkedIn virtual trainer/speaker, IBM Trainer, ToonBoom Animation trainers
-
Facebook & Microsoft speakers Onsite Townhall Chat with students
-
Private sector activities using Virtual Reality, Digital Puzzles, Robotics and Drones
-
Tech Expo gave students first hands-on experiences with gaming, snapboards, robots, cybersecurity, green screens etc.
More successes since 2017:
-
Trinidad & Tobago winning team hackathon product won a Launch Rocket local tech start-up competition with IADB prize of US$10,000
-
Spectrum Management eGov Jamaica paid 2019 summer internships (5 students)
-
Hackathon winning team (Trinidad) placed in the top 50 at Microsoft International Tech Start- Up competition 2018
-
Students secured valuable summer Tech internships with private sector partners (2018
-
3 permanent job placements including Design Engineer from the Hackathon summer internship program with a private sector awards sponsor in Jamaica
Artificial Intelligence – from Principles to Practice
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
About 150 participants onsite, of which about half were women. We could not identify online participants from the session site.
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.
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”:
Should we tackle illicit content through the DNS?
The policy questions were:
1) Is “blocking access to illegal online content in the level of DNS infrastructure” as effective as “removing illegal content by taking action against the owner/publisher or the hosting providers”?
2) Should DNS operators play any role in general efforts aimed at tackling illegal content on the Internet? If DNS operators have any role to play, should they bear the same responsibilities as hosting providers and publishers of illegal content or should they have a different legal treatment? What are the risks inherent to a one-size-fits-all approach to the matter?
The expectations about the session were:
-
Consequences of actions taken towards the DNS;
-
Responsibilities: Illegal content, DNS suspension and stakeholder’s cooperation as a solution;
-
Potential impacts on the global DNS and ICANN’s remit
Initially, a distinction was made between deletion and suspension of a domain name. Mr. Bertrand de la Chapelle highlighted that when questioning under which conditions would that be appropriate to act at the DNS level to address inappropriate contents.
Ms. Manal Ismail argued that in some circumstances there are legitimate reasons behind government demands for content removal.
Ms. Polina Malaja recalled ccTLDs are just technical operators, with the responsibility of operating DNS infrastructures for their own TLD, as well as maintaining the registry database. She provided an overview of ccTLD responsibilities and experiences from countries of Europe that have chosen different approaches for solving DNS conflicts.
Mr. Thomas Rickert said DNS manipulation may be mishandled by operators who disregard the most appropriate measures to remove contents. He emphasized that the issue should be correctly delimited, in order to provide the appropriate response, reducing the visibility of content, helping the victims and stoping abuse scenarios.
Mr. Miguel Estrada indicated reasons for not acting at the DNS level in order to solve problems related to contents, from technical to legal perspectives. He also stressed that brand owners are working to provide tools to legal professionals, so as to find those responsible for illegal online contents, instead of asking judges for taking down domain names.
Ms. Jennifer Chung raised a warning that illicit content may also be found in legitimate websites, so there is no way for a registry operator to surgically remove it. The options available for a registry are complete suspension, holding and/or removing it from the view, but those who have a record of the IP address may still be able to access that content. Registries cannot use their current frameworks to address this situation.
- Provide judges and prosecutors with information and appropriate tools so that they find those responsible for the contents.
- Help spread the word about the risks involved in taking actions at the DNS level and that host providers and content owners are the appropriate actors to whom the actions should be pointed out in the first place.
- Define clear thresholds to guide actions at the DNS level, as well as define some sort of chain of actions to be tried in first place.
- Foster more multistakeholder dialogue and collaboration so as to reach consensus solutions to diverse problems related to this debate.
The speakers told that the “Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network” has provided an excellent venue for discussing issues related to DNS and content removal efforts.
The IGF ecosystem was not mentioned in the session, although multistakeholder collaboration through different Internet Governance fora was something addressed by the speakers.
- 102 participants on site participants (39 women)
- 6 online participants (1 woman)
This topic appeared in the session when Mr. Bertrand de la Chapelle (Internet & Jurisdiction) addressed it as a category of international normative consistency to be covered when solving emerging illegal content issues. The sexual orientation, which involves gender issues, is the fourth category to ensure more urgent measures like suspension at the DNS level. In his own words: “not only there is no agreement, there is also a strong disagreement, because some countries consider that the legislation of another one shouldn't exist”.
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?
- 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?
- What concrete governance steps need to be taken for ensuring that innovation is driven by an ethical, sustainable and human-centric internet?
- What role will the EU play as a global actor of internet governance in the coming decade?
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.
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).
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.
150, balanced gender ratio
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.
- How do we best mobilize and challenge policymakers and stakeholders to come together and take constructive steps towards addressing cross-cutting impediments germane to the unlocking of the digital potential of DLDC imperative for it to realize the promise of the new digital age?
- An overarching factor for digital inclusion is the need to have highly resourced human capital across the entire spectrum of DLDC labor market and in this respect, what capacity and capability development options are there to foster inclusive DLDC youth and labor force participation in the evolving digital economy?
AfICTA was the principal organiser of the Workshop with the support of the EITESAL, ICT-Professionals of Namibia, Kontemporary Konsulting Ltd and the ICANN Business Constituency among others. To mobilise and challenge policy makers and stakeholders to come together and take constructive steps towards addressing cross-cutting impediments germane to the unlocking of the digital potentials of DLDC, it was discussed that there is need for self-awareness of the stakeholders to embrace and use internet governance forum platforms in-country and within their regions to articulate critical digital policy directions for their countries. In many cases, there are relevant policies and laws but the gap is the political will to implement those policies. Training and retraining of policy makers would create necessary regulatory know-how for action. A good means of mobilization is for there to be regular South-South peer review through existing regional and international mechanisms. A one-stop portal (broadbandpolicy.org) for policy analysis as a best practise tool would enhance policy makers ability to evaluate the relevance of their policy positions/documents to the contemporary needs of the people. The involvement of parliamentarians would also provide necessary impetus with the instruments of law to unlock the digital potentials of DLDC. A novel approach to steer policy makers to action is for solution providers to deliver life changing solution (e.g.in financial management, transportation etc) for which policy would then do a catch up. It was summarized that clear policy actions should deliver connectivity and electricity as priorities for the realization of the SDGs.
- Government is encouraged to believe that they do not have it all and as such should embrace multi-stakeholder approach in all policy making and implementation efforts i.e. foster cooperation among all stakeholders.
- The ICT sector should not be over-taxed. In essence multiple taxation should be abolished as a priority.
- Ease of doing business should be enhanced to attract foreign direct investment.
- There should be flexible regulatory frameworks.
- Governments should invest heavily in the youth and the people in general. Policy makers too should be well equiped to carry out their responsibilities.
- School curricular should be revised and enhanced as a matter of urgency
- Focus should be on the development of local solutions because no e-solutions means digital divide and locked digital potentials.
- DLDC should consider electricity as a critical infrastructural right for all citizens to guaranty access and the realization of the SDGs.
- South-South collaboration should be enhanced across all sectors.
- Regulatory institutions are advised to transform by name and policy to unlock the digital potentials for the benefit of their citizens. For example, a telecommunication authority can be transformed to a Digital Society Authority.
The workshop noted several projects and initiatives as follows:
- AfICTA Information Hub for African countries - www.aficta.africa
- Africa IGF Internet Governance Forum
- IBM Policy alignment initiative: www.broadbandpolicy.org
- IBM elearning frameworks for advanced skills: https://www.ibm.com/case-studies/dna and www.ibm.biz/digitalintelligence
- IBM - what it means to be digitally intelligent: www.coalitionfordigitalintelligence.org
Making progress for tackled issues, speakers recommended the localization of discussions among policy makers and stakeholders to review progress and proffer improvements particularly through national and regional internet governance fora among other mechanisms for multi-stakeholder engagement. Policy makers are to ensure evidence based policy that enhanced youth and gender access and also ensure ease of doing business to promote foreign direct investments.
There were an estimated 30 onsite participants, of which about 9 were women.
There were 5 online participants, of whom 2 were women.
The session discussed gender issues with regard to gaps in access and connectivity. It was noted that evidenced based policy making would help ensure that the depth of those gaps can in equal measure be addressed.
- What would characterize effective confidence building measures to develop trust and reduce tensions in cyberspace?
- How should confidence building measures in cyberspace mirror those used in conventional domains of conflict and in what ways should they differ?
- What role can other stakeholder groups play in helping states both develop and implement confidence building measures for cyberspace?
Panelists from government, industry and civil society, from Europe, Asia and the United States discussed the importance of developing meaningful confidence building measures (CBMs) to reduce tensions and mistrust in cyberspace, and the potential for escalatory consequences. While all panelists agreed on the importance of such efforts, there were different priorities emphasized and approaches presented.
From the outset, the representative from industry shared the challenges associated with being a digital service provider caught in the midst of geopolitical conflict in cyberspace, and without the relationships or infrastructure necessary to engage with governments and other actors in the issue space. The representatives from the EEAS highlighted how CBMs in cyberspace should seek to leverage the principles of CBMs in other domains. Meanwhile, the representatives from OSCE and Singapore emphasized the need to build trust not only between nations, but across stakeholder groups as well.
There was particular emphasis during the workshop about the importance of including further discussions of CBMs in multistakeholder forums like IGF. In addition, panelists noted the need for cybersecurity CBMs programs to expand beyond national and regional efforts, as the challenges themselves are truly transnational and require engagement from countries across the globe.
The representative from EEAS explained how Europe was working to adapt the principles of traditional CBMs to the cyber domain. The representative from Singapore walked through programs being implemented across the ASEAN region that focused on providing ongoing, multi-year training to build up the capacities and understandings of target communities in nations across the region. The representative from OSCE explained how they deployed teams to the field to provide CBM trainings to officials in their member states.
Panelists seemed to be in agreement that progress on CBMs can be difficult to track with particular metrics. They recognized that it is straightforward enough to measure how many trainings are given, programs implemented, and register feedback, but truly understanding the impact of the resulting trust and understanding is difficult to capture. However, despite these challenges, panelists noted the importance of being able to continue to adapt and adjust programming based on the needs of respective countries and organizations, to continue expanding them to additional stakeholders, and to keep pace with innovations in the threat environment.
50 onsite, unclear online. Roughly half of those onsite were women.
While the panel was gender balanced, gender as an issue area did not feature prominently in the discussion.