IGF 2023 Reports

Worldwide Web of Youth: Cooperation for Enlightenment let young people to present their projects aimed at involving youth in the field of internet governance, developing digital literacy and involving youth in IT.

Pavel Pozdnyakov: the Summer School on Internet Governance, the “Digital Reality” discussion club, the CC Youth Council and a special course for young people held on the eve of the Russian Internet Governance Forum. Pavel also added that the Russian IGF traditionally concludes with a youth session, where young people present Russian projects related to internet governance, and speakers from other countries share their experience in involving young people in the field of internet governance.

The Center for Global IT Cooperation spoke about its youth projects, in particular about the Youth Internet Governance Forum (Youth RIGF), which has been held every year since 2021, as well as about the initiative born on the sidelines of this Forum - the Institute of Youth Digital Ombudsman.

Marko Paloski and Shradha Pandey explained how you can be involved in the ISOC Community and what opportunities will be open for you after that. They pointed out that this is a great platform to start learning about Internet Governance and be involved into the IG movements. Also, this is a good platform to present your own projects in digital literacy or other relative field. Supportive youth will always help you.

All of the speakers advised to start your projects within your own country or region. They also encouraged more tech youth to be involved in the IG movement and IGF itself make online participation more meaningful for everyone. 

Radical Imaginings-Fellowships for NextGen digital activists (Day 1, 16:30-17:30 UTC+9)

Young people need to be at the forefront of shaping the digital institutions and economies of today. But how do we create enduring pathways to effectively support this goal? How can we bring the voices of the most vulnerable into youth-led action? What models and approaches can we look to that are already in play? What are their successes and where are they falling short?

This networking session aimed to kick-start a community dialogue around re-imagining a model for fellowships that can facilitate early-career scholars and activists to be engaged in truly transformative work on the digital economy, and pioneer visions for feminist, sustainable, equitable and just alternative futures. It focussed on:

• Understanding the needs and challenges of young activists working in CSOs, research organizations, academia and trade unions

• Identifying key areas and types of work that remain significantly under-resourced and overlooked towards digital justice

• Determining short to mid term priorities for action and the fora for advocacy

The networking session brought together young activists and professionals, organizations and grant makers to draw from their experiences and debate and deliberate upon the challenges for and possible solutions and good practices concerning fellowships in the field of digital governance/digital activism.

Challenges discussed

• Highly competitive nature of fellowships (competition between fellows of similar background/field)

• Online-only character of some fellowships that might limit accessibility

• Lack of continuity between the fellowship period and after, where former fellows join a very competitive field afterwards without further support

• Limited funding avenues apart from from Big Tech funders

• Lack of involvement of fellows in the design of projects they work on

• Defining fellowships in a too narrow way “digital” (e.g. not considering social or environmental challenges)

Solutions/good practices discussed

• Inviting fellows from different fields and places to lower the internal competition

• Involving fellows in the governance of the fellowship programs, e.g. through electing future cohorts of fellows or by co-designing the projects

• Being flexible with the goal of the fellowship as people’s lives change and new opportunities or limitations arise

• Involving fellows in all activities of the hosting organization and not just a distant add-on

• Fostering networking among fellows with internal and external partners

• Extending greater trust to fellows in balance with guidance and mentorship

• Tapping into alumni networks as a way to support fellows post tenure

• Centering respect and trust in funding, having limited rules on what to spend the money on and allowing fellows to prioritize resources

   

The inequality of the digital economy presents an urgent challenge to development and democracy. If Agenda 2030 is to be realized, bold and committed action is needed to a) share the benefits of digitalization with all countries and peoples, b) govern digital resources democratically, and c) make digital policies and laws fit for catalyzing innovation that counts. The ultimate test for a well-guided digital transition is in the public and social value it can create, and the human freedoms it can expand. The political declaration adopted at the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development in September 2023, rightly alludes to the participation of all countries in the digital economy. Its focus on infrastructure, connectivity, and the affirmation of digital rights of people is noteworthy. The Global Digital Compact (GDC) will need to carry this consensus forward, with nuances of the particularities required for our common digital future.

The 2023 Internet Governance Forum (IGF) pre-event in Kyoto on ‘A Global Compact for Digital Justice: Southern Perspectives’ was proposed by the Global Digital Justice Forum, the Dynamic Coalition on Platform Responsibility, and the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Rights and Principles to explore the central question: how can we build a GDC that furthers digital justice, especially in the majority world?

The event brought together speakers from governments and civil society in a multistakeholder dialogue structured in an innovative ‘BUILD IT, BREAK IT, FIX IT’ format.

The BUILD IT round delved into the promise of the GDC to fix global governance deficits in digital cooperation as seen from the prism of intergovernmental organizations in charge of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) lines, governments, and civil society representatives. The following speakers made inputs during this round.

• Amandeep Singh Gill, UN Secretary-General's Envoy on Technology

• Regine Grienberger, Cyber Ambassador, German Federal Foreign Office

• Shamika N. Sirimanne, Director, Division on Technology and Logistics, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

• Alison Gillwald, Executive Director, Research ICT Africa

• Renata Avila, CEO, Open Knowledge Foundation

The session began with the UN Tech Envoy Amandeep Singh Gill’s inputs, who affirmed the idea of building through the GDC, a shared vision and a global framework for digital governance that is negotiated by governments but is open to participation by regional organizations, private sector, and civil society. He emphasized the need to a) shape a transition away from a solutions orientation to ecosystems and infrastructures for digital development, and b) go beyond the connectivity paradigm, and shift the attention towards digital public infrastructure to create inclusive innovation spaces that focus more on capacity.

Regine Grienberger, Cyber Ambassador from the German Federal Foreign Office, began by acknowledging the continued digital gap/divide and its significant impact on the SDG process and suggested that this be an important focus of the GDC. Grienberger also advocated for the consultative process to take a local/national to global approach, and emphasized the need to engage in more cross-regional discussions, especially on issues like artificial intelligence (AI). Additionally, he made the critical observation that the GDC process needs to be anchored in the basic tenets enshrined in cornerstone UN documents, such as the Human Rights Charter.

In her input, Shamika Sirimanne from UNCTAD observed how the gains of connectivity have been skewed, with a few transnational corporations and nation-states being able to embrace the digital revolution optimally while others lag behind. Given that the structural inequalities in the digital order compound the effects of other inequalities, we are confronted increasingly by a digital inequality paradox, where, as more people are connected, digital inequality is amplified. In this context, Sirimanne underscored that the GDC process had an imperative to go beyond the connectivity paradigm and bridge the gap between actors who possess the technological and financial resources needed to harness the digital and those who don’t. She outlined the need for quality and affordability of access, skilling opportunities to navigate the digital economy, and equal participation of countries in the global regime to shape the rules of the game so that the opportunities of the digital paradigm could be reaped more equitably.

Meanwhile, Alison Gillwald from Research ICT Africa pointed to the most pressing global challenges of our time, which include the climate crisis and the issue of widening inequality, including digital inequality as a starting point to her input. These need to be addressed through a collective and collaborative renewal of the social contract that was anchored in human rights and gender equality in order to rebuild trust and social cohesion and enhance digital inclusion. Like Sirimanne, Gillwald observed that the layering of advanced digital technologies over underlying structural inequalities compounds the effects of digital inequality, especially in regions with glaring infrastructure and capacity deficits like Africa. In this regard, she noted that the GDC process needed to focus on infrastructure and digital public goods.

The concluding input of the round came from Renata Avila from the Open Knowledge Foundation who argued that for many countries of the Global South contending with a severe debt crisis and lack of resources, decisive action that could address the geopolitics of global inequality and injustice was the top priority. Avila emphasized an urgent need for financing and international commitments for the development of digital infrastructure, skills, and regulatory capacities for all countries to navigate the terrain, as well as renewed commitments from international financial institutions towards these goals. Additionally, she pointed to the unmet promise of knowledge equality and the trend of knowledge capture of think tanks, academia, and civil society by Big Tech. In this regard, she held the reform of the IP regime as an important agenda for the GDC to take up.

The BREAK IT round in turn, critically interrogated the efficacy and effectiveness of the proposals in the GDC across its various dimensions, focusing on information disorder, AI and human rights, reining in Big Tech power, guaranteeing a free and open internet, and IGF reform for effective digital governance mechanisms at the global level. The following speakers made inputs as part of this round.

• Helani Galpaya, CEO, LIRNE Asia

• Alexandre Costa Barbosa, Fellow for the Weizenbaum Institute and Homeless Workers Movement - Technology Sector, Brazil

• Nandini Chami, Deputy Director, IT for Change

• Megan Kathure, Afronomicslaw

• Dennis Redeker, University of Bremen and Digital Constitutionalism Network

Helani Galpaya from LIRNE Asia noted in her critique of the GDC process that several developing countries when faced with an immense challenge of fiscal squeeze, focused on devoting resources to basic development needs and were unable to spare attention on digital governance issues, which compromised the dialogue and involvement within the process overall. Galpaya also highlighted the inability of the GDC to address the disparity of national regulations on critical issues such as taxation and grapple with the unacknowledged reality of a highly digitally fragmented landscape, which made consensus building a difficult proposition. Additionally, she pointed out the failures of the multilateral system in being unable to hold its own member states accountable for draconian digital laws and policies that were harmful to citizen rights, something that the GDC process had not really taken into account.

In his input, Alexandre Costa Barbosa from the Weizenbaum Institute and the Homeless Workers Movement - Technology Sector, Brazil, focused on the key aspect of sustainable digital public infrastructure (DPI) and the lack of clarity around the concept. In the absence of a multistakeholder dialogue or collective definition, this important aspect of the GDC was in danger of being defined and captured by a Big Tech spin of the discourse, rather than allow for the possibilities of interoperable, open, and accessible DPIs that are locally responsive. Barbosa additionally pointed to the silence on the critical issue of labor and contended that the GDC process must have more discussions on this topic in particular its connections to the field of generative AI.

Nandini Chami from IT for Change in her critique, underscored how the aspirations of the WSIS seem to be forgotten and waylaid in the GDC processes. She further observed that the reduction of data rights to privacy as is prone to, in current discourse simply erases data extractivism, which continues to be the fault line of geopolitical and geo-economic power. In this context the GDC process did not fully recognize that rights in data extend to people’s claims over data resources, and their right to collectively determine how they see value generation from digital intelligence.

Pointing to the inversion of basic rules for the marketplace in the way Big Tech controls public functions, recasts society and citizens into individual users and consumers, and squeezes labor in the transnational AI chains, Chami urged the audience to push back against the silent consensus that Big Tech cannot be regulated. She called on political commitment to begin the change and member states to measure up in this regard.

Meanwhile, Megan Kathure from Afronomicslaw observed that the historical choices in internet governance that had enabled the rise of Big Tech had also given rise to a narrative of ‘limits of multistakeholderism’ in bringing forth a global digital constitutionalism. She stressed that the fundamental issue with the current GDC process is that it risked entrenching the regulatory dilemma of global governance of the digital and affirming this narrative. In her input, Kathure highlighted two gaps in the current GDC process. The first is that it failed to acknowledge the complementarity of rights with state duties and simply expected states to refrain from certain actions without enshrining correspondent duties. She argued that the GDC must go beyond taking multilateral commitments from states and corporate actors and needed to outline a regime of consequences for inaction, thus dealing head on with the realpolitik of global digital governance. Second, Kathure observed that the GDC process did not conceptualize human rights holistically and discussed the fact that current proposals did not capture the indivisibility of human rights adequately.

In the concluding input for the round, Dennis Redeker from the University of Bremen and Digital Constitutionalism Network, highlighted emerging findings from research on how the general public in various countries viewed the consultative process. Redeker highlighted the discrepancies in agendas that dominated vis-à-vis those that people held as important and expressed wanting more involvement in, and pointed to the a consensus among general public about reduced involvement of the private sector in policy processes.

In the FIX IT round, the session rounded up responses towards the issues raised in order to conclude with a forward-looking roadmap on what the GDC needs to foreground for furthering an inclusive, people-centered, development-oriented digital future. The following speakers made inputs as part of this round.

• Ana Cristina Ruelas, Senior Program Specialist, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

• Anriette Esterhuysen, Senior Advisor, APC

• Prapasiri “Nan” Suttisome, Project Officer, Digital Rights, Engage Media

• Emma Gibson, Global Coordinator, Alliance for Universal Digital Rights for Equality Now

• Luca Belli, Professor, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School, Rio de Janeiro

Ana Cristina Ruelas from UNESCO, highlighted the regulatory efforts undertaken by UNESCO for a new platform society. Ruelas observed that a lot of ground needed to be covered in the local-to-global regulation of social media platforms and the algorithmic control. Additionally, she pointed to the fact that no one actor could solve all issues and proposed the idea of a regulatory framework of networks, which would allow stakeholders to take a more interconnected approach to digital governance.

Anriette Esterhuysen from APC urged stakeholders to look at the existing norms and principles in the digital space as a starting point. She also held that the GDC was not being meaningfully informed by the current state of digital inequality and urged for this tokenism to be challenged. What is to be put at the center is not the techno-fascination of the corporate narrative but a people-created and -controlled narrative. Esterhusyen called for a feminist and radical vision of digital transformation in this regard. She stressed on the importance of granular data and public statistics to allow for a clear cognizance of the depth and breadth of economic injustice and the uneven distribution of opportunities associated with the digital.

Prapasiri “Nan” Suttisome from Engage Media, in her input, pointed out how powerful countries use free trade agreements to stifle digital rights of peoples and countries in the Global South. Trade rules are used to arm twist governments to hyperliberalize data flows, take away local autonomy of public authorities to govern transnational corporations and their algorithms, prevent the scrutiny of source code, and legitimize a permanent dependence of developing countries on the monopoly corporations controlling data and AI power. This kind of infrastructural dependence is tantamount to a neo-colonial order and Suttisome observed that unless the indecency and impunity of some actors in the digital space is countered, and countered now, any compact is bound to fail.

Meanwhile, Emma Gibson in her input presented the work being undertaken by the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights (AUDRi) for Equality Now, and called for the adoption of a universal digital rights framework, rooted in human rights law and underpinned by an intersectional feminist perspective. The GDC needs to be a feminist process to be truly transformative. She presented the nine principles developed by AUDRi based on equal protection from persecution, discrimination, and abuse; equal access to information, opportunity, and community; and equal respect for privacy, identity, and self-expression

In the concluding input, Luca Belli from FGV presented three structural challenges that made the GDC process ineffective. Belli pointed to the issues fragmented landscape, which went beyond geography and also extended to the trend of taking siloed regulatory approaches to digital issues; the presence of outsized political and economic interests that played against policy strategies (for instance between private sector and domestic governments) and the fact that for the private sector, the bottom line of shareholder interest always trumps public interest, making regulatory compliance a challenge at all times. By way of remedies, Belli suggested moving the GDC in a manner that grapples honestly and boldly with its implementation challenges.

As awareness grows of the limitations of a purely technological definition of connectivity, as well as of the complex economic, social and cultural implications of the increasing ubiquity of the internet, the need to find a way to realise the goal of a human-centred internet grows. This session drew on the experience of libraries around the world as institutions (staffed by a profession) focused on the practicalities of how to put people in touch with information, and to help them use it to improve their lives. 

Winston Roberts (National Library of New Zealand (retd)) set the scene, highlighting the place of libraries in the original WSIS Agenda, which of course included strong reference to connecting libraries and the value of multi-purpose public access centres. He highlighted that while 20 years had passed, the evolution of the internet had only underlined the importance of having institutions like libraries in order to support universal and meaningful use, as part of a broader approach to internet governance. Thanks to this, it was not only possible to deal with the worst excesses, but also to unlock some of the potential that the internet creates in order to achieve goals around education, social cohesion and beyond. 

Nina Nakaora (International School of Fiji) highlighted the work that libraries had done in particular during the pandemic in order to provide access to learning materials. Again, this illustrated the value of having actors in the wider internet system focused on ensuring that public interest goals were achieved, especially where the market was unlikely to create solutions. She highlighted that, at the same time, to play this role there was a need for libraries to benefit from investment in hardware, connectivity and skills to deliver this.

Rei Iwaski (Notre Dame University, Kyoto) reflected on the Japanese experience of providing information services through libraries. She echoed the point made by Nina Nakaora that this is a potential that can only be realised when libraries are integrated into wider planning. Their cross-cutting missions meant that they often did not fit easily into any one policy box, and also needed to build their own sense of agency as actors in internet governance.

Misako Nomura (Assistive Technology Development Organisation) highlighted the particular situation of users with disabilities. Once again, this illustrated the need to move beyond a laissez-faire approach, and to look at how to connect people with opportunities. Her work included both developing materials for persons with disabilities and ensuring access to technology and wider support. With an ageing population, finding ways to bridge accessibility gaps would be an increasingly important part of wider digital inclusion efforts, and so a strong and properly resourced set of institutions to do this would be essential. 

Woro Titi Salikin (National Library of Indonesia) brought practical examples, again, of the power of facilitating institutions such as libraries in helping people to make the most of internet connectivity in order to deliver real-world change, in particular focused on gender inclusion and supporting entrepreneurship. The Indonesian experience demonstrate that it was possible to make change happen at scale through the right balance of centralised support and local flexibility to adapt services to circumstances. 

The subsequent discussion highlighted the following key points:

- the need to integrate libraries into wider strategies in order to realise their potential. Indonesia offered a strong example, with the close connection between the national library as coordinator of a wider network and central government. Elsewhere, this wasn't the case, and opportunities were being missed

- the fact that librarians too often lacked the sense of agency and skills necessary to fulfil their potential as facilitators of digital inclusion. The sector was at risk of remaining in traditional roles, especially when partnerships with other actors could not be formed. There was a need to build awareness of the responsibility that libraries have in the digital world

- the fact, nonetheless, that libraries do have a unique and flexible role in society which could be mobilised to support a wide range of different agendas

Collectively, the conclusions pointed in the direction of the need to reaffirm the role of libraries, both as a means of activating libraries and librarians themselves, but also to state the case for the place of libraries both as actors in internet governance processes, and as partners for delivery. This is at the heard of IFLA's Internet Manifesto Revision, currently underway, to which all participants were invited to contribute. 

On 7 October, 2023, the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), Sula Batsu, Nodo TAU and May First Movement Technology convened a pre-event discussion to the global IGF, focusing on cooperative models and approaches to transforming technology frameworks for the planet.

During the discussion, speakers from Sula Batsu, Nodo TAU and May First Movement Technology shared experiences from their work, emphasizing the critical importance of participation and accountability in cooperative models and approaches to technology.

Kemly Camacho reflected on the experiences of Sula Batsu in learning how to put care at the center of their business models using approaches that are rooted in feminism, solidarity, and collective care.

Speaking from the experiences of May First Movement Technology, Jaime Villareal shared his perspective on the importance of members of May First being able to collectively own, govern and maintain autonomous infrastructure.

From Nodo TAU, Florencia Roveri described the processes and challenges of transforming their e-waste management and recycling plant into a cooperative, and the value of working with existing cooperatives. Florencia reflected on the need to extend responsibility for electronic waste, and shift perspectives on the dangers of discarded technology.

Yilmaz Akkoyun, Senior Policy Officer of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), reflected on the discussion from the perspective of the BMZ priorities for digitalisation, emphasizing that cooperation is essential in a holistic approach to address the root causes of the complex problems facing the world today.

Becky Kazansky, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Amsterdam, framed the discussion of cooperative approaches to technology by reflecting on recent policy developments, and the importance for all stakeholders not to get distracted by technologies and tools that on the surface seem quite promising for mitigating and adapting to climate change, but have proven to be quite harmful for communities around the world.

On-site participants in the event shared questions and reflections on how transforming technology frameworks can be supported in practice, including through amplifying the work of cooperatives like Sula Batsu, Nodo TAU and May First Movement Technology.

Speakers emphasized the need for robust and community-led accountability mechanisms, support for environmental defenders, and shifting perspectives and narratives towards more technology frameworks that prioritize collective care.

Combating information pollution with digital public goods report

This lighting talk opened with an overview of the Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA) which is a multi-stakeholder initiative to accelerate attainment of the sustainable development goals by facilitating the discovery, development, use of and investment in digital public goods. The DPGA “defines digital public goods as open source software, open data, open AI models, open standards and open content that adhere to privacy and other applicable laws and best practices, do no harm, and help attain the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” An example of a DPG is District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2), is the world's largest health management information system platform. This was followed by an overview of GitHub. GitHub is a complete software developer platform to build, scale, and deliver secure software with 100+ million software developers and used by 4+ million organizations from governments to international development organizations. Open source software like digital public goods are built on GitHub. 

This session focused on how digital technologies are essential parts of our lives and provide solutions to some of the world’s greatest challenges, we must urgently recognize, and help solve their downsides. This is particularly true regarding online information pollution, which has grown to be a cause of distrust and obfuscation. During this session the speakers provided an overview on how policies are needed to combate deep fakes, analyze online news media, verifying crowdsourced data, monitor technology companies’ legal terms, improve access to government policies and lastly, gain insights into the influence of digital technologies on societal conflict.

Mis- and disinformation are typically addressed through reactive measures against specific attacks or proactive prevention efforts. While these approaches are necessary and valuable, they are inherently endless and fail to address the root of the problem. Exploiting vulnerabilities for political gains will always attract malign actors, outnumbering those interested in prevention.

The issue of disinformation arises from vulnerabilities in the tools that mediate the information environment. These vulnerabilities persist because fixing them conflicts with the economic incentives of large platforms. Therefore, it is crucial to increase the costs associated with leaving these vulnerabilities open and provide incentives for their resolution. Alternatively, obligations should be imposed on actors to compel them to address these vulnerabilities.

The session provided two examples with Open Terms Archive publicly records every version of the terms of digital services to enable democratic oversight. They address a critical gap in the ability of activists, journalists, researchers, lawmakers and regulators to analyse and influence the rules of online services. Open Terms Archive enables safety by equipping actors who are already engaged in addressing these vulnerabilities. It amplifies their capabilities and facilitates connections for mutual reinforcement, ultimately enabling more effective action.

The second example is Querido Diario, developed by Open Knowledge Brazil, it addresses the challenge of accessing and analyses official decision-making acts throughout Brazil’s cities. With no centralised platform available, the only reliable source of information is in the closed and unstructured PDF files of official gazettes where they are published. To tackle this information gap, Querido Diario’s robots help collect, process, and openly share these acts. Launched over a year ago, it has grown into a comprehensive repository with more than 180,000 files, continuously updated with daily collections. Querido Diario helps combat information pollution by providing a transparent and reliable source of data that can be used to fact-check and counter false narratives, enabling informed analysis and promoting accountability. The primary users are researchers, journalists, scientists, and public policy makers and it helps benefit various sectors including environmental researchers and journalists, education NGOs, and scientists working with public data. Today, Querido Diario’s coverage reaches 67 cities, where 47 million people live. The next steps involve scaling up to include all 26 Brazilian states and at least 250 cities. The project aspires to incorporate Natural Language Processing models and integrate its data with other public datasets, helping users contextualise information even more.

Finally we closed with a discussion on a gradient approach to AI openness. The DPGA developed an exploratory framework to assess this uses cases of AI where full openness was not possible or not desirable. The audience were interested in the use of AI and preventing misinformation and disinformation which we aim to explore in future sessions.
 

Digital Public Goods and the Challenges with Discoverability report

Summary of session

This session focused on the challenges of discoverability for digital public goods (DPGs) for governments and civil society to understand and implement. The talk opened with an overview of the Digital Public Goods Alliance (DPGA) which is a multi-stakeholder initiative to accelerate attainment of the sustainable development goals by facilitating the discovery, development, use of and investment in digital public goods. The DPGA “defines digital public goods as open source software, open data, open AI models, open standards and open content that adhere to privacy and other applicable laws and best practices, do no harm, and help attain the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).” An example of a DPG is District Health Information System 2 (DHIS2), is the world's largest health management information system platform. This was followed by an overview of GitHub. GitHub is a complete software developer platform to build, scale, and deliver secure software with 100+ million software developers and used by 4+ million organizations from governments to international development organizations. Open source software like digital public goods are built on GitHub. 

One key element of this session was to provide more background on what open source in the social sector means. Open source refers to software whose source code is freely available to the public, allowing anyone to view, use, modify, and distribute it. This means that the software can be improved and customized by anyone who has the necessary skills, and that it can be used for a variety of purposes without any restrictions. Open source software is often developed collaboratively by a community, and is typically distributed under a license that ensures that it remains open and free to use. Open source in the social sector is defined as software built with relevance to Sustainable Development Goals that do no harm by design and driven by a desire to increase transparency, accountability, and participation, and to empower individuals and organizations to work together to address social and environmental challenges.

This led us to discuss policies that can help improve discoverability and tools: Public & Private sector partnerships; Collaborative Platforms; Metadata Standards; Long-Term Sustainability Plans; Feedback and Improvement Loops; Interoperability Standards. 

Finally the session concludes with five simple rules for improving discovery:

• Rule 1: Decide what level of access you can provide for partners
• Rule 2: Deposit your DPGs in multiple trusted repositories for access, preservation, and reuse. 
• Rule 3: Create thoughtful and rich metadata - consider the FAIR Data Principles
• Rule 4: Localize the tools for cross-domain integration 
• Rule 5: Ensure accessibility and inclusion for ease of access

In conclusion, this was a great session that encouraged roundtable discussions and attendees raised questions on ensuring security of open source; issues on preventing bad actors in using the open source digital public good tools and the challenges in capacity building. As a result of this session, GitHub has launched a microsite to encourage software developers to contribute to DPGs here: https://forgoodfirstissue.dev/.

In the session on online harms in Canada, we started by discussing the Canadian definition surrounding online harm, reminding participants that the talk was centered on Canadian usage of terms, which may differ from how the same term is used in other jurisdictions, inviting participants to stop the presenter and ask questions if there were any points that were unclear. We then defined online harms to mean financial, physical, psychological, and emotion harm that results from interactions that take place through the internet, whether they respect local, regional, or national borders. We then listed a number of examples of online harm, making clear that some instances of it (such as child sexual exploitation material) was illegal under existing legal framework, while some (such as misinformation) was harmful but legal.

We then moved to a discussion of the results arising from the survey of Canadians’ experience in online harm, demonstrating a significant number of Canadians are exposed to harmful content frequently. In particular, we noted that while many Canadians saw individuals as being largely responsible for generating harmful contents, they did not see individuals as being primarily responsible for reducing the amount of harmful content online, instead seeing a larger role played by online platform and the government in solving such. This particular finding was discussed in detail, in particular as informing public policy conversation on the topic.

We then moved to a discussion of the current legislative creation process taking place in Canada to tackle online harms, situating the potential legislation within a slew of legislative activity that has occurred in the past 3 years that concerns internet governance and digital economy broadly, stressing the fact that efforts to tackle online harms in Canada cannot be understood in isolation. From that point, a deeper exploration of regulatory tension surrounding online harms legislation followed, focusing particular on how it interacts with public sentiment held in Canada, as well as the law’s potential impacts on the preferred economic system, as well as other existing legislation (including constitutional law - in Canada in the form of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms) as directing the potential direction the legislation might take. The formal presentation finished with situating the Canadian conversation in a global context, stressing that while there are no unified approach to tackling online harm, many deviations seen globally likely may not reflect irreconcilable fundamental differences in definitions of online harm, but are much more likely to reflect the legislative constraints different country faces, and the possible regulatory action (both from a legal and political perspective) one can take.

After the talk, a number of questions were asked by the participants. One surrounded how legislative action can incorporate the idea of “benign exposure” to less harmful content, as a training to inoculate a user against being exposed to more harmful content. The presenter discussed at length current thinking on that topic in areas of policy approaches to tackling mis and disinformation, including approaches to increase digital media literacy amongst different groups.

The Networking Session started with a round of introduction, the participants were from different sectors, but their common thread was using technology for peace and sustainable development. In the beginning of the discussion, the participants tackled the definition of peace, as an important first step in determining the role of technology in its enhancement. Human rights were mentioned as a necessary, but not sufficient condition for peace, along with other criteria such as the positive definition of peace according to which peace implies attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies, rather than mere absence of violence. When it comes to the relationship between technology and peace, the participants identified both positive and negative impacts of tech to peace. As PeaceTech advocates using technology as a tool to achieve peace, it should be avoided to associate PeaceTech with any technology that violates human rights and dignity and endangers people’s freedom. In line with that, the participants commented on the need for moving from coercive peace, which entails using tech centrally to obtain security and stability, to persuasive peace, in which technology and the collected data can be used to advance peace and social cohesion. Building trust and creating a safer space without compromising on freedom of expression was identified as another crucial mission. Having in mind people’s tendency to behave responsibly when they are held accountable for their words and actions, the participants mentioned the need for raising transparency and accountability in the digital environment. An example that came up was the social scoring system in China, relevant both for the trust-building issue and for defining areas that PeaceTech includes. The participants agreed on the importance of bringing together stakeholders from various fields, such as governments, tech-companies, NGOs and academia, as well as from different parts of the world and perspectives. Through this multistakeholder approach, the actors would discuss the potentials and challenges of PeaceTech, areas of possible intervention and implement collaborative projects that would be a contribution to using technology safely and responsibly to improve peace and social cohesion.

 A call to action is to promote Women IGF globally, to identify and work with ambassadors or champions of internet governance to push for national actions required to empower women and give opportunity to participate as leaders in the Internet Governance and Policy formulation and to be recognized as an NRI at IGF global level. Secondly to support the Feministic Principles inclusion in the Global Digital Compact. 

Major themes:

This session brought together stakeholders from civil society across Asia and Globally to discuss the challenges facing CSOs when trying to build a resilient information space, especially in closed or closing societies. NDI discussed its Info/tegrity network and other means of connecting with groups across civil society to develop capacity to address information integrity issues and contribute to internet governance discussions. Experts from Pakistan and Taiwan shared the challenges associated with engaging social media platforms to gather data for critical research, support an open, democratic and free information environment during elections, and escalate cases of online harassment and abuse. The session then split into four break-out groups to share both existing challenges and potential solutions across the major themes on this issue.

Group 1: Challenges of working online in closed societies

• This group discussed the feasibility of creating a global network of CSOs for groups or individuals working in closed societies. They agreed that while a network of support is an important component of successfully navigating a closed space as a CSO, regional-level networks make more sense than global networks. Closed societies face unique challenges within their larger classification and allowing convergence at the regional level would allow groups to take a narrower, deeper approach to networking than a broad, shallow global network would achieve. They cited current work in Asia around protecting journalists in closed societies as an existing model of their proposal.

Group 2: Social media data access for research

• This group discussed current methods of monitoring social media platform information and what resources would make their work easier. They focused on ways CSOs can support each other’s work in addition to talking about recent API changes that have made research more difficult. 
• They highlighted that to continue the important work of researching the information landscape using social media data, they recommend that CSOs build regional networks to share their experiences across similar contexts and share their current data sets and historical data sets to bolster the total amount of data and enrich everyone’s data sources. 

Group 3: Coordination with technology platforms around trust and safety concerns

• This group discussed the varying roles specific social media platforms play across Asia and the World. They also emphasized that platforms’ gutting of trust and safety teams across the boards has resulted in a delay or lack of response when online harm is reported and an uptick in attacks on activists and human rights defenders.
• Their main point was that while programs like Meta’s Trusted Partner Program are effective in providing an escalation path, it is not equitable and relies on personal relationships or individual tech platform employees prioritizing trust and safety. A system fix is needed, especially with the 2024 elections around the corner. The recommendation from this group is that all stakeholders should work with and pressure private sector technology companies to have clear and robust escalation paths that are not based on personal relationships or single employees committing to action.

Group 4: Internet governance for information integrity

• This group recommended several strategies to improve coordination at the global level around local, national, and/or regional Internet governance and policy best practices. These include adopting a multistakeholder (public sector, private sector, media, academia, civil society, tech companies) approach to Internet governance to make the process more accessible, prioritizing tools that enable access for people with disabilities and other marginalized groups, and developing regional and local strategies for Internet governance as well as a global perspective.
• They also suggested that a human rights approach can be incorporated into technology platform policy by applying the multistakeholder framework to implement better interaction, information sharing and policies with the private sector. This would have impacts such as more robust privacy and data protection procedures, simplifying the language that platforms use to communicate their policies (including expanding available languages), and creating quantifiable measures for tracking online harms.

Report on Lightning Talk #37: "Open Data Evaluation Model in Brazilian Governmental Portals" 

Introduction

The lightning talk "Open Data Evaluation Model in Brazilian Governmental Portals" was presented at the Internet Governance Forum, shedding light on the critical issue of data standardization and the efforts made by the Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br) to address this challenge. The talk emphasized the importance of open data quality, presented an automated evaluation model under development for the Brazilian Open Data Governmental portals, and issued two key takeaways and call-to-action messages.

Key Takeaway Messages

The presentation by the speaker highlighted two primary takeaway messages:

1. Tools for Automated Evaluation of Open Data Portals Enhance Data Quality

The first crucial takeaway from the talk was the significance of tools for automated evaluation in enhancing the quality of open data. Open data portals often need more standardized information structures, an improvement that impacts efficient data access and utilization. The speaker stressed the need for standardized principles and best practices for publishing open data. Tools designed to evaluate open data portals and ensure adherence to these principles can play a vital role in improving the overall quality of open data.

2. Brazil's Implementation of Evaluation Tools

The second takeaway message revealed that Brazil has initiated the implementation of such tools for evaluating and improving open data quality. The Brazilian government has recognized the importance of standardization and best practices in data publication and is taking proactive steps to address these issues.

Call-to-Action Messages

The talk concluded with two call-to-action messages aimed at governments and civil society:

1. Governments Worldwide Should Emulate Brazil's Example

The first call to action implores governments across the globe to follow Brazil's lead and implement open data evaluation models. Given the benefits of standardization and best practices in data publication, the speaker urges governments to prioritize developing and deploying tools for automated evaluation in their own open data initiatives. This step would improve data governance and lead to more efficient data sharing and utilization.

2. Raise Awareness among Civil Society

The second call to action aims at civil society organizations and advocates involved in open data. It encourages these stakeholders to become aware of the existence and workings of open data evaluation tools. By increasing awareness and understanding of these tools, civil society can actively participate in the process, supporting the implementation of standardized data practices and advocating for open data quality in their respective regions.

Conclusion

The lightning talk on "Open Data Evaluation Model in Brazilian Governmental Portals" at the Internet Governance Forum highlighted the critical need for standardized data publication practices and the role of automated evaluation tools in achieving this goal. The Brazilian Network Information Center's proactive efforts in implementing such tools serve as an inspiring example for other nations. The call-to-action messages emphasize the importance of global adoption and civil society involvement in furthering the cause of open data quality and standardization.

In an age where data drives innovation and policy decisions, standardization and evaluation tools ensure that open data fulfills its potential as a valuable resource for governments, organizations, and individuals worldwide. The lessons from this talk must be acknowledged and acted upon, setting a higher standard for open data globally.

The panel discussion titled "AI in the courts an opportunity for economic proceedings?" brought together industry experts who explored the implications, advantages, and challenges of integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into the judiciary. The session was moderated by Rafał Wieczerzak.

Panelists and their Key Points:

In her remarks, Anna Pietruszka primarily focused on how artificial intelligence can impact the efficiency of court proceedings, especially from a business perspective. She pointed out that introducing AI-based tools for straightforward, routine matters, such as making minor changes in business registers, could significantly speed up and simplify procedures. Anna also emphasized the need for modernizing communication within the judiciary. She suggested that while courts are an integral part of our system, their current communication methods are not aligned with modern realities. In her view, technologies like artificial intelligence can play a pivotal role in transforming these mechanisms to be more accessible and understandable to today's society.

Gabriela Bar and Robert Sowiński highlighted the complexity of introducing AI into the judicial system. Gabriela focused on the ethical aspects of implementing AI. She underscored that trust in the system is crucial and that people need to believe that the technology is used fairly and transparently. Therefore, as she suggested, the optimal model would be Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), which would be able to provide people with a logical justification for its decisions. Robert, on the other hand, cited the example of the Chinese judicial system where AI is already in use and pointed to the successes in the realm of alternative dispute resolution in the UK. However, he noted that this technology is not without risks, and we need to be aware of the potential consequences of its misuse.

From a judge's perspective, Konrad Wasik shared his unique insights into the impact of artificial intelligence on the judiciary. He expressed concern over the burden of numerous administrative tasks that divert judges from their primary duty of adjudicating. In his opinion, artificial intelligence could significantly alleviate courts from these routine tasks, allowing them to concentrate on more complex cases that require human judgment. Konrad also identified potential areas of AI application, suggesting that its integration into the judiciary holds immense potential, as long as it's introduced with due caution and an understanding of its limitations.Post-panel Activities:

The session was not just an opportunity to gain insights from the panelists but also a platform for attendees to ask questions. The face-to-face interaction allowed for lively debates and provided a chance for legal professionals from various countries and continents to network, exchange experiences, and establish valuable contacts.

Conclusion:

The panel successfully addressed the multidimensional aspects of integrating AI into the judiciary, from efficiency and modernization to ethical considerations. The consensus was that while AI offers great potential, its implementation needs to be done thoughtfully, ethically, and in a phased manner.

The panel concluded with the following recommendations and recommendations:

The implementation of AI in the judiciary is a universal and global issue. The differences between legal systems remain in the background. We should develop postulates and international legal and ethical standards for the use of AI in the judiciary.

The use of AI in alternative dispute resolution will be of great benefit to business. Being aware of the chances of winning a dispute and therefore receiving a predicted outcome and/or an assessment of the strength of a party's arguments and position from AI will reduce the burden on the courts. We should use AI to issue non-binding resolutions that will guide a party whether to take the case to court or, for example, to settle.

The implementation of AI in the courts should be progressive, in the first step we should start by using AI to perform routine, repetitive and time-consuming activities. As a second step, it would be good to implement solutions based on hybrid intelligence.While implementing the AI driven solutions we have to review carefully every activity that is processed in the court and analyze what can be replace in a first place.

We expect from the local governance to support jurisdiction to fulfill the tech gap between the business needs and justice. We should aspire to cooperation between business and public authorities, but at the same time create clear and transparent rules for such cooperation. We must be aware of the temptation of private entities gaining access to citizens' data and attempting to manipulate court rulings using AI systems.

Report on the Networking Session #168: "Advancing Open Science Globally: Challenges and Opportunities"

The session was fascinating as it contrasted two different perspectives on the goals and paths of Open Science. While researchers and advocates from Latin America highlighted the importance of involving a broader range of individuals in the governance of science and of broadening free and open access to scientific discoveries and derived products in order to maximize its social impact, participants from the private sector and the global north emphasized the need to enhance the organization and standardization of scientific production, aiming at maximizing the value that can be derived from it.

Henrique Xavier highlighted the persistent issue of paywalls to scientific publications. Moreover, while government and academic data are often open, data from private companies in areas like social media and artificial intelligence remain closed. Opening such data sources is essential for research on misinformation and AI governance, both discussed at the Internet Governance Forum.

Sarita Albagli reinforced that paywalls hinder access to knowledge, particularly in the global south. She highlighted that Open Science is not only a more cost-effective model than closed science but also addresses the issue of knowledge access, preventing the loss of valuable resources. As a concrete example of a successful program, she mentioned the Brazilian bibliographic database SciELO.

She raised the requirement for Open Science to address citizens' needs and the importance of involving citizens in research about issues that affect them. She also mentioned the risk of Open Washing, where companies direct Open Science to practices that allow them to profit, which could disproportionately affect the global south by making its research subordinated to private foreign interests.

Carolina Botero emphasized that Open Science should grant access to publications and the knowledge generated by scientific research, such as vaccines during the pandemic. Rethinking patent laws is crucial to achieving this. Carolina emphasized the importance of addressing power imbalances, ensuring that all countries can utilize data for research purposes by adjusting legal frameworks to support global access.

Kazuhiro Hayashi emphasized that Open Science goes beyond Open Access. It encompasses providing access to both data and research methods. He stressed the importance of international cooperation in making this data and knowledge accessible to everyone. He said Japan was implementing Open Access and Open Data policies for publicly funded research.

Vint Cerf (present in the audience) mentioned Google Scholar and Schema.org as tools that help organize and standardize scientific knowledge. He raised the need to document experiment designs and the challenge of accessing old data, methods, and analyses after computer systems evolved. He questioned who should fund Open Science infrastructure and suggested we design a viable business model that could encourage companies to invest in these initiatives.

Vint Cerf highlighted the importance of creating a document stating the desirable properties of an Open Science ecosystem. He suggested creating a vast database to ease data processing and analysis. Cerf emphasized the importance of its interoperability so the database could migrate in case of a lack of support from the host institution. He recommended organizations such as UNESCO and the International Science Council as potential allies in advancing Open Science.

Two practical conclusions surfaced from the discussion. In order to maximize the value derived from scientific research, there should be a concerted effort by the global community, including the private sector, to standardize data and metadata related to scientific research and make this data widely available on the internet. To enhance accessibility to scientific results and resources and enhance their social impact, governments must reconsider existing intellectual property, copyright, and patent models.

Moderator Allie Funk began the session with an overview of findings from Freedom House’s Freedom on the Net 2023 report, which examined how artificial intelligence is deepening the crisis of internet freedom. She noted that AI drives intrusive surveillance, empowers precise and subtle censorship, and amplifies disinformation campaigns as generative AI lowers the barriers to entry for the disinformation market. She shared that if AI is designed and deployed safely, it can be used to bolster internet freedom. She closed by noting that as AI augments digital repression, there is an urgent need to regulate it, drawing on the lessons learned over the past 15 years of internet governance, namely: not overly relying on companies to self-regulate, centering human rights standards in good governance of the internet from governments, and the importance of involving civil society, particularly from the global majority. 

Olga Kyryliuk discussed how the internet freedom space has changed in the last ten years. She described how initial hopes were that the multi-stakeholder model would make it easy to reach consensus on a way to regulate technology, and that ten years ago, many also felt that legal regulation would be able to catch up with technological advancement. She noted that, looking back, regulation has still lagged behind, but there is now a greater recognition of the importance of digital rights. She shared that innovations in AI and other technologies have brought new risks and opportunities, particularly when it comes to governments balancing their safety and security interests with protecting rights online. She closed by noting that continued multistakeholder collaboration is positive, but many people want more than just venues for discussion, but actionable results such as initiatives or partnerships that will lead to change. 

Guus Van Zwoll discussed walking the tightrope of the “Brussels effect” and trying to ensure that regulations adapted by other countries with lower rule of law standards will not have adverse human rights impacts. He touched on the difficulty of balancing between fighting censorship and fighting disinformation. He described work done in the Netherlands to ensure that regulation incorporates strong requirements for transparency and references to the guiding principles on business and human rights, so that if other countries copy EU regulations, these considerations that were reached through a long multistakeholder process will already be baked into the laws. He noted that when the Netherlands has bilateral discussions, Dutch policymakers urge other government to adapt human rights and democratic clauses in their regulations.  

Emilie Pradichit discussed the proliferation of harmful cyber laws throughout Southeast Asia that target dissenting voices in the name of security, and cases in which people in Thailand and Laos have been imprisoned for speaking the truth or sharing criticism on Facebook. She identified the lack of clear definitions for terms like national security as a problematic part of such regulation, and that voluntary commitments from tech companies do not do enough to counter such problems. She expressed that companies should have meaningful engagement with other stakeholders, both on how to prevent harm and to provide remediation after the fact, not just to tick the box of consulting civil society with no follow-up. She noted that digital rights organizations are small and cannot combat the misuse of platforms by governments on their own, but end up being told that companies cannot do anything either. She called for decisions about how tech companies and AI should be regulated to come from those who have been most impacted, through meaningful engagement that holds the powerful to account. 

On multistakeholder engagement, Guus discussed efforts through the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) and other initiatives, to incorporate and mainstream the Dutch Cyber Strategy among civil society groups, to ensure that while digital security remains high, there are principles for governments seeking to balance this with human rights, developing the governance structures to protect against a surveillance and censorship apparatus. 

Olga commented on the desire among many in civil society for greater clarity about engaging in the FOC and other initiatives. She called for greater opportunities, in addition to the FOC advisory network, such as bringing back the Freedom Online Conference, as a venue for civil society to consult with FOC member governments on issues including AI. 

Emilie emphasized that the FOC has not yet made itself accessible among civil society groups in Southeast Asia or other contexts across the majority world, where rights defenders are most under threat from digital authoritarianism and struggling under repressive governments. She pointed out the role that FOC governments could play in pressuring less democratic governments or companies that are operating in repressive contexts, particularly in cases where those still in-country are unable to speak out safely. 

Olga added that getting access to government stakeholders at regional level IGFs and other meetings can be a challenge for civil society. She suggested that FOC governments should work to incentivize governments to engage with local and regional communities outside the global IGF, in order to develop partnerships and work together in a meaningful multistakeholder way. 

Throughout the Q&A, panelists discussed the challenges for civil society in engaging with other global efforts, including the UN’s Global Digital Compact. Panelists also discussed the difficulty of ensuring that laws that are built on models from the EU, whether it be the DSA, DMA, or EU AI Act, still include the positive protections for human rights defenders without being imposing regulations that are overly burdensome and not responsive to local needs and realities.  

Olga highlighted the importance of dialogue and conversations happening early on, before a law is drafted and adopted, to ensure that it is responsive to the local context, which sometimes requires advance capacity building as well. Emilie shared the frustration that civil society in Southeast Asia often feels with government-led regulation efforts, as there are few to no opportunities to engage. She noted that governments will say they are adopting global standards as a way to receive diplomatic applause, while still refusing to engage with human rights defenders or other stakeholders. 

Guus noted that the Brussels effect was not always intended, and that although EU governments developed these laws, the way they have had global impacts was not something that was planned, which makes civil society feedback a crucial part of the learning process to improve the implementation of future regulations. 

No feedback was received from remote participants during or after the session. 

The final session was mainly focused on the effective application of international law in the telematics and ICT dimension. Due to the difference in the opinion on how the existing international laws need to be applied in cyberspace and if there is a need for the development of a legally binding international mechanism, the session speaker looked into this aspect through the lens of different regions of the world.It was noted that the discussion on this matter should certainly be continued. The problem is that the legal mechanisms never catch up with the latest technology. So the governments need to advance in the development of the appropriate legal dimension that, without doubt, will cover the 4th dimension.

Introduction and key takeaways

Our world has gone digital, transforming industries and economies globally. While this digital shift offers innovation and sustainable development opportunities, unilateral policies and governance can deepen inequalities and disrupt global economies, eroding trust in digital technologies. Numerous global organizations, involving multiple stakeholders, are dedicated to connecting divergent policy approaches and striving for worldwide, adaptable solutions. Their mission is to comprehend and regulate evolving technologies and leverage their potential for sustainable, inclusive socioeconomic progress.

The session brought together government and industry representatives to discuss mutual priorities for advancing sustainable development through partnerships, as described in Goal 17 of the SDGs. It was arranged around three topics: AI and global AI governance, cross-border data flows and global data governance, and connectivity and digitalisation for development.

The session started with panellists sharing views on the governance of AI. The conversation opened with the United States’ approach to addressing risks, both long-term risks (safety, security, threats to human existence) and short-term risks raised by current uses of AI (privacy, discrimination, disinformation, labour market). This includes securing voluntary commitments from leading companies. In turn, speakers stressed the need for domestic efforts to align with international initiatives like the Global Partnership on AI, the OECD, and the G7 Hiroshima Process – highlighting the importance of multistakeholder spaces of collaboration.

The conversation then moved onto how the private sector is addressing those risks, with panellists highlighting the need for a robust governance framework, while running through some of the practical measures companies take to address AI risks. In addition, panellists suggested that the world is looking to both policymakers and businesses to respond to those risks, as action needs to be accelerated. In particular, panellists suggested that action was needed on three simultaneous fronts: global harmonised principles, standards and voluntary measures, and concrete regulation on a national level.

The next segment of the session covered data governance, with panellists discussing how to create a world where data benefits everyone, including the challenge of aligning data governance with economic development. Other panellists highlighted private sector efforts for data free flow with trust and advocated for principles, privacy protection, and investment-friendly policies. The discussion underscored the importance of inclusive data governance to support a global digital economy.

In the final segment of the session, speakers discussed connectivity and digitalisation for development. Government panellists emphasised the need for a multistakeholder approach in shaping the global connectivity policy agenda. Other panellists highlighted private sector efforts, suggesting that to meet ambitious connectivity goals we need greater investment and an enabling policy environment. Panellists also reflected on changing market dynamics and their impact on affordability and choice for consumers. The panel stressed the importance of cross-ecosystem collaboration, with one panellist summarising the conversation by saying that all stakeholders are part of the same ecosystem and rely on one another to connect everyone, everywhere.

Ultimately, this workshop highlighted that there are many areas where governments and the private sector are forging great partnerships to resolve fundamental questions about how to govern digital technologies.

Call to action

The panellists underscored the need for cross-ecosystem development and an approach to policymaking which appreciates the interconnections and dependencies between different areas of digital policy. There was a consensus on the importance of securing voluntary commitments to address the risks associated with AI while ensuring the development of globally harmonised principles. With regards to data governance, the discussion emphasised the creation of data governance frameworks that are inclusive, transparent and build on trust.  The speakers also agreed on the importance of the multistakeholder approach in shaping global policy related to digital technologies. Finally, speakers underlined the need for increased investment in connectivity, the establishment of an enabling policy environment, and the promotion of cross-ecosystem collaboration to connect everyone, everywhere.

INTRODUCTION

The session started with introductions of the speakers and the represented entities.

Mr. Jacek Bukowicki introduced himself as a representant of the Polish Agency for Enterprise Development, Department of Startups Development. The Agency’s mission is to support development of SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) in Poland. Since its foundation in 2000, a great deal of Agency’s efforts is distribution of European Funds through a variety of evolving programs, projects and calls for proposals. Apart from financial support, the agency also offers educational services as well as research, evaluation and analysis reports. Mr. Bukowicki described the agency’s flagship incubation and acceleration programs aimed to help innovators, budding entrepreneurs and startup teams at pre-seed, seed and early stage level of development, including first proof-of-concept / solution testing collaboration in real business & industrial infrastructure of the key market players (corporations, state-owned companies, public institutions etc). One of the very successful initiatives is called Poland Prize, an internationally renowned soft-landing & acceleration program meant to attract foreign startups and innovative solutions to Poland from all over the world.

Mr. Przemysław Nowakowski introduced himself as representant and expert on behalf of the Łódź Special Economic Zone. The main mission of the Zone is bringing the best startups and solutions to Poland. The Zone has been awarded as one of the top 10 special economic zones worldwide. It has been selected to be a key operator of multiple PAED acceleration programs, including the last edition of Poland Prize.  

MAIN SUBJECT

Both speakers agreed that many global challenges are already addressed and can be solved with brave and revolutionary ideas from innovators and small agile startup teams. One of the barriers lying on the way of their implementation is a financial gap as well as reluctance to take risks by stakeholders and market players. By providing direct PoC grants, one of the benefits encouraging all engaged parties to take an active part in acceleration programs is taking over the responsibility for possible failure of solution testing and validation process.

EXAMPLES

Next, the discussion concentrated on showing examples and cases of how technological innovations engaging internet connectivity and resources (e.g. connected devices, internet of things, artificial intelligence) can help solve global challenges in various areas. The first discussed area calling for action was climate change and its consequences.

Connected weather sensors together with machine learning / AI software can help not only predict, but also mitigate the consequences of the growing number of incidents of weather hazards & disasters like fires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts – saving more human lives as well as resources.

Mr. Bukowicki described a few solutions addressing the problem of recent heavy rains and flooding intertwined with severe droughts affecting big cities as well as farming areas. One of the mentioned solutions is based on small connected devices installed in crucial gates of a sewage system allowing safer management of rain water flow and its retention within a city’s infrastructure. The other solutions enabled also local rain water retention, local electricity productions and then relieving droughts with retented water. In turn, Mr. Nowakowski mentioned solutions for smart cities, new circular economy way to developing a city power grid and communications.

Climate change also directly affects farming and food production capabilities. There are already many solutions addressing the problem of food waste, food production shortages as well as zero hunger challenge. Connected weather & ecosystem field sensors can help farmers predict and act in most accurate time so as to secure the best vegetation conditions for crops in these more and more unpredictable times. New innovative technologies also enable more effective vertical farming as well as extended light and temperature conditions in green houses, offices, plants or other facilities.

Regarding the need for sustainable cities, climate change is just one of the factors affecting the quality of life in urban areas. Mr. Bukowicki mentioned innovative solutions addressing the problem of city air pollution monitoring and warning systems as well as solutions aiming at its prevention and reduction.

New solutions already support companies in transitioning to electric vehicles and implementing EV charging infrastructure. By means of telematics data and advanced predictive algorithms, it’s easier to provide recommendations for selecting suitable electric vehicles, considering the individual needs and preferences of each organization. New systems are entirely data-driven, which allows companies as well as individual citizens to effectively manage costs and efficiently implement electromobility. Mr. Nowakowski mentioned a startup  with a solution enabling a more efficient and economical use of energy for street lighting. Another challenge  - the common shortage of parking spaces in city centers - is already solved by platform enabling sharing the already existing parking facilities.

The quality of life cannot be secured and improved without good health, advances and better accessibility of medicine, prevention and therapies as well as the overall wellbeing environment. Artificial intelligence, machine learning solutions, wearable devices etc. combined with huge amounts of digitalized medical data can help implement better and more effective disease prevention solutions as well as provide more accurate therapies and diagnosis for both patients and doctors. Mr. Bukowicki named a few already incubated and commercialized solutions that would not come out without the support of incubation programs and engaged professionals.

Lots of global challenges can also be solved through innovations supporting Industry 4.0 and modern infrastructure. Mr. Nowakowski mentioned  AI powered solutions for heavy industry, drones and 5G connectivity as an answer to the addressed problems.

SUMMARY

The discussion could have been continued for another half of the hour if the session time had been longer. Conclusions included recommendations on what we need next and in the years to come to allow more technological innovations to solve more global challenges.

The speakers encouraged the audience to ask questions and provided contact details to those wishing to keep in touch for future reference and potential collaboration. The discussion with some of the listeners continued after the session finished, outside of the room.

The aim of this Lightning Talk session was to introduce privacy as an enabling right and how rights protections can be built into technology products and policymaking (“Rights by Design”). An additional goal was to present privacy from a range of perspectives to encourage attendees to challenge their preconceptions about privacy. Based on the feedback received from attendees, the session successfully achieved both aims for the small but highly engaged audience on-site. We were delighted to hear from attendees with experience in privacy and data protection that they had gained new insights from the session.

The session consisted of a 20-minute presentation followed by a Q&A and discussion. We will briefly recap the presentation content here; for the complete slides, please see the link in the session description. To begin, the speakers asked attendees whether they thought privacy mattered, discussed examples of why privacy is important, and defined privacy to ensure everyone was aligned on the concept for a productive discussion. They next outlined the privacy rights granted to individuals under data protection law and discussed how digital privacy is a crucial enabler for other fundamental rights, including examples of how these rights contribute toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This message was reinforced by a case study of how biometric privacy - or lack thereof - impacts individuals’ rights. After defining privacy engineering and privacy by design with examples from architecture and software, the speakers introduced Rights by Design as a necessary extension of the Privacy by Design principles. Finally, the presentation concluded with proposals of how Rights by Design could be applied to technology, both in the corporate world and in policymaking.

These proposals prompted a lively discussion after the presentation. As this was the last session of the day in Speaker’s Corner, it was possible to continue the discussion well beyond the planned 10 minutes. Attendees’ contributions focused on the presentation’s two calls to action to introduce ethics and threat modeling training into organizations working with technology and to ensure that human rights impact assessments are conducted when developing new technology products, features, or policies. Attendees raised their concerns about how feasible ethics training would be in a multicultural organization - given that beliefs about what is right and wrong vary widely - and whether this should (or even could) be implemented via regulatory efforts. The speakers clarified that the goal of such ethical training is not to instill specific values but rather to raise individuals’ ethical awareness, encouraging them to develop their own moral compass and establish personal ethical red lines, for example which product use cases they would refuse to develop software for on moral grounds. Regarding making such training a regulatory requirement, the discussion reached a consensus that this would likely be less effective than multi-stakeholder engagement to make such training a market norm. Establishing a market norm would however only be effective for establishing this in companies, whereas such training is also essential in policymaking fora. 

There was considerable interest in the session topic before the session, which led to insightful preliminary discussions in Days 1 and 2 of the conference. We would like to thank all involved - both session attendees and those who joined for discussions beforehand - for their valuable contributions. In particular, we would like to thank the Design Beyond Deception project team from the Pranava Institute, who introduced their research initiative investigating deceptive UI/UX design and educating designers in ethical, human-centered design practices. The team contributed training materials to share with session attendees and with the speakers’ communities after the conference, and described their research into how deceptive design practices differ in the Global South. Together we discussed how such deceptive designs target the highly vulnerable, such as impoverished communities without access to traditional financial services, and how such exploitation might be prevented through legislative and educational efforts.

It was unfortunately not possible to conduct the session in a hybrid format as planned, as the room had no camera or microphone to stream the session. Due to confusion about the assigned room (the talk temporarily had no room assigned in the schedule) we found out too late to make our own recording arrangements. We therefore have no feedback from remote participants to report. However, we have shared the slides online and will open discussions within our communities about the topic. If organizing a session in future, we would confirm the room assignment and available equipment on the first day of the conference to ensure sufficient time to make arrangements to offer the session in a hybrid format. This was a key learning for us as session organizers, as we would like to ensure that stakeholders unable to attend the IGF in person are still able to make a full contribution.

At IGF2023 in Kyoto, Byron Holland (President & CEO, Canadian Internet Registration Authority) delivered the lightning talk “Canadian data, global insights: What we can do to improve cybersecurity” to an in-person audience. The lightning talk was moderated by Charles Noir (Vice-President Community Investment, Policy & Advocacy, CIRA). Audience members were geographically diverse, including members living in Australia, Saudia Arabia, and the European Union.

Below are select key insights from the session, including from the delivered comments and audience contributions:

• CIRA offers a unique perspective as the organization behind the .CA domain, used by 3.3 million Canadians, and a provider of a variety of DNS, cybersecurity, and registry services. CIRA also publishes a range of research reports focused on how organizations and users perceive and respond to cyber threats.

• Insights from CIRA’s published research show that, up from 66% in 2022, 75% of Canadians are concerned about malware when using the internet. At the same time, about a fifth of Canadians say they’ve been the victim of a successful cyberattack. Yet, only about one-third of Canadians report using tools or services to increase their privacy and security online. There’s a real mismatch between the real cyber threats users face online and whether they’re taking steps to mitigate and counter this behaviour.

• When it comes to organizations, CIRA’s published research shows similar trends and patterns, but also some important differences. A good percentage of the Canadian organizations surveyed as part of CIRA’s annual cybersecurity survey are being targeted by bad actors—forty-one per cent had experienced a cyber attack in the last 12 months. 

• CIRA has also observed trends that suggest attacks on organizations are becoming more and more complex. The ‘Simda’ botnet, which uses anti-detection tools to evade discovery, is the number one piece of malware being used against CIRA’s customers.

• At the same time, as many audience members noted, it’s now widely understood that bad actors can and do use cyber to penetrate and disrupt critical infrastructures that underpin most of our economic and social activities. Sectors like health and telecommunications are essential to the everyday lives of citizens making them attractive targets for malicious actors. The stakes for defending critical infrastructure networks couldn’t be higher.

• Audience members agreed that many citizens may feel that they don’t have the skills or tools to protect themselves online. But there was recognition that citizens can protect themselves from most cyber threats by taking a handful of relatively simple actions—for example, updating software, not clicking on links in suspect emails, running a Firewall and more. Audience members were encouraged to promote good cyber hygiene practices.

• Jurisdictions can also legislate to establish a baseline level of cybersecurity in critical infrastructure sectors—there just needs to be strong oversight framework to ensure these powers aren't abused. In Canada, the government is pushing forward Bill C-26, An act respecting cybersecurity, which will introduce new cybersecurity requirements across federally regulated sectors. This kind of legislation will encourage the networks that we all depend on to improve their cybersecurity posture.

Co-hosted by the Internet Society of China (ISC) and China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC), organized by China IGF, the session “Emerging Tech and Solutions for Digital Inclusion” mainly discussed how to promote the comprehensive development of inclusive digital environments, by taking the advantage of emerging tech and solutions, and avoiding the new gaps coursed by new tech.

Mr. Huang Chengqing, Director of China IGF and Vice President of ISC, Ms. Zhang Xiao, Executive Deputy Director of China IGF and Deputy Director of CNNIC and Ms. Gu Haiyan, General Manager of Law Affairs of Sina Group, were invited to share their insights and observations on how to narrowing the ageing group-related digital divide and tackle with the challenges faced.

Mr. Huang Chengqing shared the efforts of China’s Internet application aging and information accessibility transformation, including measures in various aspects such as the top-level design of the system, standard formulation, technological innovation, and public welfare actions to actively promote the construction of an inclusive digital society benefiting everyone.

Ms. Zhang Xiao stressed how to narrow the digital divide and improve digital inclusion from the perspective of strengthening network connectivity, deepening digital infrastructure construction in rural areas, fostering digital literacy as well as improving network service innovation and quality.

Ms. Gu Haiyan introduced the work and practice of Sina Weibo in developing aging-friendly version of applications, providing voice assistance systems, optimizing visual design, and strengthening privacy protection. She also proposed that digital empowerment is an important foundation to help vulnerable groups enjoy inclusive and sustainable development of the digital economy.

The three speakers agreed that new technology shall be the leverage to a more inclusive social environment rather than to create new digital divides. It is of great significance to create a barrier-free/information accessibility environment, which needs joint efforts from all stakeholders, such as the policy support from the government sectors and technical innovation from private sectors. The key challenge is how to find the balance between business interests and social responsibility so as to motivate the private sectors to innovate and update the services to meet the need of information accessibility, as their major role to lead and promote the technology innovation. 

The moderator also introduced some best practices carried out in China and call on multi-stakeholders to strengthen digital cooperation, narrow the digital divide, and promote the inclusive and sustainable development of the Internet. 
 

The session started by addressing the importance of promoting youth in digital inclusion while focusing on sustainability education as well as the idea of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that matters in today’s community. The factors that influence access to digital education revolve around barriers which relate to the infrastructure and the divide between the urban and rural areas.  

OnePile is a technology-driven Initiative organization that focuses on leveraging technology to solve problems sustainability and education in Hong Kong.  The organization aims to tackle matters such as upskilling people from different ages with the right competencies to be able to have access to new knowledge through books, making use of digital education where it is accessible through its Smart Book Crossing Cabinet, and encouraging the circulation of books.  This is done by allowing books to be donated and taken for free, reducing the need to print new books, saving the carbon emitted from their production.  Also benefits the underprivileged in Hong Kong by allowing them to gain free access to books. 

The key metrics of the concept of sustainability of education is implemented through circulating books, the organization has circulated over 78,000 books, equivalent to an estimated carbon cost of 3,600 tons. By conducting STEM workshops with local schools in Hong Kong, allows the organization to introduce the latest technologies and process behind the design of the Smart Book Crossing Cabinets project, such as basic STEM skills and how it would make a step towards the education of sustainability. The motto of OnePile is that “Books are agents of change, providing valuable knowledge, reducing carbon emission at the same time, as well as reducing impact towards the environment.” 

The second part of the session was allocated to introduce SDG book club, a youth-led initiative project.  The aim of such a project is to increase the awareness of reading habits and sustainable culture, where inspired by the SDNS survey 2023 conducted in Hong Kong, showing that only 20% of the population within the city acknowledge the concept of SDGs, therefore the project has been developed.  Through supporting the youth development, SDGs was introduced through organizing different events (i.e. Plastic Reduction Charity Run and Potted Plants Combated Climate Change event), leading our youth to focus on the matter of inclusion environmental sustainability. 

Furthermore, OnePile is also supportive towards innovation ideas, by allowing the youth team to create online applications (i.e. Website and Apps). The online application highlights the feature of classifying books about Sustainable Development Goals, allowing the users to find books based on their SDGs interests. The application also allows readers and users to share their perspectives through its comment session, creating an experience of engaging with the culture the organization is trying to promote and its dedication to SDGs 11, that is to develop sustainable communities and cities.  

The guest speaker showcased the efforts undertaken in Hong Kong to promote the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), emphasizing how these initiatives fostered community cohesion and unity. By actively encouraging and engaging youth, the speaker demonstrated how they played a pivotal role in working towards achieving the SDGs. Their involvement not only empowered and inspired young individuals but also reinforced the idea of collective responsibility in driving positive change for a sustainable future.

During the Q&A session, participant suggested that emphasizing the need to explore and nurture collaborative relationships can leverage the experience and expertise of existing coordinators while harnessing the energy and innovative ideas of passionate young individuals. By fostering such partnerships, the collective impact can be enhanced and create a powerful synergy in advancing the SDGs agenda to the community.

SESSION SUMMARY

• A Human Rights Approach to Digital Governance (Matthew Liao, NYU)
  
  • "5W1H " framework for AI regulation, focusing on several key questions: What should be regulated? Why should AI be regulated? Who should regulate AI? When should regulation begin in the technology life cycle? Where should regulation occur? How should regulation be enacted?
  • AI regulation should prioritize the protection and promotion of human rights, encompassing everything that could impact these rights and everyone including companies, researchers, governments, universities, and the public, has a responsibility to engage proactively in the regulation process to overcome challenges in enforceability.

• AI and Cyber Physical Systems Policy Lab (Dasom Lee, KAIST)
  
  • AI&CPS lab focuses on the integration of AI into infrastructure to promote environmental sustainability. The lab investigates areas like energy transition, smart grids, renewable energy technologies, transportation (including automated vehicles and drones), and data centers. She emphasized the interconnectedness of these fields, highlighting the importance of a harmonious approach to infrastructure development.
  • One of the on-going projects, ‘Privacy and Culture Project’ shows that privacy is contextualized in different geographical regions based on culture and history, which calls for an international cooperation of experts and academics for tackling future challenges.

• Challenges and Opportunities of Digital Governance for Development in the Developing Countries (Atshushi Yamanaka, JICA)
  
  • Digital governance and technologies offer opportunities for innovation and AI can create new products and services that contribute to socio-economic development. “Reverse innovations”, that emerge from developing countries can impact the global landscape, which can be fostered by enhancing digital public goods and infrastructure to ameliorate the digital divide.
  • Digital governance requires a multi-stakeholder approach inviting stakeholders in policy-making processes, and more platforms like IGF if needed in the future, especially to overcome new challenges and to invite developing countries need to take a more significant role in rule-making and framework development.

• Conversational Agents for Digital Inclusion (Rafik Hadfi, Kyoto University)
  
  • Digital inclusion goes beyond access to technology and also encompasses concepts like equity, self-realization, and autonomy, and ultimately aims to disadvantaged individuals with access to ICT technology and, in doing so, promote equity.
  • A case study in Afghanistan showed how the AI system can enhance several aspects of the online debates, including increasing the diversity of contributions from women, reducing inhibitions, and encouraging more ideation on local problems.

• Democratising AI for a thriving region (Liming Zhu, University of New South Wales)
  
  • In 2019, Australia introduced AI ethics principles that prioritize human-centered values such as pluralism, fairness, and inclusiveness, as well as quality attributes specific to AI, including privacy, security, transparency, and accountability.
  • As part of this comprehensive approach to AI governance, Australia has introduced measures such as responsible AI risk assessments, question banks, and AI risk registries to guide organizations in identifying and mitigating potential risks associated with their AI applications. This approach aims to ensure that AI benefits are leveraged responsibly and ethically, with consideration for social and environmental well-being.

• Towards Hyperdemocracy: Discussion and Consensus among People and Machines (Takayuki Ito, Kyoto University)
  
  • The Hyperdemocracy project aims to utilize artificial intelligence (AI) to address contemporary social challenges such as fake news, digital manipulation, and echo chambers, with a transition in 2015 to develop a system that leverages AI agents to support group interactions and crowd-scale discussions online.
  • A case study was conducted in Afghanistan to collect public opinions during the withdrawal of American troops in August 2021, with the AI analyzing the types and characteristics of these opinions. The project is currently developing a next-generation AI-based competition support system to address what they refer to as the "hypodemocracy problem."

• International Development and AI: Three Snapshots (Seung Hyun Kim, KAIST)
  
  • Unequal opportunities can arise from technological advancements and introduction of new technologies can create unexpected problems arising from existing social, economic disparities.
  • Fragmentation in governmental ICT systems can occur due to the involvement of different financing institutions and service providers.
  • Technology sovereignty is a critical concern, and the dynamic between efforts to keep nation's security with technological innovation will become increasingly difficult.

Surveillance Technology in MENA: Different Levels of Accountability

11 October 2023

Organiser and rapporteur: Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR)

Chair: Khalid Ibrahim (GCHR)

Speakers:

• Marwa Fatafta (AccessNow)
• Asia Abdulkareem (INSM)
• Samuel Jones (Heartland Initiative)

Session Report

This networking session was organised by the MENA Surveillance Coalition (MCCS), co-led by the Gulf Centre for Human Rights (GCHR) and Access Now, to introduce participants to the work of MCCS and other collaborators in the space of human rights and surveillance technology governance. Collaborators who joined this session include, the Iraqi Network for Social Media (INSM) and Heartland Initiative. The aim of this session was to create a connecting space for groups and experts working on advocacy for human rights due diligence in surveillance technology development, funding and investment, export, or import.

The following is a summary of key points raised by the speakers about their work to date, next steps, and potential future collaborations:

Khalid Ibrahim (GCHR) explained the ultimate goal of MCCS is to end the sale of digital surveillance tools to repressive governments in the region, fight for a safe and open internet, defend human rights, and protect human rights defenders, journalists, and internet users from governments’ prying eyes. Ibrahim demonstrated the extent of harms arising from surveillance spyware targeting in the case of his colleague, prominent human rights defender Ahmed Mansoor, who was the first victim of Pegasus spyware (by NSO Group) back in 2015 which is the same year in which he got the Martin Ennals Award for human rights. Ibrahim noted that, Mansoor was arrested on 20 March 2017, tortured and sentenced to 10 years in prison in solitary confinement.

Others targeted by spyware in the region also reap no justice through local mechanisms and institutions. Therefore, Ibrahim made an argument about universal jurisdiction for vindication of human rights violations. GCHR filed a complaint in France on 28 July 2021 against the Israeli software company NSO Group. Future collaborations lie in observing developments in other cases filed against NSO Group.

Marwa Fatafta (AccessNow) also explained the context for the creation of the MCCS: an urgent response to the proliferating use of commercial spyware and the digital surveillance tools in the MENA region. AccessNow has been investigating and exposing the depth and the spreads of how spyware, and different surveillance tools produced by NSO Group, among others, systematically used to target, monitor, and surveil human rights defenders, journalists, lawyers, civil society from Bahrain to Morocco, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Egypt, you name it. On-going collaborations include a new lawsuit, that both GCHR and Access Now are working on, filed against the UAE surveillance company Dark Matter which hacked the device of prominent woman human rights defender Loujain Al-Hathloul. The court can exercise its jurisdiction to uphold human rights and most importantly send a message to the surveillance industry that they can indeed be held accountable. Ultimately, Fatafta concluded, the advocacy effort of MCCS is to expose where export controls have been lacking as well as to add pressure on governments to regulate this industry.

Asia Abdulkareem (INSM) emphasised the role of civil society organisations in documentation of numerous cases of surveillance and digital attacks against Iraqi activists. This documentation has helped to raise awareness of the problem and has put pressure on the Iraqi government to take action. Future work involves observation and scrutiny of enforcement by the Iraqi government which is often slow to implement reforms.

Samuel Jones (Heartland Initiative) approached accountability at the level of investors arguing that investors ought to extend exclusionary screens for “controversial weapons”, fundamentally incompatible with international humanitarian and human rights law, to surveillance technologies and spyware. Heartland Initiative is currently working with some of the investor partners, along with colleagues at Access Now, the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, and other experts to develop similar criteria for spyware – meaning it would be excluded from investment portfolios – due to the emerging discourse suggesting it is also fundamentally incompatible with international law. As for their future work, Jones added, is mapping surveillance technologies and spyware being used in the MENA region, including companies, their investors, their corporate structures, as well as the human rights abuses facilitated by the use of their technology.

The network session ‘Digital Sovereignty and Global Cooperation’ brought together a diverse group of people to discuss the concept of digital sovereignty and how it affects global cooperation. Professor Jamal Shahin kicked off the meeting by giving a short introduction to the concept in which the variety of definitions used by actors was emphasised. Afterwards, questions were asked to both the online and on-site participants, with the help of a Mentimeter, to get insights into the group characteristics. The answers to the questions showed that the participants came from about 16 countries and all had different work backgrounds (private, public, academia, civil society), highlighting the importance and interest in the concept across regions and sectors.

After this introduction, the group was split up into three different break-out rooms (one online) where discussions were held on the basis of the following question: Do you see a tension between digital sovereignty and digital cooperation, and why? The responses to the question showed varying opinions. On the one hand, it was said that digital sovereignty hinders digital cooperation because it leads to states worldwide focusing on becoming sovereign over ‘their’ territory and citizens, which leads states to look ‘inwards’, preventing or hindering global digital cooperation. On the other hand, it was emphasised that pursuing digital sovereignty can also lead to international cooperation. This, as one can only become genuinely sovereign if this is recognised by the ‘outsiders’ and thus can foster international digital cooperation as a result of the need for external recognition.

Another critical point highlighted during the discussions in one of the groups is that the question is perhaps too general, and it might be more important to focus on specific aspects of digital governance. This is to understand further when or if the notion of digital sovereignty fosters or hinders digital cooperation about particular issues related to digital governance. In the second part of this networking session, these different fields in which tension surrounding digital sovereignty, such as data protection, online piracy, cybercrime, cybersecurity, censorship and content moderation, government data policy, satellite internet, taxation and data flow across borders were further discussed.

     Key Takeaways

1. Digital sovereignty is a broad term to use when thinking about how to understand cooperation or tensions across states.

2. A functional approach to understanding different parts of the digital sovereignty debate can be helpful.

Call to Action

1. Bring together different understandings of digital sovereignty from different parts of the world: collaborative research is necessary!

2. Break down discussions using the concept of digital sovereignty into different fields; only policy-specific discussions will allow us to understand how sovereignty is exercised in a digital space.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• There should a rebirth of community centers that enable connectivity in rural and urban poor communities
• Through WiFi, 3G, 4G, 5G networks, and satellite networks, a pack is going to be designed for anyone anywhere in the world to connect with these internet packs
• Enhancing teacher training in rural communities using the internet back pack
• It is important to empower people with the skills needed to engage.
• Regulators should improve digital policies in rural communities

Timofey V, head of the development department for strategic directions of ANO Dialog, gave a master-class on how to identify and combat different types of fakes on the Web. In particular he emphasised the growing number of deepfakes on the Internet and their danger to the national security of countries.

Most notably he shared with the audience the product of independent analysis, condected at ANO Dialog, statistics on fakes since 2021, which demonstrated that from 2021 to 2022 number of fake news almost doubled - from 1,725 to 3,995 misinformation topics.

Timofey V highlighted that in just this year alone 3034 fake topics have already been discovered (data excluding copies and reposts on social networks) and that it is necessary for civil society to coordinate their efforts in fact-checking activities.

Speakers of the session included the founder of the NFT marketplace Apollo42, Daniil Mazurin, and the Deputy Chairman of the Russian Church's Synodal Department for Church Relations with Society and the Media, Vakhtang Kipshidze.

The main topics raised during the discussion were the ethical aspects of transferring a person’s personality to the digital world, regulation of IT companies, as well as the technical possibilities for the development of metaverses.

“The Metaverse is a world created by a man who claims to be flawless. However, we, people of faith, believe that the real world still has its shortcomings, and accordingly, these imperfections will sooner or later also become part of the virtual space. Therefore, it is necessary to understand exactly what values we will transfer to metaverses from the real world,” Vakhtang Kipshidze spoke about the Church’s approaches to the phenomenon of virtual worlds.

He placed particular emphasis on one of the most controversial topics - the so-called “digital immortality”. The very structure of personality, in his opinion, is under threat, since a person may eventually cease to understand whether he has a physical body and become aware of himself. “Sometimes people become obsessed with metaverses, and this is a direct path to the violation of individual freedom, so obsessions must be fought together,” he concluded.

Daniil Mazurin suggested that metaverses in the future will help the economies of some countries, especially developing ones. For this reason, it is important to take into account the views of countries in the Global South on how the development of new technologies such as metaverses or VR should be regulated. Since they will have a direct impact on the people living in those states.

“The other problem with metaverses is the hardware. At the moment, in order for an ordinary user to get into the metaverse, it is necessary not only to have a powerful computer that can run the programmes, but also additional tools like VR glasses etc. For now, this is a very expensive and complex process, but in the near future this will, of course, change,” he stated.

The discussion received a lively response from the audience. A representative from the Pakistani tech community drew attention to the problem of regulating metaverses. The legal side of the issue is still in the so-called “gray zone”: the personal data of users of metaplatforms is not protected, which means their use can lead to the theft of a “digital avatar”. However, a representative of the European Union objected to this, saying that regulation actually already exists. However, it is not reflected in one specialized document, but is part of the general regulation of digital platforms: from protecting user data to the operation of recommender systems.

The speakers concluded that metaverses have both positive and negative sides, and there is still no unity in the expert community regarding the attitude towards this technology. However, the relevance of regulating metaverses will undoubtedly only grow.

Report

The initial part of the presentation covered the core concepts of the new app version and the fresh identity document.

The objective is for the mObywatel application to become the citizen's primary point of contact with the government, effectively functioning as a digital assistant. The new application version is a response to citizen's needs. Every service and feature underwent usability testing, and we continued to make changes and enhancements until reaching version 2.0. The most significant change involves introducing a completely new identity document known as mDowód.

New Digital ID card

mDowód is entirely new, electronic identity document that differs from an standard ID card in terms of its series and number, date of issue, and expiration date. Thanks to the new law, it will be possible to use it to confirm identity in almost every place - for instance, at the office, in court, at the clinic, at the post office, or with a notary.

Document Verification

The first method utilizes device-to-device verification, utilizing QR codes and cryptography to enhance security. The second includes visual verification on mobile phones, integrating dynamic elements like flags and dates to prevent screenshot fraud. The third is specifically designed for system integration and is primarily focused on meeting the requirements of financial institutions, improving the accessibility of remote verification processes.

The second section of the presentation elaborated on the operational methods and the shift towards agile methodologies.

Why is Agile used in the public sector?

A flexible approach was required to quickly adapt to changing business needs. In this Agile framework, stakeholders were involved, and regular feedback was obtained in short cycles. This approach helped in keeping a close eye on progress and making the project responsive to stakeholder needs. Emphasis was placed on transparency, allowing citizens to observe the work in real-time. This demonstrated a commitment to openness, responsiveness, and delivering valuable services to the public.

Change in the release management process

A change in the release management process was implemented for greater efficiency and responsiveness. The release process for both mobile apps and backend services was automated. This allowed for swift development and testing of 30 to 40 versions of mobile apps every day. A new application with new features and improvements was released to citizens every two weks. 

Involving citizens

The input of citizens is highly valued and is an integral part of product development. Comprehensive research is conducted on products and features, including usability testing, where products are actively used to identify issues and enhance the user experience. In-depth interviews are conducted to gain a deeper understanding of user opinions and experiences. Observations of user behavior are used to identify patterns and issues. Focus groups are organized to engage in moderated discussions with users to gather a wide range of opinions and ideas about products and services. All of these methods ensure that citizen feedback is prioritized, and continuous improvements are made to their offerings.

IGF 2023 Day 0 Session: How to build trust in user-centric digital public services

IGF Sub-theme: Data Governance & Trust

Date and time: Sunday, 8 October 2023 | 14:45 to 15:45 JST

Workshop Room 9, Kyoto International Conference Centre

Session Report

The roundtable discussion titled “How to build trust in user-centric digital public services” focused on the role that trust plays in the delivery of digital public services (DPS). Government trustworthiness and robust data governance as prerequisites for building trust among citizens. The speakers in this session represented a diverse range of countries that have made remarkable progress in digital government in recent years and shared their lessons learned.

First, panellists stated what they believe to be the biggest challenge to building trust in digital government.

Gautham Ravichander, Head of Strategy at eGovernment Foundation in India stressed the need for reliable digital public services. DPS and transparency should be a priority for politicians worldwide. A seamless "Phygital" approach, integrating online and on-the-ground services, will ensure a consistent experience for all. According to Dr. Rudolf Gridl, Director-General for Central Services of the Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport (BMDV), services must strike a balance between being user-friendly, reliable and customizable while also ensuring data privacy. He believes that user-friendliness is crucial for users to adopt and use the services effectively. Valeriya Ionan, Deputy Minister for Eurointegration at the Ukrainian Ministry for Digital Transformation, defined trust as confidence in the appropriateness of the service. She reinforced that institutional trust is crucial and therefore security is an essential aspect of this discussion. For Luanna Roncaratti, Deputy Secretary of Digital Government, Ministry for Management and Innovation in Public Services in Brazil, one of the biggest challenges in creating trust is a siloed and fragmented model of providing public services, a notion that originates from a traditional public model of governance organisation rather than what citizens want.

The session was moderated on site by Christopher Newman and online by Sascha Nies from Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH.

Following the initial statements, Gautham Ravichander, whose organisation supports governments in building platforms for better service delivery, shared what he and his organisation have learned from working on digitalization with various levels of government.. Mr Ravichander stated that it is not only the software that has to work, but there needs to be a focus on capacity building. It is crucial to prioritize making and fulfilling promises. Public services must be dependable, and timelines need to be communicated clearly to citizens. He further emphasized that education and training are essential. In terms of security and privacy, data collection needs to be minimised. Files should be queried by API without the intervention of a human administrator. 

Dr. Gridl stated that Germany values data protection, with citizens highly concerned about it. However, it can be observed that citizens tend to be willing to share data with private companies but not with the government. Building trust through secure data handling and specific, transparent purposes is essential. Recent debates in Germany over a digital public transport ticket also highlight the importance of digital inclusion and data protection. While it is vital, but it must be balanced with user-friendliness to gain citizens' trust.

Following this, Valeriya Ionan was asked about Ukraine’s “state in a smartphone” app, Diia, which allows citizens to carry digital documents like their driver’s license or their passport on their phones. She stated that Ukraine is a frontrunner in the development and use of digital passports and envisions new, convenient services. Her department introduced Diia as an integrated application with multiple digital features before the war and quickly added services post-war, such as integrating TV and radio, tracking internally displaced people, and offering financial aid for damage due to Russian missiles. This innovation required technical expertise and especially trust-building. Ukraine boasts the world's fastest business registration and other quick services, emphasising the need for basic digital skills through education. Regular communication, citizen involvement through beta testing, and user-friendliness are pivotal for trust, not just the product itself.

Next, Luana Roncaratti discussed Brazil's focus on citizen-centricity, which is a key principle of its Digital Government Strategy. The country strives for digital inclusion and a user-centric approach, using surveys and a holistic approach to identify pain points in usage. They use simple language and clear design, offer a user feedback API, and have VILIBRA, a sign language translation service. The focus remains on providing proactive services to ensure inclusion for all.

Finally, the panel was asked about the possibilities and risks of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the provisions of DPS. Luana Roncaratti argued there need to be four areas of action to generate trust in DPS, namely transparency, the possibility to make requests for review when citizens feel they are being discriminated against by AI, investments in data protection and the assessment of risks. Valeriya Ionan stated the need to publish recommendations on balancing regulation and innovation. Dr. Gridl argued that trust is achieved by implementing AI step by step. Gautham Ravichander highlighted the opportunities AI has to change DPS for the better, i.e. in translation in a country like India with many languages, or for medical services.

Then the audience online and in the room were invited to ask questions. This round highlighted further aspects that should be considered when discussing trust in DPS, such as the exclusivity of DPS for i.e. immigrants, Ukraine’s data-in-transit approach as opposed to storing citizen data permanently, cybersecurity and the role of foreign cloud computing servers.

In summary, the event emphasised the essential role of trust in establishing and maintaining DPS. Key principles for trust-building mentioned in the discussion included transparency and user-centricity. The lessons learned spanned practical data protection measures, communicating and educating citizens, also on risk factors including AI, and effective cybersecurity considerations in the context of cloud computing.

The lightning talk covered recent regulatory efforts by the European Union concerning cyber security. The talk covered the NIS-2 directive, the Cybersecurity Act, the Cyber Resilience Act as well as the AI Act.
The talk elaborated on the core methods and tools those regulation aims to foster IT-Security. It especially emphasized the core role of risk management.
The talk also further elaborated on two selected challenges and issues with cybersecurity regulation.
First, it conducted a case study of the IT security requirements and regulations of Digital Identities. The case study demonstrated the complex interdependencies of different regulations, stakeholders (users, private sector, government), as well as the technical infrastructure. This example was used to emphasize the difficulties of effectively ensuring or fostering Cybersecurity in a complex environment.
The second issue demonstrated was the subjectivity of risk management. It was argued that the result of risk management, which in the IT-Security law are actual technical protection measures to be implemented, heavily relies on the perspective of the risk-assessing entity. Current international efforts like the UN Cybercrime Convention were briefly discussed.

During the Discussion, several aspects and different perspectives were brought up by the audience:

1. One Participant brought up the issue that especially the market-focused regulatory efforts by the EU do not consider interactions with international trade law. Because the CRA contains several product requirements, those might pose an issue with existing trade agreements. Future regulatory efforts should consider those interactions more.
2. One Participant brought up the issue that existing regulation mainly focuses on the security of devices but not on the people using those. Within risk management, this can lead to blind spots for risks for certain stakeholders. One stated example was the safety of IOT devices in the context of domestic violence. If a person does not have access to a victim's home but is still the account owner for the smart home system, he could use it to, e.g., turn on the heating to demonstrate power. Because he is the rightful owner of the account, this would not be, per definition, a security risk.
3. Another participant pointed out the market effect of the CRA. As security is a quality of a good that is difficult to asses by the average customer, common requirements prevent market failure through information asymmetries.
4. One more aspect that was briefly discussed was the security of critical components. The question if the European legislator considers those was positively answered by a participant.

Report:

Lightning Talk #38: Place and role of women in cyberspace

During the lightening talk the subject was presented according to background paper. Key issues from the presentations were barriers which limit women's use of the internet

• Pay gap

Given the global gender pay gap, women tend to have lower incomes compared to men, making it harder for them to allocate a significant portion of their earnings to purchasing smartphones or paying for internet access.

• Accessibility

The cost of an internet connection is a significant barrier for women in accessing the internet. In many low- and middle-income nations, the cost of internet services remains relatively high compared to average incomes. As a result, women may struggle to afford internet services, hindering their ability to go online and participate in the digital world.

• Lack of devices:

Women globally possess fewer devices, such as smartphones, compared to men. One contributing factor is the higher cost of these devices, which can make them less affordable for women in low- and middle-income countries. Research indicates that the cheapest new smartphones are still relatively costly for many individuals, with an average price of $104 per unit. The disparity in device ownership has implications for internet usage patterns. For example, a smaller percentage of female mobile phone owners in these regions have access to smartphones compared to basic calling phones. This technological barrier restricts the range of activities women can engage in while online, limiting their ability to fully participate in cyberspace.

• Privacy and security:

Women tend to be more concerned about online security and privacy compared to men. In many countries, women express greater apprehension regarding the protection of their personal data. These concerns may be rooted in cultural factors, gender-based violence, or experiences of online harassment and stalking. As a result, women may be more cautious about sharing personal information and engaging in certain online activities, which can impede their ability to freely navigate cyberspace and fully utilize its resources.

• Education and skills:

Disparities in educational attainment contribute to keeping women offline. Unfortunately, a gender education gap persists globally, with adult men having higher rates of educational attainment than adult women. This disparity extends into the digital age, as women may have less exposure to digital skills training within traditional educational settings. The lack of educational opportunities and digital skills training hampers women's ability to navigate and utilize online platforms effectively, creating a digital divide.

In the second part of the presentation some polish solutions and project which counteract to those gaps ware presented.

• Campaign Girls for polytechnics! and Girls to Strict! is a pioneering and at the same time the largest project promoting technical, engineering and science courses (STEM) among young women in Poland and Central and Eastern Europe. The most important goal of these programs is to break stereotypes in thinking and encourage secondary school students to take up technical and science studies.  

• NEW YOU in IT - Professionalism has no gender - The first edition of this four-month program conducted by the Central Information Technology Center (associated with the Ministry of Digitial Affairs) was aimed at providing free education to participants and motivating women who want to join the IT industry.

• #CyberStrong media campaign, which tells about women who have achieved success in the IT industry and in managing the state's cybersphere.

• Poland has also introduced new regulations to the Labor Code, guaranteeing parents and caretakers additional holidays and leaves, access to flexible forms of employment, including home-office, as well as extra protection from dismissal.

• Close to 300 Ukrainian women who arrived in Poland as a result of the war have expressed their interest in participating in HERoes in IT, a free career transition program that educates them in the field of manual testing. The record number of applications confirms that Ukrainian women are eager to develop their digital skills, even considering a complete career change.

After the presentation some comments were raised by participants. Comments were very positive. Moreover some of participants shared the information about some similar programs in their countries.  

This session broke into groups to discuss the challenges for funders of Internet development initiatives.

Group A:
 

A key challenge for one funder was finding activities which are aligned with the donors vision/interest. Although grants terms are one-year generally, usually donors look for impact that can be measured. This focus on (immediate) impact that creates burdens for grantees, and it can be difficult to measure, especially in the short term.

A funding recipient said that they understand that donors want to measure impact. but then, in addition to the tools used for implementing activities, recipient organizations then need to use other/new tools to measure impact. A one year grant requires quick results and that’s not possible most of the time. In that grantee’s case, they have dedicated staff for reporting and evaluation, but that is not a common situation for most recipients.

Group B:

A key discussion point was around how both donors and recipients can build skills to manage the grants received and to do it well. How can this be formalised/standardised?

Some organisations have the potential to generate their own funds, but are not leveraging this enough. There needs to be more focus on this from the recipients (and skills development). This means there has to be consideration of multiple income streams, and whether grants alone can sustain the organization.

Funders may need to consider how they can provide the tools to develop business models and marketing skills for their funding recipients.

In some cases, they can help the recipient organisation to get to the next level. It is easier in smaller countries where everyone knows everyone. An example is for funders to have access to a pool of resources that can offer low-bono work to orgs that may need legal advice, marketing, website development, or give small extra funds to improve key skills at that point in time.

Funders can look at how to provide access to creative designers to help communicate techy concepts translated into clear ideas and messages to the rest of the world.

Fellowships train people and ask them to be ambassadors. This is empowering.  But as a funder, it is not a self sustaining initiative as the funder will always have to find funds each period to pay for travel and attendance to conferences. They are growing their skills, but then the funder needs to consider how they can leverage those skills, such as alumni programs.  There are certain initiatives/models that will always require funds. But is there another funding model?

The question was asked: What about multi-year funding?

One funder said they used to do single-year funding, but now they do larger grants over two years. They partner upfront, to help guide it with the organization and work with them. Rather than a competitive process they strategically selected partner recipients. They then encourage and support them to seek multiple sources of funds.

Group C:

There was some discussion around the stability of recipient organizations – short term funding with short term goals doesn’t allow them much scope to invest in their ongoing sustainability.

The question was asked how much of that was related to funding – sustainability is also affected by external factors or unstable political environments however in this case it was a question of financial stability.

There was discussion around the balance between investing for measurable impact, versus investing long term in the core viability of organizations and keeping them sustainable. These two goals are often in tension.

The session is available at:

https://www.youtube.com/live/Jx1KjQepkOg?si=LldFPmphJE6rFDs3&t=19652

With artificial intelligence broadening its impact on all aspects of life, Elon University leaders have coordinated development of a statement of principles to guide higher education institutions as they prepare humanity for the revolution brought about by this rapidly evolving and groundbreaking technology.

The statement was co-authored by Elon President Connie Ledoux Book, Elon scholar-in-residence Lee Rainie and Professor Divina Frau-Meigs of Sorbonne Nouvelle University in Paris and has generated feedback and support from higher education organizations, leaders and scholars from around the world. (Comprehensive details at: https://www.elon.edu/u/ai-higher-education/)

The authors were joined by fellow scholars on Oct. 9, in Kyoto, Japan, at the 18th annual United Nations Internet Governance Forum. They led a discussion about the multitude of ways higher education institutions can develop artificial intelligence literacy and commit to serving society’s best interests as these technologies continue to expand.

Book explained that the six principles offered in the statement embody a call for the higher education community to be an integral partner in development and governance of AI.

“The statement provides a framework for leaders at colleges and universities around the world as they develop strategies to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow,” Book said during the session, which generated in-person and online attendees from around the globe. “At Elon University, faculty are adapting the statement as they create policies on AI and design new approaches to teaching and learning.”

The six foundational principles that are outlined in the statement are:

1. People, not technology, must be at the center of our work
2. We should promote digital inclusion within and beyond our institutions
3. Digital and information literacy is an essential part of a core education
4. AI tools should enhance teaching and learning
5. Learning about technologies is an experiential, lifelong process
6. AI research and development must be done responsibly

The statement issues a call for the higher education community, and not just those within traditional technology fields, to be deeply involved in the development of governance mechanisms for AI, mechanisms that should be crafted by multiple stakeholders.

“Educators in all fields are well suited to provide intellectual and ethical guidance, conduct much-needed research, serve as trustworthy watchdogs and be advocates for learners, teachers and society,” the statement reads.

Rainie joined Elon this year as scholar-in-residence after serving for 24 years as director of internet and technology research at the Pew Research Center. He has also been a research partner for Elon’s Imagining the Internet Center for more than 20 years. At the session in the Kyoto International Convention Center, Rainie explained that the six principles bring time-tested truths to artificial intelligence and are essential for maintaining human rights, human autonomy and human dignity.

“Clearly, we are at a singular moment now as AI spreads through our lives,” Rainie said. “In the past, tools and machines were created to enhance or surpass the physical capacities of humans. The advent of AI brings technologies that enhance or surpass our cognitive capacities.”

Rainie has begun his work at Elon with a research survey of global experts and the general public in the United States to explore the views of both groups about how the benefits and harms of AI may unfold in the years to come. That work, which will be released in early 2024, builds upon the decades of work of the Imagining the Internet Center to catalogue the insights of hundreds of experts about how the digital revolution impacts humanity.

Rainie noted that past surveys have generated a wide range of answers to questions about the digital revolution, but there is a universal purpose that can be seen driving those answers. “They want us to think together to devise solutions that yield the greatest possible achievements with the least possible pain,” Rainie said.

With the introduction of new generative AI tools such as ChatGPT in late 2022 and the increasing integration of AI technologies into a broader range of platforms, discussion around its long-term impact has exploded. Given the increasing complexity of AI systems and the newness of the technology, those discussions have often foster panic upon many in the population.

“As researchers, we have to resist the panic, the current panic about AI systems and the fact they might produce superintelligence that is more intelligent than us,” said Frau-Meigs, who serves as the UNESCO chair for Savoir-Devenir in sustainable digital development. “We need to lift fear and anxiety. … we as universities have to come up with solutions for learners worldwide.”

Frau-Meigs said it is important to promote media and information literacy first to create a familiarity with concepts and issues that allows larger segments of the public to move on to AI literacy. “We want to leave a space for understanding and for adoption,” she said.

Joining the statement authors for Monday’s session were other scholars from a range of disciplines who examined how higher education can proactively engage in AI governance and development.

Alejandro Pisanty, a member of the Internet Hall of Fame and professor of internet governance and the information society at the National Autonomous University of Mexico, said the ongoing development of AI is having an impact on higher education by drawing talent away from university research centers. “First-world countries are seeing what we have suffered from in developing countries for decades, which is brain drain,” said Pisanty, a member of the Internet Hall of Fame.

That makes it important for higher education to take a proactive role in the development and governance of AI in the years ahead. “The highest cost we would incur is the cost of doing nothing,” he said.

Francisca Oladipo, vice chancellor and professor of computer science at Thomas Adewumi University in Nigeria similarly warned against inaction and the temptation to think that the issues surrounding AI are only related to this in fields related to technology and computer science.

“In Nigeria, we have viewed AI as something for computer people, but that’s no longer the case,” Oladipo said. “We need to be more inclusive to embrace everyone because the application of AI is across every field.”

Eve Gaumond, a law researcher at the University of Montreal Public Law Research Center is focused on artificial intelligence in higher education, freedom of expression in a digital context and access to justice. She said it is crucial that those developing AI systems in higher education have a deep understanding of the technologies and ask good questions. “Oftentimes ed tech looks like modern snake oil,” Gaumond said. “And modern snake oil can have real negative impacts. The datafication of students’ lives can discourage them from engaging in meaningful, formative experiences, and it’s especially worrisome when we know that the data starts being collected as early as primary level and continue following them through high school and university.”

Also participating in the session:

• Siva Prasad Rambhatla
  Retired professor and leader of the Centre for Digital Learning, Training and Resources, University of Hyderabad, India

• Wei Wang 
  Member of the IGF Dynamic Coalition on Data and Artificial Intelligence Governance; teaching fellow, Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) think tank in Brazil; University of Hong Kong School of Law doctoral student
• Renata de Oliveira Miranda Gomes
  IGF 2023 Youth delegate representing Brazil; recently earned a master’s degree in communication at the University of Brasilia

 The 2023 Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto highlighted the global challenge of regulating digital technologies, with countries exploring various approaches. The Australian National University Tech Policy Design Centre’s vision is to help develop best practice tech policy that enriches society.

To support this vision, we've established the Tech Atlas, a comprehensive public database encompassing global tech policies, strategies, legislation, and regulations. Our goal is to make it the primary resource for independent researchers and governments with limited resources. The Atlas serves as a tool for understanding diverse approaches to tech policy and regulation, identifying best practices, and exploring opportunities for harmonisation. 

As countries introduce a range of tech regulations, the Tech Atlas simplifies the process of tracking and accessing them. Key discussions at the IGF, including artificial intelligence, cybercrime, and online safety, are categorised in our database for easy navigation within the Atlas. 

We understand access to well-documented policies is crucial for researchers, enabling the identification of trends, evidence-based studies, and the formulation of actionable advice for governments and industries. The Atlas aims to be a go-to platform for tech policy information. 

No one knows a jurisdiction as well as their citizens, and that’s why we want to ask for the help of others around the globe. We rely on users to spread the word that the database exists, and we’ve made it as easy as possible for people to make corrections and contributions. These entries are verified by our researchers, and we then upload it onto the Atlas! 

Visit the Atlas, explore the database, and contribute to advancing global understanding of tech policies. The expertise of our user’s is invaluable in shaping a better technological future for humanity. 

Key Outcomes 

• The Atlas is a tool for evidence-based research into global tech policy. It will facilitate better research into tech policy from industry, government, and civil society. 

Call to Action 

• If you can, please contribute any new policies or regulations to the Atlas. We rely on user contributions to keep it updated. 

Session Presentation

Nat Sakimura from Information Technology Federation of Japan (IT Renmei) provided presentation of “Trusted Personal Data Management Service (TPDMS) Certification Program”.

In G20 Osaka Leader’s Declaration (2019) , G20 countries can facilitate data free flow and strengthen consumer and business trust. In order to realize the safe and free flow of data, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan has established the Information Bank system.
Information Bank is seen as a third way, different from the "CRM" in which a single company manages customer information and the "VRM" in which individuals manage personal information. Under this scheme, Information Bank, which has been certified according to guidelines set by the government, holds personal information in trust and provides support for data distribution and data utilization.
The guidelines established by the government have the following characteristics:
1)Certification Criteria
2)Model Terms and Conditions
3)Governance    
Especially in governance, it is important that both the certification body and each information bank have a Data Ethics Board. This makes it possible to protect individual privacy and gain trust in data distribution and data utilization.

The IT Renmei certifies Information Banks according to these guidelines. The certification, called TPDMS (Trusted Personal Data Management Service), has the following characteristics:
T: Third Way for Personal Data Ecosystem
P: Participation of Individuals（Controllability）
D: Data Free Flow with Trust
M: Multi-stakeholder Governance
S: Soft Law（Co-regulation）by Public-private Initiative
Information Bank, certified by TPDMS, is a Personal Data (Trust) Bank that receives trust from individuals and supports the distribution and utilization of data. In return, in the unlikely event that an individual is disadvantaged, such as due to information leakage, they will act as the primary point of contact and be responsible for compensation. Through this, the aim is to dispel individual concerns and realize smooth data utilization.
Personal Data (Trust) Bank's Data Ethic Board ensures that the above is achieved by reviewing data collection methods, data utilization purposes, data provision to third parties, etc.
In addition, for certification, we collaborate with ISO's Security Management standards and Privacy Enhancement standards and provide certifications that are comparable to global standards.

Discussion

Kazue Sako (Vice Chairperson, MyData Japan) agrees and supported IT Renmei’s action. She also recognizes the same issues and is working to realize safe and secure distribution of personal information led by consumers through the activities of MyData Japan.
Among them, she asked why such good initiatives have not become more widespread.
IT Renmei believes there are several reasons for this, but the most important one is that data portability has not yet been legislated in Japan and is not fully recognized as a consumer right.

Christian Reimsbach-Kounatze,(OECD Secretariat) said that Japan is leading the way in this field.
In other countries, data brokers distribute data against people's wishes and use it for commercial purposes.
He said that there is a big difference between Japan's Personal Data (Trust) Bank, which support data distribution on the consumer's side.
On top of that, he presented the issue of:
・Will Personal Data (Trust) Bank be useful even in Europe, where data portability is allowed?
・Is it possible for small and medium-sized enterprises to realize this? 
・Furthermore, if we are to leave discretion to individuals, how much discretion can we leave to them, and will they be able to understand and exercise it? 

Summary
・TPDMS is a mechanism that helps reduce the information asymmetry among the data economy participants by implementing transparency, accountability, and controllability by individuals. 
・TPDMS Certification Scheme formed by Public-Private partnership will help the trust formation by removing the need to verify by each participant.

The lightning talk was co-organized by the eHelp Association, the Cybersecurity Youth Committee, and the Child Research Officers (CRO) aged 11-18. 

The objectives of the session were to:

i) provide a platform for young people to express their concerns about internet issues directly

ii) share the key insights gained from adopting the youth-led research approach to engage the younger generation in the Internet governance domain, and more importantly, to share key takeaways from both the program coordinator and participants’ perspectives

iii) allow young people to present their future plans for supporting peers’ involvement in the Internet Governance discussion, and 

iv) create opportunities to co-manage and co-design this sharing experience with young people in an International internet policy discussion platform

The youth-led research approach consists of three key components: i) Children and youth researcher training and research preparation, ii) Presentation at the Annual Forum, including Youth Summit in China, and iii) Exchange of views at international conferences and visits, such as Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum.

During the session, CROs shared their insights and addressed questions including, What are the internet issues that concern children and youth researchers the most? How was the research experience and how has it influenced them? What are the next steps in the Internet Governance journey?

From the sharing, key elements of the youth-led research approach were emphasized, including: 

i) Inquiry-driven: The approach is centred around the interests of young researchers and is designed to ignite curiosity. 

ii) Authentic and relevant: The research topics are chosen by young people which align with their daily life experiences. The relevance creates a sense of urgency when addressing real-life challenges. 

iii) Platform for expression: It provides a valuable opportunity for young researchers to express their thoughts, perspectives, and concerns. 

iv) Meaningful participation and view exchange: The approach encourages active participation and facilitates the exchange of diverse viewpoints with different stakeholders from diverse backgrounds. 

v) Sustainable engagement: It aims to go beyond one-off initiatives, fostering a culture of ongoing involvement and commitment. 

vi) Starting with small steps: It encourages young researchers to take initial steps and create a ripple effect, inspiring their peers to get involved as well.

Regarding the impact of the approach, it demonstrated a significant impact on different stakeholders. For children and youth, it fosters the development of important skills such as perspective-taking, logical thinking, and evidence-based reasoning. It also helps them develop a sense of ownership and active participation in shaping a better internet. By engaging in research, they contribute to the co-construction of an internet environment that meets their needs and aspirations. For adults, including government officials, corporate representatives, youth workers, educators, and parents, the approach offers valuable insights and helps them gain a better understanding of the actual needs and concerns of children and youth. By valuing the voices of youth and children, it enables adult stakeholders to make informed decisions and take appropriate actions. For example, policymakers can develop comprehensive policies that address the challenges faced by young people in the digital realm. Similarly, program coordinators can design initiatives that effectively promote the well-being and empowerment of children and youth in the online world.

The session ended with a Q&A from the floor, one of the guests proposed utilizing online crowdfunding methods to support the follow-up initiatives by youth researchers. This method would not only raise public awareness but also provide the necessary funding for operational projects. Another suggestion put forward was to explore opportunities for collaboration with regional Internet Governance platforms. By partnering with these platforms, it would be possible to enhance the research efforts and reach a broader audience, thereby maximizing the impact of the youth-led research approach.

1. Around 45 people attended the session, in which Shane Huntely shared Google’s approach and key initiatives in cybersecurity protection: Google is committed to keeping people safe online by integrating cutting-edge AI technology. Secure by Default products such as Google Play, Gmail, and Chrome protect billions of users from cyberattacks. In October, Google launched Google Career Certificates and APAC Cybersecurity Funding to bolster the number of cybersecurity professionals. The Threat Analysis Group continuously monitors attackers. Google will continue to make efforts as a trusted partner to enhance online safety.  In the Q/A session, he answered the questions about diversity improvement, partnerships, etc.  

Prior to discussing the presented guiding questions, the moderators, Hiroki Mashiko, Bernhards Blumbergs, Adli Wahid, and Masae Toyama as well as participants introduced themselves to get to know each other. Toyama mentioned the background story of session proposal. Her idea was to break the situation of fewer chance to meet CSIRT practitioners in IGF and create a place for them to attract themselves and a wider technical community. She said that while CSIRTs play an important role in keeping secure and stable cyberspace, their voice in IGF is not yet loud enough amongst various stakeholders.

She explained how the networking sessions ran. All participants invited to stand up and walk freely in the room to talk to someone they not spoken to yet. One of the features of the session was that participants were encouraged to pick coloured sticky note(s) to show their own stakeholder group, and this facilitated to foster the conversation in terms of ice break.
Of the 10-minute session, seven minutes are allocated for short discussion to answer a guiding question and three minutes for the exchange of comments from the virtual and physical venues. It was repeated three times with different questions.
 
Mashiko actively addressed the onsite participants and encouraged them to comment. Blumbergs and Wahid interacted with the online participants by summarising the views of participants and sometimes adding their own views as well. The instructions were carefully explained to those who came in the middle of the session so that they could enter the discussions smoothly.

After that, the programme proceeded to three rounds of discussion session. Comments shared by participants are including but not limited to:
Question 1: When do you feel that your commitment to cybersecurity is creating and sustaining an open, free and secure Internet?
- Meeting different stakeholders through IGF is my commitment.
- It is a difficult time to achieve a secure, open and free internet all at once. Practitioners are forced to balance the three on a daily basis. It is necessary to interact with people in countries that are not open.

Question 2: What international (geo)political issues prevent CSIRTs from an open, free, and secure digital cyberspace in engaging with cybersecurity? If we cooperate, how can we address this?
- A government CERT feels that the outflow of personnel and data out of the country is a problem.
- Practitioners in other sectors should be made aware of the environment inside and outside their organisations that discourages information sharing between practitioners.
- A gaming company's CERT always considers the possibility of internal or user backlash if the vulnerability is made public and the game rules are changed.
- A university CERT considers whether it makes sense to disclose vulnerabilities outside the stakeholders.

Question 3: To promote cybersecurity, what is a key message you would like to convey at this IGF which is attended by a wide range of stakeholders?
- Cybersecurity practitioners are varied: national, academia, private sector from dealing with public infrastructure and product security.  All deal with different information in different styles.
- Cybersecurity practitioners with different perspectives should be interested in sharing what information they deal with in their own activities, and acknowledging what they can and cannot compromise will increase their awareness of participating in cybersecurity discussions.
- In multi-stakeholder fora, strengthening information sharing and capacity building is often the conclusion of the sessions, but how can it be properly assessed, or what other solutions are there?

Moderators thanked the participants for raising the issues and reaffirmed the need for such a place for exchanging views. In the end, participants agreed to promote IGF more to cybersecurity practitioners not only to enhance collaboration with other stakeholders but also focus on diversity within the cybersecurity cluster to encourage mutual understanding.

HACK THE DIGITAL DIVIDE by WSA

The digitalization affects all parts of our lives. It supported children in homeschooling during the pandemic, offers citizen engagement, provides information, and makes us more efficient.
However there are challenging digital divides, in terms of access, content or gender.

WSA is a global activitiy initiated in 2003 in the framework of the UN World Summit on the Infomration Society, aiming to narrow digital divides and support the transformation into a knowledge society through the promotion of best practice solutions of digital innovations and local content for the UN SDGs.
 

Three WSA winners shared their solutions how to narrow digital divides.
Matias Rojas, CEO and Founder from SociaLab in Chile shared the centralization of access to funds and networks in urban areas. Talent is equally distributed in society, but not ressources. SociaLab bridges divides between rural areas and cities and supports entrepreneurs to be economically successful but combined with ecological and social impact.

Tiffany Tong, Founder and CEO from Aloi shared how her company bridges the divides in terms of financial access through microfinancing tools.

WSA chairperson Prof. Bruck shared: WSIS lost half of his focus.
The side of narrowing the digital divides is addressed, but the WSIS process tends to forget about the transformation society. We have technology success, but knowledge failure.
Hate speech, mis-information - these are things that we need to take seriously.
WSIS has started pre-SDGs, during the MDG (Millenium Development Goals) agenda - the benefit of the UN SDGs is that it has within its key indicators clear KPIs.
In the Tunis plan of action there is action line C-9 - media.
Media is a completely different kind of landscape today than back in 2003, due to the digital platform monopolization.
54% person of global advertising budget goes to 5 American companies. Papers need to close down, business models fail and we are having a huge loss in terms of media diversity.

The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety Coalition organised a day 0 event on procuring ICT products, services and devices secure by design.

In an introduction IS3C's coordinator Wout de Natris explained how governments and industry can become more secure by design. The most powerful tool any large(r) organisation has over manufacturers and developers is its buying power. When they start to demand that open, security-related internet standards and ICT best practices are built in by design, most likely industry will adhere to this demand. As a trickle down effect, ICT will become more secure for all users. However, IS3C's research shows that buying power is seldom applied where ICT security is concerned.

Next, the overarching themes from IS3C's research were presented. They are:

1. Governments, and most likely other organisations as well, do not use their purchasing powers to procure secure ICT and IoT products, services and devices;
2. There is insufficient cooperation between governments to coordinate on ICT security regulation or advise. This makes it hard for industry to adhere to commonly set standards;
3. Open standards, created by the technical community are not recognised by by far most governments. This results in the public core of the internet to remain unprotected;
4. Better cooperation between governments will lead to a better protected and safer internet for all.
5. The lack of a level playing field for industry results in an insecure ICT environment as products are as a standard to be released on the market insecure by design.
6. The lack of demand for security by design from society as a whole leads to a lack of incentive for industry to manufacture and develop security by design in ICT.
7. Governments can be the big driver for security by design to procure according to this principle
8. There is a world to win where cybersecurity is concerned that is currently fully underused.

The floor was opened for questions and comments, but none present had experience with this way of working.

David Hubermann, chair of IS3C’s WG 8 on DNSSEC and RPKI deployment, explained the importance and uniqueness of open internet standards. For many ordinary things in life countries or regions have their own standard. E.g. currency, electricity voltage, sockets and plugs, the side of driving on the road, etc. On the internet however, the standards are the same everywhere. When these standards were first created, security was not an issue. Since, security has become a major topic. The technical community has come up with solutions for the insecurity in standards. For the DNS system, the domain names, it is a set of security extensions called DNSSEC, for the routing on the internet it is called RPKI, Resource Public Key Infrastructure.

The  strange situation occurs that security is within grasp, if only it was deployed by, mostly, the internet industry. This is insufficiently the case, leaving everyone on the internet exposed to threats and attacks, including those who have deployed, as the "dark side" can use these flaws for their nefarious purposes. The focus of the technical community has mostly been focused on the technique. It has become clear that this does not convince the people in decision-taking positions to agree to deployment.

To change this, IS3C's WG 8 has formed a team of experts who will provide advise to all who have to convince their managers to deploy with a new set of arguments, that move away from the commonly used technical ones. The result is expected in the winter of 2024.

People present were invited to join this work and IS3C in general. From the comments received, it was cleat that the message came across loud and clear but not how individuals present could contribute to this challenge.

This session focused on the “modular” architecture in digital economy agreements (or ‘DEAs’) and related institutional innovations, and their potential role in addressing various policy concerns pertaining to internet fragmentation. In particular, the session focused on fragmentation that is governmental in origin, i.e., resulting from government policies that continually impede the exchange of packets between willing endpoints and interfere with the interoperability and uniformity of Internet functions.

DEAs are a recent addition to the digital regulatory framework. Since 2020, governments mostly in the Asia-Pacific region, led by Singapore, have entered into a number of DEAs focusing on digital-only issues. The DEAs negotiated to date are 2020 Digital Economy Partnership Agreement (‘DEPA’) between Singapore, New Zealand, and Chile; 2020 Singapore-Australia Digital Economy Agreement (‘SADEA’); 2022 United Kingdom – Singapore Digital Economy Agreement (‘UKSDEA’); and 2023 Korea – Singapore Digital Partnership Agreement (‘KSDPA’). Additionally, the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations has launched negotiations for a Digital Economy Framework Agreement likely to be concluded by 2025. 

DEAs contain disciplines on a broad variety of issues including transparency, supply chains, inclusion, identities, cross-border data flows, forced data localization, online customs duties and the trade treatment of digital products, business and trade facilitation, e-invoicing and certifications, the protection of source code, cybersecurity, consumer protection, privacy and data protection, open government data, standards and interoperability, fintech and e-payments, innovation and regulatory sandboxes, artificial intelligence and support for small and medium-sized firms. They also provide various avenues for engagement and institutionalised dialogues with different stakeholders including private sector, industry setting bodies, civil society organisations, business associations, and academia. 

A key distinguishing architectural feature of DEAs is the “modular” architecture, which treats issue-areas differently based on their technical properties and associated interest configurations but under an integrative umbrella framework. This modularity allows for flexible treatment of different sets of issues. For instance, for certain traditional areas pertaining to the digital economy, parties can agree to adopt binding rules or soft law norms, while in other emerging areas of digital regulation, parties may choose to engage in trust-building exercises through programs of ongoing dialogue and collaboration to enable future consensus. The latter approach is likely to be a lot more effective in dealing with embryonic areas such as regulation of artificial intelligence, fintech and open data ethics. Additionally, this modular approach, enabling differentiated paths for issue-areas, opens up possibilities for heterodox patterns of engagement and more inclusive multistakeholder participation in ongoing programs. 

In addition to DEAs, other institutional innovations appear to be moving towards a similar modular architecture. For instance, the European Union has started undertaking a series of Digital Partnerships such as the 2022 EU-Korea Digital Partnership, 2022 Japan-EU Digital Partnership, and the 2023 EU-Singapore Digital Partnership. Although these instruments are not treaties like DEAs, they adopt a modular approach, fostering multi-track/multi-issue collaborations and multistakeholder engagement. Similarly, the work being conducted under the aegis of the EU-US Trade and Technology Council and the Connected Economy pillar of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity also emulates similar modular features. These instruments also align with other recent initiatives such as the Japanese government’s ‘Data Free Flow with Trust’ approach in the Group of 7 and the Group of 20, including the new Institutional Arrangement for Partnership on DFFT, wherein different working groups will be set up to deal with distinct digital issues. 

The deliberations in this session highlighted the potential role of DEAs, digital partnerships, and other institutional innovations in developing a common baseline stance on different aspects of internet fragmentation by institutionalising dialogues on different policy areas including barriers to cross-border data flows, data localisation and variation in internet-based processes and user experience arising from domestic digital regulations. These developments are particularly instrumental as the binding nature of international trade agreements have often prevented fostering meaningful consensus on several aspects of cross-border data regulation. 

To date, however, several of these DEAs and partnerships have been formed by relatively like-minded and digitally developed countries. Nonetheless, the panel noted the possibility of extending or scaling up this kind of cooperative framework to a wider group of countries, given their modular, flexible architecture. For instance, these instruments provide different avenues to achieve regulatory interoperability in different areas, undertake joint work programs, and engage the global multistakeholder community in productive working relationships. However, they have inherent limitations given that they are contingent on the political will of the participating countries and have involved very few developing countries and no LDCs to date. More importantly, geopolitical realities and deep ideological divides on certain core aspects of internet and digital regulation are likely to hinder achieving deep consensus on difficult issue-areas. Therefore, the panel concluded that these new instruments are best understood as promising additions to the larger international institutional architecture needed for global Internet and digital governance, rather than a panacea for internet fragmentation. 
 

Breaking the Internet's Carbon Curse: A Report by the Emerging Youth Initiative

Introduction

The Internet is often seen as a virtual world that transcends physical boundaries and limitations. However, the Internet is not immaterial or invisible. It relies on a complex and vast infrastructure of cables, servers, routers, devices, and applications that consume energy and emit carbon dioxide. The Internet is also not neutral or universal. It reflects and reproduces the existing inequalities and injustices in the distribution and access of energy and digital resources. The Internet is, therefore, both a challenge and an opportunity for achieving environmental sustainability and social justice.

How can we harness the power of the Internet to create a more sustainable and inclusive world? How can we reduce the environmental impact of the Internet while expanding its benefits for society? How can we balance the need for digital inclusion with the need for environmental protection? These are some of the questions that motivated and guided this report, which presents the findings and recommendations from the Emerging Youth Initiative (EYI) network, a group of young digital thought leaders who participated in an interactive session at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2023.

The Emerging Youth Initiative believes that youth have a vital role to play in shaping the future of the Internet and its governance. We believe that the Internet can be a catalyst for innovation and transformation that supports green policy and consumer choices. Our vision is to empower meaningful digital transformation for youth by collaborating on projects, events, and advocacy campaigns that address the issues of Internet governance and sustainability.

This report is based on the  session at the IGF 2023 titled " the Internet's Carbon Curse, Can  we break it and the workshop How to Achieve a Sustainable Internet". The sessions was designed to engage the IGF community in a dialogue about the challenges and opportunities of reducing the digital carbon footprint. The session also featured a dialogue work through from a panelist that illustrated the life cycle of ICT and Internet technology from sourcing materials to end usage and disposal.

The report aims to share the insights and outcomes of the session with a wider audience, as well as to provide concrete actions and recommendations for different stakeholder groups to achieve a sustainable Internet.

Background

The Emerging Youth Initiative has  a network of young professionals, activists, and researchers who are interested in the issues of Internet governance and sustainability. Our  network's mission is to empower meaningful digital transformation for youth by collaborating on projects, events, and advocacy campaigns.

We organized a session at the IGF 2023 titled "the Internet's Carbon: can we break it ". The session was held on day 0 October 8, 2023, and attracted participants from different stakeholder groups, such as governments, civil society, academia, and private sector.

 Our session used an open-ended question methodology to engage the participants in a dialogue about the challenges and opportunities of reducing the digital carbon footprint. 

Methodology

The inclusive design approach of moderation featured a dynamic discussion with participants on these thought schools that debated around the below thematic statement: 

: "Digitization is here to stay, cutting back energy use when there’s a digital divide is unrealistic. How can we balance the need for digital inclusion with the need for environmental protection?"

 Findings

Digitization is inevitable and beneficial for society, but also recognized that it has a negative environmental impact. The concern still exists  about the unequal distribution of energy and digital resources among different regions and communities, which creates a digital divide and exacerbates social inequalities.

Though several factors contribute to the digital carbon footprint, such as inefficient energy use, reliance on fossil fuels, lack of recycling and reuse, and consumer behavior possible solutions such as improving energy efficiency, increasing renewable energy sources, extending device lifespan, and promoting user awareness are potent measures to reduce the digital carbon footprint 

 ICT and Internet technologies play an  enabler role to  other interlinking sectors to reduce their carbon emissions by providing solutions for smart transportation, smart buildings, smart agriculture, and smart manufacturing. Emphasis should be put on the need for careful design and implementation of these solutions to avoid rebound effects or environmental unintended consequences.

Recommendation: 

•    Governments should adopt policies and regulations that incentivize green ICT practices, such as carbon taxes, subsidies, standards, and labels.
•   Private sector should innovate on better climate offsets through collaborative spaces on green tech, open grid, and climate data insight solutions. They should also invest in renewable energy sources and adopt circular economy principles.
•   Civil society should advocate for digital sustainability issues and hold governments and the private sector accountable for their actions. They should also educate and empower users to make informed choices about their digital consumption.
•   Academia should conduct research on the environmental impact of ICT and Internet technologies and develop solutions that minimize their carbon footprint. They should also collaborate with other stakeholder groups to share knowledge and best practices.
•  Media should play a critical role in digital sustainability reportage with evidence-backed sources and objective climate agendas. They should also counter misinformation and disinformation spread by digital platforms that contribute to their carbon emissions.
•  Users should adopt responsible digital behavior, such as reducing unnecessary online activities, choosing energy-efficient devices and applications, and disposing of e-waste properly. They should also demand more transparency and accountability from service providers and policymakers.

Discussion

Our demonstrated the interest and engagement of the IGF community on the topic of digital sustainability. The session also showed the diversity and complexity of the issue, as well as the need for collaboration and coordination among different stakeholder groups. 

The session provided a valuable opportunity for our organization and youth to showcase its work and vision, and to connect with other actors and initiatives in the field.

Conclusion

The Internet is a double-edged sword that can cut emissions and shape anew modern sustainable industry, but also has a significant carbon footprint that needs to be reduced. Emerging youth initiative is committed to sensitizing and mobilizing youth on the topic of environmentalism, youth, and climate technology. Our network invites other actors and initiatives to join its efforts and collaborate on breaking the Internet's carbon curse.

The Launch of the University Diploma on Internet Governance and Regulations was presented during this session by members of the University of Mendoza, Argentina and founders and Directors of the South School on Internet Governance SSIG.

The South School on Internet Governance has made a partnership with University of Mendoza which allows those fellows who effectively completed all the evaluations of the pre-training and the one week hybrid SSIG to access a research phase with tutors from the University of Mendoza. If they complete the research they get a University Diploma in Internet Governance and Regulations.

All these activities are offered at no cost for fellows and in three languages: spanish, english and portuguese.

During the launch session Dr. Olga Cavalli explained the evolution of this partnership with University of Mendoza and the first pilot experience in 2022.  

After that Authorities and professors of University of Mendoza, Argentina, participated virtually:

Osvaldo Marianetti, Postgraduate Director of University of Mendoza

Professor Carolina Gonzáles and professor Mariela Ascensio also shared their comments and support to this new initiatives. 

On site there was Professor Claudio Lucena from Universidad da Paraíba, Brasil, who explained the importance that the South School on Internet Governance had for him in enhancing his understanding and relationships with experts from the Latin American Region. 

Mark Datysgeld who was a fellow of the SSIG and who participated as expert in the SSIG 2023 15th edition, also stressed the importance of the school in the capacity building focused on the Internet.

The session finished with comments from SSIG fellows who were participating on site and virtually.

Post-Session Report: Measuring Gender Digital Inequality in the Global South

Lightning Talks

October 9, 2023

Internet Governance Forum, Kyoto, Japan

At this lightning talk session, three experts, representing diverse regions and experiences, shared their recent research findings on understanding the gender digital divide in the Global South. This session underscored the importance of quality measurement in addressing gender digital inclusion. Through their presentations, the researchers shared strategies and  resources that can be used to implement policies, surveys, and other tools to collect gender ICT data. Although many challenges associated with measuring the gender digital divide are region-specific, it is hoped that this session provided a platform for researchers and practitioners to connect and share knowledge that can be transferred across contexts.

Moderator

Dr. So Young Kim, KAIST 

Speakers

Dr. Alison Gillwald, Research ICT Africa

Dr. Christopher Yoo, University of Pennsylvania

Dr. Maria Garrido, University of Washington

Dr. Matias Centeno, National Institute of Agriculture Technology, Argentina

Key takeaways

1. Although there have been improvements in reducing the gender digital divide, progress is still quite slow when considering SDG gender equality targets, especially in the global south. Higher-quality data, both quantitative and qualitative, are imperative for understanding the multidimensional aspects of the gender digital divide.
2. We must consider contextual differences when interpreting gender digital divide data across countries. There are challenges in understanding the underlying mechanisms and reasons behind all of the results, but research is ongoing, especially through the EQUALS Global Partnership.

Lightning Talk 1: Gender Digital Inequality in Africa

Alison Gillwald, PhD

Executive Director, Research ICT Africa and Professor, University of Cape Town Nelson Mandela School of Governance

https://researchictafrica.net/ 

Key points

• Fundamental data is needed for developing evidence-based policy. The After Access Surveys aim to fill the gap in basic data collection across countries in Africa. 
• Significant gender gaps in Africa reflect and have the potential to exacerbate underlying structural and intersectional inequalities. Women are not a homogenous group. Gender inequalities clearly intersect with inequalities in other segments of the population.
• It is also important to consider the third-level digital divide. Once online, women also appear more restricted than men in the uses of digital technologies and the benefits they can derive from using them.

Lightning Talk 2: The Impact of Mobile Internet Uptake and Use in Bangladesh and Ghana

Christopher Yoo, PhD

John H. Chestnut Professor of Law and Founding Director of Center for Technology, Innovation & Competition, University of Pennsylvania

https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/ctic/ 

Key points

• Qualitative and quantitative study in Bangladesh and Ghana assessing the impact of mobile internet connectivity on socioeconomic well-being showed the importance of cultural context.
• Different types of mobile internet use provided more benefits for women’s wellbeing in each country. Overall, women faced greater criticism for their Internet use compared to men, and were more likely to be unhappy with their internet use.
• Future longitudinal research will examine the impacts of coming online for women in Bangladesh.

Lightning Talk 3: The State of Inclusive Connectivity & Meaningful Access to Information 

Maria Garrido, PhD

Principal Research Scientist, Technology & Social Change Group of University of Washington

https://tascha.uw.edu/ 

Matias Centeno, PhD

Principal Research Scientist at the National Institute of Agriculture Technology, Argentina

Key points

• The Development and Access to Information (DA2i) dashboards demonstrate how inclusive connectivity and meaningful access to information contributes to development, and is embedded across the UN 2030 Agenda (https://da2i-dashboards.org/). 
• Between 2015 and 2022, connectivity has improved but still drags behind 2030 targets, gender equity has made slow and weak progress, and civil rights and political freedoms have declined.
• In order to assess progress, we need better, more quality data tracked historically.

IGF 2023 Day 0 Event #134
Talk with Metaverse residents – a new identity and diversity Sunday, October 8, Workshop Room 4

Participataion:
51 pepole at peak on-line, including Host and 37 people on-site

Summary of Session:
Moderator explained that the session was first held at Japan Internet Governance Forum 2022 and re-made to proposed to IGF2023, appreciated the acceptance and passed the floor to the first presenter, Virtual Girl Nem, an avator persona, presenting online.

Nem started her presentation by demonstrating the natural movement of her avator body in Metaverse.  It moves naturally by various devices and sensors attached to her physical body. She showed her three avatar bodies to which she switches time to time for various occasions, moreover she can switch even to non-human avatars. She emphasized the Metaverse removes the limitation in the physical world.

She then introduced several popular VR platforms and their characteristics which are different from one anaother.  The number of users has increased rapidly in recent years and shares of the platforms for a region are different from one another.  She also argued that people who have been freed from restrictions by being virtual are gaining a new identity as "a Revolution of Identity.

Liudmila followed Nem with her presentation. She introduced previous studies on avatars (salazr 2009, AO 2018, Nem 2022, Miyake 2022, Ginga 2022, Hine 2000), which showed that the physical gender does not always match the gender of the avatar, while there are many female avatars.  She also pointed out that harassment on the Metaverse is occurring and the gender difference between physical and avatar complicates the situation.  Finally, she introduced a joint statement by Nem and Mila, who spoke at this session, on the issue of harassment and their efforts to solve the problem.

Questions and Answers:
Q: You said that most avatars are female, regardless of their real gender.
A by Nem: Half of the survey results indicate that it is because they prefer female avatars, but half of the respondents feel that female avatars are easier to talk to.

Q: Nem lives virtually and in real life, and doesn't it confuse you?
A by Nem: Sometimes I get confused, but this is normal. It is becoming like clothing for me.

Q:Many companies are launching metaverse, but I don't have a good idea how to make use of it in my life.
A by Nem: :It is a tool with various potentials which should far improve your life
 

Meeting Minutes and Report: 2023 EQUALS Research Coalition Annual Meeting

The EQUALS Research Coalition convened its annual meeting on October 8, 2023 with participation from 14 members. The primary agenda revolved around the upcoming 2024 EQUALS Research Report, which will be segmented into three key areas: Access, Skills, and Leadership. To facilitate meaningful contributions, members engaged in breakout groups aligned with these focus areas, exploring potential research topics and identifying potential contributors. Finally, the meeting featured a comprehensive large group discussion to strategize the timeline and execution of the research project.

Key Takeaways

1. The next iteration of the EQUALS Research Coalition Annual Report on the gender digital divide will be published in the fall/winter of 2024, with three focuses: Skills, Leadership, and Access. 
2. As a next step, the co-chairs will recruit authors and circulate a statement of interest form that will be due on December 1, 2023. 
3. As a long-term goal, the EQUALS Research Coalition will consider developing a signature scale for assessing gender digital equity.

Meeting Minutes

Access group

Members: Christopher Yoo, Maria Garrido, Matias Centeno

Topics discussed:

• Many partners to reach out to APC, Georgia Tech, etc. Can give them a platform to talk about the great work they are already doing.
• Will devote part of the section to forward-looking, more speculative work. For example, thinking about alternative measures of access, like network-based data that we can make inferences from.

Leadership group

Members: Moon Choi, Dasom Lee, Pranav Tiwari, Audrey Plonk

Discussion points:

• There are different types of leadership (fellowship based and training and e-learning based), as well as various existing statistics used to measure leadership.
• It would be interesting if we could distill it down to one signature indicator, and then try to go into as much depth as possible.
• Interested in looking at different types of corporations and geographies.

Skills group

Members: So Young Kim, Gayani Hurulle

Discussion points:

• There are difficulties in finding commonalities in how digital skills are defined across contexts, especially when we consider more sophisticated technological skill sets related to AI.
• Possible partners to reach out to include APC-ICT, World Bank, etc.

Online cluster

Members: Taylor De Rosa, Ern Chern Khor, Ayanna Samuels, Prossy Kawala

Discussion points:

• Discussed the research interests of the two members. Ayanna’s research is focused on digital innovation ecosystems and could contribute to any section. Prossy’s organization, the Center for Media Literacy and Community Development could contribute a case study on training for youth and women in media and information literacy in Uganda.

Discussion on timeline

• Would be good to transition the bi-monthly call to separate calls for each cluster, led by the section leader. For timeline, perhaps we can get the statement of interest, including title, short abstract, and author by November.
• It would be nice to have an end to end timeline or road map of the process that we can show to possible authors.
• We should be mindful about giving a generous timeline during the editing process because it can take a long time.

The Creators Union of Arab & the Arab Media Union ECOSOC Consultative Status, as a civil society organizations within the IGF community, we have a responsibility to contribute to sustainable development and stay current with technological advancements, our recent initiative, "The Digital Safety & Cybersecurity Curriculum," and with the effective and distinguished contribution from the strategic partner "HDTC Training Center" we all cooperated to  introduce it in  the Kyoto forum sessions, aligns with these goals, promoting digital safety and responsible Internet use, this approach also achieves the Sustainable Development Goals (4,5,9,10,11,17).

This curriculum has a global mission, its primary objective is to enlighten students, parents, and educators about the significance and principles of cybersecurity, the curriculum's essence lies in providing a comprehensive grasp of cyber threats and vulnerabilities, along with the essential knowledge and skills to identify and counter cyber risks effectively.

The session revolved around a comprehensive presentation of the digital safety and cybersecurity curriculum initiative, which delved into intricate aspects such as the curriculum's specifics, the methods for its implementation, its objectives, and the intended audience, moreover, it shed light on the anticipated outcomes resulting from its successful implementation.

The website dedicated to the curriculum was also explained and how to use it for each target group, through the innovative utilization of instructional videos and interactive practical training via an online platform, enriched with quizzes and assignments to enhance the educational journey, the curriculum ensures a dynamic and engaging learning experience.

Distinguished Event Speakers:

1. Dr. Ahmed Sarhan (Nick name Ahmed Nour): He holds the esteemed position of President at the Creators Union of Arab and the Arab Media Union. Dr. Nour is an accomplished Media and Intellectual Property expert and an esteemed researcher, He presented an overview of the initiative and expressed his wholehearted support for its adoption. He emphasized his strong commitment to spreading the curriculum, making it available to a broad spectrum of stakeholders, and conducting workshops to introduce it effectively.
2. Dr. Nabih AbdelMajid: As a professor at the Colleges of Technological Sciences in the United Arab Emirates, Dr. AbdelMajid is the Intellectual Property owner of the curriculum, bringing a wealth of knowledge and experience to the table, He provided an extensive elucidation of the curriculum, delineating the anticipated outcomes stemming from its implementation and highlighting the profound impact it can have on safeguarding our children. Additionally, he underscored the role of parents and teachers in promoting digital safety and fostering a secure technological environment for everyone.
3. Dr. Hala Adly Husseien: A prominent figure in the field of block chain, she is a professor specializing in this area, and also she serves as the Secretary-General of Women's Affairs at the Creators Union of Arab and holds the position of Secretary-General of the Union of Arab Women Leaders, In her presentation, she examined the subject of cybersecurity through the unique lens of blockchain technology, delving into its pivotal role in realizing safe internet usage, she expounded on block chain’s capacity to securely and transparently trace all online activities, underlining its potential in ensuring a secure digital environment, the utilization of block chain technology for enhancing cybersecurity and its pivotal role in the realm of artificial intelligence is noteworthy. Cybersecurity is inherently integrated into block chain technology due to its decentralized nature, which is founded on principles of security, privacy, and trust. This integration not only brings transparency, cost-efficiency, and heightened security but also offers rapid implementation.

On-Site Moderator:

Dr. Nermin Selim: the Secretary-General of the Creators Union of Arab and also an Intellectual Property expert and researcher, further enriching the discourse with her expertise, She posed several inquiries regarding the curriculum's efficacy in educating parents and its potential to facilitate child monitoring while maintaining their self-confidence.

Following the comprehensive presentation of the curriculum, the esteemed speaker, Dr. Hala, raised questions about its adoption and suggested its inclusion in the forthcoming meeting of the specialized federations of the League of Arab States, and Dr. Nabih responded by confirming that it had received approval from the Knowledge Authority in Dubai.

Dr. Ahmed Nour further emphasized that efforts were underway to disseminate it across various educational organizations based on the recommendation of the IGF platform.

Moreover, during the session, a master's student from Nepal posed an inquiry concerning the prevention of privacy violations. Dr. Nabih addressed this concern by explaining that this curriculum equips students with the knowledge to detect privacy infringements and take control of their privacy. It is purposefully designed to prioritize user security.

Following the conclusion of the session, a UNESCO delegate reached out to the event organizers, expressing interest in arranging a meeting to delve deeper into the curriculum's intricacies and explore avenues for its implementation.

At this launch event, our speakers emphasized the vital importance of creating a safe online space for children and providing parents with insights into their digital interactions.

Our goal is to see this curriculum adopted by numerous educational institutions, ensuring the protection of our children and establishing a secure internet framework. It's worth noting that the program is technically prepared for immediate use.

The Outcomes we aim to achieve

• Empowering students, parents, and teachers to build a cyber-resilient community.
• Raising a comprehensive understanding of cybersecurity principles and practices, the curriculum prepares participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to identify and mitigate cyber risks.
• The emphasis on practical training, quizzes, and assignments ensures an interactive learning experience, educating a community that is well-prepared to navigate the evolving landscape of online threats.
• Focuses on developing critical thinking, problem-solving abilities, and staying abreast of the latest cybersecurity trends.
• Prepares teachers to integrate technology effectively into classrooms while emphasizing the importance of continuous learning.
• Promote a secure and healthful environment for all members of the community.

This session organized by the University of Chile achieved a multistakeholder participation with a special focus on the perspectives of the Global South in relation to the principle of net neutrality. It had wide participation of Academia, Government, Technical community and Civil society.

In this regard, participants were able to learn about the experience of both the members of the Pacific Alliance and the regional integration forum itself.

Panelists discussed Chile's experience in being the first country in the world to legislate the principle of net neutrality, and then Peru, Colombia and Mexico followed the trend, managing to establish the legal presence of the principle within the Alliance. 

Subsequently, the incorporation of net neutrality in the Pacific Alliance Trade Protocol in its Telecommunications Chapter was discussed, establishing an important precedent in the area of public international law and international economic law. 

Panelists from academia (Chile), the technical community (Brazil), government (Chile and Argentina) and civil society (Perú) discussed the importance and challenges of the principle, mainly in terms of protecting users' rights and the necessary monitoring of compliance.

Objective of the session: 

The session aimed to present the preliminary results of a research project resulting from a partnership between CEPI FGV Direito SP and the Brazilian Chapter of Internet Society (ISOC Brazil), and partly funded by Internet Society Foundation. The project seeks to conceptually and empirically identify how digital sovereignty notions are constructed based on Brazilian stakeholders' narratives from different sectors in public documents, taking into account legal, social, economic, and political implications connecting the local, regional, and global levels. 

Presentations

Raquel Gatto mentioned that the biggest threat to the Internet is the phenomenon of splinternet - the fragmentation/division of the global network, when there is no longer the use of the Internet common protocols - which can derive from different approaches, such as those related to infrastructural challenges, technical challenges, matters of national security, among others, including the facet of digital sovereignty, the main subject studied in the research project. 

Flávio Wagner brought that the specific context of Brazil is that of a country that has already been implementing different regulations on the Internet, such as the Internet Bill of Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) and the Brazilian General Data Protection Law (LGPD), in addition to discussing new regulations related to AI, misinformation, digital platforms, cybersecurity, among others. Aspects related to sovereignty are being used as justification for the creation of these norms and other public policies, but there are no shared notions or definitions of what sovereignty in the digital sphere would mean, which justifies this attempt to map the narrative on digital sovereignty.

Ana Paula Camelo brought the methodology used in the research, as well as the current activities that are being carried out, such as the mapping of public documents from different stakeholders that contain notions of digital sovereignty, interviews, and the elaboration of a course on the theme. Also, Ana Paula highlighted some of the preliminary findings of the research: (i) in the Brazilian context, written documents don’t specifically use the term “digital sovereignty”. Therefore, the research team decided to look for broad notions that in some way explored the relationship between sovereignty and the digital environment, the Internet, regulations and discussions about network fragmentation; (ii) diverse understandings are at stake when discussing digital sovereignty (such as self-determination, the power to regulate, national security, etc.), as well as different perspectives (such as political, legal and technical lenses).

Questions and debates

The audience shared some questions and concerns with the speakers. The highlights are: 

(i) try to take a historical approach on Brazil’s prior investment in digital sovereignty (such as the production of technological equipment and the development of open source code), to understand if that past has correlations with the current developments. 

(ii)  in addition to discussing the notions of the expression “digital sovereignty”, it is important to also question the term itself, to understand whether it makes sense or whether it is just used as a buzzword. It is important to discuss such a term since there is no country absolutely independent in relation to others in some matters.

(iii) try to understand the different impacts that the use of the term “sovereignty” can have on the digital sphere, especially considering that some discourses and practices relating to the “exclusive” feature of political and legal senses of sovereignty can hurt the fundamental aspects of the functioning of the Internet.  

The speakers and members of the research project will take the comments and questions raised into consideration in the further development of the project. 

In the lightning talk “Strengthening Cybersecurity for a Resilient Digital Society – Opportunities to Increase Smartphone Privacy and Security”, focusing on SDGs 9 & 17, we presented: 

• Smartphone’s Role in a Digital Society 

• Smartphone Privacy Risks 

• The Evolving Smartphone Cyber Threat Landscape 

• Promoting Safer Behaviours and Practices for a Cyber Resilient Society 

The audience was asked to reflect on what they think is the most significant risk of using a smartphone at the beginning of the presentation. The increased global presence of smartphones is based on the information from Statista (2023), with 6.5 billion smartphone users, representing 68% of people worldwide having a smartphone. Smartphone usage has also changed, with 80 apps per user on average (DataProt, 2023); 6 out of 10 smartphone users choose finance apps over websites (Google, 2016), and 73% of online shopping comes from smartphone devices (DemandSage, 2023). The total mobile industry economic contribution currently contributes $5.2 trillion to global GDP (GSMA, 2023). 

So smartphones bring many benefits, from enabling citizens in mobile-first countries to other places to offering 24/7 connectivity as a versatile all-in-one product. The benefits range from increased access and efficiency, reducing the necessity to travel, enabling commerce, payment, learning and photography. 

At the same time, if we look at the threat landscape based on data from 2022, we can see that it is rising with cyber criminals starting to focus on mobile devices, malware for smartphones being everywhere, including advanced malware that may be used to target specific valuable individuals, an increase in vulnerable mobile devices that lead to security incidents and mis-configurations of app. back-ends that expose users personal data.

The risks to smartphone users include data breach, data leakage, identity theft, device loss, privacy violation and surveillance. Based on a report from the US (Lookout, 2014), the consequences of phone theft led to 12% experiencing fraudulent charges to their account, 9% having their identity stolen, 47% reporting a loss of time and productivity, and 10% reporting a loss of confidential company data.

Thus, digital societies must build resiliency by raising cybersecurity and privacy practices. 

To fully understand the importance of why, we asked the audience to consider privacy risks, explaining how apps may collect personal data and connect it to individual behaviours and how often users may not know what data is leaving their devices even when it is not done maliciously.

We shared information about the evolving smartphone cyber threat landscape, showing that both the ratio of exposed mobile devices and the ratio of successful attacks have increased in recent years. This is worrying, considering all the possible vulnerable data assets stored on smartphones (passwords and other credentials, location history, sensitive documents, personal medical information, communication with assistant apps, and phone call history). 

We shared an example of how a smartphone cyber-attack can be conducted using smishing and malware, as in the case of the SpyNote campaign. The phishing attack was done through mobile text messaging or email with a malicious URL to a malware file. Once the user downloads and installs the file, their device will be infected, and the attacker can explore or steal data or even control the whole device.

We propose a multi-stakeholder partnership approach to promote safer smartphone behaviours and practices. Governments and industry can support this by ensuring that devices come with technical controls that are easy to understand and use by smartphone users. A multi-stakeholder partnership between the education sector, industry and civil society can support increasing formal education and awareness and influence society to gain safer security and privacy behaviours and practices.

While creating safety measures for a smartphone and digital society may be more complex, we must start. Governments can mandate the industry and education systems to play an active role in building a digital community. The mobile industry (manufacturers and network providers) can further promote their brand value by developing and providing easy privacy and security functionality and education.

In summary, we can mitigate the many smartphone threats by using a multi-stakeholder partnership and partnering for the goals (SDG 17). This will allow us to protect the development of a sustainable and resilient digital infrastructure globally (SDG 9). There was active engagement during the presentation and the audience provided thought-provoking questions during the Q&A session which truly enriched the discussion. The diverse perspectives and regional insights that were shared were invaluable, and we are thankful for everyone’s contributions. As we move forward, we hope that these discussions and insights will be brought into our daily lives and that we can work together to make the digital world a safer and more secure place for all. 

References: 

DataProt https://dataprot.net/statistics/how-many-apps-does-the-average-person-have/  

DemandSage https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/events/Lookout-phone-theft-in-america.pdf  

Google https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-strategies/app-and-mobile/finance-app-user-statistics/  

GSMA https://www.gsma.com/mobileeconomy/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/270223-The-Mobile-Economy-2023.pdf  

Lookout https://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/events/Lookout-phone-theft-in-america.pdf  

Statista https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1143723/smartphone-users-in-the-world 

The launch of the Youth Atlas 2.0 is a big moment for recognizing the input of young people around the world. This new version shows how dedicated they are to shaping the digital world for a better tomorrow.

The Youth Atlas 2.0 is not just a storybook, but a compendium of valuable insights from young people around the world. Their experiences and histories are intertwined to create a tapestry that serves as a tribute to their involvement in various fields. They are the minds that shape our digital world now and in the future.

The guide explores important topics, such as data and statistics. The Youth Atlas 2.0 is a valuable resource of data and statistics, offering insights into the young population's contributions, achievements, and potential in the digital domain.

This edition examines the experiences of youth who participated in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) or fellowship programs, showcasing their transformation from newcomers to more veteran participants.

The text also includes information on programs and initiatives for young people. The Youth Atlas 2.0 highlights how crucial youth-oriented programs and initiatives are by showcasing numerous ways that young people actively engage in the IGF ecosystem.

Dedicated volunteers who invested their time and energy into this collaborative effort orchestrated it. The objective is to increase the visibility of youth involvement and motivate additional young individuals to join in youth initiatives.

This project stands as a testament to international cooperation. This project is the result of many people working together to support a global initiative. It highlights the importance of active participation in the IGF, rather than just watching from the sidelines. Through this project, we aim to shape discussions and decisions, making a valuable contribution to the broader conversation. One of the special characteristics of the book is it transmedia nature of the book that provides insights into the views of young people on Internet Governance through video interviews accessible via QR code.

The Youth Track became a pivotal point in 2019 during the IGF Berlin, as it gave young people a voice and integrated their perspectives into the conversation. The collaboration among young people eager to contribute to important conversations and decision-making has been very valuable. It can be difficult to find and connect with similar individuals worldwide, but the committed youth coordinators have made the process much simpler and easier to follow. As an example, since 2021, the Youth Summit has now been a platform for seniors and youth to talk and empower the younger generation on regional IGFs and the IGF itself. This amplifies young voices as partners, creating a hopeful and confident sentiment as long as youth empowerment is prioritized.

Another result of these Youth processes is the new Teen Dynamic Coalition which was formed by collaborating with youth in 2023 after one of the outcomes of the Youth Summit 2022 in Addis Ababa, demonstrating the power of collective efforts. 

What constitutes meaningful participation in the IGF remains a pressing question. It's not just sitting at the table. It's shaping the structure and content of the digital world. Joining in isn't a one-time thing, it's a continuous process that involves learning and contribution. NRIs play a critical role in getting started.

The message at the heart of it all is clear – the IGF must serve the interests of youth by working for them. It's a team effort, sharing knowledge and working together to have a say in the IGF. Including more voices, like those from indigenous populations, marginalized communities, people with disabilities, is crucial to creating a digital future that is fair and inclusive.

The Youth Atlas 2.0 shows us how important it is to listen to young people. They deserve recognition for their commitment, dedication, and contributions to making the digital era a better place.

On 8 October 2023 (2 to 3.30 PM) the Council of Europe organised a Day 0 session on “Shaping artificial intelligence to ensure respect for human rights and democratic values” opened by its Deputy Secretary General Bjørn BERGE. The Chair of the Committee on Artificial Intelligence Ambassador Thomas SCHNEIDER moderated the panel, which included Ivana BARTOLETTI (WIPRO, the Women Leading in AI Network), Francesca ROSSI (IBM Fellow and AI Ethics Global Leader), Merve HICKOK (CAIDP), Daniel CASTAÑO PARRA (Universidad Externado de Colombia) participating on-line and Dr Liming ZHU (CSIRO of Australia) and Professor Arisa EMA (University of Tokyo and RIKEN Center for Advanced Intelligence Project and member of the Japanese Delegation in the CAI) attending in-person.

The discussion connected the in person and online participants with the panel representing different stakeholder groups (domestic and international standard setters, industry and academia). There was a general agreement that the extraordinary benefits of AI technologies should serve humanity making life better for everyone. However, this important progress should not come at the price of human rights or democratic values. The panelists and public were of the view that at an international level it made sense to develop common legally binding approach to basic principles which should govern how the AI is designed, developed, used and decommissioned. Such approach should be based on the existing and widely accepted international human rights standards. Individual presentations by the panelists were followed by a lively discussion involving both in person and on line participants.

The meeting focused on discussing Generative AI, with an emphasis on platforms' ability to interact with humans and provide relevant answers to their questions. There was a discussion about the role of children in teaching robots, interface humanization, challenges faced with AI usage, and its capabilities. Additionally, concerns regarding safety, regulation, transparency, and ethics in AI use were addressed, especially in contexts such as small businesses and potentially deceptive situations.

Topics Discussed

Generative AI and Interactivity:

The ability of platforms to receive human interactions and respond appropriately to requests.

Children learning about AI and teaching robots to understand humans.

Challenges of AI Usage:

Accuracy errors, interface humanization, scope visibility, misuse, and resolution of ambiguities.

Transparency and interpretation of references depending on the context.

AI Capabilities:

Scale, homogenization, emergence, conversation assistants, and hallucination.

Challenges related to hallucination, lack of transparency, and misalignment with human expectations.

Small Business Situation:

Small business owners often lack awareness of their business status, affecting credit granting and loans.

Key Audience Questions:

Audience asked about the impact of generative AI  in crimes and cybersecurity, especially in deep fakes and voice deception. Discussions on regulation and creativity to deal with these new technologies.

Speakers emphasized the need to get accustomed to new technologies and find creative solutions to regulate their use. The reality of deep fakes and the need to learn to deal with them, drawing an analogy with the existence of knives at home but the importance of laws to ensure safe usage.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Emphasized the importance of addressing generative AI challenges, including hallucination, lack of transparency, and deception, with effective regulatory and educational measures.

Mentioned the need to promote transparency and ethics in AI use, especially in sensitive scenarios such as small businesses. Suggested continued interdisciplinary discussions and collaborations to address emerging challenges of generative AI, safeguarding democratic values and individual freedom.

This report summarizes the key points discussed in the Generative AI meeting, highlighting participants' perspectives and audience concerns regarding the use of AI in criminal and cybersecurity contexts.

The Internet WE Want: Perspectives from the Amazonian Region”, our session at #IGF2023 presents the results of our research “Latin America in a Glimpse: The Amazon". A joint comparative research coordinated by Derechos Digitales,  with studies by Idec, Fundamedios, Fundación Internet Bolivia and Dejusticia, to attempts to understand the digital divide and gaps in the Amazon region, with case studies in Brazil, Ecuador, Bolivia and Colombia.

Our comparative report highlights trends in the case studies and lessons for new experiences and initiatives. It also offers recommendations for the different stakeholders.

This lightning talk discussed the Switch! Gender and Diversity project by the APNIC Foundation.

The Switch! Gender and Diversity project operates in the economies of Cambodia, Laos, the Philippines, Timor Leste, Thailand and Viet Nam. The project seeks to improve the technical knowledge, skills and confidence of women and LGBTQI+ technical staff working on Internet network operations and security, and to help them acquire and validate professional certifications in network operations and security with which to advance their careers. Participants engage in a variety of training activities in programs tailored to each participant’s professional development plan.

APNIC Foundation Senior Project and Business Coordinator Cathlene Corcoran moderated the session and Foundation CEO Sylvia Cadena gave an introduction to the Foundation and the Switch! project.

Switch! Participant Maristela Miranda shared her experiences in the project. She noted that the project helped her expand her career path and opportunities. She noted that while the project had mentoring opportunities, there is also the possibility in future of providing guidance to young women about what career paths and opportunities are out there.

Standards Developing Organization (SDO) are a manifestation of multistakeholderism and critical for the Internet from both a governance and technical perspective. Technical decisions taken at an SDO can have deep implications for all Internet stakeholders. Many SDOs (eg, IETF, W3C) are very transparent in the decisions and debates that lead to the development of standards.

Greater analysis of the data produced by standardisation organisations is an opportunity for better Internet gobernance. Greater analysis of this rich data can facilitate the interplay from the different stakeholders and make complex technical debates more accessible to other stakeholders.

The IRTF Research and Analysis of Standardization Processes (proposed) Research Group promotes, debates and hosts this type of work.

Participants from government and Ghana, Togo, Kuwait, Maldives, Sri Lanka, and the US joined to learn from case studies and resources shared in the slide deck here: bit.ly/GovOpenDataIGF2023
 and engaged in a networking event to share their own questions and work in their context and what their next steps could be.  

Key Takeaways:

- Open data platforms are vital, but they are not well supported as hype and donors are excited about AI but not about the underlying data. 

- CSOs cannot rely on FOIA laws as the driver of open government data policies; we need god local examples of the application of data to drive positive stories and catalyze interest and support.

Call to Action:
- IGF and all technology events should include sessions and speakers on the importance of good data governance and data transparency in any session on artificial intelligence. 
- Advocates for open data should develop case studies in the format of if this then that, if this data were made open, then this is the impact that will be made by specific actors. 

IGF 2023 Launch/Award Event #  88 Legitimacy of multistakeholderism in IG spaces

Rapporteur: Sophie Hoogeboom

Speakers: Dr. Hortense Jongen, VU Amsterdam and University of Gothenburg, Dr. Corinne Cath, University of Amsterdam, Nadia Tjahja, United Nations University- CRIS.
Discussants: Jordan Carter, auDA, Elise Lindeberg, Government of Norway, Alisa Heaver, Government of The Netherlands

The session held on the 9^th of October at 09:30 discussed the legitimacy of multistakeholderism in Internet Governance spaces: ICANN, IETF and the IGF. The importance of multistakeholderism continues to be highlighted in policy circles in which legitimacy and meaningful participation of stakeholders is emphasised as vital components needed for a functioning multistakeholder environment. During this session, three scholars presented their publications. After this, the discussants of the session provided comments and feedback centred around three questions:

(1) How can multistakeholder initiatives promote meaningful participation from diverse stakeholders and social groups? (2) What is the relationship between inclusive participation and the legitimacy of multistakeholder initiatives? (3) What lessons for other multistakeholder bodies can we draw from the different ways in which the three multistakeholder bodies at the focus of this session (e.g. ICANN, the IETF and the IGF) aim to promote participation? 

Dr. Hortense Jongen discussed her publication on the legitimacy of ICANN which is part of a larger research project done in cooperation with Professor Jan Aart Scholte that focuses on the levels, drivers and implications of legitimacy. The research is centred around the question: of how far, and on what grounds, does multistakeholderism as a mode of global governance gains legitimacy? As it aims to measure the levels of legitimacy beliefs toward a key multistakeholder apparatus, in this case ICANN, and to identify what generates (or limits) those beliefs. During a period of two years (2018-2019) hundreds of surveys interviews were conducted with insiders, participants and general elites in the world. The key findings of this research showed that ‘legitimacy beliefs are neither so high as to warrant complacency nor so low to prompt alarm.’ Secondly, there seems to be ‘fairly secure legitimacy on the inside; and somewhat more wobbly on the outside. Thirdly, legitimacy beliefs within the ICANN sphere show limited variation by stakeholder group, geographical location or social category. Lastly, there was ‘no glaring Achilles heel of vulnerability in any quarter but also no striking concentration of greater ICANN champions’ found. Moreover, the research has looked at the drivers of legitimacy and has identified three different types of drivers: organisational drivers (e.g. accountability, transparency and decision-making processes) individual drivers (position within ICANN and personal benefits) and societal-level drivers (perception of structural inequalities, although found, did not negatively impact the legitimacy). In sum, the research suggests that ICANN has fairly secured legitimacy and that the drivers of these legitimacy beliefs are multiple and variable.

Jordan Carter (discussant) spoke about the Roadmap on Internet Governance intended to try and provoke discussion and dialogue among the Internet community about the ways in which Internet governance needs to be improved. Carter focused on a couple of aspects of legitimacy and stated that more broad-based participation will enhance the outcome and outputs of Internet governance processes which would be more likely to be accepted by participants and others. A deficit of people from the global south participating in these processes could be improved by providing effective funding approaches and improving the culture of these frameworks as they vary in their welcoming nature. Secondly, Carter argued that there is a need to review the foundations of Internet Governance in light of the future, which could enhance the legitimacy of Internet governance at large. Thirdly, the institutional innovation question was addressed, such as the extent to which a topic such as AI fits or belongs in the framework of Internet Governance, as there is a risk that it will turn in all governance topics.

Dr. Corinne Cath presented her ethnography on the exclusionary cultures at the IETF, which makes key protocols and standards that enable networks to connect. Cath presented the key findings of her research centred around the question of ‘how suitable is the IETF for civil society participation?’ The duality of the findings in that, on the one hand, the multistakeholder model can be an important model of governing the Internet while it on the other hand, can in practice, be exclusionary and discriminatory to minority voices, especially those in civil society was stressed. According to Cath, to maintain the openness of the multistakeholder model, there is an urgent need to address these exclusionary and discriminatory aspects. If this is not addressed, multilateral approaches will be used in favour of multistakeholder approaches. Cath found that although these processes are procedurally open, they are also culturally closed off, which hinders participation. These cultural dynamics include denial of politics in technical discussions, procedural openness as a distraction, reliance on informal networking and abrasive working practices.    

 Nadia Tjahja presented her research on youth meta-participation at the IGF. Tjahja looked at how youth are creating new spaces within the IGF that align with the values of the IGF. In her latest publication, an edited definition of meaningful participation has been proposed, as well as a revision of Arnstein ladder, resulting in the ‘Pyramid of Participation’ in which the ways in which we see how people integrate within the IGF is captured. It was argued that tokenised participation, found in Arnstein’s ladder, was outside the scope and left out of the Pyramid of Participation. Instead, meaningful participation that failed in the process is analysed through the lens of why and how they are not able to participate meaningfully. Through interviews, the research mapped participant activities to the Pyramid of Participation, therefore exploring how young people are navigating through processes at YOUthDIG, EuroDIG and the IGF.

Lindeberg (discussant) stressed and agreed on the importance of ensuring inclusive and meaningful participation in the stakeholder model. Moreover, the need to make sure that the discussions are not spread among too many platforms, as this could hinder the participation of small states and organisations in these spaces, was stressed as well as the need to make existing platforms stronger and share best practices.  

Alisa Heaver (discussant) stressed the fact that still not all countries are represented in ICANN and the unequal participation in the GAC in terms of regional representation. And hope to see in the next round that GTLD’s more diverse stakeholders are represented meaning a larger array of top-level domains in other languages, and other scripts and ensuring that more registries and registrars are equally distributed across the world. 

Key takeaways:

• Knowing what levels of legitimacy beliefs prevail in which quarters- and what kinds of forces shape those legitimacy beliefs- can contribute to more informed and nuanced policymaking.
• The openness of the multistakeholder model is integral to the success of the Internet.
• It is crucial to reflect on how youth navigate the IGF ecosystem to enhance their meaningful participation in Internet governance

Call to action points:

• There is a need to determine the boundaries of Internet Governance and reflect upon the potential need to create new multistakeholder processes to deal with aspects of the digital sphere that fall outside of the scope of Internet Governance to ensure and maintain the legitimacy of current frameworks.
• It is crucial to ensure the openness of spaces of Internet Governance by bridging the gap between procedural openness and unwelcoming cultures in practice.   
• To define and adopt a definition on meaningful participation, which was proposed in this session, and within this lens reflect on youth activities and processes.

Departing from the experience shared by the speakers, some of the steps that can be taken into account to accelerate national digital transformation include the following: taking immediate action to expand internet access and develop digital infrastructure and internet services for all, preparing a transformation digital roadmap for the government's strategic sectors, public services, social aid services, education, health and other industries, take immediate action to integrate national data center, take into account the needs of digital talents and prepare regulation and related funding schemes.
Improving and expanding access to libraries will accelerate the human resource development who will master science and technology, improve creativities and innovations to create job opportunities, reduce unemployment rate and increase income per capita.
Libraries play a crucial role in building valuable partnerships with communities and organizations.

Introduction: Nicolas opened the session by expressing gratitude towards the enthusiastic NRI coordinators from the LAC region. The primary goal of the meeting was to evaluate the initiatives at national, regional, and youth-led levels, pinpointing common trends, differences, and the future roadmap. Roberto emphasized gaining a holistic understanding of the challenges and opportunities in Internet governance within the LAC region.

Brazil: Barbosa represented Brazil and its youth-led initiative. Despite the challenges posed by the pandemic, Brazil's Internet Governance Forum remains steadfast in its commitment to enhance youth participation. They've instituted numerous training sessions and webinars, primarily focusing on fostering Internet governance. The Brazilian Internet Governance Forum acts as a preparatory event for global participation and has seen significant participation, both in-person and remotely.

Colombia: Julian Casasbuenas shed light on the Colombian IGF's endeavors, especially their contributions to the global digital compact. The Colombian IGF hosted several workshops, emphasizing digital security, health, and blockchain, among other topics. The commitment to making the Internet more democratic, inclusive, and safe was evident in Julian's representation.

Ecuador: Carlos Vera highlighted Ecuador's efforts to democratize Internet governance. Their initiatives have consistently involved various stakeholders, bringing richness and diversity to their events. The focus remains on increasing inclusivity in these discussions.

Colombia: Laura Victoria Ramos and Benjamin Chong provided insights into the efforts in Colombia, especially regarding the push for inclusivity and diversity. They underscored the importance of the Colombian Youth IGF and the role of youth in these conversations. A particular emphasis was placed on bridging the digital divide and making the Internet more accessible to all.

South School of Internet Governance: Olga's presentation underscored the importance of capacity building in the LAC region. The South School on Internet Governance has been instrumental in this aspect, organizing events across various cities and promoting the tenets of Internet governance.

Central America: Lia Hernandez introduced the newly-formed Central American IGF. This initiative is a testament to the collaborative spirit of the LAC nations, aiming to address subregion-specific challenges in Internet governance.

Youth LACIGF: Umut Pajaro, representing the Youth IGF, elaborated on the unique challenges and opportunities faced by the younger demographic. There's a clear emphasis on regional coordination and ensuring that the youth are not just participants but active contributors in shaping Internet governance policies.

LACIGF: Raul Echeberria from LACIGF brought attention to the collective efforts in the LAC region. He highlighted upcoming events such as the LACIGF and emphasized the importance of collaboration and continued discourse, and congratulate Colnodo for being the new secretary for the LACIGF.

Conclusion: The LAC NRI Space Session was a comprehensive exploration of the Internet governance landscape in the Latin America and Caribbean region. From Brazil to Ecuador, each representative shed light on their nation's initiatives, challenges, and future aspirations. The overarching theme was the collective drive towards a more inclusive, democratic, and secure Internet for all in the region. The role of youth, capacity-building initiatives, and regional collaboration stood out as pivotal aspects of the discourse.

This Lightning Talk focused on the project to mobilize researchers, social movements and sectors of civil society for a public debate on the use of face-recognition (FR) by State agents in public spaces in Brazil.

It was acknowledged that the use of FR as a mechanism for the prevention and repression of crime satisfies the demands for safety fed by the fear of urban violence. However, it was argued that the use of this technology leads to expanded vigilantism with a discriminatory algorithmic bias in public spaces and can create hostile spaces that favor the violation of fundamental rights and guarantees such as freedom, privacy, personal data protection, assembly and association. Speakers highlighted how, in the course of this debate, legislation has been developed with members of congress to ban the use of FR in public spaces and how the use of FR has become more common in Brazilian schools, with a focus on the case of the state of Paraná, in the South of Brazil. 

The session covered the following points:

• The use of face-recognition (FR) technology in Brazil, where speakers gave a little bit of context and explained how a resistance to FR has been built in the past few Years.
• Arguments for banning FR.
• The naturalization of FR, and the escalation of its use in the state of Paraná, with massive usage of FR in schools.
• And a conclusion arguing that this is a battle being waged.

The main presentation ended with the statement that the debate on FR in Brazil has been a milestone in the inclusion of racial, socioeconomic and gender issues on the sociotechnical agenda. It also represents, for the same reasons, progress in the debate on the penal system and mass incarceration in a country which has the third largest prison population in the world. With more than 900,000 prisoners, of whom 45% are temporary detainees, Brazil lies behind only the USA and China. Today, the debate about these issues can be found in the press, traditional and independent media and parliaments as well as in the, albeit very often hypocritical, discourse of agents of the State and the private sector.

Finally, it was said that this whole debate is not a question of merely banning the use of a technology that has technical failings, but of questioning its technopolitical dimensions and challenging the unfair, racist structure of surveillance, monitoring and repression systems in Brazil.

Therefore, it is fair to say that the main aim of this session was to raise awareness about the debate on the potential risks of using face recognition technologies for public security and education in countries with a history of repression and discrimination against minority populations.

Once the case in Brazil was presented within 20 minutes by both speakers, the discussions focused two main issues: The first one was centred in the problem of naturalising the use and acceptance of surveillance technologies in schools through low-profile implementations without proper critical assessment or public control. The second issue focused on the ways in which these projects are socially, politically and economically constructed in regard to the actors and interests involved in the spread of face-recognition technologies in many sectors of society.

Session was closed in time.

Speakers: Fernanda Bruno and Rodrigo Firmino. Moderator: Rodrigo Firmino.

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues

The IGF LAC Space invited different organizations to share the projects, initiatives and research they have developed over the past year with a focus on the Latin American and Caribbean region, including impressions regarding the following question "Based on your organization's perspective, what challenges related to the management and evolution of the Internet in the region can you identify?". The session sought to foster discussion and new opportunities for regional collaboration.  The second part of the session hosted researchers supported by LACNIC and CETyS who shared their recent research related to Internet governance in the regional sphere.

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The organizations that participated in this edition of the IGF LAC Space shared the projects, initiatives and research they have undertaken over the past year and their answers to the suggested question. The session included representatives from the private sector, civil society, the technical community and academia.

Speakers talked about the work they have done from different approaches to tackle several issues, like meaningful connectivity, youth engagement, and access within the Latin American and Caribbean region. They highlighted the importance of strengthening the multistakeholder model and analyzing the evolution of the regulatory framework in the region, noting the attempts of passing new regulations in Latin American countries that negatively impact the development of the Internet and the digital economy in the region.

During the second part of the session, researchers supported by LACNIC and CETyS shared their projects and main findings. They addressed a wide range of topics like zero rating, regulatory challenges for the open Internet, and Internet access for indigenous communities. 

The session once again brought together organizations from the Latin American and Caribbean Internet ecosystem to share new developments, exchange ideas and strengthen regional cooperation opportunities.

3. Final Speakers

Nigel Cassimire - CTU

Olga Cavalli -  SSIG

Rodrigo de la Parra - ICANN

Juan Carlos Lara - Derechos Digitales

Alessia Zucchetti - LACNIC

María Fernanda Martínez -CETyS

Rocío de la Fuente - LACTLD

Ernesto Rodríguez- Vice Minister of  Communications in Cuba

Emiliano Venier -  Researcher

Germán López -  Researcher

Daniela Cuspoca - Researcher

Pilar Huppi Lo Prete -  Researcher

Daniel Triviño Cepeda - Researcher

IGF 2023 Networking Session #171 Fake or advert: between disinformation and digital marketing

Youtube link and official website

The IGF 2023 Networking Session #171, titled "Fake or Advert: Between Disinformation and Digital Marketing," brought together experts from diverse sectors to delve into the intricate relationship between advertising and disinformation in the digital age. Organized by InternetLab, this session aimed to facilitate an open dialogue and exchange of insights on the challenges posed by disinformation in the advertising landscape, focusing on measures taken by social media platforms and governments to combat this complex issue. The session featured enlightening discussions and key takeaways from speakers representing various perspectives.

 This is the updated list and order of speakers:

• Eliana Quiroz (Internet Bolivia)
• Anna Kompanek (Center for International Private Enterprise - CIPE)
• Herman Wasserman (University of Stellenbosch):
• Renata Mielli (Comitê Gestor da Internet)

Onsite Moderator: Heloisa Massaro ([email protected])

Online Moderator: Laura Pereira

Rapporteur: Alice Lana

Format: Networking session

Heloísa Massaro, the director of InternetLab, set the stage by emphasizing the importance of addressing disinformation in advertising. This session aimed to shed light on the complexities of this relationship, focusing on how advertising can either contribute to or mitigate the spread of disinformation.

1. Eliana Quiroz (Internet Bolivia): Eliana highlighted the differences between countries, even within the global south, in their capacity to afford digital marketing campaigns. She emphasized the financial aspect of disinformation campaigns and how they impact public discourse. Eliana's perspective provided a valuable understanding of the disparities in digital marketing capabilities across regions.

2. Anna Kompanek (Center for International Private Enterprise - CIPE): Anna brought a unique perspective from the local business community, emphasizing that not everyone from the private sector involved in discussions like these represents big tech. She stressed the impact of paying for adverts on disinformation and the quality of journalism in a country. Her company's report, created in collaboration with CIMA, highlighted the importance of ethical advertising to support independent journalism and media spaces. Anna's insights underlined the significance of ethical advertising for enhancing the public image of companies.

3. Herman Wasserman (University of Stellenbosch): Herman discussed the disparities in understanding disinformation between the global north and the global south and how this impacts the conversation. He presented two critical points: firstly, disinformation has a long history in the global south, and secondly, there is a double threat to information landscapes, both externally and internally. Herman's perspective emphasized the historical context and the importance of understanding disinformation in different regions. He also highlighted the role of advertising in supporting small independent media outlets, especially in authoritarian regimes.

4. Renata Mielli (Comitê Gestor da Internet): Renata focused on the disinformation industry and the dominance of digital platforms in the advertising market. She raised questions about the role of government and governmental regulation in the context of digital marketing and disinformation. Renata's questions encouraged thoughtful consideration of the state's role in regulating the advertising industry and social media platforms, and how this could contribute to a more responsible and reliable digital marketing environment.

Q&A and Panelists' Responses:

The panelists engaged in a Q&A session, where they fielded questions on topics such as elections, self-regulation mechanisms, and regulatory approaches. The speakers provided comprehensive and insightful responses, contributing to a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.

In conclusion, the IGF 2023 Networking Session #171 provided a platform for a meaningful exchange of ideas on the complex interplay between advertising and disinformation. The speakers' diverse perspectives and the questions raised during the session demonstrated the need for collaborative efforts to address disinformation in advertising and foster a more responsible and reliable digital marketing environment. The session exemplified the IGF's commitment to promoting a better understanding of these multifaceted challenges and encouraging innovative solutions for a more informed and responsible information ecosystem.

Key Takeaway 1: Leveraging Ethical Advertising - One insight emphasized the role of ethical advertising in supporting independent journalism. Collaborative efforts by governments, the private sector, and civil society are proposed to create and enforce ethical advertising standards, ultimately contributing to a more reliable media environment.

Key Takeaway 2: Bridging the Global South Gap - there are disparities in disinformation understanding between the global North and South. The session encourages a knowledge exchange, where global north regions can learn from the south's long historical perspective on disinformation, ultimately aiding the fight against disinformation. This collaborative learning could inform future strategies to tackle disinformation globally.

Call to Action 1: South-North Knowledge Exchange - Recognizing the unique challenges faced by the global south regarding disinformation, the session urges the global north to engage in a mutual knowledge exchange. This exchange should involve sharing strategies, best practices, and expertise to combat disinformation and strengthen independent media. Collaboration should be fostered between academia, civil society, and governments to facilitate this exchange.

Call to Action 2: Ethical Advertising Initiatives - The discussion underscores the need for concrete actions towards ethical advertising standards. Governments, the private sector, and civil society are urged to collaborate and establish a framework that enforces responsible advertising practices. This should be initiated within a specific timeframe to promote transparency and reliability in the digital advertising landscape.

Key takeaways

Internet Governance studies need to include a comparative dimension to allow for collaborative research. Developing a transdisciplinary approach is also of paramount importance from legal studies to computing science.

Call-to-action points 

Promote open and multistakeholder cooperation in research project to embrace the complexity of digital technologies. 

The session allowed for an open discussion and sharing of research programs (as well as future initiatives, grants, new degrees…) and opportunities to collaborate. The informal setting of the session was also helpful to facilitate such discussion.

This report addresses the feedback that I have received from the participants during and after the session.   

There is a strong link between Data Strategy, AI Strategy and AI Ethics.  It was interesting that some participants (from the Education sector: Academy STEP Institute, Cambodia & Vietnam) requested a copy of my slides, in order to educate and share the knowledge with their students in one of the schools.  These participants mentioned that found the slides to be enlightening and informative, since the slides contained clear concise steps on how to build successful data and AI strategies, and what questions need to be tackled and answered, during this process, including Data Governance, Data Quality and AI Ethics/Trust.  I was more than glad to share the slides with the Academy, after the session by email, in order to facilitate the knowledge sharing and to be of help to the students in their learning stages.

Another interesting inquiry, from another participant, was on how we can create "data value" for OpenAI, which is an interesting thought, since data strategies need to have data management in place, and with big data, classification of the data might be difficult as well as aligning the data with strategic objectives may not be as clear. The answer that I gave was to prioritize the data for classification and define 1-2 "ethical" objectives to align with.   In addition, it would be beneficial to do some research on how OpenAI developers, as the main stakeholders, use Data Strategy frameworks, during their development work, and to make sure that their AI is aligned with an efficient Data strategy, that is put in place.

Moreover, there was a third inquiry from two (2) schoolgirls who attended the session, and they wanted to get some training on how to use ChatGPT, since one of my slides contained an example for how to get valuable information from it.   The 2 girls mentioned that their school in Hong Kong doesn't allow high school girls to use ChatGPT, for the risk of Plagiarism.  The ethical use of AI in the Education sector is a fundamental concern, especially since there are no clear global regulations/policies in place or currently followed. Should Education allow ChatGPT or prohibit it.? It's a thought worth pondering.  I truly believe that, in the education sector, research on the impact of using ChatGPT among students need to be pursued in further depth, by researchers. Some critical questions need to be answered such as: How does Generative AI tools, such as ChatGPT, affect the performance of learners? and what policies/regulations need to be put in place to make sure of the Ethical use of AI among both youngsters and scholars, in the Education sector?   

Finally, I would like to thank UN IGF organizers and Japan for hosting this insightful forum, which provided perspective on many of the urging topics in the world today, related to Data Governance and AI.   The discussions and speeches that were shared by all speakers were inspiring. 

Thank you very much and I am looking forward to future co-operation with UN IGF and other UN entities for the pursuit of: AI for Humanity.

Best regards,

Fadwa AlBawardi

Saudi Arabia

The ISIF Asia awards recognized the contributions of organizations supporting the development of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). These IXPs play an important role in directing web traffic around the world.

There were three awardees:

The Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) for their work on software-defined IXPs – the award was accepted by project lead Zartash Afzal Uzmi.

The Myanmar Internet Exchange (MMIX) for their work on supporting networks in Myanmar – the award was accepted by project lead Thein Myint Khine.

The University of Malaya, for the design, development and operation of an SDN-based Internet eXchange playground for Networkers – the award was accepted by project lead Dr Ling Teck Chaw.

The video of the session is available here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC6p73CvtyI

The awardees raised some key themes:

• There are a lot of challenges around negotiations between content providers (such as large social media companies) and the ISPs who peer at the IXP. One will not join without the other side being there. So how do they start?
• If there can be a way to bring larger institutional players in like the content providers and governments to help encourage the content providers to peer there, it would be of assistance to these IXPs. This makes a difference in Internet speeds for these countries

The ISIF Asia awards are presented by the APNIC Foundation, and they recognize the use of innovative technologies to support Internet development in the Asia Pacific.

The individual videos for each of the three awardees can be seen here:
https://apnic.foundation/announcing-the-isif-asia-awards-2023/

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• How data is governed properly and protected.
• Ways of ensuring data governance inclusivity
• Africa being left behind when discussions are going on based on connectivity
• Data is expensive, which prevents people from contributing to the data pull and connectivity
• Trying to close the gap to ensure inclusive internet
• Individuals do not have a digital footprint because they do not have the funds to purchase smart phones or the data to have access to the internet.
• Have generic devices that are cost-effective to enable the less privileged have the means to afford them to connect with the world as well
• The need to know diversity and need for data
• How do we transform people by giving them access to data?
• Transform the ecosystem of less privileged communities to get them connected to the internet.
• Have stronger lead institutions that include communities and women together.
• Having indigenous knowledge to leverage
• Development is a major challenge.
• Identifying the type of data that is needed
• Issue of capacity, knowledge, and skills in using their infrastructure.

# KEY POINTS

* PhD research on "Competition Law and Enforcement in the era Big Data and AI", with three main points (technical, legal, enforcement)

* Technical findings include the potential for AI-based systems to facilitate cartels under specific conditions, such as using machine learning/deep learning, unsupervised learning, and transparent oligopoly/duopolies in the market structure.

* Legal findings indicate that AI-enabled collusions may not always be considered cartels and sanctioned, except for some cases like the Messenger case where humans used AI to implement a cartel.

* Enforcement efforts by competition authorities involve various approaches, including AI-based systems for parameter analysis, monitoring and analytics, web scraping, and econometric instruments. Proving collusion can be challenging in some cases.

# FULL REPORT

# Session

## Emilia

Presents Veronica Piccolo and the format of the session: 15 mins for presentation, 15 mins for Q&A

## Veronica

Veronica Piccolo is a lawyer, originally from Italy, part of Youth Standing Group (YSG) of Internet Society. She currently works for the European Commission. All the opinions expressed here are not on their behalf. She just completed a PhD research in Law and Economics at Ca' Foscari University in Venice with the title of

"Competition Law and Enforcement in the era Big Data and AI". Using a comparative, multidisciplinary approach, she focuses on the legal and technological aspects.

Her PhD research focused on three main points:

1. Technical

2. Legal

3. Institutional and Enforcement

## Technical findings

The question here was: "Are AI based system able to facilitate cartels?"

Those findings are based on an experiment developed by Calvano et al. at the University of Bologna. The experiment involved getting simulated markets to interact with each other using Q-learning. The key objective here was to understand if two AI algorithms could possibly collide and set the same prices?

The findings suggest that when some specific conditions that are met, based on the same design, they could learn to interact to each other. The elements are the following:

* Design: use of Machine learning/Deep learning; most likely, with the same technology being deployed on the market, there are good opportunities that those interact with each other.

* Data: unsupervised learning is more likely to facilitate collusion

* Market Structure: transparent oligopoly/duopolies, with prices known and interchangeable products.

Some criticism was moved to the approach, such as the experiment not working under normal market dynamics. This was contrasted by Brown and Makay and found that over two years, the sellers that could sell using the algorithms set the price above marginal cost.

Also, Ezrachi and Stucke devised models of collusion:

Messenger: cartel set up by humans and algorithms implement it

Predictable Agent: AI used to monitor the market and swiftly react to competitors price change.

Hub & Spoke: presence of coordinators and coordinated nodes, such as a platform marketplace and the spokes. So, the prices of the spokes are coordinated by the hub.

Digital Eye: the "cartel of the future, where market players would be able to predict the price change by competitors using AI and adjust accordingly

## Legal FIndings

The question here was: "Can AI-enabled collusions be considered as cartels and sanctioned?"

The findings suggest no. Besides the hardly exposable Digital Eye, there are some real cases that can be explored. For the Messenger case, the UK competition authority (CMA, case Trod/GB Eye) determined that a cartel was determined by humans that used AI to implement it. In that case, CMA sanctioned Trod, but not GB, because the former applied for the, specific procedure for leniency. For the Predictable Agent case, we have examples of AI system used to monitor and swiftly change prices. Calvano et al. exposed dynamics of Q-learning, where the algorithms learn to collude and keep the price above marginal costs, more in particular between Bertrand-Nash price and monopoly price. Brown and Mackay bring the case of over-the-counter drugs, where algorithms are used to generate supracompetitive prices through non-collusive mechanism.

Sometimes, it can be very hard to expose this type of cartels. The legal interpretation of what a cartel can be does not correspond to what an economist would identify. Cartel investigations from an economical perspective look for very clear evidences, but for legal theory this can not always be done.

## Enforcement

The question here was: "How are competition authorities tackling the issue?"

The European authorities have equipped themselves to tackle the complexity. The Italian AGCM is using AI-based systems for reverse-engineer parameters generated by the AI of the undertakings. In Poland, they are trying to find if there are terms not compliant with consumer right law. In Greece and Spain, authorities are performing augmented market monitoring and analytics to expose when the market price fluctuates too much, therefore signaling the need for an investigation. In the Czech Republic, the authority is doing web scraping and econometric instrument to detect manipulation.

In some cases, competition authorities might not be certainly able to prove collusion, also given that companies can provide information to prove the contrary.

# OPEN FLOOR

How can AI governance be shaped to include competition law compliance programs?

### 1

Q: As an umbrella association, we are working with other organization to understand how anti-trust law can be applied and communicated to the rest of civil society. Is it possible to adopt a multistakeholder to frame the governance of AI?

A: Compliance programs must be based on multistakeholder model, but still there is nobody representing smaller businesses, just marking another cost for them. Lowest cost for being compliant.

### 2 Francisco Livardia - Diplomat from Panama

Q: How would be the relationship of AI Governance and compensation of damages? How can the fair market price applied for compensating damages?

A: In Europe we have a poor framework for private enforcing of anti-trust law. In the USA and other countries, if you are a damaged competitor, you can go before a judge and ask for reimbursement. In the EU is up to public competition authorities to carry out investigations and fine accordingly. However, if a cartel is suspected and one of the cartel members applies for a lineancy, they can disclose the cartel themselves and do not get fines by exposing other cartel members.

### 3

Q: Can we talk about the new EU policies about data sharing? They seem to enforcing data sharing, actively damaging competition.

A: The Data Act is still just a proposal. However, interestingly, we have the Digital Market Act (DMA). Article 6 says that the gatekeeper has to make the data available to other businesses, including possible competitors. The open question here is, does this make easier to facilitate market collusions?

### 4

Q: Competition Law is just for big companies. Can we model an AI program as a information theory system and train it to report on how other models are treating data?

A: Compliance programs could benefit that, however this would require the datasets to be f

rozen in order to expand the state and run more and more iterations.

AI in education: the future or a storm in a glass?

On October 8, 2023, the Youth Council of the Coordination Center for TLD .RU/.РФ together with the International Information Security School held a section "AI in education: the future or a storm in a glass", the main topic of which was the use of artificial intelligence technologies in educational processes in schools and universities.

Representatives of the Coordination Center Andrey Aleynikov and Pavel Pozdnyakov, as well as members of the Youth Council and the IIB School Arevik Martirosyan and Vera Terekhova highlighted the pros and cons of using artificial intelligence in education, based on the results of current international research, and conducted a survey among the audience about their opinions on the issues raised during the session.

When discussing the digitization of education, it's essential to bear in mind that global challenges and the rapid pace of technological advancement are reshaping our world. Consequently, they are transforming the learning experience of individuals, necessitating the acquisition of skills that were unimaginable just half a century ago. To adapt to these new challenges, significant reforms in teaching and learning methods are required, accessible to everyone regardless of their background or social affiliation.

The gap between those who can utilize basic digital technologies, including the internet and artificial intelligence, and those who lack access is a massive concern. While some educators can afford to employ innovative teaching techniques, others are compelled to focus more on fundamental aspects of the teaching process, like sourcing materials to teach their students adequately. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the digital divide exists on multiple fronts: between developed and developing countries, various socio-economic groups within countries, technology owners and users, and even those whose professions are enhanced by artificial intelligence and those whose fields of expertise may be jeopardized by its rise. Therefore, considering the diversity of these issues, we should expect that education will gradually transform within the framework of a complex process, rather than through a single wave of changes. 

The most important problem in the near future will be the interaction between human and artificial cognitive systems during complex cognitive processes such as learning, comprehension and decision making. The process of identifying a problem when solving tasks can be performed by both humans and AI: humans understand the emotional components best, while AI is well equipped to collect and process data to identify possible gaps.

However, the use of AI can carry not only advantages. The ability to create high-quality content in almost real time is increasingly being used in the modern world to manipulate public opinion, spread misinformation and form a distorted view of reality.

Therefore, the use of AI in education should be approached with some caution, but without strict prohibitions. It is necessary to develop regulation.

It is important to think through the processes of interaction with AI, without perceiving technology as a danger. The threat is not in artificial intelligence tools, but a backward and outdated approach to learning and education.

2 Key Takeaways

1. Digital transformation and so-called “artificial intelligence (AI)” – which can more adequately be called “data-based systems (DS)” – comprise ethical opportunities and ethical risks. Therefore, it is necessary to identify ethical opportunities and ethical risks at an early stage in order to be able to benefit sustainably from the opportunities and to master or avoid the risks.
    
2. In the avoidance and mastering of risks, technology-based innovation can in turn play an essential role.

2 call-to-action points

In order to allow humans and the planet to flourish sustainably, the following 2 concrete measures are proposed:

1. Human rights-based data-based systems (HRBDS): Human rights-based data-based systems (HRBDS) means that human rights serve as the basis of digital transformation and DS;
    
2. An International Data-Based Systems Agency (IDA) should be established at the UN as a platform for technical cooperation in the field of digital transformation and DS fostering human rights, safety, security, and peaceful uses of DS as well as a global supervisory and monitoring institution and regulatory authority in the area of digital transformation and DS – following the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) at the UN.

During the session a concept of the Cybersecurity HUB was presented as an online space where IS3C experts bring together representatives of key stakeholders: tertiary educators, industry, governments, ministries of education and students in am to bridge skills gap in cybersecurity field. To move from theory to practice, this is the objective of ‘The Cybersecurity Hub’ that is strongly based on findings and recommendations from the research report “Closing the gap between the needs of the cybersecurity industry and the skills of tertiary education graduates” (the research report available at: https://is3coalition.org/docs/study-report-is3c-cybersecurity-skills-gap/).

The sessions had a round table format. During the session the speakers representing industry, business, government, civil society and tertiary education establishments from six continents expressed their views on, i.a. partners to involve in the development of the hub to make it rapidly effective, strategies to bring more women and young people into cybersecurity workforce and also how to adapt education to better meet the challenges of the digital transformation.

After the introduction given by moderators Wout de Natris from IS3C (presentation of the IS3C and goals of the session) and Janice Richardson, Insight (presentation of the main findings and recommendation from the study) the following speakers presented their perspective, insight and best practices: Maciej Groń, NASK/Poland (Cyber Science Coalition, “Partnership for the Cybersecurity” program, creation of new ISAC’s, cyber hygiene training for: university students, local governments, public health-sector, VIPs), Julia Piechna, NASK/Poland (Youth IGF Poland project and engaging tertiary education students and graduates), Anna Rywczyńska, NASK/Poland (formal education from entry levels - challenges and best practices in the implementation of the cybersecurity in the educational system and school curriculum), Deniz Susar, UN (how to cooperate on the international and multi-sector level; good practices from UN’s perspective), Professor Youki Kadobayashi, NAIST, professor at the Industrial Cyber Security Centre of Excellence/Japan (examples of actions undertaken to bridge the skills gap in cybersecurity sector),  Raúl Echeberría, chair on an industry organisation in Latin-America (the level of the implementation cybersecurity policies in Latin-America in business not directly related to IT & cybersecurity (eg. transport, trade, finance and insurance, health care, food industry), Mr. Hikohiro Y Lin, PWC Japan (do tertiary graduates meet the expectations of the private sector, strategies to have more specialists that meet the business needs), João Moreno Falcão, Vice Chair of the ISOC Youth SG and YouthLAC IGF/Brasil (how to diversify the cybersecurity workforce and encourage more women and young people to enter the sector), Ismaila Jawara, Founder of GamCON Infosec Community, Gambia Revenue Authority (how to diversify the cybersecurity workforce and encourage more women and young people to enter the sector). The summary of the session was made by Larry Magid, CEO ConnectSafely, Columnist Mercury News, Host of ConnectSafely Report for CBS News/US.

Active online participation was also facilitated by opening the floor for online audience via Mentimeter. The audience (online and onsite) had to prioritise the key functions of the hub and also vote for the most important practical steps that should be prioritised to launch and build the HUB. The voting showed that the most important function of the HUB is to (order according to the priority assigned): 1. promote collaboration between industry, universities and the cybersecurity workforce, 2. enhance cybersecurity skills at all levels of education, 3. gather and scale up good practice from cybersecurity and tertiary sectors, 4. raise interest in careers in the cybersecurity industry, and 5. provide online training from top experts on emerging topics. Defining strategic plan (goals, objectives, long-term vision of hub) according to the session’s participants is the most important practical step that should be prioritised to launch and build the HUB.

The most important conclusions from the discussion during the panel:

- It is crucial to close the skills gap to attract more young people and women in cybersecurity.

- Industry needs people not only with professional competences but also transversal ones (such as: critical thinking, creativity, holistic thinking, team work).

- It is very important to bring the right people together to cooperate.

- Educators focus on coding but not teaching young people about how things function, what is the backbone of the internet, how does cloud security work, etc. Also lots of graduates have insufficient knowledge about real world applications.

- Companies training their own people, employees to know today’s products but not the base to adapt to changes.

- Cybersecurity is important for primary and secondary education. Many think it should be mandatory.

- It is necessary to close the gap between what university are doing and what industry wants.

- Universities teach people how to invent AI but industry needs people who can use AI.

- It is important to create opportunities in developing countries which offer great human talent potential.

- Massive scalable solutions are needed.

- Attacks are moving faster than solutions and human resource allocation also fails to keep up.

- Traditional teaching should be replaced by modern, inclusive methods that provide space for experimentation and learning through practice, gaining deep knowledge through experience.

- More opportunities for young people should be offered by e.g networking – places for new comers to learn from experts what also leaves space for informal information sharing.

- It is important to encourage mid-career shift and also to take steps to retain the workforce. For retaining talents it is also important to taking actions to reduce stressful working conditions.

- Industry needs cybersecurity people in all fields (factories, farms etc).

The lightning talk highlighted the Sisters of Code program in Cambodia, which provides coding education and technology training to girls to increase female representation in the tech industry. The talk explored the empowering impact of this first female coding club in Cambodia and addressed the importance of similar initiatives globally.

Key takeaways included the practical model Sisters of Code provides for establishing after-school coding clubs for girls and the call to action for stakeholders to support and replicate such empowering programs for women and girls in tech in other countries.

During the Q&A, attendees asked whether the Sisters of Code model could be successfully created in other countries. The speaker confirmed that the methodology and experience from Cambodia can be shared to set up clubs addressing the gender divide in tech in any enthusiastic community with local support.

Regarding training on online security, the speaker explained that digital safety is an important part of the Sisters of Code curriculum and is taught from the start.

Overall, the audience was highly engaged and inspired by the presentation. Attendees gave encouraging feedback and positive comments about the empowering mission of Sisters of Code and its potential for impact.

⏎ to send, shift + ⏎ to add 

The session was organised by the Insafe Coordinator, in collaboration with the Portuguese, Belgium, Maltese, Polish and UK Safer Internet Centres, who shared their best practices on youth participation and how to engage young people in co-creating and developing new initiatives and resources.  Moreover, the different centres explained how they work together with young people in developing awareness campaigns to effectively reach this target group, including children in vulnerable situations and to tackle online trends.

In today's world, children are vulnerable for many reasons: poverty, disability, mental health problems, abuse or neglect, family breakdown, homelessness, discrimination, and social exclusion, not to mention migration and war zones. Several programs are designed to help social groups from different backgrounds, including those who are vulnerable. While these groups face different challenges, they share a common need for online safety in an increasingly complex social environment.

However, all children can be considered vulnerable as they grow up in a world where decisions are made by others/adults, often with a very different perspective, and feel the pressure to adapt to a world where rights are not protected, risks are everywhere and technological developments in the digital environment are beyond imagination.

The new European strategy for a Better Internet for Kids (BIK+), adopted by the European Commission in May 2022, aims to provide a delicate balance between digital participation, empowerment, and protection of children in the digital environment. BIK+ is an adaptation of the 2012 BIK strategy, following a decade in which technological developments have exceeded all expectations.

Young people, as digital citizens of the future and growing up in a digital environment, deserve to have a say in developments, safeguards, and their rights, and to shape the world they will live in. The BIK+ strategy which was adopted after a long consultation process, aims to put children and young people at the forefront of the decisions that will be made by key stakeholders and industry in the digital environment in the coming years.