You are here

IGF 2018 - Day 2 - Salle X - OF5 Measuring a free, open, rights based and inclusive Internet - RAW

The following are the outputs of the real-time captioning taken during the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Paris, France, from 12 to 14 November 2018. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the event, but should not be treated as an authoritative record. 



>> Good afternoon, everyone. We want to start on time, because we have one hour and plenty of speakers, so, please, be seated.

Ladies and gentlemen, please. Thank you very much for joining us on this open forum.

It's our UNESCO open forum about measuring a free, open, rights based and inclusive Internet.

It's an honor for us to welcome you here. We have wonderful speakers around the table in this wonderful room, and we want to explain how we assess the Internet in our society.

We have a lot of engagement from different organizations, from different stake holders, in different countries and around the world, and we are really pleased to present different speakers from different perspectives, and different countries that we talk about how important it is. It's our pleasure because we believe it's important and our mandate to engage with different government issues as it comes to Internet development.

UNESCO is an inter-governmental agency under the United Nations umbrella. We work on Internet governance from the beginning from 2005 when IGF was established. We are really happy as our member states approve the Internet principles, accessible, openness, rights-based. We now bring this with all our experts to be presented to you in member states next week, I think, with the IPC council.

That's important because it's a governmental program that we need to work on this education.

I don't want to be long because we have plenty of speakers, and I expect that there will be questions, especially from different sectors participating in the IGF, and welcome to UNESCO, and welcome to this IGF.

I will be happy to introduce David Souter, who is the commissioner and author.

Then I will give the floor for our panelists starting with Enrico Calandro as South Africa.

As we did some final in three countries, including Brazil, Senegal, and Thailand. I will be happy to give the floor to our colleagues from Brazil, Alexandria RER Barbosa and Joao Brant.

I don't know if

Ms. Pirongrong is here. Okay.

She will be -- she will be joining us later on. She's from Thailand, and she's a member of the content board broadcast section, national broadcasting and telecommunication from Thailand. Then I give the floor to my left, Ms. Sylvia Grundmann, head of media and Internet division, and secretary of CDMSI from council of Europe.

Then we open the floor for questions, and we're looking forward to have a lot of questions from you, and at the end we'll close the session by Ms. Albana Shala, the chair of international program for development of communication, and she will maybe highlight how important it is for us to develop these indicators.

I don't want to take so much for your time, and I will give the floor directly to Mr. Souter to present the EDUCATORS>> DAVID SOUTER:  I will be brief and try not to speak too fast.

 first of all, I would like to thank UNESCO for the opportunity to work on this project, which I hope you'll agree is an important new initiative. Also, to thank IPC, the association for progressive communications, which coordinated the project, and I would like to thank my research partner Alexandre for the work she's done on it, which has been invaluable.

The project is two established UNESCO initiatives.

The development indicators that have been used to assess development over the past decade or so, and also in the Internet yourself versalty approach that was adopted by the UNESCO general council four or five years ago, and that Internet universality framework roots the future of the Internet as UNESCO in rights, openness, accessibility to all, and multi-stakeholder participation.

The purpose of this indicator framework is to help governments and other stake holders to do three things.

Firstly, to develop a clear understanding it's a national Internet environment in which they're working.

Then, secondly, to assess how well that national environment conforms with UNESCO's own principles. With those, the principles and commitments to rights, openness, accessibility to all, and multi-station holder participation.

Thirdly, to develop policy approaches and practice interventions that will enable a national government, a national Internet community to meet those goals more effectively. The indicator fame work is not, and I would stress, this it's not intended to compare countries with one another or to draw up lead tables of countries. It's for a much more sophisticated and substantive approach at national level in understanding and developing appropriate policies.

Its focus is on the accurate gathering of evidence to enable progress, collaborative progress, towards those goals, rather than on advocacy.

I'll say something briefly about three things. Then, first, about the way the indicators were developed. Then about the structure of the indicator framework. Thirdly, about the future implementation.

Developing the indicators has been a scientific and rigorous process. They build on a wide range of established work and resources which have been put together over the years by a wide range of actors, by United Nations and other intergovernmental agencies, by governments, by research centers, by academic bodies, by businesses, by civil society, and by Internet professional groups.

We can go back to the project timeline slide, please.

Thank you. PRAECH in each of those phases more than 200 contributions were received and discussed. Many governments and other stake holders contributed, and they made substantial detailed comments, which were taken into account as the indicators were developed. The development of these indicators has also been informed by dialogue within UNESCO, with UNESCO's statistics with other U.N. agencies, and a multistakeholder advisory board of international experts.

The indicators which are in the document have also been rigorously tested and we'll be hearing about that shortly.

Firstly, there were four pretests, which were intended to validate the vie viability of analyzing data that was proposed. After that there were three part pilots in which research partners took a set of core indicators, about one-third of the entire framework, and assessed those within particular countries.

It's this rigorously tested set of indicators that is going to be presented to UNESCO's council next week.

Words about the structure.

These diagrams were taken from the booklet. You can see them in there. The indicators are in five groups. They're the four categories of rights, openness, accessibility to all, and multistake holders participation, and then an additional category of cross-cutting indicators, which is concerned with gender, children, sustainable development, trust and security, and legal and ethical aspects of the Internet. Within each category there are a number of themes that are illustrated on this slide here, and I don't have time to go through these as I might otherwise have done in detail now, but I'll leave this slide up at the end of my remarks so that you can look more carefully at what is included in those themes, and they will be, I should have looked up the page number.

They're on page  14 of the booklet.

Then if we go to the next slide, each theme includes a number of questions, and each question is associated with one or more indicators. Together these address the whole range of issues with which Internet universality is concerned.

Finally, within the document we have included recommended sources for these indicators, which are a guide for the use of researchers, and these will vary quite significantly from country to country.

The indicators we have included in the framework can be divided into three main types.

Some are concerned with the existence and practical implementation of institutions or legal arrangements. Some are quantitative measurements, some are qualitative assessments, and the evidence that's available across this range is obviously going to vary considerably between countries. Some countries will have much more evidence than others. Some data in some countries will be more timely, more reliable, more extensive than equivalent data of other countries.

In some cases where data are available for a number of years, it will be much easier to establish trends. In every case, though, it's going to be important for researchers to look critically and carefully at the evidence base, which is available to assess why that evidence is available, what it says, when it says it about, and what it implies for future policy and practical interventions.

Now, there are a lot of indicators in this framework, and that's deliberate because it helps to address the diversity and in many -- in some cases deficiency of data available.

The framework as a whole should provide a collage of evidence which is sufficiently substantial to allow a serious assessment of current circumstances and policy options in almost every country.

We suggested a number of contextcontextual indicators too. They don't form part of the framework itself, but they're intended to help with the contextualization and the policy prescriptions that are helpful for national circumstances.

 A few words finally concerning implementation, and I put back the slide.

Implementation is going to be a substantial exercise, ands we'll hear experience from that on the partial pilot shortly. It's going to require significant resources. UNESCO's hopes that most assessments will make use of the whole indicator framework, but equally recognizes that this won't be possible in every case. For that reason we've also prepared a subset of core indicators which includes about one-third of the indicate orrors in the comprehensive framework and includes indicators from every theme within that framework, and it draws right across the entire range.

Their specific model proposed as to who should undertake assessments. Anyone and everyone who is invited or is to be invited to make use of them. However, UNESCO believes it is valuable to involve diverse stakeholder groups and diverse perspectives on the Internet. Among those who are involved in any research team.

That would encourage deeper and more open investigation, more discussion of diverse perspectives which should lead to better understanding and better outcomes. Finally, to facilitate all of this, an implementation guide is now in preparation, and that should be published around the end of the year. Thanks for your attention. I'll hand you back to the chat>> Thank you, David. Thank you for all of your -- you're really presenting it in a very quick manner, and it is in the sake of time. All the slides that are presented are available in the book that is, again, available.

Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I would like also to thank those supporting this work, and especially I want to thank the Swedish international development agency, the Internet society, the Internet cooperation for assigned names and numbers, ICANN, the Brazilian information network center, and the Latin America and information center for the support for this project.

That we involve more than 2,000 experts worldwide, and it takes us 18 months to work with all different stake holders to achieve all these indicators that was presented briefly by Dr. Souter, and I want to thank the consortium that helped us to achieve these indicators.

Let's move to our next speaker, Mr. -- research manager, research ICT Africa from South Africa. Welcome. The floor is years.

>> ENRICO CALANDRO:  Thank you for the floor. Thank you for the opportunity to share our experience of conducting the pretesting of the Internet universality indicators in Nigeria and the piloting in Senegal.

As David mentioned, the objective of the pretesting in Nigeria was to determine how feasible it would be to implement the Internet universality indicators in the country. To do that, we have a two-pronged approach. We conducted research, which came at reviewing the indicators, if they were available, or already in the country, located potential sources. There are indicators that are accessible in the future.

The second approach we conducted some key informative interviews with members of the Internet stakeholder community in Nigeria from the public society and private sector, and there are highly knowledgeable people on this subject matter.

One of the main stake holders was also the NINL earian commission, because it's one of the main actors in the country that has got the mandate of collecting ICT indicators in the country, telecommunications regulator. One of the main results of this pretesting is that currently it is actually difficult to collect this UNESCO universality indicators.

According to our researcher on the field, only 18% of these indicators would actually readily be accessible in Nigeria. It divided the remaining indicators of 40%. It would be difficult to locate in the format structure requested by the Internet universality indicators, and 41 would actually consider what's possible to locate under the current circumstances in the country.

There are a few reasons for these evaluations. As I said, first of all, they are the -- what indicators that actually identify. It was very difficult to put form advanced analytics as required by the framework. For instance, very difficult to do desegregation by demographics, by location, and not only to update what exists across the different demographics, and where also they're conducted in it the country. For instance, we research what's conducted the survey last year. Data collection also should involve state agency, and somehow in Nigeria was constrained by red tape.

Also, in the country there is a freedom of information act which runs rights to the citizen to being assess public data. Not always public officials feel they have to comply with that.

The results are general unwillingness of officials to make this data public, available, and accessible.

Then another reason for difficulties conducting this kind of research is the access -- the absence of the local -- of local research on the ICT sector in Nigeria. There is not a strong institutional capacity, lack of technical knowledge of these issues, and as I said, there is not this aggregated data.

With regards to the pilot exercise in Senegal, the researcher reached similar conclusions. What it did was an investigation of the national Internet environment, making use of a selection of the indicators. Used as core indicators with respect of the ROA as represented by David, and the full set of indicators, and he identified similar problems.

There are a few recommendations that actually we made on how to move things forward. We believe that this should be for an indicated entity that should be established potentially by UNESCO to guard their in country data and to develop primary research because not it's not always available, and to apply the public sector from the onset. So since the beginning of the exercise. It's also very important to identify the coordinator within the government and public institution, and potentially also to consider to reduce the number of indicators, especially in the developing countries.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you for giving us this feedback about the African countries. We know that Africa is a priority for UNESCO, and we believe these EDUCATORS need to be implemented. We need to support the member states later on and the way to assess all these indicators, and this is part of our duty now ( once these indicators will be endorsed, we will be -- our work will start to support member states, different member states.

This is along with the different countries and it's to assess the feasibility of this.

Okay. Next.

I will be happy to listen to you>> JAOA BRANT:I would like to thank you for this important session. It is a great pleasure to be able to share with you our experience in implementing UNESCO's Internet universality indicators. I would also like to say that we are involved in this project since the very beginning in this very same IGF meeting in 2013 in Bali. (This is ALEXANDRE BARBOSA).

It was a meeting in 2013 in San Paolo, and in the past two years nick along with UNESCO have coordinated regional and national consultations on the wrong framework, and we have also conducted the pretext and the pilot much the Internet universality indicators in Brazil. I do acknowledge that the wrong framework and the proposed indicators are relevant to measure the development, and also, at the same time of high policy relevance since they constitute an excellent two for countries to produce data that are relevant for human rights on the Internet, and also, I would mention freedom of speech, right to access to information, personal data protection, among others, but they are also important to produce relevant data for the U.N. 2030 sustainable development agenda.

For Internet governance model in Brazil represented by the Brazilian Internet steering committee, and also their commitment with regular data production and statistics where two key success factors for the purpose the exercise in Brazil.

This exercise was really important. Not only to understand the feasibility of data collection and the formation that David has just presented of the framework, but also to better understand the road and the capacity of different stake holders in providing access to reliable data sources. Both quantitative and qualitative as you'll see that is required in the framework.

To conclude, I would like to say that this exercise revealed the relevance of the wrong framework. Not only for policy makers to decide about policies and legislation fostering Internet development, but also for civil society, organizations, academia, and I would say for the society as a whole.

I will now pass to Mr. JOAO Brant who was in the data collection, and formatting the final report that was submitted by us to UNESCO.

>> JAOA BRANT:  Actually, we'll reinforce four issues that I think it's important to highlight in this opportunity.

Firstly, the opportunity to rely on rogue institutions. The application, of course, will be better the more agency responsible for measuring primary data on access and usability. We had the opportunity to work with Satiq and Nick, part of the steering committee in Brazil, and that made things easier. The application itself may help define or amplifying the scope of an agency of measurement and statistics. I will take the indicators as an opportunity to enhance the domestic conditions and structure. The second issue is the application will be larger than that for an organization and specialists that can be referenced as a source in the country based on, of course, evidence-based assessments.

We really got benefit for strong Brazilian civil society organizations, and I would like to thank all the Brazilian organizes that really contributed to this report, and it was very important as well, and I think, of course, in the country like Brazil, it changes and enhances the report having this opportunity.

Third issue, would I reinforce the idea of participation and engaging civil society and academia and private sector plays in this debate. We had in time and this pilot application to do validation process or previous debates, but I would reinforce, this is, of course, makes a report and application stronger.

Finally, some issues of challenges and opportunities that we had and we faced during the implementation process.

Firstly, it's necessary to avoid confirmation bias of the researchers. It's always a risk in researchers like this, and this is dealing with credible and very viable sources. It's a strong recommendation that comes from UNESCO, but I would like to reinforce it.

Secondly, in large countries as Brazil, we have different levels with different realities. It's important to define beforehand the scope of the application.

In our case it was a national scope only.

Third issue, the absence of sources and data available. I would then reinforce the idea that we have to use the process to improve collection and organization of data in the country by official bodies and NGOs. We did recommendations to government and to civil society after the application as a way to feed back and to get a stronger framework for application the next time.

Finally, I would only reinforce that the application is not only a form of getting benefit of the indicators. What these indicators create is a common ground and an internationally validated framework that can and must be used as an -- for human rights and for an open Internet.

I would like to thank you very much for the opportunity and to thank also Satiq And nick for the applying.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. I want to record that the center category two center of UNESCO and is engaged with different plans. I want to thank you again because you are providing very good support to CI especially and we look forward to more engagement.

Yeah. Last but not least, our last speaker on the panel Ms. PIRONGROG from Thailand.

Please, the floor is yours.

(PIROGRONG RAMASOOTA:  Thank you for union esco for taking part in the insightful exercise as the Internet as a resource.

I'm a social science researcher. Much of my talk today will deal with the rights.

We find the framework that's finding an over-arching scheme that shape Internet development and universal resource. Based on experience of the politic in Thailand and the extensive best resource was carried out. I had 20 key informants of professional-making regulatory industry, academic and civil society sectors, we have a number of interesting findings in terms of applicability of the IUI to a national context, and we have selected a few to share with you today.

>> The legal framework that enable human rights or the existence of restrictions on rights and freedom using international right agreements as benchmarks. For our piloting team, our researchers were not clear as to what extent and in what nature the report would be sufficiently substantiated on this point. To answer yes or no to the question, which is framed as is there or are there or to give some statistics showing quantitative evidence of certain practice, would be sufficient semantically from our point of view.

It would not do justice to understanding of rights-based scenarios if there is no qualitative information or even a story to help unravel the complexity and uniqueness of each national situation. This explains why a great deal of information by the report is qualitative and painstaking account of actual cases. This is particularly true in the post-2014 context. We had a COO in 2014, and we're still living under the so-called Democratic pass.

In the post-coo context, the security state reveils over everything, and we have witnessed Draconian laws that became more intensified in use and consequences to freedom expression and freedom of assembly despite the fact that there are constitutional provisions available on these issues.

Secondly, for the IUI questions that assess the openness of all of the ROM of the Internet ecosystem, our team finds that the question listed under the whole umbrella appear quite fragmented as they address so many aspects of openness that may not necessarily interconnect or coalesce with one another.

This is meant to express openness. Open standards for accessibility, competition, regulatory independence, transparency, net neutrality, and availability of diverse service options, among others.

In so doing, they lack coherence and do not seem to address a single issue.

Thirdly, under the multi-stake corridor indicator, our researchers have qualms about presenting ICANN as an exemplar as a forum for Internet governance. While the structure of ICANN may allow for participation at various levelled, apart from the GSE, a country-specific situation and factors that may influence this participation, be it financial, linguistic, political, and cultural are not sufficiently recognized in the IUI.

Based on the unique context of Thailand and from various information and resources reviewed in counter in this exercise, this additional theme and questions should be included in the IUI.

First, enabling factors and elements that shape digital Internet computancy. Second, government spending on online media production and promotion of digital media creation.

Third, indicator of evidence of privacy awareness online and offline.

Fourth, indicators or evidence of online activism activities to create significant social change. In addition the research team also suggested UNESCO identify a few key questions -- a few key and top questions in order to -- for the research team which are have limited time and resource so that they can opt to tackle the small set of questions, first, and later grow the assessment to the full set of questions when the resources permitted. The team also recommends a shelf life of the assessments for each question. Some questions may have a shelf life of one year.

This means assessment needs not be done yearly to insure its most reliability. Some questions may have a longer shelf life and need not be updated as frequently. The shelf life will help the future research team by better prioritizing the available resources.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. You see that we have performed in four countries. Two in Africa, one Brazil from different regions presenting, and, of course, we are collecting and analyzing all the responses from the field and, of course, we are discussing them with the member states. Next week at the council. This is very important for us because we want the Internet to be universal, and we want to not hold out any fragmentation of the Internets. We need to have the same understanding. Of course, there are some difficulties to understand some of the indicators. One indicator can engage a lot of work from UNESCO. This is why we want to have the same understanding and, of course, to determine and together the best methodology how to assess the indicators, how to implement in different countries, in different context, and I know that different countries in other regions on the same regions have different context, and they could be very sensitive to some of the indicators, but we are here in UNESCO to engage with all stake holders in these countries in order to achieve our goals, to achieve this universality and the right development of the Internet.

Okay. Final to left and my friend Ms. Sylvia Grundmann from council of Europe. I want to please -- the floor is yours>> SILVIA GRUNDMANN:  Thank you very much. I would like to begin by congratulating and share my impression and to this excellent initiative and to this very deep drill and this extremely thorough multi-stakeholder dialogue. I'm greatly impressed, and I would like to underline that we at the council of Europe share the same approach. Namely, working with indicators, but our document is a lot more modest, so this is what ours looks like. Please compare it to this initiative, which is a global one.

Like I said, we share the same approach, and I would like to underline what David has said. Namely, that this is a voluntary exercise, and thereby, this is an opportunity for all states and for civil society alike, to engage into dialogue and to actually keep the Internet open and free.

This is why it is so valuable that we all team up and see how we can make good use of the UNESCO Internet universality indicators and also using the Council of Europe Internet freedom recommendation to support such indicators, because in the UNESCO initiative, one of the means to verify the compliance with the UNESCO indicators is benchmarking it against our modest document, against our indicators. Now you wonder, indicators, indicators.


The Council of Europe is a pan-European organization with 47 member states, so having the big, big Europe on board, but we address mainly member states. We reach out to civil society in a structured dialogue to produce policy recommendations that then go to the member states and invite them to follow them, for instance, when they make laws.

So better law-making. You can use our council of Europe recommendations, and you can use them globally should you like to do so.

Now, our recommendations are very much based on the law of the European court for human rights. We have the case law.

Again, this can be a source of inspiration for everybody. Now, the UNESCO indicators are very much complimentary, and they are a lot larger in scope and also, as I said, globally.

They reach out into all wakes of society, and this is the value of such indicators, and as we've just learned in some countries, it's only 18% of the indicators that are accessible. That is also quite telling because if that is the case, that should make you think why it is like that. There might be good reasons for it. That's okay. But probably if you cannot come up with convincing explanations, that is also telling.

Therefore, I find the methodology extremely convincing, and I see that this mutual reinforcement at the level of two big international organizations can lead to synergies. Therefore, what I will do is I will present this initiative to my stake holders, to our council of Europe member states in my specific committee where I serve as government experts at the highest level so that way we feed in the UNESCO at a certain policymaking level, and I will invite them to reflect on how to implement the indicate ors, and then I'll do that already in November. Then at the next step I like to have UNESCO colleagues with me in June to address our government high level experts and to ask them what are your reflections so that we can come to some concrete results in the implementation.

Thank you.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you.

The reason that we invited you is also to highlight how important that you work together. It's not just we are inventing the wheel here in UNESCO. We are working with different organizations, and we join our efforts together to reach a goal. This is very important to highlight how it is valuable to work together.

Thank you very much. So this is the first part of our --

for this open forum. I will open the floor to some questions, if you have any questions to our panelists. I don't know if you can -- if you want, you can just raise your hands. Yes, please, sir. Please introduce yourself>> Yes. I'm mark Nelson from the center for international media assistance.

I was curious about how much these indicators are designed to be comparable from one country to the other and used over time.

Is it just a study at the country level? To what extent does it go to regional differences and whether or not they are comparable over time?

>> MODERATOR: Can we give the floor to the panelist? Okay>> Thank you very much. I would like to, first, congratulate all panelists. I represent the delegation of Brazil to UNESCO. One issue I would like, if you could, if all panelists could further explore, if possible, if it is up to what extent the very issue of access to information and the gap between rich and poor in access to Internet was focused in this report and also, what would be the best way to address the issue under the perspective of the panelists and, of course, of the -- thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR: Is there another question? Otherwise, I will leave the floor to -- okay.

You have two questions. Another commenting>> Firstly, on the issue of the difficulty of the challenge that there is in obtaining data in some of the -- some of the indicators. In certain countries much more than others. As I tried to say in the introduction, this is in a sense -- this is in a sense by design. It is because it is challenging and difficult to obtain data in many -- in many countries for certain areas that we need to have a substantial range of indicators from which it is possible in each country to select some that will enable evidence to be brought together.

The response to a lack of evidence should not be we can't do evidence-based policy making.

The response to a lack of evidence should be what evidence is available and how do we make most use of it? Secondly, what do we do to insure that there is better evidence in future?

The sense that that's how that should be -- that set of issues should be seen. They're not intended for comparison between countries. I don't know where that question came from around the room. They're not intended for comparison between countries. That's very explicit.

There are lots of other indicators that are intended to do that. These aren't.

Like the media development indicators, they're directly about analyzing a particular national environment in its own terms. As for over time, I think -- I mean, yes, it would be very useful if investigations like this were done on a periodic basis. Say every five years or so.

I think U northeast ESCO acknowledges the nature of change in the Internet world (UNESCO) is so rapid that it will be necessary to review these indicators in, say, five years time anyway because there will be other things that should be in by then. In terms of the issues around the accessibility for all section covers those access issues -- it's where data are available to be nuanced and disaggregated and encourages thinking, at least, about that if not. Access was specifically what you mentioned. There was one other point you mentioned, I think? Yes. The disagregation covers a wide range of differences, and that does include income educational GAPZ, yes.

>> We are not really interested in ranking member states. This is very important to know. Our objective is to map the countries country by country because the situation is different. We are not interested in saying, okay, these countries are good, and this is a candidate that's bad, and, you know, the polarization that we can do -- we can see. Most important thing is to map all those countries whether it comes to these indicators. It's a very comprehensive set of indicators the most important thing is to raise awareness of how to access them and how to improve them.

With all the stake holders, within the involvement and the engagement of the government and, of course, with the support of UNESCO in the field. This is how we see these indicators.

It's not AUR jacketive to say these countries are really bad or enemies of freedom or whatever it comes. No. Not at all. I know that there is maybe other indicators or maybe organizations doing that or NGOs. For us the most important thing is to map the indicators and to show the situation for the member states on how they are achieving this, and this is very important to understand.

Good. I think we are up in the first part of the session. We are perfectly on time. I give the floor to our friend the share of -- for the closing remark for the first part, and then I'll give the floor to our information. Ms. Albana, please.? please.?.

>> ALBANA SHALA:  We are talking about the Internet today, talking about the elephant in the room. There was an exhibition involved a few months ago, and it was picking the Internet apart. How can we pick apart a big elephant in the room that is moving fast, and we've been trying to do that in the past hour with distinguished speakers who have talked about how can we describe, but also make policy when it comes to the way of how the kind of Internet we want. The kind of Internet we want is like saying the kind of future we want, the kind of leaders we want, the kind of youth we want. It is all connected, and as such, the program that I chair, the international program for development of communication, has played a modest role in promoting this discussion.

Sylvia put forward that little folder. This is a folder --

another folder about the PRANL.

It is comprised of certain member states, members of UNESCO and of U.N., and it is the only U.N. program mandated multi-forum, multi-lateral forum in the U.N. system mandated to mobilize the international community to discuss and promote communications and the development of communications all over the world. It is time maybe for the program to change its name into digital communications, because indeed this is the kind of world we're living today. Now, responding to the rise of the SDIJ TAL age, the IPC members have been deciding and taking farther the concept of Internet universality, and based on the discussions there, further it was agreed during the UNESCO's 38 general conference to move and to see how this indicators are applicable. What -- I think many issues have been set, but what I would like to point out that might be relevant as a closing remarks for the session is that these are research instruments that these are instruments that can be used as governments and as well as other stake holders within the national landscapes. These are instruments as it was pointed by the previous speaker that they provide an opportunity to enhance and to improve the situation, and that is also worth noting taking with us. As a body that is dedicated to the development of communication these are the instruments and the indicators that are also about public access to information and fundamental freedoms, and this brings us to the SDGs, especially 1610. Now, neck week the council will gather, and these indicators and the pilots will be discussed and will be presented, and we hope that the member states will agree to endorse these indicators so that there will be even more interested member states to do this exercise.

Another thing that is worth mentioning again and again is that this is a voluntary process. It will have to reflect the willingness on the member states to build on the indicators. Finally, I would like to thank the freedom of expression section and the team that have organized 41 face-to-face consultations with 2,000 experts as well as I would like to thank the member states that have put forward 300 contributions and they were engaged during the consultations. The consultation process developing the indicators in the past 18 months. I certainly believe that if we manage to endorse the indicators, we will have more of a common ground at local and international level where we can advocate for more freedom, for more rights, for more participation. And we can promote good practices, and that is at the core of IPTC's work as well. This will not concern only us, but it will concern the youth. It will concern our children. It will also concern the people that are marginalized and the ones that are not even yet on Internet as we speak.

(IPDC) IPDC looks forward to working with all of you in this endeavor, and let me thank our main donor for this effort, which is the Swedish government and all the efforts, our main consultant for the crucial support that you have been giving to this project as well as ICAN, nick Brazil and --

thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I would like to close the ceremony, this session and thank you personally and all the speakers to be here, and let's make a good transition to our next second part of this open forum. I give the floor to my colleague, Guy Berger>> GUY BERGER:  If you thought this was just about measuring the Internet, it's fake news. There's another part.

Please take a hard copy of this Internet indicator draft publication. There are a few out there. The second part of this event is the launch of this book, which was commissioned through the secretary supporting the cost of this, because it's an educational journalist, and two editors were appointed to collect and develop this book, which is called journalism, fake news, and disinformation. There are hard copies here, and you can download it free. One of the editors is here with us, and this is Julie Posetti who works for Reuters and the institute for the study of journalism at the University of Oxford.

The first question is the title, "journalism, fake news, and misinformation."

The word fake news is crossed out. It's a book title with a term crossed out. Why is "fake news" crossed out in the title?

>> JULIE POS ETTI:  It's an oxymoron "fake news."

If it is news that if it's verifiable information produced and shared in the public interest it's not fake, and secondly, and most importantly, because all around the world from liberal democracies to the other end of the spectrum we are seeing political leaders weaponize this term and use it to target journalists and independent journalism as a way of chilling critical reporting, as a way of trying to circumvent the exposure of a whole range of public interest issues. We determined that we need to move the conversation along as my colleague Claire Wardell who did a report for the council of Europe wrote about information disorders. We need to come up with new language and new ways of talking about this. It's a very serious issue. We cannot see this term deployed in a way that undermines the role of journalism that's fundamental to sustaining open societies.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you. I know in the book it makes a point that weak journalism is not disinformation>> JULIE:  That's true>>.

>> MODERATOR: And journalism we don't agree with is not misinformation.

Misinformation is something else>> JULIE POSETTI:  You can think about what used to be under the umbrella of fake news.

One is misinformation. That's something that is shared perhaps without ill intent or inadvertently or unwittingly shared. Disinformation, that is deliberately constructed falsehood that is shared with a particular purpose and then there's malinformation, which, again, is a term that was coined by Claire Wardell from Harvard in first draft to describe a process of information with malicious intent. That could be a mix of accurate information and disinformation shared with malicious intent. We see that man test festing in XAN campaigns that are often state-sponsored that target journalists and in particular female journalists with a view to trying to misrepresent them and cause disrePutin as in the context of their reporting on issues that are critical of governments, for example.

>> MODERATOR: Okay. Thank you. We know that some disinformation is in the form of slogans. Some is hash tags. Some is fabricated images. Some is memes. Some pretends to be journalism>> JULIE:  Yes.

>> MODERATOR: What does the book say after making these clarifications.

>> JULIE POSETTI:  Just because you don't like news and journalism, that doesn't make it fake. We need to counter act that. Bad journalism is not the same as disinformation.

Some of the worst examples of disinformation involve the manipulation of content, the using -- there have been cases with the BBC badge and the CNN badge used on video on the context of elections in Kenya, for example, as a way of TROO Iing to pole out the information stream in the context of elections.

What was the second part of your question?

>> MODERATOR: What is the key message of the book? You have these clarifications that you don't like the term "fake news."

You prefer disinformation. There are different kinds of disinformation. Some is pertaining to be news. What is the message in the book after making those clarifications?

>> JULIE:  It's aimed at students, regulators. It's predominantly about equipping people with the capacity to assess information in a way that enables them to share information that's verified to avoid ramping up the disinformation crisis. We're targeting journalists and journalism indicators as a way of strengthening journalism and its fight back against disinformation. We believe that collaborative efforts in this regard are pivotal, but the message is this is not just a challenge for journalists and journalism EDUCATORSs and researchers and governments and platforms. It's all of those things, but it's also a challenge for every citizen, and so media information literacy is absolutely critical from the individuals sitting at the end of their phone considering sending a meme or a message, getting them to ask critical questions that go to the veracity of this information. We hope that we can broaden the discussion beyond journalism and journalism education to a public discussion that recognizes that it's a crisis that affects us all and the responsibility to counter it is a shared responsibility.

>> MODERATOR: What are you saying to journalists? Why should they treat this as I astory, and how should they treat this as a story?

>> JULIE:  Particularly recent research from my colleagues at the Reuters institute indicates that significant sections of the community misinterpret poor journalism or journalism that they interpret as bias asinformation, and journalists have a responsibility and a need, I would say, to double down on quality journalism and ethical journalism practice that also to highlight these issues for public conversation purposes to shine a light on these issues, to do investigative journalism, like Cambridge analytica scandal being unearthed, like in the Philippines they did to join dots between disinformation campaigns and the harassment of their reporters. Using tools of journalism to insure that the information that is being produced is able to be produced in a way that allows it to be recognized as reliable and credible and to insure that rather than alienating communities and increasing polarization and the absence of trust in journalism, they actually through a process of collaboration work with communities to tackle the problem.

>> MODERATOR: Okay. So my last question is that we have Internet governance forum and to what extent do Internet governance decisions have to take into account the issues around this disinformation?

For example, we see legal.

We see laws being passed. We see some Internet companies taking actions. What is the relevance of this information to Internet governance?

>> JULIE:  The future of journalism is tied up with the future of the Internet. This goes to the question around the Internet indicators. It goes to questions around regulation. We need to PAZ and ask ourselves what is the potential cost of regulating platform X for the capacity to do and publish independent journalism more broadly, and what is the risk of these laws that end regulations that we're creating blowing back on freedom of expression as it's demonstrated through the practice of journalism? I think while this process is very serious and the manifestations are extremely bad at the worst end of the spectrum, we need to insure that while working to address an increasingly urgent crisis, we're not actually aggravating the problem by undermining the capacity to do independent journalism.

>> MODERATOR: Great. I think to sum up what you said, the Internet governance community do no harm to journalism when you are tackling fake news and disinformation. Do support journalism because it's key if we want an information environment on the Internet that is actually going to have something that is truthful and verifiable and in the public interest>> JULIE:  Quite a summary.

Thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much for highlighting.

Yesterday we had a very nice statement and very strong statements about disinformation and fake news. I think that it is our contribution, at least. I think that we need to work further. Before closing this session, thank you very much for joining us on this session.

I want to thank my colleague who put all this open forum with all the wonderful speaker, wonderful panelists. I thank you very much for joining us, for coming, and please engage with us on these aspects.

Thank you very much. Bye-bye.


Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

Villa Le Bocage
Palais des Nations,
CH-1211 Geneva 10

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 678