IGF 2019 Reports

Concluding Breakout Session: Data Governance

Ceremonial/HL Session
Updated: Mon, 27/01/2020 - 13:09
Data Governance
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The nature of the session is to attempt to look across all 100+ sessions under the Data Governance theme, by breaking them down into 6 sub-themes, as represented in this graphic -  https://www.intgovforum.org/filedepot_download/8432/1674.  A breakout group related to each sub-theme will discuss insights gained from the sessions they were involved in, and then report back to the full group on any solutions, initiatives or best practices raised, as well as any policy issues, questions that require further research, discussion or action. A written summary of these reports will be produced.

2. Discussion Areas:
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
6. Estimated Participation:
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
8. Session Outputs:
Concluding Breakout Session: Security, Safety, Stability & Resilience

Ceremonial/HL Session
Updated: Mon, 27/01/2020 - 13:09
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

During the Concluding Session participants reviewed and discussed the sessions of the program that they attended, under the Safety, Security, Stability and Resilience track and discussed the key messages, areas of consensous identified across the different subthemes as well as areas of concern where deeper dialogue is required to find solutions to the challenges identified.

2. Discussion Areas:

The group was divided in 3 grouping by 2 subthemes, following a similar structure as the Introductory session. After a very brief introduction, breakout discussions were facilitated by 3 people covering specific topics, and reports from the discussion were shared by the facilitators in the plenary and a dialogue with the audience followed as listed below:

  • Safety, Security: Report of the discussion presented by Alexander Isavnin. RosKomSvoboda. Russia. Civil Society.
  • Stability & resilience; Technology, Industry and Trade: Report of the discussion presented by Amit Ashkenazi. Israel National Cyber Directorate. Israel.
  • Internet ethics, Human rights: Report of the discussion presented by Christopher Treshan Perera. Worldacquire. United Kingdom.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

As the 3 groups discussed, the came up with a series of recommendations and suggestions for the way forward:

Stability & resilience; Technology, Industry and Trade

  • Most of the sessions there was a call to work on more clearer definitions and common terminology, that help build bridges among different stakeholders across different jurisdictions. In many of these discussions the nounces between the diplomatic language, the technical language, and the policy language can make dialogue and consensus building quite challenging. It seems that some of the issues are conceptualized in a different manner, and this causes challenges in identifying the way forward.
  • There is a need for more clarity on how the definitions are then applied as part of domestic policies, translating measures into practical implementation.
  • While building such common terminology, there is a need to include different professions in the conversation – not only diplomats but economists, lawyers and policymakers, because internet governance today has implications in a broad range of areas. Therefore, we need to acknowledge the role of other disciplines in creating common ground and bridging between technologists, policymakers, lawyers, and diplomats.
  • Most of the sessions also call for a deeper understanding of the different roles that different stakeholders can have to advance the discussion on these issues and identify possible ways to address them. Using specific concrete cases to run scenarios for effective collaboration might be a good way to tackle complex issues in a more practical way.
  • A recurring theme is the need to assess the impact and meaning of the norms discussion. While recognizing that the UN GGE 2015 cyber norms were an important consensus achievement, questions arise as to their meaning and impact in practice and the need for more norms. "Norms" and associated terms in the "norms" have different meanings to different stakeholders, and more attention needs to be paid to the relevant context of the way they were developed to enable better understanding of their scope and purpose. It appears that there are sometimes duplicative discussions about norms and this is a challenge. Some have voiced the concern that the new initiatives that are emerging to create new norms dilute their significance - multiplicity of norms reduces their legitimacy.
  • Civil society has limited resources to participate and therefore it is important not to create multiple parallel discussions. The IGF has a track record of an inclusive multistakholder open access discussion that enables civil society to participate effectively.
  • There is a need for domestic "legal" capacity building, alongside technical capacity building, to enable promoting trust and lowering legal uncertainty. In addition, there is a need to promote certainty, bridge the gaps between technologists and other communities and facilitate cooperation through a robust technical-legal discussion about cybersecurity.

Safety & Security

  • Following on the need for clearer definitions and terminology, the group also mentioned how important was across many of the sessions during the week, to build trust among companies, countries and communities, understanding from where threats are coming from and how to measure the actions of the stakeholders involved to tackle the problem. 
  • More technical training and education is required, to supports law enforcement to stay tune with the latest technology developments, warning on avoiding reliance on private sector companies from the security industry, so that prevention, investigation and remedy are not privatized.
  • A strong point was made about the need for curated/accurate information about security and safety best practices on local languages to encourage collaborations, to expand support networks for security and safety professionals around the world and build trust. 

Internet Ethics & Human Rights

  • On a similar way than the other 2 groups, the group also mentioned how important clearer definitions are to build consensous and move forward. The group discussed concrete examples of online harassment, impersonation, bullying, online violence and other concrete examples of criminal behaviour and its manifestations online. A point was made about how those discussions can be very personal, and empathy is a very important part of understanding the impact for the victims.
  • A very important point was made about how to incorporate diversity into the discussion around values and ethics, as they don't mean the same or are expressed the same in different societies or they are not valued the same in different corners of the world.
  • Balanced responses should be designed by putting people first, carefully consider the rights of the individual, the legal framework, the jurisdiction and impact across jurisdictions and the ethical considerations around such response. How a state or a company arrives to such response are as important as the response it self (dialogue, inclusion, meaningful stakeholder engagement). This is of particular importance on the application of online moderation strategies.
  • These responses should also consider how to balance the kind of Internet we want, an open and free space, against the need to address the challenges posed by harmful content, hate speech, criminal behaviour and its manifestations online, etc. 
  • A point was made about consumer responsibility to chose better what platform, applications and devices they use and how they engage to report and remedy issues of concern. Self-regulation was mentioned and the need to raise awareness about how to contain the viralization of harmful content if users think before they share. 
  • A concrete suggestion to the social media platforms, to use a similar mechanism they currently have to target advertising but instead presenting facts, definitions and information to support conversations on their platforms, to tackle misinformation and disinformation, not only looking for profit.
  • It was highlighted that awareness campaigns should be based on solid, technical knowledge to empower the community to use platforms, applications and services to benefit their community, no matter what medium is chosen to produce such materials. Awareness raising should also include information about the legal implications of engaging is such behaviours and understanding its impact.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

This question does not apply to the concluding session as the purpose of the session was to identify the main takeaways from the track.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

This question does not apply to the concluding session as the purpose of the session was to identify the main takeaways from the track.

6. Estimated Participation:

25 people, including 6 women.

The remote participation technician in the room indicated 2 participants were connected remotely.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The conversations focused on the subthemes under the track. Gender issues were mentioned as part of the Internet Ethics and Human Rights subthemes contributions but were not discussed in detail as the purpose of the session was to identify the main takeaways from the track.

8. Session Outputs:

The session video recording and transcrip is available here.

Introductory Breakout Session: Security, Safety, Stability & Resilience

Ceremonial/HL Session
Updated: Mon, 27/01/2020 - 12:58
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

As the Introductory Session reviewed the policy questions and challenges under the Safety, Security, Stability and Resilience track, covering 42 sessions of the program, the introductory session did not focus on 3 specific policy questions, but rather on the relevance of the track's theme and the subthemes identified.

2. Discussion Areas:

The session started with Cyber Ambassador Tobias Feakin keynote, followed by breaout discussions around 5 of the 6 subthemes the track covered.

Ambassador Feakin started his intervention by highligting how sound cybersecurity policy and practice are enablers for democratization, freedom of speech, and economic growth. An online environment that's free and secure, sound simple but those are hard words to deliver upon. Ambassador Feakin highlighted the efforts of the Australian Government to be transparent about how policy is developed, implemented and documented locally, embracing the multistakeholder approach, as well as how the Australian positions contribute to the international policy space. As more cybersecurity continues to grown in importance strategically in the international environment, now at the heart of geopolitics in a way that, was hard to anticipate. That places a big responsibility in the way the states are looking at this issue, as well as a huge burden on all of us to try to think about creative solutions to what we see happening in the technology environment, including increasing authoritarianism and all its manifestations online, weaponizing the technology to undermine democracy, abuse human rights and infringe intellectual property. This issues are very troubling and generate increasing concerns among all stakeholders.

Ambassador Feaking highlighted that we are in a period of transformational change in the digital space, as technologies emerge and mature, at a pace that presents a challenge for government to understand how we keep up with that and ensure it acts as an enabling mechanism rather than a hindrance of the technologies enabling societies; how government engages with the private sector and the large technology companies like Google, Facebook, AliBaba, and others as they've grown in an unprecedented size, influence and scale in a short space of time. Some companies are really willing to engage and have this conversation with governments and civil society, but some aren't. This disparity of approach is incredibly challenging. As governments, we need to become more flexible, adaptable, and proactive in the way we deal with technology and equip ourselves in being able to make policy.

Ambassor Feakin also mentioned the pioneering decisions from the Australian government around 5G and how it presents as a precedent for thinking about technology issues: What is it that you want as a nation from your technology posture? what is it you want to gain? what are the kind of values that you think are important for technological developments to imbue and absorb in the years to come.

A multistakeholder approach to the discussion that incorporates values and values and principles of technological development is paramount as the decisions made will shape our societies, our economies, and our national security agendas over the next 20 years. Ambassador Feakin closed his intervention inviting people to question, to challenge and engage their governments on the issues that are important to each and everyone of us as only by acting together as a community we can make it happen. It is only through balancing the interests and concerns from different stakeholders and ensuring that we're all equipped with that understanding that we'll be able to shape the technology environment of the future we all want.

Ambassador Feakin answered questions from the audience around sovereignity in cyberspace; tensions between privacy and security; as well as how review processes for policy and law enforcement implementation around security and safety. He responded highlighting the importance of maintaining an open dialogue on these and all other issues, to frame those conversations around respect for human rights and the rule of law, but open to review, to make adjustments as things change/evolve so that government is responsive to the advances of technology.

Then, the facilitaors for the 6 subthemes identified for this track, introduce their subthemes and briefly walked through the workshops and other sessions types included as part of the track as follows:

  • Safety: Ana Laura Martínez. Coordinator of International Cooperation Networks at the Regional Center for the Development of the Information Society (Cetic.br/NIC.br). Brazil. Technical community.
  • Security: Alexander Isavnin. RosKomSvoboda. Russia. Civil Society.
  • Stability & resilience: Kaveh Ranjbar. Chief Information Officer, RIPE NCC. The Netherlands. Technical Community.
  • Technology, Industry and Trade: Peter Koch. DENIC. Germany. Technical Community.
  • Internet ethics: Amrita Choudhury. CCAOI. India. Civil Society.
  • Human rights: Charlotte Altenhöner-Dion. Head of Internet Governance Unit. Council of Europe. France. Intergovernmental Organization.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

During the breakout discussions, the groups discussed the issues that will be covered by many of the sessions on the program and some of their observations and insights offer an interesting set of suggestions.

Human Rights

- Put people first: The group discussed about the difficulty to put human rights into practice, from the regulatory framework design all the way to its implementation, the group identified that different sessions recommend to add emphasis on the end user, to be more inclusive (specially with the youth) during the design of the different regulatory approaches, while balancing the protection of their rights and their safety, without hindering their opportunity to participate.

- Platforms should not only focus on compliance with community standards but also to incorporate mechanisms where harmful content -although removed from the public- can be kept (not deleted) to support law enforcement investigation and criminal prosecution. Platforms should be reminded of their responsibility in countries where human rights are not enforced with the rule of law.

Security

- Multistakeholder dialogue is key to understand norms in cyberspace and their impact.

- Strengthen collaboration among different stakeholders and across different jurisdictions to fight cybercrime, not only with the large tech companies but also with smaller/emerging ones

- Public policy should look at incentives to adopt best practices and modern security technologies based on solid technical knowledge.

- Technical capacity building around security should be supported at all levels, from end-users to operators, to law enforcement and criminal investigators 

- More research around security incidents, adoption of security practices and compliance with law enforcement requirements is required to be able to design security approaches based on evidence and not on fear alone.

Internet Ethics

- An inclusive ethical framework should be the starting point for companies and governments when defining the regulatory and non-regulatory approaches that will address issues of concern. Such framework should incorporate monitoring mechanisms that allow to identify unintended consequences, abuse of power, miscarriage of justice, human rights violations, among others.

- It is paramount to do more intensive and extensive work around clearer definitions to seek consensous building at a global level while documenting localized interpretations that reflect cultural differences

- Education around ethics and how it impacts the online and offline world, targetting different age groups and sector of society should be supported and encouraged, and adopted as part of the formal education system. Rights and responsibilities need to be better understood by users to become mature digital citizens.

Stability and Resilience

- Cooperation among operators is key to increase the number of peering agreements and interconnection points that can improve the resilience of the network by offering more paths for network traffic to operators: less peering among IPv6 networks means lower resilience.

- Lack of interoperability between IPv4 and IPv6 means a possible fragmentation and creating two islands in the Internet.

- IPv4 is gaining value and a high cost can hinder enterance of new network operators or the expansion of the coverage of existing network operators, that could have an impact on both stability and resilience of the network.

- There are a variety of DNS technical implementations to filter/block content that are not in line with the architecture of the Internet, intended to be neutral. Consideration to intermediary liability is part of the framework to consider when addressing issues around content blocking and filtering to understand the burden placed on network operators to have the skills, the computer power and the budget to cover the legal costs to comply with such regulations across different jurisdictions.

- Balance between security, encryption, and human rights including personal freedom is a challenge for the stability and resilience of the Internet. It is key that law enforcement and policy makers get a deeper understanding -through education and training- to the architecture of the Internet and how these solutions affect its growth, so that they can design and implement frameworks that are more inclusive, technologically sound and future-looking.

Technology, industry & trade

- The group suggested that information exchange around cyber security and privacy is key for the development of new devices and services that will enter the market. This information exchange could lead to develop a general playbook how to address concrete problems, for better understanding and adoption of security practices.

- Diversity considerations around access to the cloud were discussed, as cloud resiliency in a concentrated market is a key policy issue. The more the cloud is used to collect, analyze and store data for online services and applications around the world, concerns about ownsership, security, misuse, as well as local access and localization continue to emerge. Approaches that are inclusive and considers diversity are required to balance economicaly driven approaches that may have a negative impact on developing economies.

Safety

- The need to rely on robust data in a topic that is sensible and frequently covered by the press.

- To bear in mind that risk does not equal harm and, therefore the, importance of putting in place protective and coping mechanisms to prevent harm.

- Importance of equilibrating protection speech with the exercise of other rights, such as freedom of expression.

- Need to consider the complexity of achieving safety: it involves all stakeholders, it involves different levels of intervention, from the legal and regulatory, to technical solutions focused on systems, to education of individuals (both children and mediators, such as teachers and parents, key figures to improving child online safety).

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

This question does not apply to the introductory session as the purpose of the session was to introduce the track.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

This question does not apply to the introductory session as the purpose of the session was to introduce the track.

6. Estimated Participation:

30 people, including 10 women.

The remote participation technician in the room indicated 5 participants were connected remotely.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The conversations focused on the subthemes under the track. Gender issues were mentioned as part of the Internet Ethics and Human Rights subthemes contributions but were not discussed in detail as the purpose of the session was to introduce the track.

8. Session Outputs:

Transcripts and video of the session are available here.

Introductory Breakout Session: Data Governance

Ceremonial/HL Session
Updated: Mon, 27/01/2020 - 13:09
Data Governance
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The nature of the session is to attempt to look across all 100+ sessions under the Data Governance theme, by breaking them down into 6 sub-themes. A breakout group related to each sub-theme will discuss several policy questions related to that sub-theme and then report back to the full group on any conclusions or areas of consensus or disagreement. A written summary of these reports will be produced.

2. Discussion Areas:
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
6. Estimated Participation:
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
8. Session Outputs:
Digital Cooperation and Internet governance

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 23:58
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
2. Discussion Areas:
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
6. Estimated Participation:
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
8. Session Outputs:
Dynamic Coalitions – Joint Efforts to achieve the SDGs

Main Session
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 11:55
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can policies promoting internet connectivity and use be designed in a more participatory, bottom-up manner, and be more responsive to local needs and input?
  2. How can we ensure that the Internet and IoT devices are deployed in safe ways, also by those that cannot be expected to have the knowledge and/or resources to ensure (complex) security measures?
  3. As intelligent technologies develop at exponential pace, has enough been done to ensure that legislation, regulatory frameworks and implementation processes are transparent, accountable, inclusive and proportionate in order to avoid infringements on the enjoyment of human rights?
2. Discussion Areas:

Deliberations first centered around SDG 10 „reduced inequality“ addressing questions of access and connectivity. Panelists discussed how much connecting the unconnected depends on funding, what the drivers and barriers to adoption are and which role legal frameworks play. Regards people with disabilities awareness was mentioned as a pre-condition for accessibility, the youth coalition pleaded for inclusiveness of decision making giving young people a voice in IG. 

Marginalized groups were discussed leading to questions of gender referring to SDG 5 „Gender equality“. Addressing SDG 3 “Good Health and Wellbeing” sexuality was mentioned as an issue often avoided or suppressed, although the internet provides huge potential for information and peer-group counselling. DC Child Online Safety also referred to SDG 3 addressing children’s right to play on the one hand and potential harms related to playing online games, like communication with other gamers unknown to the child or excessive usage triggered by games designed to satisfy the child’s desires.

The potential of IoT for achieving SDGs 2 “Zero Hunger”, 3 “Good Health and Wellbeing”, 6 “Clean Water and Sanitation”, 7 “Affordable and Clean Energy”, 11 “Sustainable Cities and Communities”, and 13” Climate Action” was described with strong agreement that IoT must be deployed in a safe manner with special attention to vulnerable groups.

SDG 9 “Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure” was addressed by the DC on DNS issues and by DC Blockchain focusing on Universal Acceptance and the readiness of enterprises to unearth the potential of UA within existing legal and social structures.

Eventually the session focussed on human rights with the DCs on Internet Rights and Principles, DC Sustainability of Journalism, DC Platform Responsibility, DC on Network Neutrality referring to SDGs 16 “Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions” and 17 “Partnerships for the Goals” drawing conclusions to be found in sec. 3.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Access cannot be discussed without addressing sustainability.

Regulation is not longer deemed as a last resort but as a necessity to address the issues discussed in the session.

Human rights should be the guiding principle for any decison taken in regard of Internet Governance.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

All Dynamic Coalitions addressing the SDGs.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

DCs work is assumed to be the "cohesive glue" of Internet Governance.

6. Estimated Participation:

onsite: 50 women / 50 men

online: not known yet

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were reflected well based on the input from DC gender and Access and addressed as a cross-cutting issue by the other DCs as well.

8. Session Outputs:
Emerging technologies and their interfaces with inclusion, security and human ‎rights (NRIs)

Main Session
Updated: Wed, 19/08/2020 - 09:49
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The session will address four (4) guiding policy questions to which concrete inputs will be addressed from the perspective of the NRIs discussions: 

  1. How can (existing, new and emerging) digital technologies, support engagement of vulnerable groups at the national and regional levels? 
  2. How to ensure safe and secure online conditions for utilization of digital technologies? Can we trust these? 
  3. Are emerging digital technologies posing risks to human rights? How to prevent and tackle harmful consequences?
  4. How can we suggest policy options to enhance access to the least developed countries to emerging technologies?
2. Discussion Areas:

There was a broad agreement that new emerging digital technologies are critical in some countries for improving people's lives. Some NRIs, mainly from developing countries, reported that the deployment of new technologies has allowed to search for water in deserted areas , improve agriculture and industry, connect people from remote and rural areas to educational and economic dynamics of the society. Some NRIs existing on SIDS levels noted the critical importance of ICTs when hit by natural disasters and presented several projects supported by their Governments.

However, some underlined the necessity for the respect of human rights as well as for equality in accessing the Internet and with that these new technologies. Digital and gender-based divide, as well as lack of digital literacy, were recognized as important factors that prevent people from fully benefiting from digital technologies. Those whose people already have access to these and are widely deployed, noted lack of effective policies and cases of breaches of rights and freedoms. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

It is important to recognize the benefits and issues of the utilization of digital technologies. Through the NRIs as multi-stakeholder concepts, this is more and more done. The dialogues organized between all stakeholders on the NRIs levels creates the potential for bringing in access to the Internet and new technologies to everyone, but also for ensuring effective policies are in place. More opportunities for exchange of good practices and issues are needed among the NRIs to help accelerate the utilisation of ICTs and prevent harmful scenarios by learning from others experiences.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

All NRIs, as multistakeholder processes, reported that this topic was discussed widely in their local communities. The list of participating NRIs is this session is:

  1. African ‎IGF 
  2. Vanuatu ‎IGF 
  3. N. ‎Macedonia IGF    
  4. Dominican ‎Republic ‎IGF             
  5. Italy IGF ‎‎
  6. Lebanon IGF  ‎ ‎            
  7. Brazil IGF ‎‎(
  8. Canada ‎IGF ‎‎
  9. S. Korea ‎IGF       ‎ ‎            
  10. Colombia ‎IGF 
  11. Belarus IGF
  12. IGF-USA
  13. France IGF
  14. SEEDIG
  15. Guatemala IGF
  16. Ecuador IGF
  17. Armenia IGF
  18. Youth Ukraine IGF
  19. Russian IGF 
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Given the rapid, sometimes unpredictable and continuous development of this topic, it will be discussed at the NRIs levels in the future. The outcomes of this session may serve as an orientational input for further dialogue of the NRIs and listing of concrete good practices and issues to be addressed.

6. Estimated Participation:

Online and onsite participants: over 450

Estimated number of women: over 250

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

This session did identify the gender digital divided as an obstacle to bringing access to the Internet and especially the new tech to women and girls.

8. Session Outputs:
Achieving the SDGs in the Digital Age

Main Session
Updated: Mon, 18/11/2019 - 20:15
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The session seeks answers to the following questions:

  1. How can Digital technologies and transformation help address development crises in each pillar of development:
    1. People: hunger, health, education, equality;
    2. Planet: water, sanitation, energy;
    3. Prosperity: labour, trade, skills?
  2. What concrete actions, initiatives exist locally, regionally or globally to promote the use of digital technologies and transformation as well as multistakeholder cooperation to advance these issues?
  3. What are the lessons learned from these initiatives:
    1. what are the take-aways for each stakeholder group?
    2. how can we foster wider and stronger cooperation?
    3. how to integrate the opportunities offered by digital technologies and transformation into policy action?
2. Discussion Areas:
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
6. Estimated Participation:
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
8. Session Outputs:
The Future of IoT : Toward More Secure and Human-Centered Devices

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 11:59
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

During this main session, we will be discussing the following policy questions:

- What is the general view on IoT and Cybersecurity?

- What are the  IoT security issues?

- What are the good practices to protect your personal data?

We are expecting from this main session to:

-          Create a common denominator for robust communication and data standards that work together and provide real world benefits.   

-          Advice technical companies on how to build  trust in connected devices among consumers by providing the consumers the assurances that their devices and services are helpful and useful without crossing the line into crepiness.

-          Discuss the new laws that could be put in place to build more human centered IoT which will be more useful, secure and safe for everyone.

2. Discussion Areas:

During the discussion, there was a diversity of opinions on who should insure that IoT devices are secure and how consumers could protect their privacy in this digital world. Most of the speakers agreed that the regulators (government), the manufacturers, and the retailers must work together to insure that consumers to privacy, online and offline freedom are been taking in consideration.

And even though the challenges faced but each country around the world in term of digital  innovation, most of them are related to: regulation,  infrastructure, human resource, the guarantee of privacy and data protection.

To create a more secure and human centered IoT devices , we (consumers) must all be awarded of our digital rights  and what are the personal information we would like to share with everyone thus if you do not want the information out there, you do not put it there because you actually put it into the hands of potential hackers and  the risk of being prone to attacks is high. And internet never forgets.

Internet or technology must be seen as a tool and not just a space, therefore , do not connect your devices unless you need to.

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Some of the recommendation are:

While talking about IoT, the discussion must not focus online  in one direction as IoT devices are manufactured for divers users.

Manufacturers  more broadly should think about the risk that users of their devices are facing and in what environment do they operate in?

Regulations on IoT must progress according to the innovation in IoT is progression, meaning regulation and innovation must go together, we can not put in place laws and regulations for innovation that does not exist and we can not innovate without putting rules and regulations to insure a proper development.

It is important that all of us (government, private sector, civil society, technical community) hold each other in check.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

During the session, these different projects have been mentioned:

Smart city project in Indonesia: that is meant for  traffic management, pollution control and criminal prevention.

Consumer awareness project in Ghana: when the public has been educated on Internet in general with a special focus on IoT devices and their security  

Mozilla Internet Health Report, is a rapport that combines research and stories in publications that explore what it means for the internet to be healthy (decentralization, privacy and security, openness, web literacy, and digital inclusion)

The future of IoT: Privacy and data protection (Germany) with focus on security, privacy and  surveillance.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

In the issue on how progress might be made in the issue of  IoT devices security, we came to the conclusion that every party must be involved in the process of IoT security, from the regulators, to the business party going through the end users and the technical community,  they must all work together for a better future of IoT devices. Yes, IGF ecosystem  is already doing that but we will have to do to get to where the Multistakeholder process will become the basic way to solution problem in this new digital age.

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite participants: 100 and +

online participants: 300

40% of the participants both online and offline are women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session mentioned women as parties who has more vulnerability in unsafe IoT, both on data governance and the product itself. And as one of the most vulnerable party, it said that women must be involved in the issues related to IoT devices to offer their perspective on certain biases that may come with the design of IoT devices

8. Session Outputs:
​Applying human rights and ethics in responsible data governance and AI

Main Session
Updated: Sat, 21/12/2019 - 17:18
1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy questions that will be discussed during the session are:

I: What is, in fact, a trustworthy and responsible AI, especially with regard to data governance?

II: What is the role of human rights legal instruments and ethical frameworks in ensuring trustworthy and responsible data governance and AI? Are there any lessons learnt from existing frameworks?

III: How to cross the bridge between defining human rights and ethical frameworks andimplementing them in AI systems and SDGs? What is the role of different stakeholders and how can they work together to achieve the best results?

Possible output of the session:

An outline or roadmap on how to move from designing human rights and ethical frameworks for data governance and AI to actually mainstreaming and implementing them.

2. Discussion Areas:

- Human centered approach towards technology development 

- Main principles of current AI initiatives 

- Responsibilities and accountability of all stakeholders in addressing and taking into consideration ethical and human rights principles in dealing AI

- Multidisciplinary approach

- Professional code of thics and potential standards

- Who should fund the role of civil society organisations and journalists in training and research processes?

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

- A call to enhance full compliance with the UN Charter and UN Guiding Principles, in order to assess the potential need for further normative framework.

- Current HHRR normative and legally frameworks should be the basis for further development of regulatory mechanisms.

- Consider the development of national framework that mirrors global legally binding instruments and other standards. 

- Provide incentives for industry to exercise due diligence in the development and deployment of AI

- AI governance should foster sustainable and inclusive development

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

- Partnership on AI

- IEEE standards

- OECD principles 

- European Council and European Commission principles

- EESC European Economic and Social Committee

- HLPDC

-  UN ecosystem initiatives 

-  Labour organizations

-  Other

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The dialogue could be enhanced by bringing a broader community to the table. Also by breaking silos and fostering collaborative efforts. The AI advancements shall benefit all: AI data producers, users, governments, vulnerable communities (women, children, youth, disabled persons, minorities, LGTBTI, etc). AI developers, investors and consumers must respect and comply with human rights and ethical considerations and principles. AI development must be responsible, trustworthy, transparent, accountable, understandable, etc.

6. Estimated Participation:

170 present participants and 15 remote participants

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Problems with biased data. CEO North America (80% men, 20% women). 84%of developers  in Sillicon Valley are male and white, tendency to feed biases into algorithms. It is important to consider whether or not, we want to feed data as it is into the AI development or ”correct/adjust” the data with a more balanced and inclusive perspective, as an ideal approach (50-50%).

8. Session Outputs:

a) What is, in fact, a trustworthy and responsible AI, especially with regard to data governance?

AI in design, deployment and use must be honest, trustful, transparent, accountable, inclusive, responsible and understandable. AI relies on huge amounts of data, so the technical aspect shall encompass the human aspect. The emphasis on ‘artificial’ is questionable, the focus shall be on the human being. In other words, data must be curated, the algorithm must be designed taking into account ethical and human rights considerations. Thus, we can and must develop AI for good. 

In terms of the geopolitical issues, how can we addressed those? From a governmental perspective and/or business perspective, AI shall benefit the new ecosystem of new technologies for economic and social prosperity. We must consider mainstreaming training, and developing the skills, including analytical thinking, empathetic and problem solving skills. This education starts at and early stage (including pre-school). The benefits and the technology must be shared, so it really becomes inclusive. We shall not be contributing to a division b/w data “owners” and data “slaves”. Who owns the data, it can not be monopolized by big companies? How AI can benefit the less powerful groups? AI is replacing jobs and changing the labour market and dynamics. Digital inclusion, including women and marginalized communities. 

b) What is the role of human rights legal instruments and ethical frameworks in ensuring trustworthy and responsible data governance and AI? Are there any lessons learnt from existing frameworks?

The question of the need for a broader global instrument to regulate AI was raised, so AI applications are accountable, transparent, responsible, safe, easy to understand, etc. A multidisciplinary dialogue on AI must be encouraged to elaborate on these aspects. AI design based on the concept of the human centered approach.

Human rights are global and legally binding. What impact are those principles having in the ground? So human rights can serve as a foundation for the development of AI regulation for the people, in real time, for real people. 

So the questions are so novel and unpredicted vis a vis the UN Charter, it is valid to consider the potential gaps. We have not done the hard work of applying fully the existing framework, before we come up with new regulations. UN Guiding Principles are fundamental, in terms of respecting human dignity and human rights. Principles shall be applied to data gathering and analysis. OECD principles for stewardship of trustworthy AI have now been adopted by OECD and non-OECD countries. 

c) How to cross the bridge between defining human rights and ethical frameworks and implementing them in AI systems and SDGs? What is the role of different stakeholders and how can they work together to achieve the best results? (this policy question could serve as a starting point from which the desired output of the session - a roadmap on how to bridge that gap - could be built.)

It may be valuable to consider whether the UN Charter is being implemented, and if there is room for enhance respect and compliance. 

We need to address what are the current mechanisms and processes to implement the systems and legal frameworks at all levels. The development of national advisory offices may help with that and customize their regulation to apply HHRR and ethical frameworks more effectively. And we need to include the accountability and responsibility issues in that approach, for governments and industry compliance. And then scale up that platform, including principles and best practices to the multilateral arena. There are many initiatives out there that can feed the dialogue, for instance the HLPDC and the Initiative for AI, the OECD principles, among others.

Is there a need for a ethical code, like the Hypocrites code for tech developers? 

There is a lack of understanding of how technology impact society, we must consider enhancing technical training with ethical and human rights considerations. 

Leadership, journalists and the people funding the system are key actors, and they need to lead by example and promote a multi-stakeholder approach at all levels for a trustworthy and responsible AI. We need an industry wide approach for AI governance, including content moderation. It is not sufficient for companies to regulate themselves individually, we need to strive for coherence and common standards. Consider the role of a Social Media Council. We need multistakeholder approach but also a multidisciplinary one (engineers, sociologists, etc), social construct is context dependent, and need to be taken it into account.