You are here

IGF 2019 Reports

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

BPF Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 09:57
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • What is the role of norms? And can and should we then move forward from discussions on cybersecurity norms to operationalization of those norms?
  • Are cyber norms cascading into the international system and what are some challenges that arise? What are some processes or norms that do not exist today but are still required?
  • How can cybersecurity norms be assessed to evaluate whether they are working?
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Success examples, projects, and initiatives mentioned during the session:

  • GCSC norms
  • Technical examples related to the routing system and anti-spoofing standards and best practice
  • APC publications on network and society organisations into the Human Rights Council procedures
  • AccessNow publications
  • Oregon Observatory of network interference
  • OIA American research
  • AR2018
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
6. Estimated Participation:

There were an estimated 60 onsite participants, of which about 20 were women

There were 8 online participants, of whom 3 were women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session discussions were gender-neutral and did not discuss gender issues.


BPF Session
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 14:51
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The Best Practice Forum is focussing on the use of IoT, Big Data, AI in applications to achieve positive policy outcomes. IoT, Big Data, AI play an increasing role in addressing societal challenges. The new technologies may improve existing solutions and make them more efficient or make it possible to approach an issue in a totally new way.

The BPF focussed on 3 klusters of policy challenges pertaining to the use of the new technologies to address societal challenges:

  1. Enhancing justified trust in IoT, Big Data, AI to stimulate their use to address societal challenges that otherwise would be difficult to address.
  2. Stimulating the uptake and use of IoT, Big Data, AI applications to achieve positive policy outcomes to address societal challenges.
  3. The collection, management and use of data collected and analysed by IoT, Big Data, AI applications.
2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that IoT, Big Data and AI can play an important role in addressing societal challenges. Improving awareness about the benefits and risks of these technologies is needed for final users to take informed decisions. In addition to government initiatives and grass-root activities, SME should be involved in dissemination actions. 

Improving investment in infrastructure is key to improve access and uptake of IoT, Big Data and AI applications. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Activating pilot projects and sharing lessons learned can help drive policy and regulation. An active platform to share outcome of pilot projects by all stakeholders could support improvement of policy and regulation. Use of open-source technology, adoption of open standards, and a certification process could improve system security and trust.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

As IoT, Big Data and AI are evolving technologies, there is a need to continue BPF on this subject.

6. Estimated Participation:

150

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

70

It has been pointed out that in AI technologies it is important to consider gender. 


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 20:42
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

 

  1. Why zero-rating applications as sponsored applications produces negative externalities on how people enjoy Internet access, especially in developing countries where people don’t have money to pay for other software? 
  2. How to approach users’ data protection and combat control over the flow of information by some few companies? 
  3. How 5G and IoT are engendering new Net Neutrality challenges?
2. Discussion Areas:

 

Many of the speakers indicated that the zero-rating plan should be reviewed. It was addressed that many countries protect net neutrality, but the approach of the zero-rating plan is different from region to region. In Latin America, for example, there is a huge problem with universal access in similar conditions for other people in the same region. It was addressed that the states should have the duty and the obligation to ensure the access of the Internet for all of the people. However, it was pointed out that, in many cases, the same company owns similar applications, such as Facebook and WhatsApp. This can compromise the information flow through these platforms, and individuals don’t have the possibility to access other informational flows. This was the main concern of the session: how for-profit corporations can dominate the flow of information and use data to micro-target their users. In this sense, the lack of competition needs to be seen as a threat to democracy.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

On one hand, the issue of the implementation of 5G was highlighted as a hard and difficult process. 5G actually demands enormous network investments in fibre, in micro and small cells and that is the reason why real 5G exists only in countries that can afford to implement this type of infrastructure. On another hand, other participants pointed out that it is necessary to evolve beyond the business model of telecommunications since it’s no longer viable. Therefore, participants observed that net neutrality should be reestablished as a principle in order to guarantee fairness in the communication networks.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

 

Some initiatives were mentioned, such as Free Basics 2.0. The expectation is that it will increase the number of users, but also to raise some other flags about the Internet Services Providers. Mainly, transparency about the data flow was a fundamental issue. Also, Arcep, the French regulator of telecoms, was presented as being responsible for both net neutrality and the spread of 5G. It is dedicated to a pro-innovation regulation to ensure innovation in net neutrality and to promote innovative services thanks to 5G. 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

 

It was suggested a perspective change on the debate about regulation. Lack of competition should be seen as a threat to democracy and mechanisms in order to dismantle sponsored apps concentration should be implemented. The discussion should continue in other IGF sessions. 

6. Estimated Participation:

 

Onsite and online: 60 and 85

Women onsite: 30 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

 

The session didn’t discuss gender issues, but gender should appear as an imbricated subject when we speak about the negative externalities that sponsored apps may trigger since the information flow can enhance inequalities in the access to information. 

8. Session Outputs:

DC Session
Updated: Sat, 30/11/2019 - 09:08
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The DC SIG had a very full session.  18 existing schools were present in  the meeting and spoke.  There were at least 3 Schools/IG programs in   formation also in attendance.

  • How do we improve the capabity building capabilitiy of schools on internet governance

We reviewed the content to help schools with planning on curicula and organization  We explored activities for next year.

The website is at igscools.net - anyone interested in particpating needs to contact the webmater fior access to their own section of the wiki.  Also explained how to contribute to the continued development of the documention. 

Monthly meetings will resume in January 2020.

2. Discussion Areas:

Discussion was rich, with many suggestions for continued work.

Details on the web site, the wiki and taxonomy document were explored.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

IG schools contribute to IG capacity. The work we are doing is useful in this regard and should be continued.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

We. looked at new activities that could cotribute to out capacity building goals.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

we need momre people o. the work, and several indicated their willingness to contribute to the project

6. Estimated Participation:

100+ particpants in the room. There were only a few remote particpants

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session was diverse in terms of gender and national origin with school particpants from many regions in the world including both developed, and developing regions. Also representatives from a wide variety of school initiatives were presnet

8. Session Outputs:

Anyone interersted should follow igschools.net for ongoing developments. the amount and aquality of the content is ever improving.


DC Session
Updated: Wed, 04/12/2019 - 18:06
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. What ethical considerations are important for development, deployment and use of IoT, in order to ensure that we are creating sustainable solutions with IoT? Aspects to be considered range from affordability and deployability where needed, to transparency of choice; clarity on data sharing and protection of privacy;
  2. What prerequisites are important from a security perspective, to ensure that IoT can be trusted not to be harmful to its users, nor the wider Internet; for example by, for example, being weaponised as a tool for DDOS attacks or being used as attack vector on the users, themselves;.
  3. Looking ahead – which issues will become relevant in the future for IoT development, affecting the broader Internet. This provides an open microphone for new issues to tackle in the context of future use of IoT and recognition of Core Internet Values.
2. Discussion Areas:

Topline Areas of Agreement:

  1. The need for security in the IoT sector has reached a critical juncture, its assurance depending on all of the stakeholders in the ecosystem, not only manufacturers.
  2. A classification system for IoT devices could address immediate questions regarding security, but could take some time to establish.
  3. There needs to be greater transparency throughout the IoT sector and increased accountability of participants in the chain from devices to end user - from initiatives taken to address vulnerabilities throughout the life of devices, and end-of-life of devices.
  • Topline Areas of Divergence:
    • What role for regulation and legislation in addressing security concerns, given both their complexity and immediacy of concern to the larger health and security of the IoT sector.
    • To what degree should developers and consumers bear responsibility/liability for breaches in security.
    • What willingness to pay for additional security.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Develop a classification system for IoT devices, raising both potential pros and cons in the future security of the IoT sector. We would propose the consideration of the formation of a sub-working group, comprised of members from both the DC IoT and DC CIV, to further examine the setup of such a system. Amongst other items, this working group could take up a number of the questions presented during the panels.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

To support a secure IoT environment, there is a key distinction between what needed to be done to ensure that the devices / supply chain were secure and what needed to be done to ensure the ethical / secure use of those devices.This discussion highlighted the key and unique role that ethical frameworks versus legislation may serve to ensure security by design in future IoT development and deployment. Namely, the potential need for governments to outline the legal contours of accountability and responsibility. Also here the importance of classification of devices and services was emphasized.

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

We would propose the consideration of the formation of a sub-working group, comprised of members from both the DC IoT and DC CIV, to further examine the setup of such a system. Amongst other items, this working group could take up a number of the questions presented during the panels. THis should lead to proposals for IGF2020 sessions.

6. Estimated Participation:

Total number of participants throughout the session: ~60; of which ~40% women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session did not specifically consider gender issues.

8. Session Outputs:

[weblink to full report to be announced]

DC IoT website: https://www.iot-dynamic-coalition.org/


DC Session
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 06:12
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

How can the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies support improvements in blockchain governance? 

How can the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies support efforts of the IGF community to use blockchain technology to advance Internet governance? 

How does the agenda of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies overlap and/or intersect with the agenda of other dynamic coalitions? 

2. Discussion Areas:

The session was an interactive design thinking workshop in which the roughly 50 participants split into five groups and worked through a design process for identifying governance topics important to members of the DC community, then brainstorm potential steps the DC on blockchain technologies could take to help resolve or improve those governance areas, then evaluate those brainstormed ideas according to a set of specific criteria designed to maximize potential completion of outputs by IGF 2020 and to maximize the usefulness of the output for both the DC on blockchain technologies and for the broader IGF community. The groups discussed data protection, education and capacity building, creating a multistakeholder framework and principles to guide government adoption of blockchain technologies, a blockchain domain name system, and how to best explore the role of blockchain technologies for the broader goals of Internet governance. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

In the end, the working groups identified five projects for continued work in 2020: creating an interactive map of data protection and privacy considerations related to blockchain technologies and its applications, creation of educational materials for the general public (both basic explanatory and interactive materials and resources list), developing a set of principles and guidelines for multistakeholder evaluation of government-led blockchain technology initiatives, a blockchain domain name system, and tools for better exploring the potential contributions of blockchain technology for Internet governance. Each group identified a project leader and the next step to take in order to launch work on the output. The DC on blockchain technologies will create working group sub-list serves, and circulate information on what each group intends to do and how to join the work via the main list serve.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

It became clear during the session that as the dynamic coalition on blockchain technologies develops these outputs, the DC must consult with the DC on accessibility and the DC on public libraries in order to ensure the outputs are accessible to the broader community and that the DC works with the key institutions that help build community capacity (e.g., libraries). 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The focus of the session was to identify issues that the DC could contribute meaningful work toward advancement and progress. The DC must now execute the plans designed during this very interactive session. 

6. Estimated Participation:

According to the sign in sheets the DC asked each participant to sign, about 47 participants worked among five working groups and at least four online participants offered interventions. 18 of those participants were women. 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session did not overtly address gender issues, except by ensuring that each working group contained at least one or more women among its participants. The governance issues discussed, however, did not overtly consider gender issues. 


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 20:57
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The goal of the DC3 outcome document is to act as a working document from which all interested stakeholders can take inspiration to start constructive discussions on how to facilitate CNs through the most appropriate policy frameworks

The IGF session will have the following agenda:

  • Introduction and presentation of DC3 and its work
  • Keynote remarks
  • Presentations of case studies
  • Discussion of the proposed policy elements
  • Discussion of next steps and further actions for DC3
2. Discussion Areas:

Many participants observed that there are huge gaps in Community Connectivity inside of the countries. In the United States, for example, it happens especially in the tribal lands were big operators were provided with spectrum licenses but don't provide services. To the majority of the presents, this has to do with discrimination of access. In Mexico, the most recent survey on the penetration of telecom services stated that only 45% of the people make use of a computer and 74% have a cell phone. And this data is underestimated since they are counting all the phones existing in the country but not all the people that really use them. 

Another matter that deserves attention was the fact that building communities connectivity could improve people's living conditions and avoid them to be victims of arbitrary shutdowns. On the other hand, this is not easy, especially in some contexts of authoritarianism.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Participants point out that there is still much work to do when it comes to community building, and spaces like IGF, which helps to connect people, can be helpful to produce these changes. Also, most of the participants agreed that the first thing that regulators have to do before reading any booklet is to go to the communities and ask for the local people what are their real needs.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The Germany initiative Freifunk joins with In-Berlin to provides a non-commercial Internet Exchange dedicated to non-profit and project-based groups. This initiative will handle peering for all of these initiatives. A growing number of regional groups are now connected into core peering agreements with the Internet. In Mexico, there's the indigenous connectivity model, linked to the community of Oaxaca. The communities own and can manage the network under the umbrella of TIC-AC.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

There's still much to debate in order to guarantee that communities can have control of digital infrastructures. This debate has to do with the empowerment of the people. In some countries, Internet is now seen as human rights, but in some authoritarian countries, there is a considerable danger because it gives power to citizens to find ways to express and interact among themselves.

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite and online: 60 and 85

Women onsite: 30 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session didn’t discuss gender issues, but gender should appear as an imbricated subject when we speak about the negative externalities that inequalities on the access of the internet may trigger. 

8. Session Outputs:

DC Session
Updated: Mon, 09/12/2019 - 19:08
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • What is the cost of Internet deployment through innovative technologies? What are the implications for policy?
  • What are the current trends in the digital skills training programs? What are the implications for policy?
  • How can policy facilitate women’s Internet access and use?

 

2. Discussion Areas:

Cost of Deployment:

  • Operating expenses vary widely and appear to be more important than capital expenses (esp. backhaul)
  • The average TV white spaces deployment costs more than the average Wi-Fi deployment
  • Fixed cost of TV white space spectrum (average USD 145,444) is higher than for Wi-Fi based deployments (average USD 98,872)
  • TV white space radios are generally more expensive than Wi-Fi equipment
  • Higher costs may reflect better service/greater reach (esp. for revenue generating projects)
  • Anchor institutions drive cost effectiveness
  • Local communities may not have the capacity to operate the most innovative technologies
  • Evaluation of costs should take into account differences in purchasing power parity

 

Digital Skills programs

  • Projects do not have a viable business model for long-term sustainability
  • There is a wide variance in curriculum and pedagogy, as well as on mode of delivery across projects
  • Projects do not report outcomes in terms of learning rigorously with no structured M&E

 

Women’s access

  • Women face unique challenges in access and use due to multiple, intersecting factors
  • Relaxing just one barrier may not improve women’s access and use
  • Addressing multiple barriers simultaneously can help to design more effective and sustainable interventions
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  • Policy should encourage the collaborations between project deployments and anchor institutions to drive cost effectiveness
  • Policy should encourage a structured M&E to measure the learning outcomes of digital skills training programs   
  • Policy should address multiple barriers of women’s access simultaneously (e.g., infrastructure
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • Jane Coffin from Internet Society drew attention to the less costly community network model among deployment projects
  • Carlos Rey Moreno from APC mentioned that women only spaces can promote participation among women.
  • Claire Sibthorpe from GSMA mentioned that affordability is still a main barrier for women around the world based on their work at GSMA.   

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  • It is imperative to bring different stakeholders together to promote discussion and devise strategies that engage a broader range of stakeholders for more impactful and sustainable interventions and policy. At IGF, we don’t often have the opportunity to speak with local practitioners and implementers on the ground, technology companies, or funding agencies. That prevents us from learning about their challenges and sharing our findings and learnings with them. For instance, our work shows that most of the demand-side projects are grant-funded or CSR funded but these funds are one-time solutions and do not ensure sustainability. Dynamic Coalitions should offer more opportunities to meet with private organizations and funding agencies to identify more effective ways to allocate funds so that they will have more impact. Therefore, we would like to see more tech companies, funding agencies (e.g., Gates Foundation, IDRC, Microsoft etc) at IGF to open up the space for discussion.
6. Estimated Participation:

50 people total, half women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
  • Women face unique challenges in access and use due to multiple, intersecting factors
  • Relaxing just one barrier may not improve women’s access and use (e.g., in geographies where the decision makers are not women and women live with gatekeepers, the intervention should also involve gatekeepers such as in South East Asia; or in geographies where HIV is prevalent among women, interventions should be sensitive to the privacy concerns for women)
  • Addressing multiple barriers simultaneously can help to design more effective and sustainable interventions

 


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 05/12/2019 - 16:11
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The session was jointly held together with the DC on IoT.

  1. What ethical considerations are important for development, deployment and use of IoT, in order to ensure that we are creating sustainable solutions with IoT? Aspects to be considered range from affordability and deployability where needed, to transparency of choice; clarity on data sharing and protection of privacy;
  2. What prerequisites are important from a security perspective, to ensure that IoT can be trusted not to be harmful to its users, nor the wider Internet; for example by, for example, being weaponised as a tool for DDOS attacks or being used as attack vector on the users, themselves;.
  3. Looking ahead – which issues will become relevant in the future for IoT development, affecting the broader Internet. This provides an open microphone for new issues to tackle in the context of future use of IoT and recognition of Core Internet Values.
2. Discussion Areas:

Topline Areas of Agreement:

  1. The need for security in the IoT sector has reached a critical juncture, its assurance depending on all of the stakeholders in the ecosystem, not only manufacturers.
  2. A classification system for IoT devices could address immediate questions regarding security, but could take some time to establish.
  3. There needs to be greater transparency throughout the IoT sector and increased accountability of participants in the chain from devices to end user - from initiatives taken to address vulnerabilities throughout the life of devices, and end-of-life of devices.
  • Topline Areas of Divergence:
    • What role for regulation and legislation in addressing security concerns, given both their complexity and immediacy of concern to the larger health and security of the IoT sector.
    • To what degree should developers and consumers bear responsibility/liability for breaches in security.
    • What willingness to pay for additional security
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Develop a classification system for IoT devices, raising both potential pros and cons in the future security of the IoT sector. We would propose the consideration of the formation of a sub-working group, comprised of members from both the DC IoT and DC CIV, to further examine the setup of such a system. Amongst other items, this working group could take up a number of the questions presented during the panels.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

To support a secure IoT environment, there is a key distinction between what needed to be done to ensure that the devices / supply chain were secure and what needed to be done to ensure the ethical / secure use of those devices.This discussion highlighted the key and unique role that ethical frameworks versus legislation may serve to ensure security by design in future IoT development and deployment. Namely, the potential need for governments to outline the legal contours of accountability and responsibility. Also here the importance of classification of devices and services was emphasized.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

We would propose the consideration of the formation of a sub-working group, comprised of members from both the DC IoT and DC CIV, to further examine the setup of such a system. Amongst other items, this working group could take up a number of the questions presented during the panels. This should lead to proposals for IGF2020 sessions.

6. Estimated Participation:

Total number of participants throughout the session: ~60; of which ~40% women. - for both sessions from 9:30-11:00 and 11:30-13:00

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session did not specifically consider gender issues.

8. Session Outputs:

These are currently being worked out.


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 20:37
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The DC GIG session will be used as a space for knowledge-sharing and learning with Dr. Anja Kovacs presenting research on gender, body and data. The following questions will be discussed:

1. What are/should be the rights and responsibilities for individuals in determining the use of their personal data, and what right do individuals have to determine their own digital identity?

2. To what extent, and how, should accountability, fairness, explainability, suitability and representativity  apply to the use of data and and algorithms,  and how can governance frameworks address these issues in a way that enhances increases inclusion?

3. What role can the implementation of the principles of safety by design, privacy by design and by default as a principle play to secure human rights and achieve increased safety? How can consumer rights and their capacity to protect themselves and their data be reinforced?

 

2. Discussion Areas:

Anja Kovacs was the main speaker on the panel and presented research on complicating the relationship on datafication of bodies. The four other speakers acted as discussants and took the conversation forward by contributing perspectives from political science, legislation and IT. Many audience members engaged with comments and questions about how datafication of bodies can be reworked by putting personhood at the center. Anja argued against an understanding of data as oil or a disembodied resource, and encouraged a reading of bodies’ translation into data that looked at structural harms of data beyond privacy.

A final input by Smita prompted us to think about how the binary code of technology can accommodate non-binary persons. A radical idea that emerged from the discussion was that not being in the data is not necessarily a bad thing and flying under the radar could actually be a productive way of playing an unfair system.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

challenges in the way of using data for the benefit of people, but data collection seldom keeps people at the center. Thinking about bodies behind data with special emphasis on gender and marginalised underserved communities.

The policy recommendations include making spaces like IGF inclusive and safe for people of other genders by ensuring that data collection, especially gender specific data, is only collected if necessary, and by ensuring inclusive facilities in the IGF and NRI spaces.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

An audience member referred to MIT Media Lab's Algorithmic Justice League, which studies facial recognition and examines it in the context of justice and judicial processes.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The policy recommendations include making spaces like IGF inclusive and safe for people of other genders by ensuring that data collection, especially gender specific data, is only collected if necessary, and by ensuring inclusive facilities in the IGF and NRI spaces. This is something which can be easily implemented in the IGF ecosystem with some more attention to detail.

6. Estimated Participation:

Break-up of the room: 30 women, 8 men, at least 2 non-binary persons.

Speakers: 4 women, 1 men

Moderator: non-binary

Rapporteur: non-binary

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The whole session was on feminist approach to body and data. Gender emerged strongly in the examples presented, as well as a key interaction of the session topic, The body as data in the age of datafication.


DC Session
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 19:57
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Please see the session description for the complete set of questions. 

The Dynamic Coalition meeting will consider what governance mechanisms could be developed to draw the gaming industry into the discussions on children’s rights, in particular their right to play and their right to protection from inappropriate, illegal and bullying behaviours as well as their right to be protected from sexual abuse and commercial exploitation.

Expected Outcome

Recommendations for politics and the private sector in regard of regulation and self-regulation measures in order to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child Recommendations for carers and parents in regard of respecting the rights of the child and enabling their children to cope with potential risk and harm.

2. Discussion Areas:
  • Speakers raised that games and apps are usually age rated based on their content but that doesn’t sufficiently reflect neither risks of inappropriate interaction and communication parallel to the game being played nor does it reflect the risk of commercial exploitation of children f. e. by in-app-purchases or loot boxes.
  • It was mentioned that while there is still a great deal of doubt about the validity of using the idea of “addiction” to gaming there are widespread concerns and anxieties about excessive use.
  • Some speakers mentioned their concern about profiling children’s behaviour in playing games and utilizing such data even though anonymised to develop new services and applications responding to children’s desires thus attracting and beguiling them to play even more.
  • There is wide concern about the extent to which games can socialize children or involve them in the world of gambling. As ever more immersive  and realistic games emerge this question is likely to increase in importance.
  • It was also mentioned that children need to be supported so that we can reach a balance between exploration and safety.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Please see section 5.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Thorn has conducted a research. Between 2015 and 2017 they surveyed about 3500 young people in the United States.  At the beginning of online friendships, it was reported to us that a lot of participants share the handles on multiple different accounts, not just the accounts to they meet on, and then sextortion scenarios get to a point and it makes it or easier for an offender to target a young important on multiple platforms, not just the one they met on.

45 participants in the survey reported being contacted by offenders across multiple platforms.  In 2015 specific to gaming 4% of those who had experienced sextortion reported to the gaming platform.  By 2017 that doubled to 8% and that is something that they will continue tracking into their research in 2020.  In terms of age range, they found  that one in four victims were under 12 when they were first threatened.

They  also found that the gaming platforms were generally more popular among 9‑year‑olds to 12‑year‑olds and that was true with a number of platforms.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  • At country level measures should be put in place to encourage parents to understand better what happens in gaming environments both in relation to the real costs of the games and in respect of hazards such as grooming, bullying, sexism, xenophobia and other forms of discrimination.
  • While at in parallel parents need to be made aware and understand the positive benefits of gaming and that children by playing games they learn and develop skills especially their social skills.
  • Generally speaking, self-regulation is now widely seen as a model that has failed in the online space including in respect of gaming hence enforcing mandatory regulation is perceived as the only way forward.
  • However, to avoid the risk of over-regulation the online games industry needs to be much more transparent with their consumers and the chid rights community about the realities of what is happening to children in gaming environments.
6. Estimated Participation:

Roughly 100 participants with 50% being female. 


DC Session
Updated: Sat, 30/11/2019 - 10:28
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. Inclusion of persons with disability in IGF program, communication and venue

2. Embedding ICT accessibility policy in digital inclusion policy discussions

3. Liaising with Dynamic Coalitions to enhance accessibility policy directions.

2. Discussion Areas:

The accessibility of the IGF venue and online facilities raised a number of points, mainly positive but with suggestions for improvement. The venue itself was mostly good for physical accessibility. However, cables in some areas need to be better located away from traffic. The availability of volunteer assistants for persons with disabilities was greatly appreciated. The complexity of the scheduling software together with accessibility and usability of  the website were of concern.

Embedding Internet accessibility in digital inclusion policy raised useful suggestions as accessibility is a cross-cutting issue. Increased liaison with other Dynamic Coalitions will raise awareness of the needs of persons with disability. Increased communications with NRIs that include accessibility in their programs and sharing this information with the broader NRI community will be another avenue.

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The stewardship of DCAD may change in the near future. Discussions were held on various options to ensure that DCAD's website, mailing list and other resources will be available going forwards. A core DCAD committee was formed to help plan for this eventuality.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Members of DCAD will identify particular Dynamic Coalitions with which to build strong communications.

DCAD will explore mechanisms to collect data on accessibility sessions at NRIs.

6. Estimated Participation:

31 onsite and online participants of whom 18 were women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The discussions were gender neutral


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 17:35
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. Which human rights are directly affected by the environmental impact of internet-dependent technologies?
  2. How can the digitalization and networking of the urban environment take into account the principles, and practice of environmental sustainability and  “human rights by design” and in which specific areas - of public concern, geography, or internet design – can different stakeholders generate working relationships for sustainable, rights-based internet futures?
  3. How can global, and national internet policymaking agendas better respond to existing and future environmental issues arising from connecting the Sustainable Development Goals with those aiming to “Connect the next billion”?
2. Discussion Areas:

The meeting opened with an introduction to the work of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition and why the theme of this session - on the interrelationship between internet design, terms of access and use, data management and storage - is relevant to the IRPC Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet and related projects from the coalition. Presentations from representatives of Futures for Fridays and the Feminist Internet Sustainable Alex project were followed by remarks from invited panelists; representatives from Extinction Rebellion, Youth IGF, and Climate Action Tech before the four break-out groups addressed four action point questions. The meeting then reconvened for reporting back and aligning action points. Details of the group outcomes will be provided in the long report; there was a broad consensus and commitment to the following broad issues:

1) That the current climate crisis is integral to the full spectrum of internet governance decision-making from designers, service providers, and regulators.

2) The dependence on fossil fuels, related carbon footprints of online services and mobile phone/cloud services needs urgent addressing from the design perspective and business models of large platform uses.

3) Internet goods and services and their hardware, equipment specifications need to address any unintentional harms to the physical environment at all points of computing and internet-dependent devices' timelines.

4) Accountability for environmental degradation, pollution, and dependence on non-renewable energy sources need to be also part of internet business and government policy agendas.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

There were differing positions on whether these issues are existential - as is the view of Extinction Rebellion members, or issues best approached through self-regulation.

There was clear support in the meeting for the need to see this topic on internet governance agendas, and multistakeholder consultations at the UN level, regionally, and nationally.

Support was also given to cooperation and projects to develop synergy across all sectors to raise awareness of environmental issues as integral to internet governance.

1) Priority to be given to seeing this issue mainstreamed in internet governance agendas, and multistakeholder consultations at the UN level, regionally, and nationally.

2) That the climate crisis, as a planetary and local issue that affects the Global South most profoundly and urgently, requires cooperation and projects to develop synergy across all sectors to raise awareness of environmental issues as integral to internet governance.

3) That it be recognized that the climate crisis and international agreements to reduce carbon emissions as one way to mitigate its symptoms is a core issue for internet governance; in its technical, socio-economic, cultural, and political dimensions

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

A number of projects were introduced to the meeting, including the sustainable personal assistant project and initiatives that use sustainable energy sources for the running of data-centres. More details will be available in the long report.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

As noted above, the issue of how internet governance impacts on the earth's physical environment - land, sea, and atmosphere, was put forward as an urgent issue for all stakeholders in the internet governance domain. How progress can be made at this stage was to have this point recognized and then to work with a range of stakeholders to support and inform about sustainable approaches to future decision-making that regard enviromental sustaibability-by-design.

6. Estimated Participation:

159 participants registered. 100 attended the presentations and about 50 took part in the break-out groups.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

This session was marked by 1) the youth participation and leadership and 2) the even number of female and male participants. A large number from the Global South were also active in the groups and summing up discussion.


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 10:47
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Is there a common understanding on the type of values that ought to be promoted by platform regulations? 

What are some of the best strategies to ensure that digital platforms aim to maximize not only shareholder value, but values of the broader set of stakeholders affected by platform regulations? 

To what extent are platforms the best-placed entities to identify which rights should be privileged when regulating social and economic interactions, and how should balancing between conflicting rights and values be conducted?   

 

2. Discussion Areas:

There was a broader concern about freedom of expression for the next years on social platforms. Some participants observed that companies should be called out toward the implementation of the principles on business and human rights. Especially, regulators could create procedural norms, such as due process on activities of content removal and toward more transparency of algorithms and data applications.  However, on one hand it was pointed out that regulators are regulating without knowing about the subject. On another hand, it is a great worry that platforms are becoming private regulators. The fact that they can censor more content than what the law obligates was highlighted as a big concern. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The debate on content moderation should be less about the content that companies fail to remove and more about legal speech that platforms illegally censors. State regulation should be less about individual instances of speech and more about protection of procedural rules. Platform liability in this sense needs to be more for failures in terms of overarching procedure and architecture and less about individual instances of speech. Legislators and regulators should work on basic procedural. Less decisions on the merits of specific instances of speech by platforms, and more by its users. The discussion must be about user empowerment.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Participants mentioned some of initiatives already in course and some others that need attention. Some of them are: Santa Clara principles, the elaboration of a general Digital Services Act, and the Facebook Oversight Board. However, there’s an urge that companies cooperate with transparency and assuring freedom of speech according to public’s interests.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  1. Disinformation is not about to go away, but it can be targeted with other measures such as fact checking.
  2. A simple handbook for regulators to inform them about what is this debate about.  
  3. It's necessary to draw a definition of platform. It is an essential term to create liability. 
6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite and online: 80 and 119

Women onsite: 40 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Harassment and hate speech have women as a main target in general. Platforms could consider this and cooperate with measures toward promoting more equity in online participation. 


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 12/12/2019 - 14:39
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1) From what angles do broadband policies and strategies approach the question of public access in libraries, and what trends are in evidence?

2) What trends can be discerned from looking at broadband policies gathered and reviewed by the ITU?

3) In order to assess the effectiveness of these initiatives in reality, what key questions and issues should be borne in mind?

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that libraries play several roles in ensuring meaningful connectivity for more people: providing free or low-cost internet access, digital literacy training, and access to digital materials. Several speakers emphasised the importance of such access and services for vulnerable or marginalized populations.

Similarly, many speakers highlighted the impact of policy interventions supporting public access in libraries. It was pointed out that public access in libraries serves to meet a wide range of broader societal needs, which are often universal across various national contexts. These include access to e-learning and e-health services, conducting online businesses and making use of financial services, accessing government and public services online. Similarly, it can support youth skills development, empower women and girls, and bring communities together.

Many speakers pointed to Universal Service Funds as a way to support and broaden public access in libraries. This can be particularly relevant in light of World Wide Web Foundation's 2018 report, which points out that a significant number of Universal Service and Access Funds are currently dormant, underused or inactive. Making use of these funds to ensure public access in libraries and similar facilities could therefore be an effective way to foster digital inclusion.

Several speakers addressed the question of financial sustainability of public access solutions and policy initiatives supporting them. Many speakers suggested different ways this can be ensured - whether through government support, by libraries themselves, by local communities or other partners (e.g. from the civil society or private sectors).

Finally, several speakers pointed to the relationship between public access in libraries and other connectivity models to bring the next billion(s) online. For example, libraries can work with local communities to support community network projects, or provide connectivity to offside locations through TVWS technology.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

verarching policy recommendations (predominantly socio-cultural and economic):

  • Broadband policies and Universal Service Funds should be used to support digital inclusion through public access in libraries.
  • Public access in libraries should be a part of education, (ICT) infrastructure, community and rural development policies. It is important to find the right location for the library sector services and connectivity within the government infrastructure and policy frameworks.
  • Ensuring meaningful connectivity through libraries requires: a broadband connectivity of a suitable speed and capacity, hardware and software, and training for library staff – to help library users develop ICT skills and to maintain ICT hardware and software within the library.

Next steps within the IGF ecosystem:

  • DC-PAL will carry out case studies to examine the impacts of engaging libraries in broadband plans and policies in different countries. This will allow us to gain insights into the impact of different policy approaches on the ground, the commonalities between successful strategies and interventions, good practices and lessons learned.
  • Several speakers also made use of the IGF ecosystem/the session to point participants towards recent reports and documents on the topic of public access and library contributions to development and connectivity.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • In Ireland, the government is ensuring that all libraries will be connected to the internet and engage libraries in delivering on three key development targets: literacy, employment, and health and wellbeing.
  • In Kenya, a policy intervention by the Communications Authority and national library services has equipped libraries with broadband connectivity, computers and assistive devices, capacity building for librarians, online database creation, and more. Libraries now serve as information access points for communities - particularly for students, rural residents, and people with disabilities.
  • In Uganda, the Rural Communications Development Fund has been used to equip libraries with computers, internet access and ICT skills training using. This initiative aims to alleviate affordability and cost barriers to internet access for the population.
  • The Ghana Investment Fund for Electronic Communications has also equipped public and community libraries to provide last-mile connectivity, particularly in rural communities.

Related digital inclusion initiatives are also being organised by other stakeholders. For example, the “Total Digital!” initiative run by the Library Association in Germany promotes digital skills and media literacy among youth through a media content creation project.

NGO Electronic Information for Libraries has trained librarians and library users to develop digital skills and community services in many countries.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Alongside Universal Service Funds, the discussion highlighted the potential of various partnerships to support digital inclusion through public access in libraries. Several examples of civil society actors, private companies and communities offering support for public access initiatives have been mentioned.

In addition, public access in libraries can be deployed alongside other alternative connectivity models to provide internet access for underserved areas and populations: community networks and offline/cached internet. Synergies and potential for collaboration between these models can be further explored.

Finally, high-capacity and high-speed connectivity in libraries can be used not only to offer new services, but also to provide connectivity to offsite locations through such technologies as TVWS. Such offsite access could offer more flexibility or convenience for users.

6. Estimated Participation:

30 participants, of which approximately 10 had participated online. Approximately 15 women participated onsite and online.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

During the presentations, it was pointed out that libraries have the ability to specifically focus on and target connectivity (as well as broader) needs of marginalised groups, including women, and work to address gender imbalances. In addition, it was highlighted that one of the strengths of libraries as public access facilities lies in the availability of on-site support for users who are less confident with their ICT skills. This can particularly apply to new women and girl users, which makes public access in libraries more accessible and approachable for them.

8. Session Outputs:

DC-PAL report on the role of libraries in national broadband plans and policies, presented during the session: https://www.ifla.org/digital-plans


DC Session
Updated: Tue, 29/10/2019 - 00:15
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can we develop the Internet in Small Island Developing States (SIDS), while at the same time, overcoming the ongoing challenges of inclusion, access, and accessibility?
  2. Will the global trend of increased regulatory actions by state actors affect the future of the Internet in SIDS?

It is expected that the DC-SIDS would discuss what have been the major achievements, opportunities, challenges and obstacles to the development of the Internet in SIDS over the last 12 months and work towards ratifying a concrete plan of action to make meaningful advancements in 2020.


DC Session
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 16:48
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can we, as a community, more effectively monitor digital platforms’ activities, their market power and behaviours, and the potential consequences of those activities for citizens, journalists, news media organisations, and advertisers?
  2. What can be done to address competition barriers, and how can we promote plurality, sustainability, and diversity as well as overall consumer choices? This includes examining strategies to address regulatory imbalances – i.e., what are new approaches to the regulation of digital spaces?
  3. What are the mechanisms that would support and sustain choice and quality of news and journalism in digital spaces, as well as catalyse those individuals and organisations concerned with media plurality to get more engaged in Internet governance and digital policy discussions?
2. Discussion Areas:

As this was the launch of the DC, the session mainly provided evidence for why journalism and news media have an important stake in Internet governance processes, and why voices from this sector should be more involved going forward. The discussion largely contextualised the journalism and news media's relationship with digital policy and its impact on the sector, and highlighted how various aspects such as content takedowns, safety, and digital market failures are undermining high-quality journalism around the world.

The coalition said that the media has changed with time. Like the revolution that came with the television, the media and news production and consumption were revolutionised with the rise of the global Internet. Because of digitalisation, the circulation of newspapers has dwindled. As media companies continue to adapt to digitalisation, they must continue to update their business models and find innovative ways to monetise content, but these changes threaten their focus - reporting the news. For some news and media organisations, the membership model works as an ethical means to support some forms of advertising (e.g. native advertising). Others have turned to philanthropy and donations to support their work.

The discussion also addressed issues like combatting disinformation. ‘There is an asymmetry between government actors or wealthy actors who are able to buy botnets and buy social media manipulation, whether it's elected leaders as in the United States, Brazil, India, or whether you create armies, as in China and Iran, to manipulate social media. How are journalists supposed to compete in this information environment?’ asked Raj. Content moderation has also become an enormous issue for journalism due to the introduction of algorithms that make choices that are determined by platforms or governments, and not the journalists themselves.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Suggestions for the way forward include working across the IGF community, but especially with the other Dynamic Coalitions, to amplify journalism and news media voices in the discussion, as well as create a cohesive action plan outlining work over the coming intersessional period to identify/collate key policy recommendations that can support the sustainability of journalism and news media sustainability. 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

https://www.cjr.org/tow_center_reports/platforms-and-publishers-end-of-an-era.php and many others can be found at: https://gfmd.info/internet-governance

We also worked closely with the DC on Platform Responsibility this year, and plan to continue collaborating going forward. 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

As of the session, our charter is now officially ratified (available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BINK564Lq4-jXnVfXAjZVJ-Mi1vRSaOu4fCZ0d79HXA/edit?ts=5dc9816f), and we are working to cement an action plan for 2020 and elect our first official co-coordinators, which will be elected by the end of 2019 for the 2020-2021 period. 

6. Estimated Participation:

Around 105 total participants, of which around half were women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The discussion did not explicitly focus on gender, however, harassment of journalists online was identified as an important barrier to sustainability – and many of those harrassed are women. 


DC Session
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 10:39
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

- Which issues do you want to highlight as priority keypoints at the IGF to global stakeholders?

- How can we improve involvement and return rates of youth at the IGF?

- Which challenges do youth face to attend and participate at the IGF?


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?

Main Session
Updated: Fri, 22/11/2019 - 07:59

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

This main session will focus on the different responsibilities, responses, rights, and risks involved in policy approaches to dealing with terrorist and violent extremist content (TVEC) online.  It will consider regulatory and non-regulatory approaches, including how Internet platforms deal with TVEC uploaded to their services by end users. Panelists will address various policy questions, including:

  • What are the different responsibilities of the different stakeholders to each other in developing solutions to the spread of TVEC online?
  • How have governments responded to the spread of TVEC online?  How has the private sector responded?
  • What are the different human rights that are relevant to the discussion of TVEC online, and why?
  • What are the potential risks to different human rights posed by TVEC regulation and how are these risks being addressed?

 


Main Session
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 23:58

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
This session's full report is available here: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806
2. Discussion Areas:
Full report: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
Full report: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
Full report: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
Full report: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806
6. Estimated Participation:
Full report: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
Full report: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806
8. Session Outputs:
Full report: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/index.php?q=filedepot_download/7505/1806

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.


Main Session
Updated: Tue, 19/11/2019 - 11:21

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?

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


Main Session
Updated: Mon, 09/12/2019 - 10:48

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy questions

  • What should be the perspectives, and which stakeholders and disciplines need to be considered, to enable policy-making approaches that are truly multidisciplinary for Internet Governance?
  • What are the underlying structural conditions that facilitate truly multidisciplinary policy-making process?
  • What are examples of attempts to build multidisciplinary policy-making processes for public policy already being developed on Internet Governance across the globe? What worked well? What needs improvement? What lessons can we learn from private sector policy-making?

Overall expectations from the session

We aim to highlight conceptual frameworks and good practices coming from concrete cases presented in the session to illustrate ways to go beyond working in silos and to create policy-making approaches that are truly multidisciplinary and involve a full range of perspectives and actors, in a wide range of substantive topics, covering the life-long period of policy-making from its design, implementation and evaluation.

2. Discussion Areas:

The discussions highlighted a number of key elements for successful policy-making in the digital age. It was felt that processes that are inclusive, transparent and make use of 21st century tools can lead to increased trust in the process, provide more legitimacy and result in better informed and more balanced outcomes.

Full Report available HERE.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The following specific elements of a successful process were put forward:

  • Being thoughtful about the design of a process at the outset
  • The importance of an open, inclusive and accessible process
  • Transparency
  • Accountability
  • Finding the right stakeholders for the specific issue at hand, who can bring the expertise necessary to produce informed and evidence-based decisions
  • Flexibility
  • Practical ways to engender trust and create genuine dialogue
  • Measuring impact and disseminating results
6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite – around 250 participants, 35% female

Online – around 10 participants, 30% female

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

A majority of the panelists were women.

Women were considered as one group - alongside others such as young people, disabled people, refugees, former prisoners – which policy-makers should consider when designing inclusive consultative processes.


Main Session
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 23:07

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%).


NRI Session
Updated: Thu, 05/12/2019 - 16:12
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions: 

  • How can risks of contact and content be addressed successfully by legal and regulatory approaches as well as by technical instruments and how can digital civility be increased?
  • What role should Internet platforms play in defining the standards for acceptable content in light of freedom of speech?
  • How can globally accepted standards be developed?
  • What kind of collaboration could be created among Internet platforms and media outlets to fight disinformation and fake news?
  • Where is the middle ground between increasing demands for proactive content policing by digital platforms and the necessary neutrality and legal certainty for platforms?
2. Discussion Areas:

The discussion developed around the regularly and legal response to combating harmful content online on national levels. Different practices were shared. The Japan IGF prioritised the child online pornography as the part of the online available content that the country's institutional mechanism successfully addresses.. The Armenian IGF followed with centralising the content of blogs 


NRI Session
Updated: Tue, 19/11/2019 - 11:19
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions: 

 

  • What are the priorities regarding the human rights for local communities?
  • How do we protect the privacy and free speech on the Internet?
  • Should national approaches to regulation be internationally harmonized and how?
  • Are there concrete examples of digital cooperation on national and regional levels for protecting human rights on the Internet?

NRI Session
Updated: Thu, 05/12/2019 - 15:18
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions:

  • How do we ensure that Internet governance processes are truly inclusive?
  • What needs to be done to enhance the capacity of different actors (and especially those in developing and least-developed countries) to actively contribute to such processed and whose responsibility is it?
  • What tools could be developed to promote (better) Internet access for women and girls, older people, people living with disabilities, refugees and other disadvantaged groups?
  • How can we better utilize primary and secondary schools and tertiary educational facilities to promote and to deliver on digital literacy to their communities and should digital literacy be the fourth pillar of education, alongside reading, writing and maths?
2. Discussion Areas:

Many indicated that government support in the form of economic incentives plays a big role in making the Internet accessible. Some suggested that the multi-stakeholder approach is important in achieving success collectively, while others pointed out to the drawbacks of the old models which place too much attention on distinctive roles of different stakeholders. Several voices mentioned the role of educational institutions as both providers and end-users of internet infrastructures. Mostly discussion was focused around the technical aspect of the access, however, some emphasized the importance of the human element and capacity building which will ensure equal access.

Among key points raised:

  • Access to the internet needs to be a universally exercisable right and not only a privilege of the urban population. Today, access is a necessity which enables people to exercise their rights of citizens. Access is the most important enabler of all the other aspects related to the Internet.
  • Providing internet in rural areas costs a lot for private companies resulting in high prices for internet and raising affordability issue. Effective economic policies by governments and advanced pricing models can solve the issue. The return on these investments should be measured in terms of social benefits rather than economic gains.
  • The issue of access can be resolved only through collaboration and cooperation of different members of society. However, the old models of distinct division into different stakeholder groups are already outdated. Synergies are very important to share the lessons learned on previous experiences and solutions that worked.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Economic: create national plans on access which include government, professional syndicates and academic bodies, increase government subsidies for internet providers, lower tax for community networks providers.
Social-cultural: keep holding regional IGFs, involve most of the actors on this issue, especially civil society
Technical: there is a need for a legal definition of community networks to facilitate the regulation and allow them to grow, implementation and development of community networks, use of renewable energy for sustainable development, creation of local IXPs to reduce the costs.
 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Community networks, infrastructure-sharing by tertiary institutions, free connectivity stations installed and operated by governments, regional IGFs, different pricing models for private operators.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

    Collective efforts are needed to ensure that all of the needs are met. There is an urgent need to build infrastructures with efficient technology and in a sustainable way. 

6. Estimated Participation:

25 onsite and 3 online
8 women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Yes related that everyone should have access and gender divide should not be our reality anymore.


NRI Session
Updated: Thu, 05/12/2019 - 15:58
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions: 

  • Cybersecurity norm-making initiatives - how to bridge the gaps and make them work?
  • How cybersecurity policy and regulation can address emerging technological challenges?
  • How can cooperation and collaboration on national, regional and global levels help to increase cybersecurity?
  • What legal regulations are already in place but potentially need to be enforced and what new legal regulations should be created to address upcoming threats?
  • What role can institutional arrangements play?
  • What role should different stakeholders play in cybersecurity capacity building approaches?
2. Discussion Areas:
  • Mechanism for enforcing Cybersecurity norms. Government and military intelligence enforcement is a suggested option.
  • Communities are becoming the norm-making machines but there is no mechanism in place for norm implementation. Though norms should remain binding and voluntary as opposed to regulation, there are issues as to why such approach don’t work.
  • Norms should be developed in a multi-disciplinary way from ground up. Different stakeholders be involve at different levels of the process, and technical community should be involve from the beginning of the process.
  • Complete set of report notes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gJKNkUGIyMSuWPM3cn3VxPxOLRFTQ8j51c7sBVLTOZ4/edit?usp=sharing
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Recommendation: Session should not last an hour, but probably two hours.  National regional IGFs, should embed in national regional IGFs agenda, the regional discussion as well.  So that at each places have space for regional discussions concerning Cybersecurity.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
/
6. Estimated Participation:
/
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
/
8. Session Outputs:
/

NRI Session
Updated: Sun, 01/12/2019 - 11:52
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • Are there concrete data protection policies in NRIs countries and regions?
  • What are the issues of relevance for your communities?
  • How can we develop internationally accepted standards on data protection?

Elaborations on these questions available at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GJxPYtNNbvQSSdg-4AIHFVoZlbbm1S1lK2d8...

2. Discussion Areas:

The panel made an important input on the fact that the government should take a higher responsibility and initiative for tackling data protection issues. It was mentioned the fact that there should be more pressure on policymakers and politicians to adopt and update Data Protection Laws. The adoption of the International Common Standard to all regions, that would increase, develop and foster economies, as underlined as important. One must mention that these standards must follow the principles laid out in the 2009 Madrid Declaration of The ICDPPC and The Resolution On The Promotion Of New And Long-term Practical Instruments And Continued Legal Efforts For Effective Cooperation In Cross-border Enforcement 41st International Conference Of Data Protection And Privacy Commissioners October 2019, Tirana, Albania. As an example a multi-stakeholder can be an approach to adopt those common standards. Increase the level independence of the bodies that regulate data protection subject rights. In that sense, we need more dialogue between IGF and ICDPPC (now the Global Privacy Assembly). 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The panel made an important input on the fact that the government should take a higher responsibility and initiative for tackling data protection issues. It was mentioned the fact that there should be more pressure on policymakers and politicians to adopt and update Data Protection Laws. Another remark made by North Macedonia IGF was the adoption of the International Common Standard to all regions, that would increase, develop and foster economies. One must mention that these standards must follow the principles laid out in the 2009 Madrid Declaration Of The ICDPPC And The Resolution On The Promotion Of New And Long-term Practical Instruments And Continued Legal Efforts For Effective Cooperation In Cross-border Enforcement 41st International Conference Of Data Protection And Privacy Commissioners October 2019, Tirana, Albania. As an example, a multi-stakeholder can be an approach to adopt those common standards. Increase the level of independence of the bodies that regulate data protection subject rights. In that sense speaking, we need more dialogue between IGF and ICDPPC (now the Global Privacy Assembly). 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

North Macedonia IGF mentioned some of the initiatives she took the lead on the research of data protection legislation breaches. The training at the Startup Space Community Center on GDPR. SMEs and Startups showed the result that the business sector is more aware of this problem than the public sector. And ironically enough they are the biggest data processors. 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

During the session, the panel mentioned that the governments and legislators have to take responsibility to ensure a good legal framework for unlawful data collection and processing. The challenges is that there are DPOs - data protection officers, but no Information Security officers. On the main issues tackled the progress might be achieved by cross-border partnerships and collaborations to achieve the main goal, for standardizing data protection regulations.

Data protection should remain a major focus of IGF and of NRIs sessions in the future. NRIs are important fora where civil society can discuss and monitor progress made in data protection legislation, but also hold data protection authorities to account.
Unlike ICDPPC, the IGF is good at bringing together the international civil society. However, partnerships between the network of NRIs and DPAs on the issues of data protection may need to be reinforced in the future.

6. Estimated Participation:

There were about 35 onsite participants.
There were about 15 women present.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

IGF north Macedonia mentioned a fact to analyzed the profile of nominated DPOs in public and private entities and over 65% are women. Apartnership meeting with the President of the Women Entrepreneurs was established. There is  Women Empowerment and a High Level of accountability when a Woman is Managing Personal Data.
                                          
 


NRI Session
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 11:09
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions: 

  • How can end users rights and their capacity to protect themselves and their data be reinforced?
  • What are the practices of privacy protection on national and regional levels?
  • What role should Internet platforms play in defining the standards for privacy protection online?
  • Are nationally developed standards globally acceptable?  

Open Forum
Updated: Tue, 26/11/2019 - 22:13
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

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

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

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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

8. Session Outputs:

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

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

Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 04/12/2019 - 14:21
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 12:23
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions: 

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

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

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Fri, 25/10/2019 - 07:39
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

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

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

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


Open Forum
Updated: Tue, 10/12/2019 - 16:29
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Key policy questions:

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

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues have not been discussed explicitly.

8. Session Outputs:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 19:08
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The open forum will discuss the respective obligations of states and responsibilities for private actors regarding the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the context of AI and machine learning systems. It will also explore a range of different ‘responsibility models’ that could be adopted to govern the allocation of responsibility for different kinds of adverse impacts arising from the operation of AI systems.

It will address the following main questions:

- Who bears responsibility for the adverse consequences of advanced digital technologies, such as AI? 

- What consequences stem from the fact that most data processing infrastructures are in private hands?

2. Discussion Areas:

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

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

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

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The panellists agreed that:

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

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

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

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

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 23:33
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that legislation is an efficient way to enforce the online protection for the underage users. Speakers from Germany and China introduced their domestic legislations and achievements about the online protection of underage users. Some participates raised up that online protection of underage users should be in consistent with that of offline. Some proposed that online protection of underage users should include two sides, one is to control the negative impacts, and the another is to promote positive guidance. Some hold the opinion that there were some common problems in children's information protection, such as reducing the experience of children’s online services constituting reverse discrimination against children's users. Both the presenters and participates agreed that only with the cooperation of all parts can we effectively protect the minors well in cyberspace.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

1) Social-cultural recommendations: The presenters suggested that we should take into account both online and offline risks for children protection; strengthening the protection of underage netizens needs jointly efforts from stakeholders of the whole world; online protection of underage users should include two sides, one is to control the negative impacts, and the another is to promote positive guidance.

2)Governance issues recommendations: The presenters recommended that the government should monitor the application of the provisions of their legislations related to online protection of underage users in cyberspace and confirm the age ratings; we should consider different opinions regarding the potential effects of technology on child growth and development.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

There were two presenters shared the example of Regulation on the Protection of Children’s Personal Information Online, which was the first legislation in China specifically aimed at children's online protection.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

To strengthen the online protection of underage users, the presenters had shared their experiences and pointed out that the rapid development of the internet provides infinite possibilities for the growth of underage users, but at the same time, the protection of underage users in cyberspace is not enough. It is still necessary to strengthen the control and guidance of access sites and equipment, controlling the negative impacts and promoting positive guidance.

6. Estimated Participation:

There were around 100 participants attended this forum in Convention Hall I-C in person. We don’t have the number of online participants. There were nearly 50 women present this forum onsite.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

There were no gender issues for this forum.


Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 15:07
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

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

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

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

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

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Another important aspect of the  discussion was capacity building of law enforcement to collect and present evidence (data involved),

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

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

strategies.

Strengthen cybersecurity for elections.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

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

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

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

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

6. Estimated Participation:

Around 100 participants onsite.

More than a third of the participants were women.Ge

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 18:20
Data Governance

2. Discussion Areas:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 22:24
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. Protection and the commercial use of personal information.

2. AI and the protection of personal information.

3. The international rule of personal data protection. 

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that legislation is an efficient way to enforce the online protection for personal information. Speakers from Germany and China introduced legislation and shared experience about the online protection of personal information. Some participates introduced the draft of the Personality Rights Section of the Civil Code of China, emphasizing to distinguish between privacy and personal information and maintain the openness of personality right system, including the openness of privacy and personal information. Some compared the legal definition of data in different countries. Some proposed that there are three general principles of commercial use of data:principle of user consent and transparency, principle of data security, principle of creating commercial interests and values. Some argued that principles for managing data should be security, privacy, transparency and compliance.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

The definition of privacy and the scope of protection of personal information needs to evolve from a purely static model to a dynamically determined model to cope with new problems that may arise in the future with new developments in technology or its application.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

One presenter from Microsoft shared the example of protecting data. There are six key privacy principles: 1. Control: To put users in control of their privacy with easy-to-use tools and clear choices. 2. Transparency: To be transparent about data collection and use so users can make informed decisions. 3. Security: To protect the data through strong security and encryption.4.Strong legal protections: To respect users’ local privacy laws and fight for legal protection of their privacy as a fundamental human right. 5. No content-based targeting: Not using users’ email, chat, files or other personal content to target ads to them. 6. Benefits to you: When collecting data, Microsoft will use it to benefit the users and to make their experiences better.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

To strengthen the online protection of personal information, the presenters had shared their experiences and pointed out that it is necessary for all stakeholders to work together, and to promote personal information protection through the mix of multiple regulatory modalities including norms, market, law, policy, technology and etc.

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

There were no gender issues for this forum.


Open Forum
Updated: Tue, 26/11/2019 - 16:00
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

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

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Several lines of action were mentioned by the panellists:

- a systematic reform addressing micro-targeting;

- completing the GDPR reform;

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

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

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

Online participants - unknown. No questions from online participants.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Tue, 10/12/2019 - 12:46
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

  • Assess the need and explore the opportunities to launch an Arab Consultation Process to discuss shared values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture; and related regional implications. 
  • What are the best appropriate architectures for a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation that fit with the fast-changing digital age in an agile matter? 
  • Inspired from the outcomes of the UN SG Panel and Report on DC, how to develop the appropriate Digital Cooperation conceptual regional model?
2. Discussion Areas:

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

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

Preparation for an Arab event during the fifth Arab IGF (Cairo 15-16 Jan 2020), building on this open forum, to outreach to the Arab IGF community, and build consensus and momentum at the Arab level, with the aim to contribute to the UNGA75, and envisaged global commitments.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite participants: 30

Online participants: 1

Women participation: 15 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

There was no specific focus on gender dimension.


Open Forum
Updated: Mon, 09/12/2019 - 14:18
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

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

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

6. Estimated Participation:

80 (45 women) onsite participants


Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 20/11/2019 - 12:07
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

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

Open Forum
Updated: Thu, 12/12/2019 - 13:56
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

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

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

With the advent of new technologies and applications that keep engendering new demands and challenges, it’s increasingly clear that the international cyberspace governance is not merely a technical issue but a holistic one. All parties, including governments, international organizations, Internet companies, technology communities, non-governmental institutions and individual citizens should all play their role through effective and constructive cooperation to build a  safer and healthier cyberspace. During such collaborative process, we must keep in mind that countries under various development stages have their respective challenges both domestically and externally. Each and every country has the right to choose its way of development in cyberspace. Policymakers are not seeking an identical way forward but the mutual trust on which the global rules and norms for cyberspace could be built.

The international community should work far more closely to deepen strategic mutual trust, improve the governance mechanisms and promote the implementation of rules in order to improve the global Internet governance process to reach a new stage.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

IGf serves as a way to make people understand what are the opportunities and challenges brought by ICTs to countries under their variant development stages, so as to understand their mentality and practices in the Internet governance measures. Based on such understanding, our respective roles are clear as much as the resources we need. All these shall serve as a catalyst for further dialogue, negotiation, and cooperation featuring openness, transparency and efficiency, which in turn can help us to define what a smart political resolution should be.

It is recommended to summarize and publish the consensus and divergence that existed at IGF. In this way, the IGF will substantially expand the consensus on Internet-related issues.We should make the IGF more planable. 

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Genderissues were not discussed at the forum.


Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 20/11/2019 - 18:21
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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


Open Forum
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 02:47
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Guiding policy questions for our speakers include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Estimated Participation:

Total onsite: 110

Total online: 8

 

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

Total onsite: 32

Total online: Cannot indicate online number of women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Tue, 03/12/2019 - 13:48
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can the multi-stakeholder discussion taking place at IGF can be reinforced by the inputs of a structured view of citizens of the world on the Future of the Internet?
  2. How can we address all the issues pointed out by ordinary citizens in a renewed decision model?

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

 

2. Discussion Areas:

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

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

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

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

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 20:37
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

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

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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

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

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

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

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

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

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Thu, 07/11/2019 - 10:41
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

key questions:

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

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


Open Forum
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 20:53
Digital Inclusion

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

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 21:58
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

QUESTIONS:

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

EXPECTATIONS:

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

There was broad consensus that:

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

Open Forum
Updated: Sat, 26/10/2019 - 06:10
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

Questions for Breakout Groups

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

Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 02:20
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

The session plans to discuss priorities in the implementation of OECD’s AI Principles from stakeholders’ perspective, including that of government, business, technical community, civil society and intergovernmental organisations. The session also plans to identify the role of OECD’s Policy Observatory as a collaborative platform on AI policy facilitating knowledge-sharing, measurement and analysis.

2. Discussion Areas:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

There was also a broad agreement on the importance of public-private partnerships and a multi-stakohodler approach to AI policy, acknowledging the role of all stakeholders in the AI lifecycle and the implementation of principles for trustworthy / human-centric AI. Microsoft and IEEE suggested their engagement and technical support in the policy making through the partnership.

With respect to the future contribution, the OECD would be glad to provide input to the IGF the findings from, and the updates of, the AI Policy Observatory.  

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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

8. Session Outputs:

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

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

G20 AI Principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Singapore Government “Model AI Governance Framework”:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 04/12/2019 - 11:12
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

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

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

2. Discussion Areas:

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

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

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

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

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

  • A Whatsapp announcement on suing commercial companies who seek to undermine their platform
  • Facebook measures, including the new content oversight board, the ‘remove, reduce, inform’ policy, increased takedowns of inauthentic coordinated behaviour which are then publicly announced, and increasing partnerships with researchers.
  • The International Factchecking Network which is professionalising standards for fact checking organisations

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

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

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

6. Estimated Participation:

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

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

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

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


Open Forum
Updated: Mon, 18/11/2019 - 18:29
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

What are the challenges and opportunities of information sharing?

How do different jurisdictions treat this issue?

What are lessons for promoting cooperation and information sharing

 

 


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 21:02
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. Why are children's views and experiences relevant to different stakeholders of the digital environment?
  2. What responsibility do society, politics and business have for a good and safe growing up in the digital environment and the Internet?
  3. What are good practise examples to involve perspectives of children effectively and responsibly?
  4. Which tools and methods could enable companies and politics to better involve the perspectives of children and adolescents?
2. Discussion Areas:
  • Someone indicated the challenge, of while involving perspectives of children effectively how can there be process of productive feedback between the differenct acteurs being included.
  • Creating an app tackling the frustration of finishing something. App with a timer to remind after dinner or so

Questions

  • Someone brought forward the issue of fairness. It's an issue of having access to mobile devices and technology in general. Further, the chance to express their own opinion. Having an output to speak out, to family, friends or even media. Third, the awareness of students on internet issues not noing or not having the feeling their voices are important and respected. These three aspects should be looked at in trying to increase and enable child participation.
  • An online participant made the point that government and companies have not kept up their role to bring awaereness of issues and dangers from children in the internet.
  • The panel argued that we can not wait on governments and public sector to push on including children and recognizing child rights. It can be done by non-profit or civil society organizations by incuding childrens perspective, lobbying and realizing processes on their behalf.
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  • Governance issue:
    • Web rangers project as a project on all schools in the world to tackle digital literacy
  • Economic issue:
    • Designers (of companies) including the perspectives of children while respecting the child rights
  • Social issues
    • Including all perspectives of institutions (schools, curriculars) children and parents in decision making processes
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • Web Rangers Project by Media Monitoring Africa
    • Workshops for digital literacy
    • Challenges concerniong digital literacy and in the digital environment
    • Creating video about what they learned, show other young people about its process and sharing the experience on its mistakes and learnings in relation to digital literacy
    • Feeling confident and free in the digital environment
  • D4CR – designing four childrens rights
    • Technology offers great opportunity but also dangers
    • Design perspective on creating the internet looking at the perpectives of children
      • Designers are mediators, too
    • Ethical design: how can designers include the perspectives of children
      • How can you give children the right tools?
    • A new normal: „childrens best interests first“
    • Goal: A generation that is more critical and has the right tools
  • Minds and makers
    • Human centered design
    • Bases: qualitative user research
    • Kids initiative to raise awareness for inclusion (Aktion Mensch)
      • Enabling kids with and without abilities to voice there interests and needs
      • Went to schools with disadvantaged children and did projects
    • School is open – inlclusive university praxis school
      • Co-creation workshops with parents
      • Getting all perspectives: schools, children and parents
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  • The issue of digital literacy could be tackled by projects such as the web rangers project by children having workshops on digital literacy and sharing those experience and their path via social media for other children to be educated as well or become enabled as well.
  • By including childrens perspective in designing internet services companies can create and adminsiter their products or platforms respecting child rights.
  • The aspect of fairness, access and voice being three fundamental aspects for the ability for children to participate.
6. Estimated Participation:

onsite participants: around 30, women: 15

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

We didn't discuss gender issues


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 23:55
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

• How can we support the development of digital public goods such as common data infrastructures to train artificial intelligences, e.g. for voice recognition technology in underrepresented languages?

• How can we develop sustainable governance models for data commons based on a multi-stakeholder approach?

• Which role can data commons play as an instrument of innovation policy and means to stimulate supply and demand for innovative technological solutions?

2. Discussion Areas:

The group discussed the areas of (1) institutions and data governance structured needed to govern and maintain the commons successfully, (2) incentivising structures and community engagament mechanisms for the collection of open data (supply) and how to build an ecosystem around them to stimulate the use of these datasets (demand) and (3) private vs. personal data ownership and the rights of the data holder.

In the discussion, the group tended towards a data governance model in the sense of "commons" as opposed to "public goods". There was a controversy around data ownership: One participant held the view that all data are intangible assets. But if data is the new oil, we have to study what oil actually did to people. Other participants held the view that data should not be a commodity at all, rather a common infrastructure. Also, sharing data means to give something away, benefits need to be returned to the communities who are the source of data (which is seldomly the case). The key to collect high quality data and use it effectively is by having more data commons and having capacity building for us to be able to use it.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The group discussed two key policy questions regarding data governance: (1) whether to aspire for data as a commons in the sense that a community will decide about all governance questions and collectively maintain the data vs. data as public good that is maintained by the stateThere is a need to clarify non-profit vs for profit-uses of data. Background: One participant held the view that all data are intangible assets. Individuals can give data in exchange for a service. Companies transform data to money through analysis – and offer customers (you) the product. (2) It was discussed how value can be created from data commons and data as public goods. While open data in theory is available to all, creating value from it requires economic and technical means that are unequally distributed. To level the playing field, it is not enough to invest in data collection. (Policy) solutions are needed to democratize the tools needed to extract value from data, that is, e.g. skills building and investment in high-value public datasets. At the same time, building an ecosystem around a public good/commons should follow potential use cases from the beginning.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Data commons initiatives mentioned included the collection of open voice data through Mozilla Common Voice Project and the collection of accessibility information based on the Open Streetmap wheelmap.org. On the policy level, the example of a systematic judicial policy on open data in Brazil was mentioned as well as proposals to regulat data sharing for SMEs on the EU level.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  • Capacity building to build demand for data commons
  • Strengthen data user communities, i.e. journalism, science – not everyone can become a data scientist
  • Crisis as driver of change” approach: Create an ecosystem to solve concrete global problems, like climate - build commons around concrete use cases with a high level of interest from different stakeholders
  • tackle the disconnection between data and the subject in data collection: While raw data is often directly associated with a person, the whole dataset is conceptulized as already new intellectual work with different principles
6. Estimated Participation:

80 participants, of which around 40% have been women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender was discussed in terms of biases in existing and newly collected data sets. Even if data is crowdsourced, biases will prevail. One concrete example: open voice data is heavily biased towards male speakers.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 00:05
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Ethical, political, legal and regulatory dimensions for new technologies:

  • What is the relationship between technological, economic, ethical, political considerations and legal and regulatory frameworks in data-driven technologies?
  • How are they connected and what may happen if those relationships undergo changes?

Who holds the data necessary for democratic decision-making? 

How can we support digital sovereignty based on democratic values?

What influence do filter bubbles and algorithms have on our social coexistence?

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that we should have a discussion on data governance including different stakeholder groups.The importance of data for development, identity as well as for our country and everyday lifes was commonly stated. A main theme was how to design systems in a proper user-oriented way. No agreement could be found on to what extent technological solution are able to solve the problems of data privacy and regulation or user behavior within the data governance discussion. Another disagreement was about to what extent democratic decision making processes are shaking in their core or on the other hand are stable, trustworthy and secure.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

We have to discuss data governance including different stakeholder groups.

We have to create a better way of using data; e.g. a better data documentation standard.

We have to be engaged and have to look after the existing democratic procedures and values.

We do not have to re-invent everything. We have laws, standards on which we can built on.

We need national automated decision making strategies.

We should support participative technical development; privacy by design and support Open Source Projects.

Politics should support fora where every stakeholder group is involved in participative technological development to foster co-design.

Subsidies and incentives for peoples especially in rural areas to support common technological integration.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • Global identity: project three words.
  • Freedom information right,
  • Projects to inform the citizens, e.g. Frag den Staat / My data

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  • Open data including better data documentation
  • Privacy by design
  • Open Source movement
  • Co-Design
6. Estimated Participation:

est. 50 onsite participants, est. 10 online participants, est. 25 women present onsite, est. 4 women online.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Reaching out for user that are a minority within the digital community. Bring technology to rural areas and involve older people as well as all group that are not involved in technological development until now. Create fora to bring everyone together to co-design and identify opportunities.

Distinction for digital products might be introduced according to their development based on inclusion of different stakeholder groups, e.g. elderly, women.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 26/11/2019 - 22:06
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. What is tech nationalism and how widespread is it in the developed and developing world?

2. How much of the concern about foreign equipment, software and data use is motivated by economic protectionism and/or great power military rivalry rather than end user cybersecurity?

3. How is it possible to reconcile national cybersecurity with globalized markets for software, services and equipment in the digital economy? Is tech nationalism compatible with multistakeholder governance of the Internet?

We expect discussion and debate on these questions to clarify the nature of the growing conflict over global 5G buildout and allow policy makers to reach consensus on a better path forward.

 

2. Discussion Areas:

There was agreement on a general definition of tech nationalism. It is the belief that technology is an instrument for national power competition and that globalized tech markets need to be restricted in order to weaken rival states and/or strengthen domestic states. Tech nationalism springs from the same well as anti-immigration and trade protectionism. There was also recognition that in India private interests promote and benefit from tech nationalism. While no panelist defended tech nationalism per se, there was a lot of disagreement about whether Huawei is just another vendor or an exceptional case because of its origin in a large, powerful authoritarian state. China’s restrictions on foreign entry into its own market exacerbates that problem.  

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

There was no agreement on policy prescriptions. The Australian ambassador defended his country’s decision to exclude Huawei from their infrastructure and Europe’s JP Kleinhans insisted that the national origin of a vendor affects its trustworthiness, while Morrissey of Huawei countered that robust cybersecurity protections, not national origin per se, are what matter, and Mueller noted that refusal by American authorities to trust Chinese market actors would eventually lead to similar forms of treatment of American companies by China and other countries.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The Internet Governance Project at Georgia Institute of Technology is publishing critical analyses of tech nationalist policies in the US.

https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/10/16/lets-have-an-honest-conversation-about-huawei/

https://www.internetgovernance.org/2019/10/25/part-2-lets-have-an-honest-conversation-about-huawei/

Jyoti Panday’s has written several papers on The Political Economy of Data Localization and frameworks for data governance in India, including an analysis of RBI’s Quest to Have All Payment Data Stored Within India's National Boundaries.

https://www.epw.in/journal/2017/51/privacy-after-puttaswamy-judgment/data-protection-social-value.html?0=ip_login_no_cache%3D7873034eafb0d365474e5d7aacb13629

https://thewire.in/business/rbi-payment-data-localisation-india

Panday also mentioned India’s Report of the High Level Committee for 5G (5GHLF) prepared by Departments of Electronics and IT, Science and Technology, and Telecommunications.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Due to the lack of consensus on some of the basic facts and normative evaluations, and the time spent debating those, there were no specific ideas agreed on how progress might be made.

6. Estimated Participation:

The room was too full and about 20 people had to stand and many others were not allowed into the room. A rough estimate is that about 40% of the attendees were women. 

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session did not discuss gender issues. 


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 15/11/2019 - 22:50
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. Is digital sovereignty compatible with the globalized access provided by the Internet protocols? What is gained and what is lost by trying to make cyberspace conform to principles of territorial sovereignty?
  2. Why and how are countries trying to create "national Internets?" Are these efforts compatible with a global internet or will they lead to fragmentation of the infrastructure or the services and processes that it supports?
  3. How do attempts by some countries to create a "sovereign Internet" affect the human rights of Internet users? How does sovereignty in cyberspace affect the security and privacy of Internet users?

We expect the discussion of these questions to facilitate better cooperation in cyberspace by revealing the contradictions and problems posed by assertions of territorial sovereignty and clearing up our thinking on how states need to interact in cyberspace


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 08:07
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The UNGGE cyber norms have been designed with international peace and security in mind - specifically, with providing the kind of predictability that helps states avoid an unintended escalation of tension into dangerous kinetic conflict. As such, they have been written in rather abstract terms using open, flexible language. 

However, with the growing emphasis on implementation of the proposed norms, this diplomatic process now comes into conversation (or collision) with the pragmatic reality of how security practitioners work on the ‘front line’ when they collaborate to respond to cyber incidents. Here, we find a preference for much more specificity and clarity. 

This workshop brought out the (sometimes conflicting) views on the operationalisation of cyber norms. We asked how the proposed norms could be mapped onto the incidents. Did the norms have a positive impact on incident response in these scenarios? Did they have negative (unintended) consequences? Were they relevant?

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad agreement that the UNGGE Norm 8/H is important - [...states should respond to requests for assistance…]. However, there were several interventions that raised questions about who exactly would issue and respond to such a request. In many instances, the technical community pointed out, these requests would not naturally loop in the national CERT or other governmental actors. Indeed, doing so could potentially introduce a level of latency that would undermine rather than support cyber security practitioners to resolve an incident.

There was also broad agreement that the UNGGE norms are somewhat abstract. They lack the specificity that the technical community feels would be required to guide their actions, but the governmental policy representative pointed out that they were not written with this operational level in mind. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

We identified at least three key questions to advancing the dialogue between the technical and policy communities in the implementation of cyber norms:

  • "What kind of implementation are we referring to?" The dialogue between the incident response community and policy community needs to advance in considering what kind of implementation is achievable and desirable for both ends. Second, both communities operate in different  
  • "What are the mechanisms necessary to respond in time?" Both communities have different understandings of temporality. On the one hand, the technical experts highlighted the inherently immediacy of response required to handle and manage incidents. On the other hand,  
  • "How can we advance the conversation (knowledge exchange, trust-building) between both communities?"  
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The technical community (CSIRTs and network operators) had a productive dialogue with the policy community on Cybernorms by expanding on a UNGGE Norm as an example (that about answering to appropriate requests for assistance), in light of cybersecurity incidents, as lived by the technical players that first responded to them.

Speakers from the technical community presented stories about the Estonian cyberattacks in 2007, Bank Heist in Bangladesh in 2016, and the NotPetya and Wannacry incidents in 2017. Looking at these incidents from the perspective of how the Norm supported these response activities, the group proposed a new framework of analysis to measure the value of the norms and their applicability in real world situations.

6. Estimated Participation:

Approx. 50 people in the room. Fair gender and geographic representation among speakers. Slightly less women than men in the room.

8. Session Outputs:
  • A proposed approach to scrutinize norms implementation through a case-study analysis of incident and response to incidents that have occurred in the past. Through the lense of practical experience, the effectiveness of these norms can be evaluated.
  • That this approach can help to bridge a dialogue between policy and technical communities, raising understanding of different mindsets and communities with different objectives. Also, this dialogue through practical examples can inform future norm-developing processes by considering lessons learned and preventing un-intended consequences.
  • On the normative matter of "Appropriatee requests for assistance" participants agreed that introducing latency can undermine incident response, also can damage established informal networks of trust.

Workshop
Updated: Tue, 03/12/2019 - 06:42
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. How can universal design principles for accessibility be advanced across the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities?
2. What can the IGF community do to further collaboration to realize the potential of the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities?
3. What priorities and/or changes are needed from an Internet governance policy standpoint to accelerate progress towards a more inclusive internet for persons with disabilities?

We expect session participants to engage on how universal design principles for accessibility be advanced across the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities, and to capture and understand the uses of ICTs enabled by the Internet that are, today, empowering persons with disabilities. We expect session participants to learn about what the IGF community do to further action and cross-sector collaboration to realize the potential of the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities.

2. Discussion Areas:

The moderator, panelists, and workshop attendees discussed innovative uses of ICTs for the empowerment of persons with disabilities, covering different approaches taken to address disability inclusion in their regions and diverse experiences. Notably, robust discussion included:

  • The scope of the term "disability" (with discussion of including not only certain physical, but also cognitive and learning, disabilities);
  • The need for workforce training/education to bring those with disabilities into the workforce;
  • The role of open and consensus-based standardization activities;
  • The need to mitigate human biases in new artificial intelligence solutions;
  • How disability inclusion makes good business sense via widening a products potential user base;
  • Government roles and efforts in taking in feedback on disability acces and responding to identified needs; and
  • Whether focus should begin with "low-hanging fruit" or alternatively on the most marginalized disabled populations.

Participants discussed the pros and cons related to the above areas.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Policy recommendations identified during the workshop included:

  • An increased role in discussing and sharing information with respect to disability access to ICTs in key fora including the IGF;
  • Governments taking a more focused effort to understand the needs of those with all disabilities;
  • Government grants to support universal design practices, potentially funded via universal service fund-style approaches;
  • Development of accessibility best practices for new ICTs, building on robust standardization efforts (e.g., W3C) and incorporating input from those with disabilities;
  • Global adoption and implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
  • Governments and private sector utilizing procurement policies to advance disability access to ICTs to lead by example; and
  • Governments accellerating disability access by buidling capacity for access to ICTs (e.g., infrastructure, harmonized data flows, etc.) and ensuring that resources are used in the most efficient way possible.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Other initiatves addressing this session included:

  • Canada Radio and Television Commission's Video Relay Service
  • Mozambique's universal service fund approach to supporting disability access to ICTs
  • Seeing AI, a leading software accessibility tool for the blind by Microsoft
  • Optikey https://github.com/OptiKey/OptiKey/wiki
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Panelists and session participants discussed:

  • What kind of disabilities ought to be included and considered under "disability policy" - while it was acknowledged that most policies for disability access address auditory, visual, and sometimes mobility, many do not fully consider cognitive and learning disabilities. It was agreed that this definitional baseline should be immediately addressed by policymakers to take a broader approach to the term "disability".
  • Where to most appropriately act in the short-term. On one hand, some advocated for tackling the lowest-hanging fruit (i.e., areas of disability access impacting the widest community or communities); others advocated for beginning with addressing the most marginalized communities first to ensure that no one is left behind.
  • Emphasis was placed on effective resource management by governments and policymakers as they address disability access to ICTs.
6. Estimated Participation:

Total onsite/online participants: 35 (including 2 with mobility disabilities, 2 with visual disabilities, 1 with autism)

Total onsite/online female participants: 15

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Disability access issues were acknowledged as issues that impact individuals of all genders, but that females with disabilities may be more so affected by a lack of accomodations to ICTs (along with other populations that may be marginalized).

8. Session Outputs:

Panelists and participants of this session left with an improved understanding of the uses of ICTs enabled by the Internet that are, today, empowering persons with disabilities, as well as what is coming down the pipeline; that the IGF community should do more to further action and cross-sector collaboration to realize the potential of the internet to improve the experience of those with disabilities; an appreciation for the diverse perspectives regarding priorities and changes needed from an Internet governance policy standpoint to accelerate progress towards a more inclusive internet for persons with disabilities; and developed concrete recommendations for improving disability access to ICTs in the short-term and long-term. There is also the potential for a follow-on session to occur during the upcoming ICT4D Non-Conference 2020 (https://ictrd2020.org).


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 10:05
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

(1) How far do participants in multistakeholderism at ICANN perceive inequalities of influence in the regime, particularly on lines of north-south, gender, age, language, and race categories?

(2) How far do participants in multistakeholderism at ICANN regard these inequalities of influence to be problematic for the legitimacy of ICANN?

(3) What innovative steps - beyond what ICANN already does - could be taken to reduce these inequalities and achieve a more inclusive multistakeholder regime at ICANN?

2. Discussion Areas:

There was consensus that inclusion and (in)equality is a major issue and challenge for multistakeholder governance of the Internet through ICANN and other institutions.

Some diversity of perspective emerged regarding the relative priority between inclusion and other concerns (e.g. market development and efficient decision-making). Most participants emphasised that inclusion contributed to other objectives, but several speakers also noted possible trade-offs.

It was repeatedly stressed that 'openness' in multistakeholder governance is not the same thing as 'inclusivity' and 'meaningful participation'. One needs carefully to identify structural inhibitors within 'open' participation.

The discussion considered how people in more excluded positions tend to perceive larger and more problematic inequalities than people with more access and influence. Those in power can therefore underestimate the degree to which marginalised people feel constrained from participating. A particular observation was that the ICANN board generally saw less problems of inequality by age, geography, language, and race/ethnicity than the ICANN community and ICANN staff.

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Policymakers need to talk openly, seriously and precisely about inequalities in Internet governance.

Studies such as the one discussed in this session can provide concrete data for an informed, direct, reflective consideration of the sensitive issue of structural power in multistakeholder governance.

Consider whether alternative technologies of deliberation - away from heavy reliance on email and conference calls - could encourage more inclusive participation in policy development at ICANN.

When deliberating about inclusion and how to improve it, policymakers can be more sensitive to (and aware of their tendency to underestimate) the ways and degrees that people in more subordinated positions experience exclusion.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The discussion noted various initiatives taken by ICANN to address inclusion issues, as well as their limitations.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

See point 3

6. Estimated Participation:

80 participants onsite

 

Number of online participants unclear (our online moderator was taken ill just before the session - the technicians kept the remote line open, but did not moderate.

 

Roughly even numbers of women and men in the audience. Female chair, male presenter, two female and one male panelist. Contributions from the floor from 3 women and 5 men.
 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender inequality was one of the five types of structural inequality put in focus. Much discussion compared the situation around gender inequalities with circumstances related to age, geography, language, and race/ethnicity. One woman in the audience wondered about perceptions of gender inequality at ICANN when many leading positions are taken by women.

8. Session Outputs:

The session has a background paper.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 12/12/2019 - 02:25
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions

1. Asia-Pacific Region's practices and attempts in personal information protection.

2. Different parties' (including government, civil society, enterprises, research institutions and think tank) roles and responsibilities.

3. The balance between technology innovation and information protection.

Expectations

1. Effectively publicize the measures and practices of personal information protection in the Asia Pacific Region.

2. Enhance participants’ mutual understanding on the role that different subjects can play in personal information protection

3. Enhance dialogue on personal information protection in different countries in the Asia Pacific region by initiating dialogue for sharing excellent practise and experience.

2. Discussion Areas:

The workshop focused on personal information protection in the current context, by reflecting on existing data protection regulations in Asia-Pacific region. The workshop was designed for participants to share views on different parties’ roles in personal information protection.

There was broad support for the view that the right to personal information & privacy is a fundamental right for everyone. Each party should play effective role in the process of personal information protection. Some of the panelists also indicates that it is going to be a huge challenge for government, civil society, technical community and private sectors to reconcile economic, cultural, technical, and security perspectives on data in existing and future policies. The exchange in Asia-Pacific should be richer and more active.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Personal information protection is becoming a more and more severe issue not only in Asia-Pacific region but the entire world. To further strengthen IGF's role in global data governance, it is suggested that more practical measures should be taken, such as call for best practices, successful cases exhibition, data protection compliance training, etc.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Some panelists shared information about China regulatory agencies' special clean-up campaigns which targeting apps that collect and use personal information illegally. Apart from the government and civil societies’endeavors in this campaign, it also encourages netizens to report violation behaviors in apps, which get individuals fully involved in the process of personal information protection.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

More active discussions and research works among different regions and countries should be conducted. With a historical advantage in the field of Internet governance, as well as the support from the UN, IGF is always an effective platform for in-depth communication.

6. Estimated Participation:

We have at around 50 on-site participants and 10 online (zoom) participants, according to a rough tally, 40 percent of them are women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

It has been an consensus that the legal protection of personal information and privacy should be the basic right for everyone, no matter what the person's gender, region or community. One of the panelist even indicated that in some country in Asia Pacific, women's privacy right was protected ahead of men's right.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 07:35
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy questions:

  1. Reasons behind  proliferation of misinformation and fake news. Similarity and dissimilarity  of its manifestation in different countries and regions.
  2. Adequacy of  initiatives  taken so far
  3. Balancing moderation by government and private actors, while ensuring FOE and privacy of users to curb misinformation. Building  trust and accountability on the internet platforms and government interventions.
  4. Best practices and approaches to counter misinformation while  ensuring Freedom of speech, neutrality and legal certainty.
  5. Role of  multistakeholder process, in mitigating disinformation and fake news

Expectations:

  1. Facilitate a debate for  shaping the evolution of norms, principles, best practices of online disinformation and fake news refutation and model of IG.
  2. Identify differing viewpoints and approaches on using AI to curb misinformation
  3. Policy recommendations and key messages report to the IGF community
  4. Collaboration amongst speakers, participants on fake news and disinformation refutation and researches.

 

2. Discussion Areas:

The panel discussed four policy questions:

1) the reasons of the proliferation of misinformation and fake news in different countries and regions;

2) the initiatives (policy,  law, technical, capacity building) and best practices taken so far by different stakeholders to curb spread of misinformation and fake news globally, regionally and within nations;

3) the role of government in moderate misinformation and fake news while ensuring freedom of expression and privacy of users;

4) Policy recommendation and suggestions for better approaches and solutions.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Understand the nuances misinformation phenomenon. Consider how different regional, national, local contexts, demographics, platforms interact with information.

Need three level analysis to understand and address the issues: macro (states, political,legal system), meso (national media, civil society), and micro (individuals).

Need multistakeholder and multidisciplinary approaches. While technology (blockchain) can help refuting misinformation, but cannot solve complex societal issues.

Need to promote media literacy and fact-checking. Governments and industry need to promote media literacy for regulating and refuting dissemination of misinformation/fake news.

Governance measures: collaboration, self-governance, developing quality journalism, using fact-checking are important than regulatory tools. Law should be the last resort.

 

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Fact checking project: Panelist created a blockchain-based global registry of fact checks produced by fact checkers: https://faktaassistenten.sh.se/?p=240

Trust building project:  Panelist conducting a multi-method study to understand people's trust in the media: social media, and news.

Platform’s rumour refuting project: Sina Weibo, China, launched rumor refuting project to collect daily rumors, publicize them, introduced user credit with penalty of deduction of score on speading rumour in different levels.  

Media Literacy: Panelist shared on media literacy campaign in India among youth to build their capacity and awareness on critical thinking, highlighting need for more initiative across different age groups.

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Understanding multidimensional nature of trust.

Need for robust, diverse, national media ecosystems; multistakeholder and multidisciplinary collaborative approach.

Promoting self-governance, developing quality journalism, fact-checking and media literacy.

Government needs to take regulatory measures while being transparent, accountable, scrutinizing  their actions and processes

Policy discussion should understand nuances of misinformation phenomenon, consider how different regional, national, local contexts; age groups; platforms interact with authentic information and disinformation.

All of these ideas and suggestions are within IGF’s ecosystem.

6. Estimated Participation:

70  onsite and 6 online. YouTube participants not counted. 35 women particpants on site

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session discussed the age and gender factor in affecting people’s trust in information and their media literacy levels.


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 03:41
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. How do we move beyond the Brussels Principles for the Sale of Medicines Over the Internet [www.brusselsprinciples.org] towards standards and guidelines that aim to protect public health and consumer choice? We hope to survey outstanding digital governance and regulatory challenges, while exploring potential regulatory, legislative and policy opportunities.

2. The Internet & Jurisdiction Global Status Report 2019 highlights the lack of international coordination and coherence to address cross-border legal and regulatory challenges associated with the Internet. Can the multi-stakeholder approach that led to the Brussels Principles serve as a model for advancing the discussion of digital governance of internet pharmacies?

3. What are the opportunities and challenges associated with the dot-pharmacy top-level domain as a digital governance approach to regulating internet pharmacies? We hope to examine how the dot-pharmacy domain is managed, including how minor adjustments could enable a ‘white list’ model that would improve consumer safety and choice.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the idea that people should have a right to legally order medicine online.

It was understood that there is a need to think of a framework for the theme that surpasses jurisdictional limitations.

It was stressed that a norms-based approach is important to engage correctly with relevant issues.

It was agreed that the debate of health online touches upon many core Internet Governance themes and needs to be further studied under this lens.

The idea of the refinement of blacklists and whitelists to identify rogue pharmacies and protect costumers was agreed upon by a significant variety of stakeholders.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Academic: the study of a further approximation between Internet Governance and Global Governance literature focused on health needs to be carried out for the theme to be better understood by both fields, creating a functional dialogue space.

Technical: the ability to more efficiently combat malicious actors within this environment is crucial, and can be achieved by a series of measures, which include the establishment of a Trusted Notifier program on registries, blacklists, or a more comprehensive whitelist approach.

IGF: even though maintenance of health is the most important concern of a human being, the theme has very little visibility within this arena. A member of the audience suggested that the incorporation of discussions into main sessions would present a way to create more awareness.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The "Brussels Principles" were discussed at great length.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The IGF ecosystem is still too disconnected from the online health debate, and more stakeholders need to be brought into it to carry out more conversations. Support needs to come from the organization for such an inclusion to be a real possibility.

6. Estimated Participation:

Participants: 20, Women: 10.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session discussed access to health online in relation to all people.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 10/12/2019 - 03:27
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions: 

1) Why cyberbullying is essential to be taken seriously by international community and what is the bottleneck to solve this problem?

2) Who/ which stakeholder is primarily responsible for protecting children from cyberbullying?

3) To what extent can digital literacy education increase the capacity of resilience and self-protection of children from cyberbullying?

Expectation:

Through the discussion, we want to appeal to all the stakeholders to take their responsibilities in the protection of children online. And we hope our paticipants share their geniu insights on this issue and come up with practicle solutions to tackle cyberbullying on children, and to enhance their digital literacy. 

2. Discussion Areas:

The discussion is divided into two sections. The first round of discussion mainly focused on explaining the significance and overall situation about dealing with cyberbullying on Children. In this part all of the speakers have a consensus that online children protection is very important and urgent. To start with, rapporteur from CFIS delivered the report of the survey on the situation of cyberbullying on children in China. This report shows that although the percentage of children who once experienced cyberbullying is only around 7 or 8, the actual number of these children is still very large. Representative from UNICEF, Steven Vosloo introduced the basic definition and framework of cyberbullying and digital literacy. He mentioned that Digital literacy refers to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that allow children to flourish and thrive in an increasingly global digital world, being both safe and empowered, in ways that are appropriate to their age and local cultures and contexts. Steven Vosloo suggested to take holistic strategy to deal with cyberbullying on children and other online risks. Chairwoman from Digital Opportunity Foundation, Jutta Croll stressed that people should realize the severity of cyberbullying, and the core of children online protection is to value the equal right for children to use Internet. Many of the audiences show their agreement to her point. The second round of discussion mainly focused on the responsibility for different stakeholders. In this part, representative from Tencent introduced their practice in children online protection and digital literacy education. Many support what Tencent have done, but a few worried about children’s privilege of online privacy and proposed questions about the usage of children's digital data. Tencent answered that children’s data will be used when and only when criminals happened on children.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Steven Vosloo mentioned that it was very crucial to actually listen to what children say to cyberbullying. We should really take children's consideration of cyberbullying into the law or policy making process. And to tackle with cyberbullying and other online risks, he suggested a more holistic strategy and localized approach should be adopted. In his words, digital literacy is like a “bullet proof vest”, which give children a protection from bullet but it can’t stop bullets.

Jutta Croll think the core of children online protection is to respect children's best interest. Although the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child doesn’t have terms specially aimed at children online protection, the basic spirit and principles should be applied when tackling online problems against children. Every stakeholder, not only teachers and children, should take their responsibilities.

Tencent mentioned that as private sectors and leading Internet company in China, they will take more social responsibility on this issue, and making its platform more child-friendly. They will actively cooperate with government and schools, develop the technology to make it more easy for children to complain about cyberbullying and other harmful information online. 

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

UNICEF country and regional offices reporting on 40 initiatives. 25 initiatives aim at building competencies and skills, 19 focus on internet safety (with 8 initiatives covering both). 17 projects work with young children, 16 with adolescents and 3 with both. 23 initiatives are in formal learning contexts, and 24 in non-formal learning environments (with 11 initiatives covering both)

CFIS conducted a survey around China to study the extend of children's awareness of cyberbullying, the way children use to tackle with cyberbullying, and the level of children' s digital literacy. 

Tencent launched a project called HUMIAO, cybersecurity entering school.  It is against pornography and illegal publications on Tencent.  This project is from 2017. Has experienced three years of improvement and upgrade and now tencent already established a comprehensive digital literacy education system which is for children. HUMIAO offers online and offline courses for students, parents and teachers.  The teaching method including role play of case analysis and we will talk about digital literacy, online self‑protection and reasonable usage of the Internet.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

During the meeting, the speakers mentioned many times that to tackle with cyberbullying on children, we need a holistic strategy. Every stakeholder should contribute to this issue. Steven Vosloo gave an example about a new feature developed by Instagram that could flag the potential harmful comments to the users, which helped in reducing the bad information. The example indicate that we should tackle this issue with comprehensive methods including digital literacy education, new technology like AI, legislation and so on.

 

6. Estimated Participation:

There were 26 online participants.

The total number of women present online and onsite is around 45.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

no gender issues involved

8. Session Outputs:

(1) The status quo of cyberbullying of children cannot be ignored, and the international community should work together to address it. In order to promote on-site exchanges and discussions, during the preparation of the seminar, CFIS conducted a questionnaire survey on the situation of Chinese children suffering from cyberbullying, and presented the results of the survey in the form of a report. According to the report, we know that the proportion of children who have actually experienced cyberbullying in China is low. However, due to the large number of children, the actual number represented by this proportion cannot be ignored. The relevant UNICEF report also pointed out that with the rapid popularization and development of the Internet, children are becoming aboriginal people on the Internet. Internet brings opportunities to children, but also comes with risks such as cyberbullying and privacy leakage. Children's online protection is an issue that needs to be addressed jointly by countries around the world.

 

(2) Cyberbullying on children is only a component of children's online protection. In order to better deal with this problem, it should be promoted from both theoretical and practical aspects. The international community should work together and propose a practical theoretical framework to deal with the problem of children's cyberbullying to guide practice. In the process of practice, pay attention to the use of comprehensive governance methods to enhance children's own digital media literacy while strengthening the responsibilities of all parties, and Combining the social and cultural background of the country, put forward the most suitable solution for the country's national conditions.

All responsible stakeholders should take proactive actions. In this seminar, CFIS introduced the attending audience to various work including the Children Online Protection Symposium with UNICEF on children's Internet protection since its establishment one year ago.

The representative from Tencent introduced the “Penguin Accompanied Growth” project, a children’s online rights protection project, and shared Tencent ’s research results and practices in developing children ’s digital literacy education from four aspects: theoretical research, educational practice, platform governance, and social collaboration. experience. Introduced the situational teaching and role exchange modes adopted in the classroom. I hope that through this literacy education, more minors will realize the importance of self-discipline of online behavior, and secondly, they will continue to improve their resistance to stress and stress. Anti-frustration ability to better carry out online life.

Representatives of social organizations from Germany and Nepal also described their organizations' practices in the area of children's Internet protection. The representative of Germany particularly pointed out that although the relevant UN provisions on child protection do not specifically address the issue of children's Internet protection, their basic principles and spirit still apply to the protection of children's rights in the Internet era. The international community regarding children's Internet protection should adhere to the child's own interests as the center, listen to children's voices, protect children's rights and opportunities to explore the online world independently, and find an optimal balance between taking control measures and ensuring that children use the Internet equally and freely Point, combined with science and technology, education and other means for comprehensive governance.

 

(3) Countries should integrate digital literacy education into their school curricula according to their own circumstances. Representatives from all parties considered that cyberbullying on children is an urgent and long-term task. Incorporating into the school curriculum can largely help children properly face and handle cyberbullying and enhance their resilience. The content of children's digital literacy includes both knowledge and skills, as well as attitudes and rights. Education for children's digital literacy should first equip children with basic knowledge of the Internet, basic skills for self-protection on the Internet, the right way to socialize with others, and to deal with cyberbullying. At the same time, it should help children develop a correct attitude to cope with cyberbullying and other issues. To help them clarify their right to use the Internet equally and reasonably, and so on. Children's digital literacy education can put children in “bullet jackets” to prevent a series of cyber risks such as cyberbullying, and improve their ability to use the Internet to explore and grow.


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 18:58
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • What new business models and technological solutions can assist to narrow the digital broadband divide?
  • What are the main existing challenges to expand quality and affordable broadband services in underserved areas in a context of the fast changing landscape in telecommunication markets?
  • What tools could be developed to ensure that Internet access is both sustainable and inclusive (for women and girls, older people, people living with disabilities, refugees and other disadvantaged groups)?
2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that new operator models are needed for expanding connectivity and usage of digital technologies. Participatns discussed examples of solutions such as wholesale only operators, patnerships between traditional telecommunication operators, OTTs and communities, and bottom-up community approaches. The matter of inclusivity,  engagement with users amd ensuring quality of service was mentioned by some.  There was agreement that all actors in the ecosystem need to think outside of the box, including when it comes to fostering flexible regulatory frameworks for underserved areas.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  • Regulators and policy makers should reduce barriers to deployment by private sector first and use public money later.
  • Public intervention should be designed carefully in order not to distort the market.
  • Both private and public investment should be designed with the engagement of users and communities they will service.
  • Data sharing between telecommunication operators and other actors in the ecosystem (such as OTTs) should be fostered to improve investment and outcome-based regulation.
  • Regulation should be shifted from one-size-fits -all to a segmented approach to account for local challenges.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • Internet para Todos, Peru
  • Municipal networks in Sweden, such as Stokab
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Ideas were raised in the realm of good practices to be shared among telecommunication regulators and policy makers:

  • Partnerships between traditional telecommunication operators, OTTs (such as Facebook), smaller ISPs and communities can yield great solutions for connectivity, by linking the know-how of telcos, big data from OTTs and the local knowledge and human resources of local actors.
  • Flexible regulatory approaches can benefit new solutions in underserved areas lead not only by traditional telecommunication operators, but also community networks and smaller providers.
6. Estimated Participation:
  • 40 people.
  • 18 women.
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were reflected in the discussion by the points made around the importance of including users in the design of policies and networks and ensuring that evidence is being collected to ensure inclusion and quality goals are being met.

8. Session Outputs:

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 19:01
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. What are promising approaches to realizing digital inclusion?
  2. How can the OECD's Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework help in the design and implementation of approaches to digital inclusion? Can the Going Digital Toolkit be readily used to overcome challenges to implementation?
  3. How can business, government and other stakeholders effectively collaborate to realize successful approaches to digital inclusion?
2. Discussion Areas:

Tapping the potential of digital transformation for economic and societal benefits requires a multistakeholder, holistic, whole-of-government approach. The OECD’s Integrated Policy Framework (IPF) provides that approach.

 

Regulatory sandboxes enable both government and industry to experiment to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from policies or regulations.

 

The OECD needs to provide more targeted guidance to developing countries aimed at “unpacking” the Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework so it is more understandable and can be implemented in stages.

 

Evidence-based policymaking is critical, but that means gathering data from both developed and developing countries alike. To create an enabling environment for digital transformation you have to understand what the environment is.

 

Capacity building requires sustained and layered engagement on the ground. “Digital Ambassadors” are needed for to ensure understanding at the grass roots.

 

For Artificial Intelligence to be utilized in a way that benefits society, access to AI must  be demoncratized.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Tapping the potential of digital transformation for economic and societal benefits requires a multistakeholder, holistic, whole-of-government approach. 

 

Regulatory sandboxes enable both government and industry to experiment to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from policies or regulations.

Capacity building requires sustained and layered engagement on the ground. “Digital Ambassadors” are needed for to ensure understanding at the grass roots.

For Artificial Intelligence to be utilized in a way that benefits society, access to AI must  be demoncratized.

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Tapping the potential of digital transformation for economic and societal benefits requires a multistakeholder, holistic, whole-of-government approach. 

 

Regulatory sandboxes enable both government and industry to experiment to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from policies or regulations.

Capacity building requires sustained and layered engagement on the ground. “Digital Ambassadors” are needed for to ensure understanding at the grass roots.

For Artificial Intelligence to be utilized in a way that benefits society, access to AI must  be demoncratized.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Regulatory sandboxes enable both government and industry to experiment to ensure that there are no unintended consequences from policies or regulations.

The OECD needs to provide more targeted guidance to developing countries aimed at “unpacking” the Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework so it is more understandable and can be implemented in stages.

Capacity building requires sustained and layered engagement on the ground. “Digital Ambassadors” are needed for to ensure understanding at the grass roots.

 

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite participants -- 14 total; 8 men, 6 women. No online participation.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The workshop did not specifically delve into gender-related issues, but explored digital skill development for the society at large.

8. Session Outputs:

Integrated Policy Framework Key to Realizing Digital Inclusion – This workshop focused on sharing practical insights on the value of an integrated policy framework for digital transformation in fostering economic prosperity across all sectors and improving societal well-being inclusively. It used the OECD’s Going Digital integrated policy framework as a reference and explored the value and barriers that may arise in implementing the framework. Speakers also considered how the related Going Digital Toolkit may help to overcome some of the barriers.

David Gierten, OECD

This Going Digital (GD) Project aims to help policymakers better understand the digital transformation and develop policies fit for the digital age. The project started in 2017 and we are currently in the 2nd phase. There are two key publications of Phase I: Going Digital: Shaping Polities, Improving Lives and Measuring Digital Transformation. These summarize some 130 outputs produced under GD Phase I. A third key output also launched in March 2019 is the online GD Toolkit. The Integrated Policy Framework (IPF), also developed in Phase I of GD Project is the structuring element of both publications, as well as of the GD Toolkit. The purpose of the IPF is to:

  • Overcome siloes seen in many countries that address issues arising with digital transformation in all corners of government, but often not yet in a coherent and coordinated manner.
  • Bring together all key policy areas that need to be considered in a whole-of-government approach to digital transformation under seven policy dimensions.

The seven dimensions show a number of different policy areas that should be looked at jointly because they are likely to interact and should, therefore, be coordinated.

Access – high-quality access to communication networks and services as well as access to data, which is becoming increasingly the foundation for the digital economy. Key policies include:

  • Communication infrastructure and services – e.g. ensure that technical enablers are in place
  • Competition – crucial to lower prices and improve quality of communication services
  • Investment – investment in infrastructure that can cater to growing demand for data
  • Regional development – to make sure good connectivity doesn’t stop at city borders

Use – effective use of digital technologies by all actors: individuals, firms and governments. Key policies include:

  • Digital government – to go beyond e-government, adopting a user-driven approach
  • Investment – enable firms to invest not only in ICTs but also in intangible assets
  • SMEs – targeted support to help SMEs catch up and thrive
  • Business dynamism – structural policies that affect technology diffusion
  • Skills – equip everyone with the mix of skills needed to succeed in digital life and work
  • Digital security and privacy – to overcome mistrust and empower people and organizations to manage digital risk

Innovation – fundamentally underpinning digital transformation. Key policies include:

  • Entrepreneurship – reduce regulatory burden for start-ups and enable experimentation
  • SMEs – facilitate R&D in smaller firms
  • Science and technology – foster knowledge diffusion, open innovation, and open science
  • Digital government – open government data
  • Sectoral policies and regulations – new business models and experiments, e.g. regulatory sandboxes 

Jobs both the quantity and quality of jobs are being affected by the digital transformation, positively and negatively. Key policies include:

  • Labor markets – promote successful and fair transitions from declining to expanding jobs
  • Education and training – empower people with the mix of skills needed to succeed
  • Social protection – ensure no one is left behind, incl. those working in new forms of work
  • Tax and benefits – fit for a transforming labor market and new forms of work
  • Regional development – address regional imbalances in transforming labor markets

Societythe digital transformation should be inclusive, improve well-being, and lead to social prosperity. Key policies include:

  • Social policy
  • Tax and benefits – notably in the context of a transforming world of work
  • Education and training - reduce existing digital divides, e.g. by strengthening foundational skills and lifelong learning
  • Environment – unleash the potential of digital technologies to tackle collective and global challenges
  • Health care
  • Digital government – boost civic and stakeholder engagement in the policy process

Trust fundamental condition for a digital society and economy to flourish. Key policies include:

  • Digital risk management – central approach for trust-related policies
  • Digital security, including critical infrastructures and essential services – implemented by all actors
  • Privacy - national privacy strategies address privacy from a whole-of-society perspective
  • Consumer protection - in all digital environments, including in p2p markets
  • SMEs – particularly vulnerable to digital threats and risks

Market Openness - digital technologies and data transform how firms compete, trade, and invest, leading to greater competition in some markets, but also tilting others towards greater concentration. Key policies include:

  • Trade – lower trade barriers
  • Investment – lower barriers to international investment
  • Financial markets – ensure good access to finance for firms going digital
  • Competition – monitor changing competitive dynamics, concentration, and dominance
  • Taxation – ensure tax systems are fit-for-purpose in the digital age (e.g. BEPS)
  • There are some cross-cutting themes that aren’t one single policy dimension but are a part of multiple of the seven above (e.g., gender, skills, digital government, or inclusion).

The Going Digital Toolkit (https://goingdigital.oecd.org/en/)

  • The GD Toolkit is structured by the seven policy dimensions of the IPF and has two strong points: 1) it provides key data for countries to self-assess where they stand in their own digital transformation, and 2) it provides rich policy analysis from the OECD, guidance and innovative practices on key issues arising with digital transformation.
  • The Toolkit is not a snapshot in time and is being updated and developed (e.g. adding new data metrics and expanding policy notes guidance).
  • Each policy dimension has indicators per dimension, where you can compare a country with the OECD average (black dot) or to another country.

 

Comments from the floor

  • Education and skills in the digital transformation span many of the dimensions. However, educators often are unaware of the work that is being done on this topic, nor are they upskilled on digital technology. This missing feedback loop is important. The educators creating school curricula should be more informed on which skills are needed in the future and what the future of jobs will be. How can we get this information to educators? Could the OECD have an ambassadorship such as the UN’s “SDGs for Educators” program?

Responses from panelists:

  • David Gierten, OECD: Further data and specific publications on digital skills and education, in particular, can be found on the Skills page of the Toolkit (e.g., 2019 Skills Outlook). In terms of skilling the teachers themselves, the OECD’s Education Directorate has released a Skills Strategy that looks specifically at teacher education. Germany, for example, is spending EUR 5 Billion to equip schools with digital tools. This is based on its Education in the Digital Age strategy, which was created in consultation with teachers and curriculum drafters.
  • Ben Wallis, Microsoft: Microsoft sees education and training to be vital to building knowledge and skills that will be in demand in the future. We have a project called “TEALS,” where Microsoft engineers go into schools to teach computer science. Also, LinkedIn provided data to the city of LA on in-demand skills to help map education history and ultimately change educational curricula.
  • Alex Cooke, Government of Australia:  The education structure is at the territory level, which adds complications. Australia has a number of programs to develop digital/STEM skills and resources, as well as to develop R&D and curriculum to develop AI in schools. We are also promoting life-long learning programs and normalizing micro-credentialing.
  • Jane Coffin, ISOC: Educators are well-placed to be “ambassadors” of digital skills, especially among grassroots movements.
  • Where do people with disabilities fit within this Integrated Policy Framework? You highlight certain groups of vulnerable communities; disabled people are just as important to consider.
  • David Gierten, OECD: I agree completely. There are a number of OECD publications that touch on disabled populations more specifically.

 

Implementing the Integrated Policy Framework (Company, country, organizational examples)

  • Alex Cooke, Government of Australia -- Australia released its standalone policy for the digital economy, called Australia’s Tech Futures, after extensive consultation. This work took into account the OECD’s IPF, as both works were being undertaken simultaneously. Our policy, called Australia’s Tech Future focuses on four key areas: people, services, digital assets, and the enabling environment. If you look at these areas in relation to the Integrated Policy Framework, the categories align quite neatly:  
  • Against the category of People: “developing Australia’s digital skills and leaving no one behind”, sits Jobs, Skills, Society or promoting social prosperity and inclusion; 
  • Against the category of Services: “how government can better deliver digital services” – which relates to Use and one of the metrics of the Going Digital project is the use of government digital services.
  • Against Digital assets: “building infrastructure and providing secure access to high-quality data” – relates to increasing the effective use of digital technologies and data but also enhancing access to communications, infrastructure, services, and data.
  • The enabling environment: maintaining our cybersecurity and reviewing our regulatory systems – which takes into account issues of fostering market openness and maintaining a regulatory environment that is conducive to investment, and development of a technology ecosystem.
  • The Tech Futures policy is an attempt to bring together the current policy approaches in the Australian system, so there are many other aspects of the Australian context which are not brought together under the one policy.
  • Being able to track the effectiveness and implementation of our policy is incredibly import, which is why we are very supportive of the OECD’s measurement roadmap. Australia has also been trying to leverage that work through our national statistics (e.g. need to work on market openness, measure productivity, trust).
  • Ben Wallis, Microsoft, Regulatory Policy Analyst -- Microsoft supports the IPF and sees the OECD as being well-placed to produce this Toolkit because it:
  • Focuses on sustainable economic growth and innovation;
  • Has an evidence-based approach;
  • Embraces the multistakeholder model;
  • Has the data and analytical capabilities to pull this together.
  • Microsoft believes that, in order to achieve the vision and potential of digital transformation, there need to be integrated and holistic approaches to policy problems. There also needs to be clear objectives set by governments at the national level, and those national governments need to work across agencies to look at the digital economy as a whole.
  • This holistic approach to policymaking and implementing the toolkit is challenging because of the difficulty in bringing diverse issues together, the variety of communities of interest, the unclarity of responsibility within national governments (e.g., governments do not often have a ministry devoted to the digital economy so there is not necessarily a natural convening platform).
  • Having a practical way to implement the Integrated Policy Framework – through this Toolkit – is key to actually leveraging the OECD’s work on this topic.

 

The potential role of regulatory sandboxes in the OECD’s Integrated Policy Framework

  • Ben Wallis, Microsoft -- Technologies evolve quickly, meaning there also needs to be innovation in policy-making to keep up. Regulatory sandboxes can provide a safe way to develop regulation in relation to rapidly-emerging technologies without stifling innovation.
  • AI, as an example, has potential benefits as well as concerns. How can we put guidance in place to encourage the development of the technology in a responsible way, and to encourage the use of the technology in ways that help meet global challenges?
  • We also know that to enable the technology to be most useful, there needs to be experimentation in the ways the technology is used.
  • If you want to use AI in healthcare, there are clearly potential harms that we want to better understand through experimentation. Also, by using experimentation, we can better understand how to apply existing laws (e.g. privacy in healthcare, credit reporting laws in financial services).
  • In cases where companies fear steep consequences of potentially violating an existing regulation, then a regulatory sandbox is a useful tool.
  • For example, the Government of Singapore published AI ethical guidelines, but importantly, it also provided examples of ways in which data can be shared in a responsible manner. They put out this vision of a collaborative data-sharing platform and were clear that they understood not everything is known. Further, they said that if a company has an application it is not sure about, it could come to the government and apply for a potential exemption or a regulatory sandbox to enable it to do the experimentation.
  • It’s not simply about making space for companies to innovate; it also provides a way for governments to understand the actual harms that would require regulation. Are existing regulations sufficient or is something new needed?  Could this be a new interpretation of existing regulations or entirely new regulations? Regulatory sandboxes are a great mechanism to help answers these questions.

 

Challenges encountered in implementing the IPF and how they have been addressed

  • Jane Coffin, ISOC -- The OECD needs to issue more targeted, specific use case examples, especially video examples. One of the challenges among non-OECD members will be integrating and understanding the IPF, as it relates to them. A cross-sectoral and cross-government approach is really important, but not all countries are on the same page.
  • Measurement benchmarks: Many countries do not have strong statistical benchmarks to measure where they are in their digital transformation.
  • Multi-level engagement: For example, access and digital/communications infrastructure are key. Measurement is often lacking. At the same time, projects aimed to increase access have a distinct “human element” whereby engagement at multiple layers is required to get buy-in to get these projects off the ground.
  • Varying market conditions: How do you implement the IPF in an already complicated environment of digital transition? For example, some countries are just now going through the liberalization of the dominant telecommunication service provider. Adding to this, countries are at the same time barraged with questions on privacy and cybersecurity.
  • Regulatory sandboxes are a great way for countries to test out new services and assess potential impacts that may require regulation. Governments should also understand that there is probably going to be some failures – and that’s okay. The OECD can help non-member countries implement these tools by engaging on a more regional level (e.g., at CITEL).
  • Alex Cooke, Government of Australia -- Australia places a strong emphasis on cyber cooperation, and specifically on cyber cooperation in the so-called Pacific Rim region. We have been doing this through our Cyber Cooperation Programme, but also through our Pacific Step-up.
  • Australia is investing AUS $34 million over seven years (2016-2023) in its Cyber Cooperation Program to champion an open, free and secure cyberspace and build cyber resilience across the Indo-Pacific.
  • The Program supports Australia’s commitment to delivering on the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which recognizes the vital role of digital technologies to achieve a better and more sustainable future for all.
  • Specific activities include:
  • Training to foster understanding of responsible state behavior in the cyberspace
  • Activities to fight cybercrime and support technology for development, such as blockchain and e-government readiness assessments
  • Provide next-generation connectivity through our “Pacific Step Up initiative,” which will build the Coral Sea Cable System to connect Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, as well as Malaita Island, Noro, and Taro Islands.

 

The IPF and “trustworthy AI”

  • Ben Wallis, Microsoft -- As a developer and provider of AI technologies, Microsoft looks at AI from two angles – (1) the AI ecosystem and (2) society at large.
  • On the AI ecosystem, Microsoft is involved in developing AI technologies, but this is only one part of an AI ecosystem. The whole ecosystem includes the people and organizations involved in integrating, deploying, maintaining, and operating AI technology solutions. From Microsoft’s perspective, we think about how we can develop our technologies in a way that would increase awareness of the need for trustworthy and responsible AI throughout the ecosystem.
  • From a societal perspective, what is needed to ensure that AI technologies are adopted and deployed to their utmost potential? On this point, Microsoft is trying to make a contribution in several areas:
  • “AI for Earth”: a 5-year, USD $50 million effort to put the Microsoft Cloud and AI tools in the hands of those working to solve environmental challenges, specifically in relation to climate, agriculture, biodiversity, and water. It is a combination of money and technology – we provide grants for projects and we also make available open-source tools, models, infrastructure, data, and APIs to support sustainability and environmental science.
  • “AI for Accessibility”: a program to work with others to solve some of the most challenging problems for people with disabilities, by making software and devices smarter and more contextually relevant for people with disabilities and to improve daily life.
  • Two other initiatives: “AI for Humanitarian Action” and “AI for Cultural Heritage”
  • For both of these angles – the AI ecosystem and society as a whole - the integrated policy framework can give us guidance, whether in the form of specific requirements to feed into the AI ecosystem or requirements to reflect the broader needs of society, e.g. trust and skills. It can also provide guidance about actions that can be taken in complementary policy areas, e.g. connectivity and access to enable more democratized access to AI so that the deployment of the technology doesn’t exacerbate the digital divide.
  • David Gierten, OECD -- We could look at any specific digital tech, like AI, through the lens of the seven dimensions of the IPF. For instance, the adoption of AI in firms would fall under the “Use” dimension; AI innovation could result in new business models, new jobs, or new tasks that are carried out. Under the “Society” dimension, we can consider the ethical implications of AI. Finally, under the “Trust” dimension, this is very much aligned with the AI principles, with several of the principles dedicated to upholding trust.
  • Jane Coffin, ISOC -- This is about building trust. There is some fear now with respect to technology. Information is critical to building a community of trust; educating communities of what the technology is and how it can promote economic development is critical to help with the adoption of technology and deploying infrastructure.

 

Striking the Balance: Policies that maximize digital transformation while also addressing privacy and security challenges

  • Ben Wallis, Microsoft -- Microsoft sees privacy and security challenges as being inexorably linked. The proliferation of connected devices and cloud-based services has opened new avenues of attack for cybercriminals and other malicious actors. Protecting our customers and the wider community is a responsibility we take seriously.
  • We believe privacy is a fundamental human right.  As more of who we are and what we do is recorded and stored in digital form, preserving this right becomes more important and increasingly difficult. We take a principled approach to build trust, with strong commitments to privacy, security, and compliance. For example, with the GDPR, Microsoft invested many resources to ensure not just that we are in compliance, but that we can support our customers in ensuring they are compliant, including the customers of our cloud services. This isn’t only with regard to data of people in the EU – we extended the protections enjoyed under the GDPR to all of our customers.
  • Apart from making sure we understand and are fully compliant with privacy laws, there are a couple of other principles we follow and recommend more broadly.
  • Firstly, we think organizations should be required to establish sound privacy practices. Privacy laws should require organizations to demonstrate that they have established sound privacy policies that, at a minimum, ensure compliance with legal requirements. This principle should apply both to organizations that collect and process data (e.g. a bank or hospital), and to those that process data only on behalf of other organizations (e.g. a Cloud Service Provider).
  • Secondly, we need to think about how you define privacy laws. It’s important to be able to draw insights from data analytics and that means that privacy frameworks should not be so restrictive that they prevent governments, businesses and other organizations from using data analytics to draw insights, as long as it is done in an ethical manner.
  • One way that privacy frameworks can achieve this balance is by encouraging the de-identification of data sets, allowing researchers to continue to innovate but not at the expense of the personal data of specific individuals.
  • Alex Cooke, Government of Australia -- Australia supports an open, free and secure Internet that drives economic growth, protects national security and promotes international stability. There is an appropriate role for governments to play in regulating the Internet, but it is not one of control. A state-centered model would restrict and fragment the network, inhibit innovation and constrain opportunity presented by connectivity.
  • One aspect of data localization relates to barriers, such as customs duties. Australia strongly supports the permanence of the WTO moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions, and we have advocated for this in current negotiations. Customs duties for electronic transmission will increase the cost of goods and services purchased online, likely acting as a disincentive for customers and suppliers to engage in e-commerce and potentially having a negative impact on an economy’s competitiveness from a global business perspective.
  • One other aspect of data localization hinges around questions of privacy. Our Privacy Act allows cross-border disclosures of personal information in a range of circumstances to facilitate the free flow of information across national borders while ensuring that the privacy of individuals is respected. The Government announced in March 2019 that it will introduce legislation to strengthen penalties and enforcement under the Australian Privacy Act. These reforms will include a binding online privacy code that will apply to social media platforms and other online platforms that trade in personal information, requiring them to be more transparent about data sharing, meet best practice standards when seeking consent to collect, use or disclose personal information stop using or disclosing an individual’s personal information upon request, and follow strengthened rules about handling personal information of children and other vulnerable groups. The Government is presently consulting on this legislation.
  • One last point to Ben (Microsoft), we would be interested in understanding the developments that could address these issues, like cloud-based services to maintain security and compliance with privacy regimes.
  • Jane Coffin, ISOC -- End-to-end encryption (e2ee) is a way to secure information and build trust. Governments can implement this within cybersecurity principles at a very simple level, but you have to work to make sure people know how to implement these policies and they don’t just sit on the shelf.
  • Barbara Wanner, USCIB -- Australia mentioned its view on data localization. Some countries have adopted localization requirements on grounds that they ensure more effective privacy and security protections. USCIB is against this data centralization requirement on grounds that they not only serve as trade barriers but also have the effect of increasing privacy and security risks because the data is stored in central locations and is more vulnerable to breaches and hacks.
  • Ben Wallis, Microsoft -- People around the globe and their leaders are concerned about the power of large tech firms, and I think you can see digital sovereignty solutions as being intended to counteract that balance, which I think reflects a larger trend of distrust.
  • But, as well-intentioned as data localization laws might be, they can also be costly to implement and you lose the efficiencies with come with the global scale of the cloud – undermining the fundamental benefits of the cloud.
  • And while it is possible for global companies like Microsoft to build sovereign cloud systems, the extra cost and complications make it harder for smaller companies to do so, creating a kind of barrier to entry for local cloud providers.
  • A more effective approach is to adopt regulation aligned with global standards or contracts that protect personal data regardless of its location. Such an approach can also help to improve resilience and security and make data processing services more efficient by reducing latency.
  • And importantly, it should be incumbent on data processing companies to understand the laws in each country of origin and make sure that data is managed accordingly.

 

Public-Private Partnerships and Collaboration

  • Alex Cooke, Government of Australia -- Co-creation with the private sector in Australia has arisen around two issues: 1) AI Ethics Framework and 2) Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content (TVEC).
  • AI Ethics Framework: AI is developing at a fast pace and we are actively engaging with private companies to make sure that we don’t stifle innovation. The “Australian AI Ethics Framework” was released on 7 November 2019 and five businesses, including CBA, NAB, Telstra, Microsoft and Flamingo AI, have signed up to trial these principles. We are also taking into account international discussions, such as those going on in the European Union.
  • TVEC: We are engaging through the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT), as well as the OECD to work on this issue. We see that large companies, like Facebook, can deploy substantial resources to work on this, but that SMEs may not be able to do this. We are also supporting the OECD’s work to develop a transparency reporting protocol. A multistakeholder expert group was hosted in November that gave an opportunity to bring these diverse groups together to work quickly in this area.
  • David Gierten, OECD -- Regarding public-private partnerships (PPPs), Colombia announced that they will work together with Coursera with the objective to have 150,000 students being trained in programming and other ICT skills by 2022. This is a nice example of how Colombia can address key challenges with PPPs.
  • Jane Coffin, ISOC -- PPPs are key to do what we can do, especially to put in local infrastructure in remote areas. Partners on the ground provide vital resources (e.g., training, expertise, funding, human resources, etc). Collaborative partnership is crucial to be able to more sustainably build infrastructure, for example.

 

Comments from the floor

In Afghanistan, we have had a distinct problem with bringing digital financial services. This is not a problem with accessibility, but rather with trust. People do not trust the security of Internet transactions and therefore are resistant to using such services. What can we do?

 

  • Jane Coffin, ISOC: It will be a matter of bringing together the right experts, both international and domestic experts, to figure out the problem and brainstorm possible solutions in your country. Training will be essential, and some degree of trial and error is usually necessary for these situations, though I know that banking doesn’t have room for mistakes. One point will be to ensure that online banking has encryption—banks need highly specialized IT support given the criticality of their services.

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 11:54
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

 

  1. How has the development/dissemination of locally-relevant content supported efforts to develop the “demand side” of Internet deployment?
  2. How are multilateral and private institutions using digital technologies to improve literacy in developing economies and bring more global citizens into the digital economy?
  3. How have digital technologies been used to support local communities by creating economic opportunities and increasing local engagement with the global community?
2. Discussion Areas:

Concerning the development of local content that drives Internet deployment and uptake, speakers had various recommendations.

1. Content in the local language is critical, not only speaking the language by supporting subtitles but addressing the relevant topics in their language.

2. It is important to look for local authors and work with local publishers to create audio books in the local language.

3. Develop synergies at the local level that generate content..

4. There is a complementary need to invest in the development of business skills so that young creators of local content can commercial it.

5. Circulation and distribution of content is critical. Unesco created a mobile app solution developed by a young woman to ensure these textbooks can gain a second or third life.

6. There's no reason to import internationally the solutions made on the ground. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Concerning the development of local content that drives Internet deployment and uptake, speakers had various recommendations.

1. Content in the local language is critical, not only speaking the language by supporting subtitles but addressing the relevant topics in their language.

2. It is important to look for local authors and work with local publishers to create audio books in the local language.

3. Develop synergies at the local level that generate content..

4. There is a complementary need to invest in the development of business skills so that young creators of local content can commercial it.

5. Circulation and distribution of content is critical. Unesco created a mobile app solution developed by a young woman to ensure these textbooks can gain a second or third life.

6. There's no reason to import internationally the solutions made on the ground. 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Concerning the development of local content that drives Internet deployment and uptake, speakers had various recommendations.

1. Content in the local language is critical, not only speaking the language by supporting subtitles but addressing the relevant topics in their language.

2. It is important to look for local authors and work with local publishers to create audio books in the local language.

3. Develop synergies at the local level that generate content..

4. There is a complementary need to invest in the development of business skills so that young creators of local content can commercial it.

5. Circulation and distribution of content is critical. Unesco created a mobile app solution developed by a young woman to ensure these textbooks can gain a second or third life.

6. There's no reason to import internationally the solutions made on the ground. 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Concerning the development of local content that drives Internet deployment and uptake, speakers had various recommendations.

1. Content in the local language is critical, not only speaking the language by supporting subtitles but addressing the relevant topics in their language.

2. It is important to look for local authors and work with local publishers to create audio books in the local language.

3. Develop synergies at the local level that generate content..

4. There is a complementary need to invest in the development of business skills so that young creators of local content can commercial it.

5. Circulation and distribution of content is critical. Unesco created a mobile app solution developed by a young woman to ensure these textbooks can gain a second or third life.

6. There's no reason to import internationally the solutions made on the ground. 

6. Estimated Participation:

Panel attendance onsite was 13 females

6 males.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Bridging the gender digital gap featured prominently in discussions. The conclusions were that young women need to be exposed to more innovative approaches to STEM education; this is not just a developing country issue. The percentage of women in countries that do not have gender equality issues that pursue digital careers is often quite low compared to women from developing countries with gender equality issues. 

8. Session Outputs:

This workshop focused on how the private and multilateral sectors are helping to close the digital gap and supporting meaningful connectivity.

It answered the following policy questions

 

How has the development/dissemination of locally-relevant content supported efforts to develop the “demand side” of Internet deployment?

How are multilateral and private institutions using digital technologies to improve literacy in developing economies and bring more global citizens into the digital economy?

How have digital technologies been used to support local communities by creating economic opportunities and increasing local engagement with the global community?

 

Key points:

 

Connectivity is all not the same. The Digital divides create gaps in what voices are represented. Digital inclusion should consider how technology can facilitate the preservation and promotion of culture through investments in local content.

 

The concept of “meaningful connectivity is important. This includes not only access and infrastructure but also the production of local content. UNESCO puts emphasis on the need to ensure not only access, but people, particularly youth in the global south are equipped with the necessary tools to be not only consumers but also producers of local digital content.

 

Another speaker maintained that content should not be coming only from the global north to the global south. Countries in the global south have a rich culture and lots of content, but this content should be culturally sensitive to make an impact and be of interest to local communities.

 

Companies recognize that they have a responsibility to step up to address connectivity and access to local content. Audible’s Listen Up initiatives in Newark, NJ is dedicated to young high school students who do not have access to culture and lack financial resources and tools. This program funds scholarships and provides students with access to Amazon lab, so they can listen to audiobooks and other spoken content. They have put together a list of more than 100 educational books with the help of teachers.

 

Are women and girls are digitally included in digital literacy and education? The problem is making the study of STEM more attractive to women at younger ages.  UNESCO underscored that this is not just a developing country issue. Their research indicated that in countries with more gender equality, the percentage of women who pursue STEM careers is very low; in other parts of the world where there are gender gaps, more than 50% of women have pursued tech degrees and careers.

 

Another issue is building confidence among young women to pursue tech careers and careers that use technology to develop locally relevant content by providing mentors and role models. Vanessa Ann Sinden (Triggerfish, South Africa) tackled this issue from the perspective of women in film and video. Globally, 60% of students who go for tertiary education in film are women but less than 20% of those employed in the field are women. There is a huge disparity between the confidence to go study and then a lack of confidence to apply for that job, and also not seeing themselves in these careers or having role models to look towards. To overcome these challenges, it is important to provide access to film and animation training for all and for them to see this career is seeming they can do. 

 

Concerning the development of local content that drives Internet deployment and uptake, speakers had various recommendations.

 

Concerning the development of local content that drives Internet deployment and uptake, speakers had various recommendations.

1. Content in the local language is critical, not only speaking the language by supporting subtitles but addressing the relevant topics in their language.

2. It is important to look for local authors and work with local publishers to create audio books in the local language. Using local actors, in turn, not only ensures linguistic integrity but also provides employment opportunities for local artists.

3. Develop synergies at the local level that generate content. The Women in African History project brought together women, technology, and content to bridge digital and gender gaps.

4. There is a complementary need to invest in the development of business skills so that young creators of local content in a digital format can “pitch” their product, secure financing, and commercialize it. This underlines the link between education, local content, infrastructure, and access, and economic growth.

5. Circulation and distribution of content is critical. Unesco developed a program that looked at how to circulate textbooks for young people in school. Once you're finished with the textbook, there's no circulation. So they created a mobile app solution developed by a young woman to ensure these textbooks can gain a second or third life.

6. There's no reason to import internationally the solutions made on the ground. The reason why the solutions are often imported from abroad is because these did not exist and so people thought they needed to reinvent the wheel.


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 15:57
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. What is the role of algorithms in political campaings?
  2. What are the main challenges to regulate the use of algorithms considering the following dimensions: transparency, secrecy, audit, others?
  3. What are the main regulatory and governance aproaches to consider in the challenge of regulating the use of algorithm in political campaigns?

We expect to produce a list of proposals that may contribute to the development of legal, political and governance mechanisms to deal with the challenge of regulating the use of algorithms in political campaings.

2. Discussion Areas:

The workshop discussions were more about the forces that influence algorithms as a whole, beyond elections and democratic processes, than about the algorithms in the discussion itself. In this context, one of the central themes of the debate was the complexity of the matrix power during electoral proccess.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Some approaches have been mentioned quite broadly. One that was relatively discussed was a view of co-regulating algorithms, platforms and other Internet tools. Co-regulation would be a democratic multi-stakeholder management model, but with many challenges. The main goal of co-regulation model would be define recommendations on specific principles, standards, and measures designed to establish forms of co-regulation related to content moderation.

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

During the session representatives from other countries such as Trinidad and Tobago, Honduras, Equador, Hong Kong and Italy, brought examples of the influence of algorithms in their local elections. Italy for example, mentioned the raise of hate speech during their elections, and Trinidad and Tobago the case of Cambridge Analytica in their national elections.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Algorithms play a sort of power that exercises a discipline over others. However, this comprehension is not a consessus. Empirical evidence is still needed to prove this statment and there are other dimensions which were also pointed out during the WS. One exemple is software companies who sells technologias to implement digital identity public policies in different countries, what may impact the the profile of voters in an electoral proccess considering the availability of Internet access. Challenges go beyond the question of the role algorithms and digital plataforms. A new approuch is possible to orient the development of public policy to improve the digital environment.

6. Estimated Participation:

The estimated number of participants in the room was 74. Of these, about 36% (around 27 persons) were women, and 64% (47 persons) were men.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

As the theme of this workshop was about algorithms in democratic processes, no gender issue was debated either directly or indirectly.


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 12:38
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Key Policy Questions:

  1. How to ensure that e-government policies align with peace initiatives and which additional stakeholders should be involved in creating policies for e-governance, cyber security, cybercrime, etc.?
  2. What are the consequences of cyberterrorism/crime and how can we be better prepared or equipped to address such consequences?
  3. How can ‘traditional’ peacebuilding initiatives and models be of help in relation to conceptualizing cyber peace?

Expectations:

The initial idea for the panel grew out of discussion on the IEP’ s Global Peace Index and delving into thinking about how such an index could be applied to peace and conflict in cyberspace, measuring “digital peace”. Should we identify an additional cyber indicator, or should we track, identify and measure specific effects of security incidents in cyber space on the existing indicators of the GPI.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad agreement among the panellists that it remains difficult to quantify peace in cyberspace. The current trends that we are seeing unfold in cyberspace fail to respect what traditional indicators are capable of telling us. Panellists agreed that there was a clear need to map peace in cyberspace, given the overwhelming evidence that Nation-States have been increasingly weaponizing the online space in recent years, while ultimately presenting the impression that militarisation has decreased globally. The core reference document of the session, the Institute of Economics and Peace 2019 Peace Index Report, indicates that peacefulness has increased globally for only the third time since the IEP reports began. That said, the data included does not include stability in relation to cyberspace, and what all panellists agree as the growing militarisation of cyberspace and the proliferation of aggressive cyber tools.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

A multi-stakeholder approach is key going forward. Only by involving and respecting the views of all stakeholders in cyberspace will we be able to measure peace and stability in cyberspace, and as a result understand what is truly happening in our cyberspace in terms of increasing aggressive State behaviour.

We need to come to agree and develop new indicators, to ensure that the threshold for war and peace can be measured in cyberspace, and to give us a clearer, quantifiable understanding of what is happening in our cyberspace.

More analysis and discussion is needed going forward on how we can translate these concepts into a clearer measurement of peacefulness, that includes cyberspace and cyber activities.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The Peace Index 2019 report of the Institute of Economics and Peace was key to the discussions of the panel.

The Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace was mentioned as a broad multi-stakeholder initiative aimed at tackling the further militarisation of cyberspace.

The most recent Report of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace was mentioned as having developed recommendations, norms and principles to be applied in cyberspace.

The ITU Global Cybersecurity Index was mentioned.

The Global State of Democracy Report was highlighted during the discussion.

While all the reports and initiatives mentioned throughout the session are undoubtedly useful reference points, there was broad understanding that clearer and innovative data indicators would help us understand the depth of what is happening in our cyberspace.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The difficulty in measuring peace in cyberspace was key to the discussion. The panellists presented a number of ideas through which this issue could be addressed. A potential direction agreed on by all panellists was that of a multi-stakeholder approach, specifically underlined through the broad referencing of the 2018 Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace. In addition, the clear need for comprehensive indicators of peacefulness and stability in cyberspace was underlined as being a necessary step forward in how we might come to terms with quantifying peace in cyberspace.

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite: Approximately 40 participants

Online: 9 participants

Women representeed aproximately 30-40% of onsite particpants.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not core to the discussion at hand. That said, aside from the onsite moderator, the panel consisted entirely of women.

8. Session Outputs:

The Institute of Economics and Peace 2019 Peace Index ( https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/GPI-2019-web00... )

Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspacehttps://pariscall.international/en/ )

Report of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspacehttps://cyberstability.org/report/ )

ITU Global Cybersecurity Indexhttps://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-d/opb/str/D-STR-GCI.01-2018-PDF-E.pdf )

Global State of Democracy Report https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/global-state-of-democracy-20... )


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 22:16
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

What do we know about children´s access and use of the internet that can inform the policymaking process?

How to protect children from risks and damage, without hindering other rights, such as to free expression?

What was expected for the session was to share a global and regional update on the most relevant and recent data about online children, and to hold a debate about the most relevant policy issues stemming from those data. Together, these points feed a research and policy agenda that has children´s right at the centre.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was full agreement that more reliable data (both quantitative and qualitative) is needed for improving digital policies and education campaigns targeting children. 

There was support to the view that a journalistic approach to online harm, as a matter of fact, creates the perception that such problems occur more often and affect more people than they actually do. Therefore, parents and the general public also have to be targets of the communication of the results of such research.  often and affect more people than they actually do. Therefore, parents and the general public also have to be targets of the communication of the results of such research.  

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

One of the main points highlighted by the data shared and the debate that followed it, is to acknowledge the ubiquitous online presence of children, yet with pervasive inequities, both in the degree and quality of internet access, and in the skills development opportunities for its use.  

As an actionable recommendation, including children as active parts both in communication campaigns and policy design, including internet governance decisions affecting children, was strongly emphasized by most panel participants.

Actions need to be implemented in the various levels affecting digital inclusion: from legal and regulatory instruments, to educational interventions, need to be put in place to meet the needs of the children.

Another actionable recommendation is not to focus regulation or communication campaigns solely in the risk and damage issues affecting children, but mainstreaming their right to expression and participation in a balanced fashion. The Internet was portrayed as a privileged setting in which children may thrive and express themselves with little adult mediation. Bearing in mind that greater internet use is associated with greater risks, in turn.

Digital literacy programs aimed at parents were highlighted as key initiatives for keeping children safe and healthy in the digital environment.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

One of the main experiences showcased in the panel that clearly tackles the issues covered in the panel was that of Uruguay and its national ICT in education policy Plan Ceibal. For more information: https://www.ceibal.edu.uy/es

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

There was broad agreement in that for addressing these issues and achieve a safe and stimulating digital environment for children it is necessary to involve both public and private stakeholders, that children need to have a voice and participation, that parents and teachers also have to be target of policy and education campaigns and that internet governance, in general, needs to end being child-blind.

6. Estimated Participation:

There were 50 participants present in the workshop, 60% of them, women. We estimate another 50 online participants, with similar proportion of women. Out of the 9 panellists, 7 were women.

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were covered throughout the session, on the one hand, by showing the data by gender, therefore identifying internet access and use patterns that differ for boys and girls. Parental mediations also proved to have peculiarities when the kids is either a boy or a girl. Both issues present, in turn, different patterns in the different regions covered (Latin America, Europe, and the Global South). Policies and measures were discussed taking into account these variations and specificities.

8. Session Outputs:

The Global Kids Online Report launched during the session can be accessed at:

https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/1060-growing-up-in-a-connected-world.html


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 12/12/2019 - 10:36
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • How can children’s rights to participation, access to information, and freedom of speech be preserved and balanced with their right to be protected from violence, exploitation and abuse in the online environment?
  • What role should internet platforms play in defining the standards for acceptable content in light of freedom of speech?
  • How can cooperation and collaboration on national, regional and global levels help to counteract hate speech online?

Expected Outcomes: The session will highlight that tackling hate speech is a shared responsibility of various stakeholders to ensure a free and safe internet for all citizens. While different opinions will remain on what instrument/s are the most appropriate to reach this, it should become clearer what is understood by hateful content and which initiatives/resources are available to support more awareness and education in this area.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that online hate speech has to be tackled because it means a serious threat to an open and pluralistic online discourse while freedom of speech has to be respected at the same time. Dr. Marc Jan Eumann, Director of the State Media Authority of the German federal state of Rhineland-Palatinate, gave a broad picture on both antagonistic principles.

Most participants wished a multi-stakeholder approach and saw responsibilities of social networks, regulators and civil society as well. Many indicated that a legal framework should be limited to oblige social networks to remove illegal content that infringes criminal law. Chan-jo Jun, advocate for IT-law, gave an example on how difficult it was some years ago for persons who were defamed on social networks. This was the case of a Syrian refugee who took a selfie picture with the German chancellor Angela Merkel. In the aftermath, when criminal acts were committed by foreigners, his picture was reposted on Facebook and he was defamed as the perpetrator of these criminal acts. He tried several times to have these posts removed but Facebook answered that defamation was not covered by its Community Standards. Chan-jo Jun concluded that regulation was needed. But he also remarked that it takes too much time to have put back online a content that fully complies with law.

Some emphasized that social networks should also have the possibility to remove content that is not strictly illegal but that is highly disturbing (so-called borderline content).

Many paricipants underlined the important role of civil society organisations in detecting and tackling hate speech.

Another key finding was that digital literacy is important to prepare users to the risks associated with the use of social platforms.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

It was recommended that the exchange of ideas on tackling hate speech should be enhanced between nations and different stakeholders. International standards should be established that set up some basic principles that could be shared worldwide. Nevertheless, national and regional diversity should be respected what could result in a certain granularity of rules. These ideas were developed in the group discussions facilitated and presented by Carolin Silbernagl, responsible for external affairs at betterplace lab, and by Ricardo Campos, University of Frankfurt and association Lawgorithm Sao Paulo.

With regard to digital literacy it was underlined that this subject should become mandatory in the school curriculum. This was one main result of the group discussion facilitated by Sofia Rasgado, Safer Internet Centre Portugal.

But not just pupils should be addressed by media literacy programmes but also their parents. More attention should be given to gaming content and influencers. It was also proposed an age rating system on online content. These aspects were highlighted by Kathrin and Joao, Better Internet for Kids Youth Ambassadors, who reported from their group discussion.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The German Network Enforcement Act was explained that obliges social networks to operate a complaints management system. The act only concerns certain content that constitutes a criminal offence under the German Criminal Code, like public incitement to crime, forming criminal or terrorist organisations, incitement to hatred, dissemination of depictions of violence, CSAM, insult and intentional defamation. Social networks must have reporting procedures in place. Violations of the provisions of the Enforcement Act may be sanctioned by a regulatory fine. Hence, providers of social networks must do their part to ensure effective criminal prosecution in the fight against right-wing extremism and hate speech. Google described their concept to tackle hate speech online that is based on the principles remove, raise, reduce and reward. The flagging system of the video platform YouTube and the importance of trusted flaggers was explained. Machine learning to detect content that infringes law or Community Standards is evolving. The technology works reliably on spam, CSAM and terrorist content but still has problems to identify hate speech. 78% of the removed videos had been detected by machine learning, 81% of them did not require additional human view. Only 23% of the content reported by users have been removed.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Progress for the tackled issues could be made in forums that already exist on an international, regional or national level or that should be established. Some mentioned that social networks should discuss and work on their community guidelines on hate speech with different parts of society. There was also the idea that parliamentarians of different countries should exchange their views on creating legal frameworks on hate speech.

6. Estimated Participation:

There were about 80 to 90 onsite participants. The number of online participants is not known.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

It was emphasized that women are disproportionately affected and intimidated by hate speech. This makes it more likely that they avoid speaking about certain topics or completely withdraw from online discussions. Brodnig quoted a study by Amnesty International that 1/3 of women were more reluctant to express themselves on social networks after they had been insulted online. She gave the example of a female Austrian journalist who received death threats and wanted to know who was behind them. She found an ordinary Austrian man who believed in a fake story on a rape committed by refugees.

8. Session Outputs:

There were no special session outputs. The video of the session can be watched on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlsXNz0XAeU


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 14:21
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. How can we create cybersecurity trainings that aim to save communities where principles of human-rights based cybersecurity fail?

2. How can we properly ensure that programs that build cybersecurity capacity are actually human-rights based?

3. How can these rights be operationalized in capacity-building programs for vulnerable groups through cybersecurity trainings?

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the idea that we need capacity-building efforts to make individuals more secure and able to protect and demand right to privacy and freedom of expression. This is especially the case as more states see cybersecurity as a national-level goal, and often neglect or even violate individuals' rights in the name of national security.

Many supported the idea that when it comes to cybersecurity trainings and NGO activity on the ground in the Global South, there needs to be better priority-matching while carrying out initiatives, in other words, making sure that what the organization on the ground (who may be benefitting from cybersecurity trainings) actually needs what the organization trying to build capacity is offering to do.

Many also supported the need for a better handshake between the technology found as a solution with the characteristics that are trying to be solved within the organization on the ground. This means understanding exactly what problems an organization may be faced with and finding technologies that offer those exact problems well, rather than just always adopting new technologies and new "solutions" that may, actually, not be the needed or wanted solutions.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

There were many proposed suggestions for the way forward. These mainly dealth with better informing civil society actors of their IT security needs and weaknesses. Often times, the technologies on the ground may be secure, but the people using them may not be, and simply behavior can be a huge security risk. To solve this, conducting human-rights centered cybersecurity trainings with civil society actors should include:

- threat modeling; adversary modeling; device security; compartmentalization and access control within an org.; project management and ample documentation; trainings for software use; 2nd level of security; common understanding of cultural differences that may plague cyber hygiene; etc.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Another issue that was brought up that is not covered by better/more cybersecurity trainings is the burden licesning fees may be on small civil society actors. Often times, pirated or free online software is used by an organization, simply because the licesning fees are too great. This, however, means that more organizations use less secure devices. More could be done to help organizations with licensing fees or secure devices, so that they are better equipped to protect right to privacy, freedom of expression, and other rights.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Progress may be made on the issue by building capacity within civil society organizations who are crucial for the well-being of society as a whole but often given less weight in terms of IT security. This needs to change. Small teams need to be able to protect their fundamental rights and have access to secure IT infrastructure.

6. Estimated Participation:

onsite: 60, maybe 25 of those were women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session was had no specific gender dimension.


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 17:25
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. What are the views and positions of different stakeholders on children's rights to privacy and data protection?
  2. Who is responsible for the protection of data of children and how to fill the gaps of implementation?
  3. How to responsibly balance between protection and participation rights of children?
2. Discussion Areas:

Six broad themes emerged from the discussion, and there was common agreement on the relative importance of each. 

We have ranked them to relative to the comments received and focus on the discussion. 

1. Parents

 2. Inclusion of digital literacy in schooling curricula

3. Centrality of child rights and meaningful participation

4 The central role of technology companies was emphasized.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The following inputs are best described through a multistakeholder approach as not one issue falls within one category. 

Key issues for IGF would be meaningful participation in keynote, panels and sessions and the ongoing inclusion and focus on children's rights in all future IGFs. Finally, IGF to advocate for key internet bodies to require appropriate resourcing of children's digital rights issues. 

The input is as follows:

For parents: 

Suggestions for taking this forward include more focused attention on the provision of skills and information for parents and caregivers. Such training and skills need to be relevant to the context of parents. 

 2. Inclusion of digital literacy in schooling curricula:

Key suggestions put forth to achieve this was working with parents as stated above. Including digital literacy into school curricula from 8years and upwards.

3. Centrality of child rights and meaningful participation:

key to this were the importance of children being aware of their digital rights and having this taught in schools. Attendees also encouraged children to participate in the development of such policies.

4. The central role of technology companies was emphasized: 

Taking it forward would be the development of child friendly T’s & C’s.

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

For links on related parent information, please click here

For existing digital literacy skills and initiatives making a difference in the lives of children, please visit the websites - Web Rangers and Hashplay

MMA's initiative that provides simplified versions of Terms and Conditions, privacy and cookie policies of the five major social media platforms: Facebook; WhatsApp; Instagram; Twitter and Google,  please click here.

Additional resources include: 

http://www.jugendschutz.net/ 

https://www.dkhw.de/ 

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Meaning progress can only be made with the active participation of children, government, tech companies and parents adopting a rights-based approach in understanding children's privacy and data protection. 

6. Estimated Participation:

onsite participants - 60 people

online participants - very limited

women present onsite - 45 people

Women present online - unaccounted 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The differential impact in relation to women and girls was noted and that the girl child, in particular, are especially marginalised in the digital world. 


Workshop
Updated: Mon, 02/12/2019 - 13:41
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1.) How can AI systems best be governed?
2.) What are the promises and perils of ethical councils and frameworks for AI governance?
3.) What possible frameworks could guide AI governance, like those based on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAT) or human rights approaches?

This session is geared towards generating a critical review of the current policy trend of doing AI governance by means of self-regulatory ethics frameworks. The session will both review existing case studies of such governance approaches in terms of their promises and perils. We also aim to articulate alternative frameworks for AI governance, based on data protection and human rights law. 

2. Discussion Areas:

The workshop critically considered the following three questions:

1.) How can AI systems best be governed?
2.) What are the promises and perils of ethical councils and frameworks for AI governance?
3.) What possible frameworks could guide AI governance, like those based on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency (FAT) or human rights approaches?

Two themes reoccurred in the discussion:

1. When discussing AI governance it is important to consider the law and ethics, rather create a false dichotomy between the two. 
2. Context is crucial for assessing the impact of AI, current efforts at AI ethics struggle to do so structurally. 

All panellists broadly concurred on these themes. Yet, their opinions diverged on a number of other issues. Interesting to note was the disagreement on the role of AI/ML systems in society critical processes. The industry representative stated that it was important to content with current use of AI systems. The civil society and academic participants stressed that the focus on AI ethics frameworks skips the crucial question whether ML/AI systems should be used at all for certain societal critical processes and question the inevitability of AI/Ml systems' use. 

The Q&A raised a number of further points, especially regarding the importance of accountability which is often seen as lacking in ethics frameworks; stressed the way in which AI/ML systems cement current societal power dynamics and highlighted the importance of bringing an intersectional lens to discussions about AI/ML systems impact. 

 

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The policy recommendations arising from this session were:

  • Think about ways to include the context in defining AI impacts, through community feedback mechanisms, and iterative software development
  • Consider legal and ethical frameworks as complimentary, but focus on ensuring accountability
  • Think about the broader ramifications for society brought by structuring it following the logics of AI systems (which are often focused on optimization and efficiency rather than compassion and accountability)
  • Bring an intersectional lens to the discussion about AI/ML systems' impact 
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

n/a

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

see above 

6. Estimated Participation:

people: 120

representation: 50/50 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

see above comments on intersectionality 


Workshop
Updated: Mon, 02/12/2019 - 11:13
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • What are the key elements of a framework to effectively and efficiently identify and remove hate speech online and ensure that human rights are protected? How can regulation to protect human rights be effective in the global online environment?
  • Who is responsible for determining what online content should be removed?
  • How can the wide range of stakeholders better work together to combat hate speech online?
2. Discussion Areas:

Participants agreed on the importance of legal frameworks grounded in fundamental rights for tackling hate speech online. There was broad acknowledgement of the continued challenge of addressing online hate speech while protecting freedom of expression. Participants highlighted that while technical solutions are important, they cannot replace human intervention and oversight.

Some suggested that relevant legal frameworks lack the necessary clarity and specificity. There is also a lack of enforcement of legal protections. Several participants highlighted that much discussion is focused on legal frameworks and social norms in Europe and North America, and argued for greater attention to and recognition of the situation in the Global South. They tied this to discussions concerning context, and the difficulties that automated tools designed to identify and remove content have in understanding the particular context and in detecting problematic videos and images.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  • It is the responsibility of states to determine what content is illegal and should be removed.
  • There is a need for greater transparency concerning how content is moderated, and how content moderators are trained to identify and remove illegal content.
  • Participants highlighted that actions to tackle hate speech online must be complemented by actions to disincentivise and address the perpetuation of hate speech and intolerance in society more broadly.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • Evidence collected by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) captures experiences of online hate speech and harassment.
  • The Council of Europe Recommendation on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries calls on states to provide and enforce a human rights and rule of law-based framework which should be complemented by human rights due diligence by companies.
  • The proposed French law on combatting online hate speech would require illegal hateful content to be removed within 24 hours. Failure to do so would result in a fine of up to 1.2 million EUR.
  • The European Commission’s Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online is an example of a non-binding initiative to counter online hate speech.
  • Article 19 MENA region is raising awareness of the risks for freedom of expression when European models are applied in different contexts without sufficient oversight.
  • Google is reviewing its harassment policy to enhance the focus on gender issues.
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  • There is a need for more awareness-raising for different stakeholders, including: for users on their rights and possibilities for redress, for content moderators, for judges and legal practitioners so that they can embed human rights standards in their enforcement work.
  • A gendered approach is crucial to address the different ways men and women are victims of hate speech online.
6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite participation: Around 120 participants, of which half were women.

Online participation: unknown.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender and the impact of hate speech online on women were central themes of the discussion. Participants noted that experiences of hate speech online are gendered and that women – including women journalists – are specifically targeted by perpetrators of hate speech online. They highlighted that this requires gendered responses taking into account the different experiences of men and women. In addition, the panel was predominantly female, as were the two co-moderators.


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 09:23
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can we make inclusion, empowerment and agency of individuals a core design element of identity and data models?
  2. What are high-value use cases that data and digital identity can enable for citizens and consumers, and how can we accelerate their implementation?
  3. How must roles for governments, businesses and civil society evolve in an increasingly data-driven economy?

Expected outcomes: 

  • Broaden shared understanding of individual-centric principles on digital identity and data
  • Identify “lighthouse” activities and scalable, replicable best practices from around the world
  • Identify priority policy considerations that need multi-stakeholder dialogue and action
2. Discussion Areas:

There was agreement on: 

  • Digital Identities as opportunity to enable high-potential use cases as well as risk to individual rights 
  • Principles to be maintained in designing Digital Identity Solutions: Public involvement, Opt-In, Collaboration (you cannot solve identity alone), Standards / Interoperability, Security 
  • No one-size fits all: e.g. top-down state-imposed identity versus collaborative approaches 
3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Policy recommendations relate to collaborative approaches and respecting privacy and control of individuals: 

  • Economic: Define incentives and explain to users the benefits of identity [to be addressed in business fora and digital skills]
  • Social-cultural: Public consultations, Public-private involvement - to reach critical mass 
  • Technical policy: Define and adopt common standards / technology exists to approach this [to be addressed by technical, vendor alliances, as well as ethical approaches to AI] 
  • Overarching policy issues: Define frames for privacy and security before imposing digital identity scehemes. 
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Examples addressing policy issues: 

  • National ID Schemes giving agency to indiivduals over their data: Estonia
  • Collaboration of public-private sector: UK: Gov.Verify
  • Public engagement in designing solutions: Canada, Estonia, Australia 
  • Technical authentication: FIDO Alliance
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  • Focus on standardization, harmonization, public engagement, critical-mass of coallitions to avoid monopolies e,g. of large private sector companies or of government surveillance
6. Estimated Participation:

Estimated participation: 60 participants, 50-50% gender diversity

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Digital Identities should not exaccerbate divisions. 


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 15/11/2019 - 23:43
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. What will be the consequences to a global, unified internet if the ideology of "network sovereignty" increases in popularity among nation-states? In other words, what happens if the global internet becomes fragmented by nation-states as they attempt to exert unilateral control of networks within their borders?
  2. How might "network sovereignty" policies impact long-term social and economic development worldwide?
    • What will the impact be on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?
    • Is "network sovereignty" beneficial or detrimental in terms of private sector innovation?
    • What are the implications for circulation of news and information?
  3. If "network sovereignty" is not compatible with a multistakeholder model of interest governance, what is the role of civil society, technical communities, and multilateral organizations to make sure that our current form of internet governance is maintained?

Workshop
Updated: Mon, 09/12/2019 - 19:18
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • How should data in Smart Cities be governed to foster the creation and delivery of effective, innovative and sustainable mobility and transportation services for citizens, while respecting their right to data protection and privacy as well as other fundamental rights?
  • How can data be (re-)used in a manner that enables the delivery of various public and private smart mobility services, innovation and fair competition in the sector?
  • How can the data be governed in a manner that is consistent with the Sustainable Development Goals? In particular, relevant goals are the promotion of development and innovation, the reduction of inequality as well as environmental sustainability.
2. Discussion Areas:

There was strong agreement among everyone that the primary principles to follow are the protection of privacy, especially for marginalized groups, while at the same time allowing for the benefits of innovation for efficiency and sustainability, for example in traffic management. A less consensual and unclearer, yet important principle is that of "data sovereignty". It is also clear that individual data sovereignty may be limited by collective or public interests sometimes. Finally, transparency on the part of any data holders and users is a must, whether they are private or public, to ensure accountability and to prevent cases of corruption. These principles together function as "boundary conditions", a term introduced by one speaker, for both the development and governance of any data-driven technology. These boundaries are formalized in technical and legal standards, and while actors can and should influence these standards, they must follow them once set. There was also consensus that there should be in principle equal access to data-driven services, and some pointed out that there should be equal access to data as well. It was pointed out that intersectionality needs to be considered already in the design of services to ensure the safety and equal opportunities of all groups of people - this became apparent for example when the workshop participants considered exclusion of BIPoC, non-binary or transgendered persons, notably even at the IGF itself. Participants also noted that in order to to determine responsibilities it is vital to ask "who gets control of what data"?. There was no clear general answer to this, but it was agreed that public and private models each have advantages and disadvantages. Methodologically, it also became clear that it is important to first gain a common understanding about the types of data that are discussed.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Sustainability, Equality and Protection of Fundamental Rights especially for marginalized groups were identified as overarching goals for policymaking. The conflicts of interests between actors fall into the economic, political and social domain: In economic terms, commercial actors may be reluctant to share data for fear of losing their competitive advantage, especially because data has anti-competitive tendencies. Data sharing should however be encouraged to enhance competition and innovation, and to maximize welfare. Here, we need better data governance models to resolve the conflicts, and sometimes state intervention in data markets. In the social realm, data sharing may create new dangers for privacy, and intensify existing social inequalities. This issue is connected to technological challenges that arise from the possibility of recombining anonymised data. To confront this danger, should therefore foster citizen participation and transparency in the design of services and the governance of data, addition to the application of suitable privacy legislation. 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Several initiatives are developing data governance models to address the issues at hand, from commercial actors in many industries (for example automotives or health) to municipal actors in smart cities, non-government actors for example with an eye on inclusive design to geopolitically motivated initiatives like EU-wide data sharing ecosystems. 

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Data Governance models, understood as legal, organizational and social norms which regulate the sharing and use of data in complex constellations of actors, are needed to resolve the common conflicts of interests. Another important measure is making design processes more participatory and generate awareness of intersectionality and possible discriminations.

6. Estimated Participation:

60 onsite; 25 women; 4 persons online 
 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

There was an unusually high awareness for gender topics throughout the workshop. This was supported by the intervention of a trans woman on the panel and by gender-supportive moderation and agenda-setting of the workshop organizers.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 15:23
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

In an increasingly interconnected world, the ability to transfer digital information across borders has become an essential component whether to enabling economic growth, facilitate access to education, healthcare or other social services or just simply empower people across the world to access information and connect with each-other. SMEs have the most to gain from the cross-border data flows that support global trade, but at the same time, are the most vulnerable to the challenges they pose.

How can we better understand data flows?

How do they contribute to our common development goals?

Where do the threats and challenges lie and how can we overcome them?

This workshop aims to explore these questions, in an effort to find answers to the overarching policy issue: how can cross-border flows of data be facilitated to connect SMEs in the global supply chain, while also preserving privacy and protecting personal data?

2. Discussion Areas:

The workshop's six panelists were grouped in groups of two. Each pair addressed one of three main elements: 1) data-enabled digital transformation of SMEs, 2) data flows connecting SMEs in a global supply chain, 3) privacy and data protection considerations.

The workshop provided an improved understanding of both the practical and policy elements necessary to support cross-border data flows to enable participation of SMEs in global trade. Speakers discussed the potential impact that digital transformation is and can have on SMEs. They discussed the right policy environment that can enable SMEs to engage in international trade, as well as highlighted some examples of SMEs that are using ICTs to grow and expand their business across borders. They also grappled with the challenges SMEs are facing trying to navigate the complex regulatory environment arising from data protection and privacy concerns.

Some of the main takeaways were:

  • SMEs comprise a huge part of the global labor force, make up half of businesses globally, and have enormous potential for bringing new avenues of economic opportunity, through e-commerce for example.
  • Cross-border e-commerce is important for SMEs and ICT is a critical enabler of that activity by providing connections to business counterparts and customers up and down the supply chain.
  • Navigating complex regulatory frameworks is a significant challenge for SMEs. International regulations around data protection and privacy are complex and increasingly fragmented.

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  • The regulatory environment around data protection is complex and is causing new digital trade barriers for SMEs.
  • Not all regulation is burdensome and companies can utilize data protection and privacy regulation as an opportunity to build trust and build confidence of consumers.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • UK’s Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) published results of a national survey of around 1,000 SMEs, which asked the degree to which data restrictions were important in hampering the development of e-commerce.  25% of companies involved in the delivery of cross border services or the sale of intangible goods noted significant issues with navigating regulations.
  • McKinsey report pointed to the massive increase in data flows across borders and estimated that this had “raised world GDP by 10.1 percent over what would have resulted in a world without any cross-border flows”.
  • Data Access Map and related initiatives from Open Data Institute
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Policymakers should strive to set favourable conditions for the digital economy and encourage data-driven innovation, while at the same time taking into account the interest of individuals and businesses alike in the protection of their personal data regardless of where it is stored, processed or transferred. Policymakers should work to ensure all citizens and companies can realize the full potential of the Internet as a platform for innovation and economic growth, by adopting policies that facilitate the adoption of new technologies and global movement of data that supports them.

Emphasis was placed on the need for streamlining data protection and privacy regulations and approaches.

6. Estimated Participation:

Overall 50 participants, approximately 15 women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

It was mentioned that ICT is a powerful tool for women to engage in e-commerce. The CEO of GoCoop shared his experience as an SME in India. GoCoop is a platform and marketplace designed to connect artisans, weaver co-operatives and clusters directly with markets. GoCoop illustrated how ICTs can and are enabling and empowering women across India and the world to engage in e-commerce.


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 22/11/2019 - 19:41
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • What is the definition of public interest data? 
  • What are the legislative frameworks on the sharing of public interest data?
  • How to encourage actors to share their data in the goal of the general interest?
  • What regulation for public interest data?

Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 14:36
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

How can we achieve responsibility throughout the entire supply chain? And what would that look like? How do we educate everyone involved in the supply chain accordingly to ensure that all baseline requirements are met? As an alliance of global industry leaders, the Charter of Trust will bring together experts from various industries and countries (Siemens, CISCO, TÜV Süd and more) as well as engaged partners from other sectors to discuss how the various stakeholder groups can collaborate to enhance cybersecurity throughout the supply chain. The workshop will explore how the private and public sectors can work together towards a global framework (of commitments) for cybersecurity.

2. Discussion Areas:

The discussion focused on the responsibility along the supply chain and how to create and implement standards on a B2B level. Participants were in agreement that on the extended need for global rules and standards. Equally important, all suppliers need to adhere to established baseline requirements. Some disagreements were had on the extent of mandating such requirements, or who should be implementing them. The Charter of Trust has been working on creating high-level baseline requirement recommendations that will be applicable for companies from various industries. Disagreement was had on the best implementation of these requirements across a company’s supply chain. Dr. Wolf (TÜV SÜD) expressed that non-fulfilment of these standards should possibly lead to the disqualification of a supplier. Whereas Mr. Kruse-Brandao (SGS) suggested that mandatory standards carrying concrete consequences for non-compliance should come via governmental regulation. However, ultimately  all panellists agreed that full responsibility along the supply chain can only be achieved, if all members of a company have a minimum awareness of cybersecurity hygiene. Discussing the issue of education along the supply chain, Dr Wolf (TÜV SÜD) added that many skilled workers with years of experience will have to broaden their expert knowledge and get high-level training on cybersecurity as well. As an example, he gave car mechanics certifying car safety, who will have to be trained in cybersecurity as cars continue to become more and more digitally connected devices.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The IGF and all the sectors represented in it should address the need for establishing rules and standards for IoT/connected products. These standards and rules should address the businesses, their suppliers, anyone else involved along the supply chain, from product development to the end-user. At this point baseline requirements, rules, standards, and certifications will help set guidelines for the companies involved in the production of IoT devices  Particularly certification will help companies screen for secure and compliant suppliers and help consumers choose products, who they know will be safe to use. Additionally developing cybersecurity curriculums for academia to best address the needs of the industry will serve to engrain awareness amongst everyone involved and gives guidance to high-level policy institutions from those who will be at the practical end of regulation implementation. Further, establishing formal training for employees will help companies be prepared for the increasing threat of cyber attacks.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Of course, the Charter of Trust is at the very center of this discussion, with industry leaders coming together and hoping to lead by example as a well as coming together with academia, government organizations and others to have an open and productive knowledge exchange that informs all output of the Charter of Trust. Other great initiatives include the IBM X-Force Command Cyber Tactical  Operations Center, the OECD’s efforts in addressing digital policy on a governmental and private sector perspective. TÜV SÜD has made extended efforts to address cyber security by offering specific training to their employees. SGS has been working closely with the European Public-Private Partnership (PPP) for Cybersecurity of the European Commission and the European Cybersecurity Organization (ESCO) to work on future legislation and standardization. Siemens was a key initiating partner of the Charter of Trust and has been at the forefront in tackling these rising threats on cyber and data security. Academic institutions such as the Hasso-Plattner-Institute and the TU Graz have made great efforts in research and education of the next generation of cybersecurity experts.

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

(1)Establishing a certification process to asses a company’s compliance with recognized cybersecurity standards. This will help other companies assess who they can safely partner with in product development and give companies a way to prove their efforts in cybersecurity. (2) Establish a cybersecurity hygiene awareness program. Similar to the awareness campaign on physical hygiene in the early 20th century, such a campaign will help to engrain awareness of the risks we are all exposed to on a daily basis and provide us with methods to protect ourselves and our devices. (3) Install mechanisms, similar to hardware products or food, which trigger product recalls if infractions are noticed. All of these efforts should be pushed within and outside of the IGF ecosystem to ensure a safer more secure digital world of tomorrow.

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite participants were around 70 ppl, online fluctuated between 6-8. The representation was around 2/3 male, 1/3 female

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

It can hardly be denied that there is a gender disparity among cybersecurity experts. The panel itself recognized that it did not manage to achieve parity on this matter and addressed what needs to be done better. To close the gap, a bottom up approach can ensure that women are empowered from an early educational level to follow their talents in the field, and ensure the environments, from the classroom to the workplace are non-discriminatory. Equally, top-to-bottom measures promoting diversity and inclusion through soft and hard measures like unconscious bias training will help to move us towards parity in tech.

8. Session Outputs:

Workshop
Updated: Mon, 28/10/2019 - 21:30
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The sessions aims to discuss the following policy questions: 

a) what concrete job opportunities exist for workers in the Global South? What is the gap between skills needed and workforce qualifications, specifically for low-income women in the Global South? 

b) To what extent can low-income women in the Global South take advantage of jobs being created? What strategies can be leveraged to ensure that low-skilled women are better equipped to participate in the digital economy? What does it take to bring new female workers up to speed to meet job demand?

c) What measures are needed to ensure emerging, and evolving jobs provide decent work opportunities for vulnerable populations in the Global South, particularly women?


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 13:53
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. What national laws (or other types of normative acts) regulate the collection and use of personal data in the BRICS countries?

2. Do the laws recently adopted by BRICS countries apply to foreign entities that do not have a physical presence in such countries?

3. Are data protection laws adopted by BRICS countries based on fundamental rights defined in Constitutional law or International binding documents? Are the newly adopted frameworks converging amongst themselves and can they be compared to other existing frameworks such as the European one? 

2. Discussion Areas:

It was general consensus that the political, economic and social systems of the BRICS countries are different and they have different approaches to data protection. Therefore, the approach of policies should regard cooperation, not coordination. 

Some of the participants highlighted that there should be no sovereignty over the internet and addressed as a solution the development of international frameworks regarding multistakeholderism. Others observed that the free flow of information entails bidirectional flow – i.e., when it becomes possible to funnel data from one country and only extract value on another. Therefore, data localization is also about protectionism. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

It was general consensus that the political, economic and social systems of the BRICS countries are different and they have different approaches to data protection. Therefore, the approach of policies should regard cooperation, not coordination. 

Some of the participants highlighted that there should be no sovereignty over the internet and addressed as a solution the development of international frameworks regarding multistakeholderism. Others observed that the free flow of information entails bidirectional flow – i.e., when it becomes possible to funnel data from one country and only extract value on another. Therefore, data localization is also about protectionism. 

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The legal initiatives were presented in each of the countries, as mentioned before. Brazil with LGPD, which is similar to the GDPR; India with the jurisdictional declaration of data protection as a fundamental right and a Data Protection Bill; China with new cybersecurity standards; Russia with new regulation; and South Africa with POPI. 

Russia’s legislation has a protectionist approach and it says that data of Russian citizens must be localized inside of Russia’s territory. That was pointed out as the main reason for some service providers to abandon the Russian market – changes in this approach should be necessary to avoid arbitrary ban of social networks. 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Participants observed that data localization is linked to sovereignty, but it is also deeply intertwined with protectionism. The free flow of information looks like a great exchange of information, in the paper, but in practice it looks like a draining of valuable information. Also, legislations that allows authorities to collect and use personal information without user consent should be targeted in policymaking. 

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite and online: 60 and 108

Women onsite: 30 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender Equality is one of the goals of the discussion about what values should be considered in the BRICS. 

8. Session Outputs:

The purpose of this section was to map and identify what could be the best practices BRICS countries should follow to create a legally predictable environment for business regarding data protection.

 


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 10:08
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Policy Questions 

(i) What should ICANN and other bodies be doing to enhance the multi-lingual aspects of the Internet through the DNS; 

(ii) What effective measures should be taken to ensure Universal Acceptance of all domain names; 

(iii) What are the next steps for all parties to work together to enhance Universal Acceptance 

2. Discussion Areas:

The discussion clearly demonstrated the problem faced by both those advocating for an Internet with diverse linguistic content and those involved in advoating for Universal Acceptance.  Essentially there is market failure as there is insufficient incentives for developers, operators or DNS players to make their systems UA/IDN friendly given the low take up for such names, itself because of lack of UA. Latter demostatred by dreaful fact that 81% of IDNs taken up "parked". 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

The Session clearly demostated the problem, the mechansims for addressing it, not least through the UA Steering Group and the focus needed on the public sector.  Was clear that "market"; or guidance and advice are not going to solve the market failure. 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The overall problem of poor take up of IDNs and critical need for Universal Acceptance are being addressed by the UASG (as described by Dr Data in Session) and the Dynamic Coalition on DNS issues (DC-DNSI) that has taken up the cuase of Universal Acceptance. 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

It was identified that both a bottom-up and top-down appraoch is needed.  In latter case the use of porcurement and standards are one potential vehicle for mandating service porvision that recognises all domain names. 

6. Estimated Participation:

There were eight on-line Patticpants (2 women) and around 80 present (roughly 35-40% women. 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

No specific gender issues


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 13:06
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  1. How can technical community, private sectors, governments, civil society and transnational organizations employ and design a universal personal data protection framework to develop effective policy? 
  2. Is it possible to establish a universal mechanism that not only monitors and evaluates the data transfer, but also settles disputes towards data governance? 

Throughout the discussion, it aims at establishing fundamental principles for personal data protection in cross-border context for future reference. Convention 108+, will be the starting point of our discussion that helps us to dive in the mechanism of establishing a universal personal data protection framework. The discussion will then follow by identifying limitations on the existing protection legislature and its respective impact on the global south and global north. Eventually, we expect to evaluate the possibility of settling disputes on personal data protection with a universal mechanism.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that even though it is very strong and detailed GDPR is too heavy and cumbersome for developing countries to adopt because of the lack of infrastructure, gentle economies which might be negatively affected by over-regulation and lack of genuine need for such an advanced legislation. Many indicated that the voices of civil society on the issue should be raised. Some focused more on policy challenges and opportunities, while others emphasized the role of infrastructure and the need to discuss it more. Also many supported that the legislations should be formed on local levels through regional trade agreements relying on the framework only as a guideline or reference. This will allow civil society to have more participation on the issue through local parliaments and other governmental structures.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Economic: data protection policies should be incorporated into the business models of companies. Data protection policies can be incorporated into the regional trade agreements or into consumer protection laws. The courts may use human rights regulation mechanisms where data is a cause of human rights abuse. 

 

Social-cultural: introduction of e-literacy in schools’ curricula as early as possible should be promoted more.

Technical:

Overarching: local parliaments and governments should be the champions of the local laws, so that civil society can find their way to voice out their opinions on the legislature. The courts may use human rights regulation mechanisms where data is a cause of human rights abuse.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Convention 108+: more flexible and affordable framework compared to GDPR

ASEAN agreement: cross-border data protection as a part of trade agreements

Kenya: localized data protection law formulated by local governments with the help of Council of Europe.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Private sector should not shift the responsibility on civil society which does not have enough knowledge on data processing. Businesses have to provide users with technology that they can trust, they should not care about whether their data is duly protected. Computer science students should learn more about human rights if they want to work with human-centered technologies. We should strive to avoid criminalization and regulation which cannot be implemented locally.

6. Estimated Participation:
  1. Please estimate the total number of onsite and online participants.
    Total number: 79;  women: 30.
  2. Please estimate the total number of women present onsite and online.
    Online participants

YouTube participants: 8

Zoom participants: 14

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

N/A


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 10/12/2019 - 16:51
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

How do policies that impose levies on Internet service providers and other Internet services (“Internet taxes”) impact digital inclusion, human rights, and socio-economic development in diverse regions? What kinds of precedents could Internet taxes policies establish, and what is the impact of different Internet taxes in different regions on the global Internet and its development? Who bears the primary onus of paying for Internet taxes, and how does this impact digital inclusion, human rights, and socio-economic developments?

2. Discussion Areas:

Overall, the session focused on policies that impose end-user levies for the use of social networking and mobile money platforms and the impact of such developments on digital inclusion, human rights and socio-economic development in Africa in particular. While the reasons and motivations for proposing and/or implementing such policies differ (ranging from political issues to supporting the revenue base or stifling dissent/ “gossip”), the taxation of popular platforms is becoming a prevalent in many countries/regions and this pauses global implications. 

Participants voiced concerns that such measures interfere with freedom of expression and act as a measure to control their Internet use by governments. Governments, on the other hand, feel that the taxation of Internet services can be a legitimate source of tax revenue and that foreign companies that are providing services should be taxable in the countries where their services are being used. There was largely agreement that such taxes should not be imposed on people who are struggling to afford Internet access and that due consideration is needed regarding their impact on local content. 

Panellists provided background on the introduction of such levies, noting that in Developing Countries and the Least Developed Countries, mobile network operations are sometimes the only kind of significant tax being collected. They highlighted that what is significant about these taxes is that they intersected with state or ruling party efforts at social and political control. As a result they often had contradictory outcomes, limiting the use of social networks which drive data demand and therefore not realising the rents they were intended to extract in order to meet debt repayments, while undermining national connectivity and financial inclusion efforts.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

While governments need taxes to generate income, panellists all argued that current initiatives in Africa have not achieved their purpose and have, in many cases, led to unforeseen harms. Issues of taxation must be viewed in terms of the political economy of the countries, the challenges they face, the context of global platforms and the inability of governments to tax large platforms that are generating revenues in countries. 

Panelists explained issues of taxation in terms of the political economy of the countries, the challenges they face, the context of global platforms and the inability of governments to tax large platforms that are generating revenues in countries. The impact of social networking on taxes is highly retrogressive, and what may appear a very small tax daily on networks and platforms is an enormous part of the income that people have. Some of the taxes saw a decline of 15% in data use and 30% in revenues, which raises the question of the purpose of the tax. Users are inevitably double-taxed; pushing more people offline hence reducing revenues for mobile operators, who collect taxes on behalf of users. 

 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The difficulty of taxing companies was highlighted due to such companies not having a physical presence, hence the need for international cooperation. Example swere given, including the OECD and the G20-led initiative, BEPS) which is building an inclusive framework to collaborate on dealing with issues of tax avoidance for digital services without physical office presence in countries. From a policy point of view, developing countries should support such global initiatives which would ensure the revenues of the global platforms being derived from different jurisdictions could then be appropriately taxed, rather than taxing end users.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

In an era where countries are talking about digital visions and transformation, conclusions and recommendations made centred engagement with governments, alternative taxation options, alternative solutions to providing Internet access like using spectrum allocations and a global fund to provision of access to WiFi. 

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite participants: 35

Online participants: 8

Women online: 6

Women onsite: 20

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Participants spent a significant amount of time reflecting on the effect that social media taxes and similar levies have for women and other potentially marginalised communities, including the elderly, poor, illiterate and those in rural areas. It was noted that such communities are likely to be even more susceptible to harms as a result of such tax proposals. 

 


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 03/12/2019 - 22:42
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. Local-level legislation and policies: What is the character of the current legal vacuum, and which are possible solutions for enhancing women's protection against hate speech online, at the local level?

2. Solutions at the platform level / policies directed to platforms: what have been the outcomes of national or regional initiatives directed to platforms to curb hate speech, such as the NetzDG or the EU Code of Conduct? How to evaluate those policies in comparison with private regulation developed by platforms themselves, or new developments such as Facebook's External Oversight Board?

3. Algorithmic filtering: Is preemptive filtering an effective tool to tackle gender-based hate speech online? Or is overcensorship an inevitable outcome? What does experience suggest?

2. Discussion Areas:

An effective online content governance framework that balances freedom of expression and freedom from misogynistic speech continues to be a
policy challenge for gender inclusion. This workshop aimed to bring initial insights from an inter-country research project exploring legal/institutional/socio-cultural responses to tackle online hate speech against women in Brazil and India, in order to trigger an informed debate and discussion in this emerging policy area. The session aimed to discuss online sexism with a special focus on gender-based hate speech by speaking to the following three issues:
i) Legal response to address hate speech
ii) internet intermediary policies
iii) role of automated tools to address these issues in online environments.
 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Audience questions sought perspectives on whether we can have a global definition for such issues and if anything can be done at the international level. Another brought up the trend of young women distancing themselves from feminism as a descriptor as it is deemed to
be "annoying" by their (male) peers. The issues of freedom of speech and expression within the LGBTIQ community were also addressed. The panel
ended with reflecting on how to balance freedom of speech and expression with the right to be free from violence.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The session was organized by two organizations from the Global South working on a joint research about sexist speech, InternetLab (Brazil) and IT for Change (India). This research will evolve in the next 2 years.

Christophe Speckbacher spoke of the recommendation of the committee of ministers of the Council of Europe, the first international instrument that discusses sexist speech. For instance, it recommends the use of gender-neutral language across all official documents. It additionally also has a call to ban sexism in media and advertisement.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

3 participants discussed solutions within the national contexts.

Mariana Valente (InternetLab, Brazil) highlighted that naming the act is central to speaking about violence. There is a taxonomy of words used for violence against women and there are clear disadvantages to not having a clear definition to combat sexist speech online, or a definition of "misogyny".

The Indian experience also points to the patchwork of laws that have to be resorted to, in the absence of a sexist hate speech law, and are inadequate to cover the issue. Concerns of legislative additions that will obligate intermediaries to automate filtering may lead to censorship.

Neema Iyer from Pollicy (Uganda) shared insights from the African contexts where countries share a range of copycat laws and that in fact criminalize women instead of protecting them against online violence.

Speckbacher spoke of the importance of including rules against sexist speech in international instruments.

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

It was a session about sexist violence, so gender was an integral part of it.


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 27/11/2019 - 21:07
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. Relationship between gender inclusion and community networks

  • What are the factors that affect gender inclusion which community networks reveal that are hidden by commercial telecommunications solutions?
  • What pathways will ensure that policy frameworks recognise the direct effects of spectrum regulation on women?
  • What are the mechanisms that allow for inclusion of women, queer, trans and gender-diverse people to take active roles in building, managing and sustaining community networks?
  • What are the differential aspects resulted from inclusion of women in community based connectivity initiatives that contribute to more positive change?

2. New approaches to policy formulation, implementation, monitoring and assessment

  • How should connectivity interventions be evaluated to ensure they assess their benefits and disadvantages for women?
  • How policy responses should integrate the inter-sectional approach to tackle the different layers of access needs and barriers including economic power, geographic divide, different abilities, and more?
2. Discussion Areas:

The measure of counts as inclusion/exclusion is set by network operators/big telcos. The very methods come from telecom companies. It is a problem because the definition of digital divide is not rooted on community experiences. The takeaway is that the first step in addressing inclusion issues at the community level or any level is assessing from the ground up what exclusion actually looks like.

Intersectional issues like age and gender, language and gender, should be consider simultaneously. Women from a particular language might be excluded more than others, same as women of certain age.

Space and geography, How important that is in relation to inclusion? a lot of conversation happened around creating safe spaces, making sure that there are spaces where women feel confortable accessing connectivity. Also related to space is the issue of distance, How far the wifi access point is from your day to day activities or a place you feel safe. Also some women will be constrained by the actual technologies that is used to get connected.

 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

A takeaway is we need better qualitative measure of what inclusivity actually is. What was evident on the panel is that everbody had great insights because they have talked with the people from the ground. We need the metrics that are used to close the digital divide to take more qualitative insights. Ask communities themselves could be one approach. What is missing are community voices.

More women in decision making positions, in regulatory bodies and in technologic design spaces.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The Association for Progressive Communications has been working this year in supporting community networks with a feminist approach, creating safe spaces for women in community networks to interact with each other and support each other in their process.

Sarbani Belur from Grammarg mentioned that local content platforms that preserve and share their culture in their own language are needed, and that they are exploring options using single board computers like raspberry pi.

Jane Coffin mentioned the importance of women supporting other women, the role of the role model and the network of support.

 

 

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Women's circles: Community Networks are working harder to create experiences for women to share experience with one another, and to publish the summeries of those experiences publicly on genderit.org.

Generally this is happening outside of forums like igfs, because in general this spaces tend to be more male dominated.

 

6. Estimated Participation:

onsite participatants: 50

online participation: ?

women present onsite: 20

wmen present online: ?

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The whole session spoke about the challenges and opportunities of exploring meaningful communications with a feminist perspective.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 14:34
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

This workshop will discuss in which ways the debate around data governance has fallen short of the goals and priorities of developing countries in pursuit of technology-enabled growth, and what governments, businesses, civil society, and academia can do to ensure cross-border governance frameworks are better tailored to low- and middle-income countries. The goal is to contribute to the design of the updated global digital cooperation architecture, under the IGF Plus model, raising awareness to the importance of considering the particularities of developing countries when designing international frameworks.

Some of the key questions are: (1) What are data governance policy priorities from the perspective of developing countries? (2) What are the tools and instruments that the international community could deploy to help developing countries best engage with the global data economy? (3) What is the future of international technology governance and how should a framework for digital cooperation look like?

2. Discussion Areas:

Elizabeth Stuart opened the workshop highlighting the relevance of effective data governance frameworks for inclusive development in the digital age. Kamal Bhattacharya then presented the highlights of the consultation conducted by the Pathways for Prosperity Commission, arguing that current governance frameworks have been falling short of developing countries’ goals and priorities, and discussing key principles which could guide efforts to make sure that cross-border governance of digital technologies works for developing countries.

Mariana Valente shared findings from her research pointing out examples of where international rules have negatively affected developing countries, and discussing how to improve international cooperation mechanisms to better address the interests of low- and middle-income countries. Fabrizio Hochschild discussed the future of international technology governance and the architecture of the IGF Plus model – a proposed framework for digital cooperation.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

International cooperation is seen as essential to include developing countries’ concerns and interests when deciding for online standards and rules. Elizabeth Stuart highlighted that international co-operation was the most promising option for making digital technology governance work for developing countries.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The final report of High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation convened by the UN Secretary-General proposed the introduction of regional help desks and regional capacity building mechanisms that could take into account particular country and community concerns in a more nuanced way, and help empower communities and regions to play active roles in the global debate.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Fabrizio argued there is also a need for capacity building at a regional and sub-regional level to make it possible for more engagement in the international fora. Mariana argued we need holistic plans, not fragmented conversations, and that developing countries need to start working together, and that UN institutions need to be aware of these issues. Kamal argued there is a pressing need for better taxinomy and better understanding of the problems we are tying to address, because we need to see what is positive about tech and what is a problem in order not to overregulate.

6. Estimated Participation:

Almost 100 people were onsite participants, around 50% of those were women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session discussed the need for more and better gender disaggregated data on internet access and use. The majority of questions and contributions from the audience were from women.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 12/12/2019 - 09:15
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

This session will address developmental, legal and technical issues raised by increasing concentration of data, analyze the incentives of all stakeholders involved, and feasible approach to ensure equitable access to dataset, especially case studies in developing countries.
1. Openness and Trans border data flows: What policy considerations, legal and technology frameworks should be developed for data transfers for various purposes at national, regional and global level, especially the advantages of cloud services and imported strategies in developing countries;
2. Adoption and Responsibility: recommendations on policy and technical measures apply to extended openness of dataset and reuse of knowledges, and how to achieve fairness by introducing governance frameworks. How the proposed regulatory framework hold accountable the different stakeholders (e.g. governments, academia, users, private sector) in the transnational use of data.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for the view that Big Data undoubtedly will be driving force for transforming the World, and cross border data services will develop the knowledge for responding effectively to the risks and opportunities of society and economy development. Panelists agreed that most developing countries are still struggling to bridge the "Digital Divide" with limited investments in ICT, education and innovation. The developing countries would benefit from data governance having readily available accepted principles and guidelines to explore and make accessible a wide range of data and efficient services. The awareness, data-driven technology and best practices spreading on preservation and Open Access to data across countries and international communities will play important roles in enhancing joint efforts and achieving SDGs.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

1. Reach common understanding on Incentives and challenges, and explore cooperation mechanism of multi-stakeholders on big data and governance.
2. Raise awareness and discern key factors on data governance for developing countries beyond the borders of countries and regions in achieving SDGs.
3. Enhance the cooperation on big data education and capacity building with joint efforts at national, regional and global level.
4. Define a follow-up action plan on data and come out a big data governance principles and guidelines in developing countries and roadmap in support of implementing SDGs.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

As an example of regional cooperation and intergovernmental mechanism, Asia-Oceania GEO initiative approved by Group on Earth Observation(GEO) converged the resources on data, technologies and knowledges using big earth data in support of implementing SDGs. AU Agenda 2063 and accompanying indicators present both an opportunity and a challenge for Africa data ecosystem, and Senegal and Tunisia are exploring the better solution on data gathering and utilization. The climate reality project and 5P methodology, Global Change Research Data Publishing and Repository (GCdataPR) was presented as an example of Big Data Solutions from Governance to Practices for SDGs.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The IGF ecosystem may be an appropriate forum to accelerating on experiences sharing and ideas exchange on data services and internet governance.  Action plans can be formulated with active engagement of multi-stakeholders and conducted through cross-disciplinary and cross-region cooperation with broad contribution. The countries may also collect the best practice and the good example of application and the communities can share them with support of internet and big data, especially in developing countries.

6. Estimated Participation:

Onsite participants: 49
Online Participants: 10
Women Participants:24(onsite)/4(online)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The discussion was organized as a whole, in relation to any citizen, user or producer, did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. Recommendation were proposed on how technical community, government and public sector security teams can successfully cooperate with civil society organizations. However, it did discuss the solution for how to enhance the awareness, cultivate the capability of women, fight unbalance on using internet through the education and capacity building, especially in developing countries.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 10/12/2019 - 12:07
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

(1) What are the challenges for human rights advocates in light of the ways in which Artificial Intelligence is becoming part of data governance at the local and national level and an emerging "actor" in global internet governance?

 

(2 Under current human rights law, what sorts of responses are available when AI goes wrong; where and how can citizens find legal redress if the accused is an algorithm, or a service that is governed by AI?

 

3) What are the future prospects for existing international human rights norms in the face of investments into, and increased dependence on artificial, rather than human intelligence in all walks of life?

 

2. Discussion Areas:

Based on the  BBC’s “question time” format in which questions prepared in advance by participants are put to the panel alongside with questions from the floor and remote participants this session explored the relationship between AI, data Governance and Human Rights in light of the question: What are the regulatory, technical, and ethical considerations for "Human Rights AI By Design”?

The panel was asked to:

  1. provide a definition of AI:
  • Several were given, from a narrower definition of machine learning and automated-algorithm-based decision-making, to a broader definition of ‘digital intelligence’ which combines technical infrastructure and use of data. 
  • list three pressing issues at stake at the intersection of AI R&D and online deployment and human rights law and norms:
  • augmented inequalities
  • democratic deficit in decision‑making and accountability, and AI manipulation
  • the importance of incorporating democracy, rule of law, fundamental rights, sustainability into AI systems
  • the importance of human assessments on the impact that AI may have on the individual’s fundamentals rights 
  • the need to address development and sustainability issues associated to AI and understand the programmes by analysing the code and observing behaviour

Questions from participants ranged from the possibility of banning or limiting AI systems able impact fundamental rights, data bias, AI and privacy, to accountability, transparency and regulation.

There was a general consensus that regulatory frameworks are needed to ensure that fundamental rights are incorporated into AI systems and that assessments are carried out to ensure that those rights are protected throughout. 

The panel acknowledged that political, gender, and racial bias in data needs to be firmly addressed and outputs discussed publicly to ensure that discriminatory frameworks are not perpetuated.

The panel also agreed that accountability is crucial and while AI systems cannot be held responsible for their output, legal persons need to be held responsible.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Action points and recommendations from the panel

  • the need to take this discussion forward  into the public debate, so that human beings together shape the way we take this forward
  • Reengagement with democracy and strengthening of the democratic institutions. The need that people who are interested in these issues and those who have the technical know-how reengage with democracy and have a sustained engagement with the rule making process 
  • A legal declaration that data and digital intelligence are people’s resources, as democratic control over AI is not only possible, but also the way to ensure the existence and enforcement of human rights. 
6. Estimated Participation:

Around 150 people participated and roughly half of the participants were women

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender bias, inequality were raised in the session, first raised by panellists and later posed in the question “Since data is essential to machine learning, how do we measure and mitigate political, gender, and racial bias in data?”

The panel recognised that bias in data is an issue that needs to be addressed and panellists agreed  that although it is not possible to regulate the  input that goes into the AI system, it is possible to set standards on the output and that a public participation and discussion on these outputs will be necessary to tackle the issue.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 26/11/2019 - 19:15
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

More and more countries are unilaterally adopting new criminal procedural laws granting law enforcement powers to obtain users’ data to prevent, detect, investigate, and prosecute crimes, regardless of the location of data or the users’ place of residence.

  • What are the policy and legal implications of such unilateral assertions of state jurisdiction for users, companies and state actors?
  • How do we reconcile the obligations of criminal justice authorities and users’ rights?
  • How can we prevent or minimise the conflicts of law for companies?

Responses to these questions are currently being developed by different organisations and in different fora. The workshop is to feed into these processes and offers an opportunity for multiple stakeholders on the panel and in the audience to share their views.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was broad support for bilateral and, ideally, multilateral solutions for law enforcement to access data across borders. There was unequivocal support for the on-going negotiations on a draft 2nd protocol to the CoE Cybercrime Convention. Several speakers highlighted that substantive and procedural safeguards are equally important as the definition and scope of law enforcement investigatory powers in cross-border cases. All speakers were skeptic about a UN-led process; experience has shown that it is very difficult to achieve consensus on a meaningful UN treaty on this subject. Not all speakers agreed that existing bilateral frameworks (e.g. the U.S. Cloud) were fit for purpose. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  • In cross-border cases, consensus on procedural and substantive safeguards is as important as the scope and definition of law enforcement investigatory powers
  • Follow-up on any developments expected next yea, including the finalisation of the draft protocol to the Budapest Convention, adoption of EU's e-Evidence rules, EU-U.S. bilateral negotiations, enforcement of the U.S.-UK bilateral agreement, possible start of negotiations on a UN cybercrime treaty.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:
  • Council of Europe draft 2nd protocol to the cybercrime convention
  • EU's e-Evidence package
  • U.S. CLOUD Act
  • Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network's multistakholder engagement (Berlin Roadmap)
  • A possible UN-led cybercrime treaty
5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

See response under section 1.

6. Estimated Participation:
  • Onsite and online participants: between 100 and 75 (2/3 and half the room)
  • Between 30 and 40% of the audience were women
  • Speakers: 3 women, 2 men
  • Moderators: 1 woman, 1 man
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not addressed during this session.


Workshop
Updated: Sun, 01/12/2019 - 11:09
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • How do we best mobilize and challenge policymakers and stakeholders to come together and take constructive steps towards addressing cross-cutting impediments germane to the unlocking of the digital potential of DLDC imperative for it to realize the promise of the new digital age?
  • An overarching factor for digital inclusion is the need to have highly resourced human capital across the entire spectrum of DLDC labor market and in this respect, what capacity and capability development options are there to foster inclusive DLDC youth and labor force participation in the evolving digital economy?
2. Discussion Areas:

AfICTA was the principal organiser of the Workshop with the support of the EITESAL, ICT-Professionals of Namibia, Kontemporary Konsulting Ltd and the ICANN Business Constituency among others. To ​mobilise and challenge policy makers and stakeholders to come together and take constructive steps towards addressing cross-cutting impediments germane to the unlocking of the digital potentials of DLDC, it was discussed that there is need for self-awareness of the stakeholders to embrace and use internet governance forum platforms in-country and within their regions to articulate critical digital policy directions for their countries. In many cases, there are relevant policies and laws but the gap is the political will to implement those policies. Training and retraining of policy makers would create necessary regulatory know-how for action. A good means of mobilization is for there to be regular South-South peer review through existing regional and international mechanisms. A one-stop portal (broadbandpolicy.org) for policy analysis as a best practise tool would enhance policy makers ability to evaluate the relevance of their policy positions/documents to the contemporary needs of the people. The involvement of parliamentarians would also provide necessary impetus with the instruments of law to unlock the digital potentials of DLDC. A novel approach to steer policy makers to action is for solution providers to deliver life changing solution (e.g.in financial management, transportation etc) for which policy would then do a catch up. It was summarized that clear policy actions should deliver connectivity and electricity as priorities for the realization of the SDGs.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  • Government is encouraged to believe that they do not have it all and as such should embrace multi-stakeholder approach in all policy making and implementation efforts i.e. foster cooperation among all stakeholders.
  • The ICT sector should not be over-taxed. In essence multiple taxation should be abolished as a priority.
  • Ease of doing business should be enhanced to attract foreign direct investment.
  • There should be flexible regulatory frameworks.
  • Governments should invest heavily in the youth and the people in general. Policy makers too should be well equiped to carry out their responsibilities.
  • School curricular should be revised and enhanced as a matter of urgency
  • Focus should be on the development of local solutions because no e-solutions means digital divide and locked digital potentials.
  • DLDC should consider electricity as a critical infrastructural right for all citizens to guaranty access and the realization of the SDGs.
  • South-South collaboration should be enhanced across all sectors.
  • Regulatory institutions are advised to transform by name and policy to unlock the digital potentials for the benefit of their citizens. For example, a telecommunication authority can be transformed to a Digital Society Authority.
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The workshop noted several projects and initiatives as follows:

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Making progress for tackled issues, speakers recommended the localization of discussions among policy makers and stakeholders to review progress and proffer improvements particularly through national and regional internet governance fora among other mechanisms for multi-stakeholder engagement. Policy makers are to ensure evidence based policy that enhanced youth and gender access and also ensure ease of doing business to promote foreign direct investments.
 

6. Estimated Participation:

There were an estimated 30 onsite participants, of which about 9 were women.
There were 5 online participants, of whom 2 were women.
 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session discussed gender issues with regard to gaps in access and connectivity. It was noted that evidenced based policy making would help ensure that the depth of those gaps can in equal measure be addressed.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 10/12/2019 - 17:18
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Key Policy Question: 

How do we define foreign interference?

Expectations:

Very few, if any discussions around disinformation and election interference have focused on the idea of defining norms of behavior around what is acceptable activity in this space. In order to make progress on the commitments of multistakeholder agreements such as the G7 Charlevoix Commitment or the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace, we must be able to accurately define the issue and then agree as an international multistakeholder community on what is permissible behavior. This panel is intended to be a starting point to make progress on this pillar and the findings of the discussion will be used in follow-up roundtables across the future gatherings of the “Paris Call Communities” or other initiatives designed to make progress on cybersecurity norms against the interference of elections and democratic processes.

2. Discussion Areas:

There was consensus that clear red lines include interference in election infrastructure and voter disenfranchisement. Hence discussion on norms that protects electoral processes and infrastructure is needed. Furthermore, due to lack of clarity of international law in this space, there was agreement that a set of criteria to measure disinformation would help to bring discussions forward. The criteria brought forward were transparency, extent of deception, purpose, scale and effect. In particular, participants agreed that more transparency is required to understand what is happening on social media platforms and then also to be able to analyse the consequences and effects it has. The scale of the operations we witness also constitutes a crucial factor for the panelists as the phanonemon as such is not new but the extent of its use is. However, it was also highlighted that the playbook of threat actors is much broader than just spreading false content. The simple manipulation of divisive domestic debates that would not be debunked by fact-checkers poses another significant problem. The panelists agreed that we are living in a post-fake news era and now have to talk about false narratives. Lastly, participants were concerned that there must be a balance between openness online and combating disinformation. Human rights such as freedom of speech must be safeguarded.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Participants agreed that a good way forward would be the further development of the above mentioned criteria to better measure harmful content online. Before these could be translated into international rules, however, customary declarations at the political level have to made. In general, creating transparency on social media platforms was seen as another crucial starting point for governments and civil society to base their analyses and policy decisions on. The latter would also bring more legal certainty to the liability regime of internet platforms for third party content. Once a more straightforward problem definition would be agreed on, online platforms should be encouraged to work together with governments on that basis. Lastly, understanding the actual impact online information has on offline behavior was also considered as essential to better address the issue at hand.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Industry participants referenced the multistakeholder initative 'Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace' as an example defining norms and rules of behaviour in cyberspace. It constitutes the largest multistakeholder initative related to cyberspace in history and the most broadly accepted political statement the international community formulated so far. Among the signatories are 77 states and over 900 private sector and civil society organizations worldwide. Furthermore, the G7 Charlevoix Commitment was named as another important political statement from the leading industrial states in the world. It recognizes the threat of foreign actors seeking to undermine democratic institutions and electoral processes. Other participants referenced academic work that reflected on how to address the issue from a normative perspective. Please find the relevant work listed below.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The panelists agreed to further explore the common elements of an influence operation which are based on five criteria, namely transparency, extent of deception, purpose, scale, and effects. The use of these criteria to assess disinformation campaigns constitutes a first step to develop a better basis of knowledge and help to verify whether, for example, electoral infrastructure had actually been compromised or not. Once there is a more straight forward problem definition, stakeholders should clearly encourage online platforms to further work on the issue.

6. Estimated Participation:

There were aproximetely 80 participants onsite, of which over 50% were women. Online there were 8 participants following the discussion but no questions were asked through the platform.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not discussed per se, however, other human rights' related issues with regard to minority inclusivity were touched upon. Traditionally underrepresented parties actively contributed to the panel.

8. Session Outputs:

Relevant links to the discussion:

EU Disinfo Lab: https://www.disinfo.eu/

Council of Europe report (2017): https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report-november-2017/1680764666

The influence of war and the war of influence by Duncan Hollis (2017): https://sites.temple.edu/ticlj/files/2018/10/32.1_Article-5_Hollis.pdf

Paris Call: https://pariscall.international/en/principles

G7 Charlevoix Commitment: http://www.g7.utoronto.ca/summit/2018charlevoix/democracy-commitment.html


Workshop
Updated: Mon, 28/10/2019 - 16:58
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

This goal of this session is to identify the best ways to ensure consumers can make informed security choices about consumer IoT devices (and concomitant services).  While different initiatives are focusing on identifying core security standards for consumer devices, there is less collaboration on mechanisms that can surface this information to consumers in a meaningful way, recognizing that security is one of many issues a consumer considers in deciding whether to purchase an IoT device.  Below are three policy questions that can guide this discussion:

  • How can we help consumers understand more about the security features of IoT devices, and how can this information be standardized and surfaced in both screened and screenless environments?
  • What core security information is essential for consumers to know about before they purchase an IoT device?
  • How might consumers make more informed security choices based on security-related information that is surfaced to them?

Workshop
Updated: Sat, 30/11/2019 - 07:06

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1. How do we ensure that Internet governance processes are truly inclusive?

2. How NRIs contribute to the Internet Governance process for the sustainable Internet Governance Forum ?

3. What could be the sustainable model of NRIs that make the scope of the IGF further significant?

2. Discussion Areas:

There was a great discussion on the topic. Many regional, national and youth IGF representatives shared their experiences and thoughts. Most of the speakers and participants agreed on the importance of grassroot discourse on the IG. The budget is one of constraint to conduct the local and regional IGFs. Some other issues like the engagement of all the stakeholders, connection with the global IGF and the accountability of the forums were also highlighted. 

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

It was discussed that the government role is significant and need the active engagement of the intergovermental cooperation too. It 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Various models of NRIs were discussed. For example, African IGF is supported by African Union and the Union supports the secretariate and the certain budget to the forum too. But, in Asia Pacific, it is still a loose forum. Carrebian IGF model, EuroDIG in Europe are other model discussed in the workshop.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

It was discussed that to develop the grass root engagement in the IG discourse, we need to strengthen the multi stakeholder engagement though capacity building and experience sharing. 

6. Estimated Participation:

Roughly 40 participants were in the workshop where the number of participants were 50-50. 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The discussion did not discussed on the gender perspective but the participation in the workshop highly ballenced. 


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 09:11
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Youths are the fastest-growing demographic on the internet and those who develop the future of the digital world. We aim to engage participants from different regions with a focus on Internet ethics. By interacting with participants of different cultures, races, and experiences, we expect to discuss and develop an ethical understanding of the Internet in order to achieve digital inclusion. We expect to come up with a youth statement with practical examples and suggestions after the discussion on the following questions.

  • What are the major factors leading to the low engagement of youth in IG and how can we tackle this problem to ensure better participation?
  • How can including youth from all backgrounds help contribute to the development process of Internet ethics and policies?
  • What role can policies and best practices play in creating a cyber environment that promotes positive digital citizenship, and cyber wellness among young Internet users?
2. Discussion Areas:

The session focused on how youth engagement in Internet governance can be improved, with a highly interactive discussion on how different stakeholders could help in sustaining and supporting youth engagement in Internet governance by providing different kinds of opportunities available for youth in the sphere and different levels of multiple exposures for youth.

 A theme that was created in the discussion was that there is more interest in engagement than opportunities. It was suggested that low engagement of youth is not the problem, but rather the lack of opportunity, recognition, trust, and information available for youth to be engaged. The speakers and participants agreed that there needs to be a focus on developing capacity building programs on a national level, while still having a global perspective, in order to narrow down the lack of knowledge and awareness of the youth. For example, the Youth IGF Summit held prior to the main Internet Governance Forum leveraged the perspective of youth from all around the world to present specific messages on various topics to the IGF.

Moreover, we also need to foster a more sustainable approach to support capable youth in IG and explore ways to build their capacity. Many indicated that youth only navigate in the IG space within their own bubble, however, this bubble can be eliminated by connecting youth with other stakeholders to ensure there is continuous engagement. Some pointed out that economic barriers for youth initiatives is one of the major factors that determine whether they can engage or attend in the Internet governance events or the policy-making process. However, this should not be a problem if other community members from different stakeholder groups recognize the values of the opinions or the contributions of the youth as different roles in the community.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:
  1. Youth programs or initiatives in Internet governance must be designed in a way that enables multiple exposures for youth. To ensure the sustainability of youth participation and continuous engagement in the Internet governance ecosystem, platforms or channels should be established to network and connect community members among and between stakeholder groups.
  2. The IGF, youth groups or other organizations should engage and work with traditional youth organizations that are open to all people regardless of a person’s religion or gender, such as YMCA, in order to be more inclusive.
  3. Internet organizations and platforms, such as IGF, ISOC, ICANN, should provide more job opportunities or positions for youth in Internet policy-making in order to integrate the values, interests, and opinions of the younger generations.
  4. The IGF must address the issue of poor harmonization and coordination between the existing Youth initiatives or Movements. For example, by reevaluating the criteria of forming a local Youth IGF.         
     
4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

Youth initiatives from all around the world were also addressing the session issues during the workshop, regarding the difficulties they are facing like lack of funding in supporting the projects or the capable youth to attend the Internet governance events, opportunities to continuously engage in the Internet governance ecosystem or to return to the policy-making process from time to time with the lowest barriers caused by economic or financial reasons, etc. These youth initiatives include NetMission.Asia, Asia Pacific Internet Governance Academy (APIGA), iFocus (A Hongkong-based program for high school students organized by Chinese YMCA), Youth4IG Mentorship Programme, NetThing Australia, Youth IGF Summit, Youth Observatory, Digital Grassroots, etc. Some of the attendees of the workshop who addressed similar issues with the perspectives of their own regions were from the Global South. For example, they have pointed out the situations or the cases in their regions, such as Latin America and Central Asia, in terms of the lack of funding, opportunities, and awareness in the community, etc.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:
  1. Youth programs should enable multiple exposures for youth.
  2. Other stakeholders and Internet bodies should identify and recognize the role and contributions of youth and support youth through employment or providing other opportunities.
  3. Youth must take the initiative to set up more IGF remote hubs to engage youth at national or regional levels to engage more youth and contribute to the policy-making process.
  4. There must be more media reporting by the IGF and media in general on youth activity in Internet governance. 
  5. Youth should connect with members of different stakeholder groups to develop strategies for capacity buildings for youth to narrow down the knowledge gap identified.
  6. There must be pressure on other stakeholders to listen to youth and to integrate the opinions of youth in the projects, plans or policies. 
  7. IGF should push to add more resources for youth, such as on digital literacy, etc., in order to achieve digital inclusion.
6. Estimated Participation:

Beginning of session:

Male: 30, Female: 37

Middle of session:

Male: 41, Female: 55

End of session:

30 Male, 42 Female

Online participants:

19

Onsite, there was 37 female at the beginning of the session, 55 during the middle of the session, and 42 female at the end of the session. The number of female participants online was 18

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

To truly maximize youth participation and address the issue of inclusion, the youth did not see gender as a barrier or a limiting factor for youth engagement in Internet governance at this stage.

8. Session Outputs:

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 17:46
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

Two key policy questions will guide the discussions:

1. Is “blocking access to illegal online content in the level of DNS infrastructure” as effective as “removing illegal content by taking action against the owner/publisher or the hosting providers”?
2. Should DNS operators play any role in general efforts aimed at tackling illegal content on the Internet? If DNS operators have any role to play, should they bear the same responsibilities as hosting providers and publishers of illegal content or should they have a different legal treatment? What are the risks inherent to a one-size-fits-all approach to the matter?

The session aims to connect different initiatives that have been dealing with the topic and map good and bad examples of local legal frameworks applicable to the DNS as well as of policies and initiatives adopted by DNS operators to deal with illegal online content.

2. Discussion Areas:

- The panel focused most of the DNS suspended in the context of illegal content circulation on Internet. An overview of many CCTLD infrastructures, responsibilities and experiences, since .asia until many countries of Europe that have chosen different approach of jurisdictions solutions of DNS conflicts (.no, .dk, .be). There were participants from different nationalities in the audience, showing the relevance of the topic in the IGF context. The panelists were from different sectors and discussed from their point of view the illegal content problem and DNS blocking phenomenon. Although, the competences of ICANN and autonomy of jurisdictions was a issue raised by the speakers. Questions from the audience inquired panelists about the jurisdiction and law enforcement of these DNS shut down and guarantees to make not possible an user that want to make hate speech and circulate illegal content move to another registry where the laws are more permissive. The general mood in the room was that discuss responsibilities is the way to solve conflicts of DNS suspend and illegal content. Also, stakeholders’ cooperation is the best solution for that.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

-Policy recommendations or suggestions were not mentioned in the session.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

It was mentioned The Internet and Jurisdiction Network and its first report launched. Some highlights about the CENTR paper on Domain name registries and online content was also presented.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

- The IGF ecosystem was not mentioned in the session.

6. Estimated Participation:

- 102 participants on site participants (39 women)

- 6 online participants (1 woman)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

-This topic appear during this session by Mr. Bertrand de la Chapelle (Internet & Jurisdiction) as a category of international normative consistency of a notion that is emerging illegal content. The sexual orientation, that involves gender issues, is the fourth category to ensure more urgent measures to DNS suspended. In him words: “not only is there no agreement there's also a strong disagreement because some countries considering the legislation of another one shouldn't exist”.

8. Session Outputs:

Not applied


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 00:24
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations
  • What would characterize effective confidence building measures to develop trust and reduce tensions in cyberspace?
  • How should confidence building measures in cyberspace mirror those used in conventional domains of conflict and in what ways should they differ?
  • What role can other stakeholder groups play in helping states both develop and implement confidence building measures for cyberspace?
2. Discussion Areas:

Panelists from government, industry and civil society, from Europe, Asia and the United States discussed the importance of developing meaningful confidence building measures (CBMs) to reduce tensions and mistrust in cyberspace, and the potential for escalatory consequences. While all panelists agreed on the importance of such efforts, there were different priorities emphasized and approaches presented.

From the outset, the representative from industry shared the challenges associated with being a digital service provider caught in the midst of geopolitical conflict in cyberspace, and without the relationships or infrastructure necessary to engage with governments and other actors in the issue space. The representatives from the EEAS highlighted how CBMs in cyberspace should seek to leverage the principles of CBMs in other domains. Meanwhile, the representatives from OSCE and Singapore emphasized the need to build trust not only between nations, but across stakeholder groups as well.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

There was particular emphasis during the workshop about the importance of including further discussions of CBMs in multistakeholder forums like IGF. In addition, panelists noted the need for cybersecurity CBMs programs to expand beyond national and regional efforts, as the challenges themselves are truly transnational and require engagement from countries across the globe.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

The representative from EEAS explained how Europe was working to adapt the principles of traditional CBMs to the cyber domain. The representative from Singapore walked through programs being implemented across the ASEAN region that focused on providing ongoing, multi-year training to build up the capacities and understandings of target communities in nations across the region. The representative from OSCE explained how they deployed teams to the field to provide CBM trainings to officials in their member states.

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

Panelists seemed to be in agreement that progress on CBMs can be difficult to track with particular metrics. They recognized that it is straightforward enough to measure how many trainings are given, programs implemented, and register feedback, but truly understanding the impact of the resulting trust and understanding is difficult to capture. However, despite these challenges, panelists noted the importance of being able to continue to adapt and adjust programming based on the needs of respective countries and organizations, to continue expanding them to additional stakeholders, and to keep pace with innovations in the threat environment.

6. Estimated Participation:

50 onsite, unclear online. Roughly half of those onsite were women.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

While the panel was gender balanced, gender as an issue area did not feature prominently in the discussion.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 28/11/2019 - 15:08
Data Governance

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

What are the implications of today’s emerging international trade policies for the Internet and those who use it around the world?

To what extent do policy discussions and policies of international trade reflect human rights?

What multi-stakeholder policy advice should be taken into consideration in the formulation of digital trade norms and agreements?


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 29/11/2019 - 17:18
Security, Safety, Stability and Resilience

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

1 - When would the ideal time be to transition from IPv4 to IPv6?
2 - What role would each stakeholder play in that transition?
3 - How can we plan this transition without affecting Internet Governance principles, taking into account the security, stability and resilience of the Internet?

Our goal is to discuss possible scenarios for IPv4 transition into IPv6 with different stakeholders (government, civil society, technical community and private sector).

2. Discussion Areas:

All the panelists agreed about the importance of IPv6 migration, talking about the advantages of using it.

During the presentation, Moreiras showed the result of one survey made with Brazilian ISPs about their perspective to turn off IPv4 on the BGP protocol. The results show that 40% of the providers do not believe that is possible to do it because of legacy systems.

One counterpoint raised by one spectator is that in India they have 100% of the ISPs delivering IPv6, but the end users still don't have devices capable to communicate in this way, so the IPv4 shutdown can not be completely done now - or these users can set offline.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

[technical] Implement IPv6 in all IGF meetings networks
[technical] Create mid and long term plans to update the infrastructure of ISPs with IPv6 capable devices
[technical, socio-cultural] Promote capacity building actions to teach the community about the importance and how to work with IPv6
 

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

It was presented some projects being implemented in different countries:
Barometer of the transition to IPv6 in France
IPv6 trainings in Brazil
German government IPv6 full stack deployment
Hackathons focused on IPv6 issues and capacity building actions promoted by Afrinic

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

The main concern of the painel was the capacity building and the community awareness to change its mind on the subject. Infrastructure and networking, software development, and the ecosystem maintenance are the biggest barriers today.

6. Estimated Participation:

36 onsite participants (6 women)
7 online participants (3 women)


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/12/2019 - 18:25
Digital Inclusion

1. Key Policy Questions and Expectations

The main policy questions are: 1) Why is IPv6 deployment relevant to digital inclusion? 2) How can IPv6 migration affect digital inclusion? 3) What are the impacts if IPv6 is not deployed on the Internet? Our goal is to compare and contrast different points of view regarding digital inclusion in IPv6 deployment in three distinct regions (Europe, Africa and Latin America).

2. Discussion Areas:

The panelists all agreed that IPv6 is an important tool to digital inclusion, putting in evidence questions like scarcity - and the near exhaustion - of addresses, the damage on latency by CGNAT and the broke of the end-to-end connectivity. Other important point raised by the table was the increase of the costs on maintaining side infrastructure to keep IPv4 infrastructure, like the higher prices of addresses in side markets or CGNAT servers. The last point was contested by one of the spectator, who told that if this is true, the market was already moving completely for IPv6.

 

Another important point of the discussion was the reasons to the low rates on IPv6 usage in AFRINIC region, that - as said by Mr. Tamon - is because of the socioeconomic context of the region. Prioritization of other activities and recycle of old networking devices or long term usage of end-user devices makes it harder.

3. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward:

Some of the actionable policy recommendations that we could make are as follows:

1 - [technical]: Train the technical community to deploy IPv6, such as ISPs, governments and content providers.

2 - Raise awareness of managers of different stakeholders to the importance of IPv6 deployment.

3 - Continue the discussion after the workshop. Schedule a follow-up session within a year to analyse the future status of IPv6 deployment.

4 - Create a working group for further discussion.

4. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues:

There are some initiatives that can be observed in Brazil, Africa and Europe.

In Brazil, NIC.br has been taking many steps towards enabling IPv6 deployment. For example, it has been providing IPv6 training courses to the technical community for over 10 years. NIC.br has also been promoting events and forums for further discussing IPv6 issues and succesful cases of IPv6 deployment.

There are also IPv6 training courses being offered both in Africa (by AFRINIC) and Europe (by RIPE NCC). In Africa, IPv6 consultancy is offered by AFRINIC to help companies and governments to deploy IPv6 in their networks. In Europe, RIPE NCC offers both presential and online IPv6 training courses for the technical community. Particularly in Germany, the German Government is working on deploying IPv6 on all its applications and infrastructure of the network at all levels of the public power.

 

5. Making Progress for Tackled Issues:

One issue that keeps arising when you talk about IPv6 deployment, is reluctance. Indeed, it is still hard to convince the technical community and companies of the urgency of transitioning to IPv6. The arguments for the transition and its different approaches are still unclear to them, so the most important next step is to find different ways of raising the awareness of those communities (technical and private sector) to the urgency of this transition.

 

6. Estimated Participation:

48 people (20 women) onsite

5 people online

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

This issue was not discussed.

8. Session Outputs:

African Network Information Centre (http://afrinic.net)

Brazilian Network Information Center (http://nic.br)

Réseaux IP Européens Network Coordination Centre (http://ripe.net)

Autorité de Régulation des Communications Électroniques et des Postes (https://www.arcep.fr)

 

CSV

Contact Information

United Nations
Secretariat of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

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

igf [at] un [dot] org
+41 (0) 229 173 411