You are here

IGF 2020 Reports

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

BPF Session
Updated: Wed, 25/11/2020 - 15:06
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What trends and commonalities can be identified between different international agreements and initiatives on cybersecurity?
  2. To what extent do international agreements and initiatives on cybersecurity include one or more of the 11 norms contained in the 2015 Report of the UN Global Group of Experts (adopted under UN GA Resolution A/RES/70/237)?
  3. What can cybersecurity policymaking learn from normative principles in global governance?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Looking at norms developed in other fields can provide useful lessons for better development, implementation and respecting of norms in the area of cybersecurity. 

The development and implementation of norms should include both policy / diplomatic professionals as well as technical experts.

Norms development should be open and inclusive in order to include developing countries and stakeholders.

 



 

3. Key Takeaways

Even if not binding themselves, norms can play an important role in helping to interpret and implement binding aspects of international law. Norms matter for cybersecurity because the internet is a decentralized, multinational entity that is hard to govern. Internet governance therefore relies on multistakeholderism, which forms the basis for norms. There are useful lessons to learn from norms developments in other areas:

  • Successful norms are concrete, specific, and often create processes to foster implementation and accountability
  • Powerful norm promoters can be critical for success, as can be incentives and persuasion
  • Failures happen and are inevitable but can become the basis for success
  • Norms development, even without results, creates socialization, which can be critical for further success

While norms are often developed via multilateral diplomacy and state-driven efforts, there is an important role for non-state actors from private sector and civil society, providing expert input into both the substance of the norms as well as how they can be implemented. It is also important to involve technical experts, both in the development of norms (to avoid creating unintended negative consequences on the technical operation of the Internet), and to bring technical and policy professionals together to work on implementation of norms.

There are challenges in both developing norms that have wide support and then subsequently in having them implemented. Guidelines can be helpful in supporting implementation of norms. 

There are also concerns that cybersecurity norms development processes are not always open and inclusive to all countries and stakeholders.

The work of the BPF has been valuable in tracing norms and finding commonalities, even where there are differences in language and terminology.

 



 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    Governments, international bodies and stakeholders interested in cybersecurity norms should look to norms developed in other fields can provide useful lessons for better development, implementation and respecting of norms in the area of cybersecurity. When developing and implementing norms to improve cybersecurity, governments should take a joined-up approach by ensuring the involvement of technical experts alongside the policy experts which often tend to lead the processes. Governments and bodies working on norms should be open and inclusive in order to benefit from technical expertise and diverse viewpoints, and to ensure that developing countries and stakeholders are able to participate.
6. Final Speakers

1. Introduction to the work of the BPF in 2020

Maarten Van Horenbeeck, FIRST

Sheetal Kumar, Global Partners Digital

 

2. Norms development in cyber vs. the real world 

Apratim Vidyarthi, University of Pennsylvania Law School

Anastasiya Kazakova, Kaspersky

 

3. Analysis of new cybersecurity agreements

John Hering, Microsoft

 

4. Discussion

Moliehi Makumane, Government of South Africa

Pablo Hinojosa, APNIC

Sherif Hashem, SUNY Polytechnic Institute

Louise-Marie Hurel, Igarapé Institute

Isaac Morales, Government of Mexico

Stéphane Duguin, CyberPeace Institute



 

8. Session Outputs:

Full details of the BPF’s work this year can be found at the BPF’s webpage - https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/bpf-cybersecurity. These include: 

  • What Cybersecurity Policymaking Can Learn from Normative Principles in Global Governance  -  Background document (download .pdf)

The Internet Governance Forum’s thematic intersessional work on cybersecurity intends to guide submissions to the 2020 Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity’s final, annual report. By taking the time to identify successful norms initiatives and their role in policy change, the BPF Cybersecurity grounds its analysis of a wide variety of Cyber Norms initiatives in the lessons learned throughout the stages from early development to implementation. The examples studied in this review were chosen for their effectiveness and are not necessarily related to or even tangential to technology or the internet. By looking to successful norms frameworks the BPF Cybersecurity, and the initiatives it has invested in, might better understand the strengths, flaws, and why some norms initiatives have ultimately succeeded. 

  • Exploring Best Practices in Relation to International Cybersecurity Agreements - draft Research paper (download .pdf)

The IGF 2020 Best Practice Forum (BPF) on Cybersecurity’s workstream on exploring best practices in relation to international cybersecurity agreements is focused on updating and further advancing the analysis of the 2019 BPF report on the state of international cybersecurity agreements, with a more narrow focus on cyber norms agreements. Its work includes:

  • Identifying new agreements and developments since last year to include in the analysis.
  • Reviewing and refining the scope of agreements to be included in the report.
  • Identifying a core group of agreements to include in the 2020 analysis.
  • Identifying trends and commonalities between contents of cyber norms agreements.
  • Releasing a call for contributions to gain further input on these selected agreements and their implementation.
  • Updating last year’s research paper with new learnings about implementation regarding these core agreements.

 

  • Identifying additional international agreements and initiatives on cybersecurity, and performing a deeper analysis of a set of agreements  -  Call for contributions 

In 2020, the BPF Cybersecurity is building on its 2019 report by focusing on identifying additional international agreements and initiatives on cybersecurity, and performing a deeper analysis of a narrower set of agreements. In this deeper analysis, we’re looking specifically at whether the agreement includes any of the UN-GGE consensus norms; and whether any additional norms are specifically called out.

The narrower set of agreements is focused on those that are specifically normative, rather than having directly enforceable commitments.  The Best Practice Forum on Cybersecurity is calling for input for its 2020 effort. Input will feed into the BPF discussions, the BPF workshop during the virtual IGF2020 and this year’s BPF output report.

 



 


BPF Session
Updated: Wed, 02/12/2020 - 11:24
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1. What are current challenges and concerns re. the collection and use of users’ data and what best practices exist to ensure that data is used to bring benefit and not to harm?
  2. 2. Are views and concerns changing and is there a need for new mental models and mindsets?
  3. 3. What is the way forward and what is the role of Internet Governance and the IGF?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Ms Concettina Cassa welcomed participants and explained the purpose of the IGF Best Practice Forums, and specified that the IGF 2020 BPF Data and New Technologies in an Internet Context focussed on best practices related to the collection and use of users’ data by new technologies that contribute to ensure that the data is used to provide benefit and not to harm users.

Mr Wim Degezelle presented the Data and New Technologies Issues Card developed by the BPF as a tool to structure stakeholder discussions on the topic. 

Ms Emanuela Girardi introduced the case studies submitted to the BPF: Ms Verónica Arroyo presented the ‘Dos and don’ts for COVID-19 tracing apps’ developed by AcessNow for lawmakers and governments.  Mr. Ricardo Chavarriaga shared the experiences of the CLAIRE COVID-19 TaskForce. Mr. Cathal McDermott focussed on Microsoft’s privacy principles related to the collection of data to tackle COVID-19.

Mr Michael Nelson led a panel discussion on concepts and mindsets and their impact on policy discussions.The roundtable discussion involving all session participants reflected on some frequently used buzzwords and catchphrases, such as ‘cyberspace’, ‘data governance’ ‘ethical artificial intelligence’, ‘data sovereignty’, ‘data is the new oil’, etc. and discussed if they limited, better defined or replaced by new concepts.

The session ended with a discussion, led by Ms. Concettina Cassa, on where in the institutional and Internet governance landscape is a suitable place for policy discussions related to the use of data and new technologies, and how could be avoided that too many talks and processes exist in parallel.

6. Final Speakers

Ms Concettina Casa, MAG BPF Facilitator ( AGID - Agenzia per l’Italia Digitale )

Ms Emanuela Girardi, BPF Co-facilitator ( Pop AI )

Mr Michael R. Nelson, Senior Fellow and Director, Technology and International Affairs, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Mr Ricardo Chavarriaga,  Senior Scientist at Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW) and Coordinator of CLAIRE AI & COVID-19 Task Force.

Mr Cathal McDermott, Senior Legal Counsel, Microsoft

Ms Verónica Arroyo, Policy Associate - Latin America, AccessNow

Mr Wim Degezelle, Consultant IGF Secretariat 

8. Session Outputs:

The final BPF output document will be published one the BPF's webpage after the IGF meeting:

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/best-practice-forum-on-data-and-new-technologies-in-an-internet-context 


BPF Session
Updated: Tue, 17/11/2020 - 09:15
INCLUSION

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The session tackled the subject of gender at the IGF with a thematic focus on violence, harm, pleasure, and consent. Results from the report put together by the BPF were shared, along with the survey methodology. Overall, the findings show that gender issues tend to be discussed mostly in conjunction with the issue of access and there is a lack of disaggregated data for gender-diverse participants. There was also broad discussion on approaching gender and consent issues online with more positive framing to foster empowerment and focus on subjects such as pleasure. Lastly, speakers and participants also discussed whether a feminist discussion should be included or delineated from the gender and access discourse.

A recurring issue that was raised during the session is the continued silos of various gender subjects at the IGF. Speakers in the session stressed the need to involve more discussions on solutions to gender issues from a policy level in order to make progress on the subject matter. Repeated various speakers also brought up the matter of expanding beyond the UN and the IGF to reaching out to broader communities to instigate lasting change and empower women and gender diverse people. In terms of data, there is overall consensus that more needs to be collected and better disaggregated.

3. Key Takeaways

The session underlined the need to distinguish between gender representation and empowered participation. Although women participants and speakers at the IGF have seen a rise over the past few years, there is still more work to be done in regards to agency. Women and gender-diverse individuals need to be encouraged to actively participate and bring forth specific discussions at the IGF; their participation should not be tokenised, nor should it stop at a simple contribution to a session. Proactive efforts to collect more data is required. Going forward, it would be worthwhile to bring forth more discussions on pleasure and consent from a gender diversity perspective. There is also strong recommendation that the IGF make a conscious effort to include regional and local expertise on gender into this policy space.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    See the BPF report for a full set of recommendations
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session was about gender at the IGF and in other policy spaces, therefore gender issues were the focus.


BPF Session
Updated: Tue, 10/11/2020 - 09:16
INCLUSION

3. Key Takeaways
  • There is an urgent need to empower and encourage users (end-users or professional organisations or institutions) to develop digital content in local and indigenous languages, especially those at the risk of disappearing.
  • Efforts like the WIPO discussion on a potential treaty on the protection of local traditions and UNESCO’s Internet universality and indigenous language indicators have to be encouraged and promoted. The same has to be done with the development of national and regional policies to support entrepreneurial activities based on local expression.
  • Multistakeholder and international cooperation is essential in raising awareness about the need to promote multilingualism online, but also in mobilising resources (human, financial, institutional, etc) to support the availability of local languages and local content online and to lower barriers to access minorities and indigenous languages.
  • Joint and sustained efforts are needed to empower indigenous people and local communities to digitise their own cultural heritage and manage the associated IP rights.
  • Governments, the private sector and non-profit entities should work together to encourage and support communities and individuals to be content producers themselves and ensure that their languages are present on the Internet. Such support could range from stipends to tech equipment and free Internet access. Libraries and schools could play a pivotal role in this effort.
  • Broadcasters and newspapers in local languages need to be supported in their digitalisation efforts (which is a must, if they want to be where the audiences are), because they can help local communities to bridge the digital divide and be connected through what they have most precious: their identity and roots.
  • The production and distribution of local and indigenous content in digital forms should be encouraged, and this should be done while ensuring respect for intellectual property rights.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    See the takeaways
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not discussed.

8. Session Outputs:

See the takeaways section above and the BPF report.


DC Session
Updated: Sat, 07/11/2020 - 22:42
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Increased participation by persons with disability in IGF policy discussions.
  2. The role of standards and guidelines in improving accessibility.
  3. Methods of raising awareness of persons with disability as a major stake-holder to embed accessibility in policy development.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Accessibility for persons with disability is a cross-cutting issue. Based on the UN Disability Inclusion Strategy, DCAD will continue to raise awareness and advocate for accessibility and increased participation by persons with disabilities in the IGF. This will done through sharing experiences by persons with disability on our experiences of online meetings, presenting a disability perspective in other Dynamic Coalitions, working with NRIs to become more accessible and joining in a range of IGF workshops to mainstream the accessibility message.
    Who should take it?: 
    DCAD will liaise with the IGF Secretariat, the IGF MAG, NRIs and other Dynamic Coalitions.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Proposal for a Best (Good) Practice Forum on Accessibility or Working Group to support the development of an accessible IGF website and associated online tools. The direct involvement of disability experts as part of an iterative development process can act as a model for other UN agencies to ensure that accessible processes and policies are pursued based on the UN Disability Inclusion Strategy.
6. Final Speakers
  • Paulina Lewandowska
  • Petra Rezar
  • Muhammad Shabbir Awan
  • Peter Crosbie
  • Judy Okite
  • Shadi Abou-Zahra
  • Judith Hellerstein
  • Gunela Astbrink
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session did not directly discuss gender issues. However, there was a gender balance in all the discussions.


DC Session
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 14:44
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. the importance of Internet access and connectivity
  2. Creation of a new definition for connectivity called Meaningful connectivity and meaningful access. Also creating a way of measuring how this goal is met or can be met.
  3. the relevance of community networks as a credible strategy to expand access, empowering people, and increasing connectivity.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Areas of broad support/agreement:

  • Alternative models of providing connectivity are necessary.
  • Community Networks are an efficient alternative to typical models of connectivity, especially for rural or neglected areas.
  • COVID19 has accentuated the importance of connectivity for the full enjoyment of personality and citizenship rights. The pandemic is a harsh reminder that without internet connection, people are estranged from opportunities and services. Half of the world still experiences this disconnect, because of a lack of infrastructure and appropriate policies.
  • Internet access is a basic right and a public good.
  • Community Networks require specific public policies in order to be feasible.
  • “Meaningful connectivity” requires more than the simple capacity to access the internet sporadically, under limited infrastructural and technical conditions or with a reduced scope.
  • When freeing up more spectrum or implementing spectrum sharing schemes, regulators should allow for the implementation of Community Networks.

Areas of no agreement/areas needing further discussion and development:

  • Talking about providing “access” to the internet fits into a conceptual framework that allows for disparities in the real capabilities of internet connectivity. This is due to the fact that “access” may refer to access to concentrated information silos. This means that it is also necessary to de-concentrate the internet, and Community Networks are an efficient way to do so, because they create little “portions” of the Internet connected to the greater whole - the way the Internet was actually meant to be.
  • There are context-specific characteristics to meaningful connectivity. For example, the choice of device - a smartphone or a desktop computer, for example - may significantly change from one context to another based on privacy considerations.

 

3. Key Takeaways
  1. “Meaningful connectivity” is a new concept of connectivity based on four minimum technical thresholds: 1. at least 4G equivalent mobile broadband connection; 2. at a minimum, access to a smart device; 3. a fixed wired or wireless connection at home; and 4. that people can use the internet whenever they need, not sporadically. The Alliance for Affordable Internet is putting together guidelines on how to implement this concept of meaningful connectivity and how to measure the progress toward its realization in practice.
  2. Community Networks are not seen as rogue initiatives anymore. There have been various successful implementations which have demonstrated their potential and sustainability.
  3. Community Networks help in dealing with crises such as the COVID19 pandemic because they are more agile than traditional networks. They have been applied to bring communities information on COVID19 with significant success.
  4. Access to the internet should be framed from a human rights point of view. It is instrumental to the right of access to information, which is particularly relevant in the context of a pandemic. In this context, too, access to data is fundamental and should be included in the scope of the right of access to information. Non-state actors should also comply with human rights legal instruments, given their horizontal effect.
  5. Regulators should look to innovative spectrum regulations as a means to bridge the digital divide. When implementing spectrum regulations, the interests of the end-user should be taken into account and the preferable approach would be that which increases the variety of providers, especially by allowing Community Network arrangements.

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Community networks must be considered as a credible strategy to expand access, empowering people, and increasing connectivity. We need to revamp the Universal Access Policies and what the Funds an be used for We need a renewed focus on Gender and women empowerment and what can be done to make them feel safe. Community Network are key to support local communities
6. Final Speakers

Sonia Jorge, Alliance for Affordable Internet A4AI

Osama Manzar, DEF

Jane Coffin, ISOC

Rolf H. Weber, University of Zurich

Cynthia El Khoury, APC

Senka Hadzic, CyberBRICS / Research ICT Africa

Nicholas Echaniz, AlterMundi

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

We need a renewed focus on Gender and women empowerment and what can be done to make them feel safe.

8. Session Outputs:

The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis

This volume explores “The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis” and is the official outcome of the Coalitions on Net Neutrality and on Community Connectivity of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum. This work stems from the consideration that the COVID-19 pandemic has harshly highlighted the fundamental importance of Internet access, and the total exclusion that the unconnected face in times of crises. Internet connectivity, has now emerged as the backbone of all social, political and economic interactions along with services during the Covid-19 pandemic. The current crisis brings to light that digital infrastructures play an essential role, shaping our development. The sustainability of such development relies on Internet openness and this book offers an ample range of perspectives exploring why it is more crucial than ever to guarantee that the Internet stays a smooth-running, open, and accessible common good.

THE AUTHORS OF THIS BOOK ARE (IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE): Vint Cerf, Sébastien Soriano, Luca Belli, Osama Manzar, Sarah Farooqui, Dhanaraj Thakur, Teddy Woodhouse, Sonia Jorge, Frode Sørensen, Apar Gupta, Sidharth Deb, Smriti Parsheera, Rolf H. Weber, Senka Hadzic, Pablo Aguera, Alison Gillwald, Alejandro Pisanty, LocNet Team, Carlos Baca, Erik Huerta, Karla Velasco, Anna Orlova, Andrey Shcherbovich, Daniela Parra, Amali De Silva-Mitchell, Nikhil Pahwa, and Anriette Esterhuysen.

9. Group Photo

DC Session
Updated: Thu, 19/11/2020 - 15:57
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What emergency measures have been taken by various stakeholders to support access to information, digital content and services during the pandemic?
  2. How do existing policy frameworks (ICT and broadband, intellectual property, library, etc) impact access to information, digital content and services at the peak of the pandemic, and in the eventual recovery?
  3. What policy changes and practical measures can support access to information and key content and services in the phases of response and recovery - as well as future crises?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The session discussed key perspectives and dimensions of access to content and information, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes connectivity infrastructure and capacities of libraries and similar facilities which help deliver this access, digitisation and digital content delivery and access models, and relevant Intellectual Property policy frameworks.

There was a broad agreement among the panelists that access to key content is an high priority, especially since the demand and need for it has grown rapidly. Taking measures that help ensure equitable digital inclusion and access to content and information is therefore crucial.

The panelists discussed policy frameworks and practices that can help support public access and digial inclusion through public access, and emergency measures that have been taken by various stakeholders (governments, libraries and library organisations, NGOs and publishers) to ensure access to key content during the pandemic.

3. Key Takeaways

The session defined several key policy issues around access to content and information during the pandemic and future recovery, and suggested several ways equitable access can be expanded:

1) Access to key content, especially during the pandemic, is integral to sustaining and supporting education, employment, health, citizen participation.

2) Expanding the rollout of connectivity infrastructure and capacity-building for libraries and similar facilities helps ensure equitable access to content for the public.

3) Innovative and emerging solutions and practices also offer valuable models for supporting equitable access to content and, more broadly, digital inclusion. This includes, for example, using bands of spectrum open for public use (i.e. TV White Space) for broadening connectivity, offline internet and controlled digital lending.

4) It is also important to ensure that existing Intellectual Property frameworks and mechanisms offer a supportive policy environment that helps ensure equitable access to key content. One example of a key issue here is e-book and textbook pricing and access models.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Support further connectivity infrastructure rollout, especially for priority endpoints and facilities that can support digital inclusion and access to digital content and services. Universal Service Funds can be used to support this rollout.
    Who should take it?: 
    National and local governments, infrastructure development projects
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Support Open Access frameworks, controlled digital lending principles and practices - and address the challenges around pricing, access and distribution models of ebooks.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments and other relevant stakeholders
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Support IP policy initiatives and frameworks that help ensure equitable access to key digital content during the pandemic - e.g. India and South Africa's joint proposal IP/C/W/669
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments and other relevant stakeholders
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Issue: the need for accelerated action to help bridge the digital divides Initiative: Partnership for Public Access 2020 Declaration Details: https://p4pa.net/2020-declaration/ Public internet access can offer an economical and equitable way to bring more people and communities online. The P4PA declaration (and accomplaying Pledges) outlines measures that can help achieve meaningful connectivity through public access solutions, including community networks and offline internet.
6. Final Speakers

Nkem Osuigwe, African Library & Information Associations & Institutions

Don Means, Gigabit Libraries Network

Mark Graham, Director, the Wayback Machine at the Internet Archive

Teresa Hackett, Electronic Information for Libraries

Valensiya Dresvyannikova, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions

Moderator: Stuart Hamilton, Head of Libraries Development, Local Government Management Agency, Ireland

8. Session Outputs:

The draft DC-PAL report discussed during the session - "Public access in libraries: achievements and insights from broadband policy implementation" - https://www.ifla.org/digital-plans


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 26/11/2020 - 01:52
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Should Youth be considered as a Separate Stakeholder Group?
  2. What are the current challenges with regards to effective youth participation in Internet Governance?
  3. How to tackle these challenges?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

* Areas of broad support/ agreement: - Discussed the different entry points for youth to join the IG spaces by sharing the journeys of the panelists and agreed that there are no specific steps to follow. 

- The difficulty of being noticed as youth and new comers in virtual conferences and the limited possibility on networking. 

- The difficulty of keeping youth involved in the IG spaces after participating in a youth program or receiving a fellowship and maintain a sustainable and meaningful participation.

- Young activists could sometimes prioritize issue from their personal views without checking the youth priorities. 

- Youth inputs are not taken seriously during discussions and they are not invited to panels.

- The  youth participation is not well-shaped as the voices of youth are not organized

* Areas of no agreement: - A Debate on whether or not Youth should have their own Stakeholder Group.

- Youth Programs and fellowships don't have an effective approach 

3. Key Takeaways

1. More leadership positions for youth in different stakeholder groups and capacity building opportunities not simply being in the room.

2. Ensuring sustainable and meaningful youth participation as newcomers may find the space not so intuitive and hard to stick around.

3. Solidarity and working together to understand the youth priorities and coordinating efforts to tackle these issues and have unified messages.

4- Initiate a dialogue with the different Stakeholder groups and be open for collaboration to have our voices heard.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue: A Debate on whether or not Youth Should have their own stakeholder group Recommendation: - Invite other stakeholders to the dialogue - Know how we perceive ourselves and how we want the other to perceive us - Increase the youth presence as they are digital natives and most aware on how to connect the dots - Enforce diversity as everyone is a stakeholder - Allow youth to grow in the IG spaces - Encourage everyone to contribute and make these contributions realized - Creating opportunities for all youth to be part of the conversation - Reflect more about what are the youth's priority topics - Promote the youth experiences in IG spaces through different platforms.
    Who should take it?: 
    the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance Youth Initiatives NRIs (Youth IGFs in specific) Young activists in the IG spaces Dynamic Coalitions Internet End users
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue: The current challenges with regards to effective youth participation in IG Recommendations: -Capacity Building Programs in IG & Leadership - Continuous Engagement in the IG spaces. The participation should be sustainable and go beyond conferences. - Create a generation of Youth SMEs to represent youth in discussions and Establish Youth Focal Points on specific IG or Technical issues -Encourage other SGs to take part of the youth discussions so they can involve youth in discussions and decision-making -Youth to support eachother and have unified messages -Have a long-term approach of participation instead of only participating in youth programs and stick to the IG eco-system -Encourage different perspectives in topics -Influence the technology policy decisions -Embrace the unique journey of every young people in IG and that they had different entry points and backgrounds -Raise issues that are relevant to the youth priorities on national, regional and global levels instead of personal interests & Visualize the interest of the youth.
    Who should take it?: 
    Youth as activists and Internet users Youth IGFs The Youth Coalition on Internet Governance Youth Observatory Youth Local and regional initiatives The IGF Intersessional work
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Issue: Achieving an effective and meaningful Youth Participation Youth Coalition on Internet Governance https://ycigweb.wordpress.com/ Youth Observatory (Youth SIG) https://youthsig.org/ Youth IGF Initiative ( https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/youth-initiatives) like: Youth IGF Portugal Youth IGF Argentina Youth IGF Poland Youth IGF Summit The IGF Secretariat who organized the Youth Engagement Activities Pre & During the IGF The Schools of IG Youth Programs like ICANN Fellowships and Internet Society IGF Youth Ambassadors
6. Final Speakers

1- Eileen Berenice Cejas, Argentina, YCIG/Youth Observatory (Civil Society)

2- Emilia Zalewska, Poland, , LegalTech Polska (Civil Society)

3 - Mohammad Atif, India, Youth SIG (Civil Society)

4- Joao Pedro Martins, Portugal, Lusophone Youth IGF, (Civil Society)

5- Lily Edinam Botsyoe, Ghana , Ghyrate Ghana (Private Sector) 

 6-Augusto Marturin, Argentina,  Youth IGF Argentina Technical Community (Technical)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session reflected on youth issues without specifying a gender and panelists gave examples on advocacy in the LGBTQ Community

8. Session Outputs:

The participants drafted their answers collaboratively to the policy questions in a Risepad and their answers were considered in this report as part of the recommendations.

The discussions points including recommendations and debate points will be added to the YCIG final report and shared with the new 2021 Steering Committee members as action items to build on next year. It will be also recommended to the new Steering Committee to continue and increase the engagement of the YCIG with other DCs and other Youth initiatives and organizations especially for the preparation of 2021 IGF and the Youth IGF Summit in Poland.

A blogpost with the summary of the session will be shared on the YCIG webiste (https://ycigweb.wordpress.com/)

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

-Inspire people to do more, involve people so they know what's happening and know how to contribute and impact so that we have this going forward
-Strengthening and enhancing the engagement of Stakeholders especially youth and disadvantged stakeholders for future IG mechanisims and deliverables particularly those from developing countries
-The promise of sticking around and keeping involved in the regional level but also trying to seek a more unified approach with getting involved with different institutions to conenct the dots
-Creating opportunities for all youth to be part of the conversation
-Encouraging diversity to have as many  as possible points of views hear and creating Networking opportunities next year as it is the best part of the IGF


DC Session
Updated: Thu, 05/11/2020 - 14:23
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How can we place the concept of ‘privacy as boundary management’ at the centre of conversations about data — boundary management allows us to control what we share with others, and is crucial to live a life of dignity.
  2. What happens with the personal data that is collected by apps, especially when users’ consent is not informed or meaningful, and what are the gendered implications around this?
  3. What kind of feminist values can we use to build the future of technology, and how can we use imagination as a tool for political change?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

1. Summary of Gender Report Cards (IGF 2019)

2. Data, privacy and boundary management

Speaker Dr. Anja Kovacs highlights in her essay highlights the concept of 'privacy as boundary management' as being central to whether and how we share our data, what happens with our data, what information about ourselves do we want to share or not share, etc. However, the concept of boundary management doesn’t reflect much in traditional conversations about privacy. In most dominant discourses, data is treated as a resource - separate from the medium that generates it. This has severe implications on a person's agency, privacy and rights. Boundary management is not only important because it allows us to control what we share with others but this control is crucial to living a life of dignity.

3. Gendered implications of data collection by apps

In her essay, Sadaf Khan reflects on menstrual apps, how they track data, and the gendered implications around it. People’s consent to data collection by apps is often not informed consent - they are not fully aware that the apps are ‘authorised’ to share their information, comment and stories. What do these apps do with the data? Who handles the data? Who has access to it? How is it used? For how long is it stored?

4. Feminist values for building transfeminist futures

As Joana Varon reflects in her essay, what would the future look like if algorithms that command our daily interactions were developed based on feminist values? What if the technologies we cherish were developed to crash, instead of maintain, the matrix of domination of capitalism, hetero-patriarchy, white supremacy, and colonisation? How can we build technologies based on feminist notions of consent? How can we use feminist frameworks and values to question, imagine and design tech?

3. Key Takeaways

Placing consent at the centre of the conversations around data. Data policies must consider consent & privacy not individualistic matters but collective matters. Policies must take into account economic structures that impact how tech is designed & marketed to men & women, impacting power dynamics.

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    We need to think not just about datafication of bodies, but also about how data is used and what implications it has for us. No longer talking about data as a resource is an important way to start rethinking data and privacy. Feminist thinking around bodies and the constitution bodies becomes a useful tool to develop a language and vision to address some of these issues. We need to put meaningful consent at the centre of the conversations and we take into account power relations - can we negotiate before, during, and after entering into an agreement, and can we walk away from it. Media and Information Literacy is focused on technicalities of using the internet but not about meta data, what goes on outside the user interface and the screens we see, implications of biometrics, FRTs, etc. MIL should focus on including these questions.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    In data protection frameworks, it is important to recognise consent not as an individualistic matter but as a collective matter closely tied with autonomy, agency, and privacy. Data protection policies should be consistent with feminist principles of consent.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    We need to have more conversations on the economy of tech which impacts the design of tech and gendered experiences around data collection, algorithms, surveillance etc.
6. Final Speakers

Speakers:

Dr. Anja Kovacs, Internet Democracy Project, India

Joana Varon, Coding Rights, Brazil

Sadaf Khan, Media Matters for Democracy, Pakistan

Moderator:

Bishakha Datta, Point of View, India

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session directly engaged with gender, focusing on issues such as the gendered implications of data collection by technology, algorithmic biases impacting marginalised genders, the feminist principles of consent, etc.


DC Session
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 13:05
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How did the domain Industry respond to the Covid-19 pandemic? Covid-19 trends in social media, and self regulatory responses. Covid-19 a perspective from the EURid Youth Committee on the dynamic coalition.
  2. Covid-19 misinformation in the web environment.
  3. What regulatory interventions have been successful in limiting the spread of Covid-19 misinformation online?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed
  • Covid-19
  • Misinformation
  • Regulatory interventions to limit the spread of misinformation online 
  • Industry approaches to limiting the spread of misinformation online
  • Data leakage and data breaches associated with covid-19 data
  • Covid-19 related DNS abuse
  • Existing procedures for sharing information on DNS abuse in crisis situations
  • Measures taken by registrars to prevent the Spread of Covid-19 related misinformation
  • Need for continued dialogue between community of registrars
  • Movement of offline problems online
  • Closing the digital divide
  • Messaging services and online platforms as critical infrastructure
  • Importance of encryption 
  • Encryption ‘backdoors’
  • Partnerships between tech companies and health authorities (International and domestic)
  • Search engine optimisation and the spread of misinformation
  • Third party links and misinformation
  • How platforms are helping spread misinformation 
  • Advertising and misinformation
  • Cybersecurity risks generated by working from home 
  • EU Code of Practice on Disinformation
  • 1 Year review of EU Code of practice on Disinformation
3. Key Takeaways
  • A number of domain name registries and registrars have been actively working to limit the spread of misinformation during covid-19
  • EURid and Tucows reported that the quantity of new domain names registered during covid creating a risk of harm by spreading misinformation was relatively minimal (<1%).
  • There is a need for reliable information to be shared between registrars regarding DNS abuse during crises. 
  • Partnerships between tech companies and public institutions (international and domestic) have been crucial to stemming the flow of misinformation during Covid-19
  • Misinformation is not only spread by hostile actors, it can be spread by 
  • It is not just any sort of hostile actors that are spreading false information,  different culprits such as algorithms and big data enabled tools that are optimized for junk news are also to blame.  We have alternative media outlets that are doing very well over these social media algorithms and that are also having economic incentives.There is also a mainstream problem with misinformation.  During the politics of post truth, political leadership both in authoritarian regimes, but also in democracies, is disseminating all sorts of conspiratorial or deceiving information.
  • Traditional techniques for professional search engine optimisation are also being employed to spread misinformation such as boosting domain authority, backlinking, and markup and advertising.
  • The EU Code of Practice on Disinformation has led to tangible progress in the major platforms approach to addressing disinformation, but this has been limited by the scope of the code and the fact that it only applies within the EU and to the major tech companies.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Objective of the dynamic coalition is to explore multiple dimensions of data and trust from the perspective of a wide variety of stakeholders.
    Who should take it?: 
    Dynamic Coalition on Data and Trust
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    There is a need to address the question of how to restore trust in the digital ecosystem.
    Who should take it?: 
    Dynamic Coalition on Data and Trust
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    There is a need for reliable information to be shared between registrars regarding DNS abuse during crises.
    Who should take it?: 
    Dynamic Coalition on Data and Trust
6. Final Speakers

Giovanni Seppia, EURid

Pablo Bello, WhatsApp

Lisa-Maria Neudert, Oxford Internet Institute

Antoan Shoratov, EURid Youth Committee

Alberto Rabbachin, European Commission


DC Session
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 12:28
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. WG Security by design - Internet of things: What are current best practices? To detect divergence in national policy and provide advice on global harmonisation. Identify barriers for deployment of best practices and provide policy to overcome these barriers. To identify IoT attack and threat vectors. To create a best practice proposal on IoT-legacy.
  2. WG Education and Skills: Examine whether current education curricula include Internet security, safety, governance and architecture and provide a best practice policy for ICT education programmes. Bring together experts with the aim of establishing collaboration. Agreement on how to disseminate and promote the outcomes of the WG, taking into account national and regional differences. Provision of guidance for vocational training programs, e.g. relating to procurement decisions and deployment generally of Internet standards and ICT best practices.
  3. WG Procurement, supply chain management and business case: Prepare practical guidance on incorporating relevant security standards in procurement objectives. Compile best practice guidelines to support purchasers to make better decisions. Promote a framework to increase consistency amongst national public sector purchasers and regulators. Resolve gaps in knowledge on security standards on the national level. Advocate inclusion of security-based procurement in government digitalization strategies. Consider liability regimes with penalties to strengthen compliance with security standards recommendations. Establish a continuous role for the IGF as multi-stakeholder observatory to monitor and review security standards deployment.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Before this DC-ISSS launching workshop several preparatory meetings have taken place to decide on the most urgent topics to start work on. These were presented in the day 0 workshop #19 'Let's Work!' and the comments made have been taken into account. This launch was used to present on the urgency of deploying security related Internet standards and ICT best practices in general, after which the working program and main policy questions were presented. All the debates had taken place in the previous sessions. The work programme of the DC-ISSS is seen as ambitious but has full agreement on the three identified Working Groups and the identified topics and questions within the Working Groups, as presented above here.

3. Key Takeaways

1) The main recommendations considering the slow deployment of Internet standards and ICT best practices have been identified and agreed upon. Participants in the DC have turned then into specific topics and a workplan that addresses: a) the steps towards the identification of current best practices; b) the ambition to present policy recommendations.

2) There is broad stakeholder support and participation for the three workplans, that in the coming year are expanded to absent stakeholders.

3) The work starts in the last week of November.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The three Working Groups will meet on Tuesday 24 November (WG1), Wednesday 25 November (WG2) and Friday 27 November (WG3), all at 12.00 UTC. In these sessions final decisions will be made on priorities, next steps and timelines. Also the topic of WG chairs will be addressed. More information and the link to sign up to the mailing list can be found on the DC-ISSS page.
    Who should take it?: 
    This topic involves a wide range of stakeholders who will be convened within the DC-ISSS on specific, intertwined topics. Active outreach is foreseen as an important topic within the DC, as some stakeholders are currently not engaged (in Internet Governance). The policy recommendations and action plans will be made in the DC-ISSS under the IGF umbrella.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Many have been identified. Too much to mention. The DC-ISSS strives to prevent duplication and strives to add value to current initiatives, by working together, exchange information, combine expertise, turn theory into practice, etc.
6. Final Speakers

Wout de Natris

Jonas Grätz - Hoffmann

Olaf Kolkman

Raymond Onuoha

Ghislain de Salins

Mark Carvell

Yurii Kargapolov

Janice Richardson

Alejandro Pisanty

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Short report: The DC-ISSS was successfully launched in this session. Gender issues were not a topic in the DC. Differences on the national and regional level have been mentioned and taken into account. Due to cancelation, declining the invitation to speak and the offered speakers, gender balance unfortunately has not been reached.

 

8. Session Outputs:

Report IGF 2020 Launch of DC Internet Standards, Security & Safety (DC-ISSS)

Friday, 6 November, 2020 - 09:10 to 10:40 UTC

DC-ISSS leadership:

  • Wout de Natris
  • Mark Carvell
  • Marten Porte

 

This session marks the official launch of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Safety and Security (DC-ISSS). Wout de Natris, Chair of the DC, presented the goals of the event and of the DC at large: make policy recommendations and connect both existing stakeholders and new stakeholders. A picture was painted on the status quo of the implementation of Internet standards and the reasons that have led to this. For this, the connection was made to the report that came out of the 2019 IGF pilot project on Internet standards deployment, which investigated both causes and possible solutions of slow standards deployment, of which three were selected, by the DC-ISSS participants, for the initial work of the Dynamic Coalition:

 

  1. Security by Design - sub-group IoT security;
  2. Education and skills;
  3. Procurement, supply chain management and the creation of a business case.

 

Following the introduction, four experts gave a short presentation on the importance of a safer internet and the deployment of security standards.

 

Jonas Grätz-HoffmannOffice of the Special Envoy for Cyber Foreign and Security Policy, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Switzerland – spoke about the importance of digital governance for the Swiss Government. He also warned of the fragmentation of global rules and standards and the Internet as a whole. He stressed that the Dynamic Coalition could become a key milestone in strengthening the IGF in new ways in terms of creating concrete, actionable outcomes.

 

Olaf Kolkman - Principal, Internet Technology, Policy and Advocacy, Internet Society – spoke about positive examples of standard deployment and the reasons behind them. Based on a book by Everett Rogers, ‘Diffusion of Innovations’, he explained that the deployment of innovations generally goes through five stages:

  1. Knowledge/awareness is necessary;
  2. The innovation needs to seem useful to the potential user;
  3. Decision will be made on deployment;
  4. Implementation phase;
  5. Confirmation that the innovation works and you keep using it.

 

For the persuasion phase, five factors are at play:

  1. Relative advantage;
  2. Complexity;
  3. Compatibility;
  4. Try-ability (without breaking the system);
  5. Observability.

Security standards have serious issues on all these five factors. The relative advantage is often missing, especially for first movers. We see deployment especially lacking when complexity is high. Also new standards are often inherently incompatible with other standards. On top of that, big challenges exist with being able to try new standards and observing that a standard has been implemented. Initiatives should focus on improving these five factors.

 

Raymond Onuoha – Associate Member, African ICT Foundation – showed the challenges that exist in standards deployment in an African context. One report showed the importance of network security as a shared responsibility. Therefore, initiatives exist to avoid duplication of efforts and to bridge capacity deficits. Furthermore, the necessity of capacity building was stressed, which can be considered by Working Group 2 of the DC-ISSS. Lastly, he highlighted that national governments are key actors for promoting best practices and facilitate information sharing.

 

Ghislain de Salins – Digital Security Policy, OECD – gave a presentation on IoT security by design. He explained the work being done in the OECD and the importance of IoT security. Also, the different stages in which vulnerabilities can appear, such as in the microprocessors, meaning that a once secure product is not necessarily secure forever. Also, an issue with IoT products is legacy products, or products that are no longer updated by the manufacturer. One of the issues is the misalignment of market incentives. The OECD designed a policy tool kit which goes from raising awareness to liability legislation.

 

Presenting the DC-ISSS

In the following part of the session Mark Carvell recounted the road taken from the pilot project around the IGF in Berlin to the current session. He stressed the commitment to sustain the momentum, including a series of individual stakeholder consultations on key issues and priorities for the first phase of taking the work further under the auspices of the IGF and thus bring the topic of deployment to a next level. The goal is to use the IGF framework to deliver tangible policy outcomes.

The themes of the three DC-ISSS Working Groups were then presented:

WG1: Security by Design: Sub-group 1 - Internet of Things

Yurii Kargapolov – Chair of IoT Special Interest Group, Internet Society – laid out the proposed work for the working group on Internet of Things. He stressed the importance of protecting websites against the most common vulnerabilities and of enhancing the trustworthiness of platforms. It will also be important to avoid duplication of other IoT-related initiatives. The first aim of the working group will be creating guidelines of best practices. Secondly, the working group will aim to identify current barriers to deployment and how to overcome these barriers. Another topic that was touched upon was the disclosure of vulnerabilities which is necessary for safe IoT-devices.

 

Participants asked if there will be more working groups on security by design. These are foreseen and can be activated by request or when it is necessary to do so.

 

WG2: Education and Skills

Janice Richardson – International Advisor, Insight S.A. Luxembourg – presented the goals for the second working group on education and skills. She stressed the importance of including Internet security in education and skills programmes. She explained that some of the information or communication technology courses, e.g. at university and the vocational level, currently do not include digital security, which is problematic. The working group will identify best practices. In addition, the security of online learning platforms is important, but might be addressed in another working group. In conclusion, she believes that educational curricula should include greater coverage of Internet security, safety, governance, and architecture depending on the level. Rather than working on public awareness, the working group aims to reach relevant organisations such as ministries of education and universities. Other outreach options were also discussed.

 

WG3: Procurement, Supply Chain Management and the Business Case

Alejandro Pisanty – Universidad Nacional Autonomico de Mexico (UNAM) – illustrated the difficulty of having many competing standards. He explained that many rules are being created but often not followed up on. This working group on procurement, supply chain management and business case will look at how the normative role of the government can be used to increase deployment of standards. The purchasing power of the state and large corporations should be put to good use to include these standards in their purchasing requirements. One of the goals will be to create a comprehensive practical guide on incorporating relevant and optimal security standards in procurements, including SMEs. Also, knowledge gaps and inconsistencies between countries should be bridged. Best practices are to be shared by the participants, as well as bad practices from the past.

 

Closing remarks

The three remaining themes, a) regulation, b) human rights and consumer protection, and c) responsible disclosure of vulnerabilities will start at a later phase of the project, as soon as it is opportune to do so. This is the same for other sub-themes in WG1 on Security by design, e.g. for websites, platforms, data storage, software, etc.

 

The Chair concluded the session by thanking all speakers and inviting everyone who is interested to join and share their knowledge and ideas. It was also requested that people who are interested in chairing one of the working groups get in touch with the leadership.

 

Furthermore, the need for funding to actively support the work within and progress of this Dynamic Coalition is stressed by the Chair. He concluded by highlighting the progress that has been made on this topic within the IGF framework. Now the real work on content will start. A special thanks goes out to the Swiss Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs for its support in making the launch of the DC possible.

 

The working groups will meet on Tuesday 24 November (WG1), Wednesday 25 November (WG2) and Friday 27 November (WG3), all at 12.00 UTC. More information and the link to sign up to the mailing list can be found here.

 

10. Voluntary Commitment

All three WGs are filled with experts, from around the globe and all stakeholder groups, who have expressed their willingness to contribute. (See the DC-ISSS mailing list.) Since the launch the group has grown further.


DC Session
Updated: Sat, 21/11/2020 - 05:23
TRUST

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    There is a set of measures that tech companies should look at and act on. One important aspect is that we should differentiate between the production of individual content (legal and illegal) and its dissemination. This covers the content that are self-generated and its dissemination. It is algorithmic amplification that should be addressed properly. In other words, we can argue that companies are "automating the bad". If we look at the topic of algorithmic amplification and the lack of detection of the content with the perspective of a victim portrayed on the material that is further disseminated, we know that they have to live with the fear that someone will recognize them and that they images of abuse is freely available on the net. The protection of the privacy of the victims of sexual abuse and exploitation is vital and should be weight in as an important consideration. One the other hand, tech companies and all platforms providing content to users should apply age restrictions more rigorously. We do not approach the virtual world with the right framing which should be: if a business can't manage to make profit without protecting children, they should not be deemed to carry on doing business. These businesses are not fit for purpose. It is well documented that offenders do seek vulnerable children on the clear net where the children are and use the darknet for other purposes, when they do, hence the measures deployed by tech companies need to focus on the clear net. The darknet amplifies the idea that it is fine to sexually abuse and exploit a child, abuse that is performed else where on the clear net or offline, regardless of the modus operandi. Recommendations: 1- Stronger legal requirement for business who provide online content as duty bearers; 2- More rigorous application of age verification tools by online content providers; 3- Wider deployment of safety by design by tech companies; 4- Certain part of the design must stopped immediately; 5- Conduct a long term impact assessment on services offered by content providers; 6- A stronger algorithmic oversight by external parties;
    Who should take it?: 
    Business duty bearers such as the tech sector and law makers
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The technology undermines children's rights while it also sustains children's rights. It is part of the problem and part of the solution. Technologies potentially amplify crisis because they tend to throw us into the immediacy of the day while it is urgent to bring the future into play. There is a constant tension in that sense. As a community we need to invent a new purpose for the technology. Recommendation 1- We must think creatively how to leverage technology to support children.
    Who should take it?: 
    the IGF
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The Covid-19 crisis has put children in the center of a (digital) environment not fit for them while they were unprepared and so were their parents and care givers. While some private schools were very fast in adapting and migrate online to deliver the school curricular most public schools struggled. We need to revisit what it means to "adapt fast" since child safeguarding was usually not considered in the plans made to migrate fast by most education providers. Added to the fact that the crisis made more obvious the digital divide lived by millions of children with no access to a laptop or any sort of device or forced to share a family device to be able to receive the classes. In the UK, it is known that teachers lost contact with nearly 40% of their students. This pandemic has put children at the center of an environment that is toxic to them. This should force us to reflect as a society on the type of "new normal" that we are creating for our children. One positive aspect is that the public in general, parents and care givers have become more aware of these issues thanks to the pandemic. Added to the acknowledge that the responsibility of the police-only to disrupt the harm done to children. Recommendation 1 - We must revisit the concept of crisis and think extensively how to address all crisis challenging children's rights. Recommendation 2 - Crisis affecting children's' rights online are the responsibility of all actors across sectors and not a police-only matter.
    Who should take it?: 
    the IGF, all stakeholders involved with supporting digital enabling and Ministries of Educations at country level
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    A broad range of children's rights are affected by the Covid-19 crisis, including but not limited to: 1- their right to be informed: 2- their right to privacy including issues regarding child data collection and the lack of understanding and awareness of care givers on how to supervise their children without affecting their right to privacy. 3- Their right to be protected from abuse and exploitation: the likelihood of encountering risks and being harmed increased with vulnerable children; 4- Their right to health: All of these rights are affected in many different ways it times of crisis but we must acknowledge that they are all equally important and there is not hierarchy of rights. During this crisis we have created a new normal with children who finds themselves disconnected from their usual social network and their school environment that gives them stability and is important to their mental health. Online communications are planned and intentional and off line social interactions are also accidental. This last type of interactions disappear online while they are needed to develop the social skills of children and are essential to their mental health. We are seeing more than ever, a broad range of risks online that children are facing: this include 1- Misinformation on a range on topics including health, 2- Hate speech and radicalization 3- Domestic violence: in the UK they were reports by Child Helplines of calls from children reporting domestic violence like it was never seen before whereas in Germany, one child helpline reports that prior to Covid19, they received more reports of sexual abuse and of domestic violence while the level of reporting is not an indication or evidence of the prevalence of the cases of abuse and of domestic violence.
    Who should take it?: 
    Relevant policy makers and front line service providers at country level
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues

DC Session
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 00:53
INCLUSION

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    In this DC, we addressed issues and gaps in three demand side areas based on the analysis of our 120 case studies on connecting the unconnected: 1-digital skills, 2-health and gender, 3-community networks and 1-Digital skills: (i)Our case study analysis has shown that majority of digital skills training programs target students (43%) while the seniors and the disabled are the least represented groups, (ii)the top technology choice for training delivery is computer-based (65%) while the most used technology in these countries is mobile phones. (iii) There is no standard curriculum, which makes it hard to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs (iv) There is no standard duration and frequency of digital skills training, ranging from 2 hours to 1 week, 3 months to 6 months for basic ICT training. 2-Health and gender: Our analysis shows that women in marginalized areas face multiple barriers simultaneously (e.g., low-literacy, financial, social norms, etc) but more often ICT-based health interventions tend to address a single barrier (e.g., providing free service), which is not effective or cost-effective. 3-Community networks: Our analysis shows that lack of supporting infrastructure, poor business models and vague regulatory frameworks frustrate efforts to develop and operate community networks.
    Who should take it?: 
    All stakeholders

DC Session
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 14:51
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. From a net neutrality perspective, what is the value of internet openness at times of crisis? How does it contribute to the enjoyment of fundamental rights?
  2. What are the political and economic determinants of internet access?
  3. What are the caveats of the current definition of internet access, internet openness and net neutrality?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Areas of broad support/agreement:

  • COVID-19 has significantly increased internet usage and connectivity demand. More than ever, people need the internet to stay connected to their professional, social and cultural environments.
  • The current connectivity infrastructure has successfully dealt with the sudden increase in traffic load, without major breakdowns in connectivity worldwide. The problem is lack of access more than traffic load.
  • End-user's rights must be safeguarded and Net neutrality rules are key.
  • Net neutrality is an essential element of Internet Openness but to preserve openness more must be done e.g. the coalition should consider working on Interoperability and on device neutrality.

 

3. Key Takeaways
  • Exceptional connectivity measures taken by ISPs should still be in accordance with net neutrality and an open internet. Examples in various jurisdictions indicate the pathways to the implementation of these measures without offending users’ rights or restricting Internet openness. Some examples also reveal the issues with policy choices that do not carefully observe these standards.
  • Internet shutdowns and surveillance measures taken without adequate safeguards represent a concrete menace to the freedom of speech and expression. Net neutrality plays a central part in providing internet openness and realizing such fundamental rights.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    A set of principles and guidelines should be in place to guarantee policy decisions do not harm fundamental rights and do not deviate from an open internet grounded in net neutrality as much as possible.
    Who should take it?: 
    Telecommunications regulators. ISPs. Civil Society. The IGF serves as an important forum to discuss current initiatives in dealing with increased connectivity demand and internet congestion.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    This volume explores “The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis” and is the official outcome of the Coalitions on Net Neutrality and on Community Connectivity of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum. This work stems from the consideration that the COVID-19 pandemic has harshly highlighted the fundamental importance of Internet access, and the total exclusion that the unconnected face in times of crises. Internet connectivity, has now emerged as the backbone of all social, political and economic interactions along with services during the Covid-19 pandemic. The current crisis brings to light that digital infrastructures play an essential role, shaping our development. The sustainability of such development relies on Internet openness and this book offers an ample range of perspectives exploring why it is more crucial than ever to guarantee that the Internet stays a smooth-running, open, and accessible common good. Available at: https://cyberbrics.info/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/The-Value-of-Internet-Openness-in-Times-of-Crisis.pdf Open Net Korea, along with 13 other NGOs — including epicenter.works and Access Now — are appealing to South Korea’s Minister of Science, Technology and ICT, Ki-Young Choe, to stop the government undermining principles of net neutrality via the newly-passed Content Providers’ Traffic Stabilization Law. Through an open letter, the coalition is calling on the South Korean government to repeal the law and the SPNP rule(explained below), and to implement measures that ensure an open and accessible internet across the country. More information here: http://opennetkorea.org/en/wp/3122?ckattempt=1
6. Final Speakers

Luca Belli, FGV

Anriette Esterhuysen, MAG Chair

Frode Sorensen, Norwegian Telecoms Regulator (Nkom)

Aurore Tual, French Telecoms Regulator (ARCEP)

KS Park, Korea University Law School/Open Net

Smriti Parsheera, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy in New Delhi

Apar Gupta, Internet Freedom Foundation

Anya Orlova, CyberBRICS

Andrey Shcherbovich, Higher School of Economics, Moscow

Alejandro Pisanty, Autonomous University Mexico

8. Session Outputs:

The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis

This volume explores “The Value of Internet Openness in Times of Crisis” and is the official outcome of the Coalitions on Net Neutrality and on Community Connectivity of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum. This work stems from the consideration that the COVID-19 pandemic has harshly highlighted the fundamental importance of Internet access, and the total exclusion that the unconnected face in times of crises. Internet connectivity, has now emerged as the backbone of all social, political and economic interactions along with services during the Covid-19 pandemic. The current crisis brings to light that digital infrastructures play an essential role, shaping our development. The sustainability of such development relies on Internet openness and this book offers an ample range of perspectives exploring why it is more crucial than ever to guarantee that the Internet stays a smooth-running, open, and accessible common good.

THE AUTHORS OF THIS BOOK ARE (IN ORDER OF APPEARANCE): Vint Cerf, Sébastien Soriano, Luca Belli, Osama Manzar, Sarah Farooqui, Dhanaraj Thakur, Teddy Woodhouse, Sonia Jorge, Frode Sørensen, Apar Gupta, Sidharth Deb, Smriti Parsheera, Rolf H. Weber, Senka Hadzic, Pablo Aguera, Alison Gillwald, Alejandro Pisanty, LocNet Team, Carlos Baca, Erik Huerta, Karla Velasco, Anna Orlova, Andrey Shcherbovich, Daniela Parra, Amali De Silva-Mitchell, Nikhil Pahwa, and Anriette Esterhuysen.

The volume is also available in ebook here https://online.fliphtml5.com/gnel/fsbp/#p=1  

 

9. Group Photo

DC Session
Updated: Wed, 11/11/2020 - 19:33
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How has COVID-19 impacted the journalism and news media sector, and what is the role of Internet governance in potentially alleviating it?
  2. How does digital platform policy impact the sustainability of journalism and news media?
  3. What are the major technical and economic challenges facing journalists, and how can changes to digital policy via multi-stakeholder governance create a more sustainable environment for journalism and news media?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed
  • There was broad support for the view that problems of media sustainability are interconnected with the ecosystem of Internet governance.
  • It was agreed that sustainable funding and business models for media must be achieved together with different stakeholders within the IGF ecosystem.
  • Legal obligations and policy regulation were seen as needed in order to guarantee data protection, non-violation of human rights, and access to independent media.
3. Key Takeaways
  • More transparency for content regulation on Internet platforms regarding sensitive content of human rights activists, journalists, and critical voices across markets and states.
  • Robust tech policies are needed to guarantee independent journalism and access to information, while there needs to be greater consideration and respect for smaller markets by technology platforms.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic reveals what was evident even before: Global Internet governance has a direct and significant impact on media sustainability.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Greater consideration and respect for smaller markets by technology platforms.
    Who should take it?: 
    Major platforms; the IGF can be a way to convene such companies with journalism and news media organisations.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    More transparency for content regulation on Internet platforms regarding sensitive content of human rights activists, journalists, and critical voices across markets and states.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Robust tech policies are needed to guarantee independent journalism and access to information.
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The COVID-19 pandemic reveals what was evident even before: Global Internet governance has a direct and significant impact on media sustainability.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Journalism Trust Initiative – https://jti-rsf.org/en/
  2. Initiative: 
    United for News – https://www.unitedfornews.org/
  3. Initiative: 
    INERC COVID-19 and journalism survey (Reuters Institute) – https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/few-winners-many-losers-covid-19-pandemics-dramatic-and-unequal-impact-independent-news-media
  4. Initiative: 
    Joint emergency appeal for journalism and media support – https://gfmd.info/emergency-appeal-for-journalism-and-media-support-2/
  5. Initiative: 
    Journalism and the pandemic survey (ICFJ) – https://www.icfj.org/our-work/journalism-and-pandemic-survey
6. Final Speakers

Tanja Maksic, BIRN Serbia, female

Fiona Nzingo, RNW, Love Matters Kenya Social Media Director, female

Ellery Biddle, Ranking Digital Rights, female 

Olaf Steenfadt, Reporters Without Borders, male

Michael J. Oghia, Global Forum for Media Development, male

Mira Milosevic, GFMD, female

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

It was mentioned that content removal from social media platforms can have negative gender implications especially in the context of online campaigns for health and sexual reproduction issues.

9. Group Photo

DC Session
Updated: Thu, 12/11/2020 - 21:39
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Role of new technologies, issues, risks, limitations, safety, education etc. in the Ehealth Space.
  2. Universal health care access assisted by technology to meet UN SDG #3.
  3. Ethics, Standard Setting , Value Propositions for technology use in the Ehealth Space.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

 

Block chain opportunity  for the Ehealth care space was presented . A discussion of the data types supported by this technology,  as well as the typical types of records conducive to management by block chain were noted  .  The opportunities for data sharing,  and issues for privacy were also noted ,

Mobile Technologies as a tool for bridging the Digital Divide were discussed within the context of ehealth.

How Machine Leaning is conducted was reviewed and the risks for data input, processing and output discussed and illustrated with examples in to eHealth.The quality of the algorithms and risk of data bias was noted with extension to AI. New Technologies such as Quantum Technologies , Holograms and their uptake in the public Ehealth Space were also noted.

The value of stakeholders understanding each other when developing policy, procedures and technology was highlighted within the context of building trust, so as to speed up evidence based effective end results.

The value propositions for multi-stakeholders were illluminated by show casing the ability of these Emerging Technologies to assist with speed to achievemnt of SDG#3 for universal  health care services globally ,in innovative new ways, wirh  opportunities to transcend issues such as complexities in data sharing, intellectual property, start up costs and so forth, while providing efficient, auditable, effective solutions within the clinical and administrative spheres of ehealth.

Further work in ethics, in all of the existing technologies and emerging technology areas was stressed.

 

 

3. Key Takeaways

Acknowledge that existing and emerging technologies can support reaching UN SDG #3, but good standards, education and knowledge sharing  with robust  ethical frameworks are  key to successful outcomes. 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Affordable universal access to ehealth for each family unit space with trusted data exchange in times of pandemic crisis is critical and this should be extended to the new normal so as to meet SDG#3 ..Telemedicine is critical support to meet quarantine and isolation requirements for Corvid 19
    Who should take it?: 
    ITU WHO UNDESA. Governments, IGF. WSIS.G20.All stakeholders.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Ethics in the health care space amongst all stakeholders must be developed further. New Technologies such as block chain, machine learning, AI, quantum technology and holograms add a new dimension to the ethical values currently in place and hence the discussion on ethics must be developed further.
    Who should take it?: 
    All stakeholders and institutions
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Data quality,input and generated is critical for good decion making. Poor data quality and misinformation are an issue and awareness of these issues are important. Outputs of AI / ML could have bias and gross errors. Reasonable human intervention for the evaluation of results should be part of any reporting process to reduce bias and error.
    Who should take it?: 
    All stakeholders plus ITU IGF WHO UNDESA
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Mobile technology sophistication and affordability is an important tool to facilitate the reach to all global cifizens for Ehealth care through telemedicine. This accessibility would meet SDG#3.
    Who should take it?: 
    All stakeholders plus ITU WHO UNDESA
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Issue of Universality Access can be addressed by collaboration with IGF Dynamic Coalition Session Community Networks at Times of Crisis and Pandemics
  2. Initiative: 
    Issue of universal access can be addressed in collaboratiin with Dynamic Coalition on Smart Cities
  3. Initiative: 
    Work collaboratively with standard setters
6. Final Speakers

Moderator: Ms. Amali De Silva - Mitchell

Presenter on Block Chain for Ehealth : Dr. Galia Kondova 

Presenter on Mobile Ehealth and Digital Divide : Mr. Herman Ramos 

Presenter on Machine Learning and AI for Ehealth :Mr. Jorn Erbguth 

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The panel with moderator of 4 persons was balanced men to women.  All topics are gender neutral. Regional represenation and affiliations : Asia , Americas, Africa, Europe . Youth represented on panel.

8. Session Outputs:

3 presentations on independent Ehealth topics : block chain, mobile tech and the digital divide , machine learning and answers  provided to questions from audience.

10. Voluntary Commitment

Activities plan of Dynamic Coalition on Data Driven Health Technologies 


DC Session
Updated: Wed, 11/11/2020 - 14:38
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1) Bring youth networks into consultations and key policy and design decisions as these take place at the nexus of human rights online, the Right to Development, climate crisis mobilization, and environmental sustainability
  2. 2) Forge stronger practical and strategic partnerships between the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet and Greening the Internet initiatives
  3. 3) Generate Protocol 1 for Article 4 of the IRPC Charter: Additional clause (4c) – “Usage of the Internet for the protection of the environment MUST BE balanced with protecting the environment *from* the growth of the Internet”.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

- General consensus it that Internet Governance, Human Rights, and the Environment are fundamentally linked, underscored by the 2020 global pandemic and its impact on commitments to address climate change urgently.

- There was broad support for initiatives to address rights and environmental implications of supply chains

- Broad agreement for a cross-sector, multistakeholder strategy which requires strong advocates from all sectors and regions.

- That the technical community and private sector actors must be on board was strongly supported.

- Most supported a approach that includes tackling E-waste (Basel Convention) but is not confined to recycling or zero-carbon policies

- The meeting agreed that Global North historically generates and the Global South is expected to fix the environmental hazards of ICT manufacture and inbuilt obsolescence.

3. Key Takeaways

- Private Sector must be involved along with Governments and Civil Society in fulfilling any Greening ICT agendas.

- AI development, along with roll  out of mobile networks need to be monitored within environmental impact and human rights frameworks.

- Internet technologies need to be green by design calling for accountability mechanisms for governmental and private sector actors

- The meeting supported calls for clearer standards in procurement and designs that supply hardware-software elements of the internet, including electricity and consumer items

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The IGF has acknowledged this nexus by putting the environment on the IGF 2020 agenda. The meeting strongly supports seeing this trend continue with input from youth representatives from every stakeholder group. To have a sustainable world for the next hundred years policy has to include the means to ensure that ICTs enhance, rather than undermine our natural and built environments.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments under their international human rights obligations and the private sector/technical communities because human rights and sustainability by design require experts and legislators
6. Final Speakers

Ms Minda Moreira, Co-Chair internet Rights and Principles Coalition

Ms Marianne Franklin (Moderator), Internet Rights and Principles Coalition Steering Committee

Ms Noha Ashraf Abdel Baky Youth Coalition in Internet Governance/Dell)

Ms Hanane Boujemi, Executive director of Tech Policy Tank

Mr Ilias Iakovidis, Adviser at the European Commission, DG CONNECT

Mr Rigobert Kenmogne, Digital Rights Program Officer for Francophone Africa at Paradigm Initiative

Ms Vesna Manojlovic, RIPE Network Coordination Centre

Ms Raashi Saxena, Youth4DigitalSustainability Program

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Highest number of attendees was 64 including panellists. Activity on the Chat was substantial with equivalent input from male and female participants.

The speakers were predominantly female, from youth coalitions, and from the Global South.


DC Session
Updated: Sun, 08/11/2020 - 18:20
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. The aim of the session was to present to our SIDS community initially what developments had taken place with regards to internet development in our regions. The Pacific and Caribbean communities were able to give comprehensive overviews of their activities since our last IGF meeting. There was no representation from the AIMS community (Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and Mediterranean and South China Seas) but if members attempted to join the session they may not have been recognised, and therefore able to participate as panellists within the webinar format. The programme of reports, discussion and a summary of commitments from the different regions as well as collectively was achieved during the session as planned.
3. Key Takeaways
  • There was broad consensus around COVID-19 being a wake-up call for governments to accelerate digital transformation. The participants agree that COVID-19 has been accelerating the adoption of ICTs and the investments in the Internet, especially in providing connectivity;
  • Many indicated training and digital literacy as more urgent matters, while others highlighted cybersecurity and public policy on misinformation;
  • Some supported the idea that human resources and digital education are currently the main issues, especially when it comes to e-learning education and teaching. On this specific point, there is common agreement that the teaching staff is not prepared to use technology to deliver and plan lessons.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    It is deemed important to get more people from island States involved in IG in the first place, showcase efforts being done in the Pacific and the Caribbean in advancing connectivity and digital transformation, alongside with their ability to quickly implement policy in actions.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    From a social-cultural point of view, the SIDS should raise awareness on cybersecurity and cyberspace in order to get more people involved and expand the community; possibly create a common SIDS platform where networking and identifying an effective cyber strategy that aligns with other countries in order to facilitate the implementation and possible consultation, as well as a repository to share experiences and best practices. Human capacity building and digital literacy are also becoming crucial.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Equally important is the need to develop cybersecurity strategies and cyber capacity tools, as well as to call on governments to accede to the Budapest Convention. A common cyber strategy is important as it provides a framework in executing cyber security and data protection. SIDS members should be encouraged to engage more with and get involved in ICANN.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    In South Africa, the government mandated operators to zero rate sites and platforms that allowed students to continue their school education during the pandemic.
  2. Initiative: 
    In Trinidad & Tobago, there is a great focus on judicial e-education and staff training, including judicial officers, lawyers, public defenders, etc. This is also due to the digital transformation of judicial proceedings, undertaken a few years ago and felt as urgent in recent times.
6. Final Speakers

 

Lead discussants

  • Pacific Islands (Cherie Lagakali, Chair PICISOC, Fiji;  Dalsie Baniala, MAG member, Vanuatu; Maureen Hilyard, ALAC Chair, At-Large, ICANN, Cook Islands)
  • Caribbean (June Parris, outgoing UN-IGF MAG Member, Barbados; Nigel Cassimire, Caribbean Telecommunications Union Ag. Secretary General & Caribbean IGF convenor; Bevil Wooding, Director, Caribbean Affairs, ARIN; Carlton Samuels, Jamaica; Rhea Yaw Ching, Covela Foundation; Lance Hinds, Guyana; Tracy Hackshaw, Trinidad & Tobago IGF / Internet Society Trinidad & Tobago Chapter)

Also speaking: Anriette Esterhuysen, UN-IGF MAG Chair, South Africa; Jane Coffin; Jane Coffin, Senior Vice President - Internet Growth, Internet Society; Pablo Rodriguez, Vice Chair, ccNSO Council / Executive VP, Gauss Research Laboratory / NIC.pr, Puerto Rico; Deirdre Williams, Information Specialist, St. Lucia; Jacqueline Morris, Vice-Chair, Internet Society Trinidad & Tobago / e-Learning Manager, Judiciary of Trinidad & Tobago

9. Group Photo

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 12/11/2020 - 12:24

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What are the first priorities that the government should tackle when it comes to addressing the issue of digital divides in the context of COVID‑19?
  2. What effect has the COVID-19 pandemic had on the ability of children to continue their education and what barriers need to be overcome to prevent this happening in future?
  3. How has COVID-19 pandemic affected people’s ability to exercise their fundamental rights and freedom online and what ramifications does this have for people and societies post-COVID-19?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Digital Divide

  • There was broad agreement that the COVID-19 pandemic has deepened existing inequalities and divides.

Education

  • There was agreement that Internet governance capacity building is becoming increasingly relevant worldwide as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic. Education on Internet Governance must become widespread.
  • There was agreement that education and youth as a whole were harmed by national political crisis originating from mismanaged responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Fundamental rights

  • There was agreement that online accessibility benefits far more than just persons with disabilities. Live transcripts were provided as an accessibility measure originally targeted at people with hearing impairments, but now a vital resource for data mining after events for people both with and without disabilities.
  • The need for fundamental rights online was linked to the issue of education: without access to connectivity, freedom of speech, and basic human rights, education opportunities, particularly during the time of COVID-19, cannot be equally and fairly available to all.

Future of IGF

  • There was strong consensus that, just as the BPFs and NRIs are already widely recognised to be, the Dynamic Coalitions are a vital component of the IGF and its intersessional processes. Support for Dynamic Coalitions, and collaboration between Dynamic Coalitions, should be strengthened as part of the IGF+ model and the DCs can, in turn, contribute to developing the IGF+ model.
  • It was reported that at the Parliamentarians Roundtable (10 November), parliamentarians expressed interest in engaging with the Dynamic Coalitions intersessionally. Dynamic Coalitions were encouraged to make use of this opportunity, to advocate on issues that Dynamic Coalitions are working on directly with lawmakers. 
  • It was noted that it is essential to have representation of youth in IGF intersessional activities as youth should be involved in decisions affecting their future and active youth involvement helps to avoid tokenism in multistakeholder discussions.
3. Key Takeaways
  • COVID-19 has exacerbated underlying inequalities and problems. Lack of meaningful, equitable access to online resources during the pandemic have affected education, people with disabilities to access online shopping services and led to increased online gender-based violence.
  • As so much moved online during the COVID-10 pandemic, it has demonstrated how important it is to provide the necessary capacity building and education needed to ensure everyone has the skills and knowledge to have meaningful access to Internet-based services and information.
  • Access to information is a fundamental human right, for people of all ages, including children. There has been an increased demand for information and resources from libraries and from the media during the pandemic, but these sources of information are under pressure from both the erosion of journalism through reduction in revenues, and restrictions placed on digital information sources available from libraries, such as the number of simultaneous users able to access a resource.
  • Capacity building and support programs are needed to enable greater visibility and direct participation of underrepresented groups, including youth and persons with disabilities, in discussions that are shaping the future of Internet governance.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Youth voices remain underrepresented at the IGF and the tokenism is a common practice within the IG space. There is a need to include youth representatives in key spaces such as the Dynamic Coalitions, as part of the implementation of the IGF Plus model.
    Who should take it?: 
    IGF, other IG forums, and advisory boards within companies, technical communities and government bodies.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The pandemic has exacerbated many dimensions of digital exclusion. Vulnerable and marginalised groups face even higher risks of digital exclusion. Prompt and accelerated action is needed to enable meaningful connectivity. Economical and effective ways to bring more people online include helping deliver free or low-cost access to the internet, ICT equipment and digital skills learning opportunities through existing networks of open community and public facilities like libraries and community centers can be an.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments and other relevant stakeholders
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Access to information is a fundamental right, yet access to quality digital content can come with costs that many users – especially young users – may not be able to afford. In contrast, there is no shortage of low-quality or even misreading materials online. Access to quality content should not be limited to those who can afford subscriptions or one-off fees. Policies and practices that support equitable access to content can help ensure that more people have a way to benefit from key content for education, research, work, and overall wellbeing. These include, for instance, Open Access models, digital-ready sets of limitations and exceptions to copyright (including across borders), and addressing the challenges around e-book and electronic textbook pricing, access and delivery models.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments and other relevant stakeholders
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    The need for accelerated action to support meaningful digital inclusion Partnership for Public Access – 2020 Declaration and accompanying Pledge https://p4pa.net/2020-declaration/ - This is a pledge and call on decision-makers to mobilise existing community anchor institutions and support them to establish at least one public point for meaningful and free internet access in every community.
6. Final Speakers

Moderators:

  • Tatiana Tropina
  • Hanane Boujemi

Speakers

  • John Carr (DC COS)
  • Olivier Crepin-Leblond (DC-CIV)
  • Valensiya Dresvyannikova (DC-PAL)
  • Gerry Ellis (DCAD)
  • Stuart Hamilton (DC-PAL)
  • Michael J. Oghia (DC-Sustainability)
  • Gustavo Paiva (YCIG)
  • June Parris (IPRPC)
  • Muhammad Shabbir (DCAD)
  • Smita Vanniyar (DC Gender)
  • Christopher Yoo (DC-Connecting the Unconnected)
  • Eileen Cejas (YCIG)
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were discussed in the session. Online gender-based violence as well as the role that gender-related inequalities have played in increasing inequalities and access to online services during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also noted that gender divides are not binary (male/female), but discussions to close gender divides need to consider the wide spectrum of gender identities and the inequalities and exclusions they face.


Main Session
Updated: Thu, 12/11/2020 - 08:40
INCLUSION

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue 1. We have more than 84% of the global territory covered by mobile broadband Internet provider, but we have less that half of the population connected. Recommendation 1. We need to a get a minimum of 4G connection for everyone everywhere, with affordable prices Issue 2. Lack of access, is not only about Internet connection, but also energy provision, devices availability, security etc. It is also, a matter of integral planning, in order to make smart and efficient investments, particularly in expensive components such as infrastructure. Recommendation 2. We need to include in solutions all or at least most of the other factors like electric supply and devices provision, safety, stability, and other issues, in an holistic way. The same applies to the planning stage, and all savings that this approach may allow, should be transferred to the users, with more affordable services. Issue 3. About current regulations, everything is prepared for big companies, and mainly for urban areas, preventing new complementary providers and also new business models to take place. Recommendation 3. Regulations need to be adjusted, aiming to enable other none traditional complementary operators to also be involved in the solutions. Issue 4. In particular regions, countries do not have all the knowledge to deploy inclusion projects, or the skills to face security threats. Recommendation 4. We nee to invest in local technical capacity building. Issue 5. Complementary providers usually need to beg to governments and regulators for small portions of bandwidth of the spectrum. Recommendation 5. Larger license-free portions of the spectrum must be a common allocation and not the exception. This way spectrum is allocated for the public interest, as it should be. Issue 6. Most of the regulatory framework in Africa, and perhaps in all global south, had been cycled and recycled over and over, without taking into consideration local realities such as geographical extension, economic situation, level of literacy, etc. And those regulations did not consider creative experiences in policy and programs development in other countries or regions, such as US Government, with different affordability programs. Recommendation 6. It is important to rethink current policies and regulations (fix the bugs) to overcome different restrictions to new complementary providers, and also to deal with traditional operators.
    Who should take it?: 
    Actors for Recommendation 1. We all need to fight to get that connection. We need investments from private sector, but also intelligent investments from public sector. Actors for Recommendation 2. Policy makers, and everyone involved in inclusion projects. Actors for Recommendation 3. Everyone, particularly the beneficiaries. Actors for Recommendation 4. Different actors, but mainly universities and governments, but also private sector should be involved. Actors for Recommendation 5. Policy makers, regulators, complementary service providers. Actors for Recommendation 6. Policy makers, regulators, and other stakeholders. Other actions Governments should provide incentives or directly invest in telecommunications infrastructure, via subsidies or special funds. Policy makers need to have clear universal access goals and objectives and mesurable targets.

Main Session
Updated: Tue, 24/11/2020 - 03:08
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How do you understand the concept of digital/data sovereignty and why it is important for different actors?
  2. What should be the respective roles of governments, international organizations, the private sector, a technical community in responding to abusive content online in light of the disparity of national legislations (disinformation, but also harassment, terrorism, election interference)?
  3. The Internet and the web are built on technical interoperability and the separation of layers. How much of an interface should there be between the technical and policy layers regarding the Internet?
3. Key Takeaways
  • Instead of solely focusing on the idea of sovereignty itself, the discussion can be moved to enabling social development and enabling economic development because data can be a shared resource in a way that physical assets cannot be.
  • Data localization is being used by governments that are concerned about controlling data, very often for political ends, however there is also a legitimate rational for data localization or at least data control in order to develop economies.
  • In Asia and the Pacific, people are starting to realize the importance of the data that they generate. There is an increasing awareness but no broad-based discussion,, because in Asia-Pacific, not all countries are fully equipped (infrastructure/regulatory schemes) to engage in the International discussion.
  • In terms of controlling content and diversity of views, global cooperation is needed to manage these processes; particularly because the manifestation might be in the content but a lot of the manipulation might be happening at the data level and the data governance level.
  • The way that the Internet was designed was explicitly to encourage global interconnectivity and to be oblivious to International borders.  One of the core goals was to get as many people, devices and networks as possible on a global scale.  This continues to be the objective when we are designing and evolving the technologies at the core of the Internet. 
  • Digital policies should respect the technical architecture of the Internet, 76% of audience poll respondents answered to the affirmative (Strongly agree, or Agree). There is a small set of core infrastructure that maintains the global unity of the Internet – IP protocol, IP address spaces and DNS, harmonization on the IP layer is needed to allow data and connectivity to be seamless around the world.
6. Final Speakers

Moderator: Bertrand de La Chappelle, Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network

Speakers:

Rudolf Gridl - Head of Unit, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), Germany

Alissa Cooper - IETF Chair, Internet Engineering Task Force

Paul Mitchell - Senior Director​, Technology Policy, Microsoft

Atsuko Okuda - Regional Director, ITU Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Jun Murai - Founder and Board member, WIDE Project

Alison Gillwald - Executive Director, Research ICT Africa

Discussant: Aleksey Goreslavskiy, Journalist, Head of NGO "Dialogue"

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not specifically discussed during the Trust Main Session.


NRI Session
Updated: Fri, 06/11/2020 - 10:44
INCLUSION

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

TBC

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

TBC

8. Session Outputs:
TBC

NRI Session
Updated: Thu, 26/11/2020 - 17:46
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What are the contemporary challenges for our societies regarding cybersecurity?
  2. What are concrete examples of defence in cyberspace?
  3. What are good practices of successful regional cooperation on cybersecurity matters?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The session discussed the overall landscape of cybersecurity issues within the context of National and Regional IGF initiaves and their communities. Central aspects discussed included the mechanisms and frameworks put in place in each country as means to organize cybersecurity, as well as cooperation mechanisms and efforts in local, regional and global levels. There was broad agreement on the need for improving capacity building, education and training, as well as create a culture of cybersecurity in Countries and communities. Participants were mindful of diverse initiatives addressing definitions and basic concepts for cybersecurity, as well as the involvement of international organizations in capacity building programs. There was also a call for action in cooperation in all levels.

3. Key Takeaways

- Participants manifested broad consensus on the need for creating a culture of cybersecurity within countries and communities
- There were several reports on cooperation between regions and countries, as well as cooperation between local and international organizations
- Initiatives such as the Christchurch call or even the IGF BPFs were mentioned as important initiatives for strengthening cooperation and available knowledge about the discussed issues
- Education, capacity building and training were also key terms mentioned by participants as crucial for moving forward and advancing cybersecurity and national cyber defence policies and mechanisms

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    (i) the need for more awareness raising in cybersecurity issues
    Who should take it?: 
    Not specified
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    (ii) the need for creating a culture of cybersecurity within countries and communities
    Who should take it?: 
    Not specified
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    (iii) the need for improving education, training, and capacity building initiatives on the topic
    Who should take it?: 
    Not specified
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    - Cooperation IGF BPFs were mentioned as an important space for cooperation https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/best-practice-forums-bpfs
  2. Initiative: 
    - Cooperation Christchurch call was also raised as an important effort of cooperation between countries https://www.christchurchcall.com/
  3. Initiative: 
    During the discussions, mainly when talking about cooperation, speakers pointed to multiple organizations dealing with cybersecurity issues, such as the ITU, OECD, NATO, DCAD, among several others.
6. Final Speakers

1. Albania IGF: Mrs. Vilma Tomco, General Director at NAECCS
2. Brazil IGF: Ms. Cristine Hoepers, CERT.br
3. Chad IGF: Mr. Bakhit Amine, Academia Teacher at National School of ICT (ENASTIC)
4. France IGF: Mr. Lucien Castex
5. North Macedonia IGF: Mr. Predrag Tasevski 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not addressed in this session.

8. Session Outputs:

No explicit outputs were referred, except for the improving of networks between participants and NRIs, and possible future collaboration.

10. Voluntary Commitment

In the very ending of the session, participants in general reinforced their commitments with creating a culture of cybersecurity, and seeking to improve initiatives for awareness raising, education, and training. 


NRI Session
Updated: Wed, 04/11/2020 - 11:59
DATA

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

TBC

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

TBC

8. Session Outputs:
TBC

NRI Session
Updated: Thu, 12/11/2020 - 19:23
INCLUSION

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

TBC

3. Key Takeaways

.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

TBC

8. Session Outputs:
TBC

NRI Session
Updated: Fri, 06/11/2020 - 10:56
INCLUSION

2. Summary of Issues Discussed

TBC

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

TBC

8. Session Outputs:
TBC

NRI Session
Updated: Thu, 05/11/2020 - 15:50
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How do environmental issues, such as natural disasters or pandemics, affect the job market?
  2. Do employers and employees have conditions and skills to adjust to these?
  3. What are the existing good practices? Learning from experiences of the IGFs in Cameroon, Colombia, Haiti, Italy, Nigeria, Panama, and South Sudan?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

 

TBC

3. Key Takeaways

This session offered a diversified view of the main topic, since the speakers were from different countries and sectors. Despite the linguistic, social and cultural differences between all of them, there had been consensus regarding how challenging is the future of job, considering the gaps related to digital skills, connectivity, infrastructure, etc, but mainly for the uncertainty people are actually experiencing. During the session, the speakers mostly explained their local or national situations, adding some good practices implemented or needs faced because of the pandemic. Italy IGF gave two strong examples of good practices, one of them was the use of Open Source with 3d printers to build respirators during pandemic. in any case, they regret more than the 40% of young people between 16 and 17 in Europe has no basic digital skills. 

 The session ended with some voluntary committments, like Haiti IGF that strongly believes in the participation of women in discussions, and Panama IGF that encourages  a gender focused regulation for telecommuting and teleworking. Also, Colombia IGF gave an interesting example of a law they are discussing to regulate the right of employees to have their own private sphere protected. 

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The importance of laws and regulations about teleworking and telecommunity focused on gender, respecting employees private sphere;
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The necessity of protecting people more than jobs, growing up a transformative society thanks to the commitment of governments, private sector and citizens.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The need to support entrepreneurship and the participation of women and other vulnerable groups to debate and discuss how to shape good strategies for the future of jobs.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    During the session, speakers reported some partnerships between public and private sectors as the development of programs focused on rural zones financed by public institutions.
  2. Initiative: 
    The need of more digital skills education, in order to mitigate the actual digital gap
6. Final Speakers
  • Haiti IGF: Mr. Sindy Obed
  • Nigeria IGF: Ms. Onwuamaegbu-Ugwu Edufun
  • Italy IGF: Mr. Mattia Fantinati, Member of the Italian Parliament
  • Cameroon IGF: Mr. Eric Stephane SIDEU
  • Colombia IGF: Dr. Julio Cesar Gaitan Bohorquez
  • Panama IGF: Mr. Abdias Zambrano
  • South Sudan IGF: Mr. Kennedy Bullen
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

TBC

8. Session Outputs:

TBC


NRI Session
Updated: Fri, 06/11/2020 - 16:22
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What are the means of online content regulation?
  2. What are concrete examples of the multistakeholder response toward the content regulation?
  3. How do we set up standards for content regulation while preserving human rights and freedoms online?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

TBC

3. Key Takeaways

The panelists share a common view regarding content moderation that is the big issues around disinformation and fake news online and the problems to deal with it. There are some initiatives having place in different spheres, but also a lot of challenges, basically among technical and ethical issues regarding the use of technological and legal tools, and the borders between private and public sector. Nevertheless all the countries agree that the debate and good initiatives to tackle with this problem couldn't be postponed. It is worth pointing the experiences that use multistakeholder solutions.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Partnership between academia and private sector to development technical solution Development of machine learning tools to recognize hate speech Strengthen the debate to raise awareness
6. Final Speakers

Mr. Lucien Castex, Mr. Diogo Cortiz, Ceweb.br/PUC-SP, Ms. Melinda Clem, Mr. Anastas Mishev and Mr. Boro Jakimovski

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

TBC

8. Session Outputs:
TBC

Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 18/11/2020 - 02:48
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Share ideas on the impact of international public health emergencies represented by the COVID-19 on global cyberspace governance and trust relationships.
  2. Discuss the role of Internet technology innovation in responding to international public health emergencies and offer suggestions on how the Internet and Internet technology can be better improved in the fight against the COVID-19.
  3. Share thoughts on methods and paths for building trust mechanism in cyberspace against the backdrop of international public health emergencies.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Experts and scholars from China, the United States, Russia, Germany, the Republic of Korea, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Malaysia, and Syria had in-depth exchanges on the impact of the epidemic on cyberspace, the role of Internet technology in the fight against the epidemic, and the trust building mechanism in cyberspace. To begin with, the Internet has enhanced mankind's ability to fight the epidemic, and technologies such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing and big data are playing a key role in epidemic prevention and control. Besides, the wide application of information technology also raises the concern on its security and personal data protection, with the trust deficit in cyberspace continuously increasing. What's more, as the epidemic continues to spread, all parties in the international community should give full play to the value of the internet, enhance the capacity of digital technology to fight against the epidemic, and build a trust mechanism based on the principles of responsibility, transparency, respect, understanding, openness and cooperation.

3. Key Takeaways

Against the backdrop of the epidemic, the Internet has become an integral part of economic and social development. The international community should fully unleash the potential of digital technology to fight the epidemic and boost economic and social development. In response to the issues exposed by the epidemic, such as cyber security, the spread of false information and the lack of protection on personal information, the international community should work together to strengthen governance and promote the establishment of a trust mechanism in cyberspace.

All the actors in cyberspace should strengthen communication and cooperation , jointly explore ways to build and realize a trust mechanism in cyberspace, ensure the credible use of ecological governance and emerging technologies in cyberspace, improve legislation on the protection of personal information, and jointly respond to various global risks and challenges.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The policy recommendations are as follow: 1.We should further leverage the role of the Internet and digital technology in fighting the epidemic. At the technical level, secure and trusted infrastructure and network applications should be ensured. User experience should be improved. Data should be further mined, and the role of AI, big data and other technologies in the fight against COVID-19 should be enhanced through statistics and other interdisciplinary studies. At the governance level, governments should strengthen personal data protection, balance the relationship between public interests and privacy, and build a sense of security and trust for the public. 2.All parties in the international community should find an effective way to build a trust mechanism in cyberspace. For example, try our best to bring into full play of the role of digital technology in fighting the epidemic, work together to amplify the effects of the digital economy so as to promote economic recovery. Promote dialogue and cooperation in a coordinated way to maintain cyber security; Deepen multilateral participation in a coordinated way to improve governance; bridge the digital divide and achieve inclusiveness for all. The trust mechanism in cyberspace shall focus on building a community with a shared future in cyberspace. This mechanism shall be established based on responsibility, transparency, respect, understanding (mutual consultation and mutual understanding), and open cooperation, with parties including governments, international organizations, enterprises, technical communities, scientific research institutions and individuals as the main actors, using means (tools) such as laws and regulations, IT capabilities, social responsibility, ethics, supervision and self-discipline, as well as norms and standards in a route covering technologies, applications, and legal and social matters. 3.Governments, international organizations, Internet companies, technical communities, social organizations, individuals and other entities in cyberspace shall play their respective roles, giving full play to the important role of governments, and working together to strengthen governance in cyberspace.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    none
6. Final Speakers

Ms. Qi Xiaoxia, Director General, Bureau of International Cooperation, Cyberspace Administration of China

Prof. Werner Zorn, Father of the German Internet, Inductee of the Internet Hall of Fame

Mr. Paul Wilson, Director General, Asia Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC)

Prof. Zhou Xiaohua, Fellow of the American Statistical Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Peking University Chair Professor

Prof. David Robertson, Vice Principal and Head of College of Science and Engineering, University of Edinburgh

Prof. Dr. Dr. Ayad Al-Ani, Associated Member, Einstein Center Digital Future

Prof. Kilnam Chon, Father of the Korean Internet, Inductee of the Internet Hall of Fame

Ms. Li Qian, Executive Expert of Legal and Policy Research Department, Alibaba Group

Mr. Koh King Kee, President of Centre for New Inclusive Asia

Dr. Jiang Yang, Director of the Institute of International Governance, Chinese Academy of Cyberspace Studies

Prof. Luca Belli, Professor of Internet Governance and Regulation, Getúlio Vargas Foundation (FGV) 

Mr. Karim Alwadi, Research Fellow, Renmin University of China

Mr. Oleg Abdurashitov, Head of CEO Office, Kaspersky

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

not discussed in the forum

8. Session Outputs:

The COVID-19 outbreak, an international public health emergency, has not only caused isolation in physical space, but also intensified fragmentation in cyberspace. Amid this global pandemic, cyber attacks, cyber frauds, online disinformation, and hate speech are spreading more widely than ever, giving rise to cross-border regulatory, legal and ethical issues and profoundly impacting the global security and trust relationship in cyberspace. Against the backdrop of existing international governance, response and coordination mechanism in cyberspace to be improved, all the actors and entities in cyberspace should enhance exchanges and cooperation, through dialogue on trust building in cyberspace and its realization approach to explore the governance of online ecosystem and trustworthy use of emerging technologies, with a view to jointly rising up to global challenges of public health emergencies, and to joining hands in building a community with a shared future in cyberspace.

During the forum, all speakers agree that internet, digital technologies and digital economy play a critical role in combating COVID-19. There is far from enough to make all use of internet especially for fighting against COVID-19 and the cybersecurity risks are growing. Speakers think trust is the basis of cooperation and trust building mechanism are very important and urgent. They share the same views that trust building mechanism are very important. Dr. Jangyang propose a path for trust building mechanism focusing on building a community with a shared future in cyberspace.

Nowadays, with the increase usage of internet technology, the cybersecurity risk is growing and private data is leaking, Some of the experts suggest countries should establish and improve privacy data protection laws, the cooperate should offer trusted data service system based on blockchain technology and smart contract technology.

9. Group Photo

Open Forum
Updated: Thu, 05/11/2020 - 14:54
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How can existing IP regulation (notably the WIPO Marrakesh Treaty) support access to content for people with disabilities?
  2. What the challenges faced by people with disabilities to access content?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled’ was signed on the 27th of June of 2013 and in few years made it possible to exchange accessible books among member countries. It represents one of the best examples of an ambitious, pragmatic and impactful multilateral treaty that the international community was able to agree upon in recent years.

The Accessible Books Consortium (ABC), is a public-private partnership led by WIPO. The platform brings together all key players to implement the objectives of the Treaty. ABC offers three services which are; ABC Global Book Service, Capacity Building ad Inclusive Publishing.

it was also explained that there’s no one way to be deaf, so people use different modalities to communicate depending on their conditions and concrete situation.  There are many different ways to access content and many software tools which don’t support all formats. Often publishers don’t invest in alternate formats

3. Key Takeaways

The WIPO Marrakesh Treaty (2012) has already reached 75 contracting parties covering 101 countries and it is having major impact allowing free cross-border exchange of books for the benefit of blind or people with visually impairement. 

People with disabilities (other than visual) do not have a similar instrument, however technological development offer some promising responses.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    keep the issue of access of content by people with disabilities high on the agenda of policy makers - eliminate barriers and address market failures
    Who should take it?: 
    IGF, IGOs, and national governments
6. Final Speakers

Mr. Scott Labarre, World Blind Union - “The Marrakesh Treaty and its impact on inclusion”

Ms. Monica Halil, WIPO - "the Accessible Books Consortium (ABC)"

Ms. Aria Indrawati, Mitra Netra Foundation - “WIPO ABC Capacity building programs: the experience of Indonesia”

Mr. Rafael Ferraz, WIPO - "SCCR Study on Access to Copyright Protected Works by Persons with Disabilities"

Dr. Christian Vogler, Gallaudet University - “People with disabilities and access to content: challenges and solutions”

Moderator:  Paolo Lanteri

9. Group Photo

Open Forum
Updated: Sat, 21/11/2020 - 11:01
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. - Digital technologies have produced powerful impact on the media and information environment. The range of related issues is wide (disinformation, hate speech, and other problematic content online; disruptions in the media ecosystem leading to fragmentation and monopolisation of the media sector; challenges to quality journalism and attention disorder among the audiences) and posing risk to human rights and to democracy itself. Do we have the full picture of this impact? What are the areas affected? What is the root cause of these critical shifts in the media and information environment?
  2. - Business models of major internet platforms are ultimately based on large-scale data exploitation and the use of opaque algorithmic processes. Can there be a viable alternative business model, outside the attention economy? How would it function?
  3. - How can freedom of expression and media freedom be protected in the attention economy, where the dominant business models reward engagement and noise over deliberation and facts? Would regulation help, and if yes, what do we need to regulate?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The session discussed the ‘attention economy’ business model in the context of the digital age. Embracing massive data collection and various uses of algorithmic systems and processes to manage attention of individuals and groups in the pursuit of economic/other interests, this business approach produces profound multi-layered impacts on freedom of expression and on information environment.

Such use of digital technologies impacts freedom of expression at several levels. At the individual level, behaviours and communication patterns are increasingly facilitated, structured and shaped by online platforms and social media. In the context of newsrooms and media outlets, the emergence/empowerment of digital platforms has reversed the flow of advertising revenues, prompting a structural shift within media markets and putting into question the sustainability of traditional media, also undermining conditions for quality journalism. At the broader societal level, algorithmic systems and data-based micro-targeting tools shape social, economic and political lives, contribute to information disorder and erode trust in the media and in democratic institutions.

The overall impact on information ecosystem remains largely underestimated. While regulatory efforts are directed at the consequences, causes remain largely unaddressed. Reliance on self-regulation by business platforms allows the latter to only introduce measures that leave the model intact, while focus on the speed of deletion of harmful online content translates into real risks to human rights.

With growing demand for digital services respectful of human rights among wider audiences, we witness the emergence of business initiatives that commit to transparency and data/privacy protection. With forces unequal, compared to major digital platforms, such initiatives have however proved economic viability.

Larger awareness about the root causes of critical shifts in the media and information environment is crucial. Further discussion on the ways to ensue digital platforms’ accountability is needed. Journalism must reinvent and reassert itself, both in equipment and relevance

3. Key Takeaways

Major digital companies’ ‘attention economy’ business model, fuelled by massive data collection and various uses of algorithmic systems and processes to manage attention of individuals and groups in the pursuit of economic/other interests, has profound and multi-layered impacts on freedom of expression.

Rooted in data exploitation and opaque algorithmic processing of data, attention economy lies at the source of a wide range of issues arising in the media and information environment (disinformation, hate speech and other problematic content online; disruptions in the media ecosystem leading to fragmentation and monopolisation of the media sector; challenges to quality journalism), ultimately carrying important risks to human rights and to democracy itself.

Regulatory efforts directed at content moderation therefore only address the consequences, while the underlying causes remain largely unattended. Reliance on self-regulation by digital platforms allows these latter to only introduce measures that leave the profitable business model intact, irrespective of its actual negative impacts.

A wider awareness of the false dichotomy between the amount of collected data and economic viability of digital platforms, as well as awareness about actual root causes of disruptions in the media and information environment should be promoted.

To address these root causes, steps should be taken to ensure digital platforms’ accountability for the business model they employ. Co-regulatory approaches should be promoted (see Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2018)2 on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries) and further complemented by oversight mechanisms and indicators (see Ranking Digital Rights’ Corporate Accountability Index), to ensure due transparency. Careful and frequently reviewed regulation of content curation/moderation is needed.

For the media ecosystem to recover, media need to reassert control over technology, create their own distribution platforms, regain attention relying on quality content and established relationship with audiences. Indicators for quality journalism are needed to boost trust.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    To address these root causes of disruptions in the media and information environment, steps should be taken to ensure digital platforms’ accountability for the business model they employ. Co-regulatory approaches should be promoted (see Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2018)2 on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries) and further complemented by oversight mechanisms and indicators (see Ranking Digital Rights’ Corporate Accountability Index; see also Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2020)1 on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems), to ensure due transparency. Careful and frequently reviewed regulation of content curation/moderation is needed see the ongoing work of the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies). Indicators for quality journalism are needed to boost trust (see draft Recommendation on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age, prepared by the Council of Europe Committee of experts on quality journalism in the digital age).
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments, with the involvement of the industry and with due reliance on standards developed by IGOs
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    - Council of Europe Committee of Experts on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies (MSI-DIG) : https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/msi-dig See also Council of Europe adopted standards: Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2020)1 on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems; Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2018)2 on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries; Committee of Ministers Declaration on the manipulative capabilities of algorithmic processes : https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/committee-of-ministers-adopted-texts
  2. Initiative: 
    Ranking Digital Rights, Report "It’s the Business Model: How Big Tech’s Profit Machine is Distorting the Public Sphere and Threatening Democracy" : https://rankingdigitalrights.org/its-the-business-model/ See also Ranking Digital Rights’ Corporate Accountability Index and indicators evaluating company disclosure of policies and practices affecting freedom of expression and privacy : https://rankingdigitalrights.org/2020-indicators/
  3. Initiative: 
    DuckDuckGo, Study "Measuring the "Filter Bubble" : https://spreadprivacy.com/google-filter-bubble-study/
6. Final Speakers

Moderator:

Mr Patrick Penninckx, Head of Information Society Department, Council of Europe

Panellists:

Ms Amy Brouillette, Research Director, Ranking Digital Rights (RDR)

Mr Joe McNamee, Independent Consultant, Council of Europe Expert Committee on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies:

Prof. Dr. Alexandra Borchardt, Media Adviser and Journalist, Journalism Professor, Universität der Künste, Berlin/ Head of Digital Journalism Fellowship, Hamburg Media School:

Mr Aurélien Maehl, Senior Public Policy Manager, Europe, DuckDuckGo

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Due attention was paid to gender balance in the composition of the panel.

8. Session Outputs:

The ‘attention economy’ phenomenon is not new in itself. However, with the invasion of digital technologies into the media and information environment, this business model has benefited from the possibilities for covert large-scale data collection and algorithmic processing, expanding still further the possibilities for profiling and micro-targeting. Embracing various uses of algorithmic systems and processes to manage and retain the attention of individuals and groups in the pursuit of economic or other interests, it now produces critical and multi-layered impacts on freedom of expression and on information environment.

Such use of digital technologies impacts freedom of expression at several levels.

At the individual level, behaviours and communication patterns are increasingly facilitated, structured and shaped by online platforms and social media. Digital platforms and social media absorb much of the audiences’ attention that the media used to have. Their emphasis on speed and quantity has changed news consumption behaviours of individuals, leading to the shortening of attention span, erosion of trust in the news brands and growing news avoidance.

In the context of newsrooms and media outlets, micro-targeting techniques have revolutionised the news ecosystem, leading to the emergence and empowerment of new actors, including social media platforms, and to the prevalence of a business model that prioritises “clicks” over readers’ trust. This has reversed the flow of revenues, and advertising revenues in particular, prompting a structural shift within media markets and putting into question the sustainability of traditional media, also undermining conditions and incentives for quality journalism. News outlets are compelled to keep up with the speed of digital platforms’ content production, which drains quality from news, leads to the loss of control over curation and news choice and takes away energy for fact-checking and debunking mis- and disinformation.

At the broader societal level, including in political communication, algorithmic systems and data-based micro-targeting tools shape our social, economic and political lives, affect our governance and influence the distribution of resources. They amplify viral and disputable content, more easily shared, and generate more revenues for data-hungry business models. Faced with unprecedented volumes of content, it is increasingly difficult for individuals to discern what is true and whom to believe. This causes confusion, contributes to information disorder and impacts negatively on society’s trust in the media and in democratic institutions more broadly.

The overall impact on the information ecosystem remains largely underestimated. While regulatory efforts are directed at the consequences (disinformation, hate speech, and other problematic content online), causes (amplification of data exploitation and flourishing of business models based on opaque algorithmic processing of data) remain largely unaddressed. Reliance on, often badly defined and badly designed, self-regulation by business platforms that make vast profits out of this model creates conditions for these actors actors to only introduce measures that leave the business model intact, irrespective of its actual negative impacts. Alongside this, focus on the speed of deletion of possibly illegal or harmful online content translates into real risks to human rights, freedom of expression being the first on the list.

With growing awareness among wider audiences, we witness the emergence of business initiatives that respond to the demand for digital services respectful of human rights and allowing internet users to take control over their personal data (DuckDuckGo , for instance, offers a search engine that doesn’t track users, as well as privacy tools that block third-party trackers and force encryption when browsing). Renouncing data exploitation, such services invest in transparency to gain customers’ trust and rely on alternative sources of revenues (e.g., contextual ads). With forces unequal as they are, compared to major digital platforms, such initiatives have nevertheless proved their economic viability and public demand.

To make the way forward, a wider awareness of the false dichotomy between the amount of collected data and economic viability of digital platforms, as well as awareness about actual root causes of disruptions in the media and information environment should be promoted.

To address these root causes, steps should be taken to ensure digital platforms’ accountability for the business model they employ. Co-regulatory approaches should be promoted (see Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2018)2 on the roles and responsibilities of internet intermediaries) and further complemented by oversight mechanisms and indicators (see Ranking Digital Rights’ Corporate Accountability Index and indicators evaluating company disclosure of policies and practices affecting freedom of expression and privacy; see also Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation (2020)1 on the human rights impacts of algorithmic systems), to ensure due transparency. Careful and frequently reviewed regulation of content curation/moderation is needed (see the ongoing work of the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on Freedom of Expression and Digital Technologies).

For the media ecosystem to recover, media outlets need [market and regulatory environment which permits them] to reassert control over technology and create their own distribution platforms, regain attention relying on quality content and established relationship with audiences. Journalism should [be given the preconditions permitting it to] reinvent and reassert itself, both in terms of being fully equipped to keep up with professional standards in the digital age and in terms of relevance, topicality and capability to elicit interest and engagement from the audiences. Indicators for quality journalism are needed to boost quality and trust (see draft Recommendation on promoting a favourable environment for quality journalism in the digital age, prepared by the Council of Europe Committee of experts on quality journalism in the digital age).

9. Group Photo
Council of Europe, OF #20 Attention economy and free expression?

Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 25/11/2020 - 16:37
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How can international collaboration help develop grow the safety technology market? 
  2. What are the barriers and opportunities to international safety technology growth?
  3. What role can safety technology play in online regulation?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

UK Digital Envoy Kevin Cunnington joined a panel of experts from industry, academia and the UK communications regulator to discuss the emerging ‘online safety technology’ sector in the UK and opportunities for a growing international market.

The panel discussed how the regulatory framework proposed in the UK’s Online Harms White Paper had made space for a serious dialogue on online safety, and created an ecosystem for the safety tech sector to thrive. The panel discussed how safety tech can tackle a spectrum of harms and invited a global dialogue on standardised performance indicators, stretch goals for technology and encouraged international information sharing to benchmark high regulatory expectations on the technology available now and in the future.

3. Key Takeaways
  • “Cyber security focuses on protecting data and information from cyber attacks - safety tech focuses on protecting people from the psychological risks, harms, and criminal dangers online - everything from mis- or disinformation, to online abuse or harassment” - Professor Mary Aiken, Cyber Psychologist

 

  • “It's great for us to see the emergence of a market of independent safety technology providers - and equally of platforms that are prepared to make available their technology to other platforms to help to raise the potential of the industry as a whole… We need to play our part more actively, along with government and industry counterparts, in actually enabling and encouraging innovation in this sector.” - Professor Simon Saunders, Ofcom

 

  • “The conversations about online safety are characterized by those who want the world to be better, and those who are telling us why it's impractical, too difficult, or too expensive to actually achieve that. I think that technology can bridge that gap.” Ian Stevenson, Chair, OSTIA

 

  • “Our motto as a safety tech industry needs to acknowledge the rapid effects of online harms. If I were to suggest one, it would be, ‘We have to do better, and we can only do that together’.” Roni Gur, L1ght

​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

  • “The UK was the first market where we got attention and traction. There has been a conversation in that market which we missed everywhere else.  So I’m testimony to the thought leadership that comes from the UK.” Deepak Tewari, Private.ly
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Panelists made a number of voluntary commitments to support growth of the UK and International Safety Tech Sector. We invite all panelists to take forward these voluntary commitments and encourage event attendees to consider making their own commitments and to review the opportunities to engage with the initiatives mentioned in the session.
    Who should take it?: 
    We encourage safety tech companies and associations, governments, regulators and academics to review the initiatives mentioned in the session and get involved.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Online safety technology companies need to come together to provide a voice of hope in domestic and international debates by demonstrating what can be done to tackle the large and complex challenge of online safety. The UK Online Safety Tech Industry Association (OSTIA) invites both UK and international businesses to get in touch and get involved in order to build a wider international community contributing to global conversations on online safety technology. https://ostia.org.uk/
  2. Initiative: 
    UK Government (DCMS Security and Online Harms Directorate and Digital Envoy) will convene a small group to explore the potential for collaborative action to grow the international safety sector. The group will: discuss and develop a set of pathways that could support international growth of the Safety Tech sector, considering the role that might be played by the UN, G7, EU and other international fora; include public sector and industry representatives based in the UK and overseas; and, convene four times over for six months,with DCMS providing a secretariat.
6. Final Speakers

Chair

  • Kevin Cunnington, Digital Envoy for the UK 

Panellists

  • Professor Mary Aiken, CyberPsychologist and INTERPOL advisor (Ireland)

  • Professor Simon Saunders, Director of Emerging and Online Technology, Ofcom (UK)

  • Ian Stevenson, Chair of UK Online Safety Tech Industry Association (UK)

  • Roni Gur, VP Marketing, L1ght (US and Israel)

  • Deepak Tewari, CEO, Private.ly (Switzerland)

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

Panelists made a number of voluntary commitments to support growth of the UK and
International Safety Tech Sector.
● Digital Envoy Kevin Cunnington committed to ensure that the use of technology to facilitate safer online experiences remains a top five priority for the European Digital Envoys.

● Chair of UK Online Safety Tech Industry Association Ian Stevenson committed to make industry a constructive partner in discussion and debates internationally, sharing their expertise.

● UK Communications Regulator OFCOM committed to listen and to join the dialogue on safety technology. Simon Saunders invited companies and organisations to show off their technology and how it has made a difference to people’s lives to inform upcoming regulatory developments in the UK to tackle online harms.

● Professor Mary Aiken committed as a cyber behavioral scientist to creating a better and more secure cyberspace.

● Deepak Tewari committed to ensuring that Private.ly measures and demonstrates the positive impact that use of safety technology has on the well-being of children.

● Roni Gur committed that L1ght will support the growth of an open community around safety tech, contributing technologies, resources and ideas where appropriate.


Open Forum
Updated: Mon, 09/11/2020 - 13:29
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Disinformation
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The FOC is developing a Joint Statement on Spread of Online Disinformation. This discussion focused on disinformation around elections and content moderation efforts by governments and private sector alike. Speakers included representatives from the governments of Finland and the UK and a representative from Facebook. All speakers agreed that multistakeholder approach is needed to battle disinformation in a way that is in line with the international human rights law.

3. Key Takeaways

The governments of the FOC, working closely with the multistakeholder FOC Advisory Network, will publish the Joint Statement on Spread of Online Disinformation in the coming weeks. The statement will include a call to action to governments, civil society, private sector and other stakeholders. The FOC has identified disinformation as one of the priority policy issues in 2021 and will continue to work on the topic in relevant international processes and forums. 


Open Forum
Updated: Fri, 06/11/2020 - 12:45
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How should we foster trust in the Internet space?
  2. How can we collect and accumulate good practices on promoting trust in the Internet space?
  3. What is the role of IGF as a place for stock taking on the good practices?
6. Final Speakers

■Opening Remarks

Mr.  Shintani Masayoshi, State Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications, the Government of Japan

■Keynote speaker

Dr. Vint Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google

■Panelist

- Prof. Jun Murai, Keio University

- Mr. Lacina Koné, Director-General, Smart Africa

- Ms. Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Senior Vice President, Strategy, Communications and Engagement, Internet Society

- Dr. Rudolf Gridl, Head of Division VIA5, Internet Governance and International Digital Dialogue, Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, the Government of Germany (the host country of IGF2019)

- Ms. Timea SUTO, ICC Business Action to Support the Information Society (BASIS) 


Open Forum
Updated: Fri, 20/11/2020 - 22:18
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Our new digital reality challenges the way we understand and exercise our fundamental rights and liberties. On the one hand, the rapid growth of the use of data enables the development of new, innovative services and enhance efficiency in the private and public sphere. On the other hand, the increasing concentration of data in large technology firms or in governments creates certain risks and dependencies. To address these issues and to make self-determined decisions, it is of outmost importance – especially in a democratic society – that citizens have access to data, understand its value as well as the impact it can have on their life.
  2. With the foregoing in mind, Switzerland is in the process of developing an approach which aims at allowing citizens, businesses and public bodies to actively participate in the development of the digital transformation: citizens should move away from passive users to self-determined, participants of digital reality, who can create and shape their own digital-environment. In order for citizens to intentionally take control of their data and benefit from data and its added value, new structures and trustworthy data spaces are needed to enable this effective participation. This includes – amongst others – a shift in perception of self-determination as a defensive property right towards a right to choose and participate.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Digital self-determination is a human-centered and rule-based concept that aims to encourage citizens to become active as co-creators of their digital environment. One of the issues discussed was the relation between digital self-determination and digital sovereignty. While digital self-determination concerns the actor (individual, company, public cooperation), digital sovereignty relates to the question of infrastructure. Access to the digital infrastructure (clouds, hardware, etc.) on a national or international level is a prerequisite for the exercise of digital self-determination. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that suitable and high quality infrastructures and platforms are established, which are widely accessible, not only in highly developed industrial states, but also in developing countries.

Another issue discussed was the relation between regulation and innovation and the right balance thereof. It was stated that too much regulation eliminates the competition that is essential for the development of high quality products (infrastructures) as mentioned above. However, the aspect of social inequality and structural discrimination was also emphasized. It is important to design data rooms in an inclusive and fair manner in order to allow equal participation and access.

The discussion then lead to the question of which data can be seen as resources (“data as the new oil” vs. “data as the new air”). Data can be seen as a resource of its own kind: their existence is global, they are of a high instrumental value and they can be used in various manners. For the view of data being a resource sui generis speaks the fact that they cannot be consumed. On the contrary: the value of data increases the more it is shared. In this context, the great value of data sharing was pointed out.

Finally, the aspect of digital self-determination in developing countries was mentioned, where the perspective is a different one, but where strengthening local and regional initiatives is even more important. It was emphasized that the further development of digital self-determination must be considered in the context of human rights.

3. Key Takeaways

 

The concept of digital self-determination has multiple dimensions:
Ø    Digital self-determination as a defensive property right and as  a right to choose in the digital space
Ø    Digital self-determination as an individual as well as a collective right
Ø    Digital self-determination between human empowerment (“digital citizenship” and questions about infrastructure
Ø    Digital self-determination between control over data and self-determined data sharing 
Ø    Digital self-determination concerning personal data and/or data in general
 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
     The handling of digital data and especially the vision towards a digital self-determined society is a global issue concerning all humans worldwide. To achieve this goal, a strong network on the national level (involving different fields, e.g. energy/ health / education) as well as on the international level has to be established.
  2. Issue and Recommendation: 
     It’s not a regional issue, it’s a global issue that requires thinking beyond boarders. The notion of “data as a resource” has to be promoted globally so that it can develop its full value and potential.
  3. Issue and Recommendation: 
     It has to be taken into consideration that there are different perspectives of the concept of digital self-determination. Developing countries may have a different view than developed countries also depending on whether or not the right to self-determination in general is granted or not.
  4. Issue and Recommendation: 
     The development of the digital self-determination approach requires the introduction of Human Rights questions in particular when it comes to the legal concept.

Open Forum
Updated: Fri, 06/11/2020 - 15:12
DATA

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Background: The area of health is considered an important field for use of AI, but has also stirred many human rights debates. Medical data and online apps can support improved health outcomes. But they might also exacerbate inequalities and erode privacy. Such concerns became even more visible amidst discussions around the use of online data to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Session report: This session addressed the questions of how AI can be best utilised in the area of health and how governments should respond to the challenges linked to human rights. Speakers highlighted that the use of AI can bring benefits, but that it also has risks, so that risks and benefits need to be balanced. Speakers raised particular challenges in the area, including inter alia data security and privacy concerns, potential inequality faced by middle and low income countries, bias and non-discriminatory use of AI as well as the lack of an existing binding legal framework. The speakers agreed that there is a strong need to protect health data given their sensitive nature since for example genetic data can reveal very personal information about people. Moreover, it was pointed out that the use of AI in middle and low income countries entails particular challenges that need to be addressed and resolved, including: the lack or low quality of data, which cannot or should not be used for developing AI applications; the use of data for commercial purposes without any human rights protection or prior informed consent (‘data colonialism’); and that AI technologies may be designed for particular global north addressees and not for lower income countries, which would make discrimination a significant concern. Efforts needed to improve data should not take away any resources needed for daily care of patients. Bias and discrimination was also considered a major issue, which cannot be easily addressed, partly because of the lack of information about protected attributes. The absence of data on protected attributes (e.g. data on gender or ethnic origin) does not prevent a non-discriminatory use of AI due to possible other data highly correlated with protected attributes (i.e. proxy data). However, it was raised that AI built on data from one area in the world might not necessarily be usable in other areas of the world, which, again, can lead to discriminatory outcomes. Considering the impacts of AI use, speakers of the session further emphasized that ethics cannot be sufficient and that, on EU level, a binding legal regulation can help addressing human rights challenges beyond the existing data protection and privacy framework. While existing laws in Europe would already protect against some of the potential misuses of AI in the area (e.g. Article 22 of the GDPR on automated decision making), other issues, such as AI not including personal data or not making decisions on individuals, might not be well covered by existing laws. Understanding the way AI systems work is considered a crucial aspect for making them compliant with human rights. Recommendations and potential solutions: As human rights standards already mark red lines for the use of AI. Existing data protection standards and the Oviedo Convention of the Council of Europe, enshrining principles that apply to the use of AI in the area of health, already help addressing the above-mentioned challenges of AI use. Several recommendations came up in the presentations and discussions, including • more effective data protection and security; mandatory human rights impact assessments; • an extension of and a living up to the standards of the GDPR in and by other parts of the world; • avoidance of the use of discriminatory and ineffective AI tools; • having ethical audits; • considering independent enforcement and monitoring systems; as well as • the adoption of a binding legal framework guided by the principle “the greater the impact and harm to be expected, the greater the regulation”. Speakers highlighted that there is no easy solution with regard to bias and discrimination of AI tools since the challenges depend on the context of use. According to some speakers, ethical considerations should be considered during the development of AI tools. The need for explainability and interpretability of AI tools was highlighted, as they should not be used without fully understanding and proving that they do not violate human rights, such as dignity and non-discrimination.

Open Forum
Updated: Fri, 27/11/2020 - 11:14
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. In what ways can feminist framings help us understand why the online space is unsafe and how best can the framing be used in developing policy and regulation?
  2. What kind of research methodologies and practices do we need to undertake to create meaningful, intersectional and evidence-based policy interventions for tackling OGBV?
  3. What role do individuals, private companies, and governments play when it comes to identifying, preventing, and responding to online abuse?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Broad areas of agreement: 

  • Tech companies, governments and civil society must work together through multi stakeholder initiatives to tackle online gender based violence
  • Responses to OGBV must consider local context 
  • Responses to OGBV must consider how women with multiple and intersecting identities experience online violence
  • Online and offline violence are connected
  • OGBV is not an individual issue, but one of structural power 
  • OGBV leads to violations of women’s rights online including the right to freedom of expression, association and assembly

Areas needing further discussion:

  • The role of machine learning in tackling OGBV

    • Machine learning can allow for quick removal of harmful content, and can get better and better as more people report abusive content. Those reports contribute to the ML training set
    • Machine learning can risk amplifying or reinforcing bias, and lacks contextual understandings. It must be used in conjunction with other forms of moderation, and maintain a human-centered approach. 
  • The intersection of legal interventions and OGBV
    • Many legal frameworks have gaps on issues of online abuse; laws either do not mention it at all, or fail to adequately extend existing related offline legislation to online cases
3. Key Takeaways

This Open Forum served as a dialogue for shared reflection between tech companies and civil society organisations on creating multi-stakeholder approaches to counter online gender-based violence, accounting for its diverse forms and manifestations across contexts. During the panel, we gathered specific evidence and insights from women’s rights and digital rights organisations, as well as tech companies and IGOs on their approaches to tackling online gender-based violence. 

What emerged across many panellists’ remarks was the importance of collaborative product and policy development between the tech companies, CSOs and governments. In particular, the need for tech companies and governments to learn from grassroot CSOs in order to build concrete solutions to online abuse was highlighted. This can help build more localised, effective models of content moderation and reporting flows. 

While collaborative processes between CSOs, technology companies and IGOs do exist including through the Generation Equality Action Coalition on Innovation and Technology for Gender Equality and the Web Foundation’s consultation and policy design workshop series -- there is a need for more initiatives that work across sectors. 

As one panellist pointed out, there is no silver bullet to develop technology that is safe for everyone, everywhere. But co-creation and co-design between different stakeholders will help bring gender considerations into the innovation cycle.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Applying a feminist perspective in the development of regulations and other legal structures.
    Who should take it?: 
    This must be multistakeholder approach, led and informed by grassroots women’s rights and digital right’s organisations.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Need more evidence to inform gendered policy making. This could include documenting responses to OGBV to understand contextual responses, as well as documenting organising strategies from CSOs.
    Who should take it?: 
    This must be multistakeholder approach, led and informed by grassroots women’s rights and digital right’s organisations.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Multistakeholder Approaches to OGBV Web Foundation https://webfoundation.org/2020/08/activists-and-tech-companies-met-to-talk-about-online-violence-against-women-here-are-the-takeaways/
  2. Initiative: 
    Multistakeholder Approaches to OGBV Generation Equality Action Coalitions / UN Women https://forum.generationequality.org/
6. Final Speakers
  • Chenai Chair, Web Foundation (Moderator)
  • Marwa Azelmat, APC
  • Cindy Southworth, Facebook
  • Bhavna Jha, IT for Change
  • Helene Molinier, UN Women
  • Mariana Valente, InternetLab
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender, and in particular online gender-based violence, formed the central theme of this open forum. During the session, our panellists discussed how online gender-based violence – including doxxing, surveillance, stalking and abuse – creates hostile spaces online for women and girls. Critically, the session focused on building policy interventions  for those who experience intersectional gender discrimination due to their race, ethnicity, caste, sexual orientation, or other identities.

8. Session Outputs:

Following from the session, the Web Foundation hosted its third consultation on cnline gender-based violence and abuse. Drawing on insights from the panel, the session brought together tech companies, civil scoiety organisations and owmen in public life to tackle the issue. A writeup of key takeways can be found here

10. Voluntary Commitment

The Web Foundation commits to pursuing our work convening civil society organisations and tech companies to co-create solutions to OGBV. In addition we commit to support the documentation of experiences of challenges to online safety through our research and share the findings with the IGF community.


Open Forum
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 11:35
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How can contact tracing apps and covid-related technologies be trustworthy and respects fundamental rights?
  2. How can it be ensured that all key information on app development is publicly available?
  3. How can it be ensured that the technology is user-friendly to people with different technical and physical abilities?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Early on in the European Commission’s (EC) response to this emergency outbreak, it adopted a Recommendation to support Member States in exiting the COVID-19 crisis and supported European Member States in preparing and implementing a common European Toolbox for the use of mobile applications for contact tracing and warning. The discussion at the IGF open session focussed on guiding principles, including that apps should be voluntarily installed and that the information provided voluntarily; they should be effective, without tracking people’s movements; data should not be stored longer than 14 days, a retention period which corresponds to the contagion period. Discussion of principles also covered the preservation of privacy of the users and interoperability, which is important as  the disease does not know national boundaries.

 

3. Key Takeaways

Developing a trust framework is essential for the uptake of digital technologies, in particular when they are meant to be used in areas like healthcare. Form the recent experience, providing solutions that increase transparency is important. For example the Tech Review Facility, launched by the EC with some members of the Next Generation Internet (NGI) community, provides independent security and privacy analysis of COVID-19 related technology. The team performs testing and provides advice on the development of contact tracing apps based on security, privacy, accessibility and compliance with legal requirements. Through the platform there is also a drive to stimulate use of open source and gather feedback from the community of experts.

In the Netherlands,  tracing app ‘CoronaMelder’ has been installed by nearly 5 million people. Through public surveys, it was found that people trust the app because of the open-source and transparent development. Due to public concern around privacy, the app had to be built in with a ‘privacy by design’ concept with a decentralised and collaborative approach, design is now available for further applications.

Not all countries are conducting an open and inclusive approach to app development. Trust is essential for the adoption of contact tracing apps, or people will not opt in. Transparency is critical to show how the technology is made, but it is important this information is publicly available for non-experts. 

It is important for everyone to access Covid-19 contact tracing apps, thus accessibility and inclusiveness must be addressed as well.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The Covid-19 pandemic created an unprecedented global challenge to health care systems and our way of life. Digital technologies play an important role in supporting countries and citizens to manage and overcome the crisis and they will be pivotal in ensuring the continuation of many social and economic activities in the recovery phase. In the EU, contact tracing is implemented at the national level and there are 19 initial contact tracing apps in the Member States, with a range of uptake. Currently there around 55 million EU citizens using these apps. One of the preliminary conclusions from this experience is that trust is essential for citizens to adopt and use the contact tracing apps and in general digital technologies. To create a trust framework, the design and development of The EU approach to digital technologies needs to be is founded on key EU values of privacy and accessibility. In the EU, for example, European Data Protection Rules, in particular the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should continue need to be at the centre of any development, including when new laws are passed. There is also a need to explore open source solutions, which allow gathering feedback from the community of experts. Transparency, including on the data model, is key in any proper technological solution. If citizens do not trust private sector solutions, new innovative forms of development and procurement should be explored. Digital health must address the needs of all people and be accessible to all. Engaging developers into developing accessible tools is a challenge which is currently not being met – both the developers community and the public sector must take action to make technological solutions truly inclusive.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    This session dealt with Trustworthy technologies to fight Covid-19. Other than the EC approach presented, there are no other regional initiatives of this kind.
6. Final Speakers
  • Mrs Gemma Carolillo, Deputy Head of the Next Generation Internet Unit at the European Commission
  • Mr Dirk-Willem van Gulik, Consulting Expert at the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport on the corona crisis response
  • Mrs Jelena Malinina, Digital Health Policy Officer at the European Consumer Organisation
  • Dr Yen-Nun Huang, Director for Research Center for Information Technology Innovation (CITI), Academia Sinica, Taiwan, and Mr Hong-wei Jyan, Director General of Department of Cyber Security, Executive Yuan. Taiwan
  • MODERATOR: Dr Giovanni Rimassa, Chief Innovation Officer, Martel Innovate
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Digital health must address the needs of all people and be accessible to all. For certain national contact tracing apps, testing was performed with people with different skills and ability. Jelena Malinina, Policy Officer The European Consumer Organisation said: “There is no such thing as an average person. We are a society and there are different citizens and consumers with very different needs, capacity, values and goals when it comes to use of any kind of digital health tools. We insist that digital health solutions including COVID-19 contact tracing apps must correspond to a variety of user preferences.”
 

8. Session Outputs:
  • NGI supported applications for human centric tech in times of crisis: https:/www.ngi.eu/blog/2020/04/03/next-generation-internet-human-centric-tech-in-times-of-crisis/
  • EC Tech Review Facility: https://www.ngi.eu/news/2020/07/21/introducing-reviewfacilityeu/
  • The Netherlands national Covid-19 tracing app ‘CoronaMelder’, which has been installed by nearly 5 million people https://coronamelder.nl/en/
  • Being a relatively small island, Taiwan has focused on tracing potential cases at the border and gathering grass-roots participation from citizens. For border control, there is collaboration with the Telecommunications industry and several state institutions to monitor quarantines. The information is not stored after the end of the person’s quarantine period. The central command centre has a visualisation of the isolation types as well as any travelers who avoid quarantine. This is visible only to the centre and the police and is not publicly available. The system has high security standards. Although a contact-tracing app has been developed ouside the Google/Apple system, it is not in use as cases are very low. However, if the Covid-19 situation persists, it may be deployed at the end of the year.
  • EXSCALATE is operational at the Italian Supercomputer in CINECA, analysing COVID-19 proteins based on data available from the scientific community in order to accelerate the search of an effective therapy against the pandemic virus: https://www.cineca.it/en/hot-topics/supercomputer-vs-coronavirus
9. Group Photo

Open Forum
Updated: Wed, 18/11/2020 - 15:12
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. In which way has COVID-19 acted as a catalyst for the digital transformation?
  2. What are the digital economy divides, limitations and risks revealed by COVID-19?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was unanimous agreement that the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst tor the digital transformation. All the participants also recognised that the crisis has starkly revealed existing and increasing digital divides that build on existing socio-economic and geographic divides.

The panellists stressed that while the crisis has accelerated the transformation (“two years of progress were achieved in two months”), the journey through the digital transformation is only at the beginning. The forthcoming OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2020 shows that despite the progress, there are divides still to be bridged in connectivity and effective use of the Internet, that digital security and privacy risks are increasing and that policy action is needed to shape an inclusive digital transformation.

Participants discussed how the COVID-19 pandemic and the increased online activities resulting from lockdowns and social distancing have put an unprecedented pressure on the networks. They also reported on the increased digital security risks, on the raised level of awareness of personal data protection among the population and on the use of Artifical Intelligence in healthcare. Participants reported on the government responses and on industry initiatives to meet the increasing connectivity demand, to raise awareness and preparedness for digital risks, and to adress the skills gaps.  Civil society also reported on the need to balance emergency measures with respect of human rights and democratic values, and to design the right system of checks when deploying technologies to monitor and contain the spread of the virus. 

3. Key Takeaways

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has acted as a catalyst, we are still at the beginning of our journey towards the digital transformation.

A holistic regulatory approach such as the Going Digital Integrated Policy framework is needed to accompany and shape the digital transformation.Policy makers need to identify, measure and adress the different digital divides linked to the use of digital technologies.

The COVID-19 crisis provides an urgent but real world context for many of the digital policy initiatives underway at the OECD, such as connectivity, digital security, privacy and data protection, artificial Intelligence and responsible data sharing.
 

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    Evidence-based policies and programmes are needed to address the emerging digital divides and to accompany the digital transformation.
    Who should take it?: 
    International organisations such as the OECD are the appropriate forum to advance on measurement, elaborate policy frameworks and governance approaches for the digital transformation.
6. Final Speakers

Moderator: Mr Yoichi Iida, Chair of the OECD Committee on Digital Economy Policy (CDEP), Japanese Ministry of Internal affairs and Communication

 Speakers:

  • Ms Audrey Plonk, Head of Digital Economy Policy Division, OECD
  • Ms Carolina Botero, Representative of the Civil Society Information Society Advisory Council (CSISAC) to the OECD
  • Mr Bengt Molleryd, Swedish Post and Telecom Authority (PTS) and Chair of OECD’s working Party on Communication Infrastructure and Services Policy
  • Ms Carolyn Nguyen, Director of Technology Policy, Microsoft
  • Ms Golestan (Sally) Radwan, Minister Advisor for Artificial Intelligence, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology of Egypt
  • Mr Mark Uhrbach, Chief of Digital Economy Metrics at Statistics Canada and Chair of the OECD’s Working Party on Measurement and Analysis of the Digital Economy
  • Mr Yves Verhoeven, Deputy Director of Strategy at the National Cybersecurity Agency of France (ANSSI) and Chair of the OECD’s Working Party on Security in the Digital Economy
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were reflected in the discussion by the points made on the emerging digival divides that are affecting some specific groups and that are building on existing divides. There was a call to ensure that those divides are adequately measured and addressed by policy makers. 

9. Group Photo

Open Forum
Updated: Tue, 24/11/2020 - 15:34
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. During Covid-19, we have seen how digital technologies have been a lifeline for many people in very different situations and around the world. What is your key message about personal sovereignty, digital identity, and data governance?
  2. Do you see any changes that are needed in how we fundamentally approach technology development and think about solving problems?
  3. What do you view as an important technology or development that you think will impact (and enable) personal sovereignty and our online / offline experiences?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Panelists agreed about:

 

  1. Data is a commodity and is generated and, therefore, owned by us, the individual. As such, we have to demand our rights. Trust has to be earned.
  2. Enforceable laws are needed, and the general public has to think about how it will give its data to companies. People need to know what is happening to their data, and governments need to protect the people. 
  3. The need for collective effort on the part of governments, the private sector, civil society, and the technical community to [achieve] personal sovereignty.
  4. Data must be seen and owned by us and used with our permission, supported by enforceable laws to help us. 
  5. Standards can play a critical role in scaling solutions; including in empowering people, in helping to create digital literacy frameworks, which help empower people with the necessary skills. 
  6. Human dignity needs to be at the core of our thinking whereby the technology should serve people's needs and their communities. 
  7. It is possible for companies to build customer trust within a model of data sovereignty. 
  8. Consumer data use that leaves out individuals who do not fit into set profiles is a concern. 
  9. IEEE and IGF are excellent fora in which to discuss the topic of child online protection.
3. Key Takeaways
  1. All actors, including governments, the private sector, the technical community, and civil society, must work together collaboratively to create tools for citizens, such as data governance frameworks and machine readable privacy terms for all, to place citizens at the center of their data and to empower them to advocate for their personal sovereignty.
  2. AI is being used to measure trends for business, but analysis of trends in health or trends in humanitarian issues will not happen unless driven by citizens. One such issue is child online protection, and the panelists agreed that IEEE and the IGF are excellent fora in which to discuss the topic.
  3. IEEE helps to educate about the crucial role of standards in helping to create these ecosystems and tools for citizens: Standards are building blocks that can make best practices more accessible to all actors in society. 
  4. Currently available technologies, along with related IEEE communities and standards, can be used to empower Personal Sovereignty to become ubiquitous in the age of the algorithm.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    A model of data sovereignty, built collaboratively by all relevant actors, is needed to create digital literacy frameworks - such as machine readable privacy terms - that serve to build trust among all stakeholders. Every individual or entity is invited to participate in IEEE’s standardization work: As a global, consensus building standards development body, the IEEE Standards Association (IEEE SA) is committed to increasing trust in the specific sector of A/IS and their underlying and related technologies: Through appropriate standards and other consensus-built products that contribute to transparency, education at all levels of expertise, technical community building and partnerships across regions and nations, thus serving humanity. IEEE offers a process that provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to participate in an open and transparent manner on the key issues, and to work together, in a consensus-driven process, to develop tangible and actionable resources and programs.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments and the private sector
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Society can evolve the logic of a physical passport to a digital framework where people can be placed at the center of their data. The creation of privacy by design-focused legislation allows individuals (or their caregivers) to better understand and influence the collection and use of their (or their children’s) data. This alleviates the current lack of data sovereignty tools, such as data governance frameworks and machine readable privacy terms for all, and empowers citizens to access, curate, and share their data as they choose.
    Who should take it?: 
    Government and the private sector
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Digital Inclusion, Identity, Trust, and Agency: https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/diita/index.html Driving innovation by identifying technology solutions that enable all to participate online without barriers and building consensus in the market The IEEE Global Initiative on Artificial and Intelligent Systems: https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/ec/autonomous-systems.html Its mission is to ensure every stakeholder involved in the design and development of autonomous and intelligent systems is educated, trained, and empowered to prioritize ethical considerations so that these technologies are advanced for the benefit of humanity. IEEE Standards Association Statement of Intention: https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/other/ethical-considerations-ai-as-29mar2018.pdf IEEE’s Role in Addressing Ethical Considerations of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (A/IS) The Open Community for Ethics in Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (OCEANIS): https://ethicsstandards.org A Global Forum for discussion, debate and collaboration for organizations interested in the development and use of standards to further the development of autonomous and intelligent systems. The Ethics Certification Program for Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (ECPAIS): https://standards.ieee.org/industry-connections/ecpais.html Developing metrics and processes towards the implementation of a certification methodology addressing transparency, accountability, and algorithmic bias.
6. Final Speakers
  • John C. Havens, IEEE
  • Dr. Salma Abbasi, eWorldwide Group
  • Moira Patterson, IEEE
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The IEEE Open Forum “Personal Sovereignty: Digital Trust in the Algorithmic Age” (#42) did not discuss gender issues as the focus was on digital trust and personal sovereignty. 

 


Open Forum
Updated: Sat, 14/11/2020 - 00:10
ENVIRONMENT

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The issue framed in this Open Forum was how technology can be used to mitigate the aftermath of the Brumadinho dam disaster, a human, economic and environmental tragedy that occurred on 25 January 2019 in Minas Gerais, Brazil. In this disaster a tailings dam at the Córrego do Feijão iron ore mine suffered a catastrophic failure. The dam released 12 million m3 of tailing mudflow that advanced through the mine's offices, including a cafeteria during lunchtime, along with houses, farms, inns and roads downstream. This tragedy affected more than 2 million m2 of native vegetation along 300km of the Paraopeba river basin. Smallholders farmers were affected by the loss of cattle, poetry and agricultural areas. In addition to that, 272 people died, destroying hundreds of families. The main recommendation to tackle the different issues due the Brumadinho dam disaster is the multistakeholder approach, where many different actors (civil society, government, academia, NGO’s, etc.) work together in order to identify problems emerged due the tragedy, and raise solutions with local population to identify local needs, not only on the short term, but also in the mid and long term and build, in a collective effort, solutions to these situations. This was achieved in the Move on the Web project - formally named "Entrepreneurism with Web Technologies for Brumadinho" - through presencial meetings held in 2019 second half, with the local population.
    Who should take it?: 
    In the beginning of the presentation, the moderator session Vagner Diniz stated that the task to overcome all the damage is huge and needs many actors working together. In this sense he enumerated Brumadinho dam tragedy aftermaths and its consequences on a medium and long term, highlighting the company Vale do Rio Doce responsibilities and also its neglect behavior before the disaster occured. In the case of Move on the Web project, the initiative is the result of a joint effort between Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br, acronym in Portuguese) and the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovations, and Communications (MCTIC, acronym in Portuguese) working together not only college students but also the inhabitants of Brumadinho (main city affected by the dam tragedy) fostering the culture of entrepreneurship. Following Vagner, Marcos Cesar de Oliveira Pinto (MCTIC) agreed with the former, and added the important role of government in such a situation. Not only the role to prevent future events, give an appropriate response to the survivors and community that faces such a hard challenge. Besides that, Marcos Pinto affirmed that the Ministry believes that innovation can be a key driver for economic and human developments, such in this case. In the sequence, the main presenter Jefferson Silva brought specific details about the Move on the Web project and exposes one of the most important aspects about its construction regarding the actors that should be involved in this process. In order to raise innovative ideas that could lead to the creation of economically viable products and solutions to mitigate social problems of the city, the project should consider the contributions of Brumadinho inhabitants, who have been facing the day-to-day problems since the tragedy. So, one of the main actors that should be involved to frame the issue in question is the group that is directly affected by it. One of the participants, Horst Kremers, commented that, in order to achieve a large scale implementation of these initiatives, you need that federal ministries work together with other public level, such as municipal. Vagner Diniz agreed and also said that this is one of the examples of a multi stakeholder approach to build solutions.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    The Open Forum session presented the initiatives helded on the context of Move on the Web project, in order to solve or mitigate problems due the Brumadinho disaster (25th january 2019) and its aftermath such as fatal victims, economic and environmental impact. Five initiatives are addressed in this project and were presented in the session: 1) Brumadinho Open Data Lake & Analytics. The goal of this project is to create a technological framework that collects data from different authoritative sources such as the ones from Brazilian government agencies, gathers them in a single repository, and makes them publicly available for analysis. The solution architecture is based on the Live Exploration and Mining Of Non-trivial Amount of Data from Everywhere (LEMONADE) technology. 2) BrumadinhoCoin: An Environmental Supportive Coin. The goal of this project is to develop a virtual coin, employing Blockchain infrastructure, and an interactive app so that the population can collaborate with the monitoring of Brumadinho ecosystems. 3) The SuperAÇÃO Coletiva platform. This project's goal is to collect innovative project ideas from the women of Brumadinho, easing the fundraising process for executing such ideas. The platform should be shared among multiple stakeholders, including universities, public and private companies, and NFOs. 4) Alerta Brumadinho. A Technological Complaints Solution Against Environmental Crimes. This project's goal is to strengthen the local environmental monitoring communities. For this, a platform will be developed for environmental crime complaints. Its users will be able to file complaints, monitor them, and receive feedback. 5) Real-time Monitoring Systems of River's Water Quality. The goal of this project is to develop a low-cost prototype of a water quality monitoring station using Arduino/ESP. The station will monitor rivers' water quality and send the collected data through HTTP or MQTT for a geographical information system for analysis.

Open Forum
Updated: Sat, 07/11/2020 - 13:52
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. No data sovereignty if user cannot choose where the data is placed
  2. PDP multilateral agreement not yet available
  3. Data flow borders still unclear
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The keynotes speech by Mrs Mariam Barata, stresses the importance of the Internet in Indonesia; Moreover, ICT Infrastructure development should benefit the Science, Technology, and Industries in the country as well as the Digital economy.

The first speaker, Mr. Arthit Suriyawongkul, emphasized an interesting borrowed term of Four Freedoms from the European Single Market. Free movement of goods, capital, services, and person. We note how the pandemic from COVID19 influences the change of control over the parcel, payment, work/study from home, and the traveling/social life. We observe the transactions of personal data over these changes. They also influence the privacy of each person since the limit between work life and personal life is blurred.

These transactions also caused an increase in the number of borders for more control. Therefore, cross-border implications exist due to data-driven discriminations. It is worth noting that these implications cause consequences including privacy. The ultimate catch is how the existing data protection mechanism evolves to catch up with the new reality.

Further, Mr. Edmon Chung, the second speaker, added more to Arthit's presentation, regarding our online ID. User's own digital private spaces belong to the companies. Even personal data are distributed to advertisers. There was this interesting statement from Edmon, "Customers are not the users but the companies that pay for advertisements."

Related to these issues is related to privacy in the digital domain, data sovereignty means the user owns his/her data and fully control them. The issue of personal data is just one part of the things but the bigger issue is the privately owned public spaces.

3. Key Takeaways

1/ ICT infrastructures dev should give benefit to the country, societies, people

2/ All countries should work together for integrated secured internet, PDP and increasing the digital economy

3/ ASEAN countries can discuss this issue further in the next ASEAN TelMin meeting for concrete actions

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    1/ Multilateral agreement is needed to increase Cybersecurity, especially to protect personal data, and the; type and definition of this personal data should be agreed also. 2/ The agreement should also arrange the cross-border data transfer among law enforcers should it is related to a criminal investigation. 3/ Interconnection between many INTRANet operators is necessary so that the world will still have One Integrated Internet
    Who should take it?: 
    The Government of each Country
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    1/ The UN IGF is expected to lead an intensive discussion in order to integrate various Internet governance in many countries, especially if it is related to Data protection as well as security in general; 2/ The Governance of the Telecommunication sector carried out by UN ITU for example, can be used as a reference.
6. Final Speakers

- Mariam Barata, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology of the Republic of Indonesia
- Edmon Chung, DotAsia, CEO
- Arthit Suriyawongkul, Thai Netizen Network, Trinity College Dublin
- Ashwin Sasongko Sastrosubroto, Telkom University and MAG ID IGF

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Not discussed specifically, since Data protection and Cybersecurity should be applied to people in general, regardless of their gender.

8. Session Outputs:

Not available yet

9. Group Photo
IGF Open Forum Indonesia 2020
10. Voluntary Commitment

No commitment


Specific Session
Updated: Wed, 11/11/2020 - 17:39

5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    This session was re scheduled to 16th November at 11.20 to 12.10 UTC. You can find the session here: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/community-facilitated-networking-break-present-and-future-of-the-igf-for-women-and-gender

Specific Session
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 15:42

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Continued and strenghtened engagement with the office of the UNSG on Digital Cooperation, as well as maintaining a close working relationship with the Civil Society and the UN Tech Envoy, once appointed
    Who should take it?: 
    The Coalition of non-State actors of the Digital Cooperation
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    An advocacy strategy that includes women and youth groups to join forces with Civil Society Coalition in order to increase inclusivity in the implmentation of the Roadmap.
    Who should take it?: 
    All coalition members, led by Web Foundation
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Send a Position Paper detailing non-State actors' aspirations on the appointment of the Tech Envoy to the UN Secretary-General. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n6Bem0x-yvnYb4tDJv4w0-BjwtksNlgv__0xvDSCYxE/edit?usp=sharing

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 08:59
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1. What is the impact of online gaming in the exercises of rights of the child? Whether online games have a positive or negative influence on children and their development?
  2. 2. What are the roles of the industry, public authorities, parents, caregivers and children themselves in regulating access, behaviors and contents for healthy play in online games? How can they cooperate with each other?
  3. 4. How to empower children as active right holders in online gaming? Why is it essential to involve the perspective of children and their rights in online gaming?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Online gaming poses both opportunities and challenges to children's development. The panelists examined the impact from different aspects. Professor Pete Etchells gave a brief overview of gaming addiction. He challenged the WHO classification by arguing that maybe cause over-diagnosis and stigma.

Professor Manisha Shelat introduced how to empower child in online gaming by media literacy. She recommended to develop a game literacy, upgraded from media literacy, to cultivate children’s capability to learning in games, learning by game design, learning about and from games.

Dr. Jing Sun went through some facts of child online gaming in China, including the internet coverage, internet participation, motivation and time length, etc.. She shared the study results from Mizuko Ito, children’s purpose for gaming basically covers killing time, hanging out, recreational gaming, organizing and mobilizing, and augmented game play.

Lanky Zheng put forward his opinion about the Relationship between Video Games and Teenagers’ Development, with Tencent’s practices. He introduced that Tencent has endeavored to“use game-based interaction to guide teenagers' learning, and protecting children's right to play in the digital era

Child representative, Bai Yufan, shared her own experience on gaming. She enjoyed playing gaming while socializing with friends, and she hoped that gaming companies will work for more creative games in the future.

Professor Amanda is an internationally renowned expert in child-centred, participatory research. She hit the workshop topic by listing the rights that have been impacted by online gamingThen she explained the benefits to children’s literacy, numeracy, critical thinking, and enjoyment, and in the meantime, risks could be posed by online play.

The attended panelists have agreed on that the comprehensive governance in online gaming calls for the joint efforts from parents and educators, gaming industry, academia, policy makers, and children themselves.

 

3. Key Takeaways

We are highlighting a child rights perspective, because children have the right to learn, to play, to be protected from harm, and to reach their potential in today’s digital environment which includes connected gaming.

Gaming addiction is real and we should be worried, but not panic. And there is still so much more we need to learn about this issue. Academic community especially behavioral science and mental health need to produce more solid evidence, and communicate them effectively so they could guide the policy making and industry practices.  

Gaming literacy, developed from media literacy and digital literacy, enables children to mitigate the risks and empower themselves in online play.  

Child participation is of high value, we shouldn’t make decisions about children without them. Parents, educators, the industry, and policy makers should really make it a standard practice to consult children on matters which will have impact on their lives.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Governance in child online gaming is not only an emerging and rapidly developing policy area, but also an indispensable part of global internet governance. Based on the characteristics of the existing practices, it could be agreed on that the protection of children in online gaming requires a careful balance between managing the risks and maximizing the opportunities. As the connecting nature of the internet and the profiting nature of businesses challenge the current governance framework, all stakeholders shouldering responsibility for protecting children in online games should strengthen coordination to more effectively carry out their roles. In conclusion, a systematic approach to achieve evidence-based governance of online gaming calls for a combination of public, private, legal and voluntary measures at national and international levels. Professor Pete Etchells encouraged the academia carried out responsible scientific research and game developers to take on social responsibility to make sure that the way their games are implemented and marketed doesn’t harm player. Professor Manisha Shelat suggests that parents should develop a more balanced mindset towards games, to enhance literate response and know when and how to intervene. Children should learn to choose games wisely and have the capability to mitigate the risks and benefit from gaming. Dr. Jing Sun called for joint efforts from all stakeholders in governance in online gaming. First, parents also as educators, should have a comprehension on children’s game play, select healthy games and also limit the time. Game producers should consider the diversity of games in devices and topic, ensure the safety for minor plyers, and highlight the productivity in more creative and functional games. Policy makers should support and invest in academic researches, fuel the industrial innovation and to promote public game literacy, The academic should analyze the relation between children and online gaming from not only a global vision, but also contextualized with Chinese background. Professor Amanda Third proposed her suggestion on the governance in online gaming through the lens of UNCRC.
    Who should take it?: 
    Parents, educators, the industry, and policy makers
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    On 16 June 2020, UNICEF has published a set of recommendations for the online gaming industry, designed to guide and support online gaming companies through a process of incorporating child rights considerations throughout their business activities.
6. Final Speakers

Pete Etchells, Manisha Shelat,  Lanky Zheng, Jing Sun, Yufan Bai, Amanda Third 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Manisha mentioned the gender gap is narrowing. 88% of women think online games are the best way to relax. Compared with 45% of men, 61% of women are willing to skip eating, sleeping and other activities for online games. This shows that the gap between male and female players has decreased.

 

8. Session Outputs:
9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Mon, 16/11/2020 - 17:36
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Have the policy and practice initiatives of past years helped address the risks hate speech online poses
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The approach taken to address hate speech need to be sensitive to the type of hate speech and its context. In line with UN Rabat plan of action there is agreement Hate Speech can fall in one of three categories:

  • Hate Speech that is illegal in line with international standards
  • “Hate speech” that is not illegal but harmful to specific groups and individuals based on protected characteristics.
  • “Hate speech” that is not harmful to a specific group but undesirable in a democratic society

The Council of Europe therefore promotes a comprehensive approach to combating Hate Speech, including in the online environment.

1. Preventive measures:

Education of all members of society & media literacy in the digital environment is key; Use of Counter narratives important, but our discourse needs to be made more accessible for the common people in the daily life. Challenge because the polarization of everything: the counter-narratives, social justice vs. the “more normal people”; People migrate to marginalized smaller platforms limiting their exposure to different points of view to avoid radicalization

2. Self- and Co-regulatory to content moderation: 

Regulation must differentiate between legal, illegal, and harmful speech. Mere deletion without prosecution is a problem. National task force against hate speech (involving social networks, internet associations and CSOs), and regulation has improves content moderation practice, but has its limitations.

3. Implementation of national criminal and admin legislation covering Hate Speech online:

Internet Service Providers cooperation with law Enforcement is essential for both sides but requires clear rules and clarity on how they should be applied. But regional or even world wide streamlining of regulations and definitions is needed.

6. Final Speakers

Martin Mlynár Youth Member No hate Speech Network

Albin Dearing, EU Fundamental Rights Agency

Sejal Parmer,  Lecturer, School of Law, University of Sheffield

Alexander Schafer, Head of division for consumer policy in the information society,telecommunications and media law - Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection 

Bastiaan Winkel, Coordinating Policy Adviser, Law Enforcement and Combatting Crime, Ministry of Justice and Security of The Netherlands & vice chair of the Committee of Expert of Combating Hate Speech of the Council of Europe

Alexandra Laffitte, Vice Chair of EuroISPA

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Sexist hate speech is a major concern and persistent aspect of hate speech. It often intersects with other protected characteristics. 

The session maintained a balance regarding gender in line up of speakers, and ensured participation of a youth delegate from the No Hate Speech Movement/ network. Young persons and both men and women spoke during the breakout groups. 

8. Session Outputs:

No Hate Speech Network, independent network established by national campaigns and activist of the No Hate Speech Movement youth campaign of the Council of Europe: https://www.facebook.com/nohatespeechnetwork/

Initiative: ‘I Am Here’: https://www.facebook.com/iamhere.intl

Digital Opportunities Foundation Germany: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/igf-2020-village-booth-26-stiftung-digitale-chancen

9. Group Photo
WS#59 All you wanted to ask about Hate Speech, but didn't yet.

Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/11/2020 - 00:07
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Ensuring sufficient bandwidth through each leg of the communications network
  2. Importance of maintaining the security and resiliency of these networks
  3. Expanding connectivity to increase availability to meet demand, especially to vulnerable populations
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The COVID-19 crisis put into stark relief the importance of developing a new framework that would safeguard user trust in the soundness of the communications network backbone and the reliability of Internet connectivity. Such challenges included: (1) ensuring sufficient bandwidth through each leg of the network; (2) maintaining the security and resiliency of these networks; (3) expanding connectivity to increase availability to meet demand, especially to vulnerable populations; and (4) establishing meaningful global communication channels. The workshop addressed how ensuring the soundness of communications networks was essential for dissemination of information for the prevention and mitigation of COVID-19.   This represented stakeholder collaboration in action.

3. Key Takeaways
  1. COVID-19 has driven increased global demand by citizens for a connectivity and services that require a secure and reliable Internet.
  2. Protecting and fortifying infrastructure and systems so that users and nations will trust that the Internet can be leveraged to reliably and securely mitigate a global crisis and be a trusted means to support work from home, distance learning, tele-health and to disseminate useful and relevant information.
  3. Business, government, the technical community, multilateral organizations, and others needed to work together through collaboration and cooperation amid constantly changing conditions to address the challenges presented by national crises, including COVID-19.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    1. Digital transformation within the government sector is critical to ensuring citizen access to important information during times of crisis. 2. Bridging the divide through expanded broadband connectivity is a prerequisite to fully leveraging the digital economy. 3. Strengthening cybersecurity readiness for workforces that move to a work from home environment is critical to ensuring the security and resiliency of critical infrastructure and to supporting an ever-expanding digital economy. 4. Disaster response strategies should ensure coordination and alignment across all levels of government – Federal, state, local, tribal and territorial partners is important for developing a cohesive, meaning response to national disasters, even when infrastructure isn’t impacted such was the case with the COVID-19 crisis.
    Who should take it?: 
    The ITU and National, multistakeholder bodies devoted to crisis response (see above recommendations)
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    • Develop a methodology for identifying gaps and bottlenecks in assessing digital infrastructure to design an action plan for affordable and reliable connectivity, such as the Connect to Recover program, a global initiative. • Countries that establish a national emergency telecommunications plan are well positioned to manage disaster responses more effectively during times of crisis, like COVID-19. • Strengthen online child protection guidelines to help children, parents, educators, industry, and policymakers ensure cyberspace is as safe and empowering as possible. • Collaborative and inclusive multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance and policy strategies are important to ensuring all relevant players have a voice in the decision-making process.
    Who should take it?: 
    ITU and National multistakeholder bodies focused on crisis response.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Issue: Broadband development and ICT capacity building. Venues: The International Telecommunication Union Details: The 2021 World Telecommunication Development Conference (WTDC) -- https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/WTDC/WTDC21/Pages/default.aspx UN Broadband Commission Fall 2020 meeting -- https://broadbandcommission.org/events/Pages/AnnualMeeting2020.aspx OECD 2008 Broadband Recommendation -- http://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/broadbandgrowthandpoliciesinoecdcountries.htm
6. Final Speakers

Kathryn Condello, Lumen, female

Toshiya Jitsuzumi, Professor in the Faculty of Policy Studies, Chuo University, male

Doreen Bogdan-Martin, ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau, female

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Approximately 38 participants were women of the 81 who registered. The panel itself was gender balanced, with two out of three. The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. However, it did recognize that the gender gap is a significant factor underlying the connectivity gap in Least Developed Countries such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.

8. Session Outputs:

Policy Recommendations of Suggestions for the Way Forward

  1. Digital transformation within the government sector is critical to ensuring citizen access to important information during times of crisis.
  2. Bridging the divide through expanded broadband connectivity is a prerequisite to fully leveraging the digital economy.
  3. Strengthening cybersecurity readiness for workforces that move to a work from home environment is critical to ensuring the security and resiliency of critical infrastructure and to supporting an ever-expanding digital economy.
  4. Disaster response strategies should ensure coordination and alignment across all levels of government – Federal, state, local, tribal and territorial partners is important for developing a cohesive, meaning response to national disasters, even when infrastructure isn’t impacted such was the case with the COVID-19 crisis.

In addition to ITU, see Fall meeting of UN Broadband Commission -- https://broadbandcommission.org/events/Pages/AnnualMeeting2020.aspx

10. Voluntary Commitment

Speakers will submit their voluntary commitments to the IGF via the link provided.

Overall, they pledged to fostered greater collaboration between business and government in providing a secure, stable, and resilient global communications infrastructure aimed at deepening the trust of global citizens in their capacity to communicate and participate in the digital economy.,

 


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 12/11/2020 - 17:18
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1. How can existing and emerging digital technologies contribute to addressing climate change and how can they foster change in various sectors of the economy (manufacturing, trade, agrifood, etc.)? What initiatives exist and what can be done to improve them?
  2. 2. What role can data and AI play in tackling sustainability issues such as climate change, biodiversity, conservation and water scarcity?
  3. 3. How could policy-making benefit from the analysis of big data to better understand impacts of policy decisions on sustainability?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Discussion about a multistakeholder approach to saving the planet

The speakers discussed how multistakeholder collaboration could help in developing meaningful solutions to address environmental challenges. It was agreed that both governmental and corporate standards are needed and can complement each other. Matt Peterson explained that Amazon is trying to pioneer corporate standards by bringing together different corporations to commit to the same goals.

With regard to the work of Oceanmind, Nick Wise stated that multistakeholder collaboration is needed to protect the ocean. Governments play an important role as they set and agree on regulations and international treaties and are responsible for enforcing shipping rules. Local NGOs are essential for engaging governments and in understanding the local culture and concerns and complexities. All parties are needed to come together to achieve impact.

The moderator Jorge Cancio (Swiss Government) closed with stating that multistakeholder collaboration is a minimum requirement to address environmental issues. Furthermore, the intersessional work within the IGF on environment and digitalisation should and will further evolve.

3. Key Takeaways

To make progress on environmental issues, we need data. New technologies – including satellites, drones, IoT powered sensors etc. – have vastly accelerated data collection.

Currently, we see an overabundance – and not a lack – of date. There is a need for platforms and AI to house, understand, analyse and aggregate this data. Moreover, Interoperability of data is important. 

There are many great examples by companies and NGOs on how to use technology to help addressing the planet’s environmental challenges (among others Amazon’s “Climate Pledge Fund”, Mastercard’s “Priceless Planet Coalition” and the work of Oceanmind).

Standards are important to tackle climate change and e-waste.

The digital divide poses a challenge: People need to be connected, but in a sustainable way.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Rebound effects need to be taken into account and we need to move from a linear economy to a circular economy. Both governmental and corporate standards are needed, as they can complement each other. Multistakeholder collaboration is a minimum requirement to address environmental issues. All parties need to come together to achieve impact, it cannot be achieved alone. The intersessional work within the IGF on environment and digitalisation should further evolve.
    Who should take it?: 
    IGF -- The intersessional work within the IGF on environment and digitalisation should further evolve.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Amazon Climate Pledge Fund -- https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/about/climate-pledge-fund Matt Peterson explained that Amazon's recently launched “Climate Pledge Fund”, Amazon aims to use its scale from the demand side to look for sustainable investment opportunities. to invest in visionary companies whose products and services will help the company to decarbonize and attain net zero. One of the first companies to join the coalition was Rivian, an electric vehicle manufacturer. Amazon both invested in the company and purchased 100,000 electric vehicles with the goal to electrify its delivery fleet. Other companies invested in include Carbon Cure, a manufacturer of low carbon cement, as the production of cement emits 12% of the world’s carbon emissions. Another is Redwood Materials, a large-scale battery recycling company founded by the CTO and cofounder of Tesla, JB Straubel.
  2. Initiative: 
    Nick Wise (Oceanmind) illustrated how the NGO Oceanmind creates a better understanding of what is happening in the ocean so the seafood industry can make sustainable choices. Oceanmind uses modern technology such as satellites and AI to track the seafood supply chain (e.g. by tracking vessels). By doing so, Oceanmind empowers fisheries authorities and seafood buyers to understand the compliance of fishing around the world. Oceanmind also provides direct support, training and capacity building to governments and IGOs. This brings a new dimension to regulatory compliance and sustainability commitments and also enhances trust for consumers. https://oceanmind.global/
  3. Initiative: 
    Caroline Louveaux (Mastercard) explained how Mastercard leverages its vast network (2.6 billion cardholders worldwide) to educate consumers on climate change and helping them to make meaningful choices. In particular, Mastercard has launched an initiative called ‘Priceless Planet Coalition’, which unites different actors to address climate change by planting of a hundred million trees over five years. Mastercard also developed an App to make it easier and safer for people to make donations to climate issues. https://newsroom.mastercard.com/asia-pacific/press-releases/mastercard-launches-priceless-planet-coalition-inviting-australian-organisations-to-unite-and-preserve-the-environment/#:~:text=Mastercard%20launches%20Priceless%20Planet%20Coalition%2C%20inviting%20Australian%20organisations,onboard%20and%20take%20collective%20action%20against%20climate%20change.
  4. Initiative: 
    Paolo Gemma (Huawei, member of ITU-T Study Group 5) contributed to the discussion from a macro perspective and emphasized that we need to change our model of development to go in a more sustainable way. In particular, rebound effects need to be taken into account and we need to move from a linear economy to a circular economy. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/about/groups/Pages/sg05.aspx
6. Final Speakers
  • Matt Peterson, Director of Amazon's Climate Pledge Fund;
  • Caroline Louveaux, Executive Vice President of Privacy at Mastercard;
  • Nick Wise, Nick Wise is founder and CEO of OceanMind; and
  • Paolo Gemma, senior Specialist and representative of Huawei 
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

At least half of the workshop participants were women, who actively contributed to the Chat. The panel itself  was balanced to include a woman speaker (Caroline Louveaux, Mastercard), woman online moderator (Barbara Wanner, U.S. Council for International Business), and woman substantive rapportuer (Livia Walpen, Govt of Switzerland). 

The session did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment.

8. Session Outputs:

To make progress on environmental issues, we need data. New technologies – including satellites, drones, IoT powered sensors etc. – have vastly accelerated data collection.

Currently, we see an overabundance – and not a lack – of date. There is a need for platforms and AI to house, understand, analyse and aggregate this data. Moreover, Interoperability of data is important. 

There are many great examples by companies and NGOs on how to use technology to help addressing the planet’s environmental challenges (among others Amazon’s “Climate Pledge Fund”, Mastercard’s “Priceless Planet Coalition” and the work of Oceanmind).

Standards are important to tackle climate change and e-waste.

The digital divide poses a challenge: People need to be connected, but in a sustainable way.

10. Voluntary Commitment

Overall, speakers pledged to take forward to IGF goals and objective by providing inputs to the online submission portal. In addition:

Paola Gemma (Huawei) pledged to continue working in the ITU-T Study Group 5 (focuse on the environment) to " write something to help the young generation to have a better world.  Sometimes we cannot change the past but we can build the future."

Caroline Louveaux (Mastercard) pledge to continue  is to promote trust, security and human rights in the digital era, including for the global collaboration that is needed, we have been discussing today, in the context of artificial intelligence, data and technology. This foundation of trust will enable the use of technologies to address environmental challenges.

Nick Wise (Oceanmind) pledged to remain ommitted to improving the health of the ocean using technology.

Matt Peterson (Amazon) noted the IGF's important work and expressed a  commitment to continue to provide updates to the IGF community of what Climate Pledge Fund's supported companies are building to improve the environment.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 17/11/2020 - 09:15
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What societal and economic benefits are enabled by the trustworthy use of AI in global public emergencies?
  2. How should these benefits be weighed against the need to protect fundamental rights?
  3. What are the key challenges and possible solutions for AI and Big Data governance?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support for the view that AI and Big Data can provide innovations and opportunities in epidemic preparedness and response. Good application cases were introduced during the presentations. Panellists also agreed that although AI system and Big Data played a key role in combating COVID-19, they inevitably created some new problems. Especially, challenges of AI and Big Data Governance are well identified. Therefore, panellists reached a consensus on the great significance of mapping some good governance models of AI and Big Data to maximize their benefits. Moreover, they agreed that a synergy of global partnership is required on AI, both for its technical development and for its governance. Further discussions are needed on the detailed description for implementation at the operational level.

3. Key Takeaways

This session reached a consensus on the necessity of establishing AI policy and good governance models, as well as improving data management and operational standard to make better use of AI. The key takeaways are as follow:

1. Present key issues and challenges on AI and Big Data governance for global public emergencies.

2. Reach common understanding on the ways in which AI can be put to work to maximize its benefits.

3. Define a follow-up action plan and come out an AI governance principles and guidelines.

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Standardisation is needed to allow data is shared with certain protection to ensure data security. We need to reach consensus and establish widely recognized standards or governance model to ensure AI is fair to every person and to be inclusive.
    Who should take it?: 
    Consensus are absolutely needed among stakeholders on the operational standard of data and AI governance model. This requires a synergy of global partnership on AI, both for its technical development and for its governance. There is a need for the public and private sectors and civil society organizations, as well as academia and scientific and research institutions, to work more closely together and to create opportunities for collaboration. Also, the correct and neutral operation of AI is crucial to the security, stability and resilience of the Internet. With that spirit in mind, as the IGF is the main focal point for Internet governance discussion worldwide, it could be an ideal platform for the collaborative dialogue among those stakeholder groups.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    The issue: To what extend AI will work in land-locked countries during the emergencies? Not only COVID-19. Also, flood, earthquake, agriculture etc. The Initiative addressing the issue: AI is a strong internet reliable technology. So in emergencies to keep information internet to work at least extent is very important. So if we lose the interconnectivity AI may have some offline application but by large it is not useful. We are in the stage of doing experiment with AI but the question is how to put this into operational practice. This is a complex work and cannot be done by small projects, so we have to take initiative for international cooperation, and to see more research and development on national and international level that try to join forces and find right resources of doing all these detailed work.
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: KE GONG, Intergovernmental Organization, Intergovernmental Organization

Speaker 2: Horst Kremers, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 3: Chuang Liu, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

Speaker 4: Daisy Selematsela, Civil Society, African Group

Speaker 5: Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo, Private Sector, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

Speaker 6: Xiang Zhou, China Association for Science and Technology (CAST)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The discussion at this session concerns every stakeholder involved in the field of AI and Big Data, including citizens, scientists, policy makers, public and private sectors, civil society organizations, academia and research institutions and so forth. It did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. Recommendations were put forward on how to establish effective AI policy and good governance models, as well as how to improve data management, which should be applied to people in general, regardless of their gender.

9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Wed, 25/11/2020 - 19:05
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Conflict between US and China on Internet governance models, cyber-sovereignty
  2. Global trade in information services and telecom equipment
  3. China's approach to data governance and data control
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Internet freedom. Are China/US actions threatening the open and free internet? There was no agreement on this from representatives of China and the USA. But civil society, academic and industry participants indicated that both governments are doing things that restrict and divide internet connectivity. As one panelist said, “In principle, [if] we disagree with the great firewall of China, we should probably also disagree with the clean networks as well.”

Fragmentation and sovereignty The US representative said the Clean Networks initiative was necessary to maintain trust. China's representatives defended the concept of cyber-sovereignty but also claimed that the US is trying to achieve sovereignty as well. The European suggested that while China and the US fight, Europe may be able to "take the cake" by developing a "third way," but the nature of this alternative was not well specified.

Competing models of IG. In Africa, China's government is not using telecom infrastructure to impose its internet governance model on foreign markets, but its commercial vendors sometimes use China's reputation for surveillance and control to sell their products. The US claims China is a threat to the multistakeholder model, but China says it has expressed support for it many times and participate in ICANN.

Hong Kong National Security Law. creates extraordinary powers and was criticized as shutting down free speech in HK, but has not been used to harass western platforms yet.

New IP proposal was criticized by the US as “an attack on the very foundations of the Internet” but this was revealed as an overstatement as it is not really a protocol yet

China’s “Global Initiative on Data Security” was presented but criticized as too territorial and sovereignty-based.

The Chip war (US export controls) was discussed as punitive rather than supporting cybersecurity or creating trade leverage

3. Key Takeaways

Although the fundamental policy differences underlying the US-China division were not overcome, there was near-consensus on one critical point: centrality of global internet users.

Most panelists agreed that the well-being of internet users globally, not nation-states, should be the starting point of the debate. Mr Mok of Hong Kong put it well: "I do still wish as a user all this censorship and surveillance would go away by everybody. It hurts me as a user to see the powers of both sides pointing fingers at each other and saying I am better than you are." Rather than speaking of national sovereignty, we should speak of "user, people's sovereignty." As one panelist said, "things will happen from the users upwards rather than imposing restriction or standards of one country or the other." We think this is one of the most important ideas that high-level policy makers need to know about. 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    US ends the chip war and ceases blocking Huawei equipment sales, while China opens its information markets to uncensored Google, Facebook and other western information sources.
    Who should take it?: 
    Both Chinese and US governments
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Make the users and suppliers of internet services, not nation-states, the "sovereigns"
    Who should take it?: 
    all policy makers
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    More dialogue among stakeholders; move away from "good guy/bad guy" posturing
  2. Initiative: 
    Further discussing and advancing the idea of popular sovereignty in cyberspace within ICANN's At Large community.
6. Final Speakers

All speakers in the original proposal were present and participated:
Milton Mueller (Georgia Institute of Technology) and Peixi Xu (Communication University of China), moderators and organizers

Stephen Anderson, US State Department, USA

Guo Feng, Ministry of Information Technology, PRC

Iginio Gagliardone, WITS University, South Africa

Jyoti Panday, Internet Governance Project, India

Joanna Kulesza, University of Lodz, Poland

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not discussed. 

9. Group Photo
Overcoming the US China Digital Cold War
10. Voluntary Commitment

Professor Milton Mueller committed to hold educational sessions on multi-stakeholder governance directed towards a Chinese audience.

Professor Joanna Kulesza committed to advance the end user-focused sovereignty concept within ICANN on behalf of the end user community.

Professor Peixi Xu committed to promote digital interdependence through the UN 


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 02/12/2020 - 06:55
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What stakeholders are responsible for checking the credibility of fact-checkers and how can their reliability be ensured?
  2. Is it possible to borrow or to expand on existing models such as the multi-stakeholder model in order to improve the fact-checking process?
  3. What are the key concepts for establishing trust and how can they be implemented in fact-checking?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The panellists outlined several key issues fact-checkers and fact-checking initiatives face globally. Among the factors named were speed, experience, language skills, political pressure, financial burdens, legal threats, a public lack of media literacy education, lack of trust in journalism and a lack of transparency from social media companies, especially regarding algorithms.

Several further questions were raised and discussed by the panel. They included:

  • Which stakeholder(s) should be responsible for promoting education regarding media literacy and misinformation? Is there any useful framework to educate internet users about fact-checking?
  • How can the lack of funding for fact-checkers and fact-checking organisations be addressed?
  • How important is the international level for fact-checking in comparison to the national level? Is international cooperation in fact-checking achievable in ten years or 20 years?
  • Which role does the cyber-security community take in combating misinformation?
  • How can stakeholders that support or spread misinformation be included in a potential multi-stakeholder fact-checking process without affecting its integrity as a whole?

Further and more specific questions were addressed by the respective panellists both in parallel to the session using the Q&A chat window and live at the end of the workshop.

3. Key Takeaways

There are several central takeaways from the workshop and the discussion, especially regarding the methods and stakeholders involved in fact-checking.

It was established that both questions of stakeholder integration in the fact-checking process and of financing highly depend on the nature of the political system at hand. The success of fact-checking is dependent on users’ trust in the fact-checkers and institutions, which can be both amplified and damaged by government involvement in the process. This complicates questions of how to finance fact-checking in a way that both relieves the burden carried by fact-checking organisations themselves and does not damage their credibility.

Furthermore, it was proposed that education is the most central factor in combating misinformation, improving media literacy and increasing the quality of information spread online. It could also advance the objective of re-rooting public dialogue in facts and science and re-establishing the concept of truth. In this context, it was also suggested that additional work is needed to restore trust in journalism. However, how stakeholders who benefit from spreading false information can be included in and addressed by this process remains a difficult question.

Lastly, it was suggested that international cooperation in fact-checking will be of increasing importance in the future, despite the core work being on the local level.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    For the way forward, several panellists laid emphasis on the importance of holding social media platforms accountable, both regarding algorithms and regarding the financing of fact-checking. Similarly, it was suggested that educational solutions have to be found to address decreasing trust in journalism, erosion of media literacy and the disconnect of public discourse from facts. However, speakers also emphasised a personal component, urging every user to remain vigilant hold themselves accountable when encountering and sharing information on social media.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Initiatives mentioned in the discussion: - International Fact-Checking Network by the Poynter Institute (global) - TOMA and T-Check in Haiti
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Charles Mok, Government, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 2: Alice Echtermann, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 3: Jens Kaessner, Government, Western European and Others Group (WEOG) 
Speaker 4: BIRARDA CARINA, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 5: Obed Sindy, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

A discussion of the relationship between gender issues and misinformation exceeded the scope of this workshop, though it is highly recommended that it should be considered as a topic for future panels.

8. Session Outputs:

In addition to this report, the speakers’ slides (if applicable) were gathered by the organisers.

Here is a link to the more detailed report of the workshop: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K2WscbbnePEaz4OEO-dHKljkdRwyo1jF/view?u...

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

The final discussion called for a general commitment of Internet users to exercise caution and reason when encountering information online.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 15:38
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What is the relevant level of intervention when it comes to the environmental impact of the digital sector?
  2. What have been done so far to limit the environmental impact of the digital sector on the environment and what remains to be done?
  3. Which economic model should be followed to conciliate technology and environmental responsibility?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Everyone agreed that is is important to act at the global level to impulse a common dynamic and propose shared solutions, standards, tools and initiatives. However, every action should be adapted to the local level, depending on local specifities and issues.

Moreover, the speakers underlined the need for cooperation between institutions and relevant stakeholder to tackled the issue. Data collection, transparency and education are essentials elements of the solution.

Everyone is of the opinion that much remains to be done and that we must collectively ask ourselves what model to follow to meet our climate commitments.

Some speakers insisted on the need to raise consumer awareness, while others preferred not to give so much responsibility to consumers but rather to industry and to the business model of certain content providers in particular, based on abundance, in opposition to what action for the environment requires.  

3. Key Takeaways

The interventions illustrated that a lot of work has been done but there is still much work left.

Greenpeace noted that “China’s recent pledge to become carbon neutral by 2060 is sending a strong signal to the world and to home. It’s time for IT giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and GDS to take the cue, clean up their energy supply, and commit to 100% renewable energy,”  Also, Vodafone underlined how a Gigabit Europe can be green. Telco industry committed to meet growing data demand in a way that protects the planet: by using energy efficiently and sourcing it from renewable generation. Vodafone markets in Europe will power its network by 100% renewable electricity no later than July 2021.

These are important  concrete examples of actions undertaken in the field. However,  a common understanding among panellists is the need of more collaboration, at institutional and governmental level, at business level, with companies sharing their experiences as much as possible at the global level, but also at the users’ level.  Education and Transparency have also been pointed out as essential factors in enabling a low-carbon future: more data, researches and studies are needed in order to have a better knowledge of what can be done and to achieve the 2030 UN agenda objectives.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    There should be more cooperation and coordination at institutional level to build a consistent and effective strategy to limit the impact of the digital sector on the environment.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    There is a need for sharing of experience and good practices between actors.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    A method must be defined to enable the collection of the data necessary for transparency and action to limit the environmental impact of digital technology.
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Emphasis should be placed on transparency and information on the environmental consequences of digital technology.
6. Final Speakers

Moderator : Anaïs Aubert,
Speaker 1: Ruiqi Ye, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

Speaker 2: Gauthier Roussilhe, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 3: Agnieszka Skorupinska, Private Sector, Eastern European Group

Speaker 4 : Paolo Gemma, Chairman of Working Party 3 “ICT and Climate Change” at the ITU.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The gender issues were not part of the discussion during the session. However, it should be noted that the panel, moderated by a woman, was composed of three woman and two men. 


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 25/11/2020 - 13:09
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How can we bring capacity building tools to women and diverse gender people in order to foster their involvement in the Internet Governance? How can we bring capacity building tools to women and diverse gender people in order to foster their involvement in the Internet Governance? How can we bring capacity building tools to women and diverse gender people in order to foster their involvement in the Internet Governance? How can we bring capacity building tools to women and gender diverse people in order to foster their involvement in Internet Governance?
  2. How can we ensure that Internet policies would take into consideration low-income populations, people with disabilities?
  3. Which are the three main points needed to design inclusion policies in Internet Governance?
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issues: Necessity to work stronger towards the Inclusion of marginalized communities (women and gender diverse); Affordability aspects that implies a breach to access to the Internet (data packets and devices'prices); Lack of capacity building for rural communities (Digital Literacy); Governments restricting access to human rights; Design-by-default for persons with disabilities. Recommendation: -Share awareness on what internet governance is to various gender diverse groups and their online communities. -Create safe spaces for women to express themselves such as newcomer sessions targeted at gender groups. -Organize LGBTQ related and led sessions to encourage more participants to be in this space and meaningfully engage. -Avoid tokenism of groups such as women, youth and LGBTQ groups. -Form mentoring discussions within various multi stakeholder circles to bring in more participants into the discussion. -Lower prices of data and digital taxes levied on internet infrastructure to promote digital inclusion
    Who should take it?: 
    -Government through legislation -Civil society groups through advocacy for inclusion -Private sector and tech companies that enforce affordable internet -The IGF should work towards inclusion of gender diverse people, starting from registration forms. Also, it was mentioned the IGF should incorporate more accessibility tools for people with disabilities like a sign interpreter; colours adapted for persons within the autistic spectrum; and address the multilingual approach regarding access to the sessions and such.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    1) Inclusion discussions: UN Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction sets the broader scope for inclusion: https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291_sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf#page=22 2) Gender Groups for awareness : Women Who Code, Girl Scouts "We envision a world where women are proportionally represented as technical leaders, executives, founders, VCs, board members, and software engineers." https://www.womenwhocode.com/ 3) Digital Taxation : Moratorium on digital taxation that stopped the levying of customs duty on items such as software. https://www.wto.org/index.htm

Workshop
Updated: Wed, 25/11/2020 - 10:20
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Which are the different actors and institutions that need to have their norms and processes harmonized for safe medicines to be purchasable in a transnational manner?
  2. What are the incentives and punishments that can be established by Internet Governance actors and bodies to foster a better environment for medicines online?
  3. How do we look at the question of access to medicines in a way that is inclusive of all regions, particularly understanding the needs of the developing world?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Areas of agreement:

  • The use of the Internet for purchase of medicine is increasing at a rapid pace, and this has been further accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • There is no global (and mostly no interregional) regulatory framework in place to ensure the safety of consumers, often leading to outright prohibition of transnational purchases.
  • There is a significant number of rogue online pharmacies selling falsified or substandard medicines, and more action needs to be taken to balance their incentive.
  • An important issue relating to this theme is the lack of a clearly defined role for intermediaries, such as is the case of registries and registrars, which are vital, yet lack defined procedures to deal with or identify which are legitimate or illegitimate online pharmacies.
  • The existing TLD that declared it was specifically for pharmacies (“.pharmacy”) has proven to be disinterested in the issue and thus, it is insufficient to cover both existing use-cases or to address the problem of rogue actors.
  • The IGF is proving to have the potential to be ‘the suitable home’ for furthering dialogue and debate in this area, serving as a neutral space where all actors can engage.

Areas of no agreement:

  • As there are many different levels where action can be taken, from the local to the global, it is as yet unclear where the starting point is that will yield the most optimal outcomes.
  • The DNS can be leveraged to minimize problems, but the models that need to be put in place (white/black lists, trusted notifiers, and so on) have still to be agreed upon, signaling that more studies need to be carried out.
  •  It is yet unclear how to address this issue from a global perspective, accounting for the significant variances in development of different nations vis-à-vis the maturity of their respective markets.
3. Key Takeaways

It is clear that the discussion of the access to medicines using the Internet involves issues that have an impact ON the Internet’s technical infrastructure, as well as  AROUND that infrastructure. This indicates that both technical bodies and political institutions need to be engaged to achieve the best outcome possible.

A similarity that this question shares with other jurisdictional issues is the need to balance a triangle composed of: Human Rights, security, and economic concerns. These matters of jurisdiction continue to grow in importance; therefore, addressing them in a focused, systemic manner will become ever-more necessary with each passing year.

There is no silver bullet solution at the DNS level, however beginning from the DNS would be a constructive start to enable ground rules to be set, which point toward norms that can be adopted in a broader manner. Dialogue within the ICANN community would also expedite actions around both the punishments and incentives for involved actors.

There is a need for a more permanent ‘dialogue space’ in which matters that intersect medicines and the Internet can be addressed, so that discussions can advance at a pace that more closely reflects the speed in which this theme is growing in importance.

The number of stakeholders involved in the deployment and sale of any given medicine is noteworthy.  Only through proper mapping and research of their operations, cooperation and collaboration will we be able to achieve the objective of establishing Internet pharmacies as trustworthy as bricks and mortar drug stores. We hold as true that the goal is achievable.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    A permanent group needs to be assembled to discuss the question of access to medicines using the Internet.
    Who should take it?: 
    UN/IGF
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Intermediaries, particularly registries and registrars, need specific guidelines to follow in relation to the treatment of both legitimate pharmacies and rogue online actors.
    Who should take it?: 
    ICANN
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    - Sale of safe and affordable medicines using the Internet - The Brussels Principles on the Sales of Medicines Over the Internet - https://www.brusselsprinciples.org
6. Final Speakers
  • Ron Andruff, ONR Consulting, Inc.
  • Bertrand de La Chapelle, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Aria Ahmad, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
  • Zina Hany, B.Pharm, MPH, MBA, CEPH (MENA region)
7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Access to medicines is a universal subject affecting all people.

8. Session Outputs:

Moderator Ron Andruff introduced the concept of the sale of safe and affordable medicines over the Internet, emphasizing how there is no unified framework or set of norms in place to organize this market.  Rather, the marketplace ends up relying on a variety of often incompatible local regulations, resulting in the emergence of gaps that both decrease access to medicines and end up being abused by bad actors using rogue pharmacies to harm consumers the world over, while legitimate Internet pharmacies often face complex regulatory challenges. COVID-19 accelerated an already ongoing process of people needing to rely on digital technology to ensure the maintenance of their health, bringing further pressure to the theme. There is a strong Human Rights dimension to this debate, but, at the same time, there is a need to ask which are the correct policy questions?

Panelist Bertrand de la Chapelle advanced the question of how highly-regulated medicines are and, in comparison to previous debates held in IG such as multimedia and pornography, Internet pharmacies is a much more complex and nuanced matter. There is a patchwork of regulation around the world that is legitimate, dictating: Who can prescribe? Who can distribute? Who can manufacture? There is a significant similarity to other issues that transcend jurisdiction, which fall into a triangle that needs to be balanced, composed of: security, Human Rights, and economic concerns. He further brought up the point that fighting bad actors via the DNS could be effective, but is often too blunt of a tool, so very clear guidelines need to be delineated for the DNS to be an effective tool in this effort. Finally, he laid out the matter of broad use gTLDs (e.g. COM) versus industry-specific ones (such as “.PHARMACY”) and how those can play a role in these concerns.

Panelist Aria Ilyad Ahmad warned of the need to find a regulatory sweet-spot; not overly open nor overly restrictive. He laid out how COVID-19 derailed potential progress within the WHO around the normalization of some aspects of a freer flow of medicines across the world. Aria referenced his Discussion Paper, “Towards a Regulatory Framework for Internet Pharmacies”, first presented at the 2019 Berlin IGF, outlining the need for national medicine regulatory authorities to be involved for these matters to be adequately addressed, as they are actors actively seeking harmonization. He recalled an important effort in 2014, when the issue of medicine quality was a contentious matter within the World Health Organization, but lacked any international mechanisms to address it.

Panelist Zina Hany grounded the discussion in real world examples, relaying extensive data from the MENA region that showcased the rather difficult situation most developing countries find themselves in. One very important point she raised is, how due to poor reimbursement policies, a lot of patient payments end up being out-of-pocket, which incentivizes bad practices. This is further compounded by how ownership of credit cards is conditional and not widely available in some regions, making the task of importation largely impossible. Furthermore, Zina underscored that governments in the region are protective about local drug manufacturers and, therefore, are reluctant to support the idea of a cross-border online platform for medicines, for fear of negatively impacting local manufacturing businesses.

The Workshop concluded that these questions need to be further explored and better systematized, so that a real comprehension can be achieved and effective action be taken. It is proposed that some of this work is housed under a new DC entitled: Access to Medicines Using the Internet. So, our Voluntary Commitment as requested by the IGF Secretariat is being fulfilled by the group committing to advance the dialogue during the coming year to find the most beneficial approaches to resolve the safe Internet pharmacy conundrum once and for all.

10. Voluntary Commitment

The organizers are committed towards advancing the creation of a group, probably in the form of an IGF Dynamic Coalition, to carry out more conversations around this subject in which all actors get to present their points of view, concerns, and solutions. The initiative will guided by the objective of advancing and promoting evidence-based research on access to medicines using the Internet.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 24/11/2020 - 10:28
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1. How to evaluate the impact of mobile Internet energy consumption on the overall Internet and Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) energy consumption, with the large-scale deployment of 5G facilities? What impact will the mobile Internet industry upgrade have on the environment?
  2. 2. What measures can the government and industry take to control or reduce the carbon footprint of the mobile Internet? How to increase the proportion of clean energy in the 5G industry?
  3. 3. What role can the Mobile Internet of Things (IoT) play in tackling sustainability issues such as climate change, biodiversity?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

5G technology development will bring challenges and opportunities for energy consumption. The panelists elaborated and discussed these issues from different perspectives.

Dr Chih-lin I gave a brief overview of 5G construction of China Mobile. Although the energy consumption of 5g base station is about three or four times that of 4G base station, its actual energy efficiency is higher, that is to say, it can carry more traffic with the same power consumption.

Dr Daniel Schien introduced that the supply chain of digital services is a complex system, so it is difficult to have an accurate assessment of its energy consumption. For the green development of 5G, we hope to use as much renewable energy as possible in the cellular network. In addition, a comprehensive report on energy consumption allows operators, media, consumers and the public sector to make better decisions.

MR Moore Steven introduced that the potential development of 5G will contribute to carbon emission reduction in other industries, such as intelligent agriculture, intelligent buildings and energy sectors, which will all rely on interconnected networks to ensure intelligent manufacturing and intelligent energy management.

MR Mieczkowski Piotr mentioned that in the EU, people are discussing the EU green agreement, that is, large-scale digitization of the energy industry. Without the smart grid, the Internet of things and 5G connectivity, this agreement would not have been possible.

MR Roberto Zambrana mentioned that some countries in the southern hemisphere, such as Latin America and the Caribbean, were far behind in 5g. Multilateral agreements between governments in different regions of the global south are needed to implement a joint strategy to establish a common regulatory framework for all Internet mobile broadband services, including 5G.

3. Key Takeaways

5G is leading us into the era of green communication. Different countries and organizations have formulated carbon neutral plans for sustainable development. The large-scale deployment of 5G base station will bring great energy consumption challenges. The energy consumption of 5G base station is about three or four times that of 4G base station. In addition, the overall energy consumption of 5G network is many times higher than that of previous generations due to its potential higher density.

However, because 5g can carry more data and its peak data rate is 15 times higher than that of 4G, it is more efficient than 4G, 3G and 2G in terms of energy consumption per unit data transmission.

In the green development of 5G, there are mainly the following aspects: first, as much renewable energy as possible needs to be used in the cellular network. Second, energy consumption needs to be fully reported so that operators, media, consumers and the public sector can make better decisions. Third, energy consumption services need to be more intuitive and transparent. Fourth, there is more cross sectoral cooperation between infrastructure providers and media organizations.

In addition, the potential development of 5G will contribute to carbon emission reduction in other industries, such as intelligent agriculture, intelligent buildings, and energy sectors, which will all rely on interconnected networks to ensure intelligent manufacturing and intelligent energy management.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    All service providers should report the energy consumption of each link so that all parties, including designers and media institutions, consumers and the public sector, can make strong decisions.
    Who should take it?: 
    Mobile operators, research institutions, industry associations and policy makers.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Mobile operators or equipment providers can join the O-RAN alliance, which can help to maximize the energy efficiency of 5G networks.
    Who should take it?: 
    Mobile operators,equipment manufacturer, service provider
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    The O-RAN alliance is carrying out a major work called RAN intelligent controller. RIC is a control plan, from resource scheduling to physical layer platform, providing more refined and real-time opportunities for the highest energy efficiency of 5G networks. https://www.o-ran.org/
  2. Initiative: 
    All service providers should report the energy consumption of each link so that all parties, including designers and media institutions, consumers and the public sector, can make strong decisions.
  3. Initiative: 
    The CDP is a global carbon reporting system, which is important because transparency around it is essential to start managing carbon emissions. We should not only understand the risks of enterprises in carbon intensive areas, but also understand the opportunities that may arise from the transfer to low-carbon or zero carbon products and services. In addition, GSMA is carrying out some related projects around the climate action focus areas. https://www.gsma.com/
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Chih-Lin I, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group

Speaker 2: Schien Daniel, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 3: Moore Steven, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 4: Mieczkowski Piotr, Civil Society, Eastern European Group

Speaker 5: Roberto Zambrana, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

This session has invited a female speaker, Dr. Chih Lin I, the chief scientist of China Mobile Research Institute. She is one of the famous experts in the field of green mobile communication. As a female representative, she gave a lot of valuable statements and suggestions on this topic. The issue discussed in this session did not involve gender issues. She gave professional advice from the perspective of a female representative.

8. Session Outputs:

1. The overall energy consumption of 5G network is many times that of previous generations. However, because 5G can carry more data, it is more efficient than 4G, 3G and 2G in terms of energy consumption per unit data transmission.

2. The carbon emission of 5G network can be reduced through the following ways. First, as much renewable energy as possible needs to be used in cellular networks. Second, energy consumption needs to be fully reported so that operators, media, consumers and the public sector can make better decisions. Third, energy consumption services need to be more intuitive and transparent. Finally, there is more cross sectoral cooperation between infrastructure providers and media organizations.

3. The potential development of 5G technology will contribute to carbon emission reduction in other industries, such as intelligent agriculture, intelligent buildings, and energy sectors, which will all rely on interconnected networks to ensure intelligent manufacturing and intelligent energy management.

4. The content of the session was reported by relevant media. For example: http://en.youth.cn/RightNow/202011/t20201120_12584204.htm

9. Group Photo
Screenshots of all speakers.

Workshop
Updated: Wed, 25/11/2020 - 09:58

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The open discussions helped form an understanding that cooperation between civil society and research institutes for solving problems facing local communities needs to be strengthened. Further, novel data collection models based on participatory and multistakeholder approaches that can create data sets for AI that respect international norms for privacy and data protection need to be fostered. The workshop was a stepping-stone towards setting the stage for greater cooperation between different stakeholders working on questions of access to information and multilingualism. As a follow up to the discussion concrete projects and exchange of ideas would be anchored within the work of the Open for Good Alliance that will be launched on 25 November 2020.
    Who should take it?: 
    This discussion will continue at the IGF as we work in parallel through the Open for Good Alliance to strengthen capacities for multilingualism through the development of datasets in low resourced languages.
  2. Issue and Recommendation: 
    The full session summary has been published at: https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-organises-workshop-strengthening-multilingualism-through-datasets-low-resourced

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 10:28
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How has the current crisis accelerated the need for coherent international frameworks for responsible data sharing?
  2. How can all stakeholders best cooperate to put data to work for the benefit of all? What are the risks, challenges and barriers involved?
  3. What policy and technical tools are needed to enable such cooperation?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

At the beginning of the workshop, attendees were invited to take part in a poll seeking answers to two questions: how willing they are to share their data and what barriers prevent them from doing so. 63% of respondents indicated they are somewhat willing to share data, if there are special circumstances (such as the COVID-19 crisis). 92 % noted trust and security concerns as barriers to datasharing. The issue of trust was thus at the heart of the discussion.

During the session speakers shared various examples to illustrate the benefits of data sharing and underline the importance of trust. Many noted COVID-19 tracing apps as most visible examples, but highlighted also use cases such as:

  • the Johns Hopkins University interactive dashboards on the spread of the virus that inform policy decisions and decisions on provisioning critical medical resources;
  • sharing insights on mobility patterns to inform social distancing measures;
  • collaborations to share data and AI tools for medical researchers; projects to provide accurate information to the public;
  • extracting insights from personal datasets while protecting privacy ;

and many more.

Speakers agreed that trust is the main enabler of data sharing. At the same time, they noted that there is a lack of understanding when it comes to what data is being shared and how. Panelists suggested that efforts should be taken to improve data literacy and foster a culture of data sharing in organizations.

Panelists highlighted the role of collaboration between different stakeholders involved in data sharing. Examples of cooperation between governments, business and civil society illustrated that the multistakeholder approach is effective, especially in the face of crisis.

Speakers also underlined the need for strengthened international collaboration to ensure cross-border data free flow with trust, as introduced by the G20 Japan Osaka Track in 2019.

3. Key Takeaways

Responsible data sharing can provide numerous benefits to all stakeholders, especially in times of crisis. In this respect, lessons from private sector may serve as a proof. Examples provided by participants during the session showed that data sharing allows to speed up research, inform policy decisions (such as when is it safe to reopen schools) and help mobilize resources in face of a crisis. Data sharing, however, should take place in a responsible and trusted manner. In this respect, speakers suggested, efforts need to be taken to raise awareness about both technical and policy aspects of data sharing, for example where a company shares data or  insights from the data.

The need to adopt a multi-stakeholder approach when it comes to data sharing was also underlined during the session. Speakers noted how public-private partnerships help mobilize vaster resources and how insights, knowledge and support from businesses, technical organizations and civil society groups help governments in providing better services to respond to the need of their citizens.

The discussion also touched upon the issue of gender divide. In this respect  panelists noted how the current crisis has shed harsh light on the inequalities in access to digital technologies and the benefits they provide. They noted that bridging the digital gender divide is fundamental to build  trust.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue: lack of trust is a major barrier to responsible data sharing Recommendation: efforts should improved to increase awareness and build more trust in responsible data sharing.
    Who should take it?: 
    Actions required from all stakeholders
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue: There is a need for greater international collaboration to enable cross-border data free flow with trust Recommendation: All stakeholders need to join forces to create enabling policy environments to maximize the socio-economic benefits of data sharing while protecting privacy
    Who should take it?: 
    Actions required from all stakeholders.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue: Digital gender divide. Recommendation: stakeholders must work together to bridge the digital gender divide foster trust
    Who should take it?: 
    Actions required from all stakeholders

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 13/11/2020 - 11:09
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What are the responsibilities of digital platforms and public authorities in regulating content, and where and how should the balance be struck between freedom of expression and public safety?
  2. How can concrete actions such as human rights impact assessments and multi-stakeholder consultations support policy responses to those challenges?
  3. 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 and abuse in the online environment?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

This session addressed relevant issues that fall under the Thematic Track of Trust, but also touched upon Thematic Tracks “Inclusion” and “Data”. More specifically, it discussed the way social media platforms have reshaped the way we interact online, express ourselves and possibly affect others. In line with this, issues such as identity, data privacy, disinformation, freedom of expression and youth participation were discussed. 

3. Key Takeaways

The session discussed the role of social media and the way certain individuals or groups use it to communicate and possibly shape the opinion of others and especially the one of minors. In this regard, the session once again highlight that a multi-stakeholder approach is needed to tackle issues such as disinformation and ensure a free and safe internet for all citizens. While different opinions remained on what instruments/measurements are the most appropriate to achieve this, it was agreed that early childhood education is key but also according adult education is necessary. In this regard, initiatives such as the Insafe network of European Safer Internet Centres are important sources that raise awareness but also provide services and trainings to different stakeholders in the field of online safety. 

In the spirit of the workshop’s title the panel also agreed that the revolution is on going and surely social mediatized. Looking into the future, most of the panel also believes that the revolution is democratised as social media provides a platform that allows everyone to express their opinion. 
 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The main issue discussed during the session was the importance of social media and the power it has to influence people's (public) opinion. During the session various different concerns and topics were raised that are in line with the key pillars of IGF, such as trust, data privacy, identity, inclusion and youth participation. Recommendations provided at the end of the session, highlighted once more that the multi-stakeholder approach is the way forward. Technology cannot be blamed alone for the concerns people have towards social media. Early childhood education is key in order for children and young people to built emphasis and critical thinking skills. Equally important is the education of adults (e.g. parents and teachers) that still need to be improved and strengthens. The current pandemic has shown that technology and especially social media is the way forward and the online lifeline many people had during the lockdown, in order to stay connected with friends and families. However, regulation is key and a shared responsibility of different players from the public and private sector is necessary to make sure users are able to interact and communicate in a secure (online) environment.
    Who should take it?: 
    IGF, is indeed a very good place to facilitate this kind of discussion.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    - Better Internet for Kids project: www.betterinternetforkids.eu - The Insafe Network of Safer Internet Centres: www.betterinternetforkids.eu/policy/insafe-inhope
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Anastasiya Dzyakava, Government, Eastern European Group
Speaker 2: Jutta Croll, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 3: David Miles, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 4: Magdalena Duszyńska , Civil Society, Eastern European Group
Speaker 5: Ricardo Campos, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues per not discussed per-se, but did come up during the discussion, for example in regard to the recent women strike/march in Poland. It was pointed out that social media provided a great platfrom to give visability to the events and a voice to everyone. 

9. Group Photo
Group picture Insafe Workshop: The Revolution won't be Televised but Social Mediatised?

Workshop
Updated: Mon, 30/11/2020 - 09:53
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1) What are the challenges of fair online education, and inclusive solutions?
  2. 2) Why fair online education is essential to be taken seriously by the international community and what is the bottleneck to solve this problem?
  3. 3) How to ensure the engagement of vulnerable groups - people with disabilities, migrants, refugees and ethnic minorities?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support for the view that online education is a huge opportunity for development. There is a need to invest in capacity – infrastructure, human resources, policies, guidelines. There is a need to adopt new pedagogical models and develop new curricula. It is important to find inclusive solutions for fair online education, especially at the time of COVID-19 pandemics. Panellists also agreed that due to the rapid growth of pandemic cases in this emergency, many people have to study from home over information networks. Especially, challenges of fair online education are well identified. Moreover, they agreed that poor internet connection, lack of Technological resources (e.g., laptops), noisy environment and human capital, vulnerable groups could cause inequalities in education, which require more efficient and inclusive solutions to reduce when facing these kinds of accidents. Further discussions are needed on the detailed description for the implementation of fair online education at the operational level.

3. Key Takeaways

This session reached a consensus that quality education sits in the front and centre of economic opportunities, technological innovation, social progress, and sustainable developments. Fair online education provides great benefits for the equality of education, especially for vulnerable groups and the people who lack educational resources.

The key takeaways are as follow:

1 Reach common understanding on the ways to improve the connectivity to unconnected people through more efficient and reasonable network resource deployment schemes, such as improving network coverage, and technological resources, and the quality of human capital.

2. Present key solutions to leverage on the opportunities and needs of building different capacities and on the existing technologies and tools, such as adopting new pedagogical resources, and promoting forum discussions and other activities encouraging peer-to-peer learning.

3. Define a follow-up action plan and come out with a principle and guideline of inclusive solutions to reduce the inequities in online education.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Quality and equality of the online education, however, remain many challenges as discussed in our session. Recommendation on promoting cooperation and communication between educational institutions, students, and network providers, and present key solutions to improve the quality of online education.
    Who should take it?: 
    This workshop will look at what policy elements are necessary to maintain and expand network resource allocation. It will also aim to identify and provide options for a policy response to the main challenges posed. It needs serious consensus among stakeholders on the governance model. From a procedural standpoint, the collaborative dialogue among those stakeholder groups around the topic in question can yield better results if it follows some widely recognized principles that can ensure open, transparent and accountable, inclusive and equitable activities. With that spirit in mind, as the IGF is the main focal point for Internet governance discussion worldwide, this workshop intends to discuss inclusive solutions for the equality of fair online education through the substantial examples at the global forum to build some good governance models.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    - The Issue: Even after the end of COVID-19, the proportion of online education in education will be greater than ever before. How can online education coexist with offline education? And how to promote the cooperation between online and offline education? - The Initiative/Process/Organization addressing the issue: We are making early attempts to improve the quality and reduce inequalities of online education but the question is how to put this into operational practice. For example, how to handle gaps between countries, and how to reduce human capital deficits and readiness gap in society? This is a complex work and cannot be done by small projects, so we have to take initiative for international cooperation, and to see more research and development on the national and international level that try to join forces and finding right resources of doing all these detailed works. Online education a huge opportunity for developing fair education. COVID-19 forced rapid changes, in which digitalizing current teaching methods is not enough and quite different from online education. We need to leverage on what we achieved due to the circumstances and on the opportunities, while being aware and managing the threats, aiming at inclusive education.
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Yang Yang, Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 2: Mikhail Komarov, Civil Society, Eastern European Group
Speaker 3: Elsa Estevez, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 4: Xiaohu Ge,Technical Community, Asia-Pacific Group

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The issues discussed in this workshop are concerning everyone involved in online education, including students and their parents, teachers, government employees, school staffs and so on. The discussion did not directly address issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment. Recommendations were put forward on how to find effective methods to handle possible gaps caused by disabilities, gender, and inequality in online education, as well as how to make online education inclusion and equality.

8. Session Outputs:
9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

Prof. Yang Yang will work together with other partners such as civil society organizations, government agencies in China, to create more awareness in all communities about fair online education.


Workshop
Updated: Sun, 15/11/2020 - 13:19
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How to ensure an open and affordable use of academic databases for scientific innovation without infringing monopolistic individual and corporate copyright?
  2. To what extent do the interests of the young researchers influence the policy-making process on open access to academic databases?
  3. In the light of the lessons learned from COVID-19 pandemic, can the cases of global emergency be a ground for opening databases?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Mr Thierry talked about how the private sector also promotes open access policies, complementing the social purpose of the companies with its aim. The sharing of data between the public and private sectors has always been done, approaching some government initiatives that facilitate this sharing. In pandemic times, while it’s possible to go after more profits, it seems wiser to private sectors agents to try to be more flexible to make it easier to fight pandemic-related issues.

Ms Mariana Valente talked about the importance of opening academic databases to civil society. She talked about how digital technologies created the possibility of sharing knowledge and works, but this didn’t come with the legal possibility of sharing, because copyright law posed some barriers. She mentioned that open licenses are not enough, and the academic ecosystem needs to have an active role to stimulate open access, recognizing and promoting these type of initiatives.

Mr Elnur pointed out how the theme of the session is especially relevant to the youth. He remembered how youth starting to research have great barriers in getting access to protected academic texts, mostly because they do not have the same level of access or the same financial resources as older researchers have.

Ms Vivian Moya presented how the government can help to develop access and mediating the involved interests. She started with a brief introduction about how copyright works (and what are its aims) around the world, with higher or lower levels of copyright protection depending on national legislation.

3. Key Takeaways

The session reached a consensus on the need for providing tools to facilitate open access and open knowledge.

The private sectors shouldn't seem like the enemy here, since there are also many initiatives in this sector to reinforce open access to academic databases. Governments also have a role in diminishing costs and expenses to commercial companies that work with these types of databases.
Academia has a particularity, which is that authors and readers are commonly part of the same group because one needs to research from other works to produce their own. There's less interest from authors in financial returns, and more interest in being recognized by others. The pandemic showed us the importance of open science and how it can be effectively used to fight against pressing issues, and how actors from different sectors can work together to achieve a similar objective.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Database publishers can offer open access to smaller researcher groups of the society from whose research the database companies can benefit.
    Who should take it?: 
    Database Publishers
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Student Unions can be an intermediary between the students and database publishers in the negotiations for open or affordable access, rather than the contact with the university administration.
    Who should take it?: 
    Universities (Student Unions); Database Publishers.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    As soon as the universities create their own databases with the collections of the available books, the database publisher can exchange the resources or they can provide open access to each other from which the students will benefit.
    Who should take it?: 
    Universities; Database publishers
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Publicly funded research must be freely open to the access by the public
    Who should take it?: 
    Government; Universities
  5. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The policies for funding openly accessible peer reviewed research must be investigated.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments; Universities
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Creative Commons Initiatives
6. Final Speakers

1. Thierry Nathaniel Kopia (Burkino Faso)
2. Mariana Valente (Brazil)
3. Dr Vivian Moya (The Philippines)
4. Elnur Karimov (Azerbaijan)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session did not focus on the gender aspects of access to academic databases specifically. However, the session addressed the difficulties of different marginalized communities' access to academic databases, especially during the pandemic. Only one example of these communities under the umbrella of the youth has been thoroughly discussed as youth is the most active users and beneficiaries of databases.

8. Session Outputs:

N/A

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

N/A


Workshop
Updated: Mon, 23/11/2020 - 10:32
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. • Which existing inclusive strategies to tackle the digital gender divide and address women’s online engagement can be further developed to ensure the digital inclusion of young women in all their diversities?
  2. • What can we do to ensure development policies (both offline and online) respond to the local needs of young women from the global south when implementing digital inclusion programmes?
  3. • How can we bridge the gap between the technology sector and the activist world to ensure online civic engagement of women?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed
  • The “tech for good” debate is dominated by assumptions, which include activists as women who aren’t tech-savvy and lack safe spaces to learn about tech; and tech experts as men who lack the capacity to translate their knowledge to the world outside of their bubble. Encouraging safe communications between developers and users ensures bridging the gaps between both worlds. Listening more than talking is an effective way to ensure that activist and community’s needs are taken into consideration by tech providers. 
  • Inclusivity is key to enable young women and men to fully participate in social, economic and political life and bridge the digital gender gap. Inclusive online platforms can be a catalyst to fulfil this potential; combined with offline work to reach those not connected online.  
  • Inclusive teams (from all relevant socio-economic groups and genders in society) ensure that media coverage is inclusive; 
  • Inclusive content ensures a diversity of women’s voices are heard and gender norms are challenged, and men and boys are engaged to effectuate inclusive change;  
  • Inclusive media ensures low literate audiences are reached by making content as visual as possible (through videos, vlogs, podcasts); 
  • Inclusive tech makes sure platform users spend a minimum of data for maximum result, as data is a luxury in many countries; 
  • Inclusive partnerships with organizations who work offline ensures reaching women who are not connected online. 
  • SMART targeting can be a tool for gender inclusiveness. By making sure content is aimed specifically at women and reaches them first allows them to start the conversation and provides a safe space to do so, this can increase women’s engagement on online platforms significantly. These strategies can be used to include women, but also a range of intersectionalities such as race, ethnicity, socio-economic background etc. 
3. Key Takeaways
  • Strategies need to be tailored to the communities to encourage people, and women in particular, to peak in a male dominated world, which the online world is. 

  • Online and offline activities should be combined to build bridges between women and online communities.  

  • Women should be content creators to ensure more inclusive content. 

  • We need to put women at the centre to ensure digital inclusion programmes actually respond to their needs. 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Ensuring the inclusion of women in content creation for social media and the digital space is important to reach gender inclusion and optimal women engagement online.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Getting digital literacy skills are crucial especially since we have seen what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic where those without have been greatly even more disadvantaged. There is a need to continue to build an engaging online environment for women to ensure that that digital gender divide is finally closed.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Within community-oriented innovation and capacity building projects there should be more focus on the organizational culture, not only on technology. Understanding the culture and adjusting technology and innovation to it can make it more sustainable and more people will be able to take advantage of digital innovation.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Plan International: youth-led campaign “Girls Get Equal” - campaigning for a world where girls can live and lead without fear or discrimination. This includes demanding that girls have a right to be safe online and be free to speak up without harassment. URL: https://plan-international.org/girls-get-equal
  2. Initiative: 
    OECD: supporting the advancement of the 2017 G20 Roadmap for Digitalisation: Policies for a Digital Future, in particular its aim to support the equitable participation of women in the digital economy. Policy advise in publication: Bridging the Gender Digital Divide: Include, Upskill, Innovate.
  3. Initiative: 
    WorldBank and CES: Global tech Challenge – Solutions for Women. Rewarding scalable, innovative solutions that seek to empower women in four areas: Platforms, Digital skills, Online content, and Enhancing digital access. URL: https://www.ces.tech/Global-Tech-Challenge/Solutions-for-Women.aspx.
  4. Initiative: 
    ITU: ITU's work on gender equality is guided by Resolution 70: Mainstreaming a gender perspective in ITU and promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women through information and communication technologies. ITU is working in a number of areas to include women and girls in the digital transformation of economies and societies. URL: https://www.itu.int/en/mediacentre/backgrounders/Pages/bridging-the-gender-divide.aspx
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Anna Kuliberda - Senior Advisor TechSoup  
Speaker 2: Reema Hamidan - Project Coordinator Huna Libya 
Speaker 3: Jahou Nyan - Programme Specialist RNW Media 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
  • The bridge between male tech experts and female activists: Women are often assumed not to be tech-savvy and men would lack the capacity to translate their tech knowledge to the outside world.
  • The bridge between women and economic and political participation: To bridge the digital gender gap, inclusive online platforms can be used to fulfil the potential of participation in social, economic and political life. 
  • The bridge between online content and women: SMART targeting can be used to make sure content is aimed specifically at women and reaches them first allows them to start the conversation online.

 

8. Session Outputs:
  • This session has demonstrated different approaches to addressing the digital gender divide. It has clearly addressed the importance of a differentiated approach to engaging and encouraging young women to stay online.  

  • The different speakers have outlined some best practices to build the knowledge of internet governance thinkers and practitioners on the best strategies for engaging more young women in digital communities  

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

Reema Hamidan (Huna Libya): “Engaging more women in content creation on our platforms to increase gender inclusiveness for these spaces.” 

Jahou Nyan (RNW Media): “I am going to work hard to make sure by December 2021 we will improve the digital literacy skills of at least 100 young women between 15 and 30 years old who live and work in Sub-Saharan" 

Anna Kuliberda (TechSoup): “Digging deeper into understanding the community-oriented innovation culture and adjusting technology and innovation, so it can be more sustainable, and more people will be able to take advantage of the innovation.”  


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 20/11/2020 - 00:08
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Pnelists were debating on the issues that refer to the ensuring the sustainable development in the context of digital technology related to the access to devices and also equal distribution of media competence.
  2. Is profiling on the internet replacing pluralism and are the internet users ready, at the price of time saved, to automate their actions, behaviours, and thus often beliefs?
  3. The followups in the context of the COVID-19: panelists were debating whether children are growing up on a warped media diet and, taking into consideration the COVID-19 confinement, has it been lately even more accentuated by turning the home into a remotely-connected school and workplace. It was also discussed whether the pandemic time would deepen the processes of digitization of everyday life or on the contrary, push societies to direct relations. The question referring to the shape and the future of the sustainable education after coronavirus pandemic was raised.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The workshop focused on the human-media practices and analysed what steps must be taken to build good digital citizenship. It tackled various aspects of culture processes that exist and develop within the global network with the special focus on the individuals facing the digitalisation of the everyday life. The discussion was also devoted to the identification and description of diverse systems of using digital technology in the context of media-related practices and their correlation with various aspects of family life.

The two approaches to the virtual space were discussed: one that compares the old days of centralized media with new media that wants to see in digital technology the source of equitable access to knowledge and equalization of social opportunities, and the second that sees the recipient of the network locked in an information bubble. These contradictory theories were an important part of the discussion especially, taking into consideration the time of pandemic, that for one would be seen as the conviction of individuals on profiled internet and for others would focus on access to knowledge, friends, culture, information.

Another issue raised was the problem of sustainable development in the context of digital technology related to access to devices and media competence in using the network. It was discussed how to secure common access to technology and digital skills to make societies equal as internet users and enabling them effective participation in the changing world.

The panelists also discussed new opportunities that may be associated with the post pandemic situation and the possible ways on how to use this newly created potential.

During the workshop a discussion with the audience was also facilitated and activated by kahoot quizzes prepared by speakers. Questions referred to the digital citizenship education of children and the prevention digital gap in the time of COVID-19.

3. Key Takeaways

- Keeping balance between online and offline activities and parents’ involvement: the digital technology had become an integral part of our daily life, we are overloaded by technologies and are constantly online therefore the ability to effective and safe internet management at home reached a great importance. It is a challenge to be up-to-date with innovation and simultaneously to keep the online-offline balance. It is very important to draw parents' attention to care for their children internet detox and keeping the relevant balance between online and offline activities. Also it is important to identify main factors to support parents to prepare children to use internet more effective and responsible. Parents really need to reflect deeply on how and for what purposes their children are using the internet.

 

- The profiling has replaced pluralism: the companies are shaping what we and our children are doing online and what we think. Companies commodify our communications and it is done for the price of our privacy. Digital space is now less about empowerment of users and more about our data and how we exploit the internet. Therefore, we need a new media deal and also the political pressure for redesigning the usage of the Internet to empower it’s users rather than exploit them.

 

- Facilitating the effective participation in the digital network: it is understood as an access to devices, developing media competence but also being resilient to online threats especially for the youngest users. Education system and also the business has to be actively involved in this process.

 

- The new opportunities that may be associated with the post pandemic situation: new content and functionality that may improve the existence of the society have to be further discussed by different relevant players (governmental bodies, education system, NGOs, within the families).  

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The workshop resulted in the main recommendations and suggestions for the way forward that refer to the issues related to the i.a: - building effective participation of citizens in the digital space that is secured by both common access to the technology and digital skills; - building a good digital citizenship and teaching and empowering children to become a digital citizens; - supporting citizens to manage the internet and govern the digital revolution in their everyday lives; - making a good and an effective use of the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic and also best benefiting from the newly created potential. The Council of Europe in the set of main competences, that guarantee a culture of democracy, indicates four main sections: 1. values, 2. attitudes, 3. skills, and 4. knowledge and critical understanding. The necessary knowledge and ability to critically adopt online content are extremely important in the context of effective functioning in a global network. A "digital citizen" is a person who masters competences in the field of democratic culture in order to be able to competently and positively engage in developing digital technologies and the digital citizenship education means empowering people of all ages by educating or acquiring competences to learn and actively participate in the digital society. Diverse processes of functioning with digital technology, complex issues of network management at the level of the individual, social groups and institutions guaranteeing effective and safe use of the network together with ensuring well-being of especially young internet users, constituted the main thematic scope of the workshop, in line with the assumptions of the Internet Governance Forum, which, among other, is to promote and stimulate wide discussion on the place of technology in society. Internet management is key on the part of the individual user, on the part of parents and carers, and on the part of companies and institutions introducing digital solutions to everyday processes. Great responsibility also belongs to the education sector, which recently had to face, during the COVID 19 pandemic, the challenge of mass remote education and with difficulty as it is at the time of the lack of equally disseminated knowledge and infrastructure. These challenges would bring together representatives of all sectors and development branches. The experts' goal was to reflect on good practices supporting parents in building a conscious and committed model of intercourse with the internet within their families and how to do it wisely to avoid the paradigm of threats. Low or medium digital competences increase vulnerability to online threats, but attempting to eliminate problems by the temptation to disconnect children from the Internet, and not by balanced education in the field of dangers, and opportunities, is particularly harmful because it does not allow for qualitative learning and purposeful participation in the digital space. According to the Recommendation (Recommendation CM / Rec (2019) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on developing and promoting digital citizenship education), the digital environment provides an unprecedented means for people to express themselves, to assemble and participate, and opens new opportunities to improve access and inclusion. This will only happen if we ensure that digital citizenship education is carried out with the support of competent guides, implemented with the wise assistance of parents and supported by institutional system programs.
    Who should take it?: 
    - Governmental institutions (es. responsible for education system, information society development, new technology and media); - Business (companies and institutions introducing digital solutions); - Schools and teachers training centres; - Parents and carers; - NGOs.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    - Digital Citizenship Education Project run by the Council of Europe: https://www.coe.int/en/web/digital-citizenship-education/digital-citizenship-education-project and “Digital Citizenship Education Hanndbook”: https://rm.coe.int/16809382f9 and “Digital Citizenship Education Survey 2020” https://rm.coe.int/digital-citizenship-education-survey-2020-provisional-report/1680a047f9 - Digital Citizenship Education: overview and new perspectives: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337812656_Digital_Citizenship_Education_overview_and_new_perspectives - The Better Internet for Kids portal: https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/ and Better Internet for Kids Policy Map: https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/documents/167024/2637346/BIK+Map+report+-+Final+-+March+2018/a858ae53-971f-4dce-829c-5a02af9287f7 - Guidelines to respect, protect and fulfil the rights of the child in the digital environment - Recommendation CM/Rec(2018)7 of the Committee of Ministers (2018): https://edoc.coe.int/en/children-and-the-internet/7921-guidelines-to-respect-protect-and-fulfil-the-rights-of-the-child-in-the-digital-environment-recommendation-cmrec20187-of-the-committee-of-ministers.html - European Safer Internet Centre resources in response to COVID-19 https://www.betterinternetforkids.eu/web/portal/practice/awareness/detail?articleId=5882569 - International Telecommunication Union’s four sets of the 2020 Child Online Protection (COP) Guidelines: https://www.itu-cop-guidelines.com/
6. Final Speakers

Organizer 1: Anna Rywczyńska, NASK - National Research Institute
Organizer 3: David Wright, Director UK Safer Internet Centre at SWGfL
Organizer 3: Julia Piechna, NASK
Organizer 4: Andrzej Rylski, NASK - National Research Institute

Speaker 1: Philippine Balmadier, 15-year-old Philippine is enrolled in a prestigious bilingual program in Paris where she will sit the OIB exam in 2023 to complete dual degrees in French and English (Civil Society, Western European and Others Group WEOG)
Speaker 2: prof. dr hab Miroslaw Filiciak, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences and the Director of the Institute of Humanities at SWPS University (Warsaw, Poland) (Private Sector, Eastern European Group)
Speaker 3: Anna Kalinowska, Phd, Cultural studies expert, a graduate of bachelor, master and PhD of the University SWPS in the process of defending her thesis (Civil Society, Eastern European Group)
Speaker 4: Janice Richardson, Project innovator, educational expert and author (Civil Society, Western European and Others Group WEOG)
Speaker 5: Anna Rywczyńska, Co-developer and Coordinator of the Polish Safer Internet Centre and the Manager of the NASK (National Research Institute’s) Digital Education Departament (Technical Community, Eastern European Group)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

In families there is still a disproportion in decision-making regarding the purchase of digital tools and their use (based on Polish research on the “digital family”). Mostly men point themselves as those who deal with technology at home. Women often define their competences as lower than their partners. There is an uneven development of the relationships supported by technology - greater synergy can be seen in the father-son relationship (eg. computer games), smaller with the daughter. Mothers are those who are involved in the school and social life of children, they learn about the potential internet-related threats in children's lives.

9. Group Photo
Workshop: Cultural processes in the age of the digital revolution
10. Voluntary Commitment

Prof. dr hab Mirosław Filiciak – the digital opportunities and possible ways of using tools in the process of education will be more discussing with students at the university.

 

Anna Rywczyńska – at NASK there will be further continued and undertaken the activities to raise awareness about internet-related risk for children and also to protect the minors online.

 

Janice Richardson – remote learning will be further promoted but in the much exciting way and also as an learning process in each children’s own pace; teachers’ role in this process will be much way empower.

 

Anna Kalinowska, Phd - ????

 

Philippine Balmadier – as an class representative she will be more engaged in promoting the usage of technologies in more effective way and in supporting pupils and teachers in this issue.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 01:02
INCLUSION

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Trust issue - The practitioners should gain the trust of the local community by hiring local trusted people for training and other purposes. Low-literacy issue - The practitioners should adopt practical, hands-on training for an extended period of time for rural communities for high uptake. Sustainability issue - The practitioners should work with public and private sector to identify sustainable mechanisms.
    Who should take it?: 
    All practitioners including local governments, private sector, tech community, and NGOs.

Workshop
Updated: Thu, 26/11/2020 - 11:12
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. a. How do we ensure that all stakeholder groups collaborate, prioritize and ‎invest in the needed digital infrastructure and skills to mitigate similar challenges ‎in the future? ‎
  2. b. What strategies and policies need to be articulated and implemented to ‎proactively prepare DLDC in the case of a similar recurrence and how do we ‎mitigate the adverse effects through a more resilient supply chain in a digital ‎economy? How can the Developing & LDC evolve digital cooperation initiatives ‎that encompass the industry 4 technologies and related methods such as smart ‎manufacturing, Internet of Things and environmental sustainability for the ‎benefit of our citizens in the area of job creation and economic survivability?‎
3. Key Takeaways

‎1. Access should be provided for all people to benefit from all sectors
‎2. Lack of technology skills & access is a big challenge. Creating an International Day of Coding is ‎recommended and IBM is ready to partner to provide content, speakers and platforms
‎3. Flexible regulatory framework is essential for connectivity. Innovative use of TV White Space ‎spectrum.‎
‎4. COVID holds us accountable for what we could not do. Innovation would get us to do things ‎better including financial inclusion, life-long education.‎
‎5. SME should be financed and USPF fund locked up should b released to address social dynamics
‎6. Geographic Information Systems optimized to serve the people through a web-based ‎application promote efficiency and sustained revenue in millions of dollars and it should be ‎tapped.‎
‎7. North-South and South-South Peer review and cooperation should be encouraged
‎8. Leverage the African Union Digital Transformation and the 2063 Agenda.‎
‎9. Business Bureau should provide clarity on how to do business and publicize same.‎
‎10. There should be a central website for all to access.‎
‎11. In view of the importance of cybersecurity, all concerned are encouraged to join the global ‎collation on Encryption.‎
‎12. There is an urgent need to prepare for Transformational programmed in view of Industry 4.0.‎
‎13. Implementation of eGovernment Plans should be of top priority to promote transparency and ‎accountability in governance.‎
‎14. Efforts should be made for stakeholders to come together at every opportunity possible for ‎greater societal good.‎

9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 27/11/2020 - 04:35
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What are the roles and responsibilities of digital platforms, social media, governments, and the public in articulating and empowering free flow of information and in protecting human rights and public security during the Covid-19 pandemic;
  2. How can technology help to improve the efficiency in tackling COVID-19 pandemic? How can stakeholders better understand and address the positive and negative impacts technology has on free flow of information, critical media literacies, privacy and public security? How to provide citizens with appropriate data literacies for the pandemic and beyond
  3. How to uphold the integrity of online journalism and public trust during the health crisis? How could collaboration among digital platforms, media outlets and other online content producers be an effective mechanism to fight disinformation, “fake news” and hate speech online?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Areas of broad support/agreement:

1) Uncertain and discredited information and news undermined the public trust

2) Media and social media played a major role in helping people stay in touch, mobilised resources, and helped migrants, economically impacted people, and displaced people. And social media became the major resource for COVID-19 information, thus increasing social media activity multifold. social media platforms can empower the  credibility of the media if using properly.

3) To build trust online, there is a need to connect everyone meaningfully, and focus on media literacy and governance. Businesses need to be more transparent about their initiatives,and social media platforms  need to be more transparent on their takedown policies.  It is not enough only to be aware about data protection and privacy , there are  well-recognised limits and public health emergencies are one of them. The  public needs to understand the broader online ecosystem and how the social media platforms work and how they are funded.

- Areas of no agreement/areas needing further discussion and development

Whether social media platform should be treated as media and subject to similar or different regulations like other media organizations ?

3. Key Takeaways

Credible information is crucial amid the Covid-19 Pandemic crisis, and social media platform plays a major role in helping the public stay in touch, mobiles resources and as major resource for keeping the public informed even empowering the credibility of the traditional media. Therefore, whether social media platforms should be treated as media and subject to similar or different regulations like other media organizations is a pressing issue needed to be  discussed widely, immediately and immensely.

To build trust online,  the public need to be connected meaningfully, and policy makers need to  focus on media literacy and governance. Businesses and digital platforms need to be more transparent about their initiatives and takedown policies.  The  public needs to understand the broader online ecosystem and how the social media platforms work and how they are funded. In dispelling COVID-19 myths and misinformation, a hybrid model of combining online and offline campaigns worked well in both India and China.    

We need to look at innovative approaches to rebuild trust on the Internet and it has to be a concerted effort amongst stakeholders and nations so that we can address the gap.

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    1) To address the role/nature and regulatory model of the social media platforms in safeguarding credible information, especially during the public health crisis. In other words, whether social media platforms should be treated as media and subject to similar or different regulations like other media organizations. 2) To find innovative approaches to rebuild trust on the Internet, which needs to build up on concerted effort amongst stakeholders and nations. 3) To establish effective procedures or standards to help identify the accuracy and credibility of user generated content during the health crisis period .
    Who should take it?: 
    The policy-makers, regulatory authorities, media and all other stakeholders
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    -Social Media Platform collaborated with media during the COVID-19 pandemic - Weibo - During the outbreak, most people worked at home, people had more free time , and social media became major sources for the corona virus information. Users read 12 billion a day.Most media accounts stayed responsive 24-7,and covered any update in no time. During that 4 months, media accounts in total have posted 2.3 million related posts. From their coverage , people can learn about a more real China. Weibo opens the "last mile" of media coverage of epidemic situation. The “last mile” means that, the media can not only provide valuable information, but also meet the real needs of users .For example, the official account of People’s Daily partnered with Weibo and set up a special Topic product called # patients seek help #. Hospitals or patients could post weibo and seek help in this Topic product. Once was confirmed, the message would be passed on to local government and available hospitals. Over 140 thousand people have received help within one month. Many people share their experiences of getting help on Weibo, and some stories are impressive. To identify the close contacts of the infected is very important. On Weibo, all regional media offered a “Search Notice” special column, publicized the travel records and transportation information of the confirmed cases , therefore, a close contact might identify their potential risks of infection , and sign up a medical test through the fast channel. Another role of the media was “the Rumor Buster ”. Rumors come out from the fear for the unknown. Beating a rumor is of the same importance with beating the virus. Credible Medias were granted a special privilege by Weibo to label rumors , therefore, the public could know about the truth in time. During the epidemic, 740 thousand posts to dispel rumors were published by credible medias , and in total with over 6 million forwards. Also, Weibo increased the number of staff processing rumor complaints by 6 times. An exclusive rumor library was established and updated daily. In addition, For each week, the team collected the most influential messages of refuting rumors , and then make another round of disapproval. For messages that could not be testified in a short time, Weibo gathered together different opinions, to help users to make their own judgement. any account that tried to spread rumors , or to take advantage of the epidemic to increase sales, were banned as a punishment.
6. Final Speakers
  • Professor Yun Long:                          Director of Digital Ethics Institute, Communication University of China; Chair of the Digital Communication Ethics Division, Chinese Society for Science and Technology Journalism 
  • Ms. Amrita Choudhury:                      Director of CCAOI,  President Internet Society Delhi Chapter, Vice Chair Asia Pacific Internet Governance Forum, and the Nominating Commitee 2021 Member at ICANN
  • Mr. Shu Wang:                                     Deputy Chief Editor, Sina Weibo, China
  • Dr Elinor Carmi:                                   Postdoc Research Associate - Digital Media & Society, Department of Communication and Media, Liverpool University, UK.
  • Professor Ang Peng Hwa:                  Wee Kim Wee School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore   
  • Dr Ansgar Koene:                              Senior Research Fellow at the Horizon Digital Economy Research institute (University of Nottingham) and Global AI Ethics an Regulatory Leader at EY

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

During the session it was briefly highlighted how misinformation, lack of access during Covid 19 was harming women, LGBTQI communities and minorities. There is a need for policy makers to ensure policies drafted are inclusive of the needs of all communities

 

8. Session Outputs:

A following up panel entitled "reflection on technology literature and ethcs during the covid-19 reporting"  will be held in the communication University of China in Beijing on 6th December. Professor Yun Long and Dr. Yik Chan Chin of this session will be particpating in the panel. Further collaboration between speakers and their insittuions are also under discussions. 

An interview about the session is given by the session organisor Dr. Yik Chan Chin to the Univresity of Xi'an Jiaotong-liverpool Univiersty to disseminate the session outputs to academic community. 

An report of this session is proudced by the Geneve Internet Platform: https://dig.watch/resources/igf-2020-ws-180-trust-media-ethics-governance-during-covid-19-crisis

 

 

9. Group Photo
IGF 2020 WS #180 Trust, Media Ethics & Governance During COVID-19 Crisis

Workshop
Updated: Wed, 02/12/2020 - 02:45

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. (1) Discuss about the role of information and communication technologies during the pandemic, as well as risks and rising concerns coming along.
  2. (2) How effective existing policy measures, international organisations, data protection authorities are to ensure that public health objectives and individual privacy rights are duly taken into account?
  3. (3) Share thoughts on the relationship between public interests and individual rights under major public health emergencies, especially how to use personal data/information in pandemic prevention and control while respecting individual rights. (4) What are the boundaries and exceptions to the collection and use of personal data / information? Which guidance are available from data protection authorities globally?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

(1) Most speakers agreed on positive sides in using ICT for pandemic prevention and control, and socioeconomic recovery. Some emphasized that ICT use should fit in a broader and comprehensive public health strategy. It is necessary to strictly follow data protection rules and principles to prevent overuse or excessive collection. Data protection is not a "yes" or "no" but a "how-to" exercise even in crises. Some said their countries recognized efficiency using ICT, but new controversies appear. Some underlined available non-digital tools could be preferred in given contexts.

(2) Experts focused on relationship between public interests and privacy protection. Some thought we should incorporate in public interests all rules and conditions for  privacy and personal data protection. All agreed the priority of all nations is to overcome the pandemic. No public safety, no personal interests, and vice versa. Personal data/information and privacy is a universal fundamental right enshrined in art 12 of UDHR and other important international instruments. There are privacy-friendly solutions to strengthen efforts today in avoiding chilling effect on rights to privacy tomorrow.

(3) Some thought we should respect different national conditions in different countries and regions. We are facing digital and privacy protection gaps to be tackled and preferably closed. Therefore, we should understand each other deeper.

(4) Some emphasized exceptional measures by governments must be provided by law, respect the essence of fundamental rights and freedom, and be necessary and proportionate in democratic societies. Manners addressing health crisis would test resilience of data protection principles as key components of effective functioning of democracies. One speaker underlined that the future lies in our capacity to react promptly to new challenges without undermining our core values and putting societies at greater risks. Another speaker from developing country emphasized policy making should be based on national facts.

3. Key Takeaways

(1) The use of ICT in fighting against COVID-19 and in socioeconomic recovery should be promoted, just as the underlying privacy and personal data/information protection of individuals.

(2) We should put emphasis on principles of reasonableness, proportionality, data security, transparency and accountability in order to uphold individual rights as many experts pointed out during the meeting. Trust is important in this process. It includes the trust between countries, between individual and government authority, and between businesses. It also includes individual trust on new technology and applications.

(3) Personal data/information and privacy protection is a global issue, there is no country that can stay aloof from the affair. We should initiate international cooperation on the basis of deepened mutual trust, promoting international regulations in data protection. The Council of Europe put an emphasis on that many counties, regions to accede to Convention 108, which is an international public law document on data protection at global level, containing data protection rules and principles which are already adopted by a lot of countries and regions. With 55 states parties, the Convention is at present the only legally binding international treaty worldwide. China has always paid a lot of attention to privacy and personal data/information protection and proposed Global Initiative on Data Security this year, calling on states, ICT enterprises and international society to support and participate, hoping to make contributions to the global society.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    (1) All nations and regions need to perfect legal infrastructure and cross-border cooperation, and build a diversified personal data/information protection system which builds on commonly accepted rules and principles through legislative, administrative, and judicial measures. (2) During the process of personal data/information and privacy protection, we should give a full play to the roles of stakeholders including government, businesses, technical communities, civil societies and individual citizens, to promote personal data/information protection together. (3) We should continue to deepen international cooperation and dialogue, using IGF, APEC, CoE, OECD, BRICS, ASEAN, G20, WIC and other dialogue mechanisms and platforms to start communication and cooperation, and therefore to discuss and implement international standard globally in the area of privacy, personal data/information protection, and free data flow. (4) We should study deeply and apply basic principles and framework for personal data/information protection under public crisis. Just as visionary data protection leader, Giovanni Buttarelli said that, “technologies are designed to serve humankind.”
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Convention 108: Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data - The Organization addressing the issue: Council of Europe - Details of the Initiative: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680078b37
  2. Initiative: 
    Global Initiative on Data Security - The Initiative addressing this issue: Global Initiative on Data Security proposed by China - Details of the Initiative: http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/zgyw/t1812951.htm
6. Final Speakers

Moderators:

Prof.Li Yuxiao, Secretary-General of CyberSecurity Association of China

Ms.Tamar Kaldani, First Vice-Chair of the Committee of Convention 108

Speakers:

Mr.Liang Hao, Deputy Director-General of Bureau of International Cooperation, Cyberspace Administration of China

Mr. Jan Kleijssen, Director of Information Society and Action against Crime, Council of Europe

Mr. Peng Feng, Deputy Secretary-General of China Internet Development Foundation

Ms. Dr. Stephanie Perrin, President of Digital Discretion, Canada, Chair of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

Mr. Luigi Gambardella, President of ChinaEU

Mr.Ricky Rakesh, Faculty and Researcher on Data Privacy and Protection, India

Mr.Fang Yu, Director of Cyberlaw Research Center, China Academy of Information and Communications Technology

Ms.Francesca Musiani, Researcher at CNRS, France

Mr. Wang Lei, Senior Counsel of Sina Group

Mr.T. George-Maria Tyendezwa, Head of Cybercrime Prosecution Unit, Nigeria

Ms. Wang Li, Researcher at Information Security Law Institute, Xi'An Jiaotong University Suzhou Academy, China

Mr. Eduardo Bertoni, President of the Argentinian DPA

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

This workshop maintained a balance regarding gender of speakers and audience. In addition, we've brought youth to our meeting by inviting students from Research Base for Internet Governance of Beijing University of Post and Telecommunications.

8. Session Outputs:

Majority from the workshop reached the agreement that ICT played a critical role in the prevention and control of COVID-19 as well as the economic recovery worldwide. It is also true that the protection of personal data/information is facing challenges globally, considering the differences between public interests and privacy protection. There is an urgent need to figure out how to balance the protection of personal data/information and public interests during the pandemic. It is necessary to strictly follow data protection rules and principles to prevent overuse or excessive collection. That being said, we should also respect different national conditions in different countries and regions. We should therefore understand each other deeper, follow the idea of building a global community with a shared future, in order to tackle or preferably close gaps.

In terms of specific measures and policy recommendations, we should put emphasis on principles of reasonableness, proportionality, data security, transparency and accountability in order to uphold individual rights as many experts pointed out during the meeting. Also, trust is important in this process. It includes the trust between countries, between individual and government authority, and between businesses. It also includes individual trust on new technology and applications. Furthermore, we should make good use of existing effective practical cases. There was also a round of collection of practical cases before the workshop with collected relevant cases that have positive results in data protection during epidemic prevention and control as well as socioeconomic recovery.

9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Sat, 21/11/2020 - 10:04
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1.What are the existing legal frameworks on open data and what are the gaps these policies have? 2.What are the challenges being faced by the Persons with Disabilities? 3.What is the role of Civil Society Organizations and governments in ensuring women and PWDs access open data?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Open data policies should be able to provide frameworks for opening up access to government data and provide governance mechanisms. Policies from governments should always highlight the requirements for the successful implementation of open data for all people including Women and Persons with disabilities. These policies must aim at making all public sector data open by default with exception to personal identifiable information and data with security or commercial or intellectual property rights or environmental restrictions. Women and Persons with Disabilities lack enough representation when it comes to data policy formulation and implementation with the perception that they cannot use technology due to varied reasons of the society. This therefore means Women and Persons with disabilities must have ICT tools and Infrastructure to be able to access the Open Data on Government platforms.

3. Key Takeaways
Governments need to develop teams, strategies, action plans and policies in support of their commitments towards Open data. 
•Governments should add metadata to ensure that data can be understood by citizens especially women, minority groups, PWDs and found via search engines.
•Governments should clearly communicate the data they hold, Prioritize data to publish, Make data permanently accessible and findable
•Governments need to have standard formats for publishing data that women and PWDs can interpret.
•Governments should provide public data guidelines and standards for the publication of (open) government data on accessibility.
Establishment of collaborations and movements with the agenda to enhance access to open data by women and PWDs plus other vulnerable groups.
Civil Society Organizations need to run campaigns for Open data in order to create more awareness in all communities, for effective campaigns for open data they need to work with data technologists, informational professionals, computer experts, academia and ordinary citizens who advocate for greater access to government data.
 
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Across the region, countries have open data policies that allow access and sharing of information however, these policies do not further mention how women and persons with disabilities will be able to access it and how it can be interpreted. Open data needs the commitment of political leadership dedicated and embedded through permanent data processes and a pervasive culture within all government institutions.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments, civil society organizations, citizens and IGF among others.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Open Data In recent years there has been an increasing interest in Open Data, leading to the implementation of many initiatives and platforms to publish open datasets and build capacity around data use and help improve decision and policy making across the different sectors in the region. Open data movement in the area of access to public and other information is a relatively new but very significant in the east African region states namely (Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi and south Sudan). Open data is data which is made accessible and available in a standardized machine-readable format and under a license that allows it to be re-used and re-shared. In several African countries, there appears to be genuine political will to open up government-based datasets, not only for increased transparency but also to achieve economic impacts, social equity and stimulate innovation. Therefore Open data in Africa esp. the East African region needs a vibrant, dynamic, open and multi-tier data ecosystem if the datasets are to make a real impact. The Initiatives in the East Africa Region • In Uganda, there are a number of open data initiatives being implemented by both the public and private sector. There has been significant progress for example; the online publication of the national budget allocations, releases and other statistical bulletins by the ministry of finance, planning and economic development. • In Kenya, the open data initiative has made government datasets available to the public in easy reusable formats with data from the different categories across all sectors of the economy. • In Tanzania, an open data movement was initiated through the dLab project in order to realize the benefits of open data. So Tanzania has got a basic statistics portal that provides open data in a machine-readable format to be used and re-used by anybody. The data produced is prioritized for education, water and health sectors only. • The government of Rwanda recognizes that creating value from open data requires actual data from the government. Thus, the government issued a directive to all its departments to publicly avail all data for-public-consumption online and without charge. • In Burundi, an IWACU open data was initiated and developed by iWACU press, with an aim to provide an open and reutilizable database about burundi and to centralize all valid data about Burundi. Challenges being faced by the Persons with Disabilities in relation to access to Open data include; Access and affordability to ICT tools and devices necessary to encourage access to open data is expensive. Contradiction between Access to Information Act & Uganda constitution leave room for misinterpretation by providers of open data. Persons with Disabilities in Uganda are denied access to information held by the state due to the State’s lack of resources to make it available in disability accessible formats. eGovernment websites are not compliant with accessibility norms so that text-to-speech tools become useless, and oftentimes accessibility options are few and ill-locatable on government service web portals. Most ICT devices imported in Uganda and other countries in the region are not disability friendly. They lack text-to-speech software for people with visual impairments. Language used on most open data provisions like the National budget, and national statistics to mention but a few is too technical for the layperson with a disability to understand
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Joan Katambi, Intergovernmental Organization, African Group
Speaker 2: Rebecca Ryakitimbo, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 3: Peace Oliver Amuge, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 4: Eileen Kwiponya, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 5: Innocent Adriko, Civil Society, African Group

Speaker 5: Shamim Nampijja, Civil Society, African Group

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Given the worth and value of open data, it is important that government data is accessible to everyone including women and Persons with disabilities. It is evident that most of the women in East Africa live in rural areas where digital inclusion has remained a challenge, with the high cost of the Internet in East Africa and connectivity challenges in many parts of the region, promoting open data has proved to be a nightmare. Whereas a percentage of the women access the Internet, it has continued a treat to the majority of the women especially in rural communities.

8. Session Outputs:
  • Out lined strategies to ensure Women and Women and Persons with disabilities access Open Data.
  • Awareness on Open Data policies across East Africa.
  • The need to have standard formats for publishing data that women and Women and Persons with disabilities can interpret
  • The need to have platforms that provide open data.
  • The need to have the right datasets and data dictionaries
  • Establishment of collaborations and movements with the agenda to enhance access to Open Data by Women and Persons with disabilities plus other vulnerable groups.
9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

I will use my organization Digital Literacy Initiative together with other partners such as civil society organizations, government agencies and academia among others to create more awareness in all communities about Open Data and access.


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 11/11/2020 - 13:03
DATA

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The session aimed to shed light on the adverse impact of restricting cross border data flows on factors affecting Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of inclusive growth, full employment and innovation. In this regard, findings of the study conducted by CUTS International on the effects of data localisation provisions in India was also presented.The findings of the study revealed that restricting movement of data could dent inclusive participation of Medium Small and Micro Enterprises (MSMEs) and startups, from developing countries along with adversely impacting trust and privacy of consumers in the usage of digital technology- services. The panellists highlighted that a fair distribution of benefits from digitalisation is intrinsically linked to optimal cross border data flows. Cross border data flows open economic opportunities, enhance trade and employment for people leading to achievement of SDGs of inclusivity and economic growth. This is specifically relevant for developing countries in Asia and Africa, which need to develop their innovation and competition capacities to become part of global value chains opened up by data flows. Furthermore, as we move towards industrial revolution 4.0, there is also a need to develop standards for data management which reflects the development agenda of various countries. It was suggested that innovative mechanisms need to be designed which can balance privacy concerns and beneficial sharing of data. These mechanisms should be based on the concepts of multilateralism, trust, inclusivity and common ethical grounds keeping in mind national and institutional capacities.
    Who should take it?: 
    Intergovernmental organisations - Internet Governance Forum , UNIDO , UNDP , UNCATD

Workshop
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 15:28
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. ‎1.‎ What can policymakers learn about protecting children’s rights from the extreme ‎circumstances brought about by the global pandemic?‎
  2. ‎2.‎ How must we balance considerations relating to protection and participation?‎
  3. ‎3.‎ What more needs to be done to protect children’s wide-ranging privacy needs (from the right ‎to privacy for victims of online CSAM, to personal privacy in terms of sharing their information, ‎to commercial entities profiting from their data in ways that are not transparent and do not ‎seem fair to them) and meet their expectations from us as key stakeholders?‎
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Speakers covered:‎
•    Experience of international law enforcement in terms of child sexual abuse and exploitation ‎during the global COVID19 response, in particular ‘lockdown’ – summarizing findings from the ‎INTERPOL’s September report.‎
•    Frontline experience from Sawa, the Palestinian child helpline, which supported an increased ‎number of children contacting them during lockdown about physical and sexual abuse at ‎home, anxiety about economic fallout issues (not enough money for food, unable to afford ‎connectivity to continue lessons), and suicidal ideation.‎
•    Research findings on children’s experience of COVID, including access to education and social ‎groups; reflections on some of the issues facing these and the fact that in our rush to respond ‎to a crisis, children’s views on how their online spaces has, again, been overlooked. ‎
•    Experience of a young leader and UNICEF volunteer from South Africa, who explained how ‎young people who have connectivity have been able to continue to enjoy many of their ‎fundamental rights by moving them into the digital world (for example, online learning, virtual ‎workshops, and mentoring taking place via WhatsApp) – but underscored that the less ‎privileged young people, without connectivity, missed out and became further disadvantaged. ‎
•    Younger children’s online lives: Children are increasingly online – and younger children who ‎were not previously connected came online during lockdown, and are now likely to remain ‎connected, even if prior to the pandemic they would perhaps not have been allowed so young ‎‎– Uri Sadeh.‎
 

3. Key Takeaways

There was very broad alignment and consensus that the question of ‘protection or participation’ should not be treated as a choice but as an important balance to be struck – with responsibilities for all actors, including industry, policymakers, parents or caregivers, and educators.

Where access to connectivity was available, there was the option to provide continuity – of support services, of education, of school workshops (via zoom) and youth mentoring programmes (via WhatsApp) – showing the potential connectivity to support children’s fundamental participation rights.

The critical importance of closing digital divides also emerged as one area of consensus. The perspectives and arguments shared on this topic include:

  • Observations that throughout the pandemic, technology has provided many children with a vital point of continuity and connection. Of course, this is not true for all children: we urgently need mechanisms for addressing the digital inclusion of those children without regular and reliable access to technology and the internet. But for those with access, technology has been key to their wellbeing, and this is reflected in sharp increases in their use of technology – Amanda Third
  • Pandemic has also taught us how unequal society is. Kids from disadvantaged backgrounds could not continue with e-learning – speaks to need for partnerships with private sector and governments to ensure all kids have access to the same opportunities, no matter their background – Bongani Dlamini
  • Children need to continue with their learning – in response to the pandemic, Sawa staff set up a system for people to donate old mobiles then they distributed them to families. In families with shared devices, not all children could get online to learn – and girls were most likely to suffer from this – Ohaila Shomar
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue and Recommendation [1]‎ Right to be heard: Both Amanda Third and Bongani Dlamini highlighted the need for better inclusion of ‎young people’s voices when decisions are being taken about matters which will directly affect them. ‎‎(We must keep children’s concerns front and center, which also means that we need good ways to ‎listen to what children need and want – Amanda Third; Need for meaningful engagement of young ‎people in decision-making processes – Bongani Dlamini)‎ Issue and Recommendation [2]‎ Uri Sadeh and Ohaila Shomar both pointed to the need for support services to be kept open and ‎available, using technology to shore up protections and keep services running; they both also spoke to ‎the need for planning – some things stopped working effectively during lockdown, we need to learn ‎from this and have funding and plans in place so that support mechanisms for children are resilient in ‎emergency situations:‎ • Hotlines must remain open – serve for reporting material and actual cases; tech solutions can ‎be put in place (online reporting mechanisms for children to put reports in – toll free texting, ‎gaming, messaging etc – online environment should be put in service); social and medical ‎services must be designated as essential and kept open – Uri Sadeh • Sawa stayed open 24/7 during the pandemic, but it took the country’s protection system a ‎couple of months to adapt and get running again – whilst calls increased significantly to the ‎helpline. This confirmed the big need for helplines to run, allowing children to raise their ‎voices and give them space to talk about issues they’re facing.‎ Issue and Recommendation [3]‎ We need to support parents better – helping them with providing connectivity for the whole family, ‎but also guiding them on digital literacy. There is scope to think creatively - children have a tendency to ‎explore – should we be exploring the opportunity to view children as educators within their own ‎families?‎
6. Final Speakers
9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment
  • Ohaila Shomar – voluntary community initiative to improve access to learning.
  • Uri Sadeh – commit to continuing daily struggle to meet the protection needs through the continuous work of Interpol’s crimes against children unit.
  • Amanda Third – explore the question of how to realize children’s participation rights under the conditions of physical distancing.
  • Natasha Jackson – to listen to youth voices within GSMA, encouraging our leaders to get young voices on the agenda at our events and encourage business leaders to hear directly from young voices.
  • Bongani Dlamini – 1) continue to share and create stories to raise awareness online; 2) continue having more roadshows around the country to promote safe use of the internet directly with children; 3) volunteer my time to organizations like GSMA and UNICEF to share young people’s experiences.

Workshop
Updated: Sun, 29/11/2020 - 18:13
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. COVID 19 pandemic’s real impact on Persons with Disabilities and those with specific needs because of technical exclusion and solutions that can be implemented with examples of good practices.
  2. Educating Governments on what needs to be done by raising awareness of technical solutions with education. How remote participation and remote participation tools should be set up to include all participants
  3. What participation of Persons with Disabilities means in practice? How to ensure persons with disabilities are consulted on key policy and accessibility developments.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

PwD and especially older people have been affected discrimination in digital access to a greater extend during the  pandemic. It has highlighted the tremendous deficiencies and exposed gaps in the accessibility of strategic services in education, government and health services infrastructure and content.There is a delay in adopting and implementing WCAG, signifying that web accessibility is not a priority.  Lack of accessible information creates a risk to managing the pandemic and a risk to people’s health, wellbeing and the saving of lives. There is lack of education of IT people, policy makers etc. on how to make accessible digital contents and services. The need of direct involvement of PwD in the design of products and services, policy development, standardization etc. (Nothing about us without us) as it enables to get the benefits of Artificial Inteligence (AI) and don't have inaccessible technologies that that we have to chase behind and retro-fit and make accessible again. There is a need to include people who understand about disability, social issues, the limitations, rights. In some health hazards, risk and emergency situations it is not acceptable that there’s a limited access to full and accurate information - to have the best results it’s worth supporting a combination of technology providing captions and the work of captioners. AI is a game-changer but it's not 100% accurate. To have an effective design of technologies we have a very good balance between all of these interests and needs. Opportunities offered by Video Relay Interpretation ( VRI) have been presented and how they can support inclusion of persons wish sensory issues, deafness and vision loss. Digital Accessibility Rights Evaluation Index (DARE) was presented by G3ict representative showing slow progress but some areas of optimism that we are moving in the right direction.

 

3. Key Takeaways

Accessibility has to be part of mainstream education and digital qualification, as stipulated by the UN CRPD  from the beginning as the developers, IT support and policy makers need to better understand the issues of not only accessibility but also the digital world.

Digital technology is no longer a luxury or a convenience, it is an absolute necessity so there is a need to look at the accessibility more strategically - to have a structure that would prevent PwD from being excluded. The advocation, including accessibility throughout education and particularly IT to make sure that people are aware of accessibility and know how to address it in all these capacities.

Much of accessibility is feasible and standards and technologies and solutions exist already. Legislations just needs to be implemented. The need of laws and regulations in effect that help regulators or other people to guarantee certain rights.

To make sure momentum in ICT accessibility supporting legislation continues to be a positive trend and that digital accessibility solution standards and guidelines exist. They must be made available to build an exclusive, accessible and sustainable digital world so there is a need to continue to advocate that. Getting countries to adopt these standards and really promoting them, making sure they know how to do it from the implementation standpoint (training and certification). The involvement of people with disabilities in these actions is important.

Choice is important for people with hearing loss because they interact in a specific way with other people and technology based on the level of their ability to hear. It is very important to look at how people choose to interact with the Internet and with all the different services and provide the range of ways to contacted.

 

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    VRI (Video Relay Interpretation) or webRTC can provide an easy-to-implement community-friendly VRI. It can be web-based, so many people find it easy to implement. VRI, along with good ICT infrastructure, should be part of the immediate plan of every nation because this is very important not only for a small number of countries. The failure to do so on the other hand, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic since it is a question of life or death will result in the discrimination against those persons with disabilities involved. Investment programs are needed in the development of of speech synthesis and speech recognition for under-represented languages, which will aid further development of automated captioning and professional captioning services. Standards in defining quality and key performance indicators are needed. Need to improve the education of the technical people that are behind technical solutions, but also policy makers that need to better understand the issues of not just accessibility, but of the digital world. Ensuring rights of People with Disabilities ( PwD) such as right to communication access including access to sign language interpretation, real time captioning and other necessary forms of support which are legally binding.
    Who should take it?: 
    Decision makers in planning of local and national services and infrastructure. Telecommunication and audiovisual media regulators alongside relevant Ministers and their departments. Advisory Committees ( if not set up yet) to develop further recommendations and implementation of standards. Joint initiatives between ITU, G3ict, W3C and organisations of PwD to provide leadership and strategic guidance.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    World Health Organisation and International Telecommunication Union, working together in developing global standard on accessible telecare.
6. Final Speakers

Andrea Saks -  ITU JCA-AHF - Opening remarks

Lidia Best – National Association of Deafened People 

Fernando Botelho – f123.org 

Shadi Abou Zahra – W3C

Masahito Kawamori – Keio University 

Christopher Lee – G3ict  

Q&A session

Andrea Saks - Closing remarks

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session pannelist representation followed gender distribution as much as possible. There were no specific discussions touching on gender issues in respect to accessibility issues since both genders are affected.

8. Session Outputs:

1. G3ict Digital Accessibility Rights Evaluation-DARE Index https://g3ict.org/publication/dare-index-2020-global-progress-by-crpd-states-parties

2. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ( WCAG) https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/ https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/

3. Training in accesible digital content and accessibility https://digital-accessibility.eu/?fbclid=IwAR1ObR-1oGNlExC9ckcGL3rtY168504qD-0t_jeFYk-rtG0rsTvt7Xa7NTo

4. ITU-T Technical Paper - Guidelines for supporting remote participation in meetings for all (2015)https://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/opb/tut/T-TUT-FSTP-2015-ACC-PDF-E.pdf

5. FSTP-ACC.WebVRI - Guideline on web-based remote sign language interpretation or video remote interpretation (VRI) system https://www.itu.int/pub/T-TUT-FSTP-2020-ACC.WEBVRI

6. NADP simple factsheets for users and organisers of online meetings https://www.nadp.org.uk/events/?fbclid=IwAR1ObR-1oGNlExC9ckcGL3rtY168504qD-0t_jeFYk-rtG0rsTvt7Xa7NTo

 

9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Sat, 14/11/2020 - 23:41
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Does the current situation allow for Data protection of all Internet end users?
  2. To what extent, could the development of international norms and principles facilitate common approaches and interoperability of data protection frameworks, and also facilitate international trade and cooperation?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was broad support for the view that the protection of users’ Internet data is not easy under multiple different jurisdictions. Several approaches were mentioned to address this issue: Most of the interventions supported the coordination of the efforts to harmonize the existing legal frameworks and try to build on the agreed on principles while some participants argued that the only way to reach real Internet data protection is to reach an international binding regulation.

3. Key Takeaways
  • The discussion amongst policymakers, experts, and stakeholders on how to blend principles of users’ data protection is poignant in a post-CIVOD globe.
  • Yet, the ability to build a global consensus and international legislative framework on users’ data protection is extremely challenging due to the vast polity economy of the internet and the diverse policy environment of states.
  • Nonetheless, we need to activate a solution even though the probability of solving the problem through a global legal consensus is still doubtful. There are also existing frameworks that can be built on such as UNDHR, GDPR.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    1. We must continue to promote discussions amongst policymakers, experts and stakeholders on how to blend principles of users’ data protection. 2. Further research is needed on the European experience of building a Europe-wide policy consensus on users’ data protection and its possible applicability to other regions with diverse experiences. 3. There is a need for the further involvement of existing multilateral institutions such as the UNHCR, ILO, EU to engage in extending their resources to institutionalize rights protection of global citizens to the internet ecosystem. In absence of this, there is a need for a top down consensus on privacy accompanied by stakeholder bottom up engagement to build upon national and regional experiences and policy vacuums. 4. Global citizens lack agency and engagement if they don’t have access to the Internet. Universal Internet Access should be a central principle of any dialogue or policy action regarding data security.
6. Final Speakers

Badii Farzaneh, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group

El Bekri Mohamed, Government, African Group

Kulesza Joanna, Civil Society, Eastern European Group

Lanfranco Sam, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Sanchez Leon, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Thu, 12/11/2020 - 22:51
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How to maximize the benefits of data sharing, while minimizing its associated risks, such as confidentiality and privacy issues?
  2. What is the potential of private sector’s data, e.g. big data sources (social media, web data, transaction data, image data) to the production of reliable and timely public statistics?
  3. • How can governments and institutions from the private sector engage in the debate on a new and comprehensive data production ecosystem?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There was overall agreement on that:

Administrative, national statistical and big data need to complementary, one will not substitute the others.

There are still significant limitations in data availabitity, particularly  in the African region. In countires with low levels of digitalisation there is also scarcity of big data.

One-off initiatives are not sustainable - such as it is the case of several COVID-19-related data sharing models.

“Data sharing” does not literally mean “sharing datasets”, it might be enough to share statistics derived from those datasets.

No significan points of disagreement were identified. 

 

 

  

3. Key Takeaways

Traditional data producers are still essential, but traditional methods alone may not be able to meet policy design and SDG monitoring needs in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Long term data ecosystems need to be put in place and address the issue of privacy and equal access.

There is still a long way to go in order to advance dialogue between industry and statistical offices for an effective collaboration. 

6. Final Speakers
  • Alison Gillwald, RIA – Research ICT Africa (Civil society, Africa)
  • Helani Galpaya, LIRNEASIA (Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group)
  • Daniel Ker, OECD (International Organization)  
  • Jaco Toit, UNESCO (Intergovernmental Organization)
  • Mark Uhrbach, STATISTIC CANADA (Government, Western European and Others Group)
  • Dominik Rozkrut, STATISTICS POLAND (Government, Eastern European Group)
10. Voluntary Commitment

A call for voluntary commitments was made by the session moderator, the speakers chose to express them later in the written form. 


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 10:57
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. To what extent can good practices from one region be applied to others? Where in your work have you seen this done well or have felt that cross-regional sharing would have made CB more successful?
  2. Trust and legitimacy are key criteria for successful capacity building. Are there existing regionally focused organizations or partnerships that are under-utilized or under leveraged? What have been successful ways to connect across regions?
  3. When we say “sustainable”—what features contribute to sustainability—and are these features the same everywhere? How can the sustainability of capacity building measures be ensured?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The panelists agreed that regions approach and operationalize capacity building differently in practical terms, however, it was also recognized that more cross-regional sharing would be beneficial where possible. Examples included interregional organisations (ASEAN, ECOWAS, EU) or more developed countries (Singapore) in certain regions sharing best practices and building capacities for lesser countries from the same region. Krey criteria for successful and sustainable capacity building comprise legitimacy, trust and respect, according to the panelists. Relationship building was also mentioned as an important contributing factor. However, panelists warned that one can only be as strong as the weakest link, therefore it makes sense to not only become stronger within your country, within your subregion. To really have a proper open, secure, safe system, one must really cooperate between regions. This would also help to address closing gaps between regions on CCB. Furthermore, national buy-in is essential. This would ensure reciprocity and a two-way street from with both partners benefit. 

However, it was also stressed that the differences among regions are significant (geography, economics, politics & culture) and best practices are not applicable to every region. The Pacific region was named as an example where countries differ enormously and best practice sharing would not be very successful. Lastly, another important criteria constituted the involvement of multiple partners for sustainable capacity building, which is still lacking in general. 

Overall, multistakeholder initatives such as the Paris Call for Trust and Stability in Cyberspace or multistakeholder organisations such as the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise were named as great platforms that could support on cyber capacity building across regions. Interregional fora such as the EU-India dialogue were cited as successful exchanges on CCB.

3. Key Takeaways

Trust, legitimacy and the involvement of all relevant stakeholders are the pillars for any benefitial capacity building project. The work of the GFCE was recognized as a great contribution and new partnerships with the private sector focusing on Africa seem to be promising. For the future, a focus on norms discussion amongst African states, the creation of a single universal trusted organisation on cyber capacity building and the standarised use of multistakeholder approaches were listed recommendations for the future. Furthermore, additional track 1.5-dialogues not only between countries but also regions or country and region (such as the EU) were recommended. 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    - Increasing multistakeholder involvement at international and regional level; - Advancing South-South cooperation in the Global South; - Mixing bilateral with cross-regional capacity building; - Building governmental expertise.
    Who should take it?: 
    Paris Call; GFCE; national governments with the support of the private sector
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Multistakeholder approach Paris Call for Trust and Stability in Cyberspace The Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace of 12 November 2018 is a call to come together to face the new threats endangering citizens and infrastructure. It is based around nine common principles to secure cyberspace, which act as as many areas for discussion and action. https://pariscall.international/en/
  2. Initiative: 
    Multistakeholder organisation Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE) The GFCE is a multi-stakeholder community of more than 115 members and partners from all regions of the world, aiming to strengthen cyber capacity and expertise globally. The GFCE endeavours to be a pragmatic, action-orientated and flexible platform for international collaboration, reducing overlap and duplication of efforts in the cyber capacity building ecosystem to ensure an open, free, peaceful and secure digital world. https://thegfce.org/
6. Final Speakers

Speakers:

Folake Olagunju, GFCE Advisory Board co-Chair & Program Officer of Internet and Cybersecurity, ECOWAS

Latha Reddy, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace

Bart Hogeveen, Head of Cyber Capacity Building, International Cyber Policy Centre, Australian Strategic Institute (ASPI)

Līga Raita Rozentāle, Senior Director for EU Cybersecurity and Emerging threats, Microsoft

moderated by Kerstin Vignard, Head, UNIDIR support team to General Assembly processes pursuant to resolutions 73/27 and 73/266

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session included several female speakers from four different continents, including developing regions. All speakers have represented different stakeholder groups throughout their careers in governments, think tanks, regional organizations, the private sector and civil society, so they have sat at different seats at the table. The content as such did not touch upon gender issues, however, the perspective of female professionals in this space allowed for a diverse view on the topic.

8. Session Outputs:

This workshop will be the first in a series of additional sessions in collaboration with the IGF. 

 


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 26/11/2020 - 12:15
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What is the role of multi-stakeholders in the implementation of Learn from home due to COVID-19?
  2. How could we close the digital divide under the new shifts in education within a country or region, and between developed and Less-developed countries?
  3. What should be done to improve the digital literacy of the educators at individual, organizational, and governmental levels?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed
  • During the pandemic, the use of various digital tools and platforms has visibly increased. The majority of the respondents indicated that they had discovered Zoom during the Lockdown.
  • Worldwide, 71% of young people between the age of 15-24 use the internet compared to 48% of the total population.
  • Digital divides also mirror prevailing economic gaps, inequalities exist between developed and underdeveloped countries.
  • A possible prolonged pandemic, and its multiple effects in the mental health well-being of individuals and communities.
  • We need a more inclusive but also standardised approach to digital competencies for all.
  • The crisis has exacerbated widespread educational inequalities due to factors relating to gender, immigration, or learning difficulties and special needs.
  • National education policies should mandate ministries and schools to provide digital literacy involved in the national education system.
  • Empower teachers, trainers and facilitators in the effective use of digital technologies.
  • Joint efforts between the Private Sector and Private Sector plays a crucial role in identifying and implementing technology-relevant approaches to resolve these challenges ensuring appropriateness and sustainability.
  • We have to train teachers in the use of digital tech not in using off suites and  software, but how to use this amazing kit and resources are available on it, to empower and enable young people and also with vocational training, older people, to learn.  So it's not just giving them digital skills but enabling them.
  • We can be much more positive and we can rethink education for the future and use of digital technologies, and make sure that in the future, when some pandemic occurs, we can move seamlessly into new resilient education systems that use digital technology to serve the interest of everybody.
3. Key Takeaways
  • Engaging multi-stakeholders through effective partnerships. Governments need to lead the process of systemic educational transformation.
  • The private sector should be valued primarily for its understanding of the technologies, its management expertise, and its focus on sustainability, rather than merely as a vehicle for providing additional funding or technological resources for education systems.
  • New public policies that can sustainably shape our world after the COVID-19 crisis.
  • Enabling access: building resilient infrastructures for education during a pandemic or disaster.
  • It is also necessary for both governments and businesses to work towards introducing policies to eradicate the digital divide in such a pandemic situation. They have to come up with shared principles, guidance and regulations to improve the infrastructure, content, and accessibility to every one.
  • This dynamic amelioration has triggered interest in various multi-stakeholders for proactive Connectivity, Content-production, and Accessibility. The governments, the private sector significantly impact supporting their civil society to stay home with digital connectivity and accessibility.
  • Governments and the private sector are undertaking many initiatives to support their nation and economies with digital inclusion addressing the digital divide, connectivity, and accessibility. Examples are,
  • Indonesian government initiatives target wider broadband coverage in Indonesia to remote islands. The Ministry of Education Indonesia gave subsidies for internet package to students for online education
  • Latin American governments incorporated different channels in order to facilitate teaching and learning. In Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and El Salvador governments have government programs on both television and public radio for students as well as through online platforms.
  • In Dominican, the government decided to increase public Wi-Fi access as a result. More than 1000 free public Wi-Fi access points have been set up to facilitate resource distribution.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Summary of Issues Discussed: ● During the pandemic, the use of various digital tools and platforms has visibly increased. The majority of the respondents indicated that they had discovered Zoom during the Lockdown. ● Worldwide, 71% of young people between the age of 15-24 use the internet compared to 48% of the total population. ● Digital divides also mirror prevailing economic gaps, inequalities exist between developed and underdeveloped countries. ● A possible prolonged pandemic, and its multiple effects on the mental health well-being of individuals and communities. ● We need a more inclusive but also standardized approach to digital competencies for all. ● The crisis has exacerbated widespread educational inequalities due to factors relating to gender, immigration, or learning difficulties and special needs. ● National education policies should mandate ministries and schools to provide digital literacy involved in the national education system. ● Empower teachers, trainers, and facilitators in the effective use of digital technologies. ● Joint efforts between the Private Sector and Private Sector plays a crucial role in identifying and implementing technology-relevant approaches to resolve these challenges ensuring appropriateness and sustainability. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward: ● Engaging multi-stakeholders through effective partnerships. Governments need to lead the process of systemic educational transformation. ● The private sector should be valued primarily for its understanding of the technologies, its management expertise, and its focus on sustainability, rather than merely as a vehicle for providing additional funding or technological resources for education systems.
    Who should take it?: 
    All governments, educators, management of schools and the technical community should take this discussion and suggestions.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    . Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues: ● Indonesian government initiatives target wider broadband coverage in Indonesia to remote islands. The Ministry of Education Indonesia gave subsidies for internet package to students for online education ● Latin American governments incorporated different channels in order to facilitate teaching and learning. In Columbia, Ecuador, Peru and El Salvador governments have government programs on both television and public radio for students as well as through online platforms. ● The Latin American government offered hard copies for resources. For students who need to rely on their parents to collect physical copies because they don't have Internet access. ● In Dominican, the government decided to increase public Wi-Fi access as a result. More than 1000 free public Wi-Fi access points have been set up to facilitate resource distribution. Making Progress for Tackled Issues: ● New public policies that can sustainably shape our world after the COVID-19 crisis. ● Enabling access: building resilient infrastructures for education during a pandemic or disaster.
6. Final Speakers
  1. Tim Unwin 

Organization: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

Stakeholder Group: Intergovernmental Organization 

Regional Group: Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

 

  1. Rilla Gusela Sumisra 

 

Organization: PT. Netmarks Indonesia / Internet Development Institute 

Stakeholder Group: Technical Community 

Regional Group: Asia-Pacific Group

 

  1. Veronica Stefan 

Organization: Council of Europe/ Digital Citizens Romania, Think-Tank 

Stakeholder Group: Civil Society 

Regional Group: Eastern European Group

  1. Paola Galvez

Organization: Niubox

Stakeholder Group: Private sector

Regional Group: Latin American and Caribbean Group

 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

During the COVID-19 outbreak Issues concerned with the safety, security and privacy associated with digital technologies have surfaced throughout. There should be policy enforcement and guidance to help protect girls and women from all forms of abuse, bullying and harassment through digital technologies. Governments should ensure that girls have as equal access to digital technologies throughout the education system

8. Session Outputs:

The session contributed to increasing the interest of academia, along with the increasing number of studies and research in the organization of remote education which aims to learn from set-backsprevious mistakes and improve the efficiency of the e-learning system. In addition the speakers also published related materials as research publications local and global Internet Governance Organisation news and also educational sites, both in social media platforms and official websites. Some publications of speakers are listed below

Furthermore, There will be post on the social media platforms and official websites such as Internet Development Institute (local), APAC ICT Women, ISOC Chapters and Special Interest Groups (SIG), NetMission.Asia or Youth4IG (regional), a network of Youth IGF coordinators (global).This will increase the willingness of educators to handle future possible global emergencies as well as encourage other stakeholders such as the technical community to develop better learning platforms and incentivize researchers to develop quality education and learning tools with ICT in the future. We believe that education is the premise of progress in every society.

 

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

Edmon Chung: "Talk to anyone who would listen especially schools, not forget about the zoom and the technology that you've learned and at least try to to come up with some kind of hybrid going on solution"

 

Paola Galvez: “I am committed to keep working hard to shape a better regulatory framework for a digital ecosystem and to put human being at the center".

 

Rilla Gusela Sumisra : "I hope that we can live better, keep health"

 

Tim Unwin: "Listen more speak less and post less on social media"

Veronica Stefan : "Engage young people in all these debates and whatever is following they are the biggest users the most affected they need the most important role at the table of the discussion"


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 20/11/2020 - 17:01
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How can the public and private sector work together to put into action the possible solutions to the problems raised by increased consumption of electricity and resources? What are the roadblocks in the way of boosting uptake and ensuring scalability of technologically enabled solutions to environmental problems?
  2. How can rebound effects - the environmental impact caused by increased demand or consumption - be mitigated, and what role should all the actors in the ecosystem play to achieve this?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

- Participants agreed that the ICT sector can play a key enabling role in achieving environmental sustainability, including for example through next generation connectivity (5G technology, fibre networks), improve the operations of existing mobile and fixed networks, improve the energy efficiency of data centres, use of renewables in the sector. The use of data to inform sustainable policy decisions is a key aspect too.

- To boost innovation and to push digitalisation across sectors of society, it is important having the right pro-investment approach to support the private sector, for example to accelerate roll-out of 5G and fibre networks. Green financial aspects care crucial should be considered and incentivised.

- Rebound effects remain a considerable challenge, with increased energy consumption and higher demand risking to offset the gains made by more sustainable technologies 

- There are already many positive initiatives in place in both the public and private sectors, and these include governance structures, data sharing mechanisms, modelling and monitoring, smart cities, voluntary labelling, digitally enabled sustainable business models, and ensuring a sustainable supply chain 

- There are important common areas and fora for collaboration to achieve the aims of environmental sustainability, including digital imaging of the earth for monitoring, data sharing to enable the circular economy, accurate indicators, and the involvement of all actors in the ecosystem 

Participants also acknowledged the challenge that digital technologies can pose for the environment, including disproportionate distribution of e-waste, accentuating further the North-South divide 

3. Key Takeaways

Above all, the ICT sector can be an enabler for achieving environmental sustainability, and it can and should work in close cooperation with all levels of government to put in place technologies and mechanisms to achieve these aims. While there remain many problems with regard to rebound effects, insufficient sharing and use of dispersed and non-uniform data, knock-on effects (e.g. social and economic) in developing countries caused by unsustainable supply chains etc., there are many solutions.

The most important take-away is the challenge that faces all actors in the ecosystem, namely how to encourage the uptake of technologies to reduce environmental impact, and how to ensure the scalability of these solutions in order to guarantee that their positive impact is felt. 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Achieving environmental sustainability by the means of ICT is not incumbent on one single player in the ecosystem. It is vital that the public and private sectors, including at all levels of government and at international level, find ways to cooperate to ensure that solutions are adopted and scaled appropriately to reach maximum impact. This can include data sharing / common data spaces, new governance structures, the encouragement of voluntary measures (e.g. labelling), modelling, and monitoring.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments, international organisations and the private sector all have a collaborative role to play here.
6. Final Speakers

Moderator: Beat Estermann, Bern University of Applied Sciences
Speaker 1: Sara Ghazanfari, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Andrea Halmos, Intergovernmental Organization, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 3: Natasa Perucica, Civil Society, Eastern European Group

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not the subject of this discussion, however the panel was very well gender-balanced. 

8. Session Outputs:

The workshop identified and created an understanding of the broad range of opportunities the ICT sector can provide to reach environmental sustainability. Many of those initiatives were already in place, but panellists agreed on the need to create an ecosystem to boost those opportunities and leverage the ICT enabling potential.

The ICT sector is indeed a catalyst and sustainability enabler for reaching ambitious climate targets. However, without the right pro-investment policy framework, it will not be possible to reap the digital contribution to sustainability.

Panellists exchanged also around the need from policy makers and Governments to facilitate the interaction with the industry and increase the stakeholder engagement.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 17/11/2020 - 23:23
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. Can we quantify the environmental impact of the digital transition?
  2. How could we reduce the negative impact of the digital transition?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

There is currently a lack of data and regulations to measure the environmental impact of the digital transition (few data are measured and/or provided).

Addictive design could stimulate a higher consumption caused by degital services and content.

Policies regulating the environmental impact of ICT should be adapted to the different countries.

 

3. Key Takeaways

First of all, the speaker Ananya Singh, an economic scientist & internet governance, detailed the role of ICT in the context of sustainable development. Then, Annie Blandin, Professor of Law, IMT Atlantique presented the roadmap of the French Digital Council on digital technologies and environment and the context of its elaboration. Esther Sandrine Ngom, Lawyer, President, Internet Society Cameroon Chapter, talked about the public policies on digital and environment in Cameroon and finally Pierre Bonis, Executive Director, AFNIC, illustrated the workshop with the concrete example of sustainability of  domain name system.

For the second round table, the speakers gave their point of view on a call for voluntary actions or pledges to forward the goals of Internet Governance and the Digital Cooperation Roadmap and they discussed about commitments and recommendations to improve policies for a sustainable digital industry. More particularly Ananya Singh synthesized the subjects that policymakers must keep in mind when framing policies to promote rapid digitization without causing irreparable damage to the environment. Annie Blandin talked about the work of the French Digital Council on data of general interest and how such data could foster a sustainable digital industry. The data of general interest are defined as private data whose opening is justified by a goal of public interest, especially with regard to environmental data. Pierre Bonis presents the projects which could be elaborated on for further evaluate and improve the energy use of a DNS request. The speakers then answer the questions of the public.

6. Final Speakers

Lucient Castex (Moderator)

Ananya Singh

Annie Blandin

Ether Sandrine Ngom

Pierre Bonis


Workshop
Updated: Sun, 29/11/2020 - 15:22
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How can we foster multi-stakeholder collaboration on digital sustainability?
  2. How can information on the climate crisis, environmental justice, and the sustainability effects of the Internet be effectively communicated?
  3. How do different stakeholders and regions approach the discourse around digital sustainability?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Advocacy: It is acknowledged that youth movements have been drivers of the environmental justice discourse, however in Internet Governance spaces, youth have not been as active in the discussion. However, the call to action can only be realised with resources for campaigns etc., so these movements often leave out marginalised groups.

Regulation: There was agreement that regulation is a key factor in fostering sustainability, so legislative bodies should be take into account scientific findings, as well as civil society advocacy. It was also agreed on that political decision makers have not yet fully formed action plans, or the ones that are put out are not ambitious enough given the urgency of environmental action.

Innovation: It was a call to the private sector to foster innovation that is environmentally friendly and fair in order to pro-actively address environmental challenges. It was also agreed on that businesses and start-ups should be active parts of policy deliberation, as they are the stakeholders to then implement measures. It was concluded that the Internet Governance approach to multi-stakeholder processes can be a model for digital sustainability.

Eurocentricity: It was brought up by the panel that, currently, the discourse around environmental justice, and digital sustainability specifically, is dominated by a euocentric focus. However, Asian and African initiatives were presented, and there was agreement that there needs to be more interregional policy dialogue in order not to reinforce inequalities.

Transfer: Overall, there was agreement that both youth movements for environmental justice, and Internet Governance fora address different stakeholders. In order to implement digital sustainability in Internet governance spaces, it requires clear advocacy, effective communication, and the inclusion of scientific stakeholders. Youth movements for sustainability, such as Fridays for Future, should be invited to participate in multistakeholder environments such as the IGF.

 

3. Key Takeaways

In this session, different stakeholders (government, technical community, civil society) deliberated on approaches and challenges in order to find lasting synergies between Internet Governance processes, and environmental movements as they intersect on the topic of digital sustainability. Youth initiatives in both policy spaces are important, but often not fully integrated in policy development.

It became clear that on a political level, there are still no clear, ambitious action plans to address urgent issues such as the emissions of data centers, destruction of habitats due to illegal online trade, and e-waste. While nationally and regionally, legislative and high-level policy processes might pave the way on some of those issues, international multi-stakeholder deliberation is missing. The Internet Governance model of multi-stakeholder engagement could be a roof under which to foster the exchange on the topic of environmental sustainability. However, this means that there have to be intersessional processes that decidedly include all stakeholder groups, as the discussions at the IGF2020 are a mere starting point.

High-level stakeholders need to commit to also consult the scientific community, as well as civil society movements on environmental justice. As these have been driven by youth in many cases, young people need to be included on eye-level, instead of a tokenistic appearance.

The digital private sector needs to also be a strong partner in the progression of the theme, as innovation and implementation for digital sustainability measures depend on digital businesses and their practices.

Civil society needs to foster the critical masses and the heightened interest for environmental sustainability, while internally diversifying and actively overcoming Eurocentric narratives.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Digital Sustainability is a topic that should be advocated for by civil society, youth, and strong grassroots movements in cooperation with scientists and scientific institutions, so that the information is available and accessible in a context-sensitive way, in local languages, and aligned with the local and regional circumstances.
    Who should take it?: 
    Civil Society Organizations and Academia
  2. Issue and Recommendation: 
    Legislative bodies should mainstream sustainability in their legislative processes, and consult with civil society, academia, technical community, and the private sector in order to take balanced regulatory steps that address the urgency of the climate crisis, and foster swift implementation. Governments should foster multi-stakeholder processes when enforcing and implementing laws with sustainability effects in the digital sphere.
    Who should take it?: 
    Parliaments and governments
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Digital businesses and start-ups should find the innovative potential of sustainable practices, and actively commit to environmentally friendly, fair, and inclusive processes. The digital private sector should also participate in policy development pertaining to environmental sustainability, as businesses have considerable impact on the environmental effects of digitization.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Sustainability in the Internet Governance Discourse Internet Rights and Principles Coalition https://internetrightsandprinciples.org/
  2. Initiative: 
    Climate Justice and Environmental Sustainability Fridays for Future https://fridaysforfuture.org/
  3. Initiative: 
    Digital Sustainability Youth4DigitalSustainability https://yigf.de/
  4. Initiative: 
    Sustainable Development African Union 2063 Strategy https://au.int/en/agenda2063/overview
  5. Initiative: 
    Sustainability and Internet Governance DotAsia Organisation https://www.dot.asia/how-i-see-it-conversation-with-edmon-chung-and-netmission-ambassador-ananya-singh-environmental-sustainability-internet-gov/
6. Final Speakers

Raphael Reimann

Rasmus Andresen

Lily Edinam Botsyoe

Edmon Chung

Josaphat Tjiho

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The extent of reflections regarding gender pertained to the lack of women in decision-making positions on the one hand, and their relative disadvantages in civil society initiativeses on the other. It was noted that both high-level and grassroot processes need to be diverse in order to address digital sustainability in all its aspects.

Due to unaivalabilities of speakers, the panel was not balanced in terms of gender. A fact which definitely shall be rectified in the follow-up processes.

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

All panelists pledged to further engage their networks to foster intergenerational, transnational, and multi-stakeholder policy development regarding digital sustainability, especially in the context of Internet governance.


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 18/11/2020 - 23:38
TRUST

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. Issue and Recommendation: 
    Full report of the session is available at: https://dig.watch/resources/igf-2020-ws-234-security-digital-products-industry-and-enhancing-trust
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Promoting best practices of companies can help other companies to improve their own processes as well
    Who should take it?: 
    Companies, Tech community
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Clarify baseline requirements for digital products, taking into consideration good practices, standards, national regulations, and global principles and norms
    Who should take it?: 
    Companies, regulators, standardisation bodies, international multistakeholder and multilateral fora
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Companies need support with capacity building – both in terms of implementing the baseline requirements, and for following (and participating in) related international multistakeholder processes
    Who should take it?: 
    Companies, capacity building organisations
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    UN GGE/OEWG (reducing vulnerabilities), OECD (security of digital products), Paris Call (product security and the security of supply chain), Charter of Trust (security by design and security by default), IGF DC ISSS (standards related to security of products), FIRST (vulnerability disclosure processes). Details are available at: https://dig.watch/process/geneva-dialogue
  2. Initiative: 
    Geneva Dialogue on Responsible Behaviour in Cyberspace (security of digital products and services): https://genevadialogue.ch

Workshop
Updated: Tue, 17/11/2020 - 15:14
DATA

2. Summary of Issues Discussed
  • Privacy laws and regulations, such as the Convention 108 of the Council of Europe, have been designed to facilitate data flows. These normative frameworks contribute to international trade by enabling companies to move data across borders.
  • Although there are strong commonalities between privacy norms, there are a variety of different mechanisms in place to transfer data across borders. Work on interoperability between these data transfer models is ongoing and will further contribute to data flows and trade.
  • For a data privacy law to be successful, it must provide effective protection for individuals, and, at the same time, it should provide organisations with the freedom to operate, innovate and comply in a way that makes sense for their business models.
  • Moving copies of data is no longer the only way to create value from that data. Decentralized artificial intelligence permits to generate insights from different sources of data without requiring access to these data, thus guaranteeing privacy and security. Technology will increasingly provide regulatory compliant solutions to many of the issues related with data protection.
  • The Internet is composed of five fundamental components, and any government measures that undermine one of these elements affects the entire Internet infrastructure. These components consist of an open and accessible global infrastructure with a common protocol; common IP identifiers; an open architecture to guarantee interoperability; a decentralized routing management allowing optimized costs; a general purpose rather than a specialized so the Internet can adapt to its evolving community of users and applications.
  • Data localisation requirements, for instance, undermine the decentralized routing management of the Internet. Also, aligning routing policy with the requirements of different jurisdictions creates needless complexity and inefficiency, as routing could no longer employ the technical features that generate connectivity, resilience, and optimized flow

 

3. Key Takeaways
  • Privacy laws and regulations, such as the Convention 108 of the Council of Europe, have been designed to facilitate data flows. These normative frameworks contribute to international trade by enabling companies to move data across borders.
  • Although there are strong commonalities between privacy norms, there are a variety of different mechanisms in place to transfer data across borders. Work on interoperability between these data transfer models is ongoing and will further contribute to data flows and trade.
  • For a data privacy law to be successful, it must provide effective protection for individuals, and, at the same time, it should provide organisations with the freedom to operate, innovate and comply in a way that makes sense for their business models.
  • Moving copies of data is no longer the only way to create value from that data. Decentralized artificial intelligence permits to generate insights from different sources of data without requiring access to these data, thus guaranteeing privacy and security. Technology will increasingly provide regulatory compliant solutions to many of the issues related with data protection.
  • The Internet is composed of five fundamental components, and any government measures that undermine one of these elements affects the entire Internet infrastructure. These components consist of an open and accessible global infrastructure with a common protocol; common IP identifiers; an open architecture to guarantee interoperability; a decentralized routing management allowing optimized costs; a general purpose rather than a specialized so the Internet can adapt to its evolving community of users and applications.
  • Data localisation requirements, for instance, undermine the decentralized routing management of the Internet. Also, aligning routing policy with the requirements of different jurisdictions creates needless complexity and inefficiency, as routing could no longer employ the technical features that generate connectivity, resilience, and optimized flow.

 


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 19/11/2020 - 23:56
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What are the main challenges in the production of quality, timely data, and an effective and inclusive national data system?
  2. What should be the roles and responsibilities for individuals in producing quality and timely data?
  3. What is the role of incentives in data governance at the local and national levels?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed
  • Cost of data
  • Trust issues when data sharing
  • Incentives to encourage data collection
  • Privacy and security of data
  • Roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders
  • Disaggregation of data - gender 
3. Key Takeaways

 

 Roles and responsibilities

  • Governments must choose to allocate resources to invest in data systems, choose to develop the regulatory and legal frameworks to promote the safe sharing of data and the protection of rights, and create a culture for the routine use of data in decision-making and accountability. Governments should also lead by example, making all public data open by default while respecting privacy and confidentiality conditions
  • Companies have to choose to share their data in an accessible and affordable manner, and use it to make decisions that advance the SDGs.
  • Civil society leaders need to amplify people’s voices in the data they collect and use for social change at a local level.
  • There must be collaborating with UN agencies, NGOs, and the private sector to create a picture of progress on the SDGs.
  • Academic institutions and think tanks play a role in supporting methodological testing and analysis of gender data for insight
  • National statistics offices are crucial partners for improving efforts to collect and disseminate nationally representative data.
  • In terms of data governance, chief statisticians should push for the UNSC to extend its role and become a more inclusive international platform for data sharing and coordination.

Incentives are necessary to catalyze multi-stakeholder collaboration. We need to create a new incentive structure and infrastructure to encourage private actors who currently monopolize digital technologies to share their information, thereby overcoming data and digital asymmetries between countries and between the private and public sectors. A key component of this incentive structure would be private company access to public data, which they could better understand new markets and opportunities, while concurrently ensuring the protection of privacy and confidentiality. One important approach is to establish good practice coalitions and platforms to make international data sources, methods, and innovations more standardized and accessible across countries

 

 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Cost issue - Data is costly Trust issue - Data is used in ways that reduce public trust, rather than serving the public good. Big data analysis also raises challenges concerning data privacy and security, while governments and other stakeholders will need to build capacity and resources to maximize its value. Lack of disaggregated data - gender
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    N/A
6. Final Speakers

Anne Delaporte, Insights Manager, Connected Women Programme, GSMA

Lorrayne Porciuncula, Economist/ Policy Analyst on Communications Infrastructure and Services at the Digital Economy and Policy Division, OECD

Antonio Garcia ZaballosLead Specialist, Technology, Inter-American Development Bank

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:
  • Disaggregated data is important to get a sense of the specific fields that require support
  • There are numerous reasons for persistent gender data gaps. These include low prioritization, low resources or capacity driving a low country coverage in gender data collection efforts; poorly developed or non-existent international standards for data used to construct indicators; the complexity of monitoring systems needed to capture desired gender data and indicators; most data collected at household rather than individual level
  • Civil registration data, which includes births, death, and causes of death, marriage and divorce, are critical for a number of health and civic initiatives
8. Session Outputs:

 

  1. Why is data important?
  • Too many people are invisible in data and therefore invisible in decision-making. Setting policies without core information or timely analysis means resources are wasted and their impact is limited.
    • Lack of timely and comprehensive data also means that investors do not have all the information needed to target financial investments to promote sustainable development
  • Data is critical for gathering a sense of how well we are doing in meeting certain targets fundamental in creating initiatives- cannot create functional and effective initiatives without the proper data
  • A significant lack of data has corresponded to a lack of investment toward achieving the environmental dimension of the SDGs
  • There are not only social and environmental benefits, but also economic benefits from well-function data systems.
    • It would not only appeal to national governments and multilateral investors, but also to private and philanthropic investors looking to build systems with maximum social, environmental, and economic returns
  1. What are the main challenges in the production of quality, timely data, and an effective and inclusive national data system?
  • Many countries do not have national systems in place for producing and monitoring data.
  • Public fears, lack of regulation, and lack of leadership mean that many governments and NGOs are not applying the power of data for decision-making, data is being abused, and companies are hoarding vast data resources.
    • Data is used in ways that reduce public trust, rather than serving the public good
  • Big data analysis also raises challenges concerning data privacy and security, while governments and other stakeholders will need to build capacity and resources to maximize its value.
  1.  What should be the objectives among a broad set of actors occurring across all stages of the data process in producing quality and timely data?
  • Governments must choose to allocate resources to invest in data systems, choose to develop the regulatory and legal frameworks to promote the safe sharing of data and the protection of rights, and create a culture for the routine use of data in decision-making and accountability.
    • Governments should also lead by example, making all public data open by default while respecting privacy and confidentiality conditions
  • Companies have to choose to share their data in an accessible and affordable manner, and use it to make decisions that advance the SDGs. Data collected and reported by multilateral organizations and other international development partners must be harnessed and leveraged
  • Civil society leaders need to amplify people’s voices in the data they collect and use for social change at a local level.
  • There must be collaborating with UN agencies, NGOs, and the private sector to create a picture of progress on the SDGs
  • Academic institutions and think tanks play a role in supporting methodological testing and analysis of gender data for insight
  • National statistics offices are crucial partners for improving efforts to collect and disseminate nationally representative data. They should demonstrate the value of collecting data and improve their capacity to communicate information to program and policy decision-makers in a timely manner
  • In terms of data governance, chief statisticians, in their capacity as members of the UN Statistical Commission (UNSC), should push for the UNSC to extend its role and become a more inclusive international platform for data sharing and coordination. The UNSC needs to build trust and common cause among official and unofficial data providers, specifically around data gaps and capacity challenges
  1. What is the role of incentives of internet stakeholders in data governance at the local and national levels?
  • Incentives are necessary to catalyze multi-stakeholder collaboration.
  • In particular, we need to create a new incentive structure and infrastructure to encourage private actors who currently monopolize digital technologies to share their information, thereby overcoming data and digital asymmetries between countries and between the private and public sectors      
  • A key component of this incentive structure would be private company access to public data, with which they could better understand new markets and opportunities, while concurrently ensuring the protection of privacy and confidentiality
  • One important approach is to establish good practice coalitions and platforms to make international data sources, methods, and innovations more standardized and accessible across countries
  • Another incentive is frontier technologies and their support for safer systems for data sharing
    • satellite and drone data are being integrated with other sources of data to map ecosystem extent; satellite imagery and telecommunications data are being combined with census records to produce more accurate and timely population, migration, infrastructure, and housing estimates; and telecommunication and sensor data are being used to track informal commuter patterns, transport systems, and economic opportunities.
    • BUT the majority of these new technologies and approaches are being used exclusively by private industries and, to a lesser extent, academic institutions, largely in the Global North
    • We need to move towards a system that enables the equitable sharing and exchange of technology for the public good
  • a new social contract among companies, governments, and citizens where mutual obligations and responsibilities are spelled out
    • Multiple benefits and also provides a degree of incentiv
  1. Why is the disaggregation of data important? What are the key gender data gaps, and what actions can different stakeholders take to bridge the gender data gap?
  • Disaggregated data is important to get a sense of the specific fields that require support
  • There are numerous reasons for persistent gender data gaps. These include low prioritization, low resources or capacity driving a low country coverage in gender data collection efforts; poorly developed or non-existent international standards for data used to construct indicators; and challenges brought by the complexity of monitoring systems needed to capture desired gender data and indicators.
  • Disaggregation remains a key challenge across sectors as most data are collected at household rather than individual level
  • Civil registration data, which includes births, death, and causes of death, as well as marriage and divorce, are critical for a number of health (as well as civic) initiatives
  • Women over reproductive age; our poor understanding of whether education is preparing girls with the digital literacy skills necessary for the future of work; our partial picture of women’s political engagement; and the nascent field studying the interplay of environmental issues and gender.

Workshop
Updated: Tue, 24/11/2020 - 21:17
DATA

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What does a successful statutory and regulatory regime look like when it comes to empowering positive uses of connected health technologies, and what does success look like in terms of preventing some of the downsides?
  2. What is the best way to bridge the digital divide that threatens to leave some outside of the positive advances made in digital health?
  3. What are the opportunities and risks of supplementing traditional healthcare with AI-powered analytics tools?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed
  • What about current connected health use-cases is encouraging and what do still needs to be addressed?

  • Whether this is a trend that should or will last beyond the public health crisis.

    • The panel agreed that the trend will last and has plenty of positives.

  • How much are the current AI use cases in healthcare built on "hype" and how much are real benefits to patients.

    • Panelists agreed there are many positive use-cases, but there needs to be care taken to ensure that policymakers continue to be skeptical, instead of "cheering on" AI uncritically.

  • The need for human intervention into AI systems.

  • The additional privacy and security threats that the provision of healthcare over the internet brings.

    • Panelists agreed on the existence of a new threat but disagreed about the solutions to mitigate them.

  • The inclusivity challenges that arise when healthcare is provided over the internet.

    • Panelists offered several different solutions, including broad-based technology education campaigns and universal broadband deployment.

3. Key Takeaways

The panel was able to identify and create an understanding of the spectrum of opportunities and challenges that telehealth will bring to bear on communities during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The panel discssed how the identified opportunities and challenges may be mitigated by the socioeconomic factors of discreet communities. For example, rural patients in the global south have less opportunity to benefit from connected health interventions due to lack of access to smartphones, broadband, and health providers who are willing to adopt the technology.

Panelists reached agreement that broadband access, legacy regulatory approaches, interoperability, technological literacy issues, privacy and security risks, and immature technology (from an AI diagnostics perspective) are all challenges. However, panelists also agreed that the opportunities that connected health presents are immense: greater penetration into underserved markets, more personalized care, optimizing new and existing data flows, and allowing for greater regional resource sharing are all ways that connected health can help improve patient outcomes. 

Panelists offered several different solutions to help mitigate some of the challenges, including broad-based technology education campaigns, universal broadband deployment, and bridging the divide between policymakers and technologists.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Broadband access is still limited in many areas, which prevents uptake of these useful technologies - though the capacity (unused bands of broadband spectrum) and technologies (5G) do exist to mitigate these concerns.
    Who should take it?: 
    This where an area for governments and private entities can collaborate to generate a positive outcome.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Technological literacy is an issue that prevents uptake of digital health technologies - the private sector and government players need to work together to create campaigns that increase understanding and familiarity with the benefits and risks of digital health tools.
    Who should take it?: 
    This is an educational issue that intersects government and the private sector.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Legacy regulatory approaches contribute to lower uptake of digital health technologies - lawmakers need to update approaches to insurance and interoperability to meet the 21st century.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    -COVID notification systems -City of Buenos Aires/WeChat Partnership (COVID symptom checking ChatBots) -https://www.citiesforglobalhealth.org/initiative/buenos-aires-chatbot-helps-protect-citizens-against-coronavirus
  2. Initiative: 
    -End-to-end diagnostic solution for early detection of disease (Diabetic Retinopathy) -Microsoft's telemedicine IRIS Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnostic Solution -https://appsource.microsoft.com/en-us/product/web-apps/iris-intelligentretinalimagingsystems.iris?tab=Overview
  3. Initiative: 
    -Lack of broadband access -Microsoft's Airbands/television white spaces initiative -https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/corporate-responsibility/airband/technology
6. Final Speakers

Moderator: Brian Scarpelli, ACT | The App Association

Speaker 1: Sveatoslav Vizitiu , Private Sector, Eastern European Group
Speaker 2: Jelena Malinina , Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 3: Subbarao Kambhampati, Technical Community, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 4: Analia Baum, Government, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 5: Geralyn Miller, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG

 

9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Tue, 24/11/2020 - 15:47
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How do the variety of political, and regulatory contexts shape the different ways in which content moderation decisions and enforcement of community standards take place on platforms?
  2. What kind of formal and informal arrangements have developed between digital platforms and governments to limit the proliferation of state-backed misinformation/ disinformation, hate speech, and violent or terrorist content?
  3. What are the opportunities/ limitations associated with proposals for fostering greater transparency and accountability in enforcement of platform content moderation standards?
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Platforms should learn from history and modify their approach to moderation in keeping with changing local social and political contexts. There is growing understanding amongst large platforms that their public footprint is greater and more complex than they thought needs - this sensibility needs to be pushed beyond the largest platforms. We need to develop best practices to help all sorts of intermediaries navigate these tensions and do it well. Platforms need to think through mechanisms to flag content that is being censored or report unusual behaviours regarding content removals. Policymakers need to focus more on procedural rules and less on content based rules. need for governance structures - setting up an independent body or a third-party to oversee some of the moderation decisions researchers and academics should step away from focusing on specific instances and aim to shape a broader approach to content governance
    Who should take it?: 
    Platforms need to take on a more nuanced engagement and explain content moderation decisions. Civil society actors to become more engaged with content moderation to improve platforms' understanding of local social and political contexts.
6. Final Speakers

Pratik Sinha, Alt News

Marianne Diaz, Derechos Digitales

Amelie Pia Heldt, Hans Bredow Institute

Varun Reddy, Facebook-India 

Tarleton Gillespie, Microsoft Research, Cornell University

Urvan Parfentyev, Russian Association of Electronic Communications


Workshop
Updated: Mon, 30/11/2020 - 18:31
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What is the current situation (policy, implementation, practice) of ICT accessibility in Low- and Middle-income countries (LMIC)?
  2. What could be arguments for and actions of different stakeholders to promote Universal Design and digital inclusion of people with disabilities?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Areas of broad support/agreement:

  • Designing ICT inclusively from the start following the principles of Universal Design will ultimately benefit everyone through increased usability/user-friendliness.
  • Including persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups in digital development efforts is vital for reaching the SDGs.
  • The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital exclusion and underscored the need to develop inclusive solutions.
  • A lack of awareness about accessibility and its social and business benefits is regarded as a major obstacle in all stakeholder groups: governments, private actors, civil society organizations. Among persons with disabilities there is a lack of awareness about accessibility features and insufficient skills for their usage.
  •  A lack of disaggregated data about persons with disabilities, also with regard to ICT challenges and opportunities creates an enormous challenge for designing and implementing policies. Better data could also be an incentive for the private sector.
  • Cognitive disabilities are to be treated differently with regard to accessibility. Care-givers or family members should be involved to identify their needs.
  • Perspective on digtial accessibility needs to change: Shifting away from a perception of an extra effort and special intervention. Normalizing inclusive design for all should be the goal.

Areas of no agreement/areas needing further discussion and development

  • What role does innovation play for digital inclusion of persons wiht disabilities? Differing perspectives: Innovation alone does not solve crucial matters of social exclusion, but can be a valuable approach for convincing the private sector.
  • What means accessibility for persons with different types of disabilities?
3. Key Takeaways

A lack of awareness about accessibility and its social and business benefits is regarded as a major obstacle in all stakeholder groups: governments, private actors, civil society organizations. Among persons with disabilities there is a lack of awareness about accessibility features and insufficient skills for their usage. Including persons with disabilities and other marginalized groups in digital development efforts is vital for reaching the SDGs. The perception of governments, private actors and international organizations on disability in tech needs to change: designing ICT inclusively from the start following the principles of Universal Design will ultimately benefit everyone through increased usability/user-friendliness.  Governments have often times committed themselves to accessibility of ICT through signing and ratifying the Convention on the Rights for Persons with Disabilities, but implementation is lacking. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated digital exclusion and underscored the need to develop inclusive solutions.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Missing implementation of governments commitments for digital accessibility (SDGs, CRPD and others) Support implementation
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Lack of disagreggated data about persons with disabilities When collecting data (or supporting bottom-up data collection) about persons with disabilities, questions about access and usage of digital technologies should be included. Apart from the general lack of disagreggated data, data on ICT access and usage is by large inexistent, but is very necessary.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments International Organisations Development/International cooperation stakeholders
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Inaccessibility of many ICTs (hard- and software) Involving persons with disabilities in the design process improves user-friendliness and drives innovation. Persons with disabilities and/or representative organizations should be involved in the development of digital products and services.
    Who should take it?: 
    Private companies Technical community
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Persons with disabilities left out frequently in digital COVID-19 response measures Hihglighting accessibility as a requirement in COVID-19 response strategy documents, involving Persons with disabilities and/or local Organizations of persons with disabilities in planing and implementing digital COVID-19 response measures to ensure accessibility.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments International and development cooperation
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Digital Accessibility Global Initiative for Inclusive ICTs (G3icT) https://g3ict.org/
  2. Initiative: 
    Digital Assistive Technology AT2030 https://at2030.org/
  3. Initiative: 
    Inclusion in the digital economy ILO Global Business and Disability Network (GBDN) http://www.businessanddisability.org/
  4. Initiative: 
    Icnlusion in the digital economy Digital2Equal (DG DEVCO - EU)
6. Final Speakers

Moderator 1: Edith Kimani, Media & Journalist

Moderator 2: Paul Horsters, Second facilitator

Speaker 1: Wairagala Wakabi, Civil Society, African Group

Speaker 2: Tim Unwin, Intergovernmental Organization, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 3: Bernard Chiira, Technical Community, African Group

Speaker 4:  Irene Mbari-Kirika, Civil Society, African Group

Speaker 5: Claire Sibthorpe, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

Speaker 6: Dr. Bernd Schramm Head of GIZ Global Project Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities commissioned by the German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Short welcoming speech.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

3 of the 6 panelists are women. Tim Unwins engagement for changing mens perception about women in tech was mentioned, apart from this gender issues were not discussed.

8. Session Outputs:

Kindly find this under 2) and 3)


Workshop
Updated: Fri, 20/11/2020 - 17:45
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How are entrepreneurs and small businesses, particularly across the Global South, affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and how digital economy can support their survival and recovery?
  2. What policy barriers to participation in the digital economy, exposed by the COVID-19 crisis, are entrepreneurs urgently facing?
  3. At a local or international level, how can local businesses communities, civil society, government, and multilateral institutions work together to develop a common policy frameworks and other approaches for inclusive digital economies?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

This session identified key barriers that businesses are facing when reopening during the COVID-19 crisis and transitioning to the digital economy. For instance, entrepreneurs and small businesses across emerging markets are struggling to participate in the digital economy due to existing challenges of accessibility and affordability of the internet as well as a lack of digital skills. At the same time, inadequate or absent policies and regulatory frameworks that facilitate competitiveness and access to global markets continue to undermine the development of an inclusive digital economy. To address these challenges, multi-stakeholder dialogues on digital transformation at the local, regional, and international levels must be a key priority to ensure inclusive digitally-enabled economic growth in the post-COVID-19 era.

3. Key Takeaways

The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of building enabling environments for inclusive prosperity in a technology-reliant future. Moreover, there is a broad consensus that multi-stakeholder coordination underpins the development of a digital space that advances democratic values and economic inclusion. Stakeholder groups such as civil society, international organizations, the technical community, companies, and governments should work together to support initiatives that improve digital and financial skills among local business communities. Diverse actors should also actively participate in policy fora focused on the development and implementation of legislation and frameworks that impact the digital economy.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue: Local business communities across the globe continue to struggle when navigating unclear, overly burdensome, insufficient, or absent local and regional legal frameworks that govern the digital economy. Recommendation: Coordinated multi-stakeholder dialogue during the development and implementation of new legislation impacting the digital economy is crucial. Policymakers should encourage the participation of diverse stakeholder groups in policy dialogues focused on digital transformation.
    Who should take it?: 
    This recommendation requires coordination between stakeholders such as policymakers, civil society groups, the technical community, and local business communities.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue: There is a growing need to equip local business communities with the digital and financial skills needed to participate fully in the digital economy. Recommendation: Governments, civil society, the technical community, and international organizations should expand educational initiatives that seek to build digital and financial skills among local business community groups. (This issue and recommendation are cross-cutting across all policy sectors).
    Who should take it?: 
    Efforts from stakeholder groups such as governments, civil society, the technical community, and international organizations.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    During this session, IGF participants learned about various initiatives and organizations working on advancing inclusive digital economies. For example, Rainer Heufers from the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS) mentioned a number of policy briefs on digital economy topics within Indonesia, including relating to data privacy and protection, intermediary liability, and digital taxation (www.cips-Indonesia.org). Juliet Nanfuka mentioned joint efforts between the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) and the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) in supporting public-private dialogues throughout Africa on digital transformation (https://cipesa.org/2020/09/invitation-for-public-comments-on-building-an-enabling-environment-for-inclusive-digital-transformation-in-africa-roadmap-to-reform/). Mary Rose Ofianga Rontal highlighted her work as a community builder engaging with technology start-ups in the Philippines. Through this work, Rontal organizes community events and digital literacy skills training for entrepreneurs who are seeking to leverage the digital economy (https://www.cipe.org/blog/2020/02/28/entrepreneurship-profiles-empowering-individuals/). Finally, Nicole Primmer highlighted a number of initiatives and resources focused on advancing digital economy policy from the Business at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), such as the Digital for SMEs Global Initiative (https://www.oecd.org/going-digital/sme/).
6. Final Speakers

Moderator: Anna Kompanek, Center for International Private Enterprise

Online Moderator: Morgan Frost, Center for International Private Enterprise

Speaker 1: Rainer Heufers, Civil Society, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 2: Mary Rose Ofianga, Private Sector, Asia-Pacific Group
Speaker 3: Juliet Nanfuka, Civil Society, African Group
Speaker 4: Nicole Primmer, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session explored specific barriers that women are facing when seeking to participate in the digital economy. Overall, the pandemic aggravated pre-existing gaps of the digital divide, which disproportionately affect women. The speakers agreed that since the COVID-19 pandemic, women are becoming more entrepreneurial as they transition businesses online. Yet, many women entrepreneurs still lack the digital and financial skills needed to participate fully in the digital economy. In addition, inadequate or misguided legislation on the digital economy undermines the advancement of gender inclusion in the digital space. 

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

During the session, panelists made voluntary commitments to continue contributing to multi-stakeholder conversations focused on building inclusive digital economies. For instance, Rainer Heufers stated that the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS) will continue to look at issues impacting the digital economy and actively participate in policy dialogues focused on digital transformation in Indonesia. Likewise, Juliet Nanfuka from the Collaboration on International ICT Policy in East and Southern Africa (CIPESA) said that her organization will continue to encourage diverse stakeholders to participate in policy fora impacting the digital space. The recent passing of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA), provides unique opportunities for diverse stakeholders to advance dialogue across Africa on how to shape and govern the digital economy in a way that promotes greater regional cohesion, development, and competitiveness. Mary Rose Ofianga Rontal mentioned that she will continue to equip local entrepreneurs in the Philippines, many of whom are women, with digital skills needed to make the digital economy inclusive. Finally, Nicole Primmer highlighted that the Business at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) will continue to develop research, tools, and best practices on the digital economy that are applicable around the world as governments and other stakeholders continue to explore policy options.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 19/11/2020 - 16:37
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What actions can governments take to counter disinformation while ensuring access to information and protection of freedom of expression?
  2. How can tech companies moderate the spread of false content on their platforms, while providing transparency, accountability and possibility for redress?
  3. What role do fact-checkers and media play in countering disinformation, and how can their work be strengthened?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The panel featured representatives from the tech sector, civil society, academia, NGOs, as well as WHO and UNESCO.

Speakers agreed that there is a crucial need to foster multi-stakeholder partnerships and cross-sectoral collaboration, to ensure that the Internet remains an open space for the exchange of reliable information.

Julie Posetti (ICFJ) summarized the types of COVID-19 disinformation and responses to the current “disinfodemic”, based on her contributions to the Broadband Commission’s report “Balancing Act” and two UNESCO policy briefs.

Tina Purnat (WHO) called for crafting a public research agenda to manage and respond to both infodemics and disinfodemics.

Beeban Kidron (5Rights Foundation) underlined the relevance of such research, arguing that disinformation types cannot be separated from one another and have an encompassing impact on a multitude of crises, including on children’s wellbeing.

Guy Berger (UNESCO) stressed the need to understand cultural aspects of information as part of a human condition which includes norms, emotion, fear, aspirations, identities, and culture. Piotr Dmochowski-Lipski (EUTELSAT IGO) stressed that national interpretations could negatively impact the efficacy of policy-making processes and international standards.

Stephen Turner (Twitter) presented Twitter’s recent content moderation decisions that were made with the intention to detect and delete harmful content concerning COVID-19, based upon the challenges such content presents, and how users interact with it. He also presented Twitter’s partnerships with international organizations such as UNESCO on issues of media and information literacy.

Cristina Tardáguila (IFCN) pointed to social media platforms developing disinformation policies only for selected countries. She advocated for more work in designing global approaches to disinformation in the online sphere, as well as a focus on information literacy.

Claire Wardle (First Draft News) advocated for more qualitative research in the field in order to strengthen the empirical foundation on which to base actions against disinformation.

3. Key Takeaways

The session found consensus on two main points. Firstly, it was recognized that all stakeholders have stakes and potential in shaping Internet governance. All groups represented in the panel pushed for increased cooperation on the issue of disinformation, in order to produce a holistic assessment framework.

Secondly, they agreed that communities and individuals are both essential to designing and implementing initiatives that address disinformation while strengthening media and information literacy. This is particularly relevant in the context of the COVID-19 disinfodemic, in which information has life-or-death consequences for vulnerable populations.

Overall, speakers appear to agree to a varying extent that online platforms play an essential role in the spread of both disinformation and reliable information. The academia and civil society representatives were vocal about the need for platforms to be subject to independent regulatory oversight. They also encouraged online providers to pursue transparency and accountability when conceiving and applying their content moderation and removal strategies.

More doubts were raised concerning some possibilities to empower media outlets. There was discussion of how the business model employed by online platforms puts traditional news providers at a clear disadvantage. One speaker questioned whether online platforms are “fit for purpose” as they have become predilected vehicles of disinformation. Therefore, all participating groups would benefit from continued discussion on this aspect to better define potential solutions.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Employing the 23-step Freedom of Expression Assessment Framework tool to examine disinformation.
    Who should take it?: 
    Academics, researchers, journalists, and regulators
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Encouraging tech companies to implement independent oversight and assure transparency regarding content moderation decisions.
    Who should take it?: 
    Online platforms, and to some extent civil society and national regulators.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Increasing platform transparency by clearly stating who paid for and created a piece of information.
    Who should take it?: 
    Online platforms.
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Conducting more qualitative research into disinformation responses, platform transparency, and content moderation strategies.
    Who should take it?: 
    Academics, researchers, journalists, and regulators.
  5. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Other (put the information in the "Recommendation" box above)
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Hiring “disinformation editors” in newsrooms to review a media’s own content to check for disinformation and misleading headlines. Categorized as an employment issue.
    Who should take it?: 
    Media outlets.
  6. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Implementing data literacy and media & information literacy, particularly for young people, as well as at all levels of society.
    Who should take it?: 
    Governments, civil society, and to some extent online platforms through partnerships with relevant education stakeholders.
  7. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Ensuring that as many stakeholders as possible are involved in discussion on responses to disinformation, instead of focusing on few larger actors and platforms.
    Who should take it?: 
    Topic and recommendation suitable for further discussion at the next IGF.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    UNESCO’s project “#CoronavirusFacts: Addressing the ‘Disinfodemic’ on Covid-19 in conflict-prone environments”, funded by the European Union. https://en.unesco.org/covid19/disinfodemic/coronavirusfacts
  2. Initiative: 
    UNDP/UNESCO Consultation on Better Information Ecosystem. https://www.sparkblue.org/group/112/about
  3. Initiative: 
    WHO’s 3rd Virtual Global Infodemic Management Conference. https://www.who.int/teams/risk-communication/infodemic-management/3rd-virtual-global-who-infodemic-management-conference
  4. Initiative: 
    WHO's partnership with Wikimedia to increase the availability of WHO infographics, videos, and other public health information on Wikimedia Commons. https://www.who.int/news/item/22-10-2020-the-world-health-organization-and-wikimedia-foundation-expand-access-to-trusted-information-about-covid-19-on-wikipedia
  5. Initiative: 
    WHO AFRO's new Africa Infodemic Response Alliance. https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-partners-other-agencies-strengthen-work-counter-covid-19-infodemic
  6. Initiative: 
    UN’s Verified initiative. https://www.shareverified.com/en
  7. Initiative: 
    UNITAR’s mobile-based course Combating the Disinfodemic: Working for truth in the time of COVID-19, drawing from UNESCO’s policy briefs on COVID-19 disinformation. https://www.edapp.com/course/disinfodemic/
6. Final Speakers

Moderator: Guy Berger, UNESCO, International Organization

Presenter: Julie Posetti, International Centre for Journalists, Academia, Western European and Others Group

Speaker 1: Tina Purnat, WHO, Intergovernmental Organization
Speaker 2: Beeban Kidron, 5Rights Foundation, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group
Speaker 3: Piotr Dmochowski-Lipski, EUTELSAT IGO, Intergovernmental Organization, Eastern European Group Speaker 4: Claire Wardle, First Draft News, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group
Speaker 5: Stephen Turner, Twitter, Private Sector, Western European and Others Group
Speaker 6: Cristina Tardáguila, International Fact-Checking Network, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session focused on a series of technical and partnership solutions to the issues of disinformation, including the perspective of an array of internet governance stakeholders. Therefore, gender issues were not explicitly mentioned in the debate. However, the session showcased gender balance, with five out of eight panelists being women.

9. Group Photo
Panel for IGF 2020 Workshop #260 "Disinfodemic: Challenges, Lessons, Opportunities"
10. Voluntary Commitment

No voluntary commitments were made during the session.


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 17/11/2020 - 14:48
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How to reconcile environmental sustainability technological innovation and ensure that these are harmoniously intertwined with human rights frameworks in order to achieve the SGDs?
  2. How can the Internet Governance community in general and the IGF in particular create spaces for cross-sectoral collaboration to accelerate the development of rights-based and environmentally sustainable Internet technologies?
  3. How can consumers, individuals, communities, and institutions be encouraged to consider the environmental impact of their own internet access and use habits?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The discussion focused on the interconnections between human rights, environment and Internet connected technologies and looked into concrete steps to achieve an effective multi-stakeholder collaborative effort to ensure human rights and sustainability by design.

 

The speakers agreed that only concerted solutions resulting from multi-stakeholder collaboration could lead to effective change and that more needs to be done to promote dialogue and shared experiences, but that spaces, such as the annual IGF and the NRIs already exist to foster this dialogue.

 

The panel reflected upon the causes that are currently hindering cross sector collaboration – since the solutions and the skills for a sustainable ICT already exist, but are scattered among the different stakeholder groups – and highlighted issues of culture, values, and priorities. In particular, they highlighted the lack of accountability and the failure to take responsibility, which leads to masking problems rather than solving them. Also stressed was the scattered and unclear information on sustainability, the lack of a concerted strategy of repairability, and the reliance on a business model that promotes rampant consumption and product obsolescence, which forces consumers to waste their existing and perfectly working products by replacing them for new ones. This scenario is leading to ever growing  demand of consumption and of e-waste generation and the use of precious natural resources that not only have a  huge negative impact on the sustainability of the planet, but also on the full enjoyment of human rights with disastrous consequences to populations affected by the scarcity of their natural resources, affected by the hazards of e-waste, or working in degrading conditions to provide the raw materials needed for the ever growing  demand of production of new technologies.

3. Key Takeaways
  • A better governance on ICT sustainability is needed. Multi-stakeholder collaboration is vital for effective solutions, and the IGF environment is perfect to foster robust networks and to promote closer collaboration among stakeholders. Effective collaboration is key to avoid siloed decisions, to promote the development of informed policy frameworks and create a space for sharing good practices that promote rights and sustainability by design.
  • Regulatory frameworks are needed to ensure sustainability, from the use of natural resources design and production to the consumption and disposal of technologies. It is vital to provide clear and accessible information to consumers of internet technologies. For example, eco-design directive already exists within the EU and a Digital Sustainability Index is in development and it will be integrated in public procurement.
  • The private sector and the technical community need to lead the way by including life cycle assessment experts in all teams and ensuring and promoting human rights and sustainability by design.
  • Civil society has an important role of contributing to change through education and raising awareness in their communities so that communities can find their voice and demand the change needed.
  • Education is a key element in promoting sustainability and informed choices. A holistic approach that takes into account planetary boundaries and fosters life cycle perspective of rather than the existing linear perspective needs to be embedded into education and promoted by both civil societies and governments. Education should not only be provided to younger generations, but also to those in positions of power.
4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The vital need of cross sector collaboration. Only a multi-stakeholder approach can bring together the expertise and solutions urgently needed to ensure environmental sustainability of internet-connected technologies.
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    In an environment of dialogue and shared knowledge, regulators need to step up to their role and to lay down informed regulatory frameworks that clearly reflect the values and priorities of society. This includes acknowledging the mood for change and to take this opportunity to help shift the paradigm alternative solutions such as the circular economy that promotes repairability, long life span of products and that rewards sustainability and discourages harmful practices, such as obsolesce.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Economic
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The private sector and the technical community need to lead the way and to show that an alternative to the current system and business model is possible. This includes taking sustainability to the workplace and working together with life cycle assessment experts to ensure sustainability by design, by taking into account the whole life cycle of products and promoting repairability and greater life spans for hardware and software.
  4. Issue and Recommendation: 
    Civil society can do more to educate and to raise awareness within their communities so that they can have a stronger voice and demand the changes needed from those in power. With the help of governments, they can promote an holistic education for sustainability in order to reconnect people to physical environment, and to promote better care and protection of the environment that they are part of. This holistic education needs to be available to everyone, from children and youth to those in positions of power.
6. Final Speakers

Weronika Koralewska, Civil Society, Poland
Alexandra Lutz, Government, European Parliament
Pia Wiche, Private Sector, EcoEd
Y. Z. Ya’u, Civil Soceity, APC / Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender was not explicitly covered, but was referenced via the adverse affects of the lack of sustainability built into the design of ICTs on the environment and human rights. All speakers, minus one, were also women.

9. Group Photo

Workshop
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 10:47
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What is the role of the different stakeholder groups, like the technical community, the users, the governments, the business, for achieving multilingualism online?
  2. What are the initiatives that can be taken to favour interoperability of different languages, in particular the less used ones?
  3. Is the production and fruition of local content in the Internet affected by the lack of support by Internet infrastructure and content providers, as well as social media, of local languages and local writing systems?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

We have addressed the issues of multilingualism in the Internet from different points of view. Points of agreement include:

  • translation is sometimes insufficient, in particular when dealing with interaction between "minor" languages;
  • social media are targeting the broader population and therefore might even amplify the problem for minorities, but the rise of local social media could better address the development and promotion of local languages and scripts;
  • favouring multilingualism on the Internet requires broad actions from different stakeholders;
  • there is still a lack of understanding about the differences between languages and writing systems;
  • multilingualism on the Internet cannot be achieved only with the implementation of technical solutions - although technical solutions are a prerequisite;
  • developing multilingual capabilities on the Internet is a huge task and requires co-ordinated efforts by multiple stakeholders.

There have been no real disagreements, but from the debate it was clear that different speakers were attaching a different priority to different aspects.

The audience has been polled about their mother tongue and related script - or writing system - and how this relates to their Internet presence. Most people are comfortable with the current situation, but the overarching question is if the IGF participants are a representative sample of the global population.

3. Key Takeaways

This issue affects primarily users, who will have limitations to their user experience and ultimately their ability to produce and access local content on the Internet - they should take the lead and put pressure on the other stakeholder groups to provide the necessary solutions and collaborate in raising awareness.

The replies to the poll show that there is confusion among the participants even about languages and scripts. This suggests that much has to be done still about raising awareness of the different aspects of multilingualism and about education of the different stakeholders.

This is a complex problem and the solution depends on multiple actions by multiple stakeholder groups, including for instance governments to promote multilingualism, social media and other platforms to support local languages and scripts, civil society to raise awareness and promote local contents.

The Governments have a special role, because they can create digital policies and also promote partnerships with the private sector to address these issues.

Actors acting globally - like International Organizations - can play a key role, also providing guidelines for local Governments.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Raise awareness and exchange experiences about problems related to lack of multilingualism on the Internet and distribute information about success stories in improving multilingualism.
    Who should take it?: 
    Civil society and governments
  2. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    EAI and IDN are important, but effort should be also on creating the conditions for developing local content in local languages and local script
    Who should take it?: 
    All stakeholder groups have a role to play, each for their competences. IGF could be the place where coordination is managed.
  3. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Education about languages and writing systems, shortcomings of translations, awareness of cultural diversity is a key issue and it is recommended that action is taken to raise awareness about these issues
    Who should take it?: 
    Mostly Governments, but all stakeholder groups should be involved and take part of the global effort. The IGF could be the place where global progress is measured and further actions are identified.
  4. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The solutions developed up to now have been partial - for instance attempting to render in ASCII non-ASCII identifiers, while the problem must be seen holistically, as a general inter-humans communication problem
    Who should take it?: 
    Civil society and academics, involving other scholars and experts like linguists. Local (regional and national) IGFs might be a better place than the Global IGF to address this issue
  5. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The issue of multilingualism on the Internet has a huge impact and is relevant to many Sustainable Development Goals, like SDG4 (Quality Education), SDG5 (Gender Equality), SDG9 (Infrastructure), SDG10 (Reduced Inequality). It is recommended that for IGF 2021 this topic be dealt as a separate thematic.
    Who should take it?: 
    IGF MAG
6. Final Speakers

John Klensin has provided an overview of the most important issues that are barriers to entry for new people or greater use - local languages, difficulties of translation, writing systems including insufficient rendering of text, difference in culture, etc.

Abdalmonem Tharwat Galila has spoken about Universal Acceptance of Internationalized Domain Names and Internationalized Email Addresses.

Maria Kolesnikova has spoken about the user experience in different contexts, in particular in relation to her experience with the ccTLDs .ru and .рф, but also in relation to social media.

Roberto Gaetano has spoken about some initiatives to promote local languages on the Internet in Latin America and Italy.

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

In the discussion about the barriers to Internet access at large mention was made to social and cultural barriers which includes denial of access to women and girl child access to technology. However, this topic has not been thoroghly discussed and the team believes that it should be part of a follow-up work - maybe for the next IGF - that could also address the different use of language that women make in certain cultures, for instance when related to the social role that they have in a stratified society.

8. Session Outputs:

Internet still being far from being a truly Inclusive platform universally and the paucity of Multiligualism is one of the many barriers to Access to Internet for hundreds of millions of people - see also the BBC article The many languages missing from the internet https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200414-the-many-lanuages-still-missing-from-the-internet.

Time may have come for not just adding scripts to the Unicode one after the other, but to consider the importance and relevance of a particular language/writing system in the global/regional scheme of things, so that further development of the language/writing system such as content building and usage can progress in a more meaningful way.

Multilingualism has an impact on SDG 4 - Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education - because the digital divide, especially amongst the poor, also has to do with not having access or sufficient access to educational material in mother toungue languages/writing systems.

Multilingualism has an impact on SDG 5 - Gender Equality - Besides the points made above under "Reflection to Gender Issues", increasing ability to communicate, create and get information in local language and script helps fighting imbalances in the society, including Gender Inequality.

Multilingualism has an impact on SDG 9 - Infrastructure - because the language is an impediment to some network expansion. See also the final report on IGF 2020 provided by Diplo Foundation: https://dig.watch/events/igf2020/final-report - Section Development, Internet Access.

The result of the poll conducted during the session are herehttps://www.mentimeter.com/s/9d61b54e9269f3140927468b44474ebf/d9e1a5852a0c

 

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

To bring together the voices of the minorities whose languages are at risk of being forgotten or that cannot appropriately produce fruition of local content on the Internet not only to the global IGF, but also for the regional and national IGFs.

To work actively in the IGF as well as in the IETF pushing multilingualism issues.

To work with or without internationalization and keeping IDN working and making them better if there are technical issues.

To focus more on contents than on the technical issues.

 


Workshop
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 10:12
ENVIRONMENT

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. 1) How do we advance sustainable and efficient computing, production, and consumption in the milieu of the 4th Industrial Revolution?
  2. 2) How can we guarantee good use of the Internet without harming the environment?
  3. 3) How can SDG's 9, 12, 11 and 13 be fostered digitally and lower the impact on environment?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Research suggests that current production models are seriously impacting the economy, environment, and the society at large. The digitalisation of the economy is no exception. Ms Ece Vural (International Relations Department Manager, Habitat Association) asked the session panellists five main policy questions which address how newer ways of computing and digital advances can improve the sustainability of current productions models and benefit society. First of all, it is important that we define the concept of sustainable computing and make society understand that there are ways to optimise and reduce the energy consumption of the existing computer infrastructure. Ms Jaewon Son (Committee Member, Korea Internet Governance Alliance) explained that Korea is increasing its investment in the economy, especially towards small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and businesses that provide online services in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr Daniel Jr Dasig (Associate Professor, De La Salle University Dasmarinas) explained that the geography of innovation continues to shift, and the sustainability of computing is an issue that affects both developed and developing countries. Mr Mohammad Atif Aleem (Regional Engagement Director for Asia Pacific Group, Youth Special Interest Group, Internet Society) clarified that sustainable consumption is about doing more and better with less. He added that information and communications technology (ICT) penetration is still a challenge in many developing countries. This is especially relevant when addressing the climate change challenge. For example, in the sub-Saharan region, there is still a lack of meteorological stations. Ms Chineyenwa Okoro Onu (Founder and Managing Director, Waste or Create Hub) stressed the importance of putting people first and equipping them with information and knowledge.

3. Key Takeaways

- How can SDGs 9, 12, 11 and 13 be fostered digitally and lower the impact on the environment
- Potential that digital technology offers in the field of production and consumption
- Role of quality education in enhancing sustainable initiatives
- Information on how gender equality can be promoted through digital ways, and in the associated SDGs for equitable distribution and representation
- Information on IsuComputing and digital advances to improve the sustainability 

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Issue of penetration of Internet in Rural areas
    Who should take it?: 
    Government, Techncal Society
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Ways to mitigate environmental constraints and lead a green lifestyle through different means, digital empowerment
6. Final Speakers

1) Ms Ece Vural (Moderator) 
2) Ms Jaewon Son
3) Mr Daniel Jr Dasig 
4) Mr Mohammad Atif Aleem
5) Ms Chineyenwa Okoro Onu

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session briefly discussed on how gender equality can be promoted through digital ways, and in the associated SDGs for equitable distribution and representation. The speakers stressed the importance of mainstreaming gender equality, especially regarding the inclusion of women in digital communication. (Social) media can be a powerful tool if used correctly, as statistics show that 73% of women have been exposed to or experienced violence online. Moreover, it is important that women can participate in digital businesses on an equal footing. In this regard, many corporations are launching gender-based opportunities.

9. Group Photo
10. Voluntary Commitment

To advance the work of sustainability across sectors in individual capacity.


Workshop
Updated: Sun, 15/11/2020 - 15:59
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. (i) how the different stakeholders perceive bots and whether they saw them as potentially having a positive influence in the imbalances caused by the phenomenon;
  2. (ii) questioned which were the best approaches to apply these tools and whether it should be different depending on the fact that misinformation originated from a malicious campaign or if it had a less intentional origin;
  3. (iii) explored whether there were any social risks associated with deploying bots to counter misinformation, whether it did not restrict speech - in essence whether people did not have a right to be wrong or say something that might be wrong.
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The members of the workshop discussed the soundness of using automated tools and bots for countering disinformation. They highlighted the potential for positive uses in enabling and empowering the work of individuals dealing with disinformation campaigns. It was noted as well their social positive impact in raising awareness and serving as media literacy tools. 

The discussion addressed as well the risks involved in deploying them. It was mentioned that these tools may limit speech and may interfere with other individual rights. 

The debate moved on to whether there should be different technical approaches to deal with spread of  misinformation (less intentional) and disinformation (with a malicious intent). The participants seemed to agree that it was less a matter of approach or technical tools and more a matter of tactics. A coordinated campaign to spread disinformation would require a higher degree of coordination from the actors trying to stop its spread or to counter its deleterious effects. 

The discussion evolved to deal with the legitimacy of deployment of such tools and participants suggested that transparency and a human-centered approach were at the heart of the matter. To finish there was a discussion whether using these tools may not run counter to other rights such as a “right to be wrong” and share views that may be considered wrong.

3. Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from the workshop related to the soundness of deploying bots to counter desinformation, the instances where these tools can be deployed, the policies to mitigate risk and under which basis and criteria to address their efficacy and legitimacy. 

The first takeaway is that bots and automated tools can play a role in fighting disinformation. They can be important innovative and compelling ways to address this multifaceted phenomenon. Their use to identify and monitor instances of disinformation tends to be the most  effective way to apply them and the less prone to risk. They present an important opportunity to concentrate resources on instances where human oversight is more crucial. When used directly to moderate speech they may involve a higher risk of limiting rights such as freedom of expression access to information. 

The deployment of any such tool should  be accompanied by efforts of transparency. Explanation of the inner workings of the tools, the criteria they follow and their effects are of significant importance.

The legitimate use of bots may depend not only on how it is used and its objective but also on the actors that are deploying them. The public administration should be held to a higher standard, deploying them only on instances where it can be justified. Social media platforms should also be held to account when implementing such tools and processes. The imbalance of power is a significant factor and raises the social risks associated with their application

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Overarching governance issues
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    The participants agreed that an ethical deployment of bots to counter disinformation is possible. Transparency in the use and explainability to the process including criteria are central for its legitimacy. As another policy recommendation, participants noted that humans should be at center of the decision-making process. Bots and automated tools have a role to play as facilitating human action as raising levels of efficiency. The availability of such tools present an opportunity, yet they are not capable of dealing with the whole fenomenon. Other low tech initiatives are important particularly for places with low and spotty connectivity. The different levels of technological availability and media and tech literacy should be taken into consideration when deciding to deploy such technologies. Moving forward, best practices and common approaches to deploying bots and automated tools should be developed. Flashing out the degree of transparency and human interaction has to be at the forefront of the discussions.
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Issue: identifying automated behaviour in social media Initiative: Pegabot (Bot Catcher), developed by the Institute for Technology and Society Details: www.pegabot.com.br (also available in Spanish)
  2. Initiative: 
    Issue: prevent mass atrocities – including the crime of genocide – through direct cooperation with at-risk and victimized groups, and through the use of new technologies. Initiative: The Sentinel Project Details: https://thesentinelproject.org/
  3. Initiative: 
    Issue: bots working to spare time from editors and refine content on Wikimedia projects Initiative: Wikimedia Foundation Details: list of bots operating on Wikimedia projects: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Toolserver:List_of_Wikimedia_bots
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Christopher Tuckwood, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Speaker 2: Debora Albu, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Speaker 3: Jenna Fung, Civil Society, Asia and Asia Pacific Group, Affiliation: Net Missions
Speaker 4: Jan Gerlach, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Moderator: Christian Perrone, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were only marginally addressed through the consideration that disinformation and hate speech affect particularly women and gender-diverse groups. Such minorities suffer from coordinated inauthentic behaviour campaigns, especially during election periods regardless of the region / country addressed. 
Besides this, there are numerous examples on how the use of artificial intelligence tools and processes discriminates on the basis of gender and race, which can pose a challenge and a threat to the deployment of such initiatives when countering disinformation.

8. Session Outputs:

There is an agreement between the group of speakers that the use of automation, bots and artificial intelligence tools to counter disinformation has to be human-centered and supervised. Also, it should be noted that this usage concentrates on the phases of identification and filtration and not on the phase of responding to disinformation - or misinformation - campaigns.


Workshop
Updated: Thu, 12/11/2020 - 10:18
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. The gender digital continues to prevail across most countries in the global South. While the cost of devices and data packs is one factor, social and cultural norms also contribute to the gap in internet use. As work is increasingly mediated by digital technologies, women are bound to lose out on economic opportunities. With increasing digital interventions in work, the skills needed to work and navigate the workplace are fast changing. How can we ensure that these developments are not exclusionary?
  2. Worker autonomy on digital platforms - both on-demand services and online work - is severely hindered because of the use of algorithmic monitoring systems. Platforms may use the language of micro-entrepreneurship and flexibility but these novel forms of monitoring control every aspect of work on the platforms - from setting wages to dictating hours and locations (for on-demand services) of work. Misclassifying workers as contractors while still exerting strong control over the terms of engagement has been a long standing issue which needs to be urgently addressed with regulations that strengthen worker protections. The ongoing pandemic has laid bare the vulnerabilities facing workers. How can we imagine social protection in the age of digital platform work? What kind of regulatory frameworks can we design to make platforms more accountable towards workers?
  3. Worker autonomy on digital platforms - both on-demand services and online work - is severely hindered because of the use of algorithmic monitoring systems. Platforms may use the language of micro-entrepreneurship and flexibility but these novel forms of monitoring control every aspect of work on the platforms - from setting wages to dictating hours and locations (for on-demand services) of work. Misclassifying workers as contractors while still exerting strong control over the terms of engagement has been a long standing issue which needs to be urgently addressed with regulations that strengthen worker protections. The ongoing pandemic has laid bare the vulnerabilities facing workers. How can we imagine social protection in the age of digital platform work? What kind of regulatory frameworks can we design to make platforms more accountable towards workers?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

The session covered issues around the access, agency, and autonomy of women workers in the platform economy. Around access, we discussed occupational segregation, with women concentrated in ‘feminine’ jobs and having reduced access to jobs that do not traditionally have women workers. We also discussed the impact of gender norms on access, which have no easy solutions.

In the discussion on agency, Sofia Scasserra discussed the challenges faced by women workers in representing themselves through traditional unions in Latin America, as more ‘feminised’ sectors get left behind. However, more and more women are joining trade unions, and have devised concrete strategies such as logging out, filing petitions around workers’ safety in court, and pushing for media attention to gain traction to workers’ issues. These strategies have led to some positive developments in Latin America, which can show the roadmap to other economies – in Argentina, there is a draft law formulated in consultation with trade unions which will pro-rate all benefits such as leaves, social security contributions from employers etc. This allows workers to gain benefits while retaining the flexibility of gig work. There is also a provision for algorithmic audits to determine gender biases, which protects women workers from automated discrimination.

In the section on autonomy, Fairuz Mullagee discussed the shift to non-standard forms of work through digital technology. The flexibility of the platform economy is also leading to fragmentation of work, and while people may be earning more than minimum wage, they are excluded from legal protections. She suggested digital tools as a pathway for transformation and improving collective bargaining. There also has to be increased accountability for platforms, including taking the responsibility for the replication of inequality through algorithms. Principles of fair work and counteracting monopolistic behaviour are some of the ways forward to achieve this.

3. Key Takeaways

During the breakout sessions, each for access, agency, and autonomy, participants shared their insights on key issues. 

Laws that protect basic labour standards and access to social protection need to be extended to platform workers. However, the law is not the only way to increase platform accountability - this can also be done through algorithm checks which will solve many issues on platforms. 

There was agreement on the fact that regulatory frameworks need to be implemented properly. Without proper implementation processes or enforcement, regulation and legal frameworks may not make a difference to empowering workers or improving conditions of work. 

Principles for fair work based on fair pay, fair contracts, fair wages, ability to collectivise, and access to grievance redressal are a good starting point to start thinking about decent work on platforms. These principles need to be talked about in greater detail among like minded groups. 

Access does not always translate to meaningful participation therefore different models of organization like self help groups should be explored. 

Digital literacy and skilling remain questions that need further exploration because existing programmes and initiatives don’t seem to factor that specific challenges that women face. 

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

The session focussed on women in the platform economy. Women tend to be overrepresented on feminised platforms like care work that tend to be less visible to both policy makers and trade unions, making them vulnerable to be left behind from unionising activities. The digital gender divide is a pressing issue and there is a risk that as work gets digitised women will continue to lose out on opportunities. We spoke about women’s access to job opportunities, inequities in working terms and wages, and the difficulty of unionising women working on platforms.


Workshop
Updated: Wed, 18/11/2020 - 20:00
INCLUSION

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. How could increased interoperability be a future-proof way to solve some of the most intractable issues of the Internet platform market?
  2. Standardisation: how could mandated interoperability standards lead to a more inclusive internet? And how do we ensure that the development of those standards is inclusive as well?
  3. If everybody can benefit from the obligation to interoperate, how do we ensure privacy and security standards in this new market?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Areas of broad agreement:
The main area of agreement was that interoperability is a proven way to increase competition and lower barriers to entry in the platforms market. Not just the panelists agreed with this, but as indicated by Dr. Ian Brown’s opening statement, many judicial and civic institutions such as European Commission, US Congress members, the UK Competition and Markets Authority, as well as several lawyer and economist association, are looking into interoperability to solve issues identified with the so called gatekeeping platforms, in areas such as social media, instant messaging, search engines and beyond.

Civil society groups have also included interoperability in their policy documents for platform regulation, as it holds the potential to increase the control of citizens over the media they consume and give them real choice when it comes to for example providers with higher privacy.

Areas needing further discussion and development:
There is still a conversation needed around the pacing of the interoperability mandates, and for which solutions it is the most useful. In addition, it will be important to always discuss the topic in the context of consumer/user privacy. It was agreed that in a European context, the GDPR lays a good foundation, but if not enforced properly, interoperability will not solve the underlying privacy issues. We also didn't have enough time to dig deep into the core internet governance issues that need to be solved, if the standards on which interoperability will be based, will be successful.

3. Key Takeaways

Interoperability is at heart of the Internet. On the layer(s) above the internet, however, interoperability has been limited by applications that use network effects to protect their dominant position. Increasing the interoperability of these layers above the already interoperabile layer, holds the potential to spur more competition, which in turn could lead to more start-ups and SMEs to enter the market in order to deliver solutions that are more user-centric.

One of the stand-out agreements between two stakeholders was the one between the SME-representative and the consumer representative. They both argued the potential of increased interoperability for their respective stakeholder groups.

In terms of ways forward, policy, legal and technical discussions need to be continued. It was agreed that around the presentation of the coming platform regulations from the European Commission this is especially true. Making sure that interoperability mandates will open up competition in the internet platform market, as it has done in earlier networked markets, these issues will have to be addressed by several stakeholders, with a broad societal perspective.

5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Digital Markets Act of the European Commission
  2. Initiative: 
    The UK Competition and Markets Authority's Market Study on Online platforms and digital advertising
6. Final Speakers

Speakers
Vittorio Bertola, Open-Xchange
Michał Woźniak, Technical Community, Eastern European Group
Ian Brown, Civil Society, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Annika Linck, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
Maryant Fernandez Perez, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

7. Reflection to Gender Issues:

Gender issues were not discussed by any speaker. The stakeholder perspective that we designed the session around did not include gender.

8. Session Outputs:

Workshop
Updated: Tue, 01/12/2020 - 01:33
TRUST

1. Key Policy Questions and related issues
  1. What can be done in terms of regional and international regulation to prevent human rights abuses against journalists in the context of digital security?
  2. Which tools and technologies exist to protect journalists from digital threats and how can these be secured through regulation? Our current export control regimes of surveillance technology fit for purpose?
  3. How can we prevent the fragmentation of the open internet into separate “splinternets”?
2. Summary of Issues Discussed

Agreement on the main needs today, order to provide journalists with digital safety:  One is technology, which provides secure information and data, for example with end-to-end encryption. The second element is digital security training. There are a lot of journalists, who are aware of threats. Third, a strong framework to protect privacy, lastly regulation, and laws prepared with the consultation with the civil society.

3. Key Takeaways

Internet is a very important part of today's and future's democracy. We have to shape it in order to not put democracy in danger. Politicians should be talking more about their existing legislation, e.g. about the legislation in European countries, which can also be exploited by regimes. What journalists are experiencing in Hong Kong, but also in Belarus and Turkey and Russia, in Brazil can be a lesson and connecting to other politicians worldwide and exchanging views in this regard. Politicians should focus on inclusive and transparent policymaking, including other stake-holders. The policy-making processes should also be discussed in an international atmosphere, in order to create international standards, to share best practices and the knowledge that has been gained in other countries. Forums such as IGF are good opportunities to start a conversation about the challenges.

4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward
  1. What policy sector(s) does this fall under? (leave blank if not sure): 
    Social-cultural
    Technical
    Issue and Recommendation: 
    Two overarching issues: -Platform regulation and the moderation of illegal content and disinformation 1)Platform regulation must promote content moderation that safeguards the right to freedom of expression, both by obliging platforms to provide better quality content moderation, and effective appeal mechanisms as well as providing targets of digital violence, such as journalists, with effective means to notify platforms of illegal content 2)Regulation on misinformation and disinformation must contain effective safeguards against political abuse, such regulation must not be instrumentalized to curtail media freedom 3)Whenever possible, platforms and online services ought to provide local representatives to respond to notifications of online abuse and digital attacks -Privacy and digital security online 1)Privacy and security ought to be thought of as complementary rather than opposing objectives; promoting encryption and privacy by design safeguards and promotes security and human rights. However, privacy technologies are increasingly questioned in current security policy discourse 2)Both journalists and citizens benefit from an increased awareness and better training in digital security; promote education and professional training in this area 3)Legislative processes in the area of security policy (e.g. data retention, encryption) should include all relevant actors, including civil society actors as well as stakeholders from the tech industry 4)Legislation should be tied to sunset clauses and evaluation processes 5)Legislation in the area of security policy and privacy should be specific, clear, and evidence-based 6)Protect journalists from undue state surveillance and promote effective oversight of intelligence services 7)The tech industry should develop and provide user-friendly as well as privacy-focussed services (privacy by design)
    Who should take it?: 
    -Policy-makers in the fields of interior and security policy, justice, and human rights -Tech industry leaders
5. Other Initiatives Addressing the Session Issues
  1. Initiative: 
    Berlin Scholarship Program: Empowering Journalists in the Digital Field organized by RSF Germany offers journalists from war zones and crisis areas the opportunity to take a break in Berlin for four months and complete a training program in digital security. The program helps journalists to develop digital skills and knowledge, which they might need for their and sources' security. The main topics of the digital security training are: -Individualized threat models for journalists -Legal standards: what rights do journalists have against government surveillance? -Technical background information: how does the internet work (including IP, DNS and email communication)? -Encryption: How to get protected against surveillance? -Anonymization -Security on social media -Commercial surveillance More information on the scholarship program can be found here: https://www.reporter-ohne-grenzen.de/en/scholarships/berlin-scholarship-program
6. Final Speakers

Speaker 1: Helena Bertho Dias, Civil Society, Latin America and Caribbean Group 
Speaker 2: