IGF 2021 Reports

IGF 2021 DC-Sustainability Internet governance and news media sustainability

DC Session
Updated: Wed, 18/05/2022 - 09:32
Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
Key Takeaways:

Journalism has a fundamental role in ensuring accountability and transparency in all areas of society. Journalism’s independence and health is prerequisite for other areas of development.

,

Trust initiatives are also about making media organisations visible. Being trusted has become a major challenge for most media outlets.

Calls to Action

The sustainability of journalism has to be a more central concern of the Internet governance policy agenda.

,

Need for engagement of both media organisations and tech companies in trust initiatives to make these solutions more scalable and inclusive.

Session Report

At the Internet Governance Forum in Katowice, Poland, GFMD’s Courtney Radsch chaired a discussion on the role of trust-building initiatives in fighting disinformation and strengthening media sustainability.

The growing recognition of journalism’s fundamental role in ensuring accountability and transparency in all areas of society and that journalism’s independence and health is prerequisite for other areas of development, is – not before time – leading to the sustainability of journalism becoming a more central concern of the Internet governance policy agenda.

One of the drivers of this change in perspective is the Dynamic Coalition on the Sustainability of Journalism and News Media which hosted a panel discussion on 9 December at the 2021 Internet Governance Forum in Katowice, Poland. The “DC-Sustainability” – launched in 2019 – is an official dynamic coalition of the IGF and provides opportunities for coalition building around how to inform the broader debate over how to ensure news media sustainability in the digital age.

Chaired in-person by Dr Courtney Radsch, GFMD’s Tech Policy Advisor, and online by Daniel O’Maley of CIMA, the panel brought together members of the coalition to discuss the progress, effectiveness and interoperability of some of the leading journalism trust initiatives.

 

Ads for News

Jason Lambert, Senior Director of Media Business at Internews, explained that Ads for News was created in response to a crisis of trust between advertisers, news publishers and platforms.

“Back in 2017 many of the world’s largest brands pulled their advertising from the big platforms after finding their ads were being placed next to extremist content or web pages.”

This wake-up call for the news industry was the catalyst for the formation of the United for News Coalition that develops and maintains an inclusion list of 8,000 trusted news media in 30 countries that is available for free to media buyers. Being trusted has become a major challenge for most media outlets. Being proactive and engaging in Ads for News and other similar initiatives, Lambert said, can help build trust not just with audiences and advertisers but also inside the media ecosystem, such as identifying who to collaborate with for cross border investigative stories.

 

Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI)

The Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) aims at a healthier information space. It is developing and implementing indicators for the trustworthiness of journalism and thus, promotes and rewards compliance with professional norms and ethics. The JTI was originally launched and is now operated by Reporters Without Borders (RSF). The Head of the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) Olaf Steenfadt, RSF explained that among the ingredients to make the Journalism Trust Initiative work Olaf Steenfadt are:

  • Scalability
  • Machine readability
  • Enabling environment of regulation and co-regulation

Steenfadt described JTI as an example of “Middleware” – a middle layer of different tools and instruments between big tech and consumers which offer a choice and empower the users – a term coined by Francis Fukuyama and others in a 2020 article for Foreign Affairs: How to Save Democracy From Technology.

Fukuyama and his co-authors postulated that if efforts to break up the monopolies of big tech, search and social media fail, an alternative could be to create a middle layer of different tools and instruments and plugins, between big tech and to the consumer. These tools, Steenfadt said, have the potential to create pluralism and empower users by offering choice even if we still have to live with monopolies in certain areas.

 

The other side of disinformation: the sociology of information consumption.

Platforms and algorithms are only the technological side of the problem, we also have to consider the human aspects of information consumption – how people consume information and why.

Claire Wardle, US Director of First Draft News, told even that “the real challenge that everybody is trying to solve here is this idea of heuristics”, a mental shortcut that allows people to solve problems and make judgments quickly and efficiently.

“When we’re scrolling everything online looks similar. So our brains are looking for these cues to try and make sense of it. So enabling people to understand through a visual cue that this is a trustworthy organisation is important”.

To understand the sociology behind disinformation, Wardle argued, it is also crucial to understand the participatory and dynamic nature of the information ecosystem where “consumers have choices and can “seek out and consume information that reinforces their worldview”.

Wardle challenged those that work countering disinformation to consider how we can “learn from the disinformation ecosystem where people feel heard and feel they have agency?”

“It doesn’t matter how many credibility indicators we have, if we don’t fundamentally understand that relationship that audiences want to have with their information providers.”

 

“Glocal” Trust: how can we create scalable solutions?

What about scalable solutions for developing countries? They are less connected, have fewer news sources and can’t compete in the engagement algorithms because their audiences sometimes are too small. And, last but not least, how does this work in other non-western character languages?

Speakers noted that it is crucial to decipher the markets and to understand the local context. Testing of instruments to implement could also be quite useful as it helps to detect flaws, address them, upskill the staff and come out of this process more experienced. The linguistic aspect is also related to our ability to listen to what’s going on in the field.

“Most trust initiatives have been built in US or Western Europe. We need more research, more understanding, more partnerships with people on the ground. Existence of different media ecosystems – not an easy way of describing them. Funding research to answer what does credibility look like in Thailand? What does it look like in Malawi?, because without that, without a true understanding, we’re not going to be able to scale at all, we’re going to scale with some really problematic unintended consequences that we’ve seen the platform’s do. So I think we have to learn from the mistakes they’ve made. We can’t scale similarly, unless we have a true understanding of what’s happening on the ground.” Claire Wardle, US Director, First Draft News.

Claire Wardle acknowledged the importance of an organisation like UNESCO which not only has a global view, but also the ability to connect with partners on the ground. For her, this “hybrid approach […] has to be the key to this to make it sustainable, and again, prevent the unintended consequences.”

 

Transparency of Internet companies

This year, information as a public good became the main topic of World Press Freedom Day.

“In the Windhoek+30 declaration that just two weeks ago was endorsed by all the 193 member states of UNESCO, the issue of media viability was at the very centre of this idea that information is a public good, but connected with another element that is very much related to the main topic of the session. We can’t move forward without more transparency of the internet companies, and particularly the social media companies”, said Guilherme Canela De Souza Godoi, Chief of Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists Section at UNESCO.

According to him, currently, UNESCO is working on a broader strategy that started with the International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC). IPDC handbook that is going to be launched next year in January will contain useful practices from various countries. It will also highlight some trends that are common for all those countries. For instance:

  • The way the algorithms of the major social media platforms are calibrated: they don’t help people find the news they want to find in local independent media, because their news feed receives specific indications that the algorithms want them to see.
  • It’s very difficult for small or medium-sized independent media to interact directly with the social media giants. So one of the things they are precisely asking is for more media alliances around those issues.

 

Where do we go from here and what’s next?

Dan O’Maley, Co-chair DC-Sustainability and Center for International Media Assistance concluded that the main common goal is democratic accountability, inclusivity and visibility of organisations. “The other takeaway is figuring out how to make news information, ecosystems, financially viable is really about our societies, and what kind of societies we want to live in”, he summed up.

IGF 2021 WS #200 Security of digital products – A coordinated approach

Workshop
Updated: Thu, 10/03/2022 - 16:07
Trust, Security, Stability
Key Takeaways:

Building blocks exist. Industry has good practices, certain standards are globally recognised, global norms and principles (like the UN GGE and OEWG) call for states to focus on security of supply chain and reducing vulnerabilities, and regulatory instruments – like labelling and certification schemes – are emerging. There is a need to find a way to ensure all stakeholders are aware of these building blocks, and base their work on them.

,

Importantly, there are many ongoing initiatives and fora that address challenges of security of digital products, and gather actors together: Geneva Dialogue on Responsible Behaviour in Cyberspace; OECD’s Working Party on Security in the Digital Economy; Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace; Charter of Trust; Cybersecurity Tech Accord; IGF Dynamic Coalition and Best Practices Forum; ISO, ITU and other standardisation organisations.

Calls to Action

Broaden the dialogue of industries with standardisation organizations and regulators in the field of security of digital products. Geneva Dialogue and the IGF can play an important role in this regard.

Session Report

 

The exploitation of vulnerabilities in digital products is an essential component of cyberattacks. Several multilateral and multistakeholder forums develop norms and principles to reduce such vulnerabilities. Standard-setting organisations cope with developing new standards, while national regulators propose baseline requirements and certification and labelling schemes. The Geneva Dialogue on Responsible Behaviour in Cyberspace project (Geneva Dialogue) brings together global companies to develop a set of good corporate practices that translate high-level principles into day-to-day operations. The session, moderated by Mr Vladimir Radunović, was built on the workshop on the security of digital products organised by the Geneva Dialogue at the IGF 2020 and its ongoing work in this field.

The Geneva Dialogue initiative was introduced briefly by Mr Benedikt Wechsler (Head of Division for Digitalisation, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) of Switzerland) who explained that its purpose is to build a bridge between the principles and the practical level by applying a bottom-up approach. This approach brings together the private sector, the regulators, the information technology (IT) community, and the civil sector. Its main strength is its ability to be practical and non-ideological and to develop actionable principles for the security of digital products.

Mr Lexey Kuznetsov (Head of Security Analysis, BI.ZONE) elaborated on the magnitude of the problem derived from the security of digital products today. There is an increase in the number of attacks and vulnerabilities these days, especially since IT infrastructure is becoming more code-based. As codes become more complex (with digital products ending up as part of the critical infrastructure) and developers don’t have enough security knowledge, there is a need to improve transparency and apply a more responsible approach to digital products.

From the perspective of policy and regulation, digital products constitute a new field of governance and regulation. Ms Nele Achten (Senior Researcher for Cyber Security and Foreign Policy, ETHZ Center for Security Studies) presented her research on the topic noting that the term digital products is not used in regulatory instruments or guidelines on the operational level. Furthermore, her analysis revealed that the industry is not against mandatory security requirements, but there is a need for better transnational recognition of certifications. This raises two questions: Which actors are capable of advancing policies of digital products security on an international level? Can we develop policies applicable for all types of digital products?

Mr Edwin Sin (Singapore Cybersecurity Authority) provided a possible answer to some of Achten’s questions by presenting the Singapore CLS initiative. The CLS demonstrates how stakeholders can collaborate (in this case, the regulator and the private sector) in creating labels for securing digital products. Furthermore, the collaboration between Singapore and Finland in recognising each other’s labels demonstrates that states can collaborate and bridge the gap on a more international level.

Work by the Paris Call provides another example of a multistakeholder initiative dealing with ICT supply chain security. Ms Anastasiya Kazakova (Senior Public Affairs Manager, Kaspersky) presented the project in brief. The objective of the work is to shed light on the implementation of the existing OECD recommendations on the topic and share practical, actionable steps stakeholder groups can take for stronger ICT supply chain security. The main conclusion is that all actors have a role to play towards stronger ICT supply chain security. She explicitly highlighted the need to create incentives for security-focused behaviour on both the supply and demand side, enhancing ICT supply chain transparency by the public and private sector, and ensuring harmonisation across emerging national regulatory and industry approaches.

The topic of harmonisation was echoed in the discussion that followed around the issue of standardisation organisations and regulators and the need to incorporate them in the talks.

IGF 2021 DCAD Challenges & Opportunities for PWDs in a Post Covid World

DC Session
Updated: Tue, 01/03/2022 - 18:40
Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
Key Takeaways:

The need for meaningful of involvement of person with disabilities at all levels of IT organisations
The need for PWD to be involved in planning, implementation and evaluation of IT projects to assure accessibility.
The need for accessibility measures to be developed and implemented in countries outside of the Global North and in non English-speaking cultures

,

The need for digital accessibility to be recognised as a fundamental right and a necessity, regardless of the experience of individuals who may or may not be directly impacted
Speakers and participants recognised that existing digital accessibility barriers have been exacerbated by the increased reliance on online technologies during and post Covid.

Calls to Action

Work with IGF and other stakeholders, Dynamic Coalitions, Best Practice Forums and Policy Networks on web and content accessibility as well as accessibility issues with PowerPoint, documents and other tools The national coordinators to add in their advertisement for their National/ Regional/ Youth events the accessibility features that they plan to have in place and secondly, to add this feature to their IGF reports. Ensure that all sites and d

,

Call for the IGF and related entities to recognise and abide by the UN Disability Inclusion Strategy as recommended in its 2021 report. This includes: Embedding disability inclusion in strategic plans and establishing institutional ownership. Building the knowledge and capacities of staff on disability inclusion. Improving physical and digital accessibility. Supporting meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and

Session Report

DCAD Challenges & Opportunities for PWDs in a Post Covid World

Rapport IGF 2021

Moderator: Judith Hellerstein

Rapporteur: Peter Crosbie

Judith Introduced the session, the role of DCAD and the speakers.

Gunela Asbrink spoke of the need for accessibility to be included from the ground up, that people with disabilities need to be included at all levels of organisations, including leadership where a disability champion at senior levels makes a real difference. Gunela reinforced that it essential that  websites and documents are accessible and that staff understand accessibility requirements. She referenced the UN Disability Inclusion Strategy which discusses embedding disability inclusion and plans, establishing institutional ownership, building the knowledge and capacities of staff of disability inclusion, improving digital accessibility, and supporting the meaningful participation of persons with disabilities and their representative organisations.

Gunela also spoke of her experience on the MAG and of her recommendations. Firstly, there should be a comprehensive accessibility evaluation of the IGF website and possible remediation based on that evaluation and that evaluation should be undertaken by persons with disabilities. Secondly, of the need for training for members of the IGF community in making web content accessible to ensure that accessible websites and documents remain accessible. And thirdly new online tools need to be developed by companies that have documented experience in accessibility and are staffed by people with disabilities in order to test the tools. This requirement could be part of procurement documentation. There are already guidelines that could be used as a reference, such as section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act, and the European standard for ICT products and services (EN 301 549).

Muhammad Shabbir also spoke of the need for people with disabilities to be included in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of all digital projects. In the context of IGF, he pointed out that while accessibility and participation have been improved at the national level for some countries, there are still many countries, particularly in Asia and Latin America, where it is lacking. He spoke of the workaround accessibility that has been undertaken by the United Nations, ICANN, and similar organisations, but commented that this work needs to be structured from bottom-to-top and top-to-bottom and applied at all policy and implementation levels. He gave the example of the Internet Society, where he has become the first elected member of the board of trustees of the Internet Society to have any lived experience of disability in spite of the fact that ISOC has a number of accessibility programs and initiatives for PWD. In other words, while ventures are starting to be put in place, what’s lacking in Internet governance discussions is the actual participation of people with disabilities.

Muhammad then made the observation that there tends to be less participation of PWD in discussions on Internet Governance. Regardless of the reasons, people with lived experiences of disability need to be proactive and included in these discussions.

Finally, Muhammad reinforced the need for PWD to be included at the leadership level and repeated Gunela’s point for the need for a disability champion. He pointed out that while the Secretary-General started an inclusion initiative in 2019, there is no one with a disability on that panel.

Muhammad concluded by reinforcing the need for digital accessibility for people with disabilities, pointing out that whether a disability is temporary or permanent, many of us will at some stage need accessibility requirements. We can ensure that these requirements are put in place if there is a will and desire to do so.

Lidia Best also reinforced the need for PWD in leadership, and spoke of the need for a greater understanding of disability needs, especially in digital and online meetings. She commented that in Poland and other countries there’s still a lack of accessibility and lack of understanding of the need for additional support such as assistive listening devices and captioning. Improving this situation, even at a basic level, still faces resistance. Lidia gave the example of public announcements regarding Covid, where live captioning was not provided.

Lidia also spoke of how this lack of accessibility has an impact on those who speak minority languages where available access technology and approaches are not always implemented, which means that these populations are excluded from participation. She highlighted that even though the IGF conference was held in Poland, captioning was only available in English, excluding many disabled Polish speakers. This lack of support for speakers of minority languages extends to published material. For example, while there are guidelines on accessible meetings, these are often only available in English or the majority languages.

Judy Okite addressed difficulties that arise within the disability community itself, where there can be a lack of understanding of accessibility in a broader sense. This can extend to a lack of support for accessibility measures that are outside of those that a particular individual or group requires, and through that, to a lack of consensus. Judy spoke of the difficulty of bringing people outside of the disability community on board when the disability community itself is fragmented on just what accessibility means. Judy concluded by highlighting the need for advocating for accessibility on a local and regional level, not just at a national level.

In follow-up discussions, Muhammad Shabbir spoke of his work with the Internet Society (ISOC) where he is a member of the board, and where he has been focusing on raising awareness around the need for accessibility. This has involved working to overcome an inbuilt organisational cultural mindset that tends to see accessibility as an optional added extra rather than a fundamental necessity, He highlighted the success he has had in ensuring that ISOC board meetings are now captioned.

Peter Crosbie highlighted the importance of including accessibility measures for people with cognitive disabilities, especially in a post-Covid world where there has been an increase in online and virtual meetings, classes, and presentations. He also highlighted that there are more children with cognitive disabilities than all other disabilities combined and that these children are being disproportionately excluded through a failure to adequately apply digital and online accessibility measures.

The Bangladeshi chapter also highlighted difficulties with accessing health and education services when online and digital accessibility measures are not implemented, which is resulting in people not being able to access these services.

In winding up, Judith Hellerstein also pointed out the importance of Chat in online discussions for people with disabilities, and the necessity for it to be included in official records and transcriptions.

IGF 2021 DC-SIG Rising to current challenges facing Schools of IG

DC Session
Updated: Tue, 15/02/2022 - 23:20
Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
Key Takeaways:

With many Schools on Internet Governance (SIG) emerged globally within 15 years it is clear that not one size fits all. Albeit we share the same vision, the regional challenges are manyfold and have to be addressed. The cooperation with the IGF Secretariat should serve to promote the SIGs, provide information for fellows, faculty and organisers interested in any SIG and be active to connect SIG organisers.

,

Looking forward: 1. Address both the technical layer and the policy layer of Internet Governance. 2. Establish a SIG library, an archive, populate the wiki on www.ig-shools.net 3. Streamline capacity building globally, specific coursed on certain issues, focused outreach to special target groups

Calls to Action

1. Find a way to connect schools of IG to the various governmental calls for capacity building.

,

2. Find a way to extend reach of IG schools to local needs for IG understanding and participation.

Session Report

Report on DC SIG meeting - IGF 2021                                                         

Session Description can be found at: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-dc-sig-rising-to-curren…

Slides can be found at: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/content/igf-2021-dc-sig-rising-to-current-challenges-facing-schools-of-ig

The session was held on Thursday, 9th December, 2021 at the Katowice IGF meeting. The meeting was held in a hybrid manner with a dozen or more in room participants and an equal number of remote participants. The contributions between the online and in person participants was well balanced. Gender, stakeholder designation, and geographical distribution also appeared to be well distributed. The meeting was chaired by Avri Doria, coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition.

The first part of the meeting was dedicated to presentations by several existing schools of internet governance including: the North American School, the Virtual School, The African School, Ghana School, the South School, the Argentina School, the Russian School, the Nigerian School, the Asia Pacific School, the India School, the Armenia School, the Pakistan SChool, and the European School.  Each of the schools not only discussed their origins and programs but discussed how they had dealt with putting on a school during a year when concerns about Covid predominated. The group also heard from several schools that are in the process of formation or have just held their first sessions: by the Free Moscow University, an initiative in Chad, which had its first session in 2021, a first year of a Central Africa school in Cameroon, and a school in Somalia. Comments were made during the discussions on the importance of these Schools of Internet Governance in the continuing spread of information on the issues that are gripping the world in terms of internet usage around the world, locally, regionally, and internationally. There was also a recognition of the number of youth leaders in internet governance that emerge from these schools; young leaders who are frequently seen among the active participants of many organizations. The various schools have done a good job of educating those who are interested in furthering the multistakeholder discussions of internet governance.

The second item on the agenda was a recap of the year's activities in the Dynamic Coalition. Basic activities included continuing work on the DC’s web site, where information about schools and curricula can be posted by the participating schools, and continued work on the two living documents that the DC maintains; one a toolkit on how to start a school and one a document, still in its early stage of development, on operational advice on running a school. Additionally, a program was run where interviews were done by Glen McKnight with the founders and organizers of many of the existing schools. These interviews can be found at: https://www.igschools.net/sig/sig/video-interviews/. The group discussed some of the challenges that were brought up in these interviews.

The third item on the agenda involved planning for 2022. Each year, the DC tries to chart its plan of activities for the following year. The first item to be discussed was an initiative by the IGF Secretariat to work with the DC on Internet Governance schools and its  members, as well as with the broader community, to design a global Internet Governance syllabus. Farzaneh Badiei, the consultant hired by the IGF Secretariat for the task spoke to the group about her plans for the project. 
In the discussion of future project, some of the suggestions for 2022 include:

   * There was a discussion of what collaboration would be possible with the IGF Secretariat project to design a syllabus. While the consultants plans to collaborate in producing a version of such a curriculum, it was unclear to what extent the IGF Secretariat project included participation by the DC in the long run.
   * There was discussion on  ideas for collaboration among schools  This include both linkages among the fellows and the faculty from the schools, not only those from the same school but also the possibility of communication among the schools.. Some of the current methods of communication, such as email list and social media, were discussed.
   * There are plans to update current SIG documents. The Toolkit needs to be updated each year so that it does not become stake. Additionally there are sections of that document that need further work. In terms of the Operations Guide, it is currently an annotated outline of the issues an organizer needs to deal with. The Guide needs further work, the kind of work that can only be done by volunteers who have the experience establish a program that focuses on methods for obtaining sustainable funding for schools of Internet Governance. A near universal problem that schools have is finding adequate funding for schools, faculty, and support of the fellows. 
   * There was a discussion of establishing schools that paid special attention to the issues within countries. Most schools have focused on the international and regional scope of governance issues. More programs are needed that look at the issues in terms of their national and local effect. The idea was presented of producing curricula and support for specialized schools for parliamentarians and legislators..

These items will be discussed in the meetings during 2022, and volunteers will be sought for the various tasks involved.

The final item was a presentation by Wolfgang Kleinwachter, the founder of the first School on Internet Governance, the European Summer School of Internet Governance. His remarks are included in full:

Thank you, Avri.  Thank you very much.  I'm really fascinated, you know, how this idea which came out of the early days of the Information Society was 15 years ago has evolved over the 15 years, and we have now this wonderful network of national and regional and global Schools of Internet Governance. 

On Monday, in the Day 0 event, I met again virtually Francois from Singapore, because he, like Avri, was a member of the WGIG and was with the President of the International Information Society and I was with the International Association for media and communication research NGOs and UNESCO.  And we organized a meeting, like the Day 0 meeting on the eve of the World Congress of the ICE, in a small village where we said, what can we do now with this agenda as academic persons? 

So, two ideas came out.  One was the Giganet and the other one was the concept of the summer school.  And the concept of a summer school was driven by two basic ideas.  One basic idea was that Internet Governance is a multidisciplinary phenomenon.  And normally, universities and academic institutions are organized around disciplines.  You can study law, business, infomatics, political science.  But Internet Governance goes across a lot of disciplines.  And so far, we had to invent something new and an interdisciplinary course. 

And the second thing was, it's not enough to have academic teachers.  So, it's learning in a multi‑stakeholder environment.  You have to understand your role of technical people who manage this.  You have to see the business perspectives, you have to see what are the users' perspectives, and you have to understand the role of government.  So, these two basic ideas, the multidisciplinary and the multi‑stakeholder approach, where the starting point for the pilot project, which we did 15 years ago, and I'm very happy to see that, you know, more or less now more than 20 schools have taken this concept and have further developed. 
So, I remember in 2008, '09, '10, we discussed, why not take a global academy?  But then we rejected this idea and established the Dynamic Coalition.  And I think this was a very wise decision, because this Dynamic Coalition gives you a lot of flexibility, because you have different local needs and you have different experience of different models, you know, how to design a special school in your country, in your region. 

So, the beauty of the whole process now, which has started 15 years ago, is also the pluralism, the diversity and the different models that have emerged.  So, I think this is very good because we can learn from different models and can be inspired. 

And I'm in particular thankful for Avri, which has collected all of the experience and channeled this now via her leadership as [Coordinator] of the Dynamic Coalition.  I'm also thankful to Rainer, because he is the good ghost behind the managing of this network.  And I'm also, in particular, thankful to all the sponsors for the various schools, because this is really a community effort.  So, we have not a state budget or other big budgets.  Each school has to find its own way.  And with engagement of many units from the Technical Community, from the private sector and other organizations, in particular, the various constituencies, ISOC and in particular ICANN.  I think this is extremely helpful. 

So, I'm looking forward.  I would see three issues which could be further discussed.  I think it's very good that Farzaneh is now on board and will help streamline work plan for the years ahead of us.  This is also a conclusion from the debates we had now in the IGF, is that I see a low level of understanding of many new stakeholders on the differences between public policy issues and the technical issues.  So, I think to understand that this is a layered system, that the governance of the internet on the technical layer has to be different from the governance model on the public policy layer.  I think this is an important thing that has to be delivered also by our schools.  And as somebody has said, you know, this is a moving target, to substance and curriculum of the summer schools has to evolve according to the special needs.  And 2022 is different from 2012 or even earlier. 

What I would also see is an opportunity to establish something like a SIG library.  So, we have now seen a lot of documents which came out, you know, the great video series published by Glenn McKnight.  But this is still unorganized, I think to have something like a SIG library, where we have online materials, in printed form, or can be downloaded as PDFs or videos.  I think this would be a very good step forward. 

And then, the third and final point is, we have to look at, you know, what is going on in the more broader environment.  What I see now as a new beginning is the decision by the General Assembly of the United Nations for the establishment of an open‑ended Working Group for cybersecurity where capacity‑building is a high priority.  So, they have a five‑year plan now for capacity‑building in cybersecurity.  And certainly, we can make a contribution to this. 

And this is also then related to how we focus our activities, so in two directions, whether we develop curriculum for special issues, like cybersecurity, digital economy, human rights, or what else, and then how we have to right target the Fellows.  So, the capacity‑building processes are merely for diplomats.  But what the lady from Tanzania said, we could also develop a special course for parliamentarians.  Because they are the lawmakers, and they have to understand what's going on, then, to make the right laws.  So that means there are two lanes for further development for specific causes on specific issues which are pressing now and on the global agenda, also powers the Global Digital Compact, which is proposed by the UN Secretary‑General, and then special targets, diplomats, structures, parliamentarians, and also young people. 

You know, our model, learning in a multi‑stakeholder environment, so we want to have a right mix so that people can learn from each other.  This is good.  But on the other hand, if you want to go to a high level, you need specialized courses, and probably this is the next step in a process, you know, which, hopefully, will bring us forward to the 2030 when we have the final day for the Sustainable Development Goals, because capacity‑building, learning, education is one of the key aspects of the SDGs. 

And I was just saying thank you very much and I hope we can find good successes in the future.  Thank you.
 
The meeting was then adjourned.
This file: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GJ2m1dlOYmf_xwm_8gQJGfQ1lteyFJ6UzBK…;

IGF 2021 Main Session Trust matters: exploring ways for building a safe and secure cyberspace

Main Session
Updated: Mon, 07/02/2022 - 18:49
Trust, Security, Stability
Session Report

 

Key messages from the session

Cybersecurity norms must be implemented. This must be done in a way that follows the lines of multi-stakeholder involvement, and in a way that protects the decentralised model that has ensured several decades of innovation on the Internet. Cybersecurity norms must be implemented and translated into Security by Design. In Europe, several initiatives, including NIS 2, aim at reaching this goal.

There is agreement between participants that CERTs and law enforcement authorities must improve cooperation, which should not be limited to information sharing. It should also include capacity building and joint operations. This must be done in a way that respects human rights. Therefore, new agreements should focus on cooperation, not on shifting definitions that may criminalise the exercise of fundamental rights like freedom of expression. Targeted surveillance of activists and politicians, including heads of state, should be addressed. They constitute a fundamental threat to global security.

With regards to effective implementation of cybersecurity norms, participants insisted on the need to improve mechanisms for responsibility, liability and attribution. There should be a focus on who benefits from cybercrime, including online hate and including the growing number of ransomware attacks which have targeted hospitals during the Covid crisis. States should take responsibility for cybercrime originating from their territory, even when victims are abroad. The IGF was mentioned by several participants as an appropriate forum to engage with all stakeholders, including lawmakers. Young people and people from developing countries must be represented, as they are a critical part of regulating the online space so that it works for them.

Agreement should be reached on investing in cybersecurity research, including in agreeing on a framework for responsible vulnerability disclosure. Some participants discussed the topic of zero-day hoarding and the necessity to regulate zero-day disclosures, enhance transparency on this topic, and implement export controls on surveillance tools in line with the Wassemaar Agreement.

Funding is another topic that was mentioned. This topic is especially sensitive for developing countries where governments may not have the resources to commit sufficient resources to combat cybercrime.

Finally, the matter of support provided to victims was raised by several participants.

Calls to action:

  • Improve work on responsibility, liability and attribution and provide support for victims in the shaping of cybersecurity norms in a way that respects human rights
  • Ensure effective implementation of cybersecurity norms through Security by Design, achieved through cooperation and multi-stakeholder dialogue, in line with the core basic principles such as openness and decentralisation that have made the success of the Internet

 

 

 

 

 

 

IGF 2021 Main Session: How Can We Achieve a Multilingual Internet?

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:54
Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
Session Report

 

Two Key Takeaways:

Multilingualism is a foundational component of Internet inclusivity.

Development of local language content and the widespread adoption of Universal Acceptance are key to creating a truly multilingual Internet - a driver of peace.

One Call to Action:

All stakeholders should promote policies that support the development of local language content and the adoption of Universal Acceptance.  Governments in particular can drive multilingualism on the Internet by incorporating these policies in their procurement contracts.

 

 

 

 

 

IGF 2021 Main Session: The impact of environment data on sustainability and internet governance

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:54
Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change
Session Report

 

Key Takeaway 1

The key takeaways from this session are:

  • Promoting capacity building especially within the Global South to minimize climate change impact as and accelerate adaptation
  • Collection and sharing of environmental data openly across communities, and particularly impactful when modern technology is coupled with indigenous knowledge and methodologies.
  • Necessity of considering and involving the population who are most impacted by the depletion of resources, pollution and the destruction of ecosystems.
  • Taking local experiences and knowledge particularly from the Global South instability into consideration during the policy writing since it will only be possible to realize the SDGs and the UN23 agenda as well as foster environmental accessibility by bringing the diverse local experiences and knowledge to the forefront.

Key Takeaway 2

Other takeaways from this session are:

  • IGF can contribute to the building of understanding of co-shared responsibility of diverse stakeholders as IGF embrace human rights and environmental justice multiple intersections.
  • New technology systems make it possible to access information target at the broadly understood public.
  • New system of environmental data collection can be set up to facilitate operation of diff. public entities.
  • Policies could be adopted based on data, and indicators used to monitor environmental protection action

Call to Action 1 

  • Bringing local experiences from global South to forefront
  • Focusing on environmental impact assessments, digital literacy for environmental data, and committing to building sustainable digital infrastructure.

Call to Action 2 

  • Having an inclusive approach to achieve a sustainable development
  • Building a research community around the issue

 

 

 

 

IGF 2021 Main Session Regulation and the open, interoperable, and interconnected Internet - challenges and approaches

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:53
Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
Session Report

 

Key Takeaway 1

Interoperability is key for everything that happens on the Internet and is key to enable data flows. We need rules and regulations that work, uniform and are globally interoperable as possible

Key Takeaway 2

We need to make sure all countries, communities are part of the conversation - access to Internet for all is starting point, to make sure we take everyone along on the road toward universal solutions. We should work on piloting, trying out approaches, perhaps regulatory and policy sandboxes. Corporate responsibility should also involve the responsible use of data, just like companies mind their CO2 emissions, they should mind good governance policies for data

Call to Action 1

Wise and balanced approach to regulation with the interests of all the stakeholders taken into account is needed

Call to Action 2

We need to keep sharing the best practices of formal and informal policies and continue discussing the new approaches during the next IGFs.

 

 

 

 

 

IGF 2021 Main Session: Digital Cooperation- Quo vadis?

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:53
Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
Session Report

 

Key Takeaway 1

The perception on whether the Roadmap has been succeeding in fostering and consolidating cooperation and promoting a less fragmented more holistic approach was very divers, ranging from a clear no to partly yes, successful, in particular for making the cooperation within the UN more coherent. It is expected from the "Global Digital Compact", as proposed in the Secretary-General’s Common Agenda, that it will not be the breakthrough. However, due to lack of alternatives it remains imperative to support und further engage in the efforts by the UN SG.

Key Takeaway 2

More digital cooperation will happen when the world's major powers are ready cooperate, as it is widely appreciated that the applications of the Internet have simultaneously given rise to powerful, collaborative capabilities such as the development of a response to the global COVID-19 pandemic and also to opportunity for harmful, cross-border behaviors.  Yet, "ready to cooperate” means to stop engaging in intrusive forms of cyber espionage, ready to stop seeing trade in ICT as a national security threat, ready to stop building walls around their digital economies and their citizens access to information.

Key Takeaway 3

The IGF is not and never will be a policy making body. It is an open forum where stakeholders of all types can meet in equal status. It affects policy indirectly by bringing networks of influencers together where they come to trust each other, learn from each other, and possibly go off and do something together. Cooperation requires trust and familiarity, and IGF can help build that.

Call to Action 1

To adapt to the future, the IGF has to boldly embrace the real policy controversies that face the Internet. This means that the MAG needs to be strengthened. Separate tracks that are run by the Secretariat and not from the bottom up need to be eliminated. The people on the MAG should be people with real ideas about what issues are important, not people selected because they conform to some category token. And those issues should be truly global internet governance issues.

Call to Action 2

To cope with a global system, one must apply global methods and thus the call for digital cooperation extends to law enforcement and the apprehension of criminals. There was recently some very effective cooperation among national and international law enforcement agencies and the private sector in aid of such work, such as tracking down and apprehending ransomware. This needs to be extended and continued.

 

 

 

 

IGF 2021 Main Session BPF Cybersecurity

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:53
Trust, Security, Stability
Key Takeaways:
The work of the BPF is unique and illustrates the value of multistakeholder engagement, particularly the roles of different stakeholders in socialising norms, supporting their implementation through specific, concrete analysis and ensuring that implementation is evidence-based and informed by their impact on humans.
Calls to Action
Discussion with the multistakeholder community at the BPF’s most recent session during IGF 2021 also made it clear that some progress is being made on norm implementation but that much more need to be done. , The discussions at the BPF session made clear that the only way to ensure implementation of norms in a way that would benefit all stakeholders and contribute to more effective implementation is to broaden cyber norms development and implementation beyond high-level forums, engage victims, first responders, and frontline defenders, and be based on the research and analysis which include these communities.
IGF 2021 Main Session BPF Gender and Digital Rights

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:53
Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
Key Takeaways:
Gender and disinformation has an impact on the participation of women in public spaces. The experience of gender and disinformation or witnessing it happen to others has a chilling effect for their participation online. It hinders the political equity of groups. Action: There is a need to engage all political players, in particular political parties as well in understanding the impacting of gender and disinformation in reaching political equity, The multistakeholder process provides a mechanism where solutions beyond legislation and regulation maybe developed. It would also see stakeholders recommending solutions based on their role in the digital ecosystem
Calls to Action
The multistakeholder process provides a mechanism where solutions beyond legislation and regulation maybe developed. It would also see stakeholders recommending solutions based on their role in the digital ecosystem, Action item what would be the best practice that we can develop that would see it being adapted and contextualised by governments. It is important to use the UN forum to actually have stakeholders commit to an intervention.
Session Report
IGF 2021 Main Session: The good, the bad and the ugly of the Internet in times of crises

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:52
Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
Key Takeaways:
Whatever the country, the reality is almost the same during a pandemic.
Calls to Action
At the end of this session, the NRIs shared their experience and wished that their work would be more taken into consideration.
Session Report

The discussion focused on the good, the bad, and the ugly internet experiences of various communities during COVID-19 via NRIs experiences. 

For the good, in most countries, the NRIs testified that during this period, many innovations appeared: 

  • solutions for e-commerce
  • end-user privacy awareness
  • Increasing of e-learning platforms
  •  digitization of several public services
  • the increase of users' online presence
  • e-health solutions
  • cooperation on ID for vaccinated people, open source efforts, national countries, track illness and great achievement

For the bad, several challenges have emerged: 

  • unequal access to the Internet
  • poor connectivity in some countries
  • the marginalization of rural and marginalized communities
  • limited access in some rural areas resulting in low economic indices 

The ugly side of the Internet in this times 

  • Scam incrase 
  • censorship
  • surveillance of citizens
  • violation of human rights
  • Technological pressure on developing countries
  • youth suicide 
  • growing power of governments and Big Tech
  • lack of transparency in community guidelines of social media content moderation
  • increase in internet addiction
  • lack of local content, and inadequate legislation for protecting the rights and safety of citizens.
IGF 2021 Main Session Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights

Main Session
Updated: Thu, 03/02/2022 - 15:49
Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
Session Report

 

We need to reflect how tech serves humanity, versus just putting up safeguards around the edges and wait till harm occurs.

What is needed: Reliable human rights due diligence and impact assessments.

Covid Pandemic: Legitimate health concerns are being twisted to exclude people and violate their human rights.

Surveillance versus inclusivity - how can we make sure that more inclusion is not leading to more surveillance?

There exists the danger that surveillance measurements imposed during the pandemic are going to stay in place endlessly.

The concern was voiced that a whole new range of entry points for authoritarian regimes to silence critical voices and invade the public space have emerged.

It is the states’ duty to regulate technology and prevent potential harm of human rights.

There needs to be effective access to remedy when people are victims of human rights violations.

A moratorium for certain human-rights violating technologies that are not (yet) regulated adequately was discussed, namely facial recognition and biometric data collection and analysis.

There is an opportunity for positive change. But we need more transparency and ‘neutral’ research to address social and economic inequalities and human rights.

There needs to be a multi-stakeholder approach that is inclusive and democratic.

An increase of transparency and accountability in global decision-making and business practices of tech companies was demanded by participants.

The need for a legally binding agreement on technology and human rights was discussed. We would not need to start from scratch, but can build on already existing normative frameworks, among them most importantly the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There already exists legally binding treaty law, too, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

There was a broad consensus that tech companies need to live up to their responsibility. > What does that mean? Human rights can give us a framework that is legally binding and universally valid.

IGF can set the compass to guide state actions and policy decisions.

 

 

 

 

IGF 2021 WS #272 Youth in IG policy-making process: Let's talk about the MHLB

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 21/01/2022 - 00:17
Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
Key Takeaways:

Young people need to continue to join efforts from different stakeholders to turn the IGF into a more concrete and open space. Tokenism is still a problem in the ecosystem and we still do not see the response we wish. We have provided several recommendations to the IGF and one of them is to give young people meaningful participation

,

There are many controversies regarding this body (Leadership Panel) , because the IGF could become a top-down body and break the equality between stakeholders.

Calls to Action

We make a call to action to the IGF Secretariat and all the stakeholders to consider youth as a recognized stakeholder, and consider the importance of youth for the intergenerational exchange and change in the Internet Governance ecosystem; and work in collaboration with youth avoiding tokenism.

,

Governments and private sector should provide support to youth in: bringing capacity building tools, high level mentorship and engagement in all workstreams. Youth’s viewpoint can enrich the conversation and foster the improvements to make more inclusive Internet Governance.

Session Report

IGF 2021 WS #272 Youth in IG policy-making process: Let's talk about the MHLB

Panelists and moderator: João Moreno, Emilia Zalewska, Bruna Santos,  Nicolas Fiumarelli, Juan Pajaro, Eileen Cejas

Rapporteur: Juliana Novaes

 

Bruna Santos

Bruna Santos introduced the Multistakeholder High Level Body (MHLB) as an initiative to bring concrete outcomes to the IGF, since one of the main criticisms the forum faces is related to its non-binding nature.

In 2018, there was a discussion about digital cooperation and the role of the IGF, which was a process sponsored and led by the United Nations. As an outcome of this whole process, there was a report created with some suggestions of improvements that could be made in the IGF, so that the forum continues to be relevant and an important element of the discussions on Internet policy.

The MHLB is therefore the product of these discussions. There has always been a discussion about its role in contrast to the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), because the MHLB does not have the objective to replace the MAG, but to complement it and give the IGF more concrete policy outcomes.

Last month, the Secretariat of the IGF announced the IGF Leadership Panel, which has opened its call for applications for members from the civil society, academia, technical community, governments and private sector. There are many controversies regarding this body, because the IGF could become a top-down body and break the equality between stakeholders.

Juan Pajaro

Introduced issues regarding youth participation in the MHLB.

During these last few years, he has seen many initiatives with the objective to achieve a community that has one voice in the policymaking process. He highlighted the importance of having a diverse ecosystem of actors and voices in the IGF, also one of the messages of this years’ Youth Summit. Young people need to continue to join efforts from different stakeholders to turn the IGF into a more concrete and open space.

Eileen Cejas

Discussed the role of the Youth Coalition in Internet Governance. A document called DC paper was created to relate the works of the dynamic coalitions and the policy processes related to Internet governance.

The Youth Summit was an open event that counted with the participation of the Polish government and several other organizations. Nonetheless, young people still face a lot of skepticism when developing their projects at the IGF. Tokenism is still a problem in the ecosystem and we still do not see the response we wish. We have provided several recommendations to the IGF and one of them is to give young people meaningful participation.

Emilia Zalewska

Introduced the project Youth Summit, an initiative in partnership with the Polish government and other organizations.

The idea of the youth summit started from the idea of having young people being listened to, making youth postulates become something concrete and visible. We partnered with the Youth Observatory and divided ourselves into groups. So we divided ourselves into groups and tried to address some of the challenges of Internet governance in that particular field. We wanted to create these points of action, because they could be addressed to several groups of people, like governments, private sector, technical community etc. The outcomes of the Youth Summit will be publically available and we want young people to be engaged in this process.

After the speakers presentation, participants were invited to collaborate on a document called "Youth position toward the present and future of Digital Cooperation". This document was edited and tailored into PDF format, and can be accessed here: 

 

 

 

IGF 2021 Open Forum #66 Moving Forward – Guiding Principles on Diversity of Content Online

Open Forum / Town Hall
Updated: Thu, 20/01/2022 - 16:35
Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
Key Takeaways:

The panel agreed that multi-stakeholderism continues to be the most appropriate approach in this space, despite its challenges.

,

There is appetite across the world, from North America to Africa, to the Middle East and Europe, to address the issues around diversity of content online.

Calls to Action

The Multi-Stakeholder Working Group welcomes stakeholders to share different projects or initiatives, particularly from the Global South, that are underway that align with the Guiding Principles on Diversity of Content Online.

,

Interested countries, civil society organizations, and private sector actors are encouraged to be signatories to the Guiding Principles on Diversity of Content Online.

Session Report

UN IGF Session Report

Open Forum #66 – Moving Forward – Diversity of Content Online
December 7th, 2021

Session Overview:

The Government of Canada facilitated a panel discussion at the IGF entitled: Moving Forward - Guiding Principles on Diversity of Content Online. The panel included members of the Multi-Stakeholder Working Group on Diversity of Content Online, whose mandate is to develop Guiding Principles that help foster greater exposure to diverse cultural content, information, and news online.

The purpose of the session was to discuss the benefits and challenges of working on a multi-stakeholder initiative; and consider actions needed to ensure greater access and exposure to a diversity of content in an evolving Internet and information ecosystem.     

Session Summary:

The moderator opened the session by asking the panelists to share if and why they found the Diversity of Content Online initiative to be meaningful and relevant. Panelists cited the importance of citizens and users having access and exposure to diverse points of view and opinions and access to pluralistic sources of news and information as a means of building resistance to dis and misinformation. Panelists also mentioned that the issues related to diversity of content online go beyond what governments can address on their own and as such,  a multi-stakeholder approach is needed.

Following the introductions, officials from the Government of Canada provided a presentation on the Diversity of Content online initiative, which is available at this link.

To begin the roundtable discussion panelists, were asked why, in their opinion, the multi-stakeholder approach was optimal in the development of the Guiding Principles on Diversity of Content Online (the Guiding Principles). The panelists’ reactions included that:

  • The Internet crosses all borders, and each stakeholder has a different area of influence to contribute. A range of stakeholders offers a variety of perspectives to develop solutions.

  • Different stakeholders have different incentives and compromises are sometimes more difficult to find than others.  The multi-stakeholder model forces different groups to explore the issues to try to find common ground and incentives. 

  • The Multistakeholder approach enables more transparent and inclusive conversations between the various stakeholders groups, which provides more legitimacy to addressing the issues.

When asked about the challenges of a multi-stakeholder approach, panelists noted that:

  • With the private sector at the table, there is a heightened internal sensitivity concerning their contributions and participation in the working group because they are under intense scrutiny and facing regulatory discussions in many regions and jurisdictions. This can limit how ‘active’ they are in the working group.

  • A greater diversity of voices, particularly from the Global South and others in the private sector is needed in the working group.  

  • On the question of whether these guidelines are enough to drive greater change, it was noted that to establish a common vision to work towards desired concrete changes, work needs to start somewhere.  

  • Technologies are advancing so quickly, they are outpacing regulatory and policy developments. Making policy choices that attempt to keep pace and with the least number of unintended consequences requires a reflective and sensitive approach.

The moderator then sought opinions on whether multi-stakeholderism was the best means of developing solutions and furthering cooperation on these complex and far-reaching issues. It prompted the following reactions from the panelists:

  • Key stakeholders must collectively continue to gather information and conduct research to understand the problems. In the scope of the content environment and online content distribution, if key stakeholders really want to achieve certain standards of diversity, they need to come to consensus on these standards.

  • To achieve a common goal on a global matter, it is useful to consider perspectives at the local, national, or personal level.

  • Despite the limits of multi-stakeholderism, particularly when countries begin to work on national regulations in a particular sector,  it still offers the best array of tools.

The final question asked the panelists to share their reflections on the next steps for the Guiding Principles, which are to:

  • Raising awareness about the Guiding Principles to acquire more signatories and broader adoption from the international community, including other countries, civil society, and other members of the private sector;

  • Extend the working group membership to include more diverse voices, particularly from the Global South; and

  • Develop high-level voluntary actions that different stakeholder groups can adopt in order to implement the Guiding Principles.

IGF 2021 DC-CIV Internet Regulation during Crisis One Year Later

DC Session
Updated: Mon, 17/01/2022 - 09:09
Trust, Security, Stability
Key Takeaways:

There is sustained growth in cyber criminal activity on the Internet, catalysed by COVID19 and the increased global reliance by the world on the Internet for everything from health, education, socialising to business. Political boundaries on the Internet are technologically possible and psychologically demonstrable and are exploited to bring forth legislation. Some stakeholders are asking for more regulation in the interest of vulnerable groups.

,

The impact of regulation should not harm legitimate users under the pretext of protecting another stakeholder

Calls to Action

Any regulation that is drafted should be human-centered and take into account: Its societal impact on Human Rights and Freedom of Speech, its technological impact on Internet Core Values, the needs of all actors, but in particular, those of Internet Users

,

Avoid drafting regulation that will result in fragmentation of the Internet.

Session Report

 

 

IGF2021 meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values: on the topic of “Internet Regulation during Crisis” - One Year Later 

 

Over the last ten years our work as an IGF Dynamic Coalition is focused on defining and emphasizing Core Internet Values, which comprise of the technical architectural values by which the Internet was built, and, more importantly, what can be called ‘social’ or, in other words, ‘universal’ values that emerge from the way the Internet works.

The first is that the Internet is a global medium open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It's interoperable because it's a network of networks. It doesn't rely on a single application. It relies on TCP/IP, a common, open protocol. It's free of any centralized control. The only supposed control is the domain naming system, which provides a single translation system between domain names and IP addresses, and that's, of course, needed by design. It's end to end, so traffic from one end of the network to the other end of the network goes unhindered. It's user centric, and users have control over what they send and receive. And it's robust and reliable. These values have been under stress due to various developments, particularly during the Pandemic. Also, as the Internet expands with newer products, services and applications, there are emerging needs for focused pursuits on important aspects of the Internet , for instance, freedom from harm.  (In 2017, the Coalition put together a discussion paper focusing on freedom from harm as proposed by Vint Cerf in the context of addressing the rise of criminal use of the Internet and the solutions towards prevention of harm to the users of the Internet, including the harm that arises unintended from the staggering growth of IoT technologies, causing billions of devices connected to the Internet which in turn bring about new regulatory concerns.)

The Coalition was formed following the IGF Egypt workshop in 2009 titled “Workshop on Fundamentals: Core Internet Values” chaired by the then Internet Society President Lynn StAmour. As a DC, meetings were held at the IGF annually since IGF2010 and has also held sessions at EuroDig. 

The 2021 session, Chaired by Olivier Crépin-LeBlond and moderated by Alejandro Pisanty included as panelists Olga Makarova from Mobile Telesystems, Alison Harcourt from the University of Exeter, Bob Franskston, Internet Pioneer and author of The Regulatorium and the Moral Imperative, Gregory Name, Jutta Croll from the German Digital Opportunities Foundation, Desiree Miloshevic from the Global Initiative for Human Centered Digital Governance.

What do we mean by the term "the Internet"?  Our attempt to understand the Internet is not unlike the story of  the blind man trying to understand what an elephant is. The Internet is sort of a use case for something larger. The set of protocols and everything we call the Internet works on the principles of “best effort” connectivity: we assume it works because every component across the network is following best efforts to make the Internet work. In Internet architecture the architects did not try to solve all problems at once. In the Internet, the application problems are on a different layer, and are distinct from the problems of the network, which is the foundation infrastructure. There is some confusion as most people think of the Internet as Facebook, Google, as the World Wide Web- these are applications, not the Internet. 

In the Internet way of Networking, infrastructure is decoupled from what we do with it. This is a core design aspect, which needs to be understood before considering proposals which try to tie everything together into one lump as for instance 5G which is “anti-Internet” in the words of an Internet Pioneer and Technologist who has been studying the design of the Internet even before there was the Internet. One of the reasons why 5G is anti-Internet is because this technology bundle proposal tries to tie up all layers in one lump.  The Internet is to be understood as a prototype that is evolving rapidly. It's even more so for the Internet of Things. Viewed with this understanding, the evolutionary phase problems are better understood, for eg.,  routing still has major problems that aren’t always visible on the surface, according to the MANRS review report. The Domain Name System has its own challenges and is evolving. The complexities and nuances need to be understood before governance decisions are made.

The DC session on Core Values during IGF 2020 published a statement on excessive controls which are problematic practices adversely affecting Core Internet Values. These included Internet shutdowns, suppression of political dissent and fragmentation; There is a sustained growth in cyber criminal activity on the Internet, catalysed by COVID19 and the increased global reliance by the world on the Internet for everything from health, education, socialising to business. Some vulnerable stakeholders have asked for more regulation.

During the last two years we have seen 100+ Internet shutdowns by 29 governments (2020); Continued suppression of political dissent; Calls by some governments for encryption to be weakened; a visible trend towards fragmentation through national regulation, resulting in: Multiple layers of accountability that do not necessarily work together and weakened technical resilience of the global Internet. 

The word "regulation" comes back more and more often. The Core Values coalition shared a statement on excessive regulation with the community supported by several other Dynamic Coalitions.  More and more we are turning to strict legal regulation on state level and on international level. While the issues are not resolved without regulation, it is still unclear as to how regulation would resolve every problem. 

We have to defend the Internet from regulation because regulation will break the core values, the basic principles of the Internet. The Internet we have today is not the original Internet that was designed as global, end-to-end, interoperable, free and open.  It's much less open, much less interoperable, much more concentrated and based on flawed systems and stuff that the user has no control over.We have to emphasize that even the regulation has to be in conformity with the values on which the Internet is built. There should be governance values as well.

A balanced approach is needed.

In the EU GDPR, in Germany the NetzDG known as the Facebook law, in France the 2018 disinformation law, there are upcoming proposals for online safety in the UK. In the UK, certainly there's more of a self regulatory approach, which may be seen as overly interventionist, there have been discussions in Germany as to over-application. So in terms of core values we need to look at a global level and examine how we can integrate them into implementation of these national regulations, but seen as in conflict with inadequately defined notions of digital sovereignty: there seems to be confusion between cyber and internal market and national champion policies in particular. 

There's been greater State cooperation in the recent past, in particular in the area of emerging technologies, which has really gone hand in hand with a move towards data sovereignty. Most of these can be found in trade agreements with increasing cooperation between the United States and the EU. The EU and US agreed on regulatory cooperation on Trade, one of which “intensified dialogue on standards for the strategic sector, in particular those related to emerging technologies, [in particular] 3D printing, robotics and connected vehicles” This needs to expand on a global level, expand to various Internet technologies, and expand to non-governmental stakeholders. At the global level, as many authors have pointed out, there's a potential for incorporation of core values in standard setting based upon principles set out in a number of organizations, notably the IGF, but also more formalized fora like the ISO and WTO, but there's very little evidence of reference to these principles in day-to-day decision-making on the ground. But how can we translate these developments into decision-making? The integration of core values and principles in standard settings has always been very challenging, but now we have more tools at our disposal than ever before. The most effective method to date has been the integration of third sector scrutiny into decision-making, particularly if you look at voluntary SDO standards, making the funding of third sector involvement is important, the recognition of core principles within decision-making across the board has been important as well.  

This cooperation as of now has expanded to a new EU - US agenda for global changes to “help facilitate trade, develop compatible international standards for e-commerce etc, which is an agenda for “renewal of cooperation on regulation and standards, starting by re-engaging conformity assessment regulation and aligning positions in International bodies”

We continue to see the implementation of national security laws that regard political dissent as terrorism and restrict freedom of expression on the Internet. Around 30 countries resorted to Internet shutdowns last year, including in Europe. This is not a trend that is diminishing, to the extent of attracting the attention of the United Nations Human Rights Council Political suppression continues to happen by implementation of more and more national security laws that regards political dissent as terrorism and by restricting freedom of expression on the Internet.

Encryption is fundamental. There have been calls to weaken encryption to tackle cyber crime, including terrorism and child abuse. Weakening encryption will allow private legal content to be scrutinized, also legal content. To quote from the Open Rights Group, “there will no longer be any such thing as personal communications” [if encryption is weakened]. Everything we say, no matter how private, will be accessed under the bill. It is equally important to note that the overall weakening of encryption is likely to harm privacy, political activism and investigative journalism

This is an approach that makes security look like a binary choice between favoring the rights of this or that group in society. This is dangerous. 

There is no contradiction between privacy and the protection of children, although the human right of privacy cannot overrule the rights of children. Child sexual abuse material can be detected without abusing the technology.  While using technology to detect criminals and bad actors, necessary caution is needed on the possibility that governments, especially those that function on non-democratic frameworks, might misuse technology.

Child sexual abuse, women’s issues, child pornography are issues that must be dealt with, but when repeated over and over again, it opens the flood gates to legislation, and paves way for excessive legislation of the Internet space. COVID increased legislative attention to the Internet, to some extent necessitated certain changes away from the Internet Way of Networking. We are all committed to protecting the rights of the children, but the way the issues are raised is not like the issues brought to the Internet. 

There is a trend towards a fragmentation of the Internet. In some countries, we have the creation of a national Internet. Other countries are suggesting to force DNS services to meet regulatory requirements. A recent example is the European Directive on Network and Information Security. NIS2. To quote from a statement of the Internet Society: This approach risks the creation of multiple layers of accountability and clashing obligations, threatening the autonomy of DNS services and resilience of the Internet. These are global challenges. For a long time, the belief was that they could be tackled by voluntary action based on best practices. But the reality is that obviously many governments now clearly disagree. But this doesn't mean that every country should go its way. As many governments try to reinvent the Internet, we need to work globally in place of national actions. 

The Internet merely mirrors our lives. Various forms of abuse exist not because of the Internet, but because of crime (on the ground). The Internet is just an environment that can be used by all participants. We need to fight with the criminals, not with the Internet. The main problem of the Internet is it is global, we should fight with real causes, not with the Internet, to stop abuse, to stop harmful content, to stop any harm, any crimes that we see through the Internet.

Harm that is planned, or otherwise originates online requires a physical location both at origin and destination. Geographic laws - local, national (state) law, and/or international law are violated in any act of harm that APPEARS to be online harm. Tackling the only online part is not useful.  We need the online and offline parts working in harmony.  We can’t solve all problems by just looking at the wire.

Online measures should not be the shortcut to not do the job in the offline world. At the IGF our focus is to develop solutions altogether by the multistakeholder process, which is in a way an expanded Think Tank process for effective and balanced solutions. We need to come up with further technological alternatives. The challenge is how do we solve social problems and societal problems without breaking the basic underlying mechanism, its global interconnectivity,  interoperability and without hurting its Core Values. 

Governments are more and more understanding that all stakeholders are to be involved in the intergovernmental processes, and it's gradually becoming multi-stakeholder. However, Governments are not quite asking the Internet: Here is the problem. Solve the problem. Rather, the concerns are raised in such a manner that there is a problem (because) the Internet is not (good) it is not working, so let's take over the Internet. And that is what is doing a lot of harm. 

There has to be a balance of rights, the  technological challenges are mostly in finding a balanced solution that would work for everyone, for every group of society that deserves to be protected. And we need to be careful not to rush into solving a problem by creating another, as often the choice available is binary, as a choice between two Rights. For example, Weakening encryption gives access to States, but that opens doors for other kinds of actions that may be undesirable in terms of law, democracy, and common good. 

We need to resolve the problems and get back to the Internet model and anchor the Internet on the Core Internet values.

The panel then discussed “Human Centered Digital Governance”, an idea born when the pandemic started, out of concern for "surveillance capitalism" that is affecting and undermining Western values that are several hundred years old. The required policy changes and the needed shifts in thinking and the need for new concepts are discussed as solutions. Human-centered digital governance addresses mainly one problem, that of the misalignment of Internet users and suppliers who provide digital services. Users pay with personal data that are collected. There is a central flaw in this whole complex system, that of the absence of informed consent and invisible third-party digital barters in the digital economy, unknown in traditional economic channels. Apart from threatening the economic models,  it also weakens users' mental health, and erodes the appreciation of objective truth, and the list is long. 

The challenge of digital governance is to find ways on how to use technology benefits while keeping them human centered. Collection of data should be transparent to the data subject. To achieve that transparency, the Human Centered Digital Governance working group suggests classification of personal data in three major realms or categories: Official data O-Data, Privy Data P-Data and Collective Data C-Data.

The solutions from this approach align with the EU GDPR: Data needs to be classed into official data, privy data, and collective data. The official data is something that should be verified by a third party. Official data needs official authentication, and should be the only legal source of that data, with individual users having genuine control over the use of the data through easy tools and supporting institutions. Privy data is data generated by individual users who generate the data themselves, (blog posts, photos) or data generated about data subject by second parties (apps, companies). In both instances, users/data subjects need to have control over their first and secondary data. This is currently not the case and the processes are opaque. We need to create legal structures to support the establishment of data commons, for what may be called C-data, which is to be under the control of trustworthy and competitive organizations that would then promote benefits of data subjects and the broader society. This new classification of data and the supporting organization institutions will then be able to address some of the digital asymmetries and could eliminate the third-party financed digital barters.

The integration of Core Values and Principles into decision making has always been challenging. Standardisation and the definition of norms of regulation at international level by many organisations or bilateral trade agreements are starting to see an inclusion of human rights and of core values, but this is not the case with every process. Political boundaries on the Internet are exploited to bring forth legislation. It is impossible to solve a global problem in one country as a local problem.

 

Call to Action: 

On many aspects of the Internet there is deregulation, non-regulation and self-regulation but in some aspects, especially in matters pertaining to security there is a trend towards the regulatory approach.  The sustained growth of criminal activity has triggered the understanding that we are reaching a point where more regulation is needed in cases where self-regulation has failed.

However, the impact of regulation should not harm legitimate users under the pretext of protecting another stakeholder. The coalition wishes to call upon stakeholders to be considerate in drafting regulation that will result in fragmentation of the Internet. Inadequately defined notions of Digital Sovereignty together with national and regional regulatory initiatives that are not harmonized would not only fragment the Internet but might space out the Internet as an Internet of many dimensions.  The present notions of Digital Sovereignty needs to be refined in matters related to Internet Governance  Any regulation that is drafted needs to be human-centered and take into account ts societal impact on Civil Liberties, its technological impact on Core Internet Values and the needs of all actors, but in particular, those of the average Internet User. There is a move towards a good degree of cooperation between the EU, Europe and other states in matters related to Technology and Commerce. The Coalition would like to see this degree of cooperation extended worldwide, and in matters related to Internet Governance, involve non-state actors, Internet Technical Community in a multi-stakeholder setting. We wish to recommend that the Core Internet values are referenced and integrated in the Internet Policy processes and implementation.

– Report by the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values. 

Updated December 24, 2021

IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #62 Mapping and measuring digital trade integration

Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
Updated: Thu, 13/01/2022 - 17:36
Key Takeaways:

More efforts have to be put into project that support the mapping and measuring of policies related to digital trade. In this way, empirical analysis can be conducted to identify the impact of these measures.

Calls to Action

Promote transparency on policies related to digital trade

,

More efforts have to be put into project that support the mapping and measuring of policies related to digital trade. In this way, empirical analysis can be conducted to identify the impact of these measures.

Session Report

The new trade issues arising from digital trade are being addressed today either unilaterally or in trade agreements, but very little has been done at the multilateral level with the WTO. Since the internet is one, more effort should be put to address new issues in the multilateral context.  A major barrier to analyse digital trade policies is the lack of comprehensive and updated analysis and indicators of policies and practices that restrict trade. In the absence of quality analysis and indicators, governments and stakeholders tend to misconstrue their national capabilities in trade and also face great uncertainty as to how to solve the issues, thus impeding the collective governance aspects. New ideas and information are crucial to clarify the thinking of the actors and map paths forward in digital trade. The expertise, credibility and independence of the digital trade actors advancing these efforts are key to the reception of the novel messages.

There are several initiatives that are aiming at bringing transparency to digital trade. Here the most relevant:

  • The Digital Policy Alert (https://www.globaltradealert.org/digital_policy) was formulated to address the risk of fragmentation on the Internet by tracking policies restricting digital trade. Consumers in the small markets may also lose out on the benefits that the internet promises as a borderless area for exchanging ideas and commerce. The Digital Policy Alert created a timely public inventory for policy and regulation and is made available through two tools: Activity Tracker and Detailed Policy Mapping. The DPA has tracked more than 700+ policy and regulatory activities in 2021 alone in the G20 countries. The EU and USA contribute with a significant amount of activities. Data Governance, Competition, Content moderation, Operating Conditions and Taxation are the current areas of policy and regulatory activity showing the most activity.
  • The Digital and sustainable Regional Integration Index (DigiSRII) by UN-ESCAP (https://www.unescap.org/resources/DigiSRII): UN-ESCAP has collaborated with the European University Institute and OECD to collect data for building tools to support policy makers. One of these tools is the Digital and sustainable Regional Integration Index (DigiSRII), which looks into many parameters which includes Trade and investment, Finance, and also the critical pointers like the Digital Economy through Conventional Integration part (Trade and regulation, Infrastructure) and Sustainable integration part (Inclusive, Cyber security). Openness and Harmonization in Regional Digital-trade Regulation allow interoperability and pave the way for more integration at the regional level. The result of the analysis shows that most countries have modest performance in terms of the component which takes into account sustainability, especially when it comes to least developed countries, which are not only behind in infrastructure but also in terms of regulations. These countries also find it difficult to attract FDI which could bring them capital or technology they lack to close the gap. Evidence from these initiatives can be used to build capacity for policy makers and to support their reforms of the policy.
  • Digital Trade Restrictive Index for Africa by UN-ECA: The main objective of the new project by UN-ECA is to assess the readiness of African countries to effectively engage in digital trade and e-commerce. The initiative started during the first part of negotiation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AFCFTA) and allowed to give some indications and policy recommendations to negotiators. Data is collected at national level in two separate datasets. Firstly, UN-ECA is assisting member states to expand the coverage of African countries in OECD Digital Trade Restrictive Index, secondly UN-ECA is supporting the collection of data for the Regional Digital Trade Integration Index. The data collected is used to calculate the restrictiveness index of 28 African countries. Preliminary results show that African countries are relatively integrated in terms of digital trade, but the countries that were covered lacked legislative frameworks in core digital areas that could affect digital trade. It is important to have harmonized rules and regulations across Africa, especially on cross-border transfer of data. Consumer protection regulation also helps to increase the confidence in the digital trade environment in Africa.
  • The Digital Trade Integration (DTI) project by the European University Institute (https://globalgovernanceprogramme.eui.eu/digital-trade-integration/): The project has just started, but it is building on the work done by ECIPE with the Digital Trade Restrictiveness Index, which now has been discontinued. It was the first initiative to map the measures affecting digital trade across 64 countries. The results showed that China, Russia, and India were the main countries imposing top restrictions while Norway, Iceland, and New Zealand were imposing the least restrictions. The new project, which brings together the EUI, LSE, Hertie School, Bocconi, UN-ECA, UN-ESCAP, UN-ECLAC, TIISA and ECIPE, is justified by the fact that there is a need to provide more transparency and understanding on the type of measures which affect digital trade. By collecting high quality data, it is possible to conduct empirical research and identify best practices. The project covers 90 countries and the datasets and index will be released in 2022.

Among the concluding remarks, it was highlighted that there is a need for aggregated data to be able to create indices. These will help to spot issues of particular interest and that require most action. Having a multi-stakeholder discussion on this topic is very important.  ESCAP has used the data collected in its research to prepare recommendations for the Philippines government, which proved to be a great pilot country for similar initiatives.

IGF 2021 Open Forum #29 Internet Society Open Forum 2021

Open Forum / Town Hall
Updated: Wed, 05/01/2022 - 10:41
Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
Key Takeaways:

While there is no single definition of what Internet openness means, an open internet is an accessible internet. An open network allows easy and unrestricted access: it provides unrestricted use and deployment of internet technologies.

,

Competition was identified as a highly desirable characteristic of the Internet across the various participants representing diverse stakeholders. Competition was welcomed in every aspect from connectivity, creation of inclusion, accessibility, small-players, geographically (Global south) etc.

Calls to Action

Produce an Internet Impact Brief: if an issue that could impact the Internet is identified, you can conduct an Internet impact brief. This is a quick analysis that identifies whether a proposal, development or trend could benefit or threaten the Internet.

Session Report

 

Summary of Issues

Experts from the civil society, private sector, and the technical community unpacked, provided nuance, shared ideas and knowledge on what contributes to openness in the Internet ecosystem through the protocols and processes in place.

It was discussed an open, globally-connected, secured and trustworthy internet is central in transforming economies and integral in social development. It was also established enablers of the open internet thrive on competition, Internet interoperability, and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation at the regional levels.

The benefits of an open Internet are enormous—it fills the infrastructure gap, the gender gap and gives full control of personal data and privacy.

                    Key  takeaways

Throughout the discussion, it was established that the regulation of competition is central to the openness of the Internet. 

Salient to the conversation was how competition is a highly desirable characteristic of the Internet—competition stimulates the creation of inclusivity, meaningful connectivity, and accessibility. The technical community should strengthen, innovate the internet while a strong regulatory policy was underscored. The private sector and technical community should promote competition which is a tradeoff for centralization.

Also, the creation of a multi-stakeholder environment should happen in a diverse setup of multi-stakeholder environment, this multi-stakeholder approach shot or be at the global level but regional and national levels.

Moreover, protocols should act as the building blocks and units in driving innovation; protocols should be promoted in a way to keep the decision making open while avoidance of throttling and blocking content is necessary for keeping the Internet open.

Report was written

 

IGF 2021 WS #137 Multi-stakeholder approaches for the Design of AI Policies

Workshop
Updated: Wed, 05/01/2022 - 08:33
Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
Session Report
  • This workshop builds on the conclusions of the UNESCO report, “Steering AI and advanced ICTs for knowledge societies: a Rights, Openness, Access, and Multi-stakeholder Perspective”, to operationalize the ROAM-X indicators for multi-stakeholder approaches for AI policy making and to provide evidence-based guidance on policy co-creation efforts. The event aimed to address existing AI policies and digital strategies and examine them with the ROAM-X indicators emphasizing the multi-stakeholder lens.
  • All decision makers must make sure that each participant, especially those from traditionally marginalized groups, can voice their opinion and add to the discourse of AI Policy Development. AI-related discussions should be made more accessible, which includes knowledge sharing so all participants can contribute to the discussions. Meaningful inclusion should focus on the empowerment of all participants.
  • However, it is also important to acknowledge that much progress has already been made to create a multi-stakeholder environment in AI policy discussions. For instance, there is significant progression of gender diversity in the field of AI. Crucially, inclusion also means the acknowledgement of each person or country’s unique background and experience. Therefore, more attention should focus on AI policy work done by countries in the Global South.
  • To develop an effective multi-stakeholder approach, meaningful engagement with underrepresented groups including youths should be institutionally mandated in the principles of all UN programmes. Inter-generational partnerships are needed because young people need allies and partners who are currently in key positions and holding the power to make the change.
  • On the global level, valuable perspectives from developing regions often fall short due to the trap of tokenism which wrongly assume that a single person can represent an entire region. Meaningful diversity requires more fundamental changes to the status quo. To be truly inclusive, AI discussions should be conducted in languages beyond just English. 
  • Constraints for stakeholders from Civil Society, Government, Academia, Private Sector and beyond to meaningfully participate in processes to AI Policy Development are manifold and need to be addressed. These include but are not limited to: Connectivity, Access, Basic Digital Skills and understanding of AI systems.
IGF 2021 WS #167 Digital Human Rights:How IGF-born guides support the Roadmap

Workshop
Updated: Fri, 31/12/2021 - 12:50
Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
Key Takeaways:

(1) Participants affirmed value of exchanging knowledge and experience about ongoing and emerging undertakings putting human rights instruments at the heart of internet governance deliberations: projects underscored the sociocultural and geographical range of human rights-based documents for policymakers at the intersection of online and offline domains. Working together, being open to debate crucial to healthy and sustainable internet futures

,

(2) Addressing the query about the added value of ever-expanding repertoire of digital human rights charters, guides - and law making (e.g. Brazil’s Marco Civil (2014), Portuguese Charter of Human Rights in the Digital Era (2021)) - participants affirmed that all initiatives have intrinsic worth. Main finding is how important building - and crossing - the bridges that such initiatives embody remains for digital human rights standards.

Calls to Action

(1) Work on keeping up opportunities for collaborating, sharing ideas, and mutual support between various digital human rights projects; at global, regional, national, and local levels.

,

(2) We ask the IGF Secretariat to actively acknowledge these human-rights informed outcomes in official outputs of the UN-hosted annual meetings, regional and national IGFs: only in this way can the intersessional work underpinning these outputs make visible the concrete achievements of the IGF itself.

Session Report

This session explored how digital human rights documents emerged or inspired by the Internet Governance Forum and its community support the UN Roadmap for Digital Cooperation on the promotion of human rights online and help achieve the sustainable development goals.

It focused on selected documents analysing  how they emerged, how they translated existent human rights law and norms to the online environment and reflected on its relevance, achievements and main challenges. The session was moderated by Claudia Padovani, Dennis Redeker and Jacob Odame-Baiden. Michael J Oghia was the Emcee in Katowice.

The first part of the session looked at documents that emerged within the IGF community by focusing on their background and context and how they sit in the tradition of international human rights documents.

Speaking on behalf of the Internet Rights and Principles Coalition’s Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet (IRPC Charter), Marianne Franklin explained how the Charter draft initiated in 2009 was an attempted to bring all sector together to translate existing international human rights documents to the online environment. It draws on the United Nations’ Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and its covenants. It worked as a bridge connecting the digital world with human rights which at the time was not an obvious connection.

Edetaen Ojo spoke on behalf of the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms (African Declaration) and gave some insight on the context that led to the African Declaration African Internet Governance Forum (the African IGF) that took place in Nairobi in Kenya in 2013 at a time when many African countries were developing laws regulating various aspects of the digital space. These were mostly not human rights-respecting norms and the idea was to establish a set of rights-based principles that would guide law and policymaking as well as advocacy around the Internet. 
Both documents draw on established international human rights and norms which were translated to the online context and the African Declaration paid particular attention to Human Rights instruments on the African continent, especially the African charter on human and people's rights adopted in 1981. Marianne Franklin and  Edetaen Ojo shared how over the years both documents have been disseminated within and outside the IGF Community how they reached out to policymakers, judiciaries, civil society organisations, the technical community, and academia. And how international initiatives and international organisations such as the UNESCO, UN, or the Council of Europe have acknowledged, collaborated, and endorsed these documents. Local and regional outreach has been crucial to helping disseminate these documents and translations play a significant role: the African Declaration has been translated into Portuguese, Arabic, and French while the IRPC Charter has been translated into 12 languages and 11 of those are now in booklet form.

As for the relevance of these documents in the current times both speakers considered that they are more relevant than ever: the prosecution of journalists, bloggers and rights defenders, internet shutdowns, online surveillance, and other human rights violations are happening in the digital world, and the current pandemic crisis has not only highlighted the digital divide but also created opportunities for human rights violations online.  The African Declaration initiative published the paper Impact of COVID‑19 on Digital Rights in Africa looking at how the principles in the African Declaration have been impacted by COVID‑19 and the response of various governments on the continent to the pandemic.

Sean O Siochru intervened on behalf of the Just Net Coalition noting on the Delhi Declaration, another IGF inspired initiative emerged and urging on the importance of looking at the whole spectrum of human rights online as some are not getting the same level of attention and the need to move from declarations to action, which is now the focus of the Coalition. Marianne Franklin highlighted the connections between IGF-led documents: e.g., the IRPC Charter is strongly connected with the Council of Europe’s Guide to Human Rights for Internet Users (CoE Guide) and the Brazilian Marco Civil. Wolfgang Benedek who was part of the expert group on both the IRPC Charter and the CoE Guide shared insights on how this document emerged as a result of the IRPC Charter but covering a less wide range of rights and aimed as an educational tool. On the Marco Civil, which passed into law in 2014, Marianne Franklin explained how this document was a very inspiring process with a very broad national Civil Society consultation framework.

Ana Neves spoke on behalf of the Portuguese government, which recently adopted The Portuguese Charter of Human Rights in the Digital Age (Portuguese Charter) and shared that the Portuguese presidency of the Council of the European Union and the Lisbon Declaration on digital rights approved in June 2021 worked as the kickstart for the future possible EU charter on digital rights leading to the national initiative, which despite its topdown approach ( a government and parliament initiative) also included the input of its citizens. Ana Neves highlighted some of its provisions, including net neutrality, the creation of a social tariff for Internet access services, the prohibition of Internet shutdowns, and the creation of fact-checking structures. Following up on Ana Neves' intervention Wolfgang Benedek added that like some of the issues mentioned such as the issue of disinformation, hate speech was not mentioned in the COE’s guide but were covered in a posterior document. He stressed that would be important to ensure that new efforts look at the already existing materials. Anriette Estherhuysen highlighted how initiatives such as the IRPC Charter and the African Declaration have been important advocacy documents and great tools to help national initiatives such as the Portuguese Charter and others as these frameworks make the process of translating human rights law to the online environment much easier.

The last part of the session looked at these documents inspired local initiatives. Raashi Saxena highlighted the importance of these as awareness-raising and educational tools and the work that needs to be done to promote universal digital human rights that both the global South and the global north can engage with. She highlighted the work that the IO Foundation is doing in the effort to create a Universal Declaration on Digital Rights (UDDR).  Aik Van Eemeren shared how the Cities for Digital Rights Coalition emerged in 2018 when a group of people from several cities came together during Mozilla fest event in London and how the Coalition grew from three to 55 cities worldwide. Drawing on examples from his city in Amsterdam Aik Van Eemeren highlighted how the Cities Declaration inspired by the IRPC Charter and supported by the United Nations Human Settlements Program (UN-Habitat) has been a moral support an important framework to policy makers and how it inspired a variety of projects in cities around the globe. Some of the Coalition’s projects were shared via the Zoom Chat: https://research.ngi.eu/public-procurement-conditions-for-trustworthy-a…, https://algoritmeregister.amsterdam.nl/en/more-information, https://citiesfordigitalrights.org/global-observatory-urban-ai, https://cities-today.com/amsterdam-introduces-mandatory-register-for-se…. An intervention from Sarah Boscaro, a student from the University of Padova closed this part of the session. She explained how together with other colleagues Delar (Germany), Hebrew (Turkey) an Instagram advocacy campaign was created with the goal of spreading the knowledge of the charter of Human Rights and principles of the Internet among young people due to needing to be educated on what our rights are on the Internet. 

Anriette Estherhuysen delivered an end-of-session keynote looking at the relevance of these documents in the wider UN IGF ecosystem and how these can mutually support each other. She noted that the fact these bottom-up initiatives that come from within the IGF Community are powerful tools and have had a ripple effect at the sectoral, national, and regional levels and that this should be celebrated.  The main challenge she pointed out is how to connect them all and she called for more collaborations and partnerships to bring this movement forward. Anriette Estherhuysen added that working together by creating bridges between different approaches (e.g, human rights vs social justice) and overcoming political tensions, and linking the rights frameworks to policy frameworks these initiatives can the impact that aim for. She urged the community not to give up on the IGF space: despite its flaws, it brings all stakeholders together and if used effectively can still achieve meaningful practices, partnerships across stakeholder groups. Dynamic coalitions and particularly the IRPC can work as a space to share our learning and share our progress and allow critical debate. 

In the closing statement, Minda Moreira noted how it has been inspiring to see the work of the IGF community and the initiatives that developed from this space in awareness-raising and supporting Human Rights online.  Following up on Anriette’s call, she highlighted the importance of joining the dots, bringing these initiatives together, creating collaborations and partnerships to advance the work that has been done to make a real difference.

IGF 2021 Town Hall #15 EDMO: A multi-stakeholder approach to tackling online disinformation

Open Forum / Town Hall
Updated: Fri, 24/12/2021 - 13:21
Key Takeaways:

1) It will be important to make clearer to the EU public opinion which and how large a role EDMO could have in the monitoring process, whereas it is clear that EDMO is well placed to study the societal effects of disinformation.. 2) Elections period will be crucial moment in which the effectiveness of the mechanisms that EDMO is putting in place will be solicited and will be interesting to get updates on the outcomes of this monitoring activities

Calls to Action

a) Is there a role for the general public to collaborate with EDMO in monitoring the implementation of the codes ? b) Would it be possible to have EDMO tools and services directly accessible by the public ? c) Are the local hubs intending/having the means to consider disinformation in regional and minority languages (e.g. immigrants living within EU countries)? d) How share EDMO's acquired experience with non-Union States?

Session Report

SESSION REPORT (draft 3 - made on the deadline)

Moderator Giacomo Mazzone (EDMO) introduces this townhall by recording that it intends to conclude a discussion that was initiated at IGF 2020: how can we – concretely – tackle disinformation, based on the different actions with the help of institutions, civil society and the media. In 2020, one of the very important announcements were the European Union initiatives. High level speakers called for encompassing solutions.

As one of the more promising actions, EDMO was announced.

Today, after a few months of preparation and organization, EDMO, the European Digital Media Observatory based in Florence, is fully operational and now contributes to the development of those solutions by playing its part in the European strategy.

Krisztina Stump (European Commission, head of unit “Media Convergence and Social Media”) then outlines in broad strokes the Commission’s strategy to fight disinformation.

In order to meet these challenges the Commission decided in May 2021 to issue guidance on how signatories should complement and strengthen the 2018 Code of Practice which has been signed by 26 organizations (including Facebook, Google, Twitter and so on). This voluntary instrument of self-regulation is deemed to have been a success, but it should now be transformed into a co-regulatory instrument for very large online platforms under the Digital Services Act. New signatories also joined the drafting process.

Meanwhile the Commission has published last May a Guidance on Strengthening the Code of Practice, to address its shortcomings through increased and wider commitments: e.g. scrutiny of ad placements to demonetize disinformation, transparency of political and issue-based advertising, reinforcing the integrity of the services against manipulative behavior, empowering users to recognize and flag disinformation, and importantly increasing the coverage of fact-checking and providing wider access to data for researchers. All this is complemented by a request for effective Key Performance Indicators and a reinforced monitoring of the implementation of the Code.

 

The drafting of the renewed Code of Conduct, based on this Guidance is under way, and with the coming Digital Services Act it will become a co-regulatory instrument for very large platforms, not only a voluntary code of practice.

The European Commission has also prepared a legislative proposal on the transparency of political advertising and intends to present a Media Freedom Act to defend media pluralism and press freedom in Europe and to increase transparency.

 

The European Commission supported the creation of EDMO because in their view disinformation can only be tackled through a multi-stakeholder approach, and by the collaboration of researchers and fact-checkers throughout Europe. The goal was to foster and support a cross-border and multi-disciplinary community, and because of this it is important that EDMO already has eight regional hubs, where all players can come together to cooperate with national authorities to monitor the policies of online platforms, and the implementation of the Code. For this last aspect, EDMO is contributing to the fight against disinformation.

 

Lisa Ginsborg (Acting Secretary General of EDMO, at the EUI - European University Institute, School of Transnational Governance) presented more in detail its organization and activities.

The EDMO (European Digital Media Observatory), operational since June 2020 is part of the Union strategy and financed by it, but is a fully independent consortium, with its own governance bodies. Its role is to act as a multistakeholder platform bringing together a multidisciplinary community with expertise in the field of online disinformation, to help detect, analyze and expose disinformation threats, develop media literacy and provide academic support to the public authorities.

This activity needs to be cross-border (“disinformation travels across borders”) both for fact-checking and for research. For this reason, EDMO is cooperating with fact checkers network across Europe to support their work and facilitating their relations with platforms for research purpose and access to relevant data.

To better understand disinformation, EDMO aims to offer a body of facts, evidence and tools to support stakeholders working in the field. At the moment there are 8 EDMO hubs, covering more than half the member States. A call for new local hubs has recently been issued. The list of current hubs can be found here: https://edmo.eu/2021/05/26/national-edmo-hubs-announced/

EDMO is allowing a common fact-checking response to disinformation by providing a collaborative platform for fact-checking organizations in Europe. Thanks to this collaborative fact-checking work, EDMO is able to support Europe-wide collaborative investigations, and publishes monthly disinformation briefs.

IDMO, the Italian hub, is demonstrating the importance of having a wide membership: not only fact-checkers and academics, but also publishers, broadcasters, telecom operators, etc. “Disinformers” are often savvy computer and network users; multiple competencies are necessary to be able stay a step ahead, and test the relevant tools.

Media literacy is a complex landscape that EDMO is mapping, and identifying the players. It does not work in a vacuum, but is an important complement to the activities of regulators and fact-checkers.

Professor Sonia Livingstone (Department of Media and Communications at the London School of Economics and Political Science) introduced the important work done by EDMO to understand and promote media literacy.

In fact Media literacy is a crucial pillar of EDMO's work. EDMO is also closely following the different media literacy experiments in schools, with the objective of presenting evidence-based best practice, to be shared with all interested parties (European and non European). One such takeaway is that a “cognitive effort” on the part of the students is needed to have a long-lasting effect: a complex landscape that EDMO is mapping, and in which it is identifying the players. Research shows that prioritized particular elements of media literacy without recognizing the diversity and complexity of the effort, doesn't work.

Media Literacy does not work in a vacuum, but is an important complement to the activities of regulators and fact-checkers.

 

Giovanni Zagni, director of Pagella Politica – a fact checking group based in Italy- confirmed this, especially because “Disinformation travels across borders”. It travels not only through appearing in one country and then spreading to others, but also because, very often, disinformation refers to foreign countries, as the place where something has happened, which in fact didn't. 

In order to address these issues EDMO is building a network of European fact-checking organizations working on setting up a single common space and promoting trainings and networking activities among them. For instance, when the U.S. left Afghanistan, EDMO asked this network to refer back the disinformation spreading in each of the countries covered by its members, and published all the results into a common multifaceted pan-european analysis. Geographic diversity is crucial when tackling disinformation, as well as the diversity of skills.

 

Gianni Riotta, director of IDMO, the Italian hub, explained the importance of having a wide membership: not only fact-checkers and academics, but also publishers, broadcasters, telecom operators, etc. “Disinformers” are often savvy computer and network users; multiple competencies are necessary to be able stay a step ahead, and test the relevant tools.

Thanks to this collaborative work, EDMO is able to support Europe-wide collaborative investigations, and publishes monthly disinformation briefs

 

Lubos Kuklis, chairman of ERGA, concluded the round of panelists, explaining that the body he currently chairs was tasked in 2018 by the EU Commission to monitor the implementation of the Code of Practice.  This work was done in the context of Europewide elections for the European parliament: this was a good opportunity as these elections are taking place in every member state, and offer an ample opportunity to try to see how the code is implemented in various countries in the EU. 

 

From the point of view of the European regulators (ERGA), local regulators are encouraged to work with EDMO‘s local hubs. Currently the monitoring of the respect of the Code of Practice (and of the coming Code of Conduct) is essentially done by self-reporting by the platforms, but this will have to change in the near future. Cooperation among fact-checkers, regulators researchers and organizations like EDMO could provide a more balanced analysis.

    SESSION TAKEAWAYS AND POSSIBLE WAY FORWARD

    1. Is there a role for the general public to collaborate with EDMO in monitoring the implementation of the codes (which would probably be against the community rules of some platforms)?
      1. Would it be possible to have EDMO tools and services directly accessible by the public (e.g. signaling of issues and timely feedback)?
      2. Are the local hubs intending/having the means to consider disinformation in regional and minority languages (e.g. immigrants living within EU countries)?
      3. The sharing of the acquired experience with non-Union States is done through the EPRA (European Platform of Regulatory Activities) and by EDMO through the publication of reports and sharing of best practice. But there is appetite for more proactive cooperation, according to questions raised during the presentation on line and live at the IGF (Georgia, Mexico, etc.)
      4. It will be important to make clearer to the EU public opinion which and how large a role EDMO could have in the monitoring process, whereas it is clear that EDMO is well placed to study the societal effects of disinformation.
      5. Elections period will be crucial moment in which the effectiveness of the mechanisms that EDMO is putting in place will be solicited and will be interesting to get updates on the outcomes of this monitoring activities.

        PANEL:

        Moderator: Giacomo Mazzone - Eurovisioni

        Rapporteur: Erik Lambert - Eurovisioni/Silver Lining

        Speakers
        • European Commission (Krisztina Stump -European Commission)
        • Introduction to main activities of EDMO (Lisa Ginsborg - EDMO)             
        • The work of the national hubs (Gianni Riotta - IDMO)
        • Collaboration with fact-checkers (Giovanni Zagni – EDMO/PAGELLA POLITICA)
        • Media Literacy (Sonia Livingstone - EDMO/LSE)
        • Collaboration with ERGA (Lubos Kuklis - ERGA)

    IGF 2021 Open Forum #5 Development and Rule-Making on Artificial Intelligence

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Fri, 24/12/2021 - 10:26
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    AI is having a significant and far-reaching impact on the economy and society, and becomes a new driving force for economic and social development. At the same time, AI is also raising common concern around the world including bringing new risks and challenges to national security and ethic. The development and governance of AI need to be balanced urgently.

    ,

    AI governance should be human centric and open which need multinational cooperation and coordination under UN systems and other multilateral mechanism. The AI principle and rules should be universally acceptable and inclusive through sufficient communication.

    Calls to Action

    Artificial intelligence should benefit human well-being and the future. Countries should prevent the militarization of AI and prevent AI from becoming a battleground for major powers.

    ,

    Think tanks can play an important role in AI intelligent governance, build cross-disciplinary, cross-field and cross-country exchange and cooperation platforms, and research and discuss AI technical standards and norms, safety governance rules, ethics and moral codes, etc.

    IGF 2021 WS #214 Achieving Sustainable Local Tourism and Nature Conservation

    Workshop
    Updated: Thu, 23/12/2021 - 02:02
    Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change
    Key Takeaways:

    Governments, business sectors, academia, social enterprises, civil society, and indigenous people should join hands and build up active communities for promoting sustainable local tourism and nature conservation in the spirit of “Chiho Sosei” and Satoyama Initiative.

    ,

    Improving the mobile network coverage in rural areas and promoting multi-culturalism are the keys to creating an eco-tourism-friendly environment, alongside achieving the vision of “smart cities” in the Asia-Pacific Region.

    Calls to Action

    While wildlife trade is not a high priority issue for governments, it is a growing business. Thus, civil society needs to urge credit card companies and online payment platforms to explore ways to prevent money from flowing into illegal activities.

    ,

    We must facilitate networking for youth organisations, promote dialogue between youth groups and governments, allocate mentors to guide them to implement their plans for achieving SDGs.

    Session Report

    Rui CUI: As the founder of Social Responsibility Practitioners (SRP) – a China-based NGO powered by youth to promote SDGs, Rui shared about SRP’s practices regarding promoting sustainable local tourism and nature conservation via digital means. Firstly, to help promote the concept of eco-tourism in the Philippines, they cooperated with Filipino travel influencers to write about eco-tourism, alongside facilitating a conversation about the relevant topics on social media. At the same time, they also join hands with a Philippines-based social enterprise to design a tourism package, catalysing the digital economy in the countries. To expand the sustainable tourism market in the Philippines, they have been building up an active community in Mainland China via WeChat, fostering the bilateral relationship between China and the Philippines at a community level.

    Edmon CHUNG: The core operation of the DotAsia Organization is to manage the .asia domain. Notably, all of their income comes back into supporting internet development and adoption around Asia, and one of the areas they have been supporting is SDGs. Since 2016, when the UN’s SDGs were put in place, DotAsia initiated the Ajitora Project, starting with tigers as its symbol, that goes into primary, secondary, and tertiary students to engage them about the Internet. As part of the advocacy for eco-internet, the Ajitora Project looks at the situation regarding how the Internet has an impact on carbon footprint. DotAsia also observes the capacity, the bandwidth of the digital infrastructure, and the advantages of transforming into a digital economy. As the pilot study, they took six jurisdictions and looked at the situations: 1) The extent of the digital economy versus the Internet carbon footprint, 2) how the power grid supports the Internet, and 3) how efficient is the Internet itself regarding power consumption and carbon footprint is.  

    Kam-sing WONG: Hong Kong is a highly urbanised city, with 70+% of the rural and countryside areas in the territories. There are a few things that HKSARG has done in recent years to promote sustainable local tourism with the concept of smart city: 1) improving the mobile network coverage and connection in the rural area, 2) promoting culturalism, 3) using artificial intelligence and robots to detect fire outbreaks for countryside conservation. The overall strategy for the HKSARG is to make Hong Kong go carbon neutral by 2050. And thus, it is essential to promote sustainable local tourism, facilitate public engagement, and e Hong Kong citizens to adopt a low carbon lifestyle. Three years ago, the HKSARG established the Countryside Conservation Office with the aim t  protect the natural ecology of the remote countryside, revitalise the architectural environment of villages and conserve cultural and heritage resources. Thus, it is crucial for the HKSARG to collaborate amongst the local communities, Universities, NGOs and the business sectors, promoting tourism in a smart, low carbon manner. Furthermore, the recent Northern Metropolis Development Strategy reveals that the whole area will be developed into an innovation and technology hub, alongside conserving the wetland in the region and making it a highly livable, smart, and futuristic city.

    Natalie CHUNG: The COVID-19 pandemic reinforced the role of digital technology in driving transformations, at the same time exacerbating inequalities. Around last year’s Internet Governance Forum, United Nations published the “Roadmap for Digital Cooperation”, which defines the vision of connecting, respecting and protecting all people online. In the report, a quote says, “Digital technology does not exist in a vacuum – it has enormous potential for positive change, but can also reinforce and magnify existing fault lines and worsen inequalities”. Under the context of planetary health, IT operations consume a massive amount of electricity and will be the main contributor to climate change. Technological advancements can offer brand-new solutions to environmental challenges, building a Carbon Conscious Internet. Virtual tours with VR and AR can increasingly provide a more holistic and fruitful user experience for the eco-tourism industry and enhance social inclusion by enabling marginalised communities to engage in leisure tourism activities.

    Edward CHOI: The potential of digital technologies can be best harnessed through multistakeholder collaboration. Youths are taking a more prominent role in the digital world, from building their start-ups to gathering force for climate movements. However, youths are also among the most vulnerable to misinformation. Therefore, youths are stakeholders who should never be missed in formulating digital policies. When policymakers and businesses sit down and listen to youths and civil society members, inclusive and futureproof solutions for nature conservation can be co-created. As a youth representative, it is essential to continue unleashing the potential of youths for building human-centric digital solutions for nature education and sustainable eco-tourism.

    IGF 2021 DC-ISSS DC-ISSS: Making the Internet more secure and safer

    DC Session
    Updated: Wed, 22/12/2021 - 18:07
    Trust, Security, Stability
    Key Takeaways:

    Increasing security of online devices is discussed in various standards and digital industry fora but still need collaborative global solutions that design security into devices.

    ,

    Product security labelling and cybersecurity education strengthen the retail market for secure devices.

    Calls to Action

    IC3S will consider for next phase i. mapping of regional trends in IoT security initiatives; and ii. surveying IoT protocols agreed by different standards developers.

    ,

    Funding will be sought for research on procurement and supply chains as drivers for adopting security standards

    Session Report

    REPORT OF THE IGF SESSION OF THE DYNAMIC COALITION ON INTERNET STANDARDS, SECURITY AND SAFETY   9 DECEMBER 2021 15:50-17:20 UTC

    The IGF’s Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety celebrated its first birthday at the IGF in Katowice. The coalition has made significant progress following its launch at the IGF in 2020, as was reported by the leadership team during its main session on 9 December.

     

    i. Coalition’s name change

     

    The chair of the coalition’s working group on communications (WG4) Raymond Mamattah announced that following a consultation with members held prior to the IGF, the name of the coalition had been changed to the Internet Standards, Security and Safety Coalition with the acronym IS3C. He also presented the new logo incorporating the mission slogan Making the Internet more secure and safer. The coalition in 2022 will proceed to establish a website, register a domain name, and implement a communications strategy that will include the use of social media platforms.

     

    ii. Objectives

     

    The IS3C coordinator, Wout de Natris, explained the goals of the coalition for addressing cybersecurity challenges and its strategy for producing meaningful outputs including policy recommendations, guidance and toolkits. The global impacts of the insecure Internet environment and the resulting barriers to realising the benefits of digital transformation of economies and society, require new initiatives based on global multi-stakeholder cooperation.

     

    IS3C provides a new approach for preventing cyber-attacks and threats that focuses on the role of standards. The use of the Internet and related technologies can become far safer if existing Internet standards and related best practices become more widely and rapidly deployed than is currently the case. For example, devices that are developed with security by design principles, help to create a higher level of protection from cyber threats and attacks. This prevents attacks from succeeding, thus reducing the level of mitigation of incidents. Adopting these principles would help significantly to close the existing gap between the much-discussed theory of cyber security and the daily user experience of insecurity online. 

     

    This level of increased cybersecurity can only be achieved if stakeholders leave their silos and use their expertise to educate decision-takers, so they can make well-informed choices about cyber security requirements. Furthermore, government procurers and major private sector bodies and companies can lead by example when procuring more secure devices, services and network applications.

     

    iii. Outcomes of first phase of work in 2021-22

     

    IS3C established three working groups for the first phase of the coalition’s workplan:

    WG1 - Security by design - Internet of Things

    WG2 - Education and skills 

    WG3 - Procurement, supply chain management and the business case 

     

    Each group has met virtually at regular intervals during 2021. In the session, the three working group Chairs and Vice-Chairs presented their mission statements, reported on progress in developing their policy recommendations and guidelines/toolkits, and explained their research proposals for 2022 in support of these.

     

    WG1 undertook two main activities in 2021: collation of relevant documents on IoT security worldwide and a survey of existing IoT security initiatives. A template for analysis of best practice has been developed which will provide the basis for a research proposal that is in preparation for 2022.

     

    WG2 has developed a set of questions to interview stakeholders from industry, policy and tertiary educational facilities in order to establish how deep the knowledge and skills gap is and to ascertain whether good practices already exist worldwide that assist in closing this gap. During the IGF, cooperation with Youth IGF was discussed in order to enlarge the number of interviews. The outcomes of the interviews will provide the basis for more in-depth research that WG2 has planned to undertake in 2022.

     

    WG3 presented its research plan for 2022 that will identify current practice worldwide relating to security requirements in procurement and supply chain management.  Following analysis of the findings, the members will identify a set of policy recommendations for stakeholders involved in decisions relating to procurement of secure Internet devices and applications.

     

    It is also expected that the coalition will contribute to capacity building programmes in developed, developing and least developed countries, at all levels of involvement concerning procurement and supply chain management.

     

    In addition to the ongoing activities of the three working groups, the IS3C coordinator Wout de Natris announced two critically important outputs expected in late 2022 that will serve to empower stakeholders (including educationalists for inclusion in curricula, procurement agencies and supply chain managers) with comprehensive information about cybersecurity standards and related best practice:


    -      

    an authoritative list of the most important existing Internet-security standards;


    -      

    a comprehensive listing of all relevant Internet standards and ICT best practices with explanations of a) the cybersecurity threats and risks which they aim to prevent; and b) who the lead actors are for deploying them. 

     

    iv. Governance

     

    IS3C’s Senior Policy Adviser Mark Carvell explained the decision in early 2021 to establish an agreed framework of governance that ensures:


    i)           a) stakeholder inclusivity and predictability in the coalition’s process for developing consensus-based outcomes;


    ii)          b) the target audience of public and private sector policymakers and decision-takers will take proper regard of these outcomes as the result of a rigorously open and accountable multi-stakeholder process.

     

    The IS3C webpage on the IGF website provides information about the open application procedure for coalition membership based on subscription to the IS3C mail list, the bottom up agenda-setting and decision making procedures through consensus-based agreement, and the roles of Working Group Chairs, Vice-Chairs and the Leadership team

     

    v. Outreach

     

    Mark Carvell reported on the past year’s outreach programme to raise awareness, to invite participation in the working groups, to ensure geographical, age and gender diversity, and to seek funding for research activities and to cover administration costs. The programme included presentations to regional Internet governance fora (EuroDIG and APrIGF), regional organisations (including the African Union, European Commission and the Organisation of American States); individual governments and ICT companies, and regional and national Internet standards platforms. The leadership team intends in 2022 to increase its outreach to national and regional administrations and stakeholder communities in Africa, south Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean.

     

    The leadership team had also contributed actively to the work of the IGF’s Dynamic Coalitions Coordination Group (DCCG) in support of promoting the role of the coalitions in the evolution of the IGF as a year-round, issue-focused and outcome-orientated multi-stakeholder hub at the centre of the Internet’s system of global governance.

     

    vi. Next steps

     

    Wout de Natris explained that the coalition’s membership will review progress of the current working groups in early 2022 and consider whether to establish new working groups for the second phase of IS3C work that may examine other security-by-design technologies following the work on IoT, and new generic issues such as consumer protection.

     

    Wout de Natris concluded the workshop with an open call for stakeholders to support the work of the IS3C working groups through active participation, awareness-raising in cyber networks, and contributing funding for the research projects.

     

    20 December 2021

     

     

    IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #51 A Vision for the Internet from the Professional Audiovisual Content Sector

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Wed, 22/12/2021 - 17:08
    Calls to Action

    Incentives for Internet infrastructure growth should be deployed in parallel with incentives for local audiovisial content production as a key driver for Internet uptake by consumers

    ,

    A well-regulated Internet entails the protection of trust, safety and security for all users. Active copyright protection online participates in delivering on those core principles and should remain a policy priority

    Session Report

    This session had a single speaker, audiovisual industry expert Bertrand Moullier, delivering a statement of Vision for the Internet from the professional audiovisial production sector worldwide, on behalf of the International Federation of Film Producers Associations [FIAPF].

    After briefly describing the economic and creative parameters audiovisual content producers operate under, Mr Moullier discussed the six core principles and policy priorities that FIAPF, wish to see discussed at future IGFs and given serious consideration by all UN Members with a stake in the future of the Internet and the content made available therein.

    1. Internet growth and sustainable audiovisual production are conjoined factors – we need joined-up policies to reflect this fact

    It is an established fact that – everywhere in the world – people’s appetite for audiovisual works, be they factual or fiction, be they entertainment or education or both, drives the demand for Internet connections. The creative producers and storytellers who take the huge creative and business risks of audiovisual content production, need to be active participants in the development of the Internet globally and in the expansion of its social and cultural impact. We want all stakeholders in the global Internet to include us in the formulation of meaningful governance principles and policies.

    The fact that audiovisual content made by the professional industry is a strategic driver for Internet growth is still only very poorly reflected in local and international policies and regulations. There is a considerable lack of joined-up policies that ally stimulus measures for Internet connectivity with the incentivising of sustainable domestic audiovisual content production. It is as if the two existed in separate silos.

    We urge governments and the multi-lateral system to consider the need for integrating and combining incentives for Internet growth with incentives for the development of sustainable local audiovisual content production. ‘Sustainable’ in this instance refers to the ability for content producers to make a career out of making and disseminating works that are culturally, linguistically and socially relevant to local cultures.

    2) The need for universal Broadband

    Now, Ubiquitous connectivity and quality connectivity are shared goals for all stakeholders at IGF. The audiovisual production sector  unreservedly supports the IGF goal of connectivity for all people everywhere. Improved and expanded connectivity translate into growing opportunities for producers and their creative and distribution partners to reach new users and to satisfy the runaway demand for quality culture, entertainment and education.

    3) Safety and Security Online

    This topic has been a salient issue at this, as well as past IGF annual editions: Consumers, businesses and governments must trust that their safety and security are protected online for the Internet economy to continue to grow and for its social dividends to pay off. 

    IP protection is an essential part of users’ safety and security. It is a fallacy to suggest that copyright and other IP rights are for the privileged few:  these laws and regulations protect all creations of the spirit, including audiovisual works, everywhere; they protect small companies as well as large conglomerates and enable smaller audiovisual entrepreneurs to convert their and their teams’ talent and hard work into creative assets that can sustain themand the jobs they have created.

    But IP laws are only as effective as those who use them: we call on governments and the UN to place more emphasis on training and education for people in the creative industries and, in particular, the audiovisual sector:

    4) Freedom of expression

    Free expression is critical to the creative industries as vehicles for the cultural conversation and its broader implications in the fields of social life and political debate. However, we also recognize the precept that, of necessity, the right to free expression is not absolute.  There are long standing limitations on expression where it impinges on the rights of others – e.g. hate speech or incitation to racial violence - and these limitations need to be exercised consistently with international standards. Similarly, we oppose any Internet service justifying inaction in the face of IP rights violation, by instrumentalizing – or hiding behind – a spurious freedom of expression defense.

    1. The Internet is not the only future for audiovisual distribution – we need a diversity of media and modes of consumption

    Governments and the multi-lateral system should be wary of considering that the future of the audiovisual economy is necessarily destined to be entirely online. Audiovisual content production is inherently risky, requiring considerable upfront investment and sunk costs, with very little possibility of forecasting revenue from the exploitation of the rights in the finished film or audiovisual content. In order to exist and to thrive as a cultural sector, we need a diversity of production formats and  distribution opportunities. This diversity benefit consumers too, because they then have a greater choice of media and platforms with a range of options and pricing points, compatible with the variations in spending power. This means, for instance, that public policies and incentives should also be focused on the long-term viability of audiovisual media other than online:  linear broadcast TV, is proving extraordinarily resilient. Cinemas also – and despite the damaging hiatus caused by the COVID emergency – remain a popular form of consumption of single audiovisual works and the important launch market for many films, also to build awareness among audiences for future online exploitation on legal offers. 

    6) The need for sound Internet Governance Structures

    The ultimate objective behind incentivizing and governing the Internet should be to promote a safe and secure global communications’ environment based on the rule of law, transparency and accountability.

    FIAPF and its constituent Members are committed to open, transparent multi-stakeholder processes to meet this goal. IGF can – and already does – play an important part in such a process.  We believe that to be successful all members of the Internet community must be meaningfully involved in fostering rights and responsibilities, community norms and the protection of core values such as respect for the consumer, connectivity for all, security.

    IGF support to the inclusion of the audiovisual sector and other creative industries is encouraging and it should be expanded in years to come.

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #53 - Local Audiovisual Content for Local Cultures - What Role for the Internet? A Discussion with Sarah Migwi, Co-founder & Managing Director, Protel Studios Ltd, Nairobi, Kenya

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Wed, 22/12/2021 - 16:25
    Calls to Action

    Need to incentivise local professional audiovisual content production as a proven driver of demand for Internet connectivity and devices

    ,

    Need to offer better protection of IP assets developped by local audiovisual content companies, so they may achieve long term sustainability

    Session Report

    Sarah Migwi, is the founder and CEO of the Kenyan audiovisual content production company Protel Studios. She was the sole scheduled speaker in this Lightning Talk session organised by the International Federation of Film Producers Associations [FIAPF]. She was interviewed by FIAPF’s Bertrand Moullier.

    The editorial aim of the session was to highlight, through a case study, the important role that broadband Internet development in parts of Africa play in enabling a diverse and more sustainable audiovisual content production sector, for the benefit of Internet users. The availability of diverse content in their local languages is a key motivator for individuals to seek to connect to Internet, hence the importance of incentivising local audiovisual production sectors alongside broadband infrastructure development.

    Sarah Migwi is a film believer in the adage that “content is king” and that audiovisual content in particular, can help change lives and bring much-needed hope in a region that has been deeply affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. She believes that, with the exception of music, the medium that cuts most powerfully across age, social class, wealth status and other distinctions, is audiovisual content.

    Over the years, with Protel Studios, which she launched in 2008, she and her team have aimed to generate new ideas and develop TV programming that can travel across cultural boundaries within Kenya and East Africa at large. Sarah’s earlier role as an executive in one of the first pan-African broadcasting organisation, the then Tanzania-based East Africa TV, has prepared her well for developing and producing content with a multi-cultural reach.   

    Like other successful audiovisual content companies in the East African region, Protel’s output is diverse and multi-format. However, TV programming has been at the heart of its content strategy from the outset, ranging broadly from serious drama to comedy, reality and game shows.

    Sarah described the two main content production strategies available to companies working in her market: the first entails media houses (e.g. TV stations and other platforms) calling for projects in specific genres and formats and inviting Protel and other companies to pitch ideas which – if selected – will then be fully commissioned and their production costs fully paid for by the broadcaster. In this instance, the commissioning entity owns the copyright in the project as well as all distribution and exploitation rights.

    The second model entails Protel’s creative and business teams generating their own ideas for new original content, financing it independently and picking the best destination platforms to license the content to. Sarah has a strong preference for this second model. The reason is that, by Protel covering its own production risk (downside), it is also in a position to own and all IP rights in the content produced and to control the licensing choices and revenues that may accrue from such deals (upside).  It also means licensing to as many platforms as possible in order to cover the costs of production and maximise consumers’ options for seeing the content.

    Sarah observed that the digital disruption has given the Kenyan audiovisual sector new and exciting options. “Digital has put the power back on us as originators of content”, she says. Protel’s deployment on the Internet began in 2009, when the company opened its own branded channel on YouTube. This first move made it possible for Protel to establish a direct connection with the audience for the popular shows whose IP rights Sarah and her team own and control. She believes Over-the-top Internet services are an important destination for Protel’s original content and observes that their viewers are “no longer wedded to television by appointment” and have online alternatives.

    As she took advantage of more IP ownership of Protel’s content and the opportunities offered by the growth in broadband fixed and mobile services in the regions, Sarah kept the focus on making shows that are truly reflective of the living culture and sub-cultures of Kenya and surrounding countries. For a successful satirical show, ApaKuleNews, she experimented with shooting not in Ki-Swahili or English but, rather in Sheng, the urban slang used by the youth the show was aimed at. The experience was conclusive, with ApakuleNews aggregating significant numbers and developing cult status amongst the young.

    For one of Protel most successful shows, the hugely popular sitcom Real Househelps of Kawangare, Sarah also committed to realism by having actors speak in the same urban slang. Sarah had licensed the linear broadcaster KTN for a limited for two weekly runs and thereafter a second run on their premium pay platform. In parallel, after KTN’s initial windoe, Real Househelps was also put it up on the Protel Youtube channel, where it attracted millions of additional viewers.

    Sarah’s vision for the next stage of Protel’s growth is to launch their own branded OTT service, direct to the consumer, without the mediation of a hosting site. Sarah points our that this development will enable Protel to offer different packages at different pricing points, from all-you-can-eat annual subscriptions to transactional per-view options, and including a free option where consumers could enjoy content with short advertising breaks.

    As Sarah sees it, having its own Internet-based platform will give Protel the freedom to upload its content and thus exploit the entire back-catalogue and current IP assets whilst continuing to also license to free to air broadcasters.

    Sarah believes that local creative entrepreneurs like herself need two main sets of measures to be able to play their part fully in the growth of demand for Internet connectivity and services. The first priority should be better protection of copyright owners, which she describes as very ineffectual at present. She observes that – although there is legislation, the enforcement is weak and needs to addressed. The second priority is a banking system that recognises professionally-produced audiovisual content as valuable IP assets that can be used a collateral to raise cash-flow loans and other forms of financing for local content of cultural and social relevance.

    IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #39 Application of Artificial Intelligence for Children - Research Report and Case Study Collection

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Wed, 22/12/2021 - 09:01
    Key Takeaways:

    It is extremely important to continue reflecting on the specific needs of children as well as the opportunities and risks AIs generate.It is central to continue exploring how further research, piloting of new practices, adjustment of current ones as well as dissemination and exchanges can contribute not only to child wellbeing and child rights in the country but also to the global innovation agenda on this front.

    Calls to Action

    Hope government and enterprise follow the 2021 new policy guidance from UNICEF, to support children’s development and well-being, and prepare children for present and future developments in AI. For example, ensure inclusion of and for children; prioritize fairness and non-discrimination for children; protect children’s data and privacy; provide transparency, explainability, and accountability for children.

    Session Report

    On December 10, IGF 2021 “Application of Artificial Intelligence for Children - Research Report and Case Study Collection” Launches and Awards was successfully held by co-organizers China Federation of Internet Societies(CFIS), Communication University of China(CUC), and UNICEF in Hybrid way. The session invited guests to share their case studies, such as AI Education: Exploration and Practice of AI Characteristic Education in Western China; Children's health: Application and Practice of Smart Sports Learning and Management System; Using AI System to Promote Content Safety for Children. During the session, participants discussed AI technology conducive to the healthy growth of children and related moral, ethical standards. The summary showing as follows:

    Zhao Hui,Secretary General of China Federation of Internet Societies(CFIS), noted that China has always attached great importance to the protection of minors in Cyberspace. The revision of the Child Protection Law of the People's Republic of China, which was officially put into effect on June 1, 2021, added a particular chapter on "Internet Protection", aiming at protecting minors in Cyberspace. Ms. Zhao said that CFIS has paid close attention to and actively participated in the protection of minors in Cyberspace since its establishment in 2018. In the future, CFIS will continue to explore the establishment of cooperation mechanisms on AI for children with its unique advantages and share its ideas on enhancing the healthy development of minors on the Internet environment.

    Duan Peng, Vice President of Communication University of China(CUC), pointed out that the rapid development of AI technology not only brings great convenience to children's education, health, and entertainment, but also brings people concerns about privacy protection and fairness. CUC has always attached great importance to the integration of discipline construction related to AI, technological progress, and social responsibility, and has a very deep academic accumulation in the field of intelligent media network. Mr. Duan hoped that through the communication of this meeting, all parties can get inspiration from the application of AI technology for children and contribute to the development and application of AI technology in the children related fields.

    Case study introduction:

    [Case study: AI Education-Exploration and Practice of AI Characteristic Education in Western China]Chen Chen, Chief of Integrated Coordination Section, Cyberspace Administration of Chongqing, Rongchang District, introduced that Rongchang District pushes forward the systematic and organic integration of AI with education, teaching and learning by strengthening the platform building for "Intelligent Campus", carrying out experiencing programs, integrating teaching resources to build up the teaching staff for AI classes, and developing curriculum for AI which features robotics. The initiative has enriched students' after-school life, improved their hands-on ability, cultivated their interest in scientific research and AI, stimulated their desire for exploration, and helped teenagers improve their network civilization literacy.

    [Case study:Children's health-Application and Practice of Smart Sports Learning and Management System]Wang Xuwen, Head of Solution Architect, Education Sector, Alibaba Cloud Computing Co., Ltd. Shanghai, introduced how Alibaba's exploration and practice in using AI technology to help youth with sports and efforts to promote the development of youth sports from a traditional model that relies on experience to an intelligent model driven by data. Wearable devices can sense the physical signs of students exercise in real time, and send data to the Cloud through the Internet of Things for continuous monitoring. With the help of data models and algorithms, students can instantly understand their own physical performances. Teachers can make personalized training plans based on each student's physical fitness and state. More importantly, under continuous data monitoring, in the event of abnormal physical signs, artificial intelligence can send alerts to teachers and parents as soon as possible so that necessary measures can be taken to avoid accidental injuries caused by sports. This technology will be widely used in physical education in the future, and play an important role in enhancing the physique of teenagers and improving the health of the whole nation.

    [Case study: Using AI System to Promote Content Safety for Children]Wang Xiang, Tencent Security Product Director, said how to use science and technology to ensure that children access the Internet safely and healthily and to help with their growth is a new social issue with both the urgency and protracted nature, raising public concerns. Therefore, Tencent Security launcheda Guard for Children project, dedicated to promoting content safety for children by AI technology and risk control in different scenarios. First, Tencent sets up open courses to improve online security awareness of parents and teenagers. Secondly, the company creates high-quality videos and audios for children and then distributes these contents precisely by AI to children with different characters to enhance children's vital abilities like subject knowledge, common sense, EQ education etc. Finally, through AI detection, the company reduces inappropriate internet information to children, such as bullying, bad behavior, bad ACG, etc. At present, they process over 300 billion pieces of content every year and automatically detect over 500 million inappropriate pieces.

    Dora Giusti, Chief Child Protection UNICEF China, concluded that all parties keep exploring Children's needs in development and studying both opportunities and risks brought by AI. She said that all parties should strengthen international cooperation, share experiences with other countries and maintain innovative development. She also urged all parties to abide by their social responsibilities, formulate relevant guidelines, further promote the development of AI for children, and effectively safeguard children's rights based on the second version of AI for Children-Policy Guidance released by UNICEF in 2021.

    In the Q&A part, the audience and guests exchanged views on social responsibility, children's privacy, data security, and so on. Participants unanimously agreed that while developing AI, we should always adhere to the principle of technology for good, safeguard children's dignity, protect and promote their free development and diversified growth. They also stressed that AI products should protect children's privacy, promote children's physical and mental health, and control potential risks. They call for further international exchanges, as well as new models and ways of international cooperation to promote the research of AI technology for children.

     

     

     

    IGF 2021 WS #158 Digital Inclusivity in DLDCs: User Connectivity vs. Content

    Workshop
    Updated: Wed, 22/12/2021 - 08:39
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:
    Data Localization: Data and content should be localized with government championing the creation of enabling environment. This would resolve the issues around trust and unauthorized data mining. Government Bureaucracy and Taxation: Permit from Government in launching projects is a big bottleneck to connectivity today. There are a lot of bureaucracy with government processes. Government's heavy tax on digital services should be discouraged, Expensive Connectivity: Connecting is still very expensive with less content available for people to access and all these need to be addressed to have meaningful connectivity. Telcos should practice infrastructural handshake Cyber Safety: Safety online should also be considered. People would come online if it’s safe of threats & cyberbully There should be funding availability for innovators & access to loan to improve on local solutions
    Calls to Action
    Governments should digitize their processes without any more delays & put citizen-facing services online while also ensuring that digital infrastructure deficits are vigorously addressed. Government should create a level playing field & provide some level of support to local content creators to ensure they meet the standards generally acceptable by users at an affordable price. Telcos should engage in infrastructure sharing to reduce waste...,

    Private Sector and Civil Society Organizations should undertake enlightenment & digital literacy programs to sensitize the general public, the benefits the Internet provides, and as well debunk the fairs of coming online. Government to grant telcos tax holiday, loan facilities, important infrastructures i.e energy, and reduce the cost of "right of way" in order to reduce the cost of connection which is currently quite high.

    Session Report

     

    IGF 2021 WS #158 Digital Inclusivity in DLDCs: User Connectivity vs. Content
     

    AfICTA’s Workshop session @ the IGF-2021 held concurrently as the 9th AfICTA Summit in a hybrid format. The session which was the third installment of an AfICTA workshop at the global IGF was moderated by Paul Rowney, the Deputy Chair of AfICTA. The Chair of AfICTA, Mr. Thabo Mashegoane gave a brief opening remark. Mr. Thabo Mashegoane stated how critical the topic “Digital Inclusivity in Developing and Least Developed Countries (DLDCs): User Connectivity vs Content” is, especially in a time where strategies are being devised regarding connecting the disconnected half of the world. He appreciated the panelists and attendees for joining.
    Thabo MashegoanePaul Rowney

    The moderator gave background information about AfICTA as an advocacy group for businesses in Africa and that though connectivity in Africa is 50%, the speed is still relatively slow, and aside from being connected, another critical aspect of connectivity is content accessibility.

    He gave a brief introduction of all the panelists; Dr. Isa Ibrahim Jalo the Director of Abuja Geographic Information Systems – AGIS; Dr. Melissa Sassi the Global Head of IBM Hyper Protect Accelerator, Mrs. Mary Uduma, West Africa IGF Coordinator; Kulesza Joanna the Assistant Professor of International Law University North Poland and Jane Coffin the Senior VP & Internet Growth, ISOC.

    Question 1: Barriers to universal and meaningful access: What are the main challenges that people face in obtaining and making full use of Internet access? To what extent are these the result of social, economic, and cultural factors, and to what extent do they result from aspects of the digital environment? How can we use the responses to these questions to better understand the intersection between digital policies and other policy areas? Can this understanding help us to develop and implement more realistic Internet-related policy goals?

    Dr. Isa Ibrahim Jalo mentioned affordability as one of the major barriers, as the cost of data is still not affordable for a lot of people. He also highlighted the non-availability of quality access which the Fiber optic is meant to address but it’s hard to have it at the hinterland due to several factors like “the cost of the right of way”, government policies, and most times delayed licensing. Dr. Isa Jalo mentioned the need for contents and data to be localized with the government championing the creation of enabling environments such as policy formulation, creating required infrastructures, and resolving issues around trust and unauthorized data mining.

    Dr. Melissa Sassi’s standpoint regarding “…Connectivity vs Content” was that both are extremely important to ensuring the last-mile connection. She mentioned how important it is to enable young people with access to various digital skills such that they aren’t just consumers but creators, contributing their quota toward creating indigenous solutions to problems. She recounted some of her interventions on digital literacy for youths on the continent, partnerships, and funding interventions such as Credit Plus from Uganda that provides temporary loans which aren’t predatory. Pay Hippo provides small businesses loan access etc.

    Mrs. Mary Uduma raised the issue of availability as another major bottleneck to improving connectivity. The dilemma whereby one can afford it but it’s not available. She mentioned how there are little or no citizen-facing contents online and how the need of the people with special needs are least considered. Language is another major barrier as people with no formal education find it difficult to interact online. She also raised the issue of trust and shared her experience of people’s wrong perception of what the Internet is. Safety online is very important as more people would come online only if it’s safe from threats and cyberbullying.

    Kulesza Joanna examined the issue of capacity building, human rights, and online safety. She highlighted how safety online is important to end-users most especially now that huge junk of our day-to-day activities are based online due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. She mentioned that users’ security online should be of great concern to stakeholders by enlightening and educating them on how they could keep safe while using the Internet. Another important aspect of Joanna’s intervention was the need to get not just only the youths connected but also the older generation through education. She mentioned some of the ongoing interventions on ensuring more user connectivity/safety with “GFC - Global Funds for Cyber-Expertees and Council of Europe.

    The floor was opened for interventions and questions

    We had Rada from Pakistan; How do we ensure there are more positive local contents rather than harmful contents. Melissa answered that by putting more of the positive content online and making sure solutions are well branded.

    We had Nassar Nicholas, Tanzania Digital Programme Manager with the list of what the government is doing to improve digital access and knowledge. About 200 Women and Youth Innovation Hubs to enhance connectivity with language barrier resolved.

    Akintunde opined that there is a need to create groups like ISOC in schools that would further expose school children to digital knowledge and mentorship and that could be scaled such that it becomes a regional initiative.

    Kossi AMESSINOU expressed how connectivity in schools is important to universal digital access.

    Some Panelists

    Government Bureaucracy and Taxation: Permit from Government in launching a project is a big bottleneck to connectivity today. There are a lot of bureaucracies with government processes and policies. Taxation on every digital initiative by the government discourages innovators and delays connectivity.

    Question 2: Practical locally-driven policy solutions: What lessons can be drawn (and how) from successful policy solutions to universal access and meaningful connectivity around the world while taking into account local specificities and needs? In particular, what are the relevant practices implemented by local actors (local government, civil society, local providers, and entrepreneurs) to advance universal and meaningful access?

    Joanna mentioned that African leaders are adopting good practices to leapfrog into the future and thought it’s a good idea that must be promoted. She added that discussions around connectivity and service provision must be encouraged and joining fora like ICANN, IGF, ISOC, and other initiatives would fast-track the idea and expose Africa to solutions that are already available. Regarding power inconsistency as earlier mentioned by one of the panelists, Joanna pointed out that ISOC supports solar panel projects in some cities and rural areas.

    Mary Uduma said there should be a synergy between the government and other stakeholders. Initiatives must be clearly spelled out by innovators so as to encourage the government’s support. She charged the government to ensure their efforts are not in silos, there should be digital corporations at the local level and the government should work with all their arms and provide better services either cybersecurity, digital literacy, capacity building, etc.

    Melissa explained the need for a multi-stakeholder approach and stated some of her interventions with the Cape Verde Government regarding building entrepreneurship and capacity development. National Day of Code was established with the support of the Ministry of Education, Ministry of IT, and Ministry of Tourism. She mentioned that the initiative has gone through the teachers to the students empowering them on how to code.

    Other Panelists and Room Participants

    The floor was opened for interventions and questions

    Raiz Mondugu, Professor of Information from Nepal brought in the perspective of Nepal with respect to digitalization and Internet access to users which is growing by the day.

    Kemambo from Tanzania works with content creators, service providers and shared her experience around policy formulation and how governments in Africa do not prioritize connectivity but build other infrastructures. Delay with approving licensing and heavy taxation on Internet services.

    Inye Kemabonta’s comment was on the 4th of the 4As (Accessibility, Availability, Affordability, and Appropriate Contents) He said there are little or no appropriate content available to users in a form that is easily accessible to them. He cited an example of featured phones usage in Nigeria for education, financial transactions, and how peoples’ needs are met.

    Kileo Yusuph intervened regarding capacity building. 3 things he said could be the reasons for getting it wrong. a. There are more people with the wrong skill-set sitting in the right places, b. Lack of awareness of the opportunities the internet brings and c. Lack of knowledge and synergy.

    Yusuf Ahamad further buttressed the point regarding the need for government to be more decisive in encouraging more people to come online rather than victimizing them with laws and taxes.

    In Concluding the session, Kossi encouraged that government should bring all important stakeholders to the table for a stronger and more inclusive perspective.

    Dr. Isa Jalo also encouraged that government should be inclusive regarding the formulation of laws and should also see to digitizing all their processes so as to drive traffic online and as well encourage those that are not online to come online. We must as well build capacity regarding content creation.

    Mrs. Mary Uduma and Melissa Sassi also appreciated all the information shared and the knowledge impacted and look forward to putting them into action.

    The session was closed by the moderator, Mr. Paul Rowney

    IGF 2021 WS #106 Open Source Collaboration for Digital Sovereignty

    Workshop
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 17:29
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:
    Panelists agreed that collaboration on open source software supports digital sovereignty. Responses had a theme of the positive sum collaboration, where OSS contributions support local benefits in new startups, skills, and GovTech but also support global benefits.
    Calls to Action

    Mr. Abhishek Singh issued a call to action for a global partnership for OSS adoption, where GovTech OSS innovations can be shared around the world.

    Session Report

    Panelists agreed that collaboration on open source software supports digital sovereignty, with each elaborating on different aspects in their initial remarks.

    Moderator Paula Grzegorzewska, Strategic Partnerships Director at OpenForum Europe, shared findings from a European Commission sponsored study on the economic impact of open source software (OSS) and hardware for the EU. It can be found here: https://openforumeurope.org/open-source-impact-study/

    Mike Linksvayer, Head of Developer Policy at GitHub, described opportunities that OSS provides for digital sovereignty, including boosting local capabilities, as well as risks that digital sovereignty, particularly a perspective that tech adversarialism, could cut off open source collaboration communities and lead to underinvestment in the global commons of open source software. He presented a model of evolution companies have undergone from (1) ignoring/fearing open source, (2) to consuming open source, (3) to releasing open source in an ad hoc way, (4) to holistically contributing to it, particularly upstream to where projects originate outside specific companies, to (5) embracing open source innovation as a path to digital transformation. He compared this model to a similar process that governments are taking, albeit more slowly due to their large scale. Initially governments (1) ignored open source, (2) then began to procure open source as users, (3) then experiment with developing open source applications, (4) embracing policies to foster open source ecosystems, to finally (5) embracing open source as a strategic effort to achieve digital sovereignty.

    Jeremy (Zhihui) Liang, Deputy Secretary of the China OSS Promotion Union, shared the history of the China OSS Promotion Union and the evolution of the open source ecosystem in China. He reflected that this evolution of open source that had similarities to the model that Mike presented, with China initially consuming open source, then growing the domestic community of contributors, and beginning in 2019 the latest phase: collaborating on open source internationally. He presented a case on Baidu Apollo 6.0, an open source autonomous vehicle platform that has 45,000 developers from 97 countries around the world. Challenges remind, particularly on technical security risks, legal risks, and supply chain risks. But a growing market for open source, open source skills among developers, and government awareness can lead to collaboration on these challenges. Ultimately, open source can improve trust among digital sovereignty partners and build skills and companies that support national digital economies.

    Abhishek Singh, Head of eGovernance Division, Government of India, presented on the Indian government’s experience with OSS. Embracing OSS in government brings distinct benefits vs. using proprietary software. It drives a culture of innovation, where developers can contribute their ideas to make more comprehensive and ultimately better products that adapt to and meet the needs of citizens. Almost all Indian digital efforts run on or use FOSS, including the Aadhaar biometric identification system, an online education platform, a document e-wallet system, and the CoWIN vaccination system. The Indian government has found that by opening up code, they can get contributions that improve these systems, and has run innovation challenges to boost open source participation. The key challenge that the government has faced is miscommunication: historically, open source was seen as free of charge and therefore without anyone responsible to maintain it and therefore without trust. Mr. Singh noted, however, this fear is misplaced: in practice this is not the case and the security of open source software is often more secure than proprietary software. OSS does not undermine digital or data sovereignty. Instead, processes and security around national data can be maintained while using OSS. In fact, OSS can increase digital sovereignty and permit governments to contribute to the global good.

    Nataliya Langburd Wright, PhD Researcher at Harvard Business School, presented a research paper on OSS and entrepreneurship around the world: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=58350 She and her coauthors found that a 1 percent increase in code committed to GitHub is associated with 5 to 15 new companies started per year per country. This supports a virtuous cycle, where new ventures in turn are associated with more code contributions: a 1 percent increase leads to 53-69,000 commits per year per country. Policymakers can use OSS as a tool to promote entrepreneurship, and the private sector investors can use OSS contributions as a marker of a quality entrepreneurship ecosystem worthy of investment.

    Laurence Moroney, Lead Artificial Intelligence Advocate at Google, presented on efforts of his company to widen access and opportunity from AI to boost local economies, via OSS, particularly tensorflow 2.0 that was oriented towards software developers, not simply AI researchers, and open access education materials and certifications. He has partnered with governments to bring these tools to local populations, including in Indonesia in partnership with the Ministry of Culture, Education, and Technology.

    Questions covered the evolution of governments from consuming to contributing to OSS. In China, OSS global collaboration has become an innovation model that contributes to the government’s 5 year plan. Abhishek Singh shared from the Indian perspective that Nataliya Langburd Wright’s research rings true in India: with OSS contributing to a vibrant startup ecosystem in India. Nataliya Langburd Wright suggested further policy recommendations: procurement offers a top-down model, but bottom up approaches of facilitating projects and skills are key, as is the implementation of policies into practice. Laurence Moroney shared that globally interconnected platforms can help governments address “braindrain”, where talent need not leave their home country in order to benefit from economic opportunity. Today, the TensorFlow OSS project has contributors from almost every country in the world.

    An audience member shared the example of Sweden’s OSS procurement policy that has worked well, where one agreement can be reused.

    Abhishek Singh called for a global partnership for OSS adoption, where GovTech OSS innovations can be shared around the world.

    Examining the session hashtag on Twitter, aside from the organizers, the Geneva Internet Platform prepared a summary of the session, available here: https://dig.watch/events/igf2021/open-source-collaboration-for-digital-… GitHub also published a summary, available here: https://github.blog/2021-12-13-github-at-the-un-internet-governance-for…

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #27 Rebuilding Trust: A Path Toward More Holistic Cybersecurity

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 15:09
    Key Takeaways:

    Trust and transparency can form the base of a more holistic approach to cybersecurity. Nishan Chelvachandran suggested that we bring a much wider variety of stakeholders to the table to discuss cybersecurity--anthropologists, teachers, engineers, policymakers and others--even if they don’t agree. This can be a first step toward more effective cybersecurity measures.

    ,

    A next step calls for redesigning the design process so we begin to design with stakeholders, not for them. He stressed that the involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders who have a say in the design and security of technology could form a basis for trust from the very beginning.

    Session Report

     

    The talk began with the basic question: “What is cybersecurity? At one point, cybersecurity was thought of as IT security--antivirus software or combatting hacking, remarked the speaker, Nishan Chelvachandran, a former high level cybersecurity advisor for the UK Government (and Founder and CEO of Iron Lakes, Chair of the IEEE Industry Connections program on Trustworthy Technical Implementations of Children’s Online/Offline Experiences, and the Co-Chair of the IEEE AI-Driven Innovations for Cities and People Industry Connections Program). This is an important part of cybersecurity, he said, but the term is much broader than that. Cybersecurity actually covers the intersectionality between technology and humanity. The cybersecurity element would be to secure those interactions--through a technological security implementation, with the various encryption protocols, for instance, or perhaps through legal and governance frameworks defining how processes are used. So, in this sense, Chelvachandran noted, cybersecurity does not just secure the technology, it also considers accountability and asks the question “how is the technology being used?” “Why is it being used?” and “What is it actually doing?” (its effects), and then it secures the individual’s experience. 

    With the rapid development of new technologies and devices, the scope of cybersecurity has mushroomed--more people are using more devices, and more governments, companies, and others are digitizing. This in turn means that more and more personal data is being collected and used for decision making. 

    When asked “what keeps him up at night about the current state of cybersecurity?” (especially in relation to children, given that he chairs the IEEE standards working group on “trustworthy tech for kids”) Chelvachandran replied, “Running before we can walk,” or introducing things into the market before stress-testing them and perpetually searching for cybersecurity solutions rather than trying to get things right during the design phase. He is all for “lightning levels of progress,” especially when it benefits the global south, underrepresented groups, and the UN SDGs, but warns that if we run before we can walk, we run the risk of creating even bigger problems. 

    In the past, considering cybersecurity after producing a product or service may not have caused a problem that could not be fixed, noted Chelvachandran. Now that we are on the precipice of a full virtual presence, with conversations in the Metaverse and government maintenance of full datasets of personal biological data, “the train could run away from the station,” said Chelvachandran, “and at the moment, we don't necessarily have adequate brakes.” Right now, we really need to be able to bridge that gap and bring the governance, standardization, and trustworthiness in line with the design and deployment of the technology rather than deploying the technology and then seeing where it's failing and trying to patch it up afterwards.

    He acknowledged that doing things better would not be easy, and noted that this is why we really need to think about cybersecurity in a transdisciplinary way, recommending that we strive to bring in all stakeholders. Cybersecurity stems from technology, and of course, a lot of people like Chelvachandran who are engineers and technologists know the technology, but if we are thinking about human intersectionality, then we need to include anthropologists, psychologists, teachers and policymakers in the development of standards and technology, he emphasized. We need to figure out what the problem is and look at things from a different perspective, especially because the technologies that we are deploying will be used by everyone, not just a small subset of society.

    A next step calls for redesigning the design process so we begin to design with stakeholders, not for them. He stressed that the involvement of a wide variety of stakeholders who have a say in the design and security of technology could form a basis for trust from the very beginning. As an example, many technologies that children are currently using were not designed for children’s use, and those that were, such as children’s products, services, and even games, have been designed for the most part by adults, explained Chelvachandran. “We should redesign the design process,” he said, “this is key to really rethinking how to create something not just fit for purpose, but something that is more future proof, and that “bakes in” security principles and processes at the design stage rather than coming up with a bandaid solution after something is built.”   

    Involve everyone, even the naysayers. Cybersecurity must be a truly collaborative effort, with the involvement of government, NGOs, academics, and companies, noted Chelvachandran, mentioning that even stakeholders with objections should be included in the process.  The IEEE Industry Connections program brings together a wide variety of stakeholders to ask tough questions and work on what something could look like. Many of the issues discussed are conceptual, abstract, and the program looks at how to take the abstractions, whether from research or case studies, and build something. This work can then lead to standardization work which then can help govern and steer industry. 

    Cybersecurity, transparency, and trust. An attendee asked: “Do you think that there is a shift in how we think about distinguishing and connecting security and safety concerns?” Yes, there has been a shift, replied Chelvachandran. We used to talk about privacy as protecting our data and our anonymity--not letting people see what we are doing. Now that our data is now already in the hands of agencies, governments, public entities, companies and others, the focus is shifting from privacy to agency, and governing who uses it and why. It might be that later on, a user decides that they don’t like the company or service anymore and they withdraw their consent for the company to use their data.  

    Chelvachandran advocates for going back to “plain, straightforward, transparent ways of communicating to the user, rather than serving them countless pages of terms and conditions. We should make things “understandable” rather than “explainable” because many technologies are actually quite difficult to explain, and we could do much more interms of helping people understand who is using their data and why they are using it. 

    Chelvachandran ended by emphasizing that we should not have echo chambers, with everyone agreeing to design something. “We really need to have these conversations of not just whether we can design it, but should we, and if we should, which a lot of the time I believe we should, then how do we do it in a way that's fair and transparent and representative and secure and safe? This is really where we should be at and I don't think enough of that is done.”

    IGF 2021 DCNN Device Neutrality and Interoperability for Internet Openness

    DC Session
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 14:25
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    There is a great deal of work needed by regulators and stakeholders to cooperate and foster effective enforcement of policies aimed at promoting internet openness. Some of such policies are already in place in many countries (e.g. net neutrality laws) but their implementation is frequently very timid.

    Calls to Action

    Effective and participatory implementation, involving users, is essential to guarantee Internet openness. Stakeholders should follow the recommendations on implementation stressed already 5 years ago in the Policy Statement on Net Neutrality, promoted by DCNN https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2016/833-dcnn…

    Session Report

    The central role digital platforms play in economic relations and their potential impact in democratic processes and human rights require adequate regulation to optimize how society uses them. One important regulatory step is implementing platform interoperability - which has many facets, from data to protocols and legal systems. This potentially unlocks value in digital environments, strengthening competition and providing user control.

    This session of the DCNN meeting highlighted the various aspects of internet openness that go beyond the usual debate on net neutrality. These include device neutrality and interoperability, which were the focus of the session due to their key role in a more open and multi-faceted debate about internet openness.

    Classical net neutrality issues, such as non-discriminatory packet management, are necessary, albeit not sufficient to achieve the ideal of internet openness proposed. Increasingly, net neutrality issues take the fore alongside these other debates, revealing the need for a multi-layered approach to internet openness.

    ARCEP, the French telecommunications regulator, has given substance to this in a recent study on Device Neutrality and their impact on consumers. Among their findings, some highlights are: (i) limitations in terms of consumer experiences; (ii) limitations in terms of application providers’ ability to offer services via marketplaces; and (iii) unequal implementation of web standards; among other barriers to competition and openness in the market that end up harming user experience and access to the internet as a whole. Some policy options to face these challenges would be provisions for more transparency for entry conditions in OS marketplaces and increased API transparency, as well as advocating for interoperability of various services.

    In terms of interoperability, it is important to understand that its role as an enabler of an open internet is due to its potential to unravel lock-in and network effects and create connections where otherwise there would be barriers. The concept may be divided into two categories: (i) vertical interoperability, when an app can access various platforms and an user can interact with users from other platforms; and (ii) horizontal interoperability: provides inter-platform competition, enabling competition among different marketplaces. Both are necessary to promote internet openness.

    In order to achieve this, regulators would need to require platforms characterized as “gatekeepers” to open up to competitors - whether by APIs, standard communication protocols like the WWW consortium etc. This would not be unheard of, as some countries have already instituted interoperability requirements in the case of open banking schemes, which allowed fintech companies to enter markets, increasing competition and giving consumers a genuine choice.

    This amplification of choice is reflected in more options, for example, in terms of privacy choices and content moderation choices. Further social benefits of interoperability include promoting media pluralism and diversity, improved social infrastructure, reduced environmental impact of the online economy and the Internet of Things, and favoring digital sovereignty. This impact is made very clear by moments of crisis: in recent controversies over privacy policies of popular messaging apps, peoples whose internet packages include zero-rated connectivity for incumbent apps might feel powerless to question privacy practices and be incapable of swapping services due to potential internet costs.

    Although these are recognized beneficial effects of interoperability and net neutrality which make up a more open internet as a whole, there are still many challenges and drawbacks in their implementation, including particular issues in countries where regulation of net neutrality is lax or uncertain.

    IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #112 Digitalisation through the use of artificial intelligence in public administration

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 12:13
    Key Takeaways:

    The key takeaway of the session revolved around human resources. This includes building an institution's internal capacity in the area of AI on the one hand and building flexible and effective relationships with the private contractors on the other. The shared experience of public institutions from various countries was that it's difficult for them to compete with private companies for talent.

    ,

    Another takeaway was that public bodies need to become more flexible in order to facilitate their cooperation with non-public institutions and companies. The case of a recent tender by the UOKiK with the participation of GovTech Poland served as an example.

    Calls to Action

    Involving academics in the process of knowledge building and information sharing is important for public institutions to make better use of and formulate deeper understanding of how AI can support their work.

    Session Report

     

    Report on the IGF pre event session “Digitalization through the use of artificial intelligence in public administration” held on December 6th, 2021, in Katowice

    Speakers:

    Tomasz Chróstny - Government - President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKIK)

    Antoni Rytel - Government - Deputy Director for GovTech, GovTech Poland

    Kate Brand - Government - Director of Data Science, Data, Technology, and Analytics (DaTA) Unit, Competition and Markets Authority, United Kingdom

    Dr. Urs Gasser - Academia - Dean and Professor of Public Policy, Governance, and Innovative Technology, TUM School of Social Sciences and Technology, Technical University of Munich (MUC)

    Grzegorz Łubkowski - Business - Client Partner Executive, Kyndryl (former IBM Global Technical Services)

    Moderators:

    Daniel Rząsa - Journalism - Editor-in-Chief, 300Gospodarka

    Piotr Adamczewski - Government - Director of Branch Office in Bydgoszcz, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKIK)

    A summary of the main takeaways of the session:

    The moderator introduced the experts and explained the topic of discussion before engaging all the speakers in a roundtable conversation. 

    UOKIK started the discussion by sharing its experience in introducing AI-based software in public administration, notably the current AI tool is developing. The aim of this software is to provide better protection against online consumer infringements such as unfair contract terms. Consumer protection is a huge challenge in regards to fast developing e-commerce and big tech, which has the ability to enter new markets and use big data, not always with pure intents. It was noted that public administrations are at a disadvantage in the area of big tech, due to administrative use of more traditional methods. Public administrations, by default, are more focused on law than on analyzing algorithms. This is why AI development is important in this area, as it will allow similar institutions to develop their competencies, and thus improve their consumer protection. Such tools would permit the learning of different agreements and contracts that are not yet registered, and allow them to be flagged, even before a consumer brings them to the authority’s attention. It is an innovative approach with the usage of AI in public administration.

    The debate was complemented by the other public representatives, both from Poland and abroad. One of the speakers noted that AI in public administration is not just a question of what we need. It is important to look more broadly and recognize that when engaging with the private sector, public administrations need to take into account the differences between the two sectors. The key is to find a way to engage the companies (SMEs, innovative startups) in a manner that is competitive yet friendly for them. At this point, the key remark came from the business and reflected on well-organized and innovative public procurement used by the UOKIK in order to introduce AI-based software.

    The conversation then encouraged representatives of other public sector administrations to present their views and experiences in this area. The speaker from the UK explained how in their institution there is a focus on understanding how businesses use algorithms and how certain ones could harm consumers. It was also explained that they have a department responsible for digital and technological aspects, and the work they do is mostly in house. This carries certain advantages such as having people that understand the deeper context behind a project. They can also integrate new software with tools that already exist (develop what is currently available) and provide ongoing advice.

    The speakers from academia and business then moved on to discuss the key stage of preparing and carrying out public procurement procedures.

    There were three elements highlighted as important areas for consideration. First of all, it was explained that the systematic approach with the strong strategy allows for conversation and reflection on how AI should be incorporated. Secondly, implementation was identified as the biggest challenge while using AI (finding high quality data sets, technical issues, human level). The last point that was discussed concerned the law of unintended consequences. The equilibrium or the ecosystem in which the organization operates is crucial.

    The abovementioned discussion led to the following suggestions. It is necessary to build an institution's internal capacity in the area of AI on the one hand and to build flexible and effective relationships with the private contractors on the other. Furthermore, the shared experience of public institutions from various countries and academia play an important role in order to make better use of AI and formulate deeper understanding of how AI can support work in public administration.

    IGF 2021 Networking #16 Supporting the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security an Safety

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 12:05
    Key Takeaways:

    Stakeholder empowerment has become a major theme for IS3C.

    Calls to Action

    Support the IS3C with expertise, ideas, your network and financially.

    Session Report

    The Internet Standards, Security and Safety Coalition (IS3C) held its informal  networking session for interaction with individual stakeholders on day 4 of the IGF. The coalition’s coordinator, Wout de Natris, and working group leads summarised their messages from the previous IS3C sessions held on day zero and day 3. Attendees were invited to explain their interest in the work of the coalition and to comment on the work so far. Some attendees commented and raised questions in the chat room, resulting in some follow up email communication for a few attendees.   

     

    The main part of the networking session was an interactive free discussion moderated by IS3C Policy Adviser, Mark Carvell, on the theme Stakeholder Empowerment.  Attendees expressed support for the objective on empowering stakeholders with expertise about important cybersecurity standards. There was agreement that one way of achieving this would be by promoting engagement between corporate and individual Internet users, educationalists, policymakers and decision-takers, and the technical community

     

    In his closing remarks, Wout de Natris thanked attendees for their expressions of support and interest in the work of the coalition, and for their valuable comments on the coalition’s objectives. He provided information about how to subscribe to the IS3C mail list and encouraged attendees to participate in the coalition’s working groups. Looking ahead, he emphasised that the coalition would extend its scope in its second phase with additional working groups on specific Internet technologies and issues.  He invited attendees to submit their views on potential future areas of work.

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #30 Digital creative market: how can we protect users and ensure freedom in light of the new EU Copyright Directive?

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 11:31
    Key Takeaways:

    With three experts giving a different perspective on how digital content creators, regulations, and technical community can join forces and shape the future of digital creative market in Europe. With the increment of the importance of digital copyrights, especially in light of the Art. 17 of the Copyright Directive, the speakers agreed on the necessity of developing technology to solve the present shortcomings.

    Calls to Action

    The key questions to be addressed: - Should the regulation be leading technological advancement? - Can technology advancment wait until regulations are approved and enforced to make its move on the market that is constantly changing? - How can we make sure laws and technologies collaborate towards a fairer creative economy for all digital creators while ensuring everybody's freedom of speech?

    Session Report

    The discussion aimed to put together an integrated overview of the creative economy reality and lay the ground for the further cooperation.

    With three experts giving a different perspective on how digital content creators, regulations, and technical community can join forces and shape the future of digital creative market in Europe.

    With the increment of the importance of digital copyrights, especially in light of the Art. 17 of the Copyright Directive, the speakers agreed on the necessity of developing technology to solve the present shortcomings.

    The key questions to be addressed:

    • Should the regulation be leading technological advancement?
    • Can technology advancement wait until regulations are approved and enforced to make its move on the market that is constantly changing?
    • How can we make sure laws and technologies collaborate towards a fairer creative economy for all digital creators while ensuring everybody's freedom of speech?

    The speakers also agreed on the importance of transparency as an element to ensure trust in new copyright-related technology implementations.

    From the technical point of view, transparency can be reached by having unique identifiers to ensure the authenticity and authorship of digital content. However, establishing standards for all kinds of cameras, smartphones, and other gears is a challenge.

    Until today, current solutions focus on trying to prevent/restrict copyright infringement. Like Robert Herian said, "copyright owners need to identify infringement and report them in order to protect their content". According to Daniel, CTO of Kelp.Digital this approach needs to change. His suggestion is to solve the problem starting from its roots: implement a solution using standardized unique identifiers that verify authorship over the content.

    Whether legislations might accept this approach as a way to have verifiable digital copyrights, is still an open debate.

    Lastly, the speakers agreed that the main challenge around the proposed solution is how to ensure all camera gear and smartphone manufacturers follow one unified criterion for the metadata information standards. Can laws and regulations make it happen? It is yet to be seen.

    IGF 2021 WS #198 The Challenges of Online Harms: Can AI moderate Hate Speech?

    Workshop
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 09:49
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    1) Having good linguistic coverage is difficult. There is a lot of disparity there. Things offensive in one language/culture/dialect are different in the same language but a different region 2) Access to data is essential to understand content moderation. One of the key takeaways is access for reach 3) Mapping out the local context of hate and improving Machine Language techniques requires a lot of quality data

    Calls to Action

    1) Development of policy should be done by a wide variety of stakeholders to create a standard practice. 2) Practically speaking the enforcement of policies to restrict hate speech comes down to service providers, social media companies, etc. They should adopt a hate speech policy that adequately balances freedom of expression, and develop different notification schemes and responses for national contact points, "trusted reporters", and users

    Session Report

     

    Safra Anver, Moderator, Introduced the session and sets the context. Zeerak Talat talks about the Cultural and Linguistic hegemony that influences online spaces and disproportionally affects marginalized groups. Marginal Cultural Mean we are regression Data is mostly focused on Global North.  Social Media companies use Section 230 as their foundational value. Because of these foundational methods and values, we end up having systems which are developed to marginalise. 
    Machine learning removes dissenters and contestation. We end up with all of the responses to the insurgency being removed from the content moderation because they are moving towards the salient means. 
     

    Part 1 : Categorising, understanding and regulating hate speech using AI

    Panelists discussing the regulation of hate speech in different geographical contexts

     

    Giovanni De Gregorio invites the audiences not to view the questions around hate speech and AI just from a technological standpoint, but also to think about the social dimension. If we look at the issue of automated moderation of hate speech as a technological problem, it is a matter of context as well as a matter of language. In some languages where there is almost no training in AI, especially places like Eastern and Southern Africa, the automated moderation of content is limited. There are small projects carried out to translate a small piece of information into data to teach AI a particular language. Considering the examples of Myanmar and Ethiopia, it is critical to understand not only what AI can detect but also the incentives social media have for developing more accountable AI systems, especially considering the issue of different languages. This is not a problem that should be attributed just to AI. There are also other issues relating to understanding the incentives guiding social media content moderation and the nuances in the protection of free speech in context. The question is both technological and social at the same time.

    Vincent Hofmann explains the legal perspective of online hate speech moderation. Companies' decisions for moderation have direct impact on the fundamental rights of people. In addition to Freedom of speech, there is an impact on political debate and political jurisdictions too. Facebook/Meta can moderate more content than it is prohibited by law. They also need to have procedural rights granted for these decisions. In the context of automated decision making : AI decision making must be made understandable so it can be challenged, i.e. the procedural rights of those confronted with the decisions made by AI. With the mass of the growing online space, it is impossible to moderate without AI. The language barrier for moderation, the cultural language problem still exists.

    Lucien Castex addressed the fundamental rights and it's impact on speech and privacy from his work with the French National Human Rights commission. There are several drawbacks from taking down online content: There is a risk associated with mass removal of content i.e. grey area of big risk of censoring. The framework for evaluating the content is a very short time span and is harmful to the freedom of speech. The time proposed by the legislation to pull down content is within 24 hours and it is not adequate time to evaluate the content.  There is also a massive impact of the context on the content. Language should also be seen as ( language + context ), which makes it very difficult to assess the effectiveness AI systems. It reinforces biases for moderating content. He highlights the need for a national action plan for digital education to protect people online. 

    We also had an active audience. There was an audience question raised by Babar Sohail on non-transparent algorithms. Responding to his question Lucien commented on the need to establish a strong team of moderators that natively speak the same language. These are the people who understand the cultural context and sears flagging the content and reliance on the judicial system to protect the information. Lucien highlighted the need to have rules that are transparent suggested to have committees for content moderation to help understand and enable better moderation.

    Naz Balock, a parliamentarian from Pakistan posed a question : The hate speech in one country would not be considered in another, when we feel that hate speech has taken place in another part of the world, when this is flagged to the social media providers is not considered as hate speech in another part of the world?

    Giovanni responded by commenting on how different content moderation is in different parts of the world. Language is one of the reasons for the inequality in  content moderation. In addition to language, there is a role of human moderators. Nobody knows where these moderators are located around the world. It is important to learn who is moderating this content across the world to understand context and increase accountability. A question also arises on who should be allowed to be a human moderator considering their role can be relevant to interpret context.

    Part 2 : Tackling conflicts and ethical challenges in Global South and Middle East

    Neema Iyer spoke about the online abuses women face during election. Pollicy conducted a hate speech study titled Amplified Abuse against women politicians during the 2021 general elections of Uganda. Mapping out local context of hate and improving ML techniques requires a lot of quality data which is currently scarce. The team used the Hatebase API and conducted a few lexicon building workshops to gather inputs. The abuse women get is sexualised and gendered. Women are targeted based on their personal life, while men are targeted based on their politics. The existing biases impacts women, Africans and people of color. Women tend to be shadow banned if they talk about queer issues or racism since the content gets flagged as hate speech. There is also a need that arises to fund indigenous researchers from the Global South who are compensated appropriately for their time by private sector players.

    Rotem Medzini presented the co-regulatory model implemented during his research to study antisemitism. The model is divided into two parts. The first part is common criteria to identify hate speech (and balance it with freedom of expression). The common criteria are scaled to allow tech companies that provide online social platforms to more easily define a uniform policy on moderating hate speech. Each continuum supports a choice between the two poles: on the left side, more lenient options that enable less intervention in freedom of expression; on the right side, stricter options that lead to the deletion of more content. The second part is comprised of a procedural guide on how to implement the policies within the organization. We provide managers with steps on how to implement the criteria into their organization and online platform and then make a decision on content that violates these policies.

    Raashi Saxena presented Hatebase and highlights the importance of understanding how the online world affects the offline world, especially in the context of violence and mass atrocities. Hate speech isn't a new phenomenon. Difficult to pinpoint the original source of the information and promote the rapid spread of hate speech.. (Eg. Armenian genocide and Nazi Germany). These instances in history required coordination efforts and large scale approvals from multiple bodies (institutional infrastructure & resources). Now anyone with an internet connection and smart phone can potentially reach a larger audience (outside the purview of national boundaries) to spread propaganda. There is no universal accepted definition of hate speech. There are several ethical, social and ethical challenges around hate speech. The sheer volume of growing information online makes it difficult to moderate without automation. It is also Human moderators are poorly paid and it takes a massive mental toll. Strong linguistic . The dialects and slangs spoken in one country are very different from the same language spoken in a different country. We do have human moderation human intervention is needed to train the technology and help make decisions in ambiguous cases with respect to Hate Speech. The Citizen Linguist lab is an opportunity for anyone from across the world to contribute towards Hatebase’s lexicon of keywords based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual discrimination, disability, and class to identify and monitor potential incidents of hate speech as well as providing the necessary social and cultural nuance to raise the overall linguistic profile. One does not have to be a professional to contribute. Along with a global network of people and organizations working on related issues, openness, information sharing, collaboration, counter messaging, informed policy making and education will enable communities to make better decisions (on how to navigate through violent situation or interact with other communities)

    Key takeaways

    • AI cannot understand context or language. The companies invest little amount of their funding on moderators and focus more on developing the AI systems.
    • The boundaries of data and content which are very closely related with each other. To train AI we need not only non-personal data but also personal data since AI processes content
    • To be able to understand how moderation is operated and enforce such transparency obligations is the first step
    • Accessing data is essential to understand content moderation. One of the key point is access for research (which is GDPR compliant)
    • Moderations of images can be difficult in consideration of day to day items and may not be considered hateful such as the sending of machete images to women candidates in the Ugandan Elections
    • Contemporary words require that the new words that it seems are already known to it. Symbols and emojis within text are considered in AI moderation where it is compared against of variables to identify the possible closest word

     

    The IRPC Charter of Human Rights & Principles for the Internet at 10: Achievements, challenges and what’s next?

    DC Session
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 09:32
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    The Charter of Human Rights & Principles for the Internet has been a crucial framework to those committed to uphold human rights online. Now in its 10th year since its publication in 2011 the Charter has been translated into 11 languages and it is available digitally and in print. The translation work despite its challenges has been an essential outreach tool for the Coalition: these projects often lead to other local initiatives.

    ,

    • As a living instrument the Charter needs to be able to keep its relevance. Artificial Intelligence and Environmental sustainability are examples of identified issues that would benefit from further development in the form of Protocols rather than rewriting the document. In current times and the Charter plays a crucial role in providing a framework and a platform to advance human rights online among all stakeholders and across the globe.

    Calls to Action

    The Charter is an important tool for the promotion of human rights online and needs more visibility and to be more widely accessible. The translation projects are crucial to advance human rights locally and more collaboration is needed to initiate other awareness-raising projects for use in education, judiciaries and by civil society and legislators

    ,

    It is important that the IGF recognises the Charter as a valuable output and that the Coalition joins forces with like-minded initiatives and documents to fully promote and help advance digital human rights.

    Session Report

    Panel: Edoardo Celeste - Dublin City University, Elisabeth Schauermann, German Informatics Society /EuroDIG, Jacob Odame-Baiden- IRPC Steering Committee / EGIGFA, Joanna Kulesza - University of Lodz, Poland, Maria Grazia Valeriani -University of Salerno, Marianne Franklin- IRPC / Goldsmiths University of London, Minda Moreira -Internet Rights & Principles Coalition (IRPC), Santosh Sigdel - IRPC Steering Committee / Digital Rights Nepal

    The Internet Rights and Principles Coalition (IRPC) home to the Charter of Human Rights and Principles for The Internet hosted its annual meeting at the Internet Governance Forum with a celebration of the 10 years of the Charter and a reflection on its main achievements and challenges and the way forward. It highlighted the work of the translation teams that over the years translated this document into 11 different languages and its 10 Principles into 27 languages. It also held a discussion on how the Charter can best support like-minded initiatives and foster closer collaborations to help ensure the full protection of human rights online.

    Following a brief introduction to the  IRPC and its work by moderator and co-chair of the Coalition Minda Moreira, the first part of the session followed the Charter from its inception as a draft document to the current times. Marianne Franklin looked back on how the document emerged as a collaborative effort from representatives of the different stakeholders who aimed to translate existent law and norms to the online context. The Charter that draws on the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its Covenants was published in 2011 and has been a crucial framework to those committed to upholding human rights in the digital world. Marianne Franklin discussed the importance of having the  Charter available not only digitally but also in print and highlighted the work of the translation teams who have been an essential outreach tool for the Charter and the work of the Coalition as these projects often lead to other local initiatives.

    Speaking on behalf of the Italian translation team, Edoardo Celeste reflected on how the team was inspired by the Charter and the work of the Coalition and initiated the translation process of the Charter into Italian as they felt that this language was missing.  The team noticed that there was a discrepancy between constitutional language, expressed in the Italian language related to the digital rights and the content promoted by the Charter and they wanted to bring this conversation forward to the Italian context. The translation process involved a strong collaborative effort with colleagues and students from the Universities of Padova and Salerno and Edoardo Celeste highlighted some of the challenges they encountered, such as issues related to gender due to the strong masculine tradition in the Italian language, which the team tried to bypass by using plural or gender-neutral terms. Building on Edoardo's statement Maria Grazia Valeriani, one of the students from the University of Salerno involved in the translation project shared how they approached the work, which for many of the students was their first introduction to digital policy and human rights and the main challenges they encountered not only in respect to the language as mentioned previously but also on how to present content which is meaningful to both languages. The current translation of the Charter into Nepali in collaboration with Digital Rights Nepal (DRN) was brought to the spotlight: Santosh Sigdel, the coordinator of the team in Nepal explained how the team felt that the translation of this document would be very useful to promote digital rights in the region as most documents are in English making it difficult to reach out more widely. They encountered not only grammatical challenges but also others, such as the translation of political terms such as global south and global north. As the final stages of the translation approach, Santosh was confident that this document will be a reference poison for the lawmaking process in the region.

    Anriette Esterhuysen intervened from the floor to stress the importance of looking at the history of this document and how at the time of the drafting there was a lot of contestation on whether new rights were necessary. Other organizations such as the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) also decided to look into existing rights and translate them to the online world and the IRPC Charter would also follow a similar approach. Anriette pointed out how frameworks like the IRPC Charter initiated the work that is now taken up by human rights instruments and mechanisms to the recognition that human rights apply online as they do offline. Another intervention from Joanna Kulesza looked back on the very early days of the coalition and on the impact this work has had and how it has fuelled a generation of human rights researchers and human rights activists.   

    The second part of the session moderated by Marianne, Minda Moreira, and Elisabeth Schauermann reflected on what comes next and how to include the youth voices. Taking the example of environmental sustainability, which has been an issue area highlighted by the IRPC in recent years Minda Moreira explained how recent meetings including last year’s meeting which brought together, Human Rights and environmental sustainability Article 4 of the Charter and its clause b) Environmental sustainability and felt that this clause could benefit from further expansion. What to do in this case, she asked, rewrite the Charter to insert a new clause?  There has been some agreement that the original document should be preserved and that expansions to this living document should come in the form of Protocols. This could be a way to keep the Charter relevant by expanding on current issue areas without the need of rewriting the document.

    Elisabeth Schauermann highlighted the capacity-building work of the Coalition and how young people are aware of the rights and principles addressed in the Charter, many even without realising that there is a document that they can refer to. Elisabeth stressed the importance of this education and awareness-raising to human rights online and that more needs to be done in this area. As for environmental sustainability, Elisabeth pointed out that this is an issue that young people are activist and knowledgeable about and that followed the Coalition meeting in 2019 a lot has been done by young people at the IGF to address the timely issue.

    Another set of questions looked at how the Charter can help advance regional and local initiatives and their work on digital human rights. Joanna Kulesza reflected on how the Coalition’s work and the Charter have inspired her work as an academic, and the work of so many researchers, NGOs, other organisations that focus on human rights and policymaking. Joanna went further to explain how she sees the Charter and the work of this dynamic coalition can provide a framework that could easily be transposed on to professionalised human rights training.

    Jacob Odame-Baiden talked about his work in the African region over the last year as a member of the IRPC Steering Committee and how the work of the Charter resonated with him as a lawyer and as someone passionate about human rights. He highlighted the introduction of the Charter at the Ghana School on Internet Governance to a group of representatives of the different stakeholders including the government in a region where digital human rights are still in their infancy and internet shutdowns happen regularly. He also pointed out how the Charter has been received enthusiastically by the community. Both in Ghana as well as in Cameroon during the ICT Africa symposium, the reaction to the topic presented was the same. Human rights issues resonate with people who use the Internet and are unaware of how human rights should also apply online.

    An intervention from Andrey Shcherbovich who translated the Charter into Russian looked at the interaction with young people especially through his work at McGill University in Montreal and the importance of digital human rights-related projects in the education environment. He supported the use of Protocols on new and emerging issues and human rights protection and was optimistic that the work of the Charter and its Protocols could be easily implemented officially at the UN level.

    In their final statements, the panel stressed the importance of the Charter and its work as an inspiration for many projects and much more can be done, from further translations (into Polish), work with policymakers and judiciaries, to the expansion of topics that are important issue area in the current times and for specific groups, including youth and how crucial it is to work together with like-minded initiatives to advance human rights online.

     

     

    IGF 2021 Open Forum #40 The challenges of AI Human Rights Impact Assessments

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 08:44
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    AI impacts all fundamental rights: AI Impact assessments are too often seen as little more than an abstract, one-time box-ticking exercise mainly focused on the most salient harms. It is crucial to move away from Data protection impact assessments to consider the scale and seriousness of the impact AI on individuals’ rights and freedoms.

    ,

    Context is key: we must rethink and adapt existing impact assessment tools not only in relation to the type of technology involved, but also to its particular purpose and according to the social and political context of operation.

    Calls to Action

    More research and expertise are needed. Data protection authorities have an important role to play, and much can be done to strengthen their mandates, capacities, and expertise. However, a diversity of stakeholders should be put to contributions, to ensure that all fundamental rights, in all the different AI applications, are protected.

    ,

    Companies developing and using AI technologies also have a responsibility in making sure the rights and freedoms of individuals are respected. Independently of existing national or international regulation, companies should carry out human rights impact assessments in a transparent manner and at regular intervals.

    Session Report

     

    Artificial intelligence technology impacts human rights, but how wide is the impact and how should it be assessed? To complement or replace specific tasks otherwise performed by humans, these technologies require the collection, storage, and processing of large quantities of personal data which can, without the due safeguards, negatively impact the right to privacy. However, since AI systems are being increasingly used in different sectors of society, AI can also affect many other rights such as the right to health, education, freedom of movement, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of expression. Additionally, it is important to notice that AI systems change with time and can be used for purposes that are very different from the ones initially intended. Moreover, the impact on human rights is also dependent on the local context in which AI technology is deployed. The risk is higher, for instance, where the political context is unstable or where the legal framework governing AI does not ensure a sufficient degree of fairness, transparency, and accountability. How should human rights impact assessments (HRIAs) be conducted, and who should be responsible?

    Panellists agreed that HRIAs are too often still seen as little more than an abstract, one-time compliance exercise, narrowly focused on the most salient harms. Data protection authorities have an important role to play, and much can be done to strengthen their mandates, capacities, and expertise. At the same time, panellists also agreed that we should not expect them to be the only entities playing this role. Lorna McGregor emphasized the fact that in data protection impact assessments, fundamental rights and freedoms are usually identified to privacy, making them narrower than they were supposed to be. At the same time, however, if human rights should be more broadly understood, several panellists emphasized the need to focus on the risks associated with the specific context and area or industry where each AI system will be developed and deployed. Emil Kernell noted that although companies are being increasingly pushed to carry HRIAs, the specific context, and different ways in which their products will be used is not always sufficiently taken into account in HRIAs. For example, the development of a smart city in Montreal will raise certain issues that will be absent in other cities. K. further argued that companies have a duty to protect their customers’ data and rights, especially when the legal framework and authorities regulating data protection are non-existent or too weak. According to the same panellist, the decision of a company of entering into a new unregulated market must be informed by an understanding of the country’s history and political situation.

    Context-specific impact assessments that go beyond privacy concerns are not the only challenge that public authorities, NGOs, and companies have to face. E. Kernell challenged, for instance, the value of HRIAs that are carried out at a very early stage of the development of the AI system, since they will be too abstract. It is not sufficient to carry out impact assessments at the initial stage of development of new technology, these should also be conducted on a regular basis when more information regarding its actual impact is available. Alessandro Mantelero considered that legislators need to define, with some degree of detail, what is risk and how it should be measured, i.e., risk cannot be a matter of opinion or feeling, it should be demonstrated according to objective, quantifiable and transparent criteria. In response to a question from the audience, A. Mantelero explained that we should not expect to find an impact assessment model that could be successfully applied to all circumstances and AI technologies, including the one used in pharmaceutical industries since in AI is very contextual, each product can have multiple purposes and pose different types of risk, and it involves more stakeholders.

    IGF 2021 WS #268 Right to safe medicines: Managing competing interests online

    Workshop
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 08:10
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    Conflicting interests vary based on what region of the world is being looked into. However, actors such as operators of the Internet’s critical infrastructure and global pharmacy companies are ever present. Bridges should be built between these actors making use of the Internet Governance ecosystem.

    ,

    Considering the variety of involved actors, some often only noticed at the local level, more regional research needs to be performed to achieve a better understanding of the challenges of increasing access to medicines in different parts of the world.

    Calls to Action

    The Internet Governance community needs to pay more attention to matters of health and access to medicines.

    ,

    Our health is our most important asset, and should be seen as a policy priority, not as a parallel discussion.

    Session Report

    Moderator Ron Andruff (ONR Consulting) set the stage by explaining the group's ongoing mission to bring the subject of access to medicines to the Internet Governance community, in a series of IGF Workshops carried out over the past few years. He emphasized the need for better coordination between actors to achieve the humanitarian goal of improving health outcomes by means of a patient-centric approach.

    Speaker Aria Ilyad Ahmad (Dahdaleh Institute for Global Health Research) highlighted the jurisdictional challenges involved in matters of health, and particularly in relation to the importation and exportation of medicines. The need to balance markets and achieve the right amount of regulation was a central point to his intervention, explaining how over and under-regulation can have negative impacts on patients outcomes. A framework that can interoperate matters of Internet Governance and health is an important gap that needs to be addressed.

    Speaker Olga Kyryliuk (SEEDIG) approached the subject from the angle of the SEE and EU regions, bringing up examples of how policies have worked or not in the recent past. She gave particular emphasis to the "EU Common Logo", an intiative that has been a successful vector in the combat of rogue actors online who sell medicine wrongfully. This technique is transparent enough that other State actors could pick up on it to improve matters in their own regions.

    Speaker Mark Datysgeld (Governance Primer) presented original research on access to health and medicines online in the LAC region, discussing the situation on the top 10 countries by GDP. He presented data outlining how the majority of countries studied didn't have clear regulations on the sale of medicines using the Internet, leaving matters in a troublesome gray area. Most of the telemedicine regulations are also recent and insufficient to address the necessities of the general population.

    Speaker Zina Hany (B.Pharm, MPH, MBA, CEPH) brought the MENA region's perspective to the table, pointing out the wild price variance between even neighboring countries of similar economic conditions. She stressed the necessity of this information being made available to patients so that they are better informed of the situation. With pressure built up, gatekeepers and governments would need to pay attention to the quesiton instead of being able to sideline it.

    Speaker Elizabeth Behsudi (Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network) presented I&J's work on domain names, explaining the importance of stopping malicious actors who exploit the DNS to sell medicines wrongfully. She pointed out that I&J's model of bringing all relevant stakeholders to the table and effectively mediating their conversations, helping advance common goals, has been effective in addressing several hot topics, and could be brought to that of access to medicines.

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #42 Building the wiki-way for low-resource languages

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 07:51
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    Stakeholders must work collaboratively for supporting low-resource language communities with addressing issues around accessibility and with removing entry-level barriers of platforms.

    ,

    Language technology developers and other stakeholders who are not native speakers must work closely with native speakers to implement the development of language technology based on the advice of the latter.

    Calls to Action

    Creating spaces for peer learning exchange can be a very powerful tool for many low-resource languages to protect and grow use of languages, and stakeholders must emphasize on creation of such spaces.

    ,

    Stakeholders who must support the creation of Open Educational Resources (OER) for new contributors/potential contributors who are speakers of low-resource languages to remove entry-level barriers to Open and collaborative platforms such as Wikipedia.

    Session Report

    Panelists

    1. Eddie Avila, Director of Rising Voices, an initiative of the citizen media organization Global Voices, and has been one of the key advocates of language digital activism for the protection and fostering growth of low-resource languages.
    2. Amrit Sufi, Coordinator of the Oral Culture Transcription project, a toolkit that will enable people to access information on uploading media of endangered languages, and has worked in the past for documenting folk songs in the Angika language of India.
    3. Sardana Ivanova, Doctoral student in Computer Science at the University of Helsinki. She is interested in low-resource languages. She conducts research and works on the development of various language technology tools for the support of the Sakha language, mostly spoken in Russia’s Far East.
    4. Mahir Morshed, Doctoral student researching articulatory features and prosodic unit discovery in speech processing. As a Wikimedian, he has recently been contributing to Wikidata's lexicography and is examining ways to make it usable for text generation.

    Moderator

    • Subhashish Panigrahi, Co-founder and Director, O Foundation. Subhashish is a filmmaker, community organizer and cross-disciplinary researcher.

    Rapporteur

    • Sailesh Patnaik, Co-founder and Director, O Foundation. Sailesh is a Wikimedian with experience in open knowledge institutional liaisoning in the government and educational spaces.

    Abstract

    When it comes to the internet governance, most indigenous, endangered and other low-resource and marginalized language speakers around the world face a significant challenge both in terms of amplifying their issues through participation and their languages getting benefitted in that process. As Whose Knowledge? underlines, a mere 7% of the 6,500 - 7,000 languages, that are spoken around the world, are captured in published material. (Vrana et al., 2020) In this Internet Governance Forum 2021 panel titled "Building the wiki-way for low-resource languages", the representatives engaged primarily around the strategies in the language digital activism and open knowledge platforms, and shared recommendations to grow and sustain the low-resource languages on digital sphere.

    Key issue areas

    In this panel, organized by the O Foundation in collaboration with Rising Voices, the panelists shared the response of the civil society, particularly in three broader and intersecting sectors, to address the larger and systemic issue of low availability of resources of many marginalized languages and low participation of the native speakers:

    1. Language digital activism, a loosely defined term that has gained popularity in the last decade and includes all kinds of activism on the online spaces for the protection and growth of languages
    2. Volunteer-led movements such as the open knowledge movement, of which Wikipedia is a part of
    3. Academic and other research initiatives that focus on building technology for the overall growth of languages, especially, low-resource languages

    Key questions

    Some of the key questions that the panelists addressed around existing community strategies, processes and platforms included:

    • How language digital activism is helping active engagement of stakeholders in the low-resource language domain?
    • How other open and collaborative processes and platforms are helping low-resource languages?
    • How creation of computational linguistics tools is making a long-term shift in access to information in an equitable and decentralized manner, especially in the context of many low-resource languages?
    • How Wikipedia and the Wikimedia projects in general, and particularly, the ongoing Wikidata initiatives, are helping low-resourced language speakers reclaim their space on the internet?

    Additionally, the questions around specific movements and platforms included:

    • How language digital activism is already and is aimed at moving the needle around furthering access to linguistic rights and access to knowledge?
    • What is envisioned by many activists for the ongoing initiatives to make a long-term shift as a direct or indirect result of these initiatives?
    • What are the learning and recommendations for different stakeholders working on low-resourced languages based on the work around creation of language tools?
    • What are the building blocks and the low entry-level barriers in the Wikimedia world for native speaker communities and other stakeholders of low-resourced languages communities?

    Background

    To set the context on language digital activism, Eddie Avila, Director of Rising Voices shared how the scarcity of key resources, such as writing systems in the context of oral-only languages or consensus on existing writing systems, access to the internet, consensus on technical terms within a speaker community, and even political implications, continue to remain the major of the barriers behind language digital activism.

    Amrit Sufi, native speaker of Angika (endangered language from India) and co-facilitator of the recent Rising Voices organized "Language Digital Activism Workshops for India" (Language Digital Activism Workshops for India · Rising Voices, 2021) series emphasized on the fact that the medium of instruction in her schools were Hindi and English directly impacting the eventual slowdown of her native language Angika to a final cessation. She identified the sense of elitism, associated with not speaking native languages at home environments which are often enforced by parents, to be a primary reason of disappearance of many languages at homes.

    Sardana Ivanova, a speaker of the Sakha language and a doctoral student in Computer Science at the University of Helsinki, demonstrated from her experience how collective volunteer efforts for creating content -- through Wikipedia -- eventually helps Natural Language Processing (NLP) researchers to build tools to better use languages on digital platforms.

    Mahir Morshed, a Wikipedia/Wikidata contributor and a doctoral student researching articulatory features and prosodic unit discovery in speech processing, shared inputs to the call to action of this session based on the recent development around Wikidata's lexicography as these tools are making ways to for text generation across languages. (Morshed, 2021)

    Key takeaways

    1. Stakeholders must work collaboratively for supporting low-resource language communities with addressing issues around accessibility and with removing entry-level barriers of platforms.
    2. Language technology developers and other stakeholders who are not native speakers must work closely with native speakers to implement the development of language technology based on the advice of the latter.

    Some of the panelists directly addressed the questions around the aforementioned takeaways:

    • We're creating a space for peer learning for language digital activism so that activists can expand their work through such long-term partnerships and share their work with the larger community. (Eddie Avila)
    • Many low-resourced language digital activists are currently attempting at "normalizing" the use of their language as their languages are not in active use in public discourses. (Amrit Sufi)
    • Language technology developers who might not be native speakers must work closely with native speakers. (Sardana Ivanova)

    Call to Action

    1. Creating spaces for peer learning exchange can be a very powerful tool for many low-resource languages to protect and grow use of languages, and stakeholders must emphasize on creation of such spaces.
    2. Stakeholders who must support the creation of Open Educational Resources (OER) for new contributors/potential contributors who are speakers of low-resource languages to remove entry-level barriers to Open and collaborative platforms such as Wikipedia.

    Some of the panel inputs/recommendations from the panelists that helped arrive at the aforementioned call to action include:

    • There have been many initiatives recently from the Wikimedia Foundation to improve accessibility on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects -- this has helped with the growth of many low-resource languages. (Mahir Morshed)
    • Creating translation of Wikidata descriptions is one of the easier ways for newbies to contribute in their low-resource language. (Mahir Morshed)
    • Oral culture documentation as audio and video helps grow visibility for many low-resource languages. (Amrit Sufi)
    • Creating spaces for peer learning exchange can be a very powerful tool for many low-resource languages to protect and grow use of languages. (Eddie Avila)

    Avila also emphasized that whether or not language digital activism is moving the needle around furthering access to linguistic rights and access to knowledge is a hard thing to measure. While there are anecdotal evidences to support the impact, there are no clearly defined processes in most cases as each community contributes in their own volunteer spaces and are primarily driven by passion. To respect their volunteerism, attempts to measure the impact of their work are not often prioritized.

    References

    Vrana A, Sengupta A, Pozo C and Bouterse S (2020). Decolonizing the Internet’s Languages – Summary Report. Whose Knowledge?, 20. (accessed 19 December 2021).

    Language Digital Activism Workshops for India · Rising Voices (2021). Rising Voices. Available at https://rising.globalvoices.org/language-digital-activism-workshops-for-india/ (accessed 19 December 2021).

    Morshed M (2021). Preparing languages for natural language generation using Wikidata lexicographical data. Septentrio Conference Series. (3):.

    Report compiled by

    • Subhashish Panigrahi, O Foundation
    • Sailesh Patnaik, O Foundation

    Date of publication

    19 December 2021

    Copyright

    2021. Subhashish Panigrahi and Sailesh Patnaik. O Foundation. CC-BY-SA 4.0.

    Cite as

    Panigrahi S and Patnaik S (2021). Building the wiki-way for low-resource languages: Session Report. O Foundation. Bhubaneswar. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17613/df9y-nz19 (accessed 19 December 2021).

    Note

    This report is also available as a standalone report for downloading on Humanities Commons. 

    IGF 2021 WS #245 The importance of being Earnest, a good Internet Citizen

    Workshop
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 03:18
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:

    Education should be one of the main focuses for good internet citizenship, it will help to close the gaps between new users and existing ones. Initiatives should be taken to make information about the Internet accessible and simple to as many people as possible.

    ,

    It’s not possible to be a good internet citizen if you don't have access to the Internet at all. Access to infrastructure is a basic need and there should exist a movement from different areas in this favor.

    Calls to Action

    Educators should teach concepts of internet citizenship in schools, complex concepts like information security, should be simplified for the user so he can understand and adopt them.

    ,

    Governments, institutions and society in general should help give universal access to the Internet. Be it by creating laws, encouraging competition to decrease prices or even individual actions to create infrastructure in their region.

    Session Report

    When COVID-19 came, no one knew how things would progress. With time it became clear how important the Internet became in this scenario, from shopping to working, never before so many people relied on the Internet. 

    This session focused on how to nurture good internet citizens in this growing environment for new users and current ones. To do so, few questions were presented to the viewers (about 15 people) using the site sli.do and the participants from technical community and civil society discussed the themes giving their view and opinions represented by Mr. Olatunde Awobuluyi, Mr. Antonio Marcos Moreiras and Ms. Fernanda Rosa. The session was moderated by Mr. Eduardo Barasal Morales and Mr. Tiago Jun Nakamura, both from NIC.br.

    The first question was “In the context of your Country/Region should Internet Citizenship be taught to people in general?” 92% of people said yes. 

    Mr. Awobuluyi from AFRINIC represented the technical community and raised the importance of giving access to information and taking into consideration regional differences. He gave the African continent as an example where more than 2000 dialects are used.
    Mr. Moreiras from NIC.br, also represented the technical community and pointed out that the Internet isn’t bound by geographic borders and anyone who has Internet access can be considered an Internet Citizen. 
    Ms. Rosa from Virginia Tech University represented the civil society and explained that education is a social right and as such all people should have access. She also highlighted the importance of digital literacy to create critical thinkers users. However, she pointed out that there wasn’t an agreement about what to teach. She also pointed to the importance of infrastructure to give access to all.

    The second question was “What are the key elements that constitute Internet Citizenship and meaningful Internet access?”. The three most voted options were Education, Infrastructure and Accessibility. 

    Mr. Moreiras agreed with the two first points but for him "People Empowerment" should be the third pillar. He emphasized the importance of full access to the Internet, without restrictions or limitations be it physical or political ones. He pointed out the importance of having a good infrastructure capable of attending to the needs of users and that users should be able to understand different concepts about it to make the best decisions. This is something that can only be done if they are digitally educated. He also commented about "Cidadão na Rede" (Internet Citizen) a NIC.br project that seeks to fill this gap, teaching many concepts from security and infrastructure to regular users in short 15 seconds videos. According to him, if you give the users the infrastructure to access and the education about how to use the Internet, empowerment will be a consequence.
    Ms. Rosa agreed with Mr. Moreiras on the importance of educating users about infrastructure and added the legal aspect of it. Although everyone in the Internet can be considered an Internet Citizen, Internet data still needs physical infrastructures in countries and are subjected to the laws of those countries. This can raise questions about data privacy, for example. Another point made was about the hardships that new entrants face when they try to bring the infrastructure needed to access the Internet in their region. Ms. Rosa agreed that accessibility is of extreme importance for Internet users. If Internet newcomers feel oppressed they won’t feel welcomed in this environment. She is favorable to regulations regarding this issue but understands there is a dichotomy between regulation and freedom of speech.
    Mr. Awobuluyi gave the view of the Africa region. For him the three key elements are Infrastructure, Accessibility and Government Policies. From his experience infrastructure and cost are the greatest barriers to overcome so government policies should be applied to increase the local competition reducing costs and expanding the infrastructure.

    The third question was “Should Internet security and safety practices be considered part of meaningful access and good citizenship on the Internet?” All participants answered that yes it should be considered, with 40% said it was applicable only in specific situations.

    For Ms. Rosa safety and security implies cryptography and anonymity for the user. However, if the information comes from a bot this information should be clear to the user.
    Mr. Awobuluyi agrees that everyone should be taught these concepts to combat digital illiteracy, he also raised the importance of having legislation to deal with questions regarding misuse and abuse on the Internet and called for an active role of government authorities.
    Mr. Moreiras expressed his concern about how people share information disregarding possible consequences as many companies collect and use people's data for their own interests. He is favorable to give the users the right over the content they generate. However, he understands that most users don’t know/understand concepts about security and safety. He believes this should be taught to them and that stakeholders should make the adoptions of technologies that increase security and safety as simple as possible to the users. He finished showing another two videos for the Internet Citizenship project.

    Nobody asked questions during the open microphone, so the speakers did their final comments.
    Ms. Rosa complimented the Internet Citizenship project and called for the education community to participate in creating materials, suggesting that technology should be integrated to regular subjects during classes.
    Mr. Awobuluyi complimented the participation of all the panelists and thanked the audience.
    Mr. Moreiras thanked all participants and highlighted Ms. Rosa participation and her contribution to the discussion as a member of the civil society and her suggestion of having the education community participate in the instruction of digital concepts together with the other stakeholders.

    Mr. Nakamura closed the session praising the participants and concluding that connection only wasn’t enough, there was a need for meaningful connection and this topic is just an introductory discussion and should be further developed.
    Viewers thanked the session and praised the approach and views given by the panelists.
     

    IGF 2021 WS #209 The State of DNS Privacy Technologies

    Workshop
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 02:48
    Trust, Security, Stability
    Key Takeaways:

    Several issues and challenges regarding DNS privacy technologies were discussed, focusing on the different standards and technologies. It was noted that there could be antitrust concerns in the market of DNS services · It was highlighted that larger operators are more active in the market and have greater leverage on market’s direction to protect queries

    Calls to Action

    There was no official call to action but speakers highlighted the advantages of encrypted DNS, as well as some disadvantages, such as issues with trouble shooting in some cases · In was noted that many DNS services are US based · There was a discussion about market dynamics in the DNS ecosystem · It was highlighted that there is little research in the market of open resolvers ·

    Session Report

    WS #209 The State of DNS Privacy Technologies

    Thursday, 9th December, 2021 (10:15 UTC) - Thursday, 9th December, 2021 (11:45 UTC)

    Hybrid Session. ~100 participants

    Speakers: Paul Hoffman, ICANN; David Huberman, ICANN; Roxana Radu, Civil Society, Western European and Others Group (WEOG); Carlos Martinez Cagnazzo, Technical Community, Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC); Andrew Campling, Private Sector, WEOG

    Summary: Overall, the session explained encrypted DNS and various other privacy enhancing technologies for the DNS. There was a discussion on the market of these technologies and a debate on concentrations in the DNS market.

    Various technologies to encrypt the DNS were described, including DNS over HTTPS, DNS over QUIC, DoH-over-Tor, and Apple Private Relay. Products that offer these features include Mozilla’s Firefox browser, Google (both its Chrome browser and Android operating system), and Microsoft’s operating systems and browsers. Public recursive DNS services such as Google Public DNS and Quad9 receive the queries from these products. It was noted that there are concerns with centralization of Internet infrastructure, being that the products mainly come from  the US. The European Commission has proposed the strategy called “DNS4EU” because many public resolvers are operated by US-based companies.

    Next was a discussion on the DNS services market. The idea that the market is US-centered was reiterated. It was said by Roxana Radu that the market has experienced concentration, a consolidation of a two-sided market. At the same time, it was noted that it is a very dynamic market. Among the biggest players, Cloudflare and Google with more than a third of the queries.

    There are jurisdictional concerns because it is not clear what happens after DNS queries a given country; some services do not have restrictions when it comes to integrating data with other services. Another point that was made was that some countries mandate content filtering and blocking, and some public resolvers don’t do that.

    One regulator in the room, Ofcom, noted that there is an effort by regulators to bring more technologists on board to ensure that policy does not happen in a vacuum.

    Andrew Campling noted that it would be helpful to have more regulators in the standards bodies. IETF for example, could also make policy considerations in addition to the technical considerations. 

    IGF 2021 WS #29 Fintech: A sustainable development economy of inclusivity?

    Workshop
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 01:29
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    With recent increased regulatory activity, uncertainty to apply existing regulatory frameworks, wait-and-see approaches and prohibitive actions, all could deter innovating new financial technologies and services; while such varied agendas could disadvantage consumers through trial and error, this is a much-needed process to explore how rapid technological advancements in economies could be best adapted in societies to achieve the SDGs.

    Calls to Action

    Experimentation with technology, regulation and innovation in the financial economy is closely correlated, so it is crucial to promote the need and willingness amongst regulators, private technology sectors and other fintech-related stakeholders to explore different issues and ways under existing financial systems and regulatory frameworks, such that financial technologies could be better used to achieve the UN SDGs and promote digital inclusion.

    Session Report

    On December 9, the workshop “Fintech: A sustainable development economy of inclusivity?” was held at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2021, with the session beginning with a speaker sharing, proceeded to a roundtable discussion with the speakers, and ended with a question-and-answer session by taking questions from participants both onsite in Katowice and online.  

    The workshop has mentioned how fintech could be a crucial factor to improve financial systems for underserved populations, facilitating them to become more efficient and competitive. However, problems could still surface, such as the widening of the digital divide with poor Internet access and lack of digital skills to use the technologies to their fullest capabilities.

    An uprising favoured usage of the Internet is e-commerce and banking other than social media, with monetary transactions becoming increasingly popular among teenagers nowadays. However, as Miss Veronica Stefan has mentioned, some are still unwilling to connect to their credit cards with their phones and make purchases as they lack trust in technology. Enforcing laws would not be useful in this scenario with such lack of trust, hence the emphasis is required to be put on skills that are always mentioned but never acted on, alongside the investment of time and resources equally in the community to alleviate this critical problem in the development of financial technology.

    In addition to connecting people, inclusion has to be ensured from the business side of things. Ms Nandini Chami has brought a case study to our attention, with how an account aggregator policy is being debated in India, which enables financial of small businesses. Previously, when small businesses apply for a loan from a financial institution, they had to provide bank statements, goods and services records, tax returns and annual results to prove their creditworthiness; and this entire process had to begin from square one with another bank should the loan be rejected. With the new policy, an account aggregator now acts as an intermediary between the business seeking a loan and the lender themselves via the facilitation of consensual data sharing. However, there could be a possibility of account aggregators to conduct customer profiling or market segmentation, causing civil society players in India to be sceptical about the potential effects on financial inclusion, since this would result in many businesses and individuals suffering all because of this intermediary.

    Dr Agata Ferreira has revealed to participants the basis of the emergence of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in which they could be seen as a compromise proposition to balance between the rapid and limitless economic growth, as well as the imminent disaster due to exploitation of Earth resources. However, existing models of economic growth are being relied on to work our way towards achieving the SDGs, with a statement on how the world is still on a seemingly unsustainable trajectory and we do not think that we know how to get off this path, and an example introduced on the ambitious growth targets of SDGs with regard to fishing alongside voicing out for the protection of water ecosystems and fish biodiversity. With this in mind, ICT innovations could open new possibilities and has the potential to redesign current existing economic models to help with this dilemma.

    One of such innovations could be blockchain, with its potential to enable financial inclusion. Immutable blockchain data records help provide traceability for financial transactions and financial assets; and the appropriate monitoring of financial records as well as early detection of errors or corrupt activities aid in addressing several shortcomings in the current financial systems and frameworks. Financial inclusion and trust are in turn promoted with the risk of corruption and chances of bribery minimised on the Internet, hence various parties could have financial processes amongst each other despite having little trust with blockchain’s core trust-inducing abilities to verify and authenticate identities and data transactions. Therefore, this shows that financial digital innovations have the potential to bring the unbanked and underbanked populations into financial services provision.

    Moreover, as mentioned by Miss Veronica Stefan, the role of public policy intervention is important for people from developed countries to regain their trust in financial technologies. Hence, Dr Agata Ferreira has stated how fintech has caught many regulators off-guard with its rapid and revolutionary growth, hence a regulatory void is created as regulators are struggling to keep up with the pace of fintech development, alongside much uncertainty in applying existing regulatory frameworks to novel technologies, services and products. Actions have been taken by some regulators to stall for time to figure out what the appropriate frameworks or approaches could be, such as prohibiting some fintech-related activities, as well as discouraging further fintech innovations, all of which will gradually lead to varied regulatory responses to the same fintech innovation.

    Finally, while fintech is a complicated topic and not fully understood yet by the world, with ICT innovations and appropriate regulatory approaches, there is a bright future ahead of fintech to enhance financial inclusion and attain a sustainable economy.

    IGF 2021 WS #246 Construction of an institutional digital infrastructure

    Workshop
    Updated: Tue, 21/12/2021 - 01:16
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:
    Covid 19 has enabled African policies to prioritise the massive development of connectivity infrastructure to connect the unconnected to an increasingly digital world. This calls on all actors, including politicians, academics, civil society, technicians, the private sector and regulators, to work in synergy to commit to catching up and not to use the significant cybersecurity problems encountered by Africa as an excuse for not deploying infrastr,

    The financing of this infrastructure, especially to connect communities, should be done through the universal telecommunications fund made available in each country, and the management of these funds should be controlled and coordinated with the stakeholders. But also encourage and frame private financing through national and regional partnerships while preserving the interests of each country and the operators involved.

    Calls to Action

    Regulators should lower the cost of licences and facilitate negotiations with large content producers (GAFAs) to help operators continue to invest in large telecoms infrastructure.

    ,

    Encourage African countries to migrate to IPV6 to prepare for 5G and its exploitation

    Session Report

    The focus of this session was to reflect on how African countries should deploy Internet infrastructures in order to give a meaningful Internet access to those that are marginalized, excluded or that faced connectivity challenges during and after the Covid-19 pandemic. The critical issues raised were : what are the various infrastructural challenges in Africa, what is needed to build these infrastructures, how can it be done and where do we start?

     

    Gbenga Sesan emphasized on the fact that despite the health consequences of COVID-19, it had a positive effect on the digital transformation of the world and particularly of Africa.  The lockdowns further deepened the digital divide in most African regions, creating two categories of people, those that could continue communicating online and those that couldn’t due to either lack of infrastructure and access or for other challenges such as lack of electricity or financial strength. This critical humanitarian situation actually brought also good news which is the need for the prioritization of digital infrastructures in order to extend education, health and other crucial public services to those that can not be taken in the classical system. He  proposed that the priorities should be given to this 3 areas:

    • making policies work for the unconnected and for the disconnected (countries facing shutdowns)
    • making sure that all the stakeholders involved in the issue of digital inclusion start to work together in order to provide access through digital infrastructures to all those that are in need of it or lack it.
    • Using the existing resources of the Universal Service Fund available in most of our countries to build sustainable digital infrastructure in all our African countries.

     

    Eric Sindeu proposed that Africa should tackle this opportunity given by the COVID-19 to bridge the gap to reach development. broadband access and economic growth being closely linked, the key infrastructure that African countries should invest in as a priority and manage well are the underground sea cables that need to be deployed around the continent. But also, appropriate and updated policies and regulatory frameworks should accompany this deployment to facilitate access to these submarine cables for all operators.To ensure that our continent is digitally ready, he advised that Africa should invest in trainings and awareness on cyber security and digital rights issues, and also it is necessary to move from traditional education to digital education by teaching our children to develop their digital skills for them to be able to meet the digital challenges of the new era.

     

    Peter Koch spoke of two main things: 

    • Security and privacy legislation, despite they are very crucial issues to be well addressed, should not be used as a barrier or an excuse to stop us from making Internet access available for everyone.
    • It is necessary to adapt infrastructural and regulatory solutions to the realities on the ground. Most of the time local initiatives cannot replace but support general infrastructures and there are some areas where a region might be difficult or less connected for some reasons (can be geographical, not economically feasible for operators to go there) and multiple regulatory feasible solutions could be used to provide this support without facing the risk of bankruptcy or without having unnecessary high regulatory burdens. Some initiatives are not locally feasible but a particular legal environment  can enable the local initiatives to thrive in this space and provide community solutions.

     

    Rodrigue Saoungoumi gave an insight of what a state university in Africa and especially in Cameroon faces as challenges when it comes to the issues related to the access and infrastructures of Internet; by sharing the experience of the Ngaoundere University, in the northern part of Cameroon, concerning the evolution and management of its internet resources from 2010 to 2021 and the difficulties they faced during Covid-19 pandemic.

    Johanna kulesza emphasized on the fact that the framework is already in place with an international law regime that clearly regulates the internet space. The best way to approach these challenges from different African perspectives is to facilitate meetings like IGFs, ICANN where we address problems, we name them and build capacity, to make our voices be heard for a change to occur. But we also need to advance our involvement and ensure that our governments and regulators step in these spaces for African interests and views on internet issues to be known.

    We also had on our session Mr. Louis Pouzin, one of the pioneers of Internet governance who shared his experience on the history of the internet.

    online participants raised some views and concerns that were discussed in the session.

    As a summary of this session, we can say that the kind of leadership existing in African countries determines how Africa gets involved in the discussions that are taking place now in order to shape the digital future of the world. and if they cannot be there, then other experts stakeholders have the responsibility to emphasize unseasonably on these issues drawing attention until they understand the need to be where the future is to be drafted.

    IGF 2021 DC-SIDS The Pandemic Internet: Ensuring SIDS do not fall behind

    DC Session
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 23:50
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:

    * The pandemic continued to challenge the economies and working modalities of SIDS, especially as it impacted the growth and development of the Internet/Digital Economy. While usage of the internet necessarily increased as a result of the pandemic-related restrictions, critical areas such as online education & learning (lack of devices, weak infrastructure, low levels of digital literacy and skills) require increased support and and collaboration

    ,

    * e-Commerce, Digital Business and Digital Entrepreneurship can be significant vehicles of growth for SIDS promoting collective regional action towards digital transformation and e-readiness, and as such represents a true agenda for change within the SIDS.

    Calls to Action

    + IG & Digital Economy stakeholders in SIDS need to work together, ACROSS and DESPITE geographic boundaries, to develop common solutions to shared challenges. Support and resources (not necessarily financial) from entities such as IGOs, the United Nations (IGF), ICANN, the Internet Society and the RIRs are critical to survival of SIDS post-pandemic.

    ,

    + The time has come for a non-regional approach to addressing the challenges faced by SIDS, and developing a platform for action and change. Members of the DC-SIDS agreed to lobby for and work towards the establishment of a SIDS-IGF, as early as 2022.

    Session Report

    SESSION REPORT OF THE IGF 2021 DC-SIDS ROUNDTABLE
    The Pandemic Internet: Ensuring SIDS do not fall behindGroup photo of #IGF2021 #DCSIDS Roundtable Zoom Session

    The Annual Roundtable provided an opportunity for speakers and participants from primarily the Pacific and Caribbean regions to experience an inclusive discussion by contributing their views and comments about the current state of the Internet Economy in Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and exploring the best practices in proposing the way forward in the Island when facing the challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with the increasing impacts brought about by climate change and persistent social and economic problems.

    The discussions spanned wide on internet topic areas ranging from access and connectivity, socio-economic developments and its impacts, education, agriculture, security and environmental sustainability challenges, and emerging technologies such as AI, Machine learning, Internet of things to mention a few. 

    The presence of the pandemic brought with it both challenges and significant opportunities. The increased sensitivity for the need to be connected and the digitalisation of operations on the part of key stakeholders within the digital economy presented a unique opportunity to advocate for the inclusion of minority groups, poorly connected and the unconnected.

    Discussions focused on several key areas:

    1. The pandemic has contributed to recognizing and drawing close attention to what has been working in similar topographies  to be promoted or replicated in another to address the  common challenges and issues faced
       
    2. Internet Governance networks are starting to obtain recognition and support from government, regulators, and other similar networks
       
    3. Innovative ideas have emerged and introduced for uptake where there is a need and collaborations amongst all similar regions must continue to be maintained and promoted for good works that are positively impacting lives
       
    4. E-commerce activities will contribute to drive willingness and acceptance to be trained on positive use of the internet by rural citizens who see ICT as the least priority, and also for improvement on network coverage and its reliability.

    Session takeaways :

    • The pandemic continued to challenge the economies and working modalities of SIDS, especially as it impacted the growth and development of the Internet/Digital Economy. While usage of the internet necessarily increased as a result of the pandemic-related restrictions, critical areas such as online education & learning (lack of devices, weak infrastructure, low levels of digital literacy and skills) require increased support and collaboration. Territories who adopted digital modalities earlier reaped more benefit in productivity whereas other territories who took their learning online later for example missed out on that opportunity in preserving absorption of learning and as a result had a lot of catching up to do.
        
    • e-Commerce, Digital Business and Digital Entrepreneurship can be significant vehicles of growth for SIDS as it promotes collective regional action towards digital transformation and e-readiness.  As such it represents a true agenda for change within the SIDS. For example, the PTI business survey showed a significant increase in the percentage of businesses that are using electronic means to support the selling of their goods and services online, the increase was specifically from 12% to 35%. The Pacific e-Commerce Strategy and roadmap is the key strategy being utilized to align all development efforts hereto, the first report will be due at the end of 2022. 

    Session Calls to Action:

    • IG & Digital Economy stakeholders in SIDS need to work together, ACROSS and DESPITE geographic boundaries, to develop common solutions to shared challenges. Support and resources (not necessarily financial) from entities such as IGOs, the United Nations (IGF), ICANN, the Internet Society and the RIRs are critical to survival of SIDS post-pandemic.
       
    • The time has come for a non-regional approach to addressing the challenges faced by SIDS, and developing a platform for action and change. Members of the DC-SIDS agreed to lobby for and work towards the establishment of a SIDS-IGF, as early as 2022.

    ADDENDUM:

    Inputs from the Pacific e-Commerce Initiative:

    The Pacific E-commerce Initiative, established by Forum members back in 2018, is our attempt to increase the region’s readiness to trade electronically by promoting targeted collective actions. 

    As of December 2021, under the umbrella of this initiative, National E-commerce Assessments were undertaken in eleven Forum Island Countries. These assessments, which are freely available on our website ad were based on a methodology developed by UNCTAD, have informed the subsequent development of a Pacific Regional E-commerce Strategy and Roadmap.

    The Pacific Regional E-commerce Strategy and Roadmap is the document embedding priority collective actions to improve E-commerce readiness, and as such represents a true agenda for regional change. This agenda was endorsed by our members in August this year after having benefited from input by 174 stakeholders and validated by a workshop attended by 234 participants. 

    Leveraging the UNCTAD’s E-Trade Readiness Assessment methodology, the Pacific Regional E-commerce Strategy and Roadmap prioritises regional measures in seven policy areas including (1) National E-commerce Readiness and Strategy Formulation; (2) ICT Infrastructure and Services; (3) Trade Logistics and Trade Facilitation; (4) Legal and Institutional Framework; (5) Electronic Payment Solutions; (6) E-commerce Skill Development; and (7) Access to Finance for E-commerce.

    In total, the Strategy identifies 54 Priority Measures, for a total cost of about USD 55 million, excluding the cost of infrastructure-related measures. 

    The Pacific E-commerce Initiative is now entering its second phase which is focused on implementation of the Pacific Regional E-commerce Strategy and Roadmap. An implementation framework of the Pacific Regional E-commerce Strategy and Roadmap is being established to ensure that the Strategy is duly monitored, resources for its implementation are mobilized, partners are coordinated, and regional ownership is maintained. As part of this implementation framework, the PIFS is in the process of establishing an E-commerce Unit with resources from like-minded development partners. 

    The PIFS is also implementing some projects which are aligned with the measures recommended by the Pacific Regional E-commerce Strategy and Roadmap, including: (1) Development of a Pacific E-commerce Portal; (2) Development of National E-commerce Strategy of Samoa; and (3) Regional Training Program on E-commerce for Pacific negotiators.

    By the end of 2022 we should have developed the first annual report on implementation of the Pacific Regional E-commerce Strategy and Roadmap, and we will be happy to share further updates at this important Forum if you will like us to do so.

     

    IGF 2021 WS #269 Inclusive Governance: Models of Open Source Participation

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 23:49
    Key Takeaways:

    Although panelists focus on different types of open source participation–technical, governance, community–their initiatives share a goal of supporting greater inclusion in open source software.Although panelists focus on different types of open source participation–technical, governance, community–their initiatives share a goal of supporting greater inclusion in open source software.

    Calls to Action

    Cross-sectoral expertise is needed to expand the initiatives presented in the session: Open Source Community Africa, Omidyar India’s Open Digital Ecosystems, and WHO’s new Hub for Pandemic and Epidemic Intelligence

    Session Report

    The session explored three cases of efforts to expand participation in the creation and use of open source software (OSS). Mala Kumar, Director of Tech for Social Good at GitHub, moderated the discussion and introduced the panel with some definitional remarks. She recognized that the participation challenges that face OSS also confront internet governance. OSS in the social sector poses additional challenges, as it is different than OSS more broadly: funding tends to be for new projects as opposed to sustain old ones, it tends to focus on stand-alone applications with graphical interfaces, as opposed to infrastructural tech, and perceptions of it vary around the world. Across the board, inclusive design is key: OSS tools are too often built in developed countries to be deployed in developing and least developed countries.

    Samson Goddy, Co-founder of Open Source Community Africa, shared his experience scaling the community organization to define and lead on OSS in Africa. He has found that many OSS projects are Western-centric, and that language supporting as many languages as possible—Africa has more than 2,000 distinct languages—is a significant challenge for their goal of diverse participation. Open Source Community Africa operates on a city chapter program to bring OSS to municipalities and have the movement resonate locally. Samson started it in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, before expanding to Lagos and more broadly.

    Kriti Mittal, Entrepreneur in Residence at Omidyar India, described her work on Open Digital Ecosystems, to promote government-citizen platforms. India has seen a paradigm shift towards open tech, with an embrace of digital infrastructure that is modular, open source, and uses open APIs. Yet, this approach brings risks as well: regulation is still emerging and data protection is a priority. Omidyar places greatest emphasis on non-technical layers of the infrastructure, focusing primarily on governance and community. She posed some difficult questions they face:

    • Should there mandatorily be a public body that acts as the institutional home of the digital platform?
    • How do we prevent the exclusion of people who are on the other side of the digital divide?
    • How do we protect citizen’s data while encouraging open innovation?

    Communities are key: they help build and main trust. They help localize and fit the specific context, while promoting transparency and accountability. Community pressure, for example, led the Government of India to open source its contact tracing and vaccine programs—which enabled scrutiny on privacy issues in the code and led to contributions to improve them.

    Dušan Milovanović, Solutions Architect for Public Health Intelligence at the World Health Organization (WHO), described the evolution of WHO’s global health information sharing efforts, starting after the 2015 ebola outbreak. WHO has made an effort to gather more information in addition to official statistics, including on animal and environmental factors, to realize “public health intelligence.” During the pandemic, they’ve embraced a collaborative approach that seeks to synthetize information before it become official data. The infrastructure that powers this collaborative intelligence approach relies on open source software. A new Open Source Program Office is being created in WHO to support these projects internally and externally worldwide. Dušan described WHO’s working principles on collaborative intelligence:

    1. Ethical Design to promote privacy, security, and ethical use of technology and data.
    2. Equity to work for the benefit of all populations and invite participation.
    3. Fostering exportation and innovation.
    4. Multiplicity: collaboration and reuse of systems.
    5. Interdependence: a one health approach that includes humans, the environment, animals, and world health data.
    6. Openness: promote the use and creation of open source technology, platforms, and tools for the public, to maximize citizen science.

    Sayeed Choudhury, Associate Dean for Research Data Management at Johns Hopkins University, was unable to attend the panel.

    Questions from the audience sought more explanation on the non-technical aspects of open source from the panelists.

    • Kriti described the governance and community layers in her framework. She drew from the State of FOSS in India report to describe some current challenges and opportunities in these layers: organizational capacity is lacking and is in need of government incentives and encouragement from the private sector; FOSS-led technical education is currently limited; there’s not enough commitment from mainstream IT companies in India and the government to embrace and purchase OSS; there’s a need to localize and translate into Indic languages.
    • Samson described a need to build awareness among young people that OSS is something that they can join to build the pipeline of talent from Africa. There’s a need to tailor global programs to fit Africa. One friend has created a list of OSS projects “Made in Nigeria” as a good example here.

    Additional audience questions focused on concerns about digital threats in OSS and ethical concerns on WHO’s using open data for sensitive biological information. Dušan described WHO’s approach to include security and software assessment in the scope of his work. WHO is careful to respect confidentiality requirements, using architected solutions to expose types of information without exposing individual values. In general, there is a need to expose analytical approaches to critique and make assumptions explicit, to validate approaches on, for example, how COVID risk is assigned using assumptions on transmission.

    In concluding remarks that focus on current needs, Samson Goddy described efforts to get government support from the African Union and welcomed financial support to expand Open Source Community Africa, as currently one main event raises funding that supports the regional communities. Kriti Mittal described an early stage project to build an open source center of excellence in India, and would welcome the opportunity to learn from those who have set up OSS communities in the developing country context.

    A review of the session hashtag on social media found an independent summary of the session available here https://dig.watch/events/igf2021/inclusive-governance-models-of-open-so… as well as one published by GitHub https://github.blog/2021-12-13-github-at-the-un-internet-governance-for…

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #32 The future of human augmentation: gain or 'cyber-pain'?

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 23:49
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    Although the possibilities for human augmentation are incredibly exciting, we must remain vigilant about the cyber security and ethical risks around embedding technology into our bodies. International multi-stakeholder community (i.e. private businesses, industry, public institutions and academia) needs to continue to address the increasing need for global cybersecurity regulation for human augmentation.

    Calls to Action

    It is important to have more international multi-stakeholder discussions about the future of human augmentation, and to engage the global IT and augmentation community to take further steps in regards to human augmentation security development. This includes ensuring digital privacy of devices, proving different levels of access rights to stored information, and mitigating any threats related to human health.

    Session Report

    Summary of the discussed points: 

    The session covered the following issues related to digital trends of Human Augmentation and its challenges:


    ·   The lack of awareness in regards to human augmentation: a vast majority of people would not be aware of the ethical issues and the existence of any associated risks or cyberthreats in regards to the use of bionic devices within corporate networks. Awareness campaigns and materials should be developed and made available to all stakeholders (broader agreement).

     


    ·    The unclear legal framework of human augmentation (digitally augmented people): while a majority seem to agree that human augmentation should be regulated, better protected and standardized, some assess this is not yet the right time to go forward. In-depth discussions are needed at international and national levels on this key issue (needing further discussion).

     


    ·    The need for coordinated response: businesses, organizations, governments, academia, as well as cybersecurity companies should act together to bring an effective response to the human augmentation challenges. For instance, by introducing security policies for using bionic devices (e.g. cybersecurity policy for bionic devices).  

     

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #35 Australia’s approach to regulating online harms – navigating the great balancing act of the digital age.

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 23:48
    Key Takeaways:

    Globally, we’ve reached a tipping point. Governments are starting to wake up to the fact that what’s playing out online is not only a threat to individual citizens, but also an existential threat to democracy and civilised society. • Our goal is to avoid a patchwork and fragmentation of online safety legislation, governance arrangements and national online safety measures.

    Calls to Action

    Governments, industry and civil society need to find a way to balance fundamental human rights in the digital environment, and stop thinking of privacy, security and safety as mutually exclusive. A healthy system relies on all three existing in a natural symbiosis.

    Session Report

    Commissioner Inman Grant’s lightening talk was an exploration of the evolution of harms on the internet. She noted that today’s internet has brought humanity a myriad of benefits. The Covid-19 Pandemic has seen the internet become an essential utility as the whole world turned to it to continue to work, learn, communicate and be entertained.  

    But along with the good, we also need to acknowledge the bad. Unfortunately, the internet has also become a highly enabling environment for many forms of abuse.

     There’s the relentless online bullying of children, targeted misogyny, hatred and racism, the unchecked spread of disinformation and misinformation, terrorist weaponization of social media, and the most horrifying of all, the grooming, sexual exploitation and abuse of children.

    Commissioner Inman Grant remarked that globally, we’ve reached a tipping point, and governments around the world are starting to wake up to the fact that what’s now playing out online is not only a threat to individual citizens, but also potentially looms as an existential threat to democracy and civilised society. 

     The Australian Government recognised this challenge, and established the eSafety Commissioner in 2015. Commissioner Inman Grant took participants on a deep dive through Australia’s approach to regulating online harms.

    The discussion then turned to the operating in the complicated environment of content moderation. The Commissioner noted that content moderation discussion are often characterised by binaries views of the need to uphold privacy and security, or safety and protection. It is vital that the technology industry and wider society start to reframe how we view our most pressing online problems.

    The Commissioner implored participants to stop thinking of privacy, security and safety as mutually exclusive. A healthy system relies on all three existing in a natural symbiosis. People often talk about the absolute right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, but what about when this free speech veers headlong into the realm of targeted abuse and online harassment? She asked the audience, shouldn’t those on the receiving end have an equal right to exist free from online violence? Absolute free speech often ends up taking away the free speech of others as they are driven offline by a barrage of harassment and abuse.

    Digital rights protectors also have a moral responsibility to broaden this discussion and take a more nuanced approach that at least gives equal billing to the rights of those who are most at risk online alongside the rights of freedom of speech and privacy. Governments, industry and civil society all need to find, a way to balance a set of fundamental human rights.

    The conversation then shifted to emerging issues, tech trends and challenges, because technological change will always outpace policy, to be effective, it is imperative to stay a step ahead of tech trends and challenges and ensure that a lens of ‘safety’ is applied to emerging issues.

    She noted the balanced and nuanced view to emerging technologies and trends taken by the eSafety Commissioner – weighing up both the risks and benefits new innovations could have for the safety and wellbeing of the public, but also providing a critical lens on how these could be used to abuse, harass or harm individuals - and then pointing to solutions where they exist.

    Questions and answers focused on a range of key issues and themes, including the need for international collaboration to address online harms, how to regulate the metaverse, the need to protect women from online harassment and abuse.

    IGF 2021 WS #243 Level Up: Methods for Localizing Digital Policy and Norms

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 23:38
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    While localization of policy can be important to respond to local needs and particularities, there still needs to be broader "harmonization" so that the internet remains a global, unified platform that enables the exercise of human rights.

    ,

    It's is imperative that governments institute multistakeholder processes during the drafting phase in order to be truly inclusive and to develop the best policy that responds to the needs of citizens.

    Calls to Action

    The most powerful stakeholders—governments and private companies—need to make sure that civil society actors are able to meaingufully contribute in multistakeholder processes.

    ,

    When localizing digital policies attention must always be paid to making sure that new policy language upholds international human rights norms

    Session Report

    In a global context where new regulations are being drafted for technology companies to govern cyberspace, how can we ensure that when they are implemented in different political contexts that the end is result upholds international human rights commitments? This was the primary question for this panel, which featured speakers from 3 different stakeholder groups (private sector, government, and civil society) as well as diverse regional perspectives (Kenya, Ukraine, Peru, and the UK). 

    85+ people attended via Zoom and 15+ people attended in person in Poland. Approximately 55% of the attendees were women, and 75% of the panelists were women. There was a high level of engagement in the form of questions both in-person in Poland as well as on the Zoom platform.

    There were three main threads of discussion:

    1) Regulation is happening and it is important that countries ensure that policies adhere to international human rights commitments — Examples of emerging global policy standards include the GDPR as well as some content regulation policies, which have thus far primarily first emerged in Europe, but have gone on to influence policy development in other regions. Two civil society legal scholars on the panel noted the dangers to internet freedom that hasty development of regulation can create when they are not vetted to make sure they adhere to international human rights standards. Done poorly, rather than strengthen digital governance, they can undermine international human rights standards and so all stakeholders need to be vigilant in these processes. The representative from the private sector noted that harmonization of these policies across borders can lead to economic gains, but only when implemented properly. Thus, there are a number of social gains that can be gleaned from this type of policy intervention, but the small details matter a great deal.

    2) To truly be a global information platform, the internet's governance must be inclusive and multistakeholder — One civil society speaker noted how many people are still excluded from the internet, and that bridging the digital divide still needs to be a focus of action. Others agreed and noted that even thought many are online, they are not as actively engaged in internet governance as they should be. The representative from the government of Peru talk about the engagement work that countries must do to make sure these sectors of the population have channels to participate and give their input. Developing and implementing policy without this engagement, they argued, would lead to sub-standard policy which might not receive broad-based buy-in. Thus all speakers agreed that all stakeholders need to redouble their outreach and engagement strategies, especially governments.

    3) The rise of digital sovereignty is a threat to an open internet — Poor implementation of emerging global standards may result in a patchwork of different country regulations that effectively splinter the global internet into different national networks. Rather than raising human rights standards globally, this could actually lead to a race to the bottom and would threaten democratic digital governance and human rights more broadly. To avoid this scenario, panelists encouraged more broad-based multistakeholder processes foster inclusive digital governance. 

     

     

    IGF 2021 Open Forum #24 The GovStack Initiative - digital government cooperation

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 22:38
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    Stakeholders engaged in the digitisation of government services (hereinafter referred as stakeholders) agree on the necessity of aligned cooperation and actions to achieve the digital transformation of governments: To further the digital transformation journey of governments, the initiatives like GovStack and DPGA are crucial.

    ,

    Stakeholders agree on the following challenges in the area of digital transformation: a.) Siloed approaches; b.) Vertical efforts; c.) Lack of inclusiveness, d.) Need for citizen centricity.

    Calls to Action

    Stakeholders shall commit to shift from agency centric strategies to a single digital strategy that takes a whole of government approach and commit to a citizen-centric service approach while digitally transforming their public infrastructure.

    ,

    Stakeholders shall set clear principles of data collection, sharing and maintenance to ensure that the data is reliable and trustworthy and can be securely exchanged between public and private sector.

    Session Report

    The session “The GovStack Initiative – Digital Government Cooperation” was hosted by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).The session gathered speakers from BMZ, German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL), Digital Public Goods Alliance) (DPGA), National eGovernance Division of India (NeGD) and Ministry of Information and Communication of Sierra Leone. The goal of the event was to present the GovStack Initiative as well as the work of the GovStack Community of Practice (CoP) with the DPGA and highlight the role of the initiative in advancing the global digital cooperation.

    The moderator opened the discussion by stressing on the strong need for digital government services and digital public infrastructure to leverage the full potential of the digital transformation. The moderator further outlined that the global cooperation and partnerships play a crucial role in achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and fostering digital transformation that serves people around the globe.  

    The session proceeded with the panel discussion that revolved around the following key issues: 

    • Changes needed to fully leverage the potential of digital transformation. 
    • The role of the GovStack Initiative in establishing global digital cooperation and supporting digital transformation of government services. 
    • Keys to successful global partnerships in the context of digital transformation. 
    • Ways to align different stakeholders’ needs into shared priorities to accelerate progress towards Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI). 
    • The role of GovStack CoP in advancing digital cooperation and contributing to the Digital Public Goods (DPGs) ecosystem. 

    The speakers provided inputs sharing their vision on the issues presented above. The key elements raised were the following: 

    • Strong global partnerships are crucial for digital transformation of governments and achieving SDGs. 
    • Digital transformation needs cross border and cross sectoral aligned cooperation. 
    • The whole of government approach is necessary for accelerating the digital transformation and avoiding the duplication of efforts. 
    • Digital transformation must be inclusive, citizen centric and sustainable. 
    • Digital infrastructure must be accessible for all. 
    • The GovStack Initiative can help overcome siloed digital transformation approaches. 
    • The GovStack Initiative supports harmonization of activities around the implementation of DPGs. 

    The panel also became a platform for sharing experiences and user perspectives on digital government cooperation and the implementation of digital government strategies and services. As such, representative of Estonia, Ms. Nele Leosk, highlighted that core principles of GovStack, namely, “share and reuse”, had helped Estonia to become a global leader in digital transformation of government services. Ms. Leosk also underlined that Estonia needs GovStack to continue its own digitalization journey. Representative of India, Mr. Abhishek Singh, also shared the lessons learned by India. Mr. Singh emphasized on the importance of keeping citizens in focus when designing digital services and relying on their needs and feedback. He stressed on the necessity to develop citizen centric and inclusive digital services that align with the whole of government approach. The audience also had a chance to know more about the digital transformation journey of Sierra Leone. Mr. Telli Koroma, CTO at the Ministry of Information and Communication, noted that is crucial to create the sense of ownership of digital solutions that can be achieved by customizing the solutions to the local context and building local skills.  

    At the end of the discussion, the speakers deliberated on how the government structures could shift towards citizen-centric service approach. The panelists agreed on the following steps that could make such shift possible: 

    • Laying out single digital strategy instead of separate strategies for different government agencies.
    • Focusing on the needs of citizens and coordinating efforts between government structures. 
    • Consulting with citizens when designing the respective policies and digital solutions. 
    • Designing software interventions with SDGs in mind. 
    IGF 2021 WS #261 Best Practices in Content Moderation and Human Rights

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 22:36
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    There was near consensus among panelists on the usefulness of human rights frameworks to guide platform activities, particularly around transparency for content moderation processes. There was disagreement, however, on the extent that platforms can reserve their rights as private actors: are they akin to restaurants or does their scale and ubiquity in life require international obligations beyond voluntarily using guiding human rights principles?

    Calls to Action

    Allison Davenport called on policymakers to ensure that regulation reflects the diversity of content moderation approaches taken by diverse platforms. Vladimir Cortes issued a call to ensure that continuing discussion of platforms’ roles in digital lives follows a multistakeholder model, so that it can benefit from civil society, private actors, and government expertise.

    Session Report

    The session explored differences in perspectives and approaches to using human rights as a guide for platform content moderation. After brief introductions, the panelists discussed how to weigh the need to protect freedom of speech with risks of harmful content. 

    Berges Malu, Director of Policy at Sharechat, described his company’s approach in the Indian context. The Indian constitution does not provide for free speech in its entirety, and Sharechat will remove content that is illegal under Indian law. It also may remove or restrict the reach/virality of content that is not good for the community. This approach has reduced instances of harmful speech, in contrast to the experiences of other platforms in India.

    Abby Vollmer, Director of Platform Policy and Counsel at GitHub, described her company’s approach. Human rights offers a guide in shaping content moderation practices for GitHub’s 73 million developers worldwide. Context and culture matters, so when taking content moderation actions, GitHub considers where a user may come across content and perceive it. For example, a user’s avatar often appears without context and thus may be the subject of enforcement. However, the same image could potentially be permissible elsewhere on the platform with sufficient context. Ultimately, GitHub is guided by a principle of “least restrictive means” in content-related enforcement and in many cases will start by contacting the user in question directly to see if they can remedy the situation before taking action on content. 

    Veszna Wessenauer, Research Manager at Ranking Digital Rights, introduced civil society strategies around platform content governance, noting that the concept includes practices beyond content moderation. 

    Vladimir Cortes, Digital Rights Program Officer at Article 19, described how his organization analyzes the impacts that platform content governance decisions have on local groups, including artists, activists, collectives, as well as femistist and LGBT groups. In one case, a Mexican journalist whose content was in his native Zapotec language faced mistaken takedowns. They’ve found problems with Facebook’s transparency in enforcing its community standards: individuals did not understand which standard was violated and how. Article 19 advocates for these groups to improve platform practices to align with human rights standards. They understand that freedom of expression is not without limit, but restrictions must be legal and proportionate.

    Allison Davenport, Senior Policy Counsel at Wikimedia explained how Wikipedia approaches content moderation in a very different way than dominant platforms like Facebook. Wikis are divided by language communities, not political jurisdiction, so the global Spanish-speaking community sets their own standards, complicating compliance with a potential law in the country of Spain, for example. Wikimedia staff do some limited content moderation due to legal requirements and toxicity concerns, including child and sexual exploitation content. However, its predominantly a community-based model. She offered a warning on regulation: often legislators assume platforms exercise top-down control on content, which contradict with how the community moderation model actually works. 

    Brenda Dvoskin, PhD researcher at Harvard Law School, challenged the presumption that platforms should align their approach to human rights law. In her perspective, applying this framework to companies does not reflect its original meaning. Considering the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies are expected to identify which rights individuals should have and then not infringe upon them. However, in practice, platforms have specific rules that impact these rights. For example, The New York Times comment section prohibits the use of ALL CAPS: is this an infringement on human rights? In seeking to apply human rights frameworks to platforms, people make a political choice that seeks to erase normative preferences for a “objective” standard–this process of hiding is irresponsible. 

    Brenda’s intervention pushed panelists to articulate how they viewed human rights as a useful framework for content governance. 

    • Berges described platforms as akin to a restaurant, which has the right to kick you out for being out without it being a violation of human rights. For him, political censorship is concerning, but that human rights as an absolute does not work. 
    • Allison described one appeal of the human rights framework is that it acknowledges that platforms are ubiquitous and inescapable in certain areas: people live online, they get jobs via platforms, they interact with family. 
    • Abby agreed that companies are private and legally can make rules. That’s where human rights come in: as a platform looking to draft rules, human rights law provides an instructive starting point.
    • Vladimir challenged the restaurant analogy. Platforms shape civic space and have huge scale. They are relevant for protests and democratic participation. Even in private spaces, the UN Human Rights Committee has interpreted the right of peaceful assembly to include private spaces. Some platforms are incorporating the Rabat Plan of Action rules on hate speech. Although human rights apply differently than to states, they are important for platforms.

    Panelists consolidated around a need for transparency in platform content governance

    • Berges described the need to help users understand why their content may be taken down, and Indian regulations that require monthly transparency reports that tally takedowns and their justifications as well as an appeal process.
    • Veszna explained Ranking Digital Rights’ approach, which calls on platforms to transparently disclose practices for public evaluation. Their evaluation criteria prioritize transparency in the content governance process.
    • Vladimir encouraged the audience to review the Santa Clara Principles that include an emphasis on transparency, accountability, and explainability.

    Brenda agreed that restraints on companies are needed, to ensure that platforms operate in the public interest. Too often human rights are used a heuristic for the public interest, but human rights entails a balance between values, which are not necessarily in the public interest. For example, popular campaigns to push back against hollocaust denial demonstrate public interest that does not align with human rights protections for free expression.

    An audience member, who worked for an Iranian regulator, raised a question on how to ensure content diversity amid a concentration of media power. Vladimir shared Article 19’s approach: to (1) invite multistakeholder advice/input and (2) to promote unbundling as a pro-competitive remedy that separates hosting of content and content moderation itself, in an effort to decentralize.

    A review of #WS261 found no contributions aside from those of the organizers. GitHub published a summary available here: https://github.blog/2021-12-13-github-at-the-un-internet-governance-forum/

    IGF 2021 YCIG Youth in the decision-making process: hear us!

    DC Session
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 22:21
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    Soft skill development is important for youth, especially regarding negotiation skills, and teamwork. Being able to communicate clear conceptualization of your work, can assist in truly understanding local issues and convince others why they should care about your causes. With various groups conducting similar initiatives, youth ought to view other organisations as potential collaborative partners and not competition.

    ,

    Youth events are like events within bubbles, with little to no involvement of stakeholders outside of youth. The same applies to regional activities among youth themselves, and efforts should be taken to help youth interact across regions. Youth are not monolithic and missing perspectives from youth-related discussions need to be identified.

    Calls to Action

    Although the proposed solution (Leadership Panel) is far from perfect, any solution is better than nothing. Youths need to participate in the nomination process of the Leadership Panel, otherwise they run the risk of excluding themselves from the discussion. Youth should participate in agenda setting and decision-making processes of issues that they care about. (Youth)

    ,

    Steps need to be taken to begin measuring meaningful involvement of Youth. And organisations can take more effort into recruiting mentors of high-profile and high-impact for mentees. Another option would be to fund more youth programs. (Youth / Civil Society)

    Session Report

    Session Report

    The session began with the introduction of Pedro Lana - Onsite Moderator presenting 3 speakers.

    Characteristics of Panelists: 1 Regional Engagement Director from YCIG (Criminal Lawyer), 1 Public Interest Technologist, 1 Co-founder and Steering Committee Member of Youth IGF Poland (Lawyer). Onsite moderator made different questions to the speakers:

    1-Involvement in Internet Governance Ecosystem and Lessons Learned:

    Ayden Fedérline: Effective advocates in multistakeholder or multilateral platforms need to have narrow focus (knowing what it is important to you helps with personal motivation). More of a Return of Investment if one participates at the national level first instead of the international level (easier communication, locally relevant issues). Be open to learning and making mistakes, particularly learning from mistakes. Better to make more friends than enemies, allies will be beneficial in discussing strategies and sharing motivation.

    2-Thoughts on Before and After of Project Youth Summit and Future Expectations:

    Emilia Zalewska: Although a tiring but rewarding experience, the delay in Poland hosting the IGF gave the team more time to prepare. Inspiration came from Berlin 2019 where around 100 people created Youth Messages (identified differences in perception of Internet Governance challenges and changes they wanted to see). From a one-day meeting in 2019, the project allowed us to have a bigger outreach and more time to discuss. 80 selected participants tackled discussions about specific stakeholder groups and came up with very remarkable points of action.

    3-Thoughts on Participation from Latin America and the Caribbean region:

    Eileen Cejas: Youth Coalition on Internet Governance is a Dynamic Coalition that has been around for 11 years. They participated for the second time at Youth LACIGF this year but with the difference that the 6th edition (Open Course in Spanish has launched thanks to the funding support from the Internet Society Foundation). Topics discussed include gender, remote work, and education among others. Youth IGF Argentina will conduct their 18 December its annual meeting online, as they will discuss the effects of digitalization on the environment and youth engagement (national and regional level).

    4-Thoughts on Multistakeholder High Level Body (MHLB) and Leadership Panel:

    Ayden: IGF is broken because the current status quo only sees a discussion forum without anywhere to act on the items discussed. The Leadership Panel isn’t necessarily the best proposal or solution, but it is better than no proposal. Youth should support the initiative and become involved, otherwise rejection of this might lead to the IGF continuing to lose relevance, and push other stakeholders to platforms where youth are not represented/allowed to participate. Youths should nominate for the Leadership Panel members and ensure there is strong civil society participation.

    Emilia: Similar to Ayden, with no other suggestion, youths can focus on being a part of this solution. Getting meaningfully involved is important—youth involvement is being recognised, the best proof is the inclusion of Youth Summit into the IGF structure. Youth events are like events within bubbles, with little to no involvement of stakeholders outside of youth. The same applies to regional activities among youth themselves, and efforts should be taken to help youth interact across regions. Youth are not monolithic and missing perspectives from youth-related discussions need to be identified.

    Eileen: No solution would be the worst case scenario. Disagree with an outright opposition to the Leadership Panel proposal from Just Net Coalition, because the rejection itself would be excluding oneself from the discussion. Positive thing would be that the political reach of IGF would be increased. With adherence to Chatham House Rules, it will be difficult to identify which stakeholder is pushing for what. Also lacks Youth Representation (no UN Youth Envoy for example). 

    Then the Map to IG Mechanisms and Youth” was presented for 20 mins, where speakers and participants reflected on the role of youth.

    5-How to increase Youth Participation and Reflections on Digital Cooperation Mechanisms:

    Ayden: Important to focus on active/meaningful participation, but hard to measure. There is a need to identify missing perspectives, because youth isn’t monolithic. Soft skill development is important for youth, especially regarding negotiation skills, and teamwork. Being able to communicate clear conceptualization of your work, can assist in truly understanding local issues and convince others why they should care about your causes (appearance of agency vs. victimhood). Funding needed for capacity building and results that we need.

    Emilia: Suggestions from participants are welcome. With various groups conducting similar yet separate initiatives, youth ought to view other organizations as potential collaborative partners and not competition. Cooperated with Youth Observatory, Youth IGF Poland for Project Youth Summit, and communicated with YouthxPolicyMakers (German Informatics Society). Remember the existence of vulnerable groups and their voices.

    Eileen: Throughout the history of Youth Coalition, although ideas might have been repeated, some have also been realized. Mentorship collaboration with the Internet Society for their Youth Ambassador Program. There is an aim to sponsor more youth to participate at IGF, but currently, we require more funds to finance youth activities.

    YouthxPolicyMakers (Demetria): The representative of YouthxPolicyMakers commented that they published 4 policy papers after 4 competency-building workshops and meetings with PolicyMakers from around the world. (Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems, Access and Accessibility, Content, Media and Literacy as well as Privacy, Data Protection and Vulnerable Groups) Question for the speakers—how to translate this output into real action steps.

    YouthDIG (Idil Kula): one of the participants of the YouthDIG shared the messages elaborated at the YouthDIG, including the message on Digital Technologies Within Government Bodies, Platforms, Digital Self-determination & Digital Literacy and Disinformation.

    Responses to Comments:

    Ayden: German Informatics Society can engage in a targeted way of networking (between youth, industry actors and regulatory bodies). Stakeholder analysis can be used to understand which party has leverage (financial interest/might). Mentorship is needed, youth need access to high-profile and high-impact mentors.

    Jenna: As Programme Coordinator for Asia Pacific Youth IGF, we realized that youth involvement is rising. Through an observation Latin America and Europe region, we can find various initiatives that have output. The challenge for the Asia Pacific region is the country's own understanding of Internet Governance. Youths want to get more involved but must not forget to reconnect with active youths. Small things need to be considered when plans are made. Synergies between initiatives of different regions can be made possible.

    On-site Participants:

    Deputy Attorney Office of Nepal: Language barrier, local languages should be translated into English, through video/audio stories more global awareness on the situation. This can be achieved through collaboration between youth organizations at Youth Forums.

    Program Youth Brasil (João Moreno Falcão): the participant commented on this Program that was able to sent more than 200 youths to national and global IGFs, impacted more than a 1000 youths in terms of education about Internet Governance, as an example of a successful youth initiative.

    Afterwards, the onsite moderator took a photo of the session.

    YCIG Remarks: Youth supporting youth is the best way to achieve involvement in the IG ecosystem. Highlights of YCIG’s 2021 include YCIG community-questionnaire launch, facilitation of webinars (environmental sustainability and Inclusive Internet Governance ecosystem and Digital Cooperation), worked with Youth Observatory to submit workshop proposals for IGF 2021, partnered with UNDESA and SPI on Digital Public Goods Policy Brief, conducted mentorship for ISOC’s IGF Youth Ambassador Program, EuroDIG Day 0 and YouthDIG participation, collaboration with Youth IGF Poland for Project Youth Summit, YouthLACIGF Open Course 2020 & 2021 as well as a presentation at DC Main Session with other DCs.

    Eileen: Call for Participation in YCIG Elections

    Concluding Remarks:

    Ayden: Youth should participate in agenda-setting and decision-making processes of issues that they care about. Pressure to make UN processes more outcome-oriented, and to regain authority of internet governance issues. Governments are only more open to certain topics when it comes to multistakeholder participation (e.g. Gender).

    Emilia: Eager to get comments on Points of Action from Project Youth Summit. Regarding Demetria’s question, the work shouldn’t just stop at IGF Poland 2021, thus we invite everyone to share comments and thoughts about the shared output.

    Eileen: Thank you to everyone present, YCIG Steering Committee, and other members involved in this session.

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #60 The role of privacy in antitrust policy in highly data-driven markets

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 22:17
    Key Takeaways:

    Data privacy law has become its own domain of law in the last two decades but it should nowdayas be seen in conjunction with antitrust laws, especially in merger proceedings in markets that are highly data-driven.

    ,

    Privacy is a part of consumer welfare and data becomes more and more a factor in competition, be it in the shape of a competitive advantage (non-price competition) or as a barrier to entry. At the same time, companies compete on privacy which inherently causes friction. A conduct that might be found anti-competitive could at the same time protect consumer’s data which underlines the need for more stream-lined data protection and antitrust regimes

    Calls to Action

    Competition and Data Protection Authorities need to be enabled by legislators to cooperate more closely in order to implement data privacy into competition policy

    ,

    Data and privacy matters need to be introduced into competition legislation to account for the new ways in which companies compete today

    Session Report

     

    The Big Data & Antitrust Cycle of the Institute for Internet & the Just Society hosted “Lightning Talk #60 The role of privacy in antitrust policy in highly data-driven markets” during the 2021 IGF. Two speakers were invited:

    • Ms. Nidhi Singh, who is a Panel Counsel at Delhi High Court & Supreme Court of India in New Delhi and Deputy Director at the Centre for Competition Law & Policy at GLA University
    • Mr. Mario Tavares Moyrón, Senior Legal Counsel at AXA Group Operations in Paris, France.

    Mr. Moyrón started off by introducing the topic by outlining his thoughts on the relationship between privacy and antitrust. He stated that competition authorities have sometimes faced backlash after taking questions of data privacy into account during, for example, merger proceedings. While many jurisdictions recognize the right to privacy, sometimes even in the respective constitutional texts, some commentators seem to not follow the notion that privacy is part of the consumer welfare that prevails in many antitrust regimes worldwide. This is already contradicting the fact that often there are data (and consumer) protection agencies that act to the benefit of consumer welfare. Problems do arise now when competition authorities need to assess behaviors or planned mergers in markets that rely heavily on data. Within the last decade, through rapid technological progress, data has become an essential facility that grants huge competitive advantages. 

    While some argue now that data should not be considered to form part of consumer welfare as many give up their privacy in exchange for services, this view neglects that data is an important asset in the competitive process. In his view, it is then only consequent to have competition authorities consider questions of data protection as well. At the moment though, competition policy does usually not allow for this, so the approach as to how to solve this issue is subject to debate. One could of course consider an expansion of the mandate but it seems more likely that every authority or regulatory body should stick with its own special expertise. This would make processes for cooperation between data protection and competition authorities necessary which are not in place yet (a so-called “dialogical regulatory function” in order to avoid confusion over competencies). It is therefore up to legislators to clear the way for this evolution of competition law. He illustrates these points by making reference to the case the German Federal Cartel Office brought against Facebook, in which provisions of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) were used to actually constitute an infringement of competition law. In that case, the Competition Authority also cooperated with the competent Irish Data Protection Commissioner. The efforts that are being made in Europe, one notable example is the introduction of § 19a in the German Act against Restrictions of Competition, will eventually need to be scaled up on a more global level as data-driven markets usually have an international dimension and the same questions will therefore arise.

    Subsequently, Ms. Nidhi Singh took over and underlined that the digital environment has brought drastic changes to our regulatory landscape that need to be addressed. Just like IP and consumer protection law have had their fair share of influence on competition regimes, data privacy law as a separate domain of law will more and more do so. She argues that data is particularly important in the competition since most services of big platforms are offered for free. Firms cannot compete on price, so only non-price competition remains and there are instances in which tighter or more transparent privacy policies have been considered positively by consumers. Data has proven to be crucial in merger cases as well, even though the merging parties might not operate in the same market, the acquisition of one firm’s data set can be extremely valuable to the business model of the acquiring party. 

    Ms. Singh continues to cite Erika A. Doughlous who outlined two areas of tension between data privacy and competition law regimes. Firstly, companies often invoke privacy as a justification against allegations of anti-competitive behavior. Secondly, granting access to data that a firm holds has become an increasingly popular remedy to mitigate competition concerns. It seems that courts however neglect the data implications competition law cases have (“competition first approach”). As an example, HiQ v. LinkedIn is explained, a case in which The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has rendered LinkedIn’s termination of HiQ’s access to user profile data unlawful as unfair competition, even though HiQ had violated user privacy settings. This also contradicts the FTC’s enforcement policy and shows how contentious the relationship between those two areas of law is. Margrethe Vestager, the European Commissioner for Competition, has also pointed out that data has become an increasingly important factor in the competition which makes granting access to data an effective behavioral remedy in order to maintain/restore competition. Problems are posed by the mandate that competition authorities are being given which limits them with regards to the scope they conduct their investigations and assessments in. Ms. Singh suggests, in conclusion, to view competition and data protection law as complementary disciplines that should not be considered exclusively in order to do justice to the new digital economy.

    One question from the audience is directed to Mr. Moyrón and concerns the implications the GDPR has in an antitrust context. Mr. Moyrón explains that often consumers do not know how their data is used and the GDPR has provided useful information in order to create more transparency for consumers. This should eventually foster competition as consumers are enabled to make better-informed decisions. Another question is directed to Ms. Singh, she’s asked whether she thinks that there is a trade-off between profits and privacy or if firms that respect privacy will be the ones that are more successful in the long run. She explains that there seems to be a conflict between respecting privacy and gathering data. While privacy might be valued by customers, big amounts of data might be a competitive advantage a firm needs over its rivals. At the same time, she observes a development that more privacy is increasingly an argument for consumers to choose a specific firm, so the balance might be shifting.

     

    IGF 2021 WS #259 Digital Cooperation process - Analysis from Youth lenses

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 22:07
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    Bringing Capacity building for Youth is very important, is a necessary step to get the correct tools, for example being involved in ISOC Youth Ambassadors program for us was our precedent in order to engage in the ecosystem because it is essential to have this support from other stakeholders.

    ,

    From the perspective of the models, participants agreed that each of the models has this idea of bottom-up processes from the national perspectives to the regional to the global. There is a need for an ordered bottom-up process so it could be a mixture of the models since each of them has relevant things to offer..

    Calls to Action

    Youth is at the forefront, the effect of shutdowns affects mostly the youth, so the youth need to decide how better we want the internet to be. From the education point of view, in Africa for example they are still struggling to even have broadband internet that allows them to come to forums, or at least that gives them awareness.

    ,

    Youth is already involved in Digital Cooperation conversation, having Youth as a stakeholder better recognized will be the challenge.In this way the Youth Summit Working Group on Inclusive Internet Governance ecosystem and Digital Cooperation raised concerns on the lack of representation of youth, not even the UN Youth Envoy as part of the Leadership Panel and we should advocate having more youth representation in decision making bodies.

    Session Report

     

    Characteristics of the panelists: 1 Infrastructure senior, 1 human right lawyer / IP, 1 criminal lawyer, head of Youth SIG, feminists perspective, digital sustainability, ISOC Ambassadorship, Digital cooperation expert, 1 cybersecurity advisor, 1 APIGF representative, 1 software developer from Internet Society Youth Ambassadors Program 2021.

    Then panelists went through the 4 digital cooperation models.

    Firstly, Eileen mentioned some personal and reflections from the IGF Plus model based on DIPLO’s and personal opinion. After reviewing the composition of this body, she analyzed some advantages and disadvantages. Some remarks from her intervention included amplifying the outcomes of the IGF and bringing more communities, the concerns on the Leadership Panel, and its potential collaboration role with the Policy Incubator and other bodies. In addition, there is not a mention of the role of youth in such a body, which can affect negatively their inclusion according to point 7 of the UN Common Agenda, not even the representation of the UN Youth Envoy. It was also highlighted the necessity of considering youth as a recognized stakeholder.

    Secondly, Mumbashir examined the Digital Commons Model and expressed that the idea behind this multistakeholder model is ensuring the diversity, from the technical infrastructure, through standards and protocols, for sustainability and digitalization; and safeguard the internet from some negative consequences that we can come across while using internet connections because people are connected and can access the resources.

    Thirdly, Meri presented the Co-governance Model and its main features, for instance, relying on a horizontal model for digital cooperation using the examples of policy-making bodies in IEEE, IETF, and ICANN. Moreover, it separates norms from the implementation and law enforcement, and it just follows a simple process that provides governments with some frameworks. One aspect to feature is that, when norms are available, these could be adopted, to offer possible change for connecting or implementation desired. If there is a conflict, they will establish and provide discussion. Formalizing digital norms for implementation and enforcement.

    Finally, Ethan spoke about NRIs by opening with a question: “Should the power to shape the internet be in the hands of everyone?” After giving some facts and mentioning the Youth PolicyMakers papers, he remarked that youth is highly involved in the ecosystem like the Youth NRIs. In this regard, capacity-building tools are essential for digital inclusion.

    Participants from the session made some intervention on the topic of education, with the importance of youth to identify the gaps and keeping the Internet secure and safe. In this scenario, capacity-building programs are a good way to engage youth. In addition, Ethan suggested that the conversation on education should take into consideration the different contexts around the world.

    On the models, participants also mentioned the necessity to find a mixture of models while maintaining the bottom-up process and contributing to the discussion of NRIs and Youth NRIs.

    Regarding the comment on the possibility of considering youth as a different stakeholder, both speakers Eileen and Meri explained that the youth community has been discussing this topic for a long time and the point is, we see this need for the youth stakeholder, is a different stakeholder group. Otherwise, youth will be slowed down by other stakeholder groups so youth can present their specific perspective on the Internet Governance issues.

    As ending remarks, speaker Eileen mentioned the Project We, The Internet organized in cooperation with Missions Publiques and with the presence of several youth representatives organizing these citizens dialogues on Internet Governance issues including digital cooperation so this topic is not a closed debate to certain circles of experts. This discussion should be open to everyone, with equal participation of all.

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #78 Digital accessibility is a right: keys to building accessible digital environments

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 21:59
    Key Takeaways:

    Digital accessibility enables people to interact with digital environments without the mediation of third parties. In this way, all citizens can exercise their citizenship through autonomous decision-making in their practice of democracy. There is a lack of knowledge on the subject and that it is necessary for States, the private sector and academia to take it into their work agendas so that all people know their rights and see them fulfilled.

    Calls to Action

    Disseminate the dimension of digital accessibility as a right

    Session Report

    Report Lightning Talk Digital accessibility is a right: keys to building accessible digital environments

    During the lightning talk we talked about digital accessibility from a human rights perspective. We approach the issue on three levels:

    1.  What are we talking about when we talk about accessibility? It was concluded that there is a general lack of knowledge on the subject and that it is necessary for States, the private sector and academia to take it into their work agendas so that all people know their rights and see them fulfilled.
    2. What rights are intersected by accessibility? It is agreed that digital accessibility enables all people to access content hosted on websites, digital platforms and applications without the mediation of third parties. In this way, all citizens can exercise their citizenship through autonomous decision-making in their practice of democracy.
    3. What can we do from each place to incorporate accessibility as an essential dimension in the digital sphere? It was agreed that both States and the private sector should:
    • Express commitment in relation to accessibility.
    • For this, it is effective to plan a strategy and designate people or areas responsible for promoting and managing the implementation of accessibility.
    • It is recommended to offer institutional training spaces on the subject.
    • It is necessary to require suppliers to make their products and services accessible, expanding the scope outside the organizations themselves.
    • It is convenient to define resources of economic and human capital, destined to the subject of accessibility, with professionals trained in the subject.
    • Accessibility should be considered permanently in the development of projects, from their planning, design, development, and evaluation.
    IGF 2021 Town Hall #63 Tackling the menace of E-Waste through greener ways

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 21:47
    Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change
    Key Takeaways:

    Exploring innovation in e-waste management sector and catering to newer avenues for environmental education

    ,

    Making green lifestyle trendy and adopting behavioral changes for reducing e-waste

    Calls to Action

    Advocating for public private partnerships and replicating the best successful policies for reducing e-waste through collaboration with all stakeholders

    ,

    Encouraging youth for contributing to circular economy and finding solutions to menace of e-waste through innovation

    Session Report

    The United Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2021 Town Hall Session #63 “Tackling the menace of E-Waste through greener ways” covered wide points and approaches on greener ways and policy oriented solutions to e-waste challenge and it encouraged the young audience through exploring innovation in e-waste management sector, catering to newer avenues for environmental education as well. The moderator (Mr Mohammad Atif) set the context of the session by quoting the statistics of e-waste generated globally and in a roundtable format engaged with the speakers on different aspects of addressing and tackling the menace of e-waste. Monmi Barua representing the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN) – Youth from India covered pointers on Youth initiatives and flagship programs of her organization on environment and e-waste management along with stressing on some innovative ways for imparting sustainable development education through the youth. Marta Musidlowska from the core committee of Project Youth Summit by IGF Poland covered different aspects of Environmental conservation and e-waste management approaches from the European region critical to the core issue of tackling e-waste. She also cited example for recycling of electronic goods as a policy level plan and encouraged the youth audience to make the green lifestyle a key behavioural attribute or more trendy in current times. Robert J.Turyakira from The Environment Shield organization, Uganda stressed upon the means of digitalization and stakeholder involvement for solving the challenges of E-waste giving various examples of successful initiatives and policy measures which can help reduce the burden of e-waste. Daniel Dasig from De La Salle  University Dasmarinas, Philippines was able to correlate quality education as a necessary tool for reducing the impact of Climate change through e-waste. He cited cross industry collaboration and shared initiatives from diverse stakeholders as key enablers for measuring and tackling the impact of e-waste.

    The speakers in their discussion also cited the pivotally important role of internet technology intermediaries in the digitization of flows through materials of electronic waste and how responsible production and consumption of the materials and technologies both can have a positive impact in tackling e-waste.

    Lastly they committed to the goals of UN IGF and Sustainable Development and encouraged the young audience to amplify their voices in the field of Environment and Internet Governance.

    IGF 2021 DC-PAL Public Access: Driving a Community-Based Development Model

    DC Session
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 21:04
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:

    Public access has shown versatility both in helping achieve connectivity goals (bringing people online - in terms of access to ICT, a reliable connection, affordability), and in supporting meaningful digital inclusion and generating benefits (e.g. digital skills-building, gains in work, education and learning, access to local content).

    ,

    Public access through institutions such as libraries can help deliver on all of the components of access that help drive development – equitable and inclusive connectivity, content and competences.

    Calls to Action

    Develop and introduce definitions, metrics and measurements that help understand connectivity at a community level.

    ,

    Leverage and support public access delivery, including through innovative methods (e.g. collaboration with community networks, LEO satellites), in the context of wider connectivity and development strategies.

    Session Report

     

    Public access and shared connectivity in libraries and similar anchor organisations can be a powerful way to not just bring more people online, but to make sure they can meaningfully use and benefit from connectivity. The session drew on existing good practices and experiences in different parts of the world to highlight several key takeaways:

    • Public access supports progress towards a broad range of crucial developmental goals – digital learning and education, participation in the digital economy, creativity, access to e-government services, and others. Even in places where connectivity is more widespread, some vulnerable or underserved user groups – e.g. older community members – can be more likely to rely on public access as their main or only means of going online. Crucially, even higher levels of home connectivity do not take away the need for public access. (A new DC-PAL working draft further explores recent evidence around the impacts of public access - https://www.ifla.org/news/impacts-of-public-access-to-the-internet-and-…)
    • Public access in libraries are well-positioned to create local solutions targeted at particular community needs in a way that a more centralised or top-down approach cannot. One of the examples here is the Perpuseru programme in Indonesia, which enabled broader provision of public access to ICT and ICT-enabled learning opportunities in libraries. A part of the programme rollout entailed both a community needs analysis and stocktaking of locally available resources and experts. To date, Perpuseru helped achieve positive impacts in several different areas, including information- and digital literacy and facilitating income generation and economic activity.
      • The importance of local agency and meaningful digital inclusion solutions tailored to local community needs was also highlighted by the experiences of community networks. This can be of particular importance for women and other underserved and marginalised groups – both as users and co-creators of such solutions. Overall, community network and public access experiences show the value of complementary approaches to connectivity, and their importance for comprehensive inclusion goals.
    • Such flexibility also means that public access can help meet the needs of diverse user groups – including with targeted action – through one infrastructural resource (a one stop shop). For example, in Poland, public libraries offer ICT-based training and support to various user groups – digital skills fundamentals for seniors, coding and robotics activities for children, workshops focusing on online safety and wellbeing for youth, and others.
    • Another key recurring theme was the way public access supports the creation of - and engagement with - locally relevant content. Examples here include, for instance, the “Wikipedia in African Libraries” project. Apart from raising awareness around the power and possibilities of open knowledge and creating a wealth of new content, it saw the launch of a variety of events that seek to engage partners and community members in such content creation - competitions, edit-a-thons and other activities. Both in Poland and as part of the “Wikipedia in African Libraries” project activities, there are clear examples of community-building around digital content creation.
      • Similarly, in Peru, a range of activities by the National Library enabled a boost to equitable access to digital content (e.g. in the field of education), engagement with it (e.g. by creating easy and visible access to digital heritage materials – for instance, through dedicated microsites) and co-creation of local content (e.g. through crowdsources transcription of digitised heritage materials).
    • Another key recurring theme highlighted by session participants was the value of partnerships. There are powerful examples and great scope for further collaboration to maximise connectivity and development impacts – between public access venues and educators, local digital skills champions, NGOs, community networks and other key stakeholders. In addition, innovative approaches to public access – particularly through low-earth orbit satellites – hold promise for bringing public access to harder-to-reach areas, to bring community connectivity and pool resources.

    Overall, these experiences highlight that leveraging existing facilities and staff competencies in public access points can help achieve connectivity and development impacts not only on an individual, but also on a community level. It is also worthwhile to consider the roles public access can play in a crisis, particularly in scenarios where individual access to connectivity, ICT and/or electricity can be reduced.

    IGF 2021 DCPR Platform Interoperability: Understanding a Complex Issue

    DC Session
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 20:07
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    The central role digital platforms play in economic relations, their potential impact in democratic processes and human rights require adequate regulation to optmize how society uses them. One important regulatory step is implementing platform interoperability - which has many facets, from data to protocols and legal systems. This potentially unlocks value in digital environments, stregthening competition and providing user control.

    Calls to Action

    Download the "Glossary of platform law and policy terms", available at: https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/45/20436.

    Session Report

    IGF 2021 DCPR Platform Interoperability: Understanding a Complex Issue

    The 2021 session of the DCPR aimed at instigating a multistakeholder discussion towards platform interoperability by bringing together speakers from different backgrounds and countries. Session organizer prof. Luca Belli and founder of the DCPR stated that the goal of this years' session was threefold: first, to discuss the most pressing issues regarding platform governance and platform responsibility; second, to analyze platform interoperability and, three to launch the Glossary of Platform Law and Policy Terms, a volume with 100 relevant terms in Platform Governance – which is a collaborative work by the DCPR working group. The Glossary shows DCPR’s commitment to involving stakeholders outside academia, thus embracing a plural and multifaceted approach towards the field’s issues. Regarding the Glossary, in his opening remarks, Prof. Luca Belli commented upon the difficulty of finding a common language through which policymakers, researchers, and other stakeholders can discuss fundamental concepts for platform regulations. 

    The firsts to talk were the keynote speakers, Patrick Penninckx and David Kaye (who participated through a recorded video). Regarding platform governance/responsibility, both of them highlighted the importance of human rights for guiding the development of platform's regulation – which is the current approach advocated by the Council of Europe – as stated by its Head of Information Society Department and keynote speaker, Patrick Penninckx – and several other relevant institutions (e.g., the 2018-2019 reports by the DCPR keynote speaker, David Kaye, during his tenure as U.N. special rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression). David Kaye especially commented on the importance of interoperability from this standpoint: it strengthens the users’ free choice and facilitates the entrance of new actors into the market, while simultaneously diminishing governmental censorship.

    Approximately halfway through the session, keynote speaker David Kaye’s presentation was interrupted by a zoombombing attack, with harmful content (including racial slurs) being broadcast to all participants and audience members. The session was shut down and resumed after about 20-30 minutes. Speaker Vittorio Bertola, who presented after the incident, remarked that the case perfectly exemplified the importance of interoperability: without it, users are more likely to be dependent on monopolizing platforms that often have security and privacy concerns. With interoperability, competition is encouraged, with users being able to choose the platforms that offer the best, most reliable, and secure services.

    Speaker Smriti Parsheera, bringing her experience with the Indian scenario, stated the importance of the technical level in developing interoperability, especially in the case of data sharing models in India.  Speaker Alejandro Pisanty stated, in his presentation, that companies are capturing the legislative debate on platform regulation – it is necessary, therefore, to return the debate to the stakeholders – policymakers, activists, and scholars. Speaker Nina da Hora, who closed the session, remarked that we are still unaware of the prejudices that lie behind the platforms’ code and algorithms highlighting that decisions are often taken in closed doors, from biased perspectives, especially from the North towards the South, disregarding context and other relevant pillars for analysis. 

    The 2021 DCPR session showed how platforms are playing an important role in economic and societal relations, impacting democratic processes and other social dynamics. Platform interoperability is a relevant regulation step for unlocking value in digital environments, strengthening competition, and providing possibilities for user control. Furthermore, platform interoperability can mitigate monopolies challenging violations of users' rights by private companies.



     

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #40 The unexplored Dichotomy of Internet Access and Online Hate

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 20:00
    Key Takeaways:

    In the future we need to: a) Design effective campaigns on digital rights to marginalized communities e.g refugee communities b) Implement safety by design approach to developer communities c) promote access to platforms to ensure trending algorithms don't promote hateful or violent speech

    Calls to Action

    ALL- intensify campaigns on how to build an online active bystander community

    Session Report

     

    This session was held on 7th December 2021 by Catherine Muya and Esther Mwema. 

    In this session the speakers spoke about: 

    1. What inspired the speaker's open internet project - Catherine's project was a paper that analyzed the role of the law in tackling online violence in Kenya.  Esther's project was training a cohort of leaders on digital rights using the open net advocacy playbook. This was the need to address online violence that was worsened by the pandemic giving country-specific examples to help the audience humanize and empathize with the reality. Speakers also spoke about the need to drive inclusivity through training. 
    2. The session held a collaborative discussion between the speakers on issues raised which include: 

    -privacy-centric and human rights centric Design of technologies ensuring safety is also a concern in the design

    -Building inclusive teams 

    -Building an active online bystander community and what this means 

    -Algorithms on platforms promote hateful content

    1. Participants both online and offline got an open opportunity to contribute to the discussion and we received 4 questions,  we had more but had to limit them to keep time.Key were: 

    -How to build active bystander communities and what the bystanders ought to do 

    -How to create inclusive digital rights campaigns especially for a semi-literate African audience, the participants drew examples from the challenges they experienced in their work in Uganda. 

     

    Key Takeaways: 

    After an engaging session the main takeaways were: 

    • Failure to address online violence will push more people offline 
    • There is a need to ensure online safety is a consideration when designing technologies to make these features more accessible and visible
    •   We should encourage more internet users to be active bystanders by making or liking  a supportive comment or reporting offensive posts
    • We should invest more in targeted campaigns that increase knowledge of digital rights among marginalized communities. These include using more innovative approaches such as art or music and local languages. 
    • There is a need to invest more in human content moderation particularly for the global south. 

     

    Social Media 

    Prior to the session, we advertised the session on Twitter and Linked in using the # LT40 #IGF2021 #Inclusion

    The tweet got more than 2768 impressions on Twitter and encouraged our online audience to follow us.  See example here: https://twitter.com/CatMuya/status/1467807037769895936?s=20  

    During the session, we encouraged participants especially those attending to use the # to raise questions or comments. Participants were also able to connect with speakers on Twitter. 

     

    IGF 2021 WS #197 Protecting human rights in the State-business nexus

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 19:36
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    There are many different dynamics within the State-business nexus, but the coronavirus pandemic has accelerated trends in public-private partnerships involving technology that impede on rights. It’s the responsibility of both States and the private sector to perform due diligence on each other – for which civil society offers guidance and safeguards to help frame the UNGPs in a manner responsive to different tech contexts.

    Calls to Action

    When States engage technology companies for the provision of services, States should actively ensure that the companies they work with respect human rights. Simultaneously, technology companies should perform due diligence on States before entering engagements.

    Session Report

    The session’s content related to Pillar 1 (the State duty to protect human rights) and Pillar 2 (the corporate responsibility to respect human rights) of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), within the context of State and technology company collaboration.

    One aspect within the State-business nexus is public procurement, within which is the phenomenon of public-private partnerships (also referred to as PPPs). Privacy International (PI) has conducted investigations identifying a number of issues common to PPPs that involve surveillance technologies and the mass processing of data. PI has developed a set of safeguards in response to these issues and trends, which they launched in the session.

    The safeguards reflect observations that PPPs related to surveillance technologies do not always resemble a traditional, one-off commercial relationship that might result from a public tender, but take on a new form in which parties are much more co-dependent and states build entire new systems and processes that can be completely reliant on the services of one company, while providing companies with access to valuable data they can they use in developing their own services.

    The safeguards (which are jurisdiction-blind for wide application) are classified across six principles: Transparency; Adequate Procurement; Accountability; Legality, Necessity and Proportionality; Oversight; and Redress. Lucie Audibert of PI explained how in their investigations they’ve found a lack of transparency is common in State partnerships with technology companies, stemming from excessive protections around commercial interests and a government tendency to mask the extent of surveillance systems. The organisation also found that such technologies are often deployed initially for private, commercial, or personal purposes before public authorities co-opt such applications for policing or surveillance purposes without adhering to required public procurement processes, which the safeguards can help prevent. 

    With regards to accountability, Audibert showed how challenging it is to find policies that clearly define responsibilities, obligations, duties, and standards for each actor within partnerships, or to identify respective accountability mechanisms for these obligations. On legality, necessity and proportionality, the use of technology addressing a public need or fulfilling a public function has to be authorised by an appropriate legal framework, which is not always the case. Assessments of each, along with independent oversight bodies given the mandate and authority to monitor partnerships and offer redress in instances of human rights infringements, make up some of the measures the safeguards propose to correct troublesome trends in PPPs involving surveillance technologies.

    Deniz Utlu of the German Institute for Human Rights outlined the activities of national human rights institutions (NHRIs), which are neither governmental nor non-governmental organisations. He explained how NHRIs can serve as an intermediary between different state agencies to establish whether the agencies sufficiently follow a human rights-based approach to establishing PPPs or in other public procurement procedures, and to monitor if they align with States’ human rights obligations when using data technology interfering with technology companies. NHRIs can also undertake human rights impact assessments and artificial intelligence assessments, for which they could provide a crucial function if systematically involved in public procurement procedures and in the establishment of any strategic relationship with private actors.

    Théo Jaekel of Ericsson explained how his company is a ‘communication network provider,’ providing infrastructure through its customers which are usually communication service providers or mobile operators, meaning Ericsson rarely deals directly with government entities – but does interact with them as they are often the end-users of some of the company’s technology. Reflecting on the issue of transparency, he noted the importance of clarifying the roles of the different actors within the ICT ecosystem, to make sure each actor takes its particular position, responsibilities and expectations seriously. On the state-business nexus, Jaekel stressed the importance of differentiating between States’ duty to protect and the corporate responsibility to respect human rights – with the corporate responsibility to respect human rights existing regardless of a State’s ability or willingness to comply with its duty to protect human rights. He urged caution on not blurring these lines too much, where State duties could easily be applied to companies. In thinking through remedy and redress, he suggested the technology sector can learn lessons from other industries such as the financial sector in designing remedy in an ecosystem approach.

    Moira Oliver of Vodafone echoed the importance of understanding different relationships within the State and technology company ecosystem, particularly as it affects each actor’s responsibilities. She explained how when Vodafone operates in different countries it does so under a State license, which contains contractual obligations but tends to be non-negotiable for the company, and requires complying with local laws. This can create challenging circumstances for private companies and operators when asked to comply with regulations (such as law enforcement demands) that may infringe upon human rights. For example, an operator may be required to comply with a local directive to either pass certain customer data to the local government or to throttle the network. Vodafone joined the Global Network Initiative to highlight such challenges. With transparency, it’s critical to shine a light on some of these challenges – Vodafone has issued transparency reports since 2014 for this purpose.

    Sebastian Smart of the Instituto Nacional de Derechos Humanos de Chile (Chile’s NHRI) shared his experience on the application of the UNGPs in Chile. He suggested the ecosystem has changed since the formation of the UNGPs in 2011, the time of the Arab Spring and Occupy movement. In recent years other threats to human rights have grown, from the activities of companies and governments related to freedom of expression, surveillance, and automated decision-making for social programmes (or the “digital welfare state”). Accordingly the UNGPs should provide the foundation to build further mechanisms protecting and promoting human rights in the digital environment. In Chile, the country’s recent strategy on artificial intelligence (AI) makes minimal reference to human rights, a glaring absence. Smart expressed concern about ensuring policy coherence, and reiterated that States are sub-contracting increasingly technical services that may have consequences for human rights, for which governments must exercise proper oversight.

    IGF 2021 WS #228 Supply Chain Governance and Security for IoT Resilience

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 19:25
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    (1) Questions arose about whether the Internet we have is the Internet we need in order to accommodate cyber-physical, safety critical systems. (2) Internet governance has proven to be a flexible, adaptable model and may be able to offer valuable insights into governing the IoT.

    ,

    (3) We need to think about scope and focus for developing a multi-stakeholder policy agenda to move forward with the implementation of these systems.

    Calls to Action

    (1) Continue with a series of workshops to expand on what we discussed today.

    ,

    (2) Bring diverse stakeholders to these workshops (including the insurance and automotive sectors), expanding the range of voices that participate in these deliberations at the IGF.

    Session Report

    IGF 2017 Reporting Template

    Session Title:                      WS #228 Supply Chain Governance and Security for IoT Resilience
     

    - Date:                                      8 December 2021               
    - Time:                                     11:15am-12:45
    - Session Organizers:         Madeline Carr, Pablo Hinojosa, Duncan Hollis, Louise Marie Hurel

    - Moderator:                           Madeline Carr
    - Online Moderator:            Duncan Hollis            
    - Rapporteur:                         Pablo Hinojosa

    - List of Speakers and their institutional affiliations:   (in order of participation)

     

    • Madeline Carr, Professor of Global Politics and Cybersecurity, University College London
    • Louise Marie Hurel, PhD Researcher, London School of Economics
    • Jennifer Tisdale, Senior Principle, GRIMM
    • Mitra Mirhassani, Co-Director, SHIELD Automotive Cybersecurity Centre of Excellence, University of Windsor
    • Duncan B. Hollis, Laura H. Carnell Professor of Law, Temple University
    • Rebecca Crootof, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Richmond
    • Tim Davy, Cyber Security Specialist, Munich RE
    • Pablo Hinojosa, Strategic Engagement Director, APNIC
    • Peter Davies, Technical Director Security Concepts, Thales UK and Chair, Security Workstream, Automotive Electronic Systems Innovation Network (AESIN)
    • Ine Steenmans, Lecturer in Futures, Analysis and Policy, University College London

    - Key Issues raised (1 sentence per issue):                

    • As in past IGF sessions, this roundtable is an effort to improve dialogue between the policy, technical and internet governance communities.
    • This year, we involved the insurance sector which has not previously been represented at the IGF.
    • We always choose one specific issue around which we can gather and exchange views in an effort to better understand diverse perspectives on a contentious topic.
    • This roundtable was an effort to better understand the wide range of implications of supply chain governance and security in the complex, safety critical IoT systems that are increasingly being connected to existing Internet infrastructure.
    • We also acknowledged that Internet governance has proven to be remarkably flexible and adaptive, and we asked for views on the extent to which this may provide lessons for governing other complex systems and ecosystems.
    • We chose connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs) as the focus for the roundtable because it represents a sufficiently complex, high value example that is close to implementation.
    • One of the key issues raised was that CAVs introduce a new dimension of cybersecurity from those we have focused on in the past – physical security – with the real potential for harmful consequences for failures, including loss of life.
    • This led to discussion of lines of responsibility, the assignment of risk, liability, and accountability – which stakeholders are / can be / should be responsible for ensuring that internet infrastructure is governed in such a way as to accommodate new uses?
    • A key question emerged as to whether the Internet we have now is the Internet we will need in the future.
    • One of the clear messages to emerge was the need for an expanded group of stakeholders to join in Internet governance deliberations including those in the automotive sector, the insurance sector, and hardware manufacturers.
    • At the same time, there was recognition from within the automotive sector of the benefits of further engagement with internet governance models in approaching questions of CAV security
    • There was a presentation on the extensive vulnerabilities in this supply chain and the real challenges around identifying, detecting, and reducing them.
    • From a legal and insurance perspective, there was a view that these challenges with governing and securing systems are leading to humans in the loop being constructed as ‘liability sponges’.

    - If there were presentations during the session, please provide a 1-paragraph summary for each presentation:                 

    n/a
    - Please describe the Discussions that took place during the workshop session (3 paragraphs):     

    • Existing problems, standards, regulations and coordinating initiatives were outlined by sector and legal participants. But the acknowledgement that we face a ‘governance gap’ in this context led to a discussion about what other accountability structures might incentivize the change needed to ensure we are able to fully implement CAVs and other similar systems with Internet architecture in a safe, secure manner.
    • Much of the discussion incorporated conflicts between existing approaches to governing cybersecurity and expectations of consumer protection that shape the CAVs ecosystem. One stakeholder’s ‘fix’ can be another’s ‘problem’. For example, it was pointed out that while information sharing is often suggested as a remedy to cybersecurity challenges, competition law precludes that. In addition, it is very unclear what would constitute ‘evidence’ in a court of law in case of automotive accidents resulting from Internet governance issues.

    - Please describe any Participant suggestions regarding the way forward/ potential next steps /key takeaways (3 paragraphs):    

    • There was a consistent plea for nimble, proactive policy intervention – all participants agreed that in the absence of market drivers for addressing this, other mechanisms are required. However, doing so across (or even within) jurisdictions is extremely complicated and problematic. Reflecting innovation in public policy, Dr Steenmans recommended the IGF may be a useful forum for actively and collectively reconsidering how the problem is defined, how this challenge can be conceptualised in a sufficiently long timeframe, and how the interests and perspectives of the wide range of stakeholders can be better integrated and reconciled or aligned.
    • Professor Hollis observed that there was a strong tradition of mapping in Internet governance – on both technical and policy issues. He recommended that future steps for this group could usefully include an examination of how to take this same model into the automotive / autonomous systems regime complex and think about boundaries and intersections of different sources of standards, guidance, and regulation, (both informal and formal) to see where there were overlaps and gaps in terms of governing the Internet for safety critical, cyber-physical systems.
    • The supply chain of connected autonomous vehicles is a hugely complex arena and one that we can only begin to explore through this workshop. Essentially, we urgently need to think creatively about how to link systems like this to an Internet that was not designed to accommodate them. The insurance sector will continue to be an important source of expertise and insight into this problem. Better integrating this sector into the IGF will help with risk analysis and evaluation. The observation was made that if the insurance sector struggles to find a market in CAVs, then governments may have to provide a backstop of cover and this will be an area that the IGF will be well placed to contribute.

     Gender Reporting

    - Estimate the overall number of the participants present at the session:

    Around 40 pax.

    - Estimate the overall number of women present at the session:

    25 pax.

    - To what extent did the session discuss gender equality and/or women’s empowerment? 

    The list of speakers was diverse in terms of gender, stakeholder group and geographic representation.

    - If the session addressed issues related to gender equality and/or women’s empowerment, please provide a brief summary of the discussion:

    The list of speakers was diverse in terms of gender, stakeholder group and geographic representation.

     

    IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #29 "I silenced myself": Brazilian female activists' perspectives on online targeted harassment

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 19:24
    Key Takeaways:

    Policymakers and platforms should move away from viewing victims of online abuse as powerless and passive; Victims of online harassment need to be listened to, both by the legal system and by online platforms; There is a need for more cooperation by platforms to the proper address of online violence, by investing in research to improve their features and API's – in constant dialogue with experts and civil society.

    Calls to Action

    There is a need for more cooperation by platforms to the proper address of online violence, by investing in research to improve their features and API's – in constant dialogue with experts and civil society.

    Session Report

    Lightning Talk - "I Silenced myself": Brazilian Female Activists'perspectives on online targeted harassment. 

    The session presented a summary of partial results from Yasmin Curzi's Ph.D. dissertation, which focuses on gender-based violence in the digital space. In order to contribute to this field of study in Brazil research, the work aims at adopting an approach that favors the victim's perspective, in order to better identify effective responses facing the violence issue. The importance of considering the victim's agency, when willing to promote respectful and caring research, was highlighted. 

    The session continues by presenting the concept of harassment, as defined by the US lawyer and feminist advocate, Catherine MacKinnon, that contributed to its inclusion in Title VII in the American Civil Act, 1964, by defining harassment as a sex discrimination act in the workspace. Despite the remarkable importance of this discussion and its impact on legislation in several countries, such as Brazil, other environments remained without legal protection, such as the streets and, nowadays, the online space. 

    Harassment, as a siege tactic within the digital space, is organized on networks and distributed on the victim's multiple social media platforms, in order to silence and intimidate a speech seen as inimical. Reports produced by Statisa (2017), Safernet (2020), Plan International (2020), presents the increase of online harassment/violence against women, the frequency of it, and/or shows the need to fulfill the lack of legal response to online harassment, by presenting the most common types of attacks. 

    Curzi's work aimed at the perception of the victims of such acts of violence, especially women journalists and politicians/candidates, who are usually more exposed to online conversations within online public life. Studies conducted by Azmina and Internetlab (2020), and also data by Abraji (2020) stated that women of these two groups of profession usually suffer more from online violence in Brazil, than their male fellows. 

    The speaker (Yasmin Curzi) presented a few excerpts of the interviews conducted with women journalists and politicians, which suggest that women are often not encouraged to respond to aggressions made against them within the digital sphere. They shared stories about coordinated attacks, offenses that escalated to threats of physical violence, or even death, as well as exposal of personal data, including images of the attacked person, as well as other traumatic events in relation to their works (e.g., dropping fact-checking activity). This type of strategy can reduce the ability to discuss and defend oneself (e.g. to choose not to sue a platform, fearing more vulnerable and exposed, as counter-suits are very common and these organizations have often done that), in addition to increasing concern about excessive exposure in social networks.

    The interviewees also denounced the lack of appropriate mechanisms for reporting, filtering, and moderating offensive content on platforms, besides finding themselves in lack of support of the editorials or parties they were related to. 

    The need to look more closely at gender political violence has caused the Organization of American States (OAS) to write a "Declaration on Violence and Political Harassment Against Women" (2015). The document calls for "a definition of political violence and harassment against women, taking into account regional and international discussions on the subject" and that "both violence and political harassment against women may include any gender-based action, conduct or omission; and may occur individually or in groups" and "have as their objective or result to belittle, annul, prevent, hinder, or restrict the political rights, or rights of women to have a life free of violence, and the right to participate in political and public affairs on equal terms to men". 

    Within the digital sphere, risks faced by women, such as the manipulation of images, whether from deep fakes or montages, also gain a feature of gender violence when it is triggered to morally expose a woman. The definition of "gendered disinformation" (by Yasmin Curzi) is in the "Glossary of platform law and policy terms" (outcome from the 2021 DCPR, available here). 

    By answering a question posed about tactics that could be implemented by social media platforms in order to encourage women to answer to the aggressions, Curzi argues that the platforms should invite women victims of online violence/harassment, and listen to organizations that can help them to improve their API, i.e., choosing a better path then just censoring speech and/or increasing false positives in the detection of offensive contents. The platforms could also benefit from techniques that are being developed by machine learning and natural language processing studies. She also introduces the ongoing project of Azminas' magazine, which is currently developing an AI tool in order to detect more specifically misogynistic offenses in Portuguese. 

    As a result of the observations of the interviews upheld, Curzi also presents solutions proposed by women that are (or have been) targeted by coordinated attacks. These women think that social platforms should improve their interface by adopting a few mechanisms, such as the possibility to end a conversation in a given post on Twitter, after it is already published, in order to avoid commentaries/interactions. Another solution by victims is to implement tools that allow users to denounce several accounts as attackers at the same time (as it has already been developed by a few platforms companies). 



     

    IGF 2021 Open Forum #67 Access to the Open Internet: benefits, challenges and policy approaches

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:59
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:

    Access to open internet is key for bridging the digital divide, guaranteeing democracy and human rights. We should support it and ensure that open internet access goes hand in hand with infrastructure deployment. Policy approaches should consider open internet as a multistakeholder domain, foster dialogue. We need to invest including through international partnerships, to extend open Internet connectivity, securing local, free, available content.

    Calls to Action

    To all stakeholders, national governments, international organizations, technical community, private companies, and civil society to work towards bringing access to a model of internet worldwide that is free and open, that is based on a multistakeholder approach, and that has human rights at its core.

    Session Report

    Although access to the open internet is essential to bridge the digital divide, it is not yet a reality for all countries. According to recent ITU data, as of 2021, the 63% of the world’s population uses the Internet, and this percentage is expected to continue rising. However, there are 2.9 billion people who remain offline. In this context, the open forum of the European Commission at the IGF 2021, moderated by Dr. Tereza Horejsova, Director Project and Partnerships at the Diplo/Geneva Internet Platform, aimed to discuss the benefits, challenges and policy approaches to the access to the open internet from different regional and sectorial perspectives. 

    Mr. Yoichi Iida, Deputy Director-General for G7 and G20 relations at the Global Strategy Bureau of the Ministry of International Affairs and Communications of Japan, started by highlighting that although two thirds of the world population have access to the internet, providing meaningful access for the remaining third is a challenge, even for the countries that are already connected. In the African continent, during covid, Japan identified the importance of internet and connectivity for elements of daily life such as education, and for the recovery of the economy. That is why Japan worked with the ITU in the initiative “Connect to Recover” to bring better access to connectivity to the people in Africa. Japan also promoted other projects using official development assistance aiming to increase connectivity through submarine cables and innovative solutions such as the HAPS platform. Mr. Iida stressed the view of Japan that connectivity to the open internet should be human-centric and linked to freedom and human rights, and that is why like-minded countries should work together to protect common values through policies that are respectful of people’s rights. 

    Ms. Hadja Amayel Kane, Director of Network Technology Strategy at the Studies and Planning Department of Sonatel Senegal, pointed out the multiplicity of actors in the field of the access to the open internet in her country. From her perspective, the principal challenge for Sonatel Senegal to bring open internet is to ensure connectivity to the entire population. As she explained, the operators in Senegal have introduced mobile broadband policies  through the development of infrastructure 3G and 4G in the region, and they are developing a technological mix depending on the region and the distance from urban nucleus that permits fixed access. Another main challenge for them is the profitability of the operators, and that is why they are urging governments to reduce fiscal pressure over telecom companies to foster the investments in the region. Over-the-top services should contribute also to such investments. According to Ms. Kane one of the essential needs of the population in sub-Saharan Africa is having internet as an essential element for digitalization and development, which can lead to leaving the concept of the open internet unprioritized. In this regard, access to the information about the benefits of the open internet is essential for the different agents involved for them to understand how the system works and how it can be protected. 

    Dr. Raquel Gatto, IGF Secretariat consultant and Policy Network on Meaningful Access Facilitator, defended the importance of looking into meaningful access by thinking that it implies connecting humans, and considering three pillars: connectivity, digital inclusion, and capacity development. In her region, Latin America, but also in the world, one important aspect that meaningful access implies is understanding the needs of the communities, knowing how they want to be connected and contributing to them owning their capacity development decisions. The Policy Network on Meaningful Access was created in June with the goal of bringing together the key actors that are involved in achieving meaningful access. Over more than six months, they have had several discussions on the matter, and they have collected experiences from users in different circumstances and regions to identify the essential elements of meaningful access and to understand how they can further make them work.  

    Mr. Esteve Sanz, Head of Sector of Internet Governance and Multi-stakeholder dialogue at the European Commission, stated the importance and the urgency of digitalizing the world, which has been and continues to be addressed by the EU, for instance on its Digital Compass and in the Global Gateway, a strategic connectivity package introduced last week by President Von Der Leyen that will mobilize 300 billion euros for connectivity in partner countries. This instrument has three characteristics representative of the EU approach to digitalization. The first characteristic is that digital connectivity investments will be intrinsically linked to the development of standards, protocols and infrastructures that support the free, secure and open internet. This will improve the user experience significantly, but it is also specially relevant in a policy environment in which alternative top-down approaches to the internet are being proposed by other countries,  potentially fragmenting   the open internet in very damaging ways. . The second premise for the EU is that infrastructure investments will  be combined with country-level technical assistance on digital regulations to ensure the rights of privacy, data privacy, open and fair markets, and cybersecurity so that the connectivity that is deployed truly empowers local ecosystems and  does not create dependencies. Finally, the third characteristic is that the Global Gateway instrument will proceed on the basis of equal and multistakeholder partnerships, linking with existing international efforts at the ITU, World Bank, national governments, and companies, and understanding the connectivity needs of partner countries. The open internet was for Mr. Sanz a major source of prosperity and innovation, but how countries and communities are connected is truly relevant. The European Union is designing solutions to contribute to bring this human-centric connectivity for all.  

    For the audience, the greatest challenge to the access to the open internet in their respective region was the lack of political will. The online discussion highlighted the gap that is often seen between the optics and the materialization of intentions when providing open access to the internet, and the importance of fighting for the second through the work of governments and decentralized organizations. Finally, the participants provided ideas for concrete steps to promote the open internet globally such as the importance of getting the interest of policy makers, of finding ways to protect digital freedom, of warning users about the dangers of the internet, of supporting local self-governed entities, and of promoting digital accessibility and literacy in rural areas. 

    IGF 2021 WS #184 Syncing AI, Human Rights, & the SDGs: The Impossible Dream?

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:52
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    An unregulated, opaque and fragmented AI can be harmful to humans and the environment and more needs to be done to ensure that AI is human rights based and environmentally sustainable by design.

    ,

    More transparency, accountability and clear regulatory frameworks are necessary, as well as dialogue and cooperation among stakeholders. AI must be inclusive, non-discriminatory and rooted on democratic processes, the rule of law and human rights.

    Calls to Action

    * A more human centric digital transition that is diverse, inclusive, democratic, and sustainable to ensure that AI causes no harm to humanity and the environment.

    ,

    The primacy of democracy - a global democracy, able to deliver on complex technology, more transparency, reporting and accountability, more collaboration between stakeholders and a general set of rules that can be used for future technology development.

    Session Report

    WS #184 Syncing AI, Human Rights, & the SDGs: The Impossible Dream? brought together three thematic streams that are often discussed in parallel paths: Artificial Intelligence (AI) human rights and environmental sustainability.

    The session started with the provocative question: What if current AI trajectories - now indispensable to how the Internet and other digital technologies work - are actually undermining the sustainable future of human rights and the natural world?

    Participants were also invited to respond to the Mentimeter question: How would you describe the relationship between AI, Human Rights, and Sustainability?

     

    The panel agreed that while AI offers great potential in important areas such as medicine, food production, education, and climate crisis, to name just a few, the harmful aspects of AI on Human rights and the environment needed particular attention. The mass data gathering, processing, use, and storage demands ever-growing energy consumption and AI has been used to speed up fossil fuel extraction with harmful impacts to the environment. On the same token, human rights have been impacted by AI algorithm bias and other discriminatory processes, as well as impacts on the rights of privacy security, and trust. Despite the abundance of principles, there is not a united response; the lack of accountability, transparency, and a global or collective vision on AI adds to what Paul Nemitz called “techno absolutism” which is undermining democracy. Moreover, power struggles between the developed “AI haves” countries and the developing "AI have nots” is paving the way to new forms of colonialism - data colonialism and data warfare, as Raashi Saxena and Parminder Jeet Singh pointed out, all this hindering the efforts to develop AI systems that ensure both human rights and environmental sustainability.

     

    Concrete actions to mitigate the harmful impacts of AI were discussed as comments, questions, and suggestions were raised in the room and by online participants. Many of the issues addressed focused on the lack of transparency, accountability, developed public interest infrastructures, the fragmentation of responses by governments and international bodies, the difficulties of citizens in accessing collected data from public entities, that claim the safeguarding of at public interest, the need to look dependencies and power and that the worker’s rights on privacy and security are safeguarded, and the dangers of automation of judicial systems in the safeguarding of the individual rights and freedoms. Renata Avila added the lack of scrutiny of procurement as an example of an area of crucial importance for ensuring that human rights and environmental sustainability are taken into account when acquiring AI technologies. Other speakers agreed on this observation with Michelle Thorne pointing out that they also realised at Mozilla that procurement needs to be taken into account in transparency and sustainability reporting.

    Overall there was a general agreement that more needs to be done to promote transparency and accountability, that clear and effective regulation was needed and that companies need to work with policymakers rather than working against them despite some disagreements or divergent views on how to foster and implement policies that work for all. There was a wide consensus on the idea that horizontal rules are necessary and that they could go hand in hand with sectoral rules as Thomas Schneider developed. These horizontal rules expanded Paul Nemitz should be clear and simple rules that a common individual can understand. When asked about the role of Youth in the development of these simple rules Nemitz elaborated that those on the receiving end of technologies who put a serious effort into reading the laws should be able to understand its meaning clearly and should be able to make informed decisions on the acceptance of its use.

    While some speakers called for the strengthening of democratic processes, the primacy of democracy and the rule of law over technology (Paul Nemitz, Thomas Schneider) to ensure that democracy can deliver on complex technology in this digital age (participants were quick to remind that not all countries have the luxury of a democratic system) others (Renata Avila, Parminder Jeet Singh) called for the strengthening of multilateralism as the solution. Renata Avila called for the return of multilateralism and the update of foundational principles of United Nations (UN) to reflect the challenges of the technology and to work on a set of building principles for future technologies global and interplanetary level. Parminder Jeet Singh building upon Avila’s suggestion called for a global democracy model around AI. He suggested a global space where people can come together to discuss AI and develop research and that big data is broken so that data collection, cloud computing and consuming AI services are separated, which he pointed out can only be achieved at the UN level.

    From the floor as well as in the Zoom chat and looking at concrete examples there were also suggestions on private/public cooperation with examples on a trust seal on products, the need to strengthen the dialogue by introducing some sort of institutionalised regular dialogue as a way to ensure transparency and the right to information or the creation transparency regulation and external audits on algorithms as to ensure that users are informed of the kind os data collected/presented and the companies are made accountable.

    Following up on the relationship between AI and environmental technologies, Michelle Thorne pointed out the fact that 90% of green gas emissions at Mozilla comes from the use of digital tools, therefore the company was pushing for mandatory reporting and expanding the conversation on AI  and environmental sustainability by putting people at the heart of the issue and start talking about digital rights and climate justice as a way to move the conversation forward.

     

    Raashi Saxena also agreed with a more human-centered approach to technology and stressed the importance of bottom-up approaches as a way to foster inclusivity, incentivise disadvantaged groups and create more awareness of the impacts of AI in our daily lives. Developing on this bottom-up approach Renata Avila referred to new constitutions - such as in Chile - being written by citizens and pointed out that these offer a great opportunity to include this topic by creating a necessary set of rules that can be used for future technologies.

     

    On the final round of statements the panel highlighted previous positions by calling for:

    • A renaissance of democracy and the rule of law and a renaissance of multilateralism which is embedded in a collective vision and offers global rules  for the future which are fair to all
    • More cooperation among all parties. AI as the last chance to bring the world together
    • A more equitable place where big, small, advantaged, and disadvantaged countries can work and compete together
    • A digital transition that is feminist and sustainable
    • The challenge of dominant narratives of AI and the creation of narratives that put the public interest at the heart of AI to create the sustainable equitable narratives that we need.

     

    The session ended with a question by  Zoom participants (Law students at Greenwich):

    Is a human rights approach enough to keep the human in the loop?

    IGF 2021 WS #77 Antitrust regulation of Internet platforms in global outlook

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:51
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    The global collaborations of regional or national antitrust regulators are essential to have more collective influence over giant or big internet platforms as well as to maintain diversity of communication otherwise smaller countries will be left behind since what happened in one country can affect consumers in other countries.

    ,

    Antitrust regulations in the EU and other jurisdictions have shifted more towards to addressing not only the issue of market power but also protection of fundamental rights of consumers and citizens such as right to privacy, access, equality and etc.

    Calls to Action

    Call for global collaboration amongst regulators and other stakeholders in dealing of anti-trust behavior of big Internet Platforms (for instance in deciding whether to approve the merge of big platforms), especially need to include the small countries which are not home country of those big platforms in collective decision marking processes

    ,

    Call for a reflection on the evaluation criteria of antitrust behavior of internet platform, including whether antitrust regulation should be or is appropriate to be used to protect the public interests and fundamental rights of individual consumer and citizen; or should alternative regulations be used to address those concerns instead of antitrust regulations

    Session Report

    Summary of discussions and different views by stakeholders:

    Q: the antitrust approaches of China, US, South Africa and EU

    Dr. Qing He (Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications) highlighted criteria in the Chinese antitrust regulations in evaluating platform’s monopoly including defining relevant market, determining market power, deciding whether monopoly has competitive effect (i.e. objective justifications of an abuse) and essential facilities doctrine.

    Professor Milton Mueller ( Georgia Technology Institute) pointed out that in US. The public has unstable views on the network effect, compatibility relationship and network externalities. The size and scale of the platforms is often a product of network externalities not abusive behavior, and the compatibility or network effects are desired by consumers and antitrust remedies often have no positive impact on them. Citing the example of Microsoft, he argued that what ultimately broke that monopoly was not so much antitrust activity, but the rise of middleware in the form of Java that made browsers possible and that applications could be run independently of the Microsoft operating system. the public need to decide whether to sacrifice compatibility and integration across these platforms for competition or whether people actually want this kind of compatibility.

    Mr. James Hodge (Chief Economist, South African Competition Commission) highlighted that for regulators to move from passive to active enforcement of antitrust requires the understanding of business models and consumer behaviors, separation of online and traditional markets, and new or different theories of harms, such as not about exploitation of consumers, but exploitation of sellers or users’ privacy and data. For small country, anti-trust is also a strategic positioning. Regulatory cooperation and collaborations amongst different regulators across sectors and countries is needed at global and national levels in order to have an equal bargaining dynamic between big and small players and regulators. And Foreign anti-trust cases are useful reference for local authority to understand or predict the local platform’s business models

    Ms. Albana Karapanco (Senior Associate, Legal Services at PwC Albania) pointed that while all states are pushing towards antitrust regulations. Every country is trying to level the playing field, the EU is more paternalistic than other jurisdictions. In the EU, competition authority moves towards tougher regulation of giant tech companies. Two legislations “Digital Service Acts” and “Digital Market Acts” in complimented with GDPR aim to create open and fair digital markets while protecting fundamental rights. Some cooperation is needed at the global scale. Small country is lagging behind the legislation of competition law.

    Q: Differences between Chinese, US, South Africa, and EU approaches in antitrust

    Dr. Qing He (Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications) pointed out the in terms of substantive perspective, there are several differences between US and Chinese antitrust regulations. Abusive conduct: in the US, legislation focuses on illegally maintaining dominate position of the platform; in Chinese, legislation focuses on the abusive conduct itself so that the leverage theory is applied in the Chinese cases. Essential facilities theory is applied in both countries, but Chinese law has defined specially what constitutes essential facilities.

    Dr. Jet Zhisong Deng (Senior Partner, Dentons China, China) and Professor Milton Mueller both agreed that there is no significant differences between the Chinese, US or EU antitrust laws and judicial decisions other than procedures (in China, regulatory agency can decide the cases so that it can act swiftly; in USA, antitrust case is tried under the law by judiciary), the main difference is in the changes in the attitudes of governments in antitrust enforcements. Professor Mueller also pointed out that antitrust enforcement can be and often is political, either an assertion of the government's power over industry, as in China, or an attempt by competitors to gang up on a successful rival, as in Europe and the US. Therefore, detaching antitrust enforcement from its theoretical mooring in measures of market power and market definition is only likely to make it more political and less fair. Competition policy requires clear standards of what does and does not foster competition, otherwise it's just arbitrary and political.

    Mr. James Hodge (Chief Economist, South African Competition Commission): public interest component is incorporated into S. African antitrust regulation to protect the participation of small business, such as fairness provision in bargaining with powerful buyers; and to ensure S. African companies’ participation in the global economy (whether S. African platforms could be push out from the market). Every country has different procedures and tools such as guidelines, laws or market hearings in their regulations.

    Q: How to address the even regulatory power of small countries and big countries in antitrust regulation of giant platforms? Katharina from Georgian regulator and Alison from S. Africa both asked how to cooperation to protect the harm of giant platforms on small countries’ consumers; and the technical challenges in dealing with global players beyond local jurisdictions in enforcing remedies:

    Mr. James Hodge and Dr. Jet Deng both agreed that apart from paying fines, many remedies do not work well because companies find ways to work around. Cooperation globally such as mechanism of regular dialogues in international competition is needed to have more collective influence over large platforms otherwise smaller countries will be left behind as well as to maintain diversity of communications. Besides, massive investment in human resources of regulatory agency to understand the business modes and technical issues is also required.

    Q: audience asked if antitrust is used as a proxy to address not only market power but also fundamental rights in the absence of common legal framework to regulate other issues such as FOE and content. Ms. Albana Karapanco and Mr. James Hodge both agreed that competition law has shifted more towards to protection of privacy, inequality and access to platform besides regulating market power. While Professor Milton Mueller warned that using antitrust law to address broad "public interest" concerns such as content regulation or human rights is completely inappropriate, as that is not what competition policy is designed to do.

    IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #55 “Human Rights-Based Data-Based Systems”

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:38
    Key Takeaways:

    The same human rights that people have offline must also be protected online. Human rights-based data-based systems reinforce existing human rights instruments specifically for data-based systems and promote algorithms supporting and furthering the realization of human rights.

    ,

    Having human rights as a minimum standard for digital transformation has the advantage of being universally applicable under all circumstances, being recognized on a global level as well as being a robust, rationally well-grounded, and concrete basis for the content of legal norms.

    Calls to Action

    We propose greater embedding of human rights as a minimum standard as a design model guiding “ethically-aligned design” covering the full life-cycle of the design, development, and deployment of data-based systems (including artificial intelligence) and that enforcement of having such a standard be made an integral part of a multi-level governance enforcement mechanism strategy working in dialogue with private companies.

    ,

    A global supervisory and monitoring institution, the International Data-based Systems Agency DSA, in the area of data-based systems be established for the purpose of aiding in the development, commitment, and enforcement of increased and stricter legal frameworks such that acceptance of human rights as a minimum standard is truly legally binding, along with coordinating and supporting existing regional concrete enforcement mechanisms.

    Session Report

     

     

    Session Report

     

    Given the intertwinement of data-based systems and artificial intelligence with human affairs and endeavors, we are at a critical phase in digital transformation wherein we can more seriously and fervently address the ethical chances and risks thereof. Accordingly, the aim of our session, entitled “Human Rights-Based Data-Based Systems”, which itself is based on the book by professor Dr. Kirchschlaeger entitled Digital Transformation and Ethics: Ethical Considerations on the Robotization and Automation of Society and the Economy and the Use of Artificial Intelligence, is to consider, from an ethical perspective, the need and possibility of human rights as an integral feature of the intertwinement of digital transformation and human affairs and endeavors. How, then, can we best navigate the intertwinement of digital transformation and human affairs and endeavors so as to better protect and promote human dignity, freedom, and well-being in the age of the 4th Industrial Revolution? 

     

    Humans must be empowered to reflect critically on the processing of data and the data-based results, to use data with critical thinking, and to go against data-based systems or data if necessary. As such, we discuss the embedding of human rights into digital transformation as a minimum standard precipitating a fundamental shift in perspective making the ethical perspective the lodestar of digital transformation. This embedding would result in two concrete outcomes: (1) having human rights-based data-based systems (Kirchschlaeger, 2021, pp. 350–352) (2) having an International Data-Based Systems Agency (DSA) (Kirchschlaeger, 2021, pp. 352–355). Both of these outcomes would champion promotion and protection online of the same human rights that people have offline.

     

    In the first, namely: human rights-based data-based systems, such systems would reinforce existing human rights instruments specifically for data-based systems and promote algorithms supporting and furthering the realization of human rights. To achieve this end, we propose greater embedding of human rights as a minimum standard as a design model guiding “ethically aligned design” (IEEE 2019) covering the full life-cycle of the design, development, and deployment of data-based systems (including artificial intelligence). In fact, having human rights as a minimum standard for digital transformation has the advantage of being universally applicable under all circumstances, being recognized on a global level as well as being a robust, rationally well-grounded, and concrete basis for the content of legal norms.

     

    ‘But how would the embedding of human rights as the relevant standard be secured?’ This trenchant question was expressed by a stakeholder present online at our session. Through the discussion that ensued, we proposed that enforcement of such a standard should not solely be in the hands of private companies, but rather made an integral part of a multi-level governance enforcement mechanism strategy working in dialogue with private companies. 

     

    In the second, namely: the International Data-Based Systems Agency (DSA), we proposed that a global supervisory and monitoring institution, the International Data-based Systems Agency DSA, analogous to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Montreal Protocol of 1987, in the area of data-based systems be established for the purpose of: 

    • Ensuring safe, secure and peaceful uses of data-based systems
    • Contributing to international peace and security
    • Ensuring respect and promotion of human rights
    • Promoting of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

     

    ‘But how would such an agency relate to existing agencies such as the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)?’ This pertinent question was posed by another stakeholder participating online in our session. In response, we noted that such an agency would possess principles of application serving the necessary function of:

    • Providing an umbrella organization for international cooperation and spearheading international collective action of human rights-based digital transformation and strengthening regulation that is precise, goal-oriented and from an ethical perspective grounded in human rights as a minimum standard

     

    • Aiding in the development, commitment, and enforcement of increased and stricter legal frameworks such that acceptance of human rights as a minimum standard is truly legally binding (and not merely recommended), along with coordinating and supporting existing relevant regional concrete enforcement mechanisms. (DSA)

     

    In conclusion, we are grateful to have had the opportunity to present our message and proposals at the Internet Governance Forum 2021. Moreover, we benefited greatly from the critical and illuminating discussion and audience participation of our session.


    Reference

     

    Kirchschlaeger, P.(2021). Digital Transformation and Ethics: Ethical Considerations on the Robotization and Automation of Society and the Economy and the Use of Artificial Intelligence, pp. 350–355. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

     

    The IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (2019)“Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems.” IEEE Advancing Technology for Humanity, available online: https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-standards/standards/web/documents/other/ead_v2.pdf (accessed 19.12.2021).

     

    IGF 2021 WS #144 Framework- Media and Information Literacy in Digital Spaces

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:28
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    For the first time at the Internet Governance Forum, high-level intergovernmental, civil society, social media, and media representatives addressed media and information literacy in digital spaces. There was consensus on the urgency to advance an International Multi-Stakeholder Framework for Private/Digital Communications Companies to Promote Media and Information Literacy.

    ,

    The International Multi-Stakeholder Framework for Digital Communications Companies to Promote Media and Information Literacy document will be drafted by UNESCO based on these consultations. The International Multi-Stakeholder Framework for Digital Communications Companies to Promote Media and Information Literacy will be validated by further online consultations and launched in the second half of 2022. Implementation and monitoring will follow.

    Calls to Action

    Wide access to media and information literacy by people requires multilateral cooperation. There was a strong call to act now to promote media and information literacy for all. All digital platforms, media, and other information repositories are called to get involved in activating the International Multi-Stakeholder Framework for Private/Digital Communications Companies to Promote Media and Information Literacy.

    ,

    Stakeholders must develop national media and information literacy policy as well as integrate it in the educational curriculums at schools and universities, ensuring wide dissemination. A call for the support of training platforms for teachers and youth to communicate, collaborate and develop projects, with a focus on media and information literacy to fight disinformation.

    Session Report

    The key session takeaways are: 

    There was consensus on the urgency to advance an International Multi-Stakeholder Framework for Private/Digital Communications Companies to Promote Media and Information Literacy. Achieving media and information literacy in digital spaces cannot be achieved without multilateral cooperation.  

    Speakers call for the support of a training platform for teachers to communicate, collaborate and develop projects, with a focus on media and information literacy and the fight against disinformation; Identify the responsibilities, duties, and obligations for digital companies to challenge disinformation; Employ media and information literacy to address critical issues in society today including elections, COVID 2019, and countering misleading information from a prejudicial impact standpoint. 

    Develop media and information literacy policy as well as integrate it in the educational curriculums at schools and universities, aiming to ensure its dissemination; Connect media and information literacy with education, the right to communication, freedom of the press, the right to information, the right to expression, the right to participation, access to connectivity, comprehensive and sustainable use of ICTs, among others. 

    Media and information literacy should reach all human beings, minorities of all kinds, children, adults and seniors without distinction of gender, or limitation by condition of any kind. Media and Information Literacy is a core competency for addressing disinformation and misinformation, contributing to the protection of privacy, prevention of violent extremism, promotion of digital security and combating hate speech and inequality. 

    Collaboration is fundamental to developing media and information literacy, but achieving a collective understanding is possible through collaborative efforts. Media influence is social, political and economic power and power always attracts those who wish to misuse it. Media and information literacy must be a work of structured, capacity-building of education. This requires resources, human and material. 

    Mr Tawfik Jelassi, Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information: Since the Internet is a shared and public resource, it concerns all of us. Media and Information Literacy is a multivalent tool that can be used in this regard. During the recently held 41st session of UNESCO’s General Conference, numerous Member States highlighted the urgency of Media and Information Literacy. Media and information literacy is a matter of national security issue. 

    Ms Vera Jourova, Vice President and Commissioner, European Commission: European Democracy Action Plan aims to improve the resilience of European democracies through a society approach to protect democracy by strengthening media freedom and pluralism. Media and information literacy is a central part of this plan and related funding. A call for proposal will be released in 2022. The European Commission stands with UNESCO and supports multilateral cooperation on media and information literacy. 

    Ms Sinéad McSweeney Global Vice President of Public Policy, Twitter: Develop media and information literacy skills to enable the capacity to consume, digest, and understand information. Twitter is prioritizing promoting media and information literacy and is happy to be partnering with UNESCO, looking forward to expanding the work through broad collaboration.  

    Ms Samia Bibars, Minister Plenipotentiary and Director, Monitoring & Crisis Management Department Media & Information Sector, Arab League: Media and Information literacy are essential as a regulatory initiative to ensure that everyone can use technology, including digital media, for full participation in society.  

    Ms Silvia Bacher, Founder, Las Otras Voces, Member of the UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Alliance: Incorporate media and information literacy concepts in education and media laws to positively impact and visibility to the media and information literacy issues. 

    Ms Sonia Gill, Secretary-General of the Caribbean Broadcasting Union: Recognize the UNESCO resource Media and Information Literacy in Journalism: A Handbook for Journalist and Journalism Education and call for the rollout of training based on this tool. 

    Ms Clair Deevy, Director of Global Policy Programs, WhatsApp: WhatsApp is taking steps on media and information literacy and digital literacy; Use gamification and simulation to promote media and information literacy. 

    Dr Filimon Manoni, Deputy Secretary-General of the Pacific Islands Forum: (Did not speak during the session as video arrived late) https://youtu.be/Gc4ptobZv6s Ensure the achievements of digital media and information literacy goals to guarantee connectivity and open new frontiers and opportunities for multi-stakeholder relationships across the globe. 

    Watch full video of event here, http://webcast.unesco.org/events/2021-12-MIL-IGF/

    IGF 2021 WS #187 Exploring Neutrality: A Multistakeholder Cyber Norms Dialogue

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:17
    Trust, Security, Stability
    Key Takeaways:

    As a time-tested legal institution, neutrality holds significant potential as a force for stability in cyberspace and - in times of lively global discussions - can advance the understanding of key conditions for implementing rules of responsible behavior. Greater clarity about state views, which have been the traditional focus under the law of neutrality, has the capacity to create safe spaces for non-state actors that assist vulnerable groups.

    ,

    The law of neutrality applies to armed conflicts between states. However, the concept of neutrality can also be applied to non-state actors, such as the ICRC. The idea is that humanitarian and technical support should be possible independent of politics. The integration of national CERTs into government structures may undermine the epistemic community of CERTs. Neutral organizations, such as FIRST, may be able to fill this gap.

    Calls to Action

    The panel discussion resulted in a call for more states to publish their views on how the law of neutrality applies to cyberspace and to further detail its operationalization. Coincidentally, it also called for the further discussion and inclusion of neutrality-derived principles/norms in the upcoming OEWG.

    Session Report

     

    The Origins and Legal Core of Neutrality

    The panel first provided a general overview of the concept of neutrality. It underlined that neutrality is a flexible, complex, multifaceted concept whose understandings and applications have evolved across various geopolitical and technological contexts. For instance, neutrality can simultaneously imply or refer to a set of legal principles (incl. rights and duties), certain behavioral traits, practices, and reputation, as well as an organization or state policy.

    Reflecting on findings from a recent study on “The Law of Neutrality in Cyberspace”, published by the Center for Security Studies, the introduction of the panel noted that, traditionally, neutrality has been linked to some expectations of non-participation, impartiality, and due diligence in exchange for some protection or a guarantee of independence. Historically, however, it has also served many other functions, including ensuring continuous international commerce, promoting and fostering international peace and security, mitigating escalation, or fostering integration and social cohesion.

    One core aspect of neutrality is its legal core – the law of neutrality –, which is very much state-centric. This body of law, which belongs to international humanitarian law (IHL), regulates the relations between belligerent and neutral states during an international armed conflict. It was for the most part codified in the 1907 Hague Conventions V & XIII after centuries of evolving state practice. The law provides a set of reciprocal rights and duties to the neutral and belligerent states, which include the duty for a belligerent to respect a neutral state’s inviolability in exchange for the neutral state’s non-participation, impartiality, and preventive measures against violations of its neutrality.

    The application of international law to cyberspace has been widely recognized. However, the application of IHL is still disputed by some states. Nonetheless, there is a legal argument to the application of the law of neutrality to cyberspace, which goes back to the ICJ’s 1996 opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons which states that  “no doubt that the principle of neutrality, whatever its content, which is of a fundamental character similar to that of the humanitarian principles and rules, is applicable […] to all international armed conflict, whatever type of weapons might be used”.

    Despite this, the law of neutrality in cyberspace remains quite a niche topic. While the non-binding Tallinn manual and Oslo manual have some specific rules on neutrality in cyberspace, only six states (i.e., the United States, France, Switzerland, Romania, Italy, and the Netherlands) have referenced and addressed it explicitly in their legal opinions. From these, a core set of rights and duties can be identified. Some of these are quite undisputed, such as conducting cyber operations from or against neutral infrastructure under sovereign protection. Others, while recognized, still need further discussions to be operationalized. This is notably the case for a neutral state’s prevention duty or the issue around the legality of routing cyber operations through neutral infrastructure.

    Given the complexity of neutrality and its still-undefined implications in the wider context of thinking responsible state behavior in cyberspace, we believed that the IGF was a unique space to bring a multistakeholder view to the topic. In so doing, we sought to challenge, map and test the limits of the concept by promoting a dialogue with both actors that have historically advocated for neutrality (Switzerland) with other non-governmental stakeholders that have been the object of certain protections under the agreed GGE cyber norms. 

    Conceptualizing Neutrality in Cyberspace

    The speakers’ opening remarks highlighted the context of increasing state-sponsored cyberattacks and broadened the discussion beyond the legal core of neutrality. Subsequently, the participants from different stakeholder groups were invited to elaborate on how they use the concept in their daily activities.

    The panel member from academia started by highlighting that the old legal rules of neutrality are still applicable. However, there has been a deliberate decision not to develop them further by countries to limit their duties. Hence, the operationalization of neutrality will most likely be “forged by fire”. The speaker particularly focused on the due diligence norm and highlighted two legal cases that might be of particular importance in the future. The first is the Corfu Channel Case between the UK and Albania, whose verdict shows that due diligence does not require attribution. Second, there is the Alabama tribunal, which highlights that there is some duty to prepare and that a too-slow reaction to a cyber-incident may already result in demands for compensation.

     The government representative highlighted the fuzzy conceptual borders of cyberspace and neutrality, which means that neutrality principles still need to be made more precise and operationalized. The actor further highlighted that for a permanently neutral country such as Switzerland, the concept can also have a promotional aspect as part of its foreign and security policy. Specific questions that come up for permanently neutral states in cyberspace are often focused on the limits and thresholds of international collaboration. Joint training, exercises, and interoperability are still needed despite permanent neutrality. 

     The member of civil society viewed the concept of neutrality through the lens of humanitarian values and the protection of human rights. From this perspective, neutrality is about supporting stability in cyberspace and providing technical support and access to knowledge regardless of location, identity, or beliefs. In terms of the on-the-ground practice this translates into free cybersecurity and cyber peace-building support for NGOs.

    The representative of the private sector discussed the increasing militarization of cyberspace and noted the need for a neutral status of the CERT communities that track advanced persistent threats. This is similar to how humanitarian organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, need to be able to do their job and help with kinetic incidents independent of politics. In support of these considerations, it remained critical to account for the distinct characteristics of activities in cyberspace, particularly the covert nature of much activity and the use of cyber capabilities below the threshold of armed conflict. Still, there should be a pragmatic development of duties with a particular focus on transparency in the sharing of threat intelligence and collaboration with Interpol in cybercrime investigations.

     The member of the technical community highlighted that a timely response to cybersecurity incidents often requires collaboration between multiple countries. However, in some ways the most important question today is how to deal with multinational tech giants. As non-state actors they are mostly out of the scope of the law of neutrality. At the same time, these companies dominate the public core of the Internet today. Tech giants have an incentive to remain neutral to some degree to maintain business relationships, however, they are not equidistant to countries. For example, some tech giants directly collaborate with the military, for example to provide cloud solutions.

    Cyber Norms and Neutrality

    Having covered the nexus between the broad and at times undefined notion of neutrality and the everyday activities of each speaker, representatives were then invited to reflect on the operationalization of neutrality in the context of international cyber norms. As highlighted during the workshop, there are multiple norms of responsible behavior in cyberspace that have been agreed in the 2015 GGE report that hint to notions of neutrality and protections of specific actors and territories. Below follows a list of those mentioned by the speakers:

    • Norm 3 (13c)– States should not knowingly allow their territory to be used for internationally wrongful acts using ICTs;

    • Norm 6 (13f)– A State should not conduct or knowingly support ICT activity contrary to its obligations under international law that intentionally damages critical infrastructure or otherwise impairs the use and operation of critical infrastructure to provide services to the public;

    • Norm 7 (13g) – States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure from ICT threats, taking into account General Assembly resolution 58/199 on the creation of a global culture of cybersecurity and the protection of critical information infrastructures, and other relevant resolutions;

    • Norm 8 (13h)– States should respond to appropriate requests for assistance by another State whose critical infrastructure is subject to malicious ICT acts. States should also respond to appropriate requests to mitigate malicious ICT activity aimed at the critical infrastructure of another State emanating from their territory, taking into account due regard for sovereignty;

    • Norm 11 (13k) – States should not conduct or knowingly support activity to harm the information systems of the authorized emergency response teams (sometimes known as computer emergency response teams or cybersecurity incident response teams) of another State. A State should not use authorized emergency response teams to engage in malicious international activity.

    The representative from academia returned to the discussion around due diligence, highlighting that it could be a starting point for thinking obligations and accountability beyond attribution. Furthermore, he referred to Norm 7 and stressed that due diligence could help states think through the necessary protections that need to be in place when securing critical information infrastructures. This would provide more clarity as to what could be considered the appropriate measures (possibly compensation) if an intrusion is identified. However, as he noted, we should also consider Norm 8 on requests for assistance as it deals with the capacity of states in responding to particular attacks. Two questions followed: "When can a state reject a request and on what basis?" and "Should private companies be allowed to assist? If so, how?" The lack of a definition of critical infrastructure poses significant challenges to thinking about the operationalization of these norms. 

    The speaker from government noted that some norms could benefit from information sharing and the building up of a database of cases. Practices such as these would allow for states to have a better sense of the context of operations and of the interpretation of Norm 3. In addition, he suggested that Norm 11, although important, lacks specificity. Domestically, it is fundamental that states have channels in place for tracking attacks associated with critical sectors. CI operators should be in contact with CERTs and other areas of the government and mechanisms such as MoUs should also be in place to facilitate information exchange and timely response.   

    When it comes to civil society organizations and front-line human rights defenders, the challenge is one of thinking the character of those actors. The representative from a civil society organization suggested that, in light of Norm 7, human rights defenders working with those directly affected by cyberattacks and assisting them in recovering should be considered critical infrastructure and off-limits. She noted that if one should consider the 5 neutrality functions as per Riklin, the CyberPeace Institute, for example, would be considered under the function of integration given that it convenes a diverse range of actors on threats of relevance to civil society and particularly vulnerable groups.

    The representative from the private sector argued that states need to think carefully about how norms for responsible state behavior co-exist with non-state actors. Doing so would help non-state actors understand how they can carry out their activities and what protections are in place (or can be expected). These practices could help strengthen transparency over state action and provide a landscape of greater certainty for private companies working in this space. 

    Finally, the CERT representative brought an important point of how contextual and institutional shifts can often challenge the implementability of a specific norm. That is the case of Norm 11 that talks about states not targeting CERTs. As the representative noted, CERTs were once thought of as independent and somewhat autonomous focal points for incident reporting. However, as new models such as that of the national cybersecurity centers (often linked to intelligence agencies) and national security concerns rise, CERTs have become more linked to government and geopolitical tensions. These and other dynamics have direct implications in thinking about the interpretation of Norm 11 as they would be structural aspects and organizational impediments for neutrality. 

    The challenge of neutrality is not an easy one. The evident consolidation of cybersecurity as a key element in states' political agendas and strategic actions (e.g. offensive use of cyber capabilities) has led to an even more intense dispute over what can and should be protected in the context of cyber operations. As highlighted by the government representative, that does not mean that states should not strive (and they should) to define better parameters for what is or is not allowed even below the threshold of armed conflict. This could be achieved via due diligence or through confidence-building measures. Overall, participants agreed that even though neutrality can be interpreted as an apolitical concept, we need to consider that the key questions 'who' decides 'what' and 'whom' can be considered neutral, carries political power and potential for special protections.

     

    IGF 2021 WS #80 Trustworthy data flows – what’s at stake and what is needed?

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:03
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    Economic and societal value of cross-border data flows: economic opportunity and growth, supporting global supply chains, central to business operations and entire economic sectors, enabling companies of all sizes to address bigger markets. Essential to the delivery of public services; for better understanding and acting on cybersecurity threats; and for human rights in terms of access to information and freedom of expression.

    ,

    The Internet is not bilateral in nature, so governing access to, and the sharing of, data needs to be based via multilateral rather than bilateral solutions. It is not about necessarily having identical rules and regulation in every country, but rules and standards to govern the cross-border flows of data need to be interoperable, flexible and future-proof.

    Calls to Action

    Governments, supported by international organisations, should pursue international and interoperable agreements, standards and principles to enable secure and responsible transfers of data across borders.

    ,

    This should be done in an informed way by drawing on evidence and consulting stakeholders to understand the scale and scope of the value of trusted data flows, whilst also providing appropriate protection of personal data and other rights and interests.

    Session Report

     

    Part 1: Cross-border data flows – what’s at stake?

    Cross-border data flows bring great economic value: 

    • Data transfers are estimated to contribute about $2.8 trillion to global GDP, exceeding global trade in goods, and are expected to grow to $11 trillion by 2025.
    • They are important for economic opportunity and growth, supporting global supply chains, enabling companies of all sizes to address bigger markets, and playing a central role in the operation of many businesses and entire economic sectors - 75% of the value of data transfers is estimated to benefit sectors such as logistics, manufacturing, and agriculture.

    Cross-border data flows bring great societal value: 

    • They are essential to the delivery of public services
    • They play a vital role in understanding and acting on cybersecurity threats that continue to increase in number and sophistication, enabling companies and law enforcement authorities to protect customers across the world from cybersecurity threats 
    • They are important for the exercise of human rights, e.g., in terms of access to information and freedom of expression.
    • The exchange of research data was crucial to the development of treatment and vaccines that have been deployed to tackle COVID-19.

    However, all of these benefits are increasingly dependent on, and on occasions undermined by, some of the ways in which rules and norms to govern access to, and sharing of, data are being developed. Sometimes this is a consequence of a legitimate desire to protect personal data or other rights that does not always weigh these protections against the importance of cross-border data flows. Also, there is a growing trend of “data nationalism”, a view that all data generated in a particular country must remain within that country. 

    Part 2: Cross-border data flows – what’s needed?

    The Internet is not bilateral in nature, so governing access to, and the sharing of, data needs to be based not on bilateral solutions but rather on multilateral ones (though it is recognised that it can be extremely difficult to get agreements on common policy and regulatory principles). It is not about necessarily having identical rules and regulation in every country, but, to help governments navigate trade-offs and opportunities around data governance,  rules and standards to govern the cross-border flows of data need to be interoperable, flexible and future-proof.

    Governments should therefore pursue international and interoperable agreements, codes of conduct, data governance standards and principles to enable trusted transfers of data across borders, taking into account:

    • The value of international organisations as places to negotiate agreements, but also as fora for discussion where different countries and different voices are represented.
    • The merit of tackling issues in an informed way by drawing on evidence and an understanding of the implications of different approaches to data transfers, and the scale and scope of the value of data flows so they can be appropriately weighed against the important efforts to protect personal data.
    • The importance of multi-disciplinary and multistakeholder collaboration by enabling discussions between different parts of government (e.g., representing law enforcement and national security, trade, privacy and consumer protection, as well as the sectors of industry that rely on and benefit from data flows) and bringing in voices from industry and civil society to reflect a very broad range of expertise and interest to help guide principles and avoid siloed thinking.

    Panelists noted a number of international venues, approaches and regulatory frameworks that can be drawn upon to think about how to balance interests and safeguard secure and responsible data transfers. 

    • One place to look is WTO norms where there is a presumption in favour of the flows of goods across borders, but with safeguards as well as a recognition of the rights of governments to regulate in non-discriminatory and transparent ways consistent with good regulatory practices. The WTO provides a broad international framework that has been tested and developed over decades, which could play a role in reaffirming core principles.
    • A 2021 OECD  Recommendation on enhancing access to and sharing of data notes the importance of international dialogue and includes recommendations about minimizing restrictions to cross border data, and that measures that condition such flows should be nondiscriminatory, transparent, necessary and proportionate.
    • The APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules (CBPR) is a framework that ensures responsibility, security and trust in data transfers.
    • The Canadian approach to cross-border data flows underpinned by principles of meaningful consent and accountability – it does not prohibit organisations from transferring personal data outside of Canada but does require those organisations to get consent from the individual and to remain accountable for, and retain some control over, that data, even when transferred across borders. This was contrasted with the less flexible and more complex GDPR. While the GDPR has been very important in starting to address the trust deficit, the requirement for adequacy decisions or other approvals from regulators can become de facto data localization because of the lengthy time it can take to establish those agreements, particularly for developing countries. 

    Two recent reports looking at the role of cross-border data flows in economic growth for developing countries were mentioned in response to a question about how to share the prosperity and benefits of data across various parts of the world.

    • An UNCTAD report on cross-border data flows notes that data nationalisation threatens the interests of developing countries in particular because reducing the sharing of information and data reduces market opportunities for MSMEs in those countries.
    •  

      A World Bank report on data for better lives calls for a new social contract that enables the use and reuse of data to create economic and social value and ensures equitable access to that value.

    IGF 2021 WS #258 A common “Bill of digital Human Rights and Responsibilities”

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 18:00
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    The UDHR represents the fundamental human values that are common to us all. We now need further discussion on building trust and integrity in digital policies; address systemic issues, not only symptomatic problems; strengthen stakeholder education; rethink business models to encompass HR developments; focus on the notion of responsibilities.

    ,

    Roles and benefits of a digital Bill of Rights and responsibilities: empowering citizens, allowing for the exercise of rights and responsibilities in cyberspace; protect those subject to digital technologies against governmental and private sector arbitrariness and despotism. It claims to rebuild trust, the foundation of economic, social stability and development in cyberspace. In this sense, responsibilities are a source of economic development

    Calls to Action

    The history of Internet developments has been shaped by curiosity. In order to encompass responsibilities and human rights and avoid undesirable scenarios, stakeholders have to move from the mindset "can we do it" to "should we do it". In this sense, the private sector should rethink business models.

    ,

    Legislators and policy makers should pay attention to issues to electronic identity verification processes and challenges from decision making in online dispute resolution. This process has to consider to privacy as well as other important aspects of the discussion of rights on the Internet. Intermediary liability also has to be addressed to promote trust and integrity in digital policies.

    Session Report

    IGF 2021 - WS 258 - SESSION REPORT

    IGF 2021 WS #258 A common “Bill of digital Human Rights and Responsibilities”



    ● Findings

    ○ As we live in a duality - our existence in the literal world and in cyberspace -, we

    find ourselves torn between the increasing impact of technology in our lives and our

    lack of control over them. We live in a time of digital colonialism that opens a path

    for digital servitude and exploitation.

    ○ Special interests can and not rarely overcome the common good in digital

    governance. Thus, the role of a Bill of Rights is to remind those with power to pay

    attention to the fundamental rights of those that are subject to that power.

    ○ Roles and benefits of a digital Bill of Rights and responsibilities

    ■ fundamental function of empowering citizens - allow for the exercise of rights

    and responsibilities in cyberspace

    ■ can protect those subject to digital technologies against governmental and

    private sector arbitrariness and despotism.

    ○ Trust is the foundation of economic and social stability and development in

    cyberspace. Defining responsibilities can be seen as a source of economic

    development.

    ○ To transform the values of the Bill of Rights into experienced reality requires

    ongoing awareness and capacity building, stakeholder engagement, integrity-based

    business models and legitimate digital governmental structures.

    ○ A lot of the focus has been ‘what is done with your data online’ - this is an important

    part of the conversation, privacy questions, but not the whole discussion

    ○ Invites to all participants:

    ■ check previous session co-hosted by CircleID:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SRgkC49aJc

    ■ Journal PoliTICs - analysis by Klaus Stoll & Sam Lanfranco on the UDHR and

    digital rights, in Brazilian Portuguese, in two parts:



    https://politics.org.br/edicoes/declara%C3%A7%C3%A3o-univ

    ersal-dos-direitos-humanos-na-era-digital



    https://politics.org.br/edicoes/declara%C3%A7%C3%A3o-univ

    ersal-dos-direitos-humanos-na-era-digital-parte-2

    ■ Check WIPO UDRP Program

    ■ Continue the session discussion in the open forum organized by CircleID:



    ● Areas of agreement

    ○ The UDHR represents the fundamental human values that are common to us all.

    Learnings and developments of the post war period were crucial to reach this point.

    ○ Respect for the fundamental human rights there is fundamental to true economic

    development and sustainability.

    ○ Citizens do not fully understand and do not always know how to exercise their rights

    in cyberspace

    ○ Trust in the digital environment must be restored.



    ● Consensus on how to further the discussion

    ○ questions to be answered:

    ■ What common values inform a digital bill of rights?

    ■ how to extend and apply our fundamental human rights in cyberspace?

    ■ how to build in algorithmic routines that observe the codified rights and

    responsibilities of a digital Bill of Rights?

    ○ consider further discussion on business models and ecommerce

    ○ building trust and integrity in digital policies

    ○ address systemic issues, not only symptomatic problems

    ○ strengthen stakeholder education - we are not there yet

    ○ focus on the notion of responsibilities - they are mutual, not imposed by government

    ○ dealing with disputes in platforms is still a balckbox - who are decision makers, are

    there aspect of this global trademarks system that can be applied, how is the

    decision making process, how to arrive there

    ■ lessons learned: if we accept that there is a foundation need to address these

    principles, we have several legal criteria that have to be met - both legal and

    material

    ■ address transparency in digital transactions

    ○ Considering that the development of the internet has a history of having been

    shaped by pure curiosity, we need to move away from the idea “can we do it” to

    “should we do it”. This is more proactive - an HR are critical in these processes



    ● Areas of disagreement that need further discussion

    ○ the path for building trust: it requires values, but what would be those?

    ■ set of principle has to be negotiated - who are we aiming, talking to, how can

    we better engage people and sectors in this bill of principles

    ○ Who will be the ones responsibles for the implementation of a bill of rights?

    ○ We have seen similar initiatives before - how can we make sure this will be the way

    forward?

    ○ However important establishing values may be, we need a concrete path to

    exercise rights and responsibilities in cyberspace - we need more focus on

    implementation, since we seem to have reached a reasonable point of agreement

    about UDHR principles

    ○ Using automation to address disputes in online platforms and ecommerce



    ● Call to action to one or more stakeholder groups

    ○ we need to define roles and responsibilities

    ■ Governments: share sovereignty in cyberspace;

    ■ legislators and policy makers: better address electronic identity verification

    processes, liability

    ■ Private sector: accept that innovation comes with responsibilities

    IGF 2021 WS #73 Digital Rights and Responsibilities: from Local to Global

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 17:39
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    Universal access to Internet with universal education in skills (encouraging the most human ones, like creativity, music) and capacity building (to face, for instance, algorithmic influencing), to deliver an inclusive social-purpose digital revolution, under the values of accountability, responsibility and liability from all stakeholders, and commitment and strong leadership specially from public authorities.

    Calls to Action

    Under the values of accountability, responsibility and liability, all stakeholders, with the commitment and strong leadership of public authorities, should promote a set of global conventions related to digitalisation putting technology to the need of our planet and our people, aiming for a Universal Declaration of (Digital) Human Rights.

    Session Report

     

    The session Digital Rights and Responsibilities: from Local to Global took place the day before of the celebration of Human Rights Day. It was on December 10th, in 1948, when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Times change and require renewed consensus that take into account the new circumstances. Human rights and fundamental freedoms accepted thus far need to be continuously defended and expanded. This idea was present throughout the discussion.

    The Charter for Digital Rights and Responsibilities from Catalonia

    The Government of Catalonia, organiser of the session, coordinate the development of the Charter for Digital Rights and Responsibilities from Catalonia, an open innovation project, under constant construction, that aims to define a legislative and democratic framework to guarantee human rights in the digital age.

    During this workshop, the multistakeholder governance model of the Charter was explained, as well as what the Government of Catalonia does regarding digital rights included in the proposal, such as universal access to the Internet, and the promotion of digital talent and innovation, especially among girls and women.

    Young people have the right to be heard

    The round table also featured reflections on the role of the younger generations in the digital age. In this this sense, the case of how Chilean adolescents were the ones who started the social and political process of a new Constitution was presented.

    Chilean high school students have an historical interest in influencing the social reality of their country. This time they used ICT, but long before cell phones, an important part of Chilean adult society have constantly encouraged them to have a collective opinion.

    Young people, all around the world, should be able to have their own voice heard.

    Digital rights and the future of work

    The session also served to collect proposals regarding digital rights and the future of work. Emphasis was placed on the need for capacity building to face, for instance, algorithmic influencing, still not covered enough by the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

    The importance of universal education in not only digital skills, but also encouraging the most human ones –like creativity or music making– was highlighted.

    Participatory algorithmic design was defended as well: workers should be included in the process of designing and decision-making around algorithm-based systems that affect them.

    Functional diversity in the digital age

    People with functional diversity are one of the groups most affected by the digital divide, and their life experience is hardly comprehended. In this sense, it was stressed out that they must participate not only in the discussion on human rights, but also in the design and development of ICTs.

    Not to leave anyone behind and deliver an inclusive social-purpose digital revolution was one of the key takeaways of the session.

    A Universal Declaration of (Digital) Human Rights

    The workshop concluded with this call-to-action: under the values of accountability, responsibility and liability, all stakeholders, with the commitment and strong leadership of public authorities, should promote a set of global conventions related to digitalisation putting technology to the need of our planet and our people, aiming for a Universal Declaration of (Digital) Human Rights.

    IGF 2021 WS #232 Mind the gap: digital labor and international frameworks

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 17:35
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    Platform and digital work is a growing phenomenon and it is important to be discussed within Internet Governance fora. It raises the dependence on digital platforms and their mechanisms for datafication, algorithmific management, and surveilance. There are some design mechanisms that must be widely discussed and measures taken. For istance, there is no channel to talk with a human being to discuss what could be done.

    ,

    Internet and Labour agenda shall bond themsleves through the promotion of algorithmic transparency and the transversal consideration of the labour dimension within digital policy and regulation (e.g. data regulation, artificial intelligence regulation and automated decision-making, etc).

    Calls to Action

    Based on the principles of open and free Internet and the fact the Gig Economy concept has an eurocentric approach, there is a need to promote local alternative platforms, such as worker-owned platforms shaped in partnership with platform workers in the Global South. Elaborate and aggregate evidences on the intersection of emerging concerns regarding the Interent-mediated labour to be submitted and discussed within the ILO's instances.

    ,

    It is important to promote research and policy analysis on several issues, such as: i. the political and ethical consequences of labling workers as invisibles are being conducted in India; ii. the connection between platform labor, disinformation and political communication strugle (e.g. people working for content moderation, click farms and so on); and the mismatch between high-skilled educated IT workers and the actual labor maket.

    Session Report

    This workshop was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br and had the focus on how digital labor around the world are aligned with international frameworks for decent work. The session was moderated by Prof. Rafael Evangelista, and had the following participants:

    • Angeliki Moraiti, Intergovernmental Organization, International Labor Organization, Eastern European Regional Group

    • Rafael Grohman, Technical Community, DigiLabour/UNISINOS, Latin American and Caribbean Group

    • Uma Rani,Intergovernmental Organization,  International Labor Organization, Asia-Pacific Group

    The workshop also would count with the following participants who unfortunately had unforeseen events and could not attend. They were:

    • Yaseen Aslam, Civil Society, United Kingdom Uber Driver’s Union, Western European and Others Group (WEOG)

    • Thomas Anning Dorson, Technical Community, Fairwork Foundation, African Group

    The session started with a brief explanation of the problem to be addressed in the debates. The moderator, explained the emergence of platform-based business models and how it has contributed to the increase and even to the normalization of informality and deterioration of employment conditions. As said, the increasing fragmentation of production processes, a direct consequence of technological advancement, has led to more unstable employment and income. Digital platforms created marketplaces allowing real-time hiring of labor to meet a large spectrum of social demands that go far beyond transportation services. On these platforms, workers living across multiple time zones offer businesses the possibility of completing projects at any time, day or night. In practice, what we are facing is a global labor supply chain mediated by proprietary algorithms of digital platforms. Additionally, digital labor platforms typically classify their workers as self-employed, thereby denying them labor protections and employer-provided social security. In most cases, the terms and  conditions of working through the platforms are laid out unilaterally by the platforms, which state how and when crowd-workers will be paid, how their work will be evaluated, and what rights workers have when they need them.  The International Labor Organization (ILO) has developed frameworks and partnered with local and international organizations to contribute with policy-making in order to ensure decent digital work. However, there are mismatches between international and local policies, in terms of both digital and labor regulations, that must be identified and addressed.

    Panelists agreed with the analysis adding that the increase of cloud infrastructure  and the interest of venture capitalists investing in it can lead to monopolization of the market all around the world. Also, they are largely dominated in USA, Europe and China while other Global South countries accounts for only 4% of those platforms ownership. These platforms are transforming the world of work and this is a new phenomenon for both labor and Internet policymakers. There are a whole set of new practices being introduced by these platforms that are quite different from what we traditionally have experienced. Against the promoted flexibility, when a worker like a taxi driver get an order they have  from15 to 40 seconds to decide if they want to take it or no. There is a punishment if one does not accept it and the worker may be deactivated, being unable to get new rides for a while and jeopardize her ratings. Moreover, these workers do not have direct access to a human being to discuss their problems. All the transactions are made by algorithms. These also mean an important change for the definition of performance.

    The fact that the platforms establish the criteria to measure performance creates a duality based on the fact that they became a mediator in actually getting the job done. This means that they should be classified as employers. There is a huge debate around the world about that and in some countries they have already been classified as employers. This is a fundamental issue of misclassification. It has been mentioned that there are principles, frameworks and analysis produced by ILO that can be adopted in countries to help protecting workers and to foster decent working conditions social security, safety, employment and that apply to all kind of workers.

    Panelists went further in pointing out the maleficent effects of work plataformization. The misuse of the terms is something that may conceive the real situation of workers in the Global South. For instance the term “Gig Economy”, which is an euro-centric expression, since “gig” has been historically the normal condition of the working class in the Global South where millions of people need to find any activity to earn a living. This is an attempt to generalize some specific conditions of a few groups in the Global North to the whole world. Also, researchers on the political and ethical realms have labeled workers as “invisible”. This is also an eurocentric perspective given that they can barely see this platform workers. The speaker said we may move beyond this idea of invisible work considering that these labor are not invisible for Global South countries.

    Work platformization is creating a growing dependence on digital platforms and their mechanisms for datafication, algorithmic management, surveillance and so on. The diversity of platforms business models and mechanisms creates a constantly growing dependency for workers on digital platforms. The association of labor with some of this platforms like the clicking farms, and people working with content moderation all around the world create a connection between platform labor, political struggle and disinformation. Thus, we can see this dependency spreading over new areas of work, for instance in political communication. In this scenario, articulating regulation, public policy and the promotion of fair work becomes the central challenge. The Fairwork project is an initiative to face this challenge creating a set of principles and measurement mechanisms to foster decent work more suitable for platform capitalism (stimulating the understanding of fair contract, health working conditions provided by platforms and fair management which is related to the ability of workers to engage in due process to decisions that affect themselves).

    Then the speakers talked about the gaps emphasizing that there is a dispute over fair work principles. Platforms are working with think tanks to produce their own charters of principles and using it to promote their agenda among parliaments. In this sense, ILO should have a role in acting in this disputes. Another gap is the capacity of the working class to organize and produce their own technology to strength their capacity to meet their goals.

    Aiming at exploring and exposing the diversity of policies in this field, the following intervention touched upon the issues of regulations that are crucial in ensuring decent work in platform work. The speaker highlighted some of these forms of regulatory intervention.

    One is the need to universalize certain standards and principles aforementioned to promote inclusive regulation. The Indian case of adopting a code for social security that applies to all workers in 2020 was given as an example. Another specific example from Australia and New Zealand policy and regulatory sphere, where they are shifting from calling “employer and employee” to “person conducting a business” and a “worker” instead.

    Another is the importance to adopt measures specific to platform workers, this can  happen either through state regulation or judicial decision. As provided examples, in France, the French Labour Court allows self employed workers to engage in collective workers and also invite platforms to  engage in methods that may allow workers to obtain decent prices for their services. In addition, In São Paulo, Brazil, a labor tribunal recognized that delivery workers had their health risks reduced through health and safety regulations, recognizing the platform liability in this area. In spite of that, the main limitation of this specific measures is that for instance they fail to address broader trends  such as misclassification and the structural issue of informality.

    Additionally, other possibility is to reclassify platform workers as employees, embedding them into previous labor and social protection regulations. In Spain there was a Law as well as several courts all around the world increasingly reclassifying workers by adapting the constitutive employment relationships. Among some elements to characterize the employment relationship (direction and control) are  the platforms’ GPS tracking of workers, and their determination of crucial aspects such as setting the price, matching the users, deactivating them . All of this are indicative of a lack of true entrepreneurial activity hence are indicative of an employment relationship. It was highlighted that judicial decisions may conflict with each other and promote regulatory uncertainty, nonetheless they are gradually leading to more inclusive definitions of workers and this will be crucial to ensure decent work to emerging forms of work.

    Furthermore, the speaker pointed out that social partners and platform companies are also taking action to ensure decent work. In Germany, trade unions have established crowd-sourcing initiatives to support workers conditions and developed redress of grievances channels to resolve disputes between workers and platforms.

    With regards to data protection law, it was emphasized the relevance of it to platform workers due to two main reasons: the fact that data is the core of platform’s business models; and that the law applies to workers regardless of their employment status. Some individual rights mentioned  are usually present in data protection regulations such as data access, data portability and data leisure. However, the most important one is that platform workers shall not be subject to automated decision-making, considering this also as a key for platforms operations (e.g. for de-activating users, setting prices, etc.). A way to move forward is to promote the right to obtain information and principle of explainability to understand the logic of an automated system. For instance, in Brazilian Data Protection Law there is the right to review automated decisions.

    Another important aspect brought relates to collective data rights. What happens in platforms is that we shall guarantee  ownership of data for the workers.  As a concrete outcome of that is the ability of workers to leverage the intelligence of their own data to promote the quality of their own work. This requires specific data governance frameworks. As an example of regulatory recommendations, in India a regulatory committee  has proposed a collective ownership of community data with measures of  mandatory data sharing.

    This talk also pointed out that laws to regulate AI application are very important since platforms use automated algorithms. It was argued that laws that directly regulate technology fairness and transparency may have an important role. For instance, European Commission’s regulatory proposal from the beginning of 2021 determines certain requirements to AI systems poses a high risk for the employment context. There is a need do advance in human oversight, reporting obligations, among other aspects.

    IGF 2021 WS #100 Forging Trust in the Digital Economy: A Consumer Perspective

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 17:29
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    In order to build a more inclusive and trustworthy digital economy, governments should develop and implement adaptable and clear consumer protection regulatory frameworks with input from a wide range of stakeholders, including the private sector, civil society, and academia. At the same time, multistakeholder initiatives should examine ways to raise more awareness among consumers about the risks they face online.

    Calls to Action

    Policymakers should engage in multistakeholder processes that include representation from the private sector, civil society, and academia to develop and implement consumer-centric and adaptable regulatory landscapes that build trust in and meet the demands of the rapidly changing global digital environment.

    ,

    Consumers should have access to information and knowledge of the risks they face online and how to protect themselves. Governments and eCommerce platforms should ensure that the policies and service agreements developed are clear for consumers to understand.

    Session Report

    The rapid adoption of eCommerce platforms provides enormous opportunities for local businesses to reach new markets and for consumers to access needed goods and services, which can bolster economic empowerment. At the same time, consumers often face challenges and risks online that cause distrust, including violations of data privacy or deceptive advertising. This session examined the importance of a dynamic and balanced consumer protection regulatory framework that serves businesses and consumers alike. To that end, governments should engage with the private sector, civil society, and academia to design and implement consumer protection laws that take into account the first-hand experiences of each stakeholder group. There is also a need to raise awareness among consumers about the risks they face online through educational initiatives focused on digital literacy and consumer rights. 

    During the session, the speakers examined the impact that inadequate or absent consumer protection regulations have on consumers and the overall digital economy ecosystem. Przemysław Pałka, an assistant professor at the Future of Law Lab at Jagiellonian University categorized these risks into two primary areas. First, consumers face cybersecurity risks and may experience fraud or other criminal behavior when purchasing products online, such as not receiving the product they purchased or receiving a lower quality product than advertised. Second, there are risks that persist even when the seller or platform uses the internet lawfully such as risks to privacy that come from pervasive data collection or behaviorally targeted advertising. Paola Gálvez, a Strategic Advisor of Digital Regulation for the Digital Transformation Secretary of Peru at the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, emphasized a duty to foster a trustworthy digital economy space. Drawing from her research and advocacy initiative under the Open Internet for Democracy Leaders Program, Gálvez observed that the risks consumers face online have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under this Program, she examined the digital rights implications of COVID-19 contact tracing applications deployed throughout Latin America, which underscored the importance of deploying digital products that respect the privacy rights of all users (https://openinternet.global/news/developing-and-deploying-new-technolog…). She also noted that 70% of offline buyers in Peru became first-time online consumers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because many first-time online buyers often lack digital literacy skills and knowledge of digital security, this led to greater exposure to risks such as misinformation, cyber-attacks, and scams. In addition, the lack of harmonization of consumer protection laws and enforcement internationally perpetuates distrust from consumers, since they have limited avenues to seek remediation for fraudulent products that are purchased abroad.  The third speaker, Pingkan Audrine, a Researcher for the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS), referred to her organization’s research on peer-to-peer lending in the fintech industry (https://www.cips-indonesia.org/p2p-lending-for-low-income-consumer) and observed that two-thirds of unbanked Indonesians have access to mobile phones, providing opportunities to expand access to digital financial services. Yet, these opportunities also bring risks as existing inadequate consumer protection regulations and poor digital literacy skills have led to predatory lending schemes in the country.  

    The speakers also offered solutions to address the risks and strengthen the overall trust in the digital economy. Recognizing that laws can be imperfect and can quickly become outdated, Pałka emphasized the need for flexible regulations that adapt to changing contexts and take potential burdens on businesses and consumers into account. Gálvez underscored the need to help consumers better understand the applicability of laws and instances when new laws need to be created, which should not always be the default. When new regulations are necessary, she advocated the development of consumer-centric frameworks that balance the diverse views of stakeholders. This multistakeholder approach can be helpful to balance the perspectives of the regulators, businesses, and consumers and can also develop innovative initiatives that foster greater economic inclusion in the digital economy, such as digital literacy initiatives or harmonizing laws across jurisdictions. Finally, Audrine noted that a co-regulation approach – a continuous dialogue and shared responsibility between the government, private sector, and civil society groups – could also be a valuable mechanism to gather perspectives from diverse stakeholders and inform the development of an innovative digital economy environment that protects consumers. Co-regulation requires more than public-private dialogue as a form of consultation by policymakers, but rather cooperation to allow the private sector to set its own rules and regulations on what is appropriate conduct for their industry.  The benefits of co-regulation as it pertains to Indonesia’s digital economy environment are discussed further in the CIPS policy paper titled “Co-regulating the Indonesian Digital Economy” (https://www.cips-indonesia.org/coregulating-digital-economy). 

    Overall, there is a need to harmonize regulatory environments and educate consumers of the risks they face online to strengthen trust in the digital economy. Despite good intentions from policymakers, legislative outcomes do not always translate into reliable results, especially if the regulatory framework is borrowed from another jurisdiction (e.g., the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation) without sufficient translation to the local context or consultation with those impacted by the law. Building a more inclusive and trustworthy digital economy requires active collaboration between the private sector, civil society, academia, and governments to develop and implement adaptable and clear consumer protection regulatory frameworks and raise awareness of the online risks for consumers. 

    IGF 2021 WS #78 Sustainable consumption in e-commerce

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 17:06
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    1. Look out for the information you trust. 2. Try to possess more information about the products you want to purchase. 3. Education is crucial. Be curious. 4. Shared responsibility to tackle threats and opportunities connected to sustainable consumption in e-commerce.

    ,

    5. Ensure that online markets are dealt with appropriately through regulation, enforcement and action by various actors. 6. Join the initiative – together with other companies as Amazon – the Climate Pledge in order to act together.

    Calls to Action

    Our main conclusion we can make is that we need to take matters in own hands, all actors involved and we need to act. We need to be reflective and just to do our best. We, the stakeholders need to think what we are doing and what is the purpose of these actions.

    Session Report

     

    Report on the IGF workshop session “Sustainable consumption in e-commerce” held on December 10th, 2021, in Katowice

    Rapporteur: Jolanta Zrałek, PhD the University of Economics in Katowice (as a substitute for Marta Grybś, PhD candidate).

    Speakers:

    • Nils Behrndt, Acting Deputy Director-General in the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers at the European Commission,
    • Peter Andrews, Director, Consumer Rights - Innovation & Impact at the Consumers International,
    • Agustin Reyna, Director of Legal and Economic Affairs at The European Consumer Organisation, BEUC,
    • Marta Grybś-Kabocik, PhD, University of Economics in Katowice, Poland
      (as a substitute for prof. Sławomir Smyczek who was absent due to health issues),
    • Claire Scharwatt, Public Policy Manager on Sustainability in Amazon,
    • Maciej Czapliński, Counsel at the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in Poland.

    Moderators:

    • Martyna Derszniak-Noirjean, PhD, Director of the International Cooperation Office at the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection in Poland,
    • Karol Muż, Director of European Consumer Center in Poland.

    A summary of the main takeaways of the session:

    The discussion focused on the following questions introduced respectively by the moderators:

    1. What is the reason to transit into the sustainable consumption? What do consumers gain from this transition?
    2. How the e-environment can influence our sustainable behavior? What are the opportunities and threats of operating in the virtual environment?
    3. What can different actors do to enhance sustainability?

    The speakers were introducing their comments one by one according to the round-table routine. Led by moderators, they displayed the discussed issues from different angles depending on their background. Thus the ultimate conclusions incorporate a combined vision of policymakers, NGOs, business and academia.

    When it comes to the first, introducing question speakers' remarks show that green transition is a fundamental issue. Creating a more sustainable society is a matter of our survival. Purchasing more durable, better quality, environmentally friendly products benefits both today's consumers and future generations.

    Although such commodities are already accessible on the markets and policymakers put efforts to introduce legal solutions pushing producers to meet high ecological standards, consumer awareness remains a problem.

    As a result, the speakers agreed that educational efforts are of the highest importance and must be directed to consumers of different ages. Especially the younger generations are prone to undertake actions. Thus they may initiate fundamental changes in the lifestyles of the elderly as well.

    Recognizing the relationships between e-commerce and sustainability, the speakers brainstormed to show both opportunities for the green transition and threats that work against the needed changes. There is no doubt that e-commerce creates the future of world trade, but its increase may result in both rising or dropping the sustainability of consumer behavior. The responsibility for the ultimate consequences of market digitalization should be shared between different actors. Their collaboration in creating favorable conditions for occurring sustainable behaviors and evoking such behaviors on the market is crucial.

    The main opportunities that e-commerce brings to achieve zero-emission goals include better product choice, better comparison options, low costs that stimulate price-sensitive consumers to buy ecological products, reinforcing the sharing economy model by delivering online platforms for the exchange or resale of goods.

    Considering suppliers, the ongoing digitalization brings the possibility of changing business models in line with the circular economy rules (if only the suppliers utilize green packaging solutions, low carbon footprint delivery methods, etc.). Considering the threats that digitalization may evoke, the most important issues concern misleading information, i.e. greenwashing that lowers consumers' trust.

    The bigger number and accessibility of products may also lead e-consumers to bigger purchases and thus increase overconsumption. In this case, advanced technologies used by sellers to track e-consumers choices and personalized commercials also play a role here.

    Introducing sustainable solutions, such as eco-friendly packaging or green delivery systems, challenges e-sellers and forces them to make the tradeoffs between profits and enhancing sustainable consumption. Consumers in developing countries may suffer from exclusion because of the lack of sustainable e-commerce. At least all consumers represent the discrepancy between their positive attitudes toward sustainable solutions and their unsustainable behaviors identified by researchers as an attitude-behavior gap.

    The audience was encouraged to share their opinions on the discussed issues by the question: How empowered do you feel to shop online in a sustainable way? In the response, participants shared their remarks on how beneficial is the change into online buying also in terms of greater sustainability. It allows to trace the whole supply chain and evaluate how energy-consuming the delivery process can be. The idea of labeling the eco-efficiency of online processes similarly to the nutrition tables on food products would inevitably increase e-consumer awareness. Another good example of increasing e-consumer sustainability is to mainstream the idea of browser plug-ins that ask buyers if they really need the product before they tap the purchase button.

    The final issue discussed by the speakers led to conclusions on what different actors can do to enhance sustainable consumption online. Disclosing the standpoint of European policy-makers leads to the conclusion that we should use the power of the single market and keep the right balance between a regulated environment and the right measure of empowerment to consumers. The adequate solution is the change toward introducing more durable, repairable products. Sometimes the decision of not to buy is also the best market choice.

    The NGOs' task is to fight against misleading environmental claims, delivering better quality information and sustainable products. Another important task to fulfill is to increase the accessibility of sustainable internet platforms among less wealthy consumers and in developing countries. Business and local institutions should increase their creativity by searching for more and more sustainable solutions. For example, a good idea is to change from vans to cargo bikes or experiment with on-foot delivery. The responsibility for mainstreaming sustainable behaviors taken by academia reveals in the three fields. Firstly, there is a necessity to intensify research on sustainable consumption and recommend green solutions, e.g. suggesting nudging intervention programs to achieve more sustainable consumer behavior.

    Secondly, a good solution is to encompass sustainability issues into different teaching programs or create independent courses dedicated to this topic, e.g. postgraduate ones. Thirdly, universities should become the patterns of sustainable solutions by taking green actions and engaging students to develop them.

    Finally, to conclude the session, the speakers recommended consumers to get as much information as possible before they purchase, and to look out for the information they trust. The final remarks also included the need for collaboration between policy-makers, businesses, civil society and organizations. Also, good education was stressed as a way to introduce and mainstream more sustainable lifestyles and more sustainable business models both online and onsite.

    IGF 2021 Open Forum #26 Artificial Intelligence (AI) for consumer protection.

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 17:05
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    1. Interdisciplinary approach and cooperation is required while using AI. Using AI for consumer protection carries risks that should be kept in mind while implementing AI-based solutions. 2. Human supervision is essential to balance and to minimize the risk of discrimination and bias. Check and balance system is crucial.

    ,

    3. It is important to learn and work with AI in order to know how to implement it; experimentation with low-risk, repetitive tasks can be helpful. 4. It is important to develop guidelines and framework for implementing AI.

    Session Report

     

    Report on the IGF Open Forum “Artificial Intelligence (AI) for consumer protection” held on December 10th, 2021, in Katowice

    Speakers:

    • Jacek Marczak - Deputy Director of Branch Office in Bydgoszcz, Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKIK)
    • Bob Wouters - e-Lab - Project Manager EU eLab at the European Commission
    • Prof. Monika Namysłowska - University of Łódź
    • Thyme Burdon - Project Manager, OECD Committee on Consumer Policy and Working Party on Consumer Product Safety, Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation
    • Marcin Krasuski - Government Affairs and Public Policy Manager Google Poland

    Moderators:

    • Martyna Derszniak-Noirjean - Director of International Cooperation Office, UOKIK
    • Karol Muż - Director of ECC Poland, European Consumer Center in Poland

    A summary of the main takeaways of the session:

    The session was started by the moderator introducing the topic of the Open Forum and the panelists introducing themselves in turn. The conversation was commenced with an overview presentation of the AI tool that UOKiK is currently developing. The aim of this tool is to help find and eliminate unfair contract terms, through the use of a web crawler that reads and compares scanned terms with a registry of unfair contract terms that has been developed for years. It will help automatize this process of scanning the terms and conditions of contracts within the database as well as external contracts. It then highlights and notifies its human supervisor if an unfair term has been found, for further analysis. As this AI tool is to be used at the end of the next year, it triggered a more general discussion on the types of problems, challenges and issues perceived, in the context of public administration usage of AI and similar technologies.

    One of the speakers noted that despite AI technologies being used to improve or enhance consumer protection interests, there are many associated risks. These can be seen in the form of discriminatory or non-transparent outcomes, such as automatic decision making or issues related to data processing. Interestingly, many of these issues arise from the over or under reliance of public administration staff, which leads to the subject of human accountability and supervision. It was suggested that, public administration should reflect on this. A relevant piece of legislation in this context is being drafted in the EU law. The Act on Artificial Intelligence addresses potential risks when using AI.

    There are many areas in the field of activity of consumer protection agencies where such an AI tool could be used, for example in websites as chatbots, market surveillance, identification of unsafe products being supplied on online marketplaces.

    Later in the meeting, other speakers tried to answer the question about the most important technical challenges in the implementation of AI by public administrations. There is a need for using AI in public administration. Taking into account that the implementation of such an AI tool is time consuming, we need to seek for an agile approach. At the same time, public administration cannot afford low-quality evidence. Therefore, learning from each other through collaboration is crucial. The advice, which comes from the business representative, is to harmonize regulations across the EU in a more scalable way.

    Important ethical issues related to the use of AI by public authorities, such as transparency and fairness of decision-making or proper oversight and concerns on employment reduction, were raised. The key principles that should be applied while using AI are fairness, non-discrimination, awareness of biases, accountability by the agency and possibility to opt out. Breaches of ethics could potentially undo years of credibility and progress. The speakers highlighted that to maintain proper oversight, regular training of staff would be beneficial so that they are aware of their responsibilities but also risks. UOKiK representatives have emphasized that they are very mindful of such issues and wish to anticipate them and incorporate appropriate solutions into the tool from the start. This is the reason why they widely engage in their discussion in initiatives such as the IGF.

    Some of the speakers argued that all tools should be held accountable to a human being and not work without regular supervision. AI is a tool which requires human responsibility to ensure that it functions in a safe and secure manner. However, the counterargument to human supervision, which one speaker put forward, was that not all AI requires oversight. For example, tasks that do not deal with highly sensitive data or those that solely monitor time, do not need constant human supervision. In these cases, such intervention could hinder the AI process, which was developed to increase pace of tasks and shift some from humans to machines. It is, thus, essential to correctly balance the interaction of human supervision and the capacities of the tool.

    The session was concluded with a short summary of the main points discussed and concluding statements from the speakers.

    IGF 2021 WS #121 Platform economy: (post-pandemic) chances for SMEs

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 16:57
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:
    The platform economy with its numerous facets is one of the drivers of digital transformation. ‎For micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) it can be a game changer. Digital ‎platforms offer great potential not only for better serving existing customers but for establishing ‎new economic ecosystems and business models, in particular regarding COVID-19 recovery. ‎, This was an observation shared by the workshop’s participants for the regions they represent. ‎However, to increase the prosperity of entrepreneurs in the digital economy, SMEs need to ‎have a strong voice in Internet Governance and participate in shaping the regulatory ‎framework they operate in.‎
    Calls to Action
    There is a need for a better international alignment of data protection rules and standards. All ‎stakeholders involved, e.g. governments, the private sector including industry associations ‎and civil society organisations should work together to develop such standards based on ‎comprehensive criteria to improve free cross-border data flow. The latter is a prerequisite ‎especially for SMEs to access global markets. , SMEs need a place to participate in and contribute to the development of international ‎standards. The IGF would be a perfect place for such a multistakeholder dialogue.‎
    Session Report

    The participants of this session from Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and Rwanda and the audience discussed benefits and challenges of digital platforms which are acting as intermediaries connecting two or more market players or groups of users from the perspective of SMEs. Furthermore, issues of the corresponding regulatory and governance framework were addressed.

    Benefits

    Almost all of the growth of SMEs is related to digital transformation. The greatest potential of platforms for SMEs lies in the companies' expanded access to national and international markets. 

    The experts observe a development towards a level playing field for SMEs when it comes to participating in the global economy. The improved access to the financial system which comes along with the growth of the platform economy also offers great opportunities for SMEs. Credit facilities and access to insurance are improving, and more data on creditworthiness are available. 

    The implementation of mobile payment solutions is another important driver for the success of SMEs because it allows access to new customers without creating major (financial) burdens for the companies.

    In many countries around the globe, the Covid-19 pandemic has been an accelerator for SMEs to get involved in the platform economy. In some countries, the pandemic has even been described as a wake-up call for SMEs to engage in digital transformation, and this engagement has, in return, developed a structural impact on the economy. Other beneficial trends next to the increasing importance of e-commerce in general have been the growing importance of digital and mobile payments for SMEs’ businesses and the rise of social commerce (i.e. doing business via social media). 

    Challenges

    According to all participants, a main challenge for SMEs in the platform economy is to find reasonable ways to handle data security and privacy issues. Both areas are described as most sensitive and important to ensure trust of customers and business partners across borders. There is a need for a better international alignment of data protection rules or standards (for instance, based on the European General Data Protection Regulation). All stakeholders should work together to develop such standards based on comprehensive criteria to improve cross border data flow which is essential for flourishing economies. 

    Free flow of data is extremely important especially for SMEs as a prerequisite for accessing global markets. They need a place to participate in and contribute to the development of international standards. Such a place is missing, ideally the IGF would fill in.

    It should also be noted that standardisation and certification schemes often are too difficult to be implemented by SMEs. There are solutions to overcome this bottleneck, e.g. the Rwanda Tech Seal initiative, which might serve as a best practice approach for SMEs, also to create trust on the side of customers. 

    Another crucial point of the discussion and a main challenge for SMEs to implement digital and platform solutions is the scarcity of skilled labour. This obstacle to a thriving platform economy has been observed across continents. Especially start-ups find it hard to find the job employees and, once they’ve found them, to afford the high wages required. In this context, matching platforms might be helpful. 

    To meet this challenge, even more effort is needed in education, too: Curricula on technology and coding should be integrated as early as possible. Also, there is a need for people who translate between the IT and the business sides because skills online are not identical with skills offline. Furthermore, the lack of language skills is an issue for SMEs who want to participate in global markets.

    Regulatory and governance framework

    The participants of the session were concerned about fragmentation trends in global internet governance. Especially restrictions of the free flow of data would threaten global trade and business perspectives of SMEs.

    On the contrary, connecting SMEs across borders is essential for future development and a main challenge for governance processes. There is a continuing need for bringing together SMEs with the Internet Governance community. This requires translation between cultures and languages as well as places suited for these tasks. Therefore, further multistakeholder initiatives are essential.

    Regarding cyber security, the panel agreed that thresholds for SMEs should not be lowered, but that SMEs should be enabled to level up.

    Session Rapporteur: Thorsten Grothe, Grothe Media Consult

    IGF 2021 Open Forum #10 AI and the Rule of Law in the Digital Ecosystem

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 16:37
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    There is a consensus on the critical importance of capacity building for judicial operators regarding AI and the rule of law. It requires moving beyond basic understanding to expertise and inclusive training for using and mobilizing tools and algorithmic processing across cases, both in criminal and civilian justice. It is also about equipping judicial operators with the capacity to bridge the gap from principles to practice.

    ,

    Algorithmic bias and related transparency issues were identified as core challenges associated with AI in justice systems. The need to resort to such systems was thoroughly acknowledged, given the benefits they bring, while recognizing some of their main challenges. A better understanding of AI systems and bias, as well as continued global dialogue were identified as key to ensure that the tools used are fair and offer guarantees.

    Calls to Action

    Moving from education to training by equipping judges and judicial operators with a common understanding of AI the Rule of Law.

    ,

    The three pillars of the Athens RoundTable (policies, competence, and standards) need to be developed and implemented. A set of policies comprising from how courts operate to how companies operate needs to be designed and implemented, in combination with trust and multi-stakeholder cooperation in order to create a combination of self, soft and hard regulatory mechanisms, along with the tools to implement them.

    Session Report

    Artificial Intelligence and the Rule of Law in the Digital Ecosystem Internet Governance Forum 2021  

    On 7 December 2021, the Internet Governance Open Forum on Artificial Intelligence and the Rule of Law in the Digital Ecosystem

    was presented by Nicolas Miailhe (founder & president of the Future Society), Isabela Ferrari (Federal Judge at the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice) and Benes Aldana (President of the National Judicial College), with opening words from UNESCO and Cetic.br | NIC.br, and moderated by UNESCO.

    Nicolas Miailhe, founder & president of the Future Society, and co-partner in UNESCO’s Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) on AI and the Rule of Law started by stressing the critical importance of capacity building, and the mission of the course on AI and the Rule of Law for duty bearers. With this course, the Future Society aim to close gaps in two dimensions. One, is moving from education to training by equipping judges and judicial operators with a collective understanding of what AI and the Rule of Law, AI for the Rule of law, and the Rule of Law for AI means. Once we understand, we must move from a basic understanding to a more expertised and inclusive training on using and mobilizing the tools and algorithmic processing across cases in situations in criminal and civilian justice. Secondly, it is also about equipping judicial operators with the capacity to bridge the gap from principles to practice. Per Nicolas Mialhe “It has to be the result of ‘smart cocktails’ of self, soft and hard regulatory mechanisms.” Prateek Sibal, considered how the idea to work with a community of lawyers bringing AI cases to court could also be a way to go from principles to practice. 

    The digital revolution has gradually brought a variety of technologies into daily human interactions, and more recently AI has begun to be displayed in daily human activities. Legal disputes surrounding AI are therefore inevitable and judges need the training and the capacity to understand its legal and ethical implications. To provide examples, Benes Aldana, president of the National Judicial College, introduced the use of AI in medicine which can be expected to give rise to a multitude of malpractice scenarios such as misdiagnosis, improper treatment, bad outcome, privacy concerns, emotional distress caused by faulty diagnose, and potential discrimination if AI would prioritize the allocation of limited medical resources for patient care. There are other areas; how do defamation laws apply to AI generated speech? What ground rules should be in place when we use AI in sentencing? Per Benes Aldana, “The challenge for the judiciary will be challenging our most fundamental commitment of fairness, due process and truth. The future path of AI is neither predetermined nor beyond our influence, and the judiciary plays a crucial role in guiding the conversation on AI.”

    Deep diving into the use if AI in the judiciary and specific use cases of AI in the Brazilian justice system, Supreme Court Judge Isabella Ferrari introduced the VICTOR tool, currently used in the Brazilian Supreme Court. To understand the benefits and threats of this tool, we need to understand how it the tool works and Brazilian’s unique mitigation environment. As Brazil has a heavy case load pendency, the Brazilian justice system already started implementing electronic lawsuits in 2010 and added a new requirement of general repercussion for the Supreme Court, which VICTOR now helps to categorize in a quick manner. Besides, the tool has been used to decipher massive amounts of files and recognize and categorize the most important parts and decisions necessary for the lawsuit. According to Judge Isabella Ferrari,we have a super AI tool that understands everything that is happening in all the Brazilian courts, all lawsuits from the beginning to its end, it is a superpower, and every superpower comes with big risks.” Considering the risks, as VICTOR is still in the testing phase, parties are not advised and unaware of its use so cannot appeal on it. In rebutting the common argument that VICTOR only suggests, Judge Ferrari links this to algorithmic bias.

    With regards to the impact of AI on the Rule of Law and related challenges, Benes Aldana identified Algorithmic bias as a core challenge associated with AI in justice systems and concluded that “we need a better understanding of AI systems and bias to ensure that the tools we use in the court are fair.”  (For a more specific analysis on this issues, please refer to the "Reflection on gender issues" section of this report.)

    Another area we should educate judges on is autonomous vehicles, involving injuries and death, with a set of complex legal questions in tort and criminal law and issues of causation arising from faulty AI decision-making. It will challenge judges in term of identifying the responsible party – owner of the machine, manufacturer, software developers, and various other contributors. Judge Ferrari added her perspective on human rights challenges in the Supreme Court of Brazil by reiterating the crucial importance of online courts and the use of AI in the Brazilian justice system to combat everlasting case pendency in Brazil, but to do so in a safe way. “We shouldn’t stop progress especially in countries where it is needed but must ensure the right path and continue global dialogue to guide us to this path.”

    In discussing the path forward, the NJC will expand the reach of current training on AI and the Rule of Law by continuing effort such as UNESCO and the Future Society’s MOOC on AI and the Rule of law, provide courses and webinars on different topics of AI, and considers the Athens Roundtable as an excellent first step to share critical information on AI and justice. The Athens RoundTable aims to achieve a form of a call to action to understand the difference between AI that can be trusted and AI that cannot to advance justice. To answer this question, Judge Isabela Ferrari displayed the importance of understanding the basic of AI operations. What can I ask developers regarding transparency, why are they using decision trees, and can they use more transparent tools? We must demand as much transparency and accountability as possible and need to highlight and understand the issue of bias; both data and design bias. Besides understanding the basic operations, we need to ask ourselves where can we make mistakes, not criminal law, not with peoples freedom, so where is it a safe space to use AI? AI can and should be used in various ways throughout the Brazilian justice system, but “where can AI help us in a safe place and where do we leave the work to judges?”

    In finding the line between AI that can be trusted and AI that cannot advance justice, Nicolas Miailhi focused on the three pillars of the Athens RoundTable: policies, competence, and standards. As the MOOC is doing, we must equip judges and judicial operators to properly discharge their duties in a way that creates trust, we need move into more objective measurements including bench marking standards. Like the MOOC is doing, we need to equip judges and judicial operators with the capacity, competence. We need a set of policies - from how courts operate up to how companies operate. “Without trust and multi-stakeholder cooperation we will not be able to create the necessary cocktail of ‘self, soft and hard regulatory mechanisms along with the tools to achieve it’”.

    When covering one of the Q&A questions during the session Judge Ferrari considered the intersection of AI and Intellectual property by considering the notions of creation, inventions and how this human ability is shifting toward technology. AI is already painting, creating music, and even creating perfume. Per Ferrari; “If an algorithm has created a perfume, who is the owner of the creation, is it the algorithm, the programmer?” By adding another field of law to the discussion, Judge Ferrari wants us to understand the complex scope of AI and how it will affect most fields of law. For example; civil liability in the case of autonomous cars and responsibility. There are thousands of questions without answer. “If in law we are used to look for an answer of a problem that exists, now with AI, we have no answers. This is the beauty and the beast of AI, and we need to discuss everything, in all the different fields of law, but it will take time.”

    Answering to another question on prioritizing between regulatory versus standardization, Nicolas Miailhe agrees that both take time to be well-developed. Taking the lengthy timeline of the GDPR as an example to show that legislation takes time to materialize and often falls behind technology. Nonetheless, standards also take time. In addition to the issues of industrial requirements, political and economic reality has to be accounted for. That is why the Athens Roundtable tries to create bridges to help decide on the meaning of interoperable standards, converging international conventions on AI and human rights, self-determination, and pluralism. These questions are not easily answered, and we need to advance in parallel. Looking at the EU AI Act, the EU is trying to do exactly that by trying to advance a hard law instrument and having delegated the requirement to develop a set of standards to render this legislation smatter in avoiding overspecification. Prateek Sibal added that “soft regulation and standers are especially helpful because technology is evolving, often faster than the law, pinning with standards so you can update the stand. As we can see, the dialogue was built on each other´s views without any clear point of disagreement.

     

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #33 Digital currencies paving a way for digital innovations

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 16:15
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    Digital currency is an evolving concept, complementing existing digital solutions enabling how people pay. The usage of blockchain is matured, competition from the private sector accelerates developments and pilots of CBDCs are already running. Emergence of new forms of payments is inevitable, and countries should act decisively to adapt to this digital change addressing specific needs of different stakeholders.

    ,

    The need to innovate still remains, as new technologies may bring better solutions. Financial inclusion is a huge aspect of the conversation around CBDC, as this solution may help close the gap for the underbanked to digital infrastructure. CBDC can make cross-border transactions more effective and bring interoperability of digital currencies. Tailor made approach is required to embrace opportunities for the whole ecosystem.

    Calls to Action

    Introducing digital currencies requires political decisions and changing the law. Politicians should be open to digital currencies concept and initiate the dialogue with central banks, commercial and technology partners on the features of digital currencies’ framework. They should encourage broad public discussion to develop digital currencies' system in a democratic way, guaranteeing privacy of its users, user-centric appoach and effective tools

    ,

    Central banks, commercial banks, fintechs and other state and private institutions should experiment with different technical solutions to choose those most adequate for specific societies' goals. Existing international organisations could lead on the standardisation and interoperability aspect of CBDC and ensure equal dialogue and participation of different entities in creation of digital currencies ecosystem.

    Session Report

    The concept of digital money - a virtual equivalent of cash - has been under discussion for more than a decade. In this session we talked with our panellists and the esteemed audience on digital currencies representing an evolution of money movement and a growing potential to extend digital payments.

    During the discussion the participants focused on central bank digital currencies (CBDC - backed by the central bank), but also the differences between them and stablecoins (digital currencies backed by fiat money held at commercial banks, e.g. US digital currency) and cryptocurrencies (non-sovereign digital currencies backed by on distributed ledger technology, e.g. Bitcoin). Main conclusions of the conversation are as follows:

    New forms of payments are inevitable, hence stakeholders should be open and flexible to testing new solutions

    Catherine Gu, Global CBDC Lead at Visa introduced the discussion expressing that digital currency is an evolving concept, complementing existing digital solutions enabling how people pay. She stressed that the usage of blockchain is matured, competition from the private sector accelerates developments and pilots of CBDCs are already running. Hence, emergence of new forms of payments will be inevitable, and countries should act decisively to adapt to this digital change addressing specific needs of different stakeholders. The need to innovate still remains, as new technologies may bring better solutions. According to Visa discussions, financial inclusion is a huge aspect of the conversation around CBDC, as this solution may help close the gap for the underbanked to digital infrastructure. Marek Dietl, CEO of the Warsaw Stock Exchange, stated that capital markets are primary users of digital currencies and Polish capital market is the biggest in CEE region so digital currency is a natural source of interest for Warsaw Stock Exchange. He expressed the belief that CBDC has various benefits – it can make cross-border transactions more effective, may be used for social benefits or state aid and bring interoperability of digital currencies. Peder Østbye, Special Advisor in Financial Infrastructure Department at Norges Bank shared the experiences of Norwegian central bank pilot project on CBDC which started more than 5 years ago and was launched because of low cash usage in Norway and precautionary principles. Experimental testing is still ongoing and will last until June 2023, but initial results showed in which direction should Norwegian central bank go in order to meet the needs of Norwegian society. Østbye underlined that introduction of CBDC requires political will and legislative changes and that central banks should be open and flexible, as CBDC can enable cash substitution in some countries or improve monetary systems in others.

    Transparency, user-centric approach and standardisation are key aspects to take care of by the decisionmakers

    The discussion between participants of the session focused mainly on the issues of granting transparency, high user experience of CBDCs and standardisation. Common challenge noticed by participants of the discussion was how to ensure the mass adoption of CBDC. One of the conclusions was the idea of existing international organisations leading the standardisation aspect of digital currencies’ developments. There is a strong need for standardisation of CBDCs, as specific private provider wouldn’t benefit the whole ecosystem. Nevertheless, it was also emphasized  that CBDC and stablecoins can exist parallelly.

    Selected central banks already conduct pilot projects on digital currencies and their experience could be used by the others in order to develop the best framework for digital currencies.

    Guaranteeing privacy for the users of digital currency was a noticed challenge by some of the participants of the discussion. It was concluded that this is an aspect that should be monitored by international organisations.  

    Participants of the discussion agreed that CBDC could use variety of tools and solutions, but political decisions should be made first in order to define specific goals for the country. Tailor made approach is required to embrace opportunities for the whole ecosystem and active dialogue between all stakeholders and a user-centric approach will be crucial to develop innovative and secure framework for CBDCs. Central banks, commercial banks, fintechs and other state and private institutions should experiment with different technical solutions to choose those most adequate for specific societies' goals. Politicians should be open to digital currencies concept and initiate the dialogue with central banks, commercial and technology partners on the features of digital currencies’ framework. They should encourage broad public discussion to develop digital currencies' system in a democratic way, guaranteeing privacy of its users, user-centric approach and effective tools.

    IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #15 Closing the gap between the theory of digital security and the practice of insecurity

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 16:04
    Key Takeaways:

    In the breakout groups different topics on Internet standards were discussed. The main points made, all concern the need for broader and deeper forms of cooperation between stakeholders: the rech community, industry, governments, consumer organisations, etc. Together they have to establish consitions for the more widespread deployment of Inernet standards. The DC-ISSS can facilitate these processes through guidelines and policy recommendations.

    Calls to Action

    Very diverse actions to promote standards deployment were identified. 1) Convene all relevant stakeholders, 2) Develop trust components; 3) Create capacity building programmes; 4) Engage decision takers 5) Create a list of urgent best practices.

    Session Report

    The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety (now renamed the Internet Standards, Security and Safety Coalition with the acronym IS3C as announced at the main DC session on day 3) discussed how to close the gap between the much discussed theory of cyber security and the daily experience of insecurity online.

    The workshop had a clear focus. The IS3C wanted to gather insight, good practises, ideas and (potential) solutions from the participants and learn about how they experience the discussed gap and how they envision to close it. The takeaways and actions reflect the contributions of the participants, not, necessarily, the current approach of the IS3C.

    The agenda was planned to include five parallel breakout sessions with individual challenges. Due to technical problems with the IGF website at the start of day zero, it was decided to create two parallel groups: one group for stakeholders participating online; and one for the onsite participants in Katowice.

    The following takeaways and actions were identified and agreed.

    Takeaways 

    i. Importance of cybersecurity standards

    1. Making the Internet more secure and safer is extremely important for national economies and society generally, in order to realise the full benefits of digital transformation.
    2. The complexity and divergence of agreed standards and protocols is a challenge for consumers. Harmonisation of security-related standards is not technically easy due to the complexity of applications and requirements of different users such as big corporate enterprises, SMEs (small and medium-sized enterprises) and micro-businesses, individual users and public sector administrations. However, the tech community should aim to establish minimum design standards for the security of devices and network applications.    
    3. More open processes of standards development would foster beneficial cooperation e.g. with civil society and government policymakers. 

    ii. Empowerment of stakeholders

    1. Mechanisms for protecting the security of consumers online need to be developed such as certification and labelling schemes.
    2. Wider societal rights, business needs and consumer requirements should be included as topics in training curricula for engineers.
    3. Ensuring decision-takers have more knowledge about security-related standards should be a common goal for the tech sector.
    4. Need to assist micro-businesses and SMEs who lack the technical capacity to strengthen their online security.
    5. Developing and least developed countries need assistance in addressing cybersecurity challenges through effective deployment of security-related standards in their digital economies.

    iii. Role of governments

    1. Governments could lead by example through their procurement programmes.
    2. Governments could consider making the requirement of security-related standards mandatory.

    iv. Role of consumers

    1. The role of consumer advocacy organisations needs to be explored.

     

    Actions

    For all IS3C members:

    1. Bring together the stakeholder communities so that they can understand each other better and work together in support the deployment of security-related standards.
    2. Assist developing and least developed countries to develop the expertise and capacity to make informed choices about cyber security standards.
    3. Consider which tools and advisory services are available or need to be developed to help SMEs and small and micro-businesses, who due to size have no the necessary technical capacity.
    4. Address the potential role of consumer advocacy groups and whether to start a new Working Group in 2022.

     

    For IS3C Working Group 1

    1. Develop a set of principles for technology developers that will promote greater trust.

     

    For IS3C Working Group 3

    1. Provide guidance for private sector decision-takers on how to make well-informed purchasing decisions relating choices on to cyber security standards.
    2. Assist public and private sector decision-makers in identifying which security-related standards to prioritise in their procurement and supply chain management processes.
    3. Assist government policymakers on how they can influence the markets for more secure devices and network applications through their procurement policies.   

    The IS3C will take these views and recommendations into account when finalising its workplan for 2022-23 following IGF 2021. We thank all our participants for their time and valuable contributions in this session.

     

    IGF 2021 WS #170 Child Protection Online - How to legislate?

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 15:45
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    Change the perspective on regulation; make dialogue on regulatory measures mandatory; develop an overall strategy to ensure a joint exercise of responsibility; adhere to a system of proportionality to address a potential trade-off between a broad duty of care and specific obligations; follow a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary approach; develop and enforce acceptable standards that go down to practice and to the technical community.

    ,

    Adhere to a system of proportionality to address a potential trade-off between a broad duty of care and specific obligations; follow a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary approach; develop and enforce acceptable standards that go down to practice and to the technical community.

    Calls to Action

    Think from the perspective of the child not from a technical one; make the UN-CRC and the GC. 25 a reference; create a new type of regulators and beef regulatory authorities up; bear in mind systemic risks on very big platforms need mitigation obligations, don’t assume small is safe; risk assessment is key to ensuring a safe space; oblige companies to implement precautionary measures and give them time to develop those in an ongoing process

    ,

    Create a new type of regulators and beef regulatory authorities up; bear in mind systemic risks on very big platforms need mitigation obligations, don’t assume small is safe; risk assessment is key to ensuring a safe space; oblige companies to implement precautionary measures and give them time to develop those in an ongoing process.

    Session Report

    Report

    Panelists lined out regulatory approaches to child online safety from Egypt, Ghana with references to other countries on the African continent, UK, Germany and on European Commission level. In addition the perspective from industry on various regulatory approaches was given by Meta / facebook.

    For Egypt Hoda Dahroug outlined their country’s  supportive regulation and policies to ensure safe access to the Internet as a basic right for 100 Mio people in Egypt. A special focus is given to the production of age appropriate content.

    Speaking for countries on the African continent Kenneth Adu-Amanfoh explained the high relevance of digital technologies and the challenges of a borderless unregulated Internet. He raised the issue of children not even knowing their rights and the difficulties to educate them. Ghana therefore has developed a child online safety strategy that is now also adopted in other countries, f.e. Kenia.

    Beeban Kidron referred to the Age Appropriate Design Code recently adopted in the UK and the Online Safety Bill that is underway. In regard of the EU Digital Services Act she pointed out that the beginning era of regulation should adhere to the principle of the best interest of the child as laid down in Art. 24 (2) of the European Charter on Human Rights and Art. 3 of the UN-CRC. Policy makers should not reinvent the wheel but, being conscious of national legislation, avoid unintended consequences of regulation on European level.

    Thomas Salzmann from the German Federal Agency for Child and Youth Protection based his statement on the UN-CRC’s triangle of protection, provision and participation of children. Germany is following an approach of dialogic regulation to enforce industry’s duty of care; he called on platform providers for joint responsibility and pre-cautionary measures.

    For the European Commission DG CNECT Agne Kaarlep underlined the objective of the Digital Services Act to ensure users’ safety online and protection of fundamental rights. Systemic risks associated with algorithms and content moderation need to be addressed by a holistic strategy, on EU level the Audiovisual and Media Services Directive as well as the Strategy for the Rights of the Child and the Strategy to combat child sexual abuse together with the DSA provide of a regulatory response.

    David Miles pointed out for Meta / facebook that children’s digital lives were not regulated 10 years ago. Nowadays there are excellent best practice examples like the GDPR and the Age Appropriate Design Code in place and companies are willing to act upon such regulation.

    The debate then focused on the following policy questions:

    1. How to ensure that government regulation, self-regulation and co-regulation approaches to content moderation and child online safety are compliant with human rights frameworks, are transparent and accountable, and enable a safe, united and inclusive Internet?

    Key take-aways from this question are:

    Change the perspective on regulation; make dialogue on regulatory measures mandatory; develop an overall strategy to ensure a joint exercise of responsibility; adhere to a system of proportionality to address a potential trade-off between a broad duty of care and specific obligations; follow a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary approach; develop and enforce acceptable standards that go down to practice and to the technical community.

    1. What needs to be done by the respective stakeholders to ensure the human rights granted to children in the UN-CRC are protected, respected and fulfilled in a digital environment? 

    Key take-aways from this question are:

    Think from the perspective of the child not from a technical point of view; make the UN-CRC and the General Comment No. 25 a reference for regulation (i.e. in regard of the definition what is a child, etc.); create a new type of regulators and beef regulatory authorities up  

    1. Ensuring a safe digital space: How should governments, Internet businesses and other stakeholders protect citizens, including vulnerable citizens, against online exploitation and abuse?

    Key take-aways from this question are:

    Establish strong political will; go with radical transparency (and not play hide and seek with the big companies; bear in mind systemic risks on very big platforms need mitigation obligations but don’t assume small is safe; establish risk assessment as a key to ensuring a safe space; oblige companies to implement precautionary measures and give them time to develop those in an ongoing process

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #19 Paving the road for the European Regulation on AI

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 15:40
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    It's needed a global center that monitors the use of AI, just as there are internet that we have international regulators. This global center has clear human rights.

    ,

    The technical community must be trained in terms of human rights in order for it to be considered in the development of AI-based systems.

    Session Report

    The risk-based approach that the new European Regulation on AI wanted to address is that some risks cannot be mitigated. Therefore, any regulation on AI should have the possibility of bans. Additionally, there is a risk that some systems that pose threats are left out. If the mechanism for including new systems is slow, this could be a problem.

    The rollback effects of AI systems pose a high risk that the community is not yet ready to deal with.

    Engineers have a great challenge when developing this technology since they do not have a regulation that serves as a guiding instrument to assess the risks created by the product they designed.

    In terms of human responsibility, the international human rights framework could determine the responsibilities of the actors involved in the algorithmic life cycle and thus define harm precisely.

    International law is difficult to modify because it is based on the model of nation-states. One of the main problems is establishing the limits of human control over autonomous systems. Another point to consider is creating an entity responsible for artificial intelligence because entities in international law are human beings, nation-states, and international organizations. Under the terms of international law, there is no conceptualization of an AI entity is. Academics agree that it is necessary to examine AI entities by national bodies. The dichotomy between decision support systems and decision-making systems is persistent. It is difficult to identify who is accountable when autonomous systems support human decisions.

    There is a risk-based approach to systems implemented with AI. Not only there are prohibited systems, but there is also an issue of liability and damages. Facial recognition is under question due to privacy concerns.

    In the United States, the NIST is developing a more oriented proposal to analyze variables similar to those contained in the new European regulation, but this potential regulatory framework is not ready yet. 

    The proposed EU AI regulation has a title constructed around the prohibitions. In many of the legislative initiatives worldwide, there are no express prohibitions. Today, we still do not understand the impact, the full scope of technologies like AI, and the red lines that should not be crossed. Some risks cannot be mitigated. 

    The problem is that no one has developed a framework to assess the risks created for systems that surround essential aspects of our lives.

    Risk assessment has become the most appropriate tool to face new technologies since they have entered the digital field. Nevertheless, we have been dealing with them for very little time.

    The Council of Europe maps 506 regulatory / governance initiatives related to an AI governance regulation, and it does not even map them all.

    Transparency must be considered within a technical context; this is the transparency of what we are using and the things we can clearly describe in human language. Transparency is also the basis for any legitimate and healthy use of data. 

    We are trying to find a more-global and meaningful way to assess risks that make the technology useable. A robust and universal framework can regulate, manage, or govern AI within a given jurisdiction. This is the lesson of the European regulatory framework.

    How do we seat impact in terms of jurisdiction that AI could have?

    Among the main conclusions of this panel, we can mention the following ones:

    • A big issue is the lack of training on the ethics of AI, the basic principles of human rights, and risk evaluation.
    • The technical community should be trained in human rights to consider in the development of AI-based systems. 
    • The risks involved in applying AI should be mitigated. AI regulation should include bans.
    • Creating a global center that monitors the use of AI is recommended. This global center would create clear human rights guidelines to follow.
    • A geopolitical consensus is needed for the governance of AI; global standards like the GDPR are necessary. Then other jurisdictions could impose similar bans. 
    • It is possible to have a robust universal framework to regulate, manage, or govern AI within a given jurisdiction and help us to assess risk for users. 
    • A broad definition of AI is necessary to adopt a risk-based approach. The risk needs a avoid the impact observed in some specific use cases, like migration and access to education. What is important is the impact AI systems can have on fundamental rights.
    • A broad definition of AI systems is necessary to adopt a risk-based approach. The risk needs a deeper evaluation to avoid the impact in some instances, such as migration and access to education, among others. What is important is the impact that systems can have on fundamental rights.
    IGF 2021 Open Forum #39 Inclusive and Safe Connectivity for Children and Adults

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 15:39
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:

    • Ubiquitous access to affordable high-quality broadband services has become even more critical with the Covid-19 pandemic. The health crisis furthermore demonstrated an urgent need to establish enabling and equitable conditions for vulnerable groups such as children, so that they can exercise their rights and engage with the digital environment in a safe and beneficial manner.

    Calls to Action

    Foster the full potential of high-quality connectivity and ensure equal access and a safe and beneficial digital environment for all, including children.

    Session Report

    This Open Forum reflected on the OECD Recommendation on Broadband Connectivity (part I) and the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment (part II) by engaging representatives from government, business, and civil society.

    Part I

    The three participants to the panel in the first part agreed that the OECD Recommendation on Broadband Connectivity presents a key reference for policy makers and regulatory authorities to unleash the full potential of connectivity.

    Akihiko Sasaki from the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications indicated that the key to success is to keep modernising regulations for communication services so that the government is able to foster investment and innovation. Such regulations may include simplified entry procedures, open access to essential facilities, and fair competition for service while safeguarding consumer’s rights.

    He furthermore mentioned that where market-based approaches are not sufficient, the government could support deploying ICT infrastructure and use cases through national development plans. As local governments play a major role in broadband deployment, leadership and understanding of local decision makers is important to implement the plans.

    Daniel Cavalcanti from the Brazilian Ministry of Communications added that policy and regulation play a key role in addressing the challenges of expanding coverage and providing high-quality broadband access, while promoting competition and investment.

    He pointed at the importance of open and neutral Internet Exchange Points (IXPs). Furthermore, mobile connectivity, while not a substitute for fibre, is necessarily part of the solution to provide affordable access for all.

    Mr Cavalcanti moreover mentioned the crucial role of fibre infrastructure for robust and resilient broadband networks. New mobile 5G networks will require the use of fibre backhaul, presenting an opportunity to promote sustainable fibre network expansion. 

    Finally, Zeimm Auladin-Suhootoorah from BDO IT Consulting pointed at the security risks that are growing every day, especially since the pandemic. She added that it is essential that adequate resources are allocated to promote the improvement of digital skills for all users of the internet.

    She furthermore highlighted the importance of a coordinated approach towards monitoring networks and that we need to have policies in place to ensure that network service providers provide transparent reporting so that end-users can make better choices.

    Monitoring of data through internet exchange gateways can be very useful in securing the internet. The use of Artificial Intelligence can make securing public networks proactive rather than reactive. However, we have to be careful on the limits of monitoring information on the internet and have a multistakeholder and transparent approach so that the data is not used for repression by some governments.

    Part II

    The second part of the panel focused on the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment. Elettra Ronchi from the OECD Secretariat started this part of the panel by providing an overview of the Recommendation.

    Ms Ronchi higlighted that the the OECD Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment, which was adopted in May 2021 at the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting, aims to help countries to find a balance between protecting children from online risks, and promoting the opportunities and benefits that the digital world provides. The Recommendation sets out principles for promoting a safe and beneficial digital environment for children, recommendations on overarching policy frameworks, and highlights the importance of international co-operation.

    Ms Ronchi higlighted that alongside the Recommendation, the OECD developed the Guidelines for Digital Service Providers, in recognition of the essential role they play in providing a safe and beneficial digital environment. The Guidelines aim to support digital service providers in taking actions that may directly or indirectly affect children in the digital environment. Ms Ronchi concluded her presentation by noting that the Guidelines are intended to complement the Recommendation, and to be read in conjunction with it.

    Following Ms Ronchi’s presentation, Brian O’Neill took the floor and focused on key findings from Ireland’s National Advisory Council for Online Safety report. Many of the findings arising out of this research reflect the key conclusions of the OECD’s substantial analytical work which underpinned the Recommendation. In particular, Mr O’Neill highlighted that most children feel safe in the digital environment, they are positive about it and recognise that it provides them a wide array of opportunities. In spite of these benefits, as underlined by the OECD’s own revised Typology of Risks, there are significant concerns for children in the digital environment including content, contact, and conduct risks among others. These risks were exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    After Mr O’Neill’s presentation, Alexandre Barbosa provided an overview from the angle of measurement. Although there are advances in connectivity, Mr Barbosa’s research from Brazil clearly showed that there is still work to be done to address the digital divide for children.  In this regard, providing conditions to ensure physical access to the Internet are essential, but are not sufficient.  It is also essential that children can access digital devices that are appropriate for their intended use. For instance, mobile devices with low functionality may limit their usability for children when they are using them to undertake complex tasks, such as writing or doing homework. It is also crucial that children are equipped with the necessary digital literacy skills.

    Lastly, Amelia Vance provided a perspective on the unintended consequences of laws and regulations and outlined possible solutions on how we stakeholders can mitigate these concerns. These include being specific about which risks the policy is intended to address or bringing marginalized groups into policymaking.

    Finally, Ms Audrey Plonk from the OECD provided concluding remarks and thanked the moderators, speakers and participants of the panel.

    IGF 2021 WS #169 Regulating digital platforms from and for the Global South

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 14:44
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    Market and Society are being reshaped by online platforms. In this sense online platforms are gaining power in the digital world, generating high impact torughout the globe especially on the Global South. These impacts may be either positive or negative, depending on the local reality. Thus it is necessary to focus on a multistakeholder approach, harmonization of standards with an inclusive view, and a more uniform approach to be sought.

    ,

    Any type of regulation must observe the needs and safeguards for Human Rights, Freedom of Speech and Privacy protections for individuals, regardless of the regulation model and according to local realities, regulations and specific regional constraints, towards a more salutary local development and inclusive growth.

    Calls to Action

    The Society as a whole must start to think and to streamline what would be a potential post-platform future, in which society can recover from the high dependency and concentration of Platforms, recalling autonomy and digital sovereignty.

    ,

    All stakeholders must work together so as to boost local growth and development of the different countries and regions, bearing in mind the necessary increase in investments from big platforms to fostering local SMEs and improving local realities.

    Session Report

    This workshop was organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee - CGI.br and had the focus on how digital labor around the world are aligned with the international frameworks for decent work. The session was moderated by Mr. Henrique Faulhaber, and had the following participants:

    - Aneta Wiewiórowska-Domagalska, Technical Community, Osnabrück University, Eastern European Regional Group

    - Renata Avila, Civil Society, Executive Director - Open Knowledge; Latin American and Caribbean Group

    - Subhashish Bhadra, Civil Society, Principal - Omidyar Network, Asia-Pacific Group

    - Emmanuel Vitus, Private Sector, Executive Director - AW Free, African Group

    - Agustina Ordoñez, Technical Community, Yale University, Latin American and Caribbean Group

    The session had an introduction and closure by the moderator and three main segments: a first segment in which a subject-matter expert made a presentation on the most well-known current discussion on the issue, which is the case of the European Union; a second segment in which speakers presented their views on the topic and framed the discussion from a Global South point of view; and a third in which the discussion followed with an overarching debate with the audience. The moderator received questions from online and onsite audiences and directed some of them to the round-table.

    To guide the discussions, the moderator posed the following policy questions to participants:

    1. Which are the main aspects that should be taken into account when regulating digital platforms to promote social and economic inclusion?

    2. Are traditional antitrust measures and competition safeguards enough to address structural digitization/data-related challenges of Global South countries’ economies and societies?

    3. What is the role of multistakeholderism and governments from Global South countries in platform governance in order to boost digital economy and enable a more inclusive economic growth?

    The questions were reasonably covered by participants’ interventions, especially questions 1 and 3. Other than that, participants addressed topics that derived from the presentations, questions from the audience and also additional questions from the moderator.

     1st speaker: Aneta Wiewiórowska-Domagalska, Technical Community, Osnabrück University, Eastern European Regional Group

    Dr Aneta started with a broad vision from a Private Lawyer perspective. She pondered how platforms have been shaping Markets and the world in general. The difference within platform economy is that Market is reshaped by online platforms, which are comprised of, among other elements, gatekeepers and private regulation. The platforms themselves put on rules to the ecosystem. A type of economy strongly based on data collection and usage, with major harms to online privacy, other than the use of AI and other tools, with social and political impacts. The result is that platforms are “quasi state”, taking on the position of enforcers. Aneta quoted a set of regulations, such as the GDPR and a regulation to fight online terrorist content. For her, it is not sufficient, given that systemic risks can not be handled nationally. The regulations available are scattered and there’s a lack of coordination in this sense. She also noted the complexity of power struggle in the field.

     2nd speaker: Renata Avila, Civil Society, Executive Director - Open Knowledge; Latin American and Caribbean Group

    Ms Renata Avila started her intervention recalling the history of debates over the Internet and the evolution of the Internet itself. She made a comparison between the introduction of cars within the Global South and the introduction of smartphones in people’s lives, events that caused major changes in society organization. She pointed out how we have got increasingly dependent on Platforms within the digital world where a platform or app is the default option to connect. In this sense, she called upon everyone to think of the possibility of a post-platform future, recovering from dependency and recalling the autonomy of individuals and peoples. She also pointed out the impact of platforms on society, shedding light to the way in which platforms in the end socialize the costs of their operations but not the profits. Platforms took advantage of digitization and do not contribute to society, besides avoiding public law in general. In a reality check exercise, she recalled how small and micro enterprises and poorest people from the Latin America and the Caribbean Region depend absolutely on 4 or 5 platforms to make their living. She also pondered that regulation seems to be impossible and that it might be necessary to think of a post-platform online structure, where small players can have a voice without being steamrolled by tech giants, recalling autonomy and digital sovereignty.

     3rd speaker: Subhashish Bhadra, Civil Society, Principal - Omidyar Network, Asia-Pacific Group

    Mr Subhashish Bhadra initiated his intervention underlining the increasing adoption of Internet tools within society, especially platforms like Whatsapp and Facebook, mainly through mobile connections. He pondered the complex relationship of platforms and individuals, especially due to the date extraction model. He underscored the overall predominance of traditional Big Tech companies within the reality of India. The companies act as moderators themselves and are embedded in people’s lives. Subhashish raised the issue of local-based platforms as means for local development. He stated that the platform layer should be owned by government and society, and that only the application layer should be owned by private stakeholders. He argued that government incentives to locally-based platforms and to break monopolies are important to regulation and innovation of the digital infrastructure.

    4th speaker: Emmanuel Vitus, Private Sector, Executive Director - AW Free, African Group

    Mr Emmanuel Vitus initiated his intervention stating that regulation is a real problem in African countries, giving examples such as cyberbullying, gender violence and others. He said that most laws enacted by the government target violence speech. Emmanuel called attention for vaguely defined concepts and processes within enacted laws and the uses and misuses of those laws by governments in the region. There is also the problem of designing one-size fits all regulations, an approach that does not work within the African context, for several reasons, including the linguistic diversity of the continent. He presented high concerns over human rights protection within these regulations and pointed out to the need of frameworks that are more inclusive to regulate platforms. He also recalled the multistakeholder approach as the guiding principle for these discussions and that this may pose difficulties for more government engagement in general.

    5th speaker: Ms. Agustina Ordoñez, Technical Community, Yale University, Latin American and Caribbean Group

    Ms. Agustina Ordoñez gave speech on frameworks of legislation to address the issue of regulating platforms. In terms of regulation, especially for content moderation and protection of personal data, she stated that it is necessary to guarantee human rights, freedom of speech and privacy protections, as well as to focus on the need for more investments of the platforms within the places they operate. She has also given an overview of the legislation available in Argentina, presenting examples such as data protection laws and streaming-specific rules. Agustina reinforced aspects related to content moderation aspects such as the protection to freedom of expression, respect to local legislations the enabling of users to reach platforms in different jurisdictions over concerns of their rights and/or data within these services.

     Q&A

    During the Q&A, several issues were raised, either by the audience, moderator and/or speakers. Among the issues raised in this part, it is possible to highlight:

    - Regulation models available and their pros and cons, such self-regulation or co-regulation;

    - The impacts and effects of chosen models especially on small players within the market;

    - The importance of safeguarding transparency measures within regulations

    - The need for more harmonization of frameworks, respect for local laws, and multistakeholder-based public debates to advance the discussion and find better solutions.

    - The answer to the change on global market is a more uniform approach, given that countries alone wil not be able to address these issues accordingly.

    IGF 2021 Open Forum #47 11 years of .br domains conflicts resolution using SACI-Adm

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 14:40
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Session Report

    The Open Forum organized by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br) revolved around presenting the 11 years of the .br domain names conflicts resolution and its overview on adopting administrative measures using SACI-Adm. 

    The need to have a conflict resolution system becomes evident when we realize that, as of 2021, there are 4.8 million domain names registered within NIC.br - the executive branch of CGI.br and the private non for profit organization responsible for administration and operating maintenance of said domain names. Considering that 92% of Brazilian companies use .br for their websites, this high percentage puts Brazil in the 6th position among ccTLDs, combined with the slowness of the judiciary in dealing with issues of this sort, boosted the creation of the SACI-Adm tool.

    In regards to the presentation at IGF 2021, the Forum discussed four topics: The first topic was on background remarks. The second was on what SACI-Adm actually is and how it works. The third was on the results over the years, and the final topic was on the incentives to de-judicialization - which means, to find alternate ways in resolution of a conflict without resorting to a commonly sought out lawsuit.

    Regarding the first topic, it was explained that in Brazil, it is used the “first come, first served” reasoning to register a Trademark. However, this rule does not prevent a possibility of trademark violation by the domain holder. Thus, a potential violation could lead to errors and mistakes towards the actual owner of the brand - regardless of the nature of the error, which could be intentional or caused by unfamiliarity. 

    If a violation situation happened back in 2010, the only thing NIC.br could do at the time was to suggest that the trademark holder should file a lawsuit against the first registrant. At first this may seem like a solution, but actually it is not, mainly because Brazil has 212 million people as its population, and the judiciary has over 80 million lawsuits that still needs to be analyzed. In this particular case, domain name-related lawsuits have taken up to 8 years to be analyzed and led to trial in court, which is far away from the dynamics a domain name conflict requires. Thus, seeking to proactively address the problem, CGI.br approved a resolution for SACI-Adm's creation in 2010.

    Before we go any further, it is fundamental to say that CGI.br resolutions are not binding - CGI.br is a Committee composed of experts, whereas Trademark laws are binding and may be enforceable by the competent authority. Thus, according to Brazilian law, SACI-Adm cannot prevent access to courts (it is not an arbitration procedure). In reality, SACI-Adm was designed to be NIC.br’s in-house solution. Therefore it cannot be confused with Arbitration laws.

    So how does SACI-Adm work? Adherence to the procedure happens through the contract signed at the moment of registration of domain names under ".br". In the event of a registrant or new party initiate a procedure, in light of transparency purposes, this procedure will be made public on NIC.br's Registro website (www.registro.br), as this resolution is not aimed to be confidential.

    In general, SACI-Adm was created in 2010 to solve conflicts between .br domain names holders and any third party which contests the registration legitimacy. In the procedure, there are three players involved: the third party (Complainant), the registrant, and three accredited and expert institutions, which are WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization), Chamber of Commerce Brazil-Canada, and the Brazilian Intellectual Property Association (ABPI).

    The first step is the Complainant applying to start a SACI-Adm procedure. The procedure is then analyzed by one of the three aforementioned accredited institutions. The Complainant may choose, up to three experts, to participate in this in-house decision. Then, the Complainant must prove that the .br domain name was registered or used in bad faith. They need to prove that the domain is identical or similar enough to create confusion regarding the trademark owned by the Complainant and/or other titles, names, or domain names over which the Complainant has precedence. It is important to mention that, during this procedure, domain names' transfers are not allowed. 

    Regarding the third topic, SACI-Adm’s results involve three relevant advantages. The first is regarding cost. The Complainant bears first costs, and the amount does not change, despite the case's complexity. Knowing how much the procedure will cost from its start to finish is highly beneficial to all parties involved. The second advantage is regarding amount of time it takes for a final expert resolution. Domains conflicts must be maintained, transferred, or canceled within 90 days, in clear juxtaposition to the eight-year average compared to a similar case in the judiciary. The third relates to execution - NIC.br itself executes the expert's final decision.

    In sum, a simple comparison of SACI-Adm's objectives and results in juxtaposition of a lawsuit is that the first aims to transfer the domain's ownership, whereas the latter seeks to cancel the domains. This difference impacts on the domain operation and affects the business economically.

    In the event of either parties involved decide to commence legal litigation within 15 days from the expert's decision, in that case NIC.br will refrain from executing said decision. The competent court will then further decide on the conflict based on the aforementioned non binding principle.

    To use SACI- Adm as a possible conflict resolution is becoming ever so relevant according to numbers increasingly growing numbers throughout the years. In 2011, a year after its creation, there were only three open procedures regarding domain names conflicts. In 2021, 10 years later, there are 505 demands under the SACI-Adm system, reaffirming its operation as a helpful direct assistance to the judiciary. 

    Moreover, it is interesting to point out that, on average, there are 46 new procedures each year, and out of those total 505 demands, only 9 of them (1,78%) are eventually taken to court after the experts’ decision. Also, out of these nine court cases, only 1 of them actually reverted the experts' decision, which is a unique and rather successful approval rate for the SACI-Adm system.

    This number brings a curious observation, discussed in the past fourth topic: if more companies and businesses were to combine their efforts into mitigating lawsuits, and in its place, use an alternative resolution conflict systems, such as SACI-Adm, then it would provide for quicker and more professional resolutions that could directly become an effective support to the legal system.

    IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #63 Fighting disinformation on the Internet beyond censoring: a study on public officials responsibility

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 14:07
    Key Takeaways:

    This session’s discussion was rich as it involved professionals on human rights coming from different areas of expertise (freedom of expression, minorities, and the intersection between human rights and technology). Having discussed the main findings of the Article (“Are public officials´ lies unsustainable or do they have far reaching effects?”), each panelist shared their views on disinformation and public officials' role in the phenomenon

    ,

    Public officials have regulations limiting what they can and cannot say. Not only ethical but also administrative and criminal regulations. Disinformation and misinformation from public officials have a severe impact on minorities. The pervasive circulation of disinformation and misinformation on social media and its use for profit were raised as causes for concern, urgent attention and potential regulation.

    Calls to Action

    we need to emphasize the role that public official’s disinformation has on minorities.

    Session Report

     

    The session aimed to discuss views on the role and responsibilities of public officials in relation to the spread of disinformation. It  involved professionals on human rights coming from different areas of expertise (freedom of expression, minorities, and the intersection between human rights and technology). 

    Agustina del Campo, Director of CELE, made an introduction to the panel stating that even if a small portion of the disinformation is produced by public officials, celebrities and influencers, they are responsible for most of the interaction and engagement on desinformation content. Hence, their role is not by any means, irrelevant. 

    Eduardo Bertoni, Representant of the Inter-American Institute of Human Rights, presented the main findings of the article: “Are public officials´ lies unsustainable or do they have far reaching effects?”. In this article, the authors go into making questions in relation to the accountability of public authorities and their behaviour in social media. Their role makes that they have more responsibility for their speeches, since their accounts are of public interest. 

     

    Fernand de Varennes, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues,  emphasized the necessity to act against disinformation since it is one of the biggest concerns of our time. As complex as it is, desinformation requires holistic approaches. It is important to understand the platforms owners’ role, since their business models might contribute to the spread of disinformation. He warned against the potential consequences of desinformation in relation to harming minorities. Much of desinformation is being targeted at minorities: they are not only targets of disinformation but also hate speech,  promoting violence against them and, in some cases, even genocide. In this sense, desinformation can be weaponized, but neither Governments nor platforms are doing enough to prevent this. 

     

    In response to Mr. De Varennes comments, Agustina reinforces the complexity of analyzing  with disinformation and misinformation, particularly when dealing with minorities, so often impacted by disinfo and hate speech. She also makes the point that the paper aims to highlight the disinformation phenomenon from a different perspective, the existing regulations in the region mandating public officials to speak the “truth”.  There is a big amount of energy being put into finding solutions in social media, but not enough in admission and liability coming from the existing regulations, as the article shows.

     

    Mariana Valente, Director of InternetLab, spoke in relation to the Brazilian case. This could be one of the best examples on how public agents can affect information disorders. Currently, there is a documentary investigation going on, in order to understand what has been the role of public officials in relation to the amount of deaths during the pandemic. In Brazil, high ranking officials and even the president were very active in campaigning against vaccines and other measures to protect people against COVID-19. They made propaganda to promote uneffective medicines, according to OMS. These authorities might be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for spreading false information that caused 600.000 deaths. This is an episode that clearly shows the centrality of public authorities and the responsibility in an emergency. 

     

    In relation to responses to desinformation, it was mentioned the risks of over regulation. In some parts of the world, Governments are using regulation to act against desinformation to pursue human rights defenders and affect freedom of expression. Responses have mainly aimed to penalize authors or who facilitate this misinformation, but without taking into account all the complexities. Also, it would be wrong to attribute social media and exclusive responsibility of desinformation. We are not denying their role, but they are not the only ones who should be taking accountability for the situation. 

     

    Public officials must be accountable. In Colombia, the Government is promoting a legislation to penalize people that say some wrongs or some danger to the honor of public officials. Public officials have special responsibility for their discourse and information that they disseminate. They have a duty to say the truth in their speech. Ethical and legal duties. 

     

    In balance, some of the main ideas shared during the session were: 

     

    • Public officials have regulations limiting what they can and cannot say. Not only ethical but also administrative and criminal regulations.
    • Disinformation and misinformation from public officials have a severe impact on minorities. 
    • The pervasive circulation of disinformation and misinformation on social media and its use for profit were raised as causes for concern, urgent attention and potential regulation. But social media platforms should not be exclusively held accountable for the disinformation phenomenon. This is a very complex issue that requires complex approaches and solutions.
    • It is necessary to find other ways to cope with misinformation that includes the ethical and legal responsibility of public officials. They can not be untouchable in relation to their speech and the information that they spread. 
    • Cases such as Brazil, where high ranking public officials spread disinformation in relation to the pandemic, are particularly problematic
    IGF 2021 WS #175 Clash of Digital Civilizations: Governments and Tech Giants

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 13:43
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    Digital platforms have become an integral part of our lives. They provide many opportunities for government, business and ordinary users and are powerful drivers of economic development. At the same time, their increasing role in economic and political processes makes us seriously question their rights and responsibilities towards ordinary users and the national governments.

    ,

    The jury is still out on what rules of the game should digital platforms follow, including what legislation (countries where they are registered or operate) IT giants must follow, and where to pay taxes. This also applies to the policy of the issue of data management and content moderation.

    Calls to Action

    Stakeholders must try to strike a balance in the regulatory framework and find the most balanced approach to regulation which is an obvious necessity due to the challenges posed by the information threats and growing influence of the technology companies.

    Session Report

    Patrick Pennickx claimed that we should not put too much responsibility for regulation on digital platforms as some governments tend to. As he averred digital platforms have literally become media giants, but at the same time they are not able combat hate speech, fake news and destructive content, which are a serious threat. He stressed that it is important to strike a balance in developing regulatory measures. 

    “The Internet gives us many opportunities, but it also creates risks and challenges. There is now an active discussion in the EU regarding the regulation of disinformation. For example, in France, a law is being developed that creates a mechanism for removing “fake news” from the Web. To do this, you need to get an affirming court order, and then the digital platform is obliged to remove the information. However, this raises the question of how to preserve the freedom of expression,” stated Lucien Castex, also supporting the statement of his colleague from the Council of Europe on maintaining a balance. 

    The representative of Latin America, Roberto Zambrana, raised a very important issue of taxation of tech giants. He noted that almost all digital platforms do not pay taxes in the countries where they operate. They claim that taxes are already paid in the country they are registered in, and the IT giants are not going to pay them twice.

    “As you know, the OECD is currently developing a solution to this problem – the Global Digital Tax. Another regulatory issue is the ‘Terms of Use’, which people rarely read and sometimes don't even know what they are agreeing to. It is necessary to develop mechanisms for the control of ‘Terms of Use’ within the framework of national legislation. Unfortunately, in South America it is impossible to apply European practice of developing common regional measures, so you will have to create one for each country,” concluded Zambrana.

    Head of the Philippine company Suyomano Mary Lou Rissa Cunanan also supported previous speakers and claimed that multi stakeholder cooperation is crucial. Cooperation between public, civil and technical societies contribute to the fostering of digital innovations. Partnerships like these are key for meaningful results in the digital environment.

    Hariniombonana Andriamampionona stressed the importance of the newly-established framework of digital rights in cyberspace and recognised that  COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated digital transformation around the world. As she stated: "Start-ups and global companies are finding new opportunities in the global south bringing with them improved infrastructure. But in light of this emerging environment new regulation is required."

    The Russian representative in MAG, Roman Chukov, also joined the discussion and noted that the pandemic taught us to share responsibility and rights on the Internet and to take into account the views of all stakeholders. “It is necessary to develop new rules of the game. The UN is already actively engaged in this, for example, the UN Secretary General recently proposed creating a Global Digital Compact. I hope that his initiative will be supported all over the world,” he concluded.

     

    Conclusions:

    In general, countries around the world are united in their attempts to establish universal and fair rules of the game that would include the interest of society, government and digital platforms.

    Moreover, the measures are quite similar to each other, so the regulatory framework of one region can be revised in one way or another for another region, of course, taking into account local specifics and always prioritising and maintaining respect for national jurisdictions.

     

    IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #19 Power and Authority in Internet Governance: Return of the State?

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 13:15
    Key Takeaways:

    1. The binary of authoritarian versus liberal-democratic states is too simplistic an account of the role of the state in Internet governance.

    ,

    2. All states, including the Chinese state, have a fragmented governance of digital affairs. 3. Both multilateralism and multistakeholderism can be understood to fall within a ‘metagovernance’ of digital capitalism.

    Calls to Action

    A more active role of developing country governments in both multilateral and multistakeholder governance of the Internet.

    ,

    More nuanced approaches to our thinking of the state's role in internet governance, including thinking beyond the multilateralism-versus-multistakeholderism framing in order to discover alternative more democratic future possibilities in Internet governance.

    Session Report

    This session featured presentations on the book Power and Authority in Internet Governance: Return of the State? Co-editor Dr. Blayne Haggart highlighted the book's origins in French President Emmanuel Macron's 2018 speech to the IGF on the need for greater state involvement in internet governance, as well as the book's focus on key issues, such as the similarities and differences between democratic and authoritarian states with respect to internet governance, from non-US and, for the most part, non-EU perspectives.

    Chapter co-author Dr. Olga Cavalli discussed how the IANA transition has affected the nature of state involvement in global internet governance, raising also the question of the state's role as a conduit for addressing normative issues. Author Dr. Niels ten Oever argued for thinking about internet governance as a form of "metagovernance," in which private governance (focused on maximizing interoperation above all else) and state governance (which pursues other [socially legitimate] objectives) are seen not as contradictory, but as part of a whole. Co-author Dr. Ting Luo presented on Chinese state governance of the internet. Using the concept of "fragmented authoritarianism," she highlighted how the Chinese state (specifically, the Chinese Communist Party) focuses its efforts to control the internet in China on areas deemed essential to the Party's survival. As a result, in areas deemed non-essential to this task (such as medical information -- excluding COVID, that is), governance involves a mix of state agencies and non-state actors, such as platforms.

    Discussant Dr. Anita Gurumurthy praised the book's investigation of issues of state power and authority. She raised questions regarding how best people could realize the possibility of democratic control over the internet toward humane outcomes. In particular, she engaged with Dr. ten Oever on whether the state was necessary to enable more democratic/humane governance (she argued it was necessary). Along those lines, she also argued that multistakeholder governance (which holds significant discursive power) is playing a role in de-democratizing internet governance, legitimizing privatized technocratic control in this area. Here, the argument that corporate power is something the state needs to check. Dr. ten Oever disagreed somewhat, arguing that there was not one sole actor that could claim to safeguard the public interest. The current multistakeholder process should not just be a balancing act between state and private actors, but if it wants to protect the public interest, new forms of citizen engagement and governance were called for, including a carefully crafted return of the state and reform of the multistakeholder model to support associations and collectives.

    Other points that were raised include the widening gap between developed and developing countries when it comes to their involvement in global internet governance. On China, it was noted that both democratic and authoritarian countries are struggling to deal with how to govern user-generated content, e.g., with respect to physically harmful medical advice. China is not the only country characterized by "nine dragons run the water” – a saying that describes how, in the presence of divided authority, negative outcomes often ensue.

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #59 A Human Rights-Based Approach to Regulating Platforms

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 11:12
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    Exchange e.g. in interactive formats as Sandboxing are important to elaborate creative and more transparent, human-rights based, effective and business-enabling legislation as well as to avoid untested solutions.

    ,

    Current legislation approaches on platform regulation have to bear in mind the general global importance and influence regarding human rights observance and predictability of legal decisions. However, while legislation incorporating human rights as well as multi-stakeholder interests is important, currently there is an immediate need to strengthen enforcement of existing regulation in the face of pervasive and systemic breaches of law.

    Calls to Action

    Governments must ensure the participation of all stakeholder groups, taking into account the possibility of different, human-rights based internet governance trajectories.

    ,

    While current discussions on laws may be open and promising, governments must ensure the effective implementation and prosecution of adopted legisation on platform regulation.

    Session Report

    Preliminary remark: Unfortunately, Nighat Dad could not attend the event at short notice, wherefore the initially envisaged balance of stakeholder groups civil society, academia and business was not realised. The organisers have to acknowledge that thereby, gender balance was not achieved either. The same applies to the representation of diverse geographical regions.

    Participating panelists:
    ·    Kazuhiko Fuchikawa, Osaka City University, Academia/ Science, Asia Pacific
    ·    Greg Mroczkowski, IAB Europe, Business, Europe
    Moderator:
    ·    Sebastian Schweda (Amnesty International Germany)

    The town hall session „A human rights-based approach to regulating platforms“ addressed the field of tension between economic interests of monetarisation of user’s data and the right to privacy guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of human rights. The goal was to discuss current global and regional approaches on platform regulation and how to guarantee the observance of human rights.
    There was a disagreement on the appellation of targeted advertisements as surveillance. While one discussion participant appealed to reserve the term for measurements by security authorities and emphasised the will to provide services for the targeted costumers, the term was used by others to underline the ubiquitous data collection and profiling by the platforms.

    Regarding lawmaking, everyone agreed on the necessity of clear legal guidelines and uniform enforcement. Similar challenges could be identified in different regions of the world: How to achieve successful legislation which takes into account the perspectives of stakeholders involved? While parliamentary consultations exist, to make all voices heard is hardly achieved. One aspect discussed is the use of sandboxes to test specific technical and legal circumstances, but also to include the perspectives of stakeholders. This proposal was welcomed by all participants at least on an abstract level.Beside the legislation processes on regional or national level, the global scale was also addressed. To share information and experiences made with internet platforms on a national or regional level must be strengthened via bi- and multilateral agreements and information flows. In addition to this, current legislation approaches on platform regulation have to bear in mind the general global importance and influence regarding human rights observance and predictability of legal decisions. However, while legislation incorporating human rights as well as multi-stakeholder interests is important, currently there is an immediate need to strengthen enforcement of existing regulation in the face of pervasive and systemic breaches of law.

    Furthermore, different approaches to balance different interests were discussed. While a majority of users according to a survey by IABEurope currently dislike to pay for various online services, many are open for alternative ways of how platforms are financed. Alternatives to targeted advertisements were discussed superficially; for example contextual advertisements or opt-in-based approaches for targeted advertisement were mentioned in the discussion, so that the individual desire for privacy or higher quality of advertisements can be served. Overall, there is a consensus on the importance of the consent paradigm already present e.g. in the European data protection regime.

    In general, a good level of participation in forms of general to specific questions developed in the zoom chat, indicating a high interest in the topic. For debate contributions and questions, participants connected via video. The tool tweedback, likewise the hastags, was intended to stir discussions among non-panelists, but it was not used as much as the organisers hoped to despite several hints to do so.

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #31 Universal Acceptance for Wider Access through Collaboration

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 10:26
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    Universal Acceptance (UA) of all valid domain names and email addresses by all technology applications is necessary for providing access to the billions of end-users who can only communicate in their local languages. For example, websites using domain names in local language for small and medium enterprises see higher traffic of end-users.

    ,

    Awareness and promotion is needed to address UA of domain names and email addresses in local languages and to address the apathy of the technology companies towards UA. This requires all stakeholders to collaborate. For example, research in needed on UA using technology adoption model along training. Governments play a key role in UA adoption by incentivizing it by the community, and tech companies should start adopting UA one step at a time.

    Calls to Action

    All stakeholders, including civil society, academia, technology providers, government, should play their part by making their own websites, applications and services UA ready and by creating broader awareness on the use of domain names and email address in local languages.

    Session Report

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #31 Universal Acceptance for Wider Access through Collaboration

    The meeting was held in the hybrid format. 20 participants attended online and five attendees onsite, including a speaker.

    The session brought together stakeholders from civil society, technology, government, private business and academia to discuss their perspective on making the internet more accessible by enabling domain names and email addresses in the local languages and scripts of the communities.  The panel discussed the current challenges and possible solutions achievable through collaboration.

    The panelists included Mark Svancarek, Microsoft (Business/Technical Community), Sylvia Herlein, Latin American and Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organization (LACRALO), (Civil Society), Cengiz Acarturk, Middle East Technical University (Academia), Anil Kumar Jain, The National Internet Exchange of India (Public Sector), Yangyi Wu (Walter Wu), President of Strategic Partner & Business Development for the registry of.(.xn--czr694b), Internet DotTrademark Organisation Limited (Technical Community),  and Ajay Data, Chair of Universal Acceptance Steering Group and CEO Data Xgen Technologies Pvt Ltd (Business).  It was moderated by Maria Kolesnikova (Coordination Center for TLD .RU/.РФ) and Dennis Tan Tanaka (Verisign).

    Maria noted that 63% of people have access to the internet, and most of the rest of the world population would need to access the internet in their own languages according to the recent ITU Report. The users should experience the internet in their own language or script; this is even more important for those accessing it for the very first time. To that end, as a first step, this means that all valid domain names and email addresses, including in local languages, should work with all applications. This requires collaboration between stakeholder groups, which the panel will discuss.

    The session started with a poll conducted on the role of Universal Acceptance and its benefits. 67% participants responded that UA enables easier access to the internet, and 25% considered it improves interoperability by enabling equal support for all domain names and email addresses. No participant thought it could cause any division of the internet into language-based communities.

    Sylvia shared she was part of an organization which has 61 groups from different countries from Latin America. As end-users they conducted a series of webinars to create awareness for UA implementation.  Technical training was also conducted for software developers from Latin America in collaboration with ICANN and Universal Acceptance Steering Group (UASG), with more than 100 participants from multiple countries. As a next step the community will be testing their local websites for UA readiness. Another training is being organized for the North American region. The aim is to address apathy by the technical community to address these issues for end users.  For example, governments should take up UA in their procurement practice.

    Cengiz from academia said that technology acceptance models should be used for UA adoption, and longitudinal research be conducted.  In addition, UA should be integrated into technical curricula, though incorporating new technologies may take time, e.g. the Human Computer Interaction took many years to be integrated.  In the future, UA will find its place in technical programs. We should collaborate with IEEE and ACM for global adoption.  UA should also be adopted into the university community services, like email services.  Finally, training should be done for society through universities as they provide a trusted platform.

    Anil Kumar Jain said that UA is very important from the government perspective.  89% of people in India are non-English speakers. With 800 million internet users, it has a large user base. The Government of India is asking that email providers, website providers, browsers, and other groups should set their own targets to achieve UA.  A multi-stakeholder UA implementation group has been set up by the government to discuss solutions and how to address these through collaboration.  A reward recognition system is being developed to acknowledge the technical organizations.  A free digital identity is being provided to 100 thousand villages.  There are additional promotional schemes for local content, including free IDN and email addresses in 22 official languages in India. These measures will contribute to the promotion of UA.

    Dr. Ajay Data said that the technical community needs all the various types of technology to be UA ready.  Universal Acceptance Steering Group (https://uasg.tech/) is measuring and addressing UA readiness for global technical applications. Technical solutions are being developed by his organizations, including XgenPlus, DataMail and VideoMeet, which are all UA ready.  These are tested using local language IDNs and email addresses.  Free email addresses are provided to anyone to check their own applications using DataMail.  The technical organizations should make the community see the benefits of UA, implement UA practices, demonstrate solutions, and train others to promote UA.  Training the trainers is needed as there is a very large audience to create awareness.

    Mark Svancarek from Microsoft shared that email support in local languages is a hard project involving many stakeholders, including ICANN, cloud services like Microsoft, standard experts and others. Engineers and managers may resist UA as they think it is a new technology but they should be told that it is based on stable standards. If they think that email is being replaced by messaging services, they should note that eventually these will co-exist. The video link  was shared to show how the English alphabet cannot replace local language in technology. To address the argument that there is insufficient demand, Microsoft went back to its value statement: Empower every individual and organization to achieve more. The chicken and egg problem is solved by UASG by creating standards and applications, develop testing methodology, test applications and then reaching out for remediation. An email tool and service self-certification program is being developed to encourage UA adoption. Additional messaging and training materials are also being developed.  UA is only possible through collaboration. Microsoft is leading by example by making Exchange and Outlook UA ready.

    Walter Wu from Chinese domain name registry said that UA includes supporting domain names in local languages.  Businesses, e.g., Browsers, social media application producers and others, usually ask how many users use domain names in local languages.  The domain name registries and registrars have a role to play here.  By bringing on more registrants, they will provide other technical companies with motivation to support UA.  So, promoting local language websites using local language domain names will help eventual adoption of UA.  The speaker shared examples of Chinese domain names used by small and medium businesses, where websites using domain names in local languages get higher traffic from the end users. The Internet Society of China is promoting the use of Chinese domain names through the Chinese Domain Name Initiative. In early November 2021 Chinese ministry MIIT published the 15th five-year national plan which includes promoting an UA environment in China.

    The speakers made concluding remarks on UA adoption. UA acceptance requires step by step adoption. Everyone should start on the journey. We should also celebrate our successes instead of getting frustrated by what still needs to be done. Keep working together and we will solve the UA challenge. UA is really needed for end-users. Big companies are reserving IDNs for brand protection, but they should be encouraged to use these IDNs, e.g. the top 500 global companies. We should keep raising awareness and building capacity for UA for end-user adoption. Technology can be promoted by influencers so we should find people to promote it.  We should also start sharing the success stories, appoint UA ambassadors and set up a helpline to help implement UA.

    IGF 2021 DC3 Sustainable Funding Models for Community Networks

    DC Session
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 10:12
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:
    New solutions and new innovative ideas need to be tried to connect people in hard to reach areas. Community networks are one of these solutions as are other innovative solutions such as prepaid vouchers, Innovative financing models for sustainability, tokens and other methods where organizations can sell or purchase bandwidth to give out to others on a network , Importance of bringing connectivity to rural areas. Need for new innovative models for connecting people to networks. Need more innovative programs like the ones that the Argentine regulator has created exclusively for community networks. In the past, advocates for community connectivity have struggled for any years to have a program that can route Universal access funds to small cooperatives or community networks so that they can access the fu
    Calls to Action
    New models for connecting remote and rural users need to be creative. Community net works are one option, but also need new innovative financial mechanisms to pay for these networks. Examples are voucher based systems, tokenizing bandwidth and other innovative financial models.
    Session Report

    The IGF 2021 session of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity (DC3) focused on exploring ways to make alternative connectivity models (including community networks) financially sustainable and at the same time scalable and/or replicable. Session participants provided their viewpoints and shared experiences and good practices discussing the contributions to the 2021 DC3 Outcome, a collective volume dedicated to “Community Networks: Towards Sustainable Funding Models” that was launched during the session.

    The session provided several presentations of case studies and best practices that were discussed in the book published as well as a discussion of funding models and financial sustainability of community networks.

    The book on Community networks is a compilation of different viewpoints and over 80% of the contributors are female - but also showcased the diversity IGF opinions along with the diversity of Community Networks set up by practitioners for themselves.

    Nico spoke about the success they have had with the Argentine Regulator. In the past Community Networks had struggled for many years to have a program that can route Universal Access funds to Community Networks and he discussed the success he had with the Argentine regulator in getting approval for UAS funding to be used exclusively for Community Networks. For small communities, they need a specific type of funds and these have been hard to get and so very important now that this avenue was set up for them. It is also the first time that cooperatives can get this seed funding .

    Some of the risks are lack of experience with rural communities, and their experience in managing a community network could be a higher risk. Community Networks  are small operators compared to larger players and so less attractive to traditional courses of finance which have made them harder to finance.

    Build awareness of the role of CNs in the area to make them more effective. One way of doing this is to run schools to teach people how to set up and operate a community network. That is one of the successes of groups such as Altermundi in training people and organizations.

    Jane Coffin spoke about some of the innovative financing models for sustainability of community network and the importance of bringing connectivity to rural areas.

    She also spoke about new innovations such as voucher-based systems and the ability to aggregate donors to create funding opportunities and is part of impact investment. The key here is that the people are not leaving the community and so need to find innovative ways of reaching them. She spoke about how many people have donated their time and capital to get community networks off the ground. The important thing is to change UAS to support these new models since the old funding models supported broken models so need to change things up,

    The next set of speakers spoke about the different ways that Community networks were creating innovative ways to finance the networks either through vouchers, through tokens, or other types of community currencies. A type of voucher-based system was presented, where people could redeem tokens for data, for food, or receive tokens for recycling and composting.

    This method was not only for funding the building of community networks but also for more sustainable networks. Environmental sustainability was also addressed. Community Networks are built in the mountains but then often damage the terrain so now there is a focus on how to build the networks without damaging the terrain and doing it in a more sustainable way.

    IGF 2021 WS #181 All We Need Is YOUth: Connecting Young People and ICT

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 09:27
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    Youth empowerment is a global trend, which is gradually becoming one of the key priority areas of international organisations. Moreover, the question of Human Rights violations, censorship and cyber crime on the internet is a major challenge that stands before global Youth and Children. Therefore there is an obvious need for new mechanics for protection and empowerment of the younger generation in a new digital age. Multi stakeholder approach

    ,

    We need to create a global Youth Digital Ombudsperson institute network. The institute can mediate relations between all key stakeholders, defend the rights of young people on the Internet and build IT bridges between different countries and communities, ensuring the protection of Human Rights on the Web.

    Calls to Action

    Creation of a global Youth Digital Ombudsperson institute network. The institute can mediate relations between all key stakeholders, defend the rights of young people on the Internet and build IT bridges between different countries and communities, ensuring the protection of Human Rights on the Web.

    Session Report

    On December 10 at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was held a workshop “All we need is YOUth: connecting young people and ICT”. During which the participants of the forum were presented with a newly established in Russia institute of the Youth Digital Ombudsperson (YDO).

    Youth Digital Ombudsperson Dmitry Gulyaev appealed to the UN community with the initiative to create a global network of YDO institutes. Global network of YDO would act as a mediator of relations between all primary stakeholder in order to defend the rights of young people on the Internet and build the so-called IT-bridges, creating real opportunities. “We are ready to help with word and deed: conduct master classes, share materials, methods, conduct webinars, learn new things together, exchange practices,” concluded Gulyaev.

    Member of the YDO team Alexei Starikov spoke in detail about the results of the YDO work. He clarified that more than 30 thematic events were held and 600 people have already taken part in master classes on digital literacy and security. Alexey also mentioned plans to expand YDO across Russia.

    The YDO presentation was then continued by the representative of the Center for Global IT-Cooperation Alim Khapov. He stated that the IGF serves as a bridge that unites generations, communities and countries across the world. Alim proceeded with emphasising the significance of Youth Empowerment track and elaborated on the prospects of international promotion of the YDO initiative and protection of Human Rights in the digital age, presenting a roadmap for global Youth Empowerment track.

    Emilia Zalewska, member of the Polish Youth IGF Steering Committee, who was also a speaker at the session, supported the idea of ​​globalizing the Institute of the Youth Digital Ombudsperson. She stressed that it is important for young people to know that they really have the opportunity to influence the global digital processes and have their voices heard.

    Oleg Abdurashitov, Head of GR at Kaspersky Lab, has also participated in the discussion. He spoke about the recently created Alliance for the Protection of Children in the Digital Environment, a voluntary alliance of Russian technology companies. He presented the Alliance's recently adopted Charter on ‘Digital Ethics of Childhood’, which contains values ​​and rules of behaviour that will help create a digital environment that is safe and conducive to the development and creative self-realization of children. It is based on 5 key principles: respect for the child as an individual, shared responsibility, preserving privacy and values ​​in the online space, and an inclusive approach.

    Jenny Chinchilla, facilitator for the Leadership of Girls and Women with Disabilities, of Mobility International USA and Human Rights of the UNITAR has stressed the importance of taking into consideration individuals with disabilities, when considering the necessity of protecting youth online. The word was then passed to David Okpatuma, a member of the Board for Friends for Leadership, who talked about protection of different demographic groups on the Internet and supported the previously mentioned initiative of Youth Digital “Ombudspeople”, that would help young people to safely navigate new digital environments. 

     

    IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #103 „Cybersecurity and Crisis Management”– combining cyber and kinetic threats. Best practices”

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 08:12
    Key Takeaways:

    Due to increasing interdependency of trade sectors and ICT systems it is inevitable to tighten the connections between cybersecurity and crisis management and face new challenges for digital security of world economy One of the important points is regulating and clarifing systemic and structural changes to ensure the security of information networks for cybersecurity crisis management.

    Calls to Action

    To consider closer cooperation with like minded countries which are not part of the EU but sharing common values and approach to cybersecurity and crisis management.

    Session Report

    Cybersecurity and crisis management: Combining cyber and kinetic threats: Best practices 

    Cybersecurity and cyber crisis management is the global challenge with different challenges and approaches to remediate its negative impact on security landscape. Regardless of the geographic location certain difficulties remain common and best practices can be either directly applied or adapted to various legal or crisis management systems. 

    The first panelist Ms. Amy Mahn from the U.S. National Institute of Standard and Technology  (NIST), presented the U.S. approach to standardisation and the role of NIST in the security and crisis management. She outlined how her institution supports advancing measurement science and standards of technology in close collaboration with government, private sector and international partners. Security of the U.S. systems protected within the crisis management network is to some extension dependent on the implementation of the information processing standards by the government e.g. FISMA Act (Federal Information Security Management Act). The effectiveness of the system is also based on the collaboration between federal institutions, e.g. U.S. NIST and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, by organising among other activities regular stakeholders meetings on NIST standards implementation. The most important features of the crisis management system are flexible approach, regardless of the sector (e.g. health, energy, nuclear energy etc.), in both preparing for the incident and responding to it. Priority in protecting and building resilience of critical infrastructure should be standardisation efforts, implementing common best practices to prevent incidents and also updating procedures including feedback from major crises e.g. supply chain crisis or large scale cyber attacks e.g. ransomware attacks. 

    Second panelist, Mr Dong Geun Lee outlined role of Incident Response Division of the KrCERT/CC within the South Korean cyber incident and cyber threat response system. In this regard it is responsible for sharing information, facilitating cooperation and responding to major cyber incidents among other responsibilities. Its activities are divided into four major pillars. Firstly, it is establishment of cooperative system K-cybersecurity alliance with information sharing system (CTAS), especially important for SMEs which lack threat analysis capabilities or resources. Secondly, in the event of an incident experts are being dispatched to the site with supportive role in investigation, analysis, recovery and prevention tasks. Thirdly, for the purpose of strengthening and building cyber resilience of the supply chain major companies will promote spreading of diagnostic tools and communicating threats to users. Lastly, equally important and vital for ensuring the safety is conducting cybersecurity exercises and trainings on cyber response in the private sector along with pentesting. 

    Next panellist, Executive Director of ENISA (European Union Agency for Cybersecurity) Mr Juhan Lepassaar mentioned the EU efforts to increase the critical sector’s cybersecurity and coordinate incident response activities within Europe by creating CSIRTs Network, the network of national CERTs making it one of the cybersecurity's pillars of the EU. This European crisis response mechanism has evolved throughout the years and now CCERT has cyber crises liaison officers network exchanging information at both technical and operational level. Expanding and solidifying ENISA’s mandate by the Cybersecurity Act also influenced the cybersecurity ecosystem of the EU. Currently the most important areas of interest in cybersecurity and cyber crises management are gradually building capacities, organising exercises, enforcing procedures, building joint situation awareness, coordinating cross border incidents, exchanging information and monitoring networks and systems. Especially when it comes to the increasing joint situation awareness it is important to implement framework concentrated on synergetic and coordinated approach to manage large scale incidents. What is also important is to build more synergy between member states and the EU institutions to effectively facilitate coordination and collaboration, e.g. through Joint Cyber Unit (JCU). In terms of international cooperation, it can be based on the common interests, sharing similar values and longstanding economic relations. 

    Mr Witold Skomra, Advisor to the Government Centre for Security in Poland, described role of his team as a link between the work of government and business companies, especially in the field of critical infrastructure. As one of the key features of ensuring the security and integrity of the crisis management system the panellist mentioned six interconnected dimensions of security which influence each other. The priorities has changed throughout last ten years – the physical security being regarded in the past as the most important. In case of protecting critical infrastructure the rule of six dimensions of security still applies. Additionally, there are plans to enforce critical infrastructure resilience bill in Poland to strengthen abilities to counter large scale crises. There can also be observed a problem with regulations prohibiting or limiting government financial support for private companies. 

    Presenting the EU view, Mr Jakub Boratyński, Head of Cybersecurity and Digital Privacy Policy Unit, European Commission Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, started with outlining the most important issues being faced by different stakeholders – the scale of the challenges, the responsibilities of every single person, the differences between member states capacities. Mr Boratyński emphasised that specific cases of cyber crisis or incidents had also kinetic impact e.g., Colonial Pipeline attack in May 2021. In order to effectively address these types of threats it is vital to consider all levels of cyber crises management including but not limited to policy, technical or operational levels. He also underlined the need for multidimensional and multisectoral approach to strengthening cybersecurity, which is being implemented in the EU e.g., by the Joint Cyber Unit initiative or the NIS 2 directive and other EU’s cybersecurity legislation. As ultimately there will be a significant part of the EU economy will depend on abilities to ensure cyber security and resilience, it is an area of shared responsibility, also in the field of building capabilities or raising situation awareness. 

    During the Q&A session a question was asked by the member of the audience from Georgian Information Security Association regarding the cooperation, knowledge or expertise (also from the technical field) sharing opportunities for countries from outside the EU with the EU member states or the EU institutions such as ENISA. He conveyed that according to his experience, in the case of Georgia, the direct reason given why it is not possible to establish or deepen cooperation between the EU institutions and Georgia in the areas of cybersecurity is the lack of an EU Member State status. Mr Lepassaar emphasised that in case of his institution and due to ENISA’s mandate as an internal agency, everything it conducts or undertakes needs to add value for the internal of the EU, so the EU member states and institutions. In this regard ENISA is not the one driving this international cooperation but rather External Action Service, however there is naturally the need to raise awareness, share information about both threats and methods to counter them.  

    SUMMARY: 

    The panellists presented various point of view regarding cybersecurity crisis management, especially in the face of emerging serious threats combining both cyber and kinetic components. Different backgrounds and current areas of interest helped to share ideas from various fields – from standardisation of procedures and good practices, multi stakeholder collaboration to respond and recover from cyber crisis, prevention of crisis and risks, information sharing procedures to education and exercise activities.  

    During the discussion different approaches in managing cyber crisis or preparing for them emerged. Problems with securing critical infrastructure were outlined e.g., problems with standardisation of procedures in the multistakeholder security environment or lack of specialized incident response teams in the smaller SMEs, especially in case of large cyber crisis influencing subjects from different sectors.  

    The participants emphasized the need to extend collaboration between different stakeholders groups, including international partners in the form of information sharing, building capabilities for cyber crisis management, ensuring the critical infrastructure sector’s safety and resilience and the need to conducting common exercises in joint crisis management. 

     

    IGF 2021 WS #273 Leveraging Private-Public Partnership for Digital Skills

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 06:47
    Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
    Key Takeaways:

    An important takeaway is the need to create a competencies and skills based curriculum for students to integrate the digital skills education into the formal educational curriculum and to emphasize the importance of localizing the content in local language and edit the content to fit the local references and local situation of the target audience including youth and underrepresented communities from girls and young people coming from rural areas.

    ,

    The second takeaway is the need to introduce the train the trainer concept into the digital capacity-building programs so that it includes training the teachers on how to introduce digital skills to students and younger generation and train the teachers on how to use digital tools in their curriculum to enhance digital skills based education in the formal educational institutions from schools, universities and vocational training.

    Calls to Action

    Our first call to action is for the local ministry of education and ministry of higher education in each country to provide train the trainer curriculum on digital skills to the certified teachers that will deliver digital competency based curriculum to the students.

    ,

    The second call to action is for the big tech companies and local non-governmental organizations working on digital capacity building to collaborate with ministry of education and scientific research into providing localized educational curriculum and tools that address the digital skills needed for the future job market so younger generations can efficiently integrate the job market with the right set of digital skills.

    Session Report

    The session started by addressing the digital gap that exists in today's world while focusing on analyzing the commanding factors that influence access to digital education. These factors revolve around barriers related to infrastructure and the divide between the urban and rural areas. A key factor within is access to devices and internet connectivity, which should be implemented in a framework of meaningful connectivity, and ensured by the governments to allow the citizens who cannot afford it, to have meaningful access. The internet should be considered as a basic commodity that everyone should have. Other critical factors are related to cultural barriers in the form of a gender divide and access to digital literacy. A substantial factor mentioned during the discussion is providing a doorway to a standardized framework of digital skills curriculum to face the digital divide. This would come as a complementary to the idea of meaningful access, as we have to upskill the users with the right competencies to be able to use the technology and make use of digital education coupled with meaningful access. An additional point that was raised by the online audience was the weight of financial resources in the process of accessing the internet and how it affects the right to digital access all over the world.

    The second part of the session was allocated to discuss the channels that can be leveraged to ensure digital capacity building for future generations. Unplugged channels and offline resources were mentioned as a way of delivering digital education while overcoming the current connectivity issues. However, the latest point shall not be ignored, and a solution to that, the CAPE framework was suggested, which addressed the digital issues in the form of a pyramid with capacity as its base, then access, followed by participation and experience. And, all these factors form the pieces to build meaningful access and connectivity, that reinforce digital abilities.

    Furthermore, some key resources to combat the digital gap suggested are of utmost importance to digital capacity building, including providing localized curriculum to the future workforce to empower them to not just be consumers of the digital world but contributors. In addition, governments should work on introducing computer-science and related STEM topics into the formal education system to ensure reducing the current digital gap. This shall be translated into changing some policies and instruments to allow people from different segments to get access to data and connectivity. A key point related to this is not only providing this access to students and future generations but also to the teachers and instructors who are going to deliver this curriculum. A concrete example that was implemented on the ground was the project of a web lab introduced in the school systems of Capo Verde, where students learn coding and robotics in an environment providing meaningful access to digital skills and free connectivity.

    Another essential resource is connecting the users with role models to build their digital capacity in various arrays while collaborating with the non-governmental sector, the artists, and celebrities to ensure, not only a complete digital curriculum but also guarantee the younger generation motivation to learn this curriculum by leveraging the intersection between computer science, digital skills, and arts and providing engaging content. 

    To conclude the session, building an international framework of a public-private partnership to scale knowledge about digital skills access is the solution to ned the digital divide. The core of the proposal is the adoption of a multi-stakeholder approach to bring different audiences to embrace its implementation. An international day of code can be a step into actively bringing together NGOs, governments from different countries, educational institutions, the UN agencies, and intergovernmental organizations, along with tech companies from the private sector to work together to provide a meaningful fundamental digital education to everyone. 

     

    IGF 2021 WS #68 AI Ethics & Internet Governance: Global Lessons & Practices

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 04:08
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    when you use AI ethics fundamentally and we need to pay attention to how to make good use of the data that we have. The capability of processing the data is extremely essential for us, for AI ethics transparent. The evolution of AI is affecting human perception, cognition, and interaction actions what will in AI impact our concept of humanity,

    ,

    how AI is also will increase inequality between countries,there are three solutions: 1. through the international organization, like the United Nations can do something to reduce the divide; 2. multilateral collaboration between different countries, 3. underdeveloped countries, they should make more investments in both hardware and also software, especially by increasing the education around this new technology area,

    Calls to Action

    it's not just the company's responsibility to prevent things from happening again. we need everybody to take part in this great process, the governments, the big companies, and media organizations, international organizations, and most importantly the general public, the individuals, and everybody including us, we need to play a role in this process.

    Session Report

    Some ideas raised by speakers

    1. China has entered intelligent media age, Intelligent divide is emerging, yet AI is not a panacea for media industry, there are three risks deserve more attention: The risk of info cocoons received most concern from users. Privacy invasion and value erosion were perceived as challenges as well. To resist the above mentioned risks government needs to enhance AI governance, media should also play a role on maintaining humanistic values, for the public it is important to seek reasonable behavior. The core of AI ethical issues is data, the order of data and the basic rules of data usage. Institutions are an important public good, it is necessary to learn from each other and keep interconnected. As for AI ethics and governance, it is crucial for us to closely work together and build new mechanisms from communication consensus to institutional co-construction.
    2. It is necessary for us first to identify what status and rights we will give to AI, which depend on how we see AI, as partners or as tools.
    3. AI has solved the problem of labor shortage, and a large amount of repetitive work can be replaced by AI. But in the meantime, AI and the algorithms behind it have reduced people's right to make their own choices to a certain extent, and small and medium-sized enterprises are unable to compete with large enterprises in AI due to the lack of resources and capital, which further reduces the competitiveness and development opportunities of small and medium-sized enterprises.
    4. Young doctoral student from the USA shared her ideas on Algorithm transparency influences people's use of social media for health information. In the past, people would gather different information from different websites for a disease, now with the help of AI they will receive all the information about the disease on social media with just one click. The algorithm will recommend relevant information based on your search and thus get cocooned by the algorithm. As users we need to know the algorithmic rules that determine the information we see on social media, researchers need to understand the potential risks and push for transparency, and social platforms need to explain the basis for their use of algorithms and rebuild them to truly serve the public good.

    Participants` ideas:

    1. Participants on-line suggested that the main issues involving the ethics of artificial intelligence revolves around inequality, another one is humanity.
    2. Participants onsite raised his theory about two containers, when we talk about AI ethics, we have to first go into the core of how the ethics are derived. Ethics are the core values which come either from the society, culture, or religion. So while addressing the AI ethics, we can put these ethics into two big containers. One container can be that there are universal ethics, which are universally globally adopted by all the societies and cultures. And then there are regional ethics. We have to first figure out which are those and then feed them to some AI. One should also keep in mind that the universal ideas can be biased by the bigger players that have a greater benefit to derive out of the technologies.

    Questions:

    Some participants concerned about whether AI would further inequality between different countries.

    Speakers responded that's not a new phenomenon because even for old technology like Internet, satellites, there was a very big and significant global digital divide. In the era of AI technology, there are three solutions worth consideration: 1. international organization, like the United Nations can do something to reduce the divide; 2. multilateral collaboration between different countries, 3. underdeveloped countries should make more investments in both hardware and software, especially by increasing the education around this new technology area.

    Summery: Every and each one of us need to take part in this great process, the governments, the big companies, and media organizations, international organizations, and most importantly the general public, the individuals, and everybody including us, we need to play a role in this process.

     

    IGF 2021 WS #17 Content Moderation BEYOND Social Media

    Workshop
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 00:41
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    1. Organizers and audience participants agree that there is no one size fits all approach to this very complicated topic

    ,

    2. Potential Principles a) Transparency (explore Santa Clara Principles) b. Global Taxonomy of service providers c) Emphasis on rights application d) Proportionality e) Acknowledge the complexity of platforms, content & behaviors, jurisdictions f) harmonization may never happen but important to discuss the consequences of this

    Session Report

    Opening perspectives:

    Liz Thomas from Microsoft:

    • Important to avoid a one-size-fits-all approach to content moderation as it doesn’t take into account the complexity of the environment, including the different layers of the Internet stack
    • Important to remember the vast size and complexity of the ecosystem that content moderation could be applied to, that the ecosystem is rapidly growing & changing
    • There's a range of often contradictory regulatory measures being enacted in different jurisdictions. Realistically, may never achieve harmonization, but important to discuss & highlight consequences of this.
    • It isn’t just about an individual’s content on a single platform, but a far more complex issue of wider patterns of behavior across platforms & that intersect with the real world.
    • It’s an interesting thought that instead of moderating content *after* it’s posted, there be efforts to proactively set the tone for online communities (preventative action).
    • #humanrights and principles of necessity, proportionality, legality should be fundamental principles guiding content moderation.

    Jordan Carter from .NZ

    • Issue of content moderation will keep being raised because we’re spending more and more of our lives online. It’s not going to go away.
    • How do you even begin to find a framework of principles for content moderation that can apply to platforms as diverse as Facebook, Telegram, eBay and Tinder?
    • For infrastructure providers like @InternetNZ, there is no granularity available to deal with content moderation. It’s more an on/off switch. It’s not moderation, but cancellation (of domain name).
    • When govts start making laws about content, it has an effect on platforms & infrastructure well beyond that country’s borders. Gives example of EU’s GDPR effects around the world.
    • There’s a need for basic transparency from platforms about how they are responding to requests by those with regulatory authority to take down content.
    • Content moderation isn’t just about resources. It’s also about mandate and where in the chain an actor is.
    • Santa Clara Principles https://santaclaraprinciples.org
    • Let a thousand flowers bloom does have risk creating some unintended side effects.
    • Mishmash across jurisdictions can cause difficulties for platforms

    Courtney Radsch

    • Asks for show of hands if domain name services should be doing content moderation.
    • Notes that news orgs are at the mercy of algorithms in terms of what visibility their news articles have on different platforms.
    • Raises issue of resources needed by platforms to moderate content. (Not easy for smaller platforms) and how this might be in tension with regulatory desire to prevent monopolies.
    • Large scale content moderation relies on algorithms. And good algorithms rely on good data. But you only get good data if you’re looking for it & recognizing differences in languages & cultural contexts.
    • Should we cooperate on universal taxonomy or a classification across jurisdictions concerning this diversity of all those intermediaries?
    • Discussing value of developing a global taxonomy to help understand the diversity of intermediaries across jurisdictions, with the potential to help harmonise approaches where possible.

    A participant notes that some governments have a history of suppressing freedom of speech. There is a risk that a harmonized approach to content moderation could exacerbate such suppression in these countries.

    Complexity of platforms, content & behaviours, jurisdictions

    Taxonomy based approach versus principles based approach

    Taxonomy of different types of service providers not different types of content

    What goals/objectives are we trying to achieve?

    If moderation is effective, people move elsewhere. Good enough (setting expectations)

     Audience Questions

    I agree that a one size fit all is probably not a good idea. At the same time, do you see a problem in enacting more and more regulation that might be fragmented or contradictory?

    Do you think we should cooperate on a universal taxonomy or classification across jurisdictions concerning the diversity of all those intermediaries? Do you think this would improve more accurate regional intermediary responsibility regulations?

    What are the stakes/risks of creating an inadequate regulation, that is a regime that does not take into consideration the complexity of types of Intermediaries?
     

    Potential Principles for a Framework

    Transparency

    One Size doesn't fit all

    Global Taxonomy of different service providers

    Human Rights and rights in offline world apply online

     

    Online Participants

    Ahmed Farag

    Andreas Hautz

    Anifowose Chioma

    Elzbieta Balcerowska

    Farzaneh Badie

    Gerard Bawarcyki

    Irina Sineva

    Iveta Skujina

    Jacqueline Rowe

    Jose Michaus

    Luiz Eduardo Martelli da Silva

    Luiza Malheiro

    Manda Libor

    Maria Luisa Stasi

    Noppachat Buakant

    Olejniczak BArtosz

    Patrick Kane

    Peter Koch

    Phil Corwin

    Pingkan Audrine

    Porunkoz Mikhail

    Rowena Schoo

    Salma Abbas

    Kristophina Shilongo 

    Susan Payne

    Tim Smith

    Vahan Hovsepyan

    Violeta Gjorgjievska

    Yuanyuan Fan

     

    IGF 2021 Town Hall #51 Unbundling: Free speech and innovation on social media

    Open Forum / Town Hall
    Updated: Mon, 20/12/2021 - 00:27
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    What to do then? We have a clear proposal: break the bundle. Open the space for other content curation providers to step in. Empower users to make their choice, a real choice.

    ,

    We know very little about how content curation systems work, which criteria/parameters they’re set to follow. What we know is that they do not aim at guaranteeing an adequate degree of exposure diversity, or at other public goals which are essential for our democracies.

    Calls to Action

    ARTICLE 19 calls on all relevant stakeholders to review the unbundling proposal and engage for the development and implementation of the policy.

    Session Report

    Increasingly, research and the courageous contribution of whistle-blowers has shown that content curation algorithms play a role, potentially a key role, in a number of phenomena that harm users, at individual and at collective level.

    Research, although unfortunately limited due to huge asymmetry of information, lack of transparency and adequate access to data (…) shows that content curation systems play a substantial role in the proliferation of hate speech, disinformation, polarisation of discourse and other current major challenges regarding the flow of information in society. They do so because they influence (to use a mild term) users’ information diet: they select, prioritise, promote and/or demote what we access to, share etc.

    At current, content curation services are part of a bundle: users that join a large social media platform get the hosting and the curation of content at once. All offered and managed by the platform, which often argues that this is a way to offer the best ‘user experience’. The truth is that the bundle is an efficient business strategy, which makes a lot of economic sense for large platforms. The user is locked-in, there is no competition. Plus, the content curation is the service, in this bundle, that is easier to monetise: control on what users’ see means bargaining power in the negotiations with advertisers.

    On the other hand, the bundle has a very negative impact on users’ rights. First, they have no choice, no alternative but to have their news feed (or similar) provided by the platform they want to join. They have no say on the criteria this platform uses to select which content to prioritise/demote, nor on which data about them the platform collects, how it processes/uses them etc.). Users are in a take it or leave it situation, where leave has also an impact on their right to freedom of expression, as we’re talking about services that constitute an important component of our communication infrastructure.

    Another major problem is that this situation allows a very limited number of social media platforms to dictate the info diet of an enormous part of the population. We know very little about how content curation systems work, which criteria/parameters they’re set to follow. What we know is that they do not aim at guaranteeing adequate degree of exposure diversity, or at other public goals which are essential for our democracies.

    What to do then? We have a clear proposal: break the bundle. Open the space for other content curation providers to step in. Empower users to make their choice, a real choice.

    Here the essential components of the discussion:

    • As large platforms won’t have the incentives to unbundle these services, we call on independent regulatory authorities to make it mandatory, and to make sure it is implemented effectively.
    • The unbundling of services should be shaped as a form of functional separation. In other words, our proposal does not mean that a large platform needs to dismiss its assets. The large platform that provides the hosting should remain able to offer content curation, too, so that users can freely choose which company provides them with this service. To guarantee a real choice, the option to select the large platform has to be presented to user as an opt-in.
    • To be implemented, the unbundling implies adequate level of interoperability between the large platforms and third-party content curation providers. It also implies that large platforms provide access in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.

    The discussion was able to contribute to solving a number of challenges we currently have with content curation, by tackling one of the major roots of these challenges: the excessive concentration of power in the hands of very few players. 

    Among the major benefits, we list:

    • A variety of players will compete, providing innovation, better quality services and differentiating the service they offer (for example, they would use different criteria for the content selection, or guarantee different degrees of privacy protection);
    • Users will have choice. They will be able to select the service that better fits their needs and switch any time a better product comes into the market or any time they are unsatisfied.
    • The remedy will set the conditions for a decentralised and diversified environment to flourish. This new environment will dilute the power over the flow of information in society, and over the users’ information diet and help to establish and maintain a communication infrastructure more in line with our democratic values.
    IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #17 Constitutionalising the Digital Frontier: Past, Present, and Future

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Sun, 19/12/2021 - 18:59
    Key Takeaways:
    Since challenges of the digital age are wildly different from those of the past, the norms, values, and the voices we emphasise in this constitutional moment need to reflect this paradigm change. The concept of ‘Collective Intelligence’ may be thought of as a way to conceptualise a decentralised, democratic cyberspace., Digitalisation has transcended mainstream boundaries and brings with it an increasing intensity of multilateral risks. We must adopt a mix of coherent short and long-term solutions that integrate varied prospects and prioritise active enablement over control through policies to help mitigate the prospective risks and challenges of digitalisation.
    Calls to Action
    Need to ensure that global internet governance is more inclusive, collaborative, participatory, and deliberative, with stakeholders across the spectrum engaging equitably. Reduction of information asymmetries through enhanced stakeholder engagement is pivotal. Need to strike a delicate balance between the upholding of civil liberties and fundamental rights with national security imperatives in a consultative and transparent manner.
    Session Report

    The session — moderated by Sanskriti Sanghi and Siddhant Chatterjee, Co-Leads of the Research Program on Digital Constitutionalism at IIJS — was divided into two thematic segments. The first focused on the past and present of constitutional discourse on digital governance and the latter looked at the future of digital policy regulation.

     

    Part I: The first batch of responses — though touching upon varied aspects — was collectively undergirded by the need to constitutionalise the internet and initiated a discussion on the manner in which this can be achieved.

     

    Since challenges of the digital age are wildly different from those of the past, it is apparent that the norms, values, and the voices we emphasize in this constitutional moment need to reflect this paradigm change. Reflecting on this particular paradigm-shifting moment, Sonia Sangiovanni highlighted the concept of ‘Collective Intelligence’, pioneered by Geoff Mulgan, as a way to conceptualise a decentralised, democratic cyberspace.

     

    Nicola Bressan brought to the fore an unmissable fact: the internet has completely transformed our economies, our democratic fora of participation and even our ways of interacting with one another — to the point that our pre-existing systems of soft and hard regulation have not kept up. His response dissected the reasons why achievements in other arenas of international collaboration are not easily replicable in internet governance as being: (i.) Positions and opinions on core issues here differ wildly across jurisdictions, and (ii.) A narrative on these issues is highly ambiguous. Subsequently, emphasizing the need for shrouding the discourse on digital governance in democratic fabric, Nicola put forth a set of broad directives that the stakeholders across the spectrum should ideally aspire towards if the global digital governance is to take a turn for the better.

     

    Thereafter, the session segued into the prevalent divides in internet governance. Raghu Gagneja talked about how the North-South divide in the global digital governance discourse dates back to the 1960s, at a time when there were wide-ranging debates between these factions on issues of international information order. Expounding on the regulatory structures of digital governance, Raghu explained that even democratic “liberal” nations are partaking in compromising the open, free and interoperable character of the internet. He concluded by acknowledging the urgent need of bringing developing nations and stakeholders across the spectrum on the table to engage equitably in charting the future of global internet governance.

     

    Part II: Moving forward, the discussion curated a pathway to help navigate our digital future(s) through identifying challenges, dichotomies, governance practices and value systems that have a key role to play. From understanding the core of governance models to posing concrete solutions to unify conflicting governance approaches and tying the conversation together by identifying digitization as a transformational force that ought to be dealt with smartly. 

     

    Hiba Hassan’s response, analyzing the various governance structures, aided an understanding of the stark differences between each of them and the varied experiences they produce. The discussion took a well-balanced approach to give us a better sense of each of the models, without being biased towards any. It highlighted the importance of a unified front that balances primary governance norms while maintaining the originality of the internet. 

     

    Digging deeper into dichotomies, Saishreya Sriram discussed the country-specific scenarios of these dichotomies and put forth three concrete approaches that strike a balance between innovation and regulation. Through enhancement of stakeholder conversations, review of antitrust laws, and elimination of the information divide between the entity and individual, Saishreya argued that we collectively progress toward a more democratic approach.

     

    Tying together the preceding responses, Harshvi Trivedi showcased how digitalisation has transcended mainstream boundaries and brings with it an increasing intensity of multilateral risks. Harshvi argued that there is a need to adopt a mix of coherent short and long-term solutions that integrate varied prospects and prioritise active enablement over control through policies to help mitigate the prospective risks and challenges of digitalisation. Her response further underscored the need to be able to rely on coherence among government bodies and stakeholders to help mitigate the current and prospective risks of digitalization.

     

    Call to Action: 

    Overall, the round-table discussion helped question the existing digital constitutional practices and aids a pathway that leads to a broader discussion of where we are headed in the future.

     

    As we build our digital futures, it is critical to ensure that the global internet governance is more inclusive, collaborative, participatory, and deliberative, with stakeholders across the spectrum — government, businesses, civil society, technical actors and the end users — engaging equitably. There must be a  reduction of information asymmetries through enhanced stakeholder engagement.

     

    Furthermore, there is a need to strike a delicate balance between the upholding of civil liberties and fundamental rights with national security imperatives in a consultative and transparent manner. Finally, it is imperative to realize that the need for discourse is not just at the global or regional levels but rather equally needed at the grassroots level, where it is truly impactful.

    IGF 2021 WS #124 Videogames and their Uniting Power - Everything you need to know about enabling environments and new trends

    Workshop
    Updated: Sun, 19/12/2021 - 16:41
    Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
    Key Takeaways:

    1. The different areas of intellectual property are fundamental by the most varied stakeholders in the video game industry and is considered a key element of different business models that coexist in the video gaming industry. New technologies incorporated in video games are also likely to be object of further analysis from the perspective of intellectual property. Examples include non-fungible tokens, metaverse and user-generated content.

    ,

    2. Video games are likely to continue incorporating cutting-edge technologies towards more engagement from users. The engagement of the audiences is also a result of the expansion to other areas beyond video games such as audiovisual, location-based entertainment, books, heritage initiatives and many other areas that were possible through licensing and crossover initiatives.

    Calls to Action

    1. Governments to pay further attention to the video game industry, its importance and possible positive impacts derived from the innovative sector.

    ,

    2. Expand the discussion about intellectual property in the video game industry.

    Session Report

    The session started with a video prepared by the WIPO on the different aspects of intellectual property in video games.  The video is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os1s1moUIGE

    The video game industry has continued to grow and expand even during the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that it will likely continue expanding both in number of users and economic importance. With this continued growth, new opportunities will continue to emerge in this dynamic market, in particular related to the increased public’s engagement in video games.  

    The new opportunities in the video game industry are also linked to the development and  large scale use of cutting-edge technologies into video games.  Some of the those technologies were discussed in the event such as the application of block chain and cryptocurrencies in tokenization of in-game assets and non-fungible tokens (NFT). The metaverse was also considered to be a core element in the growth of the video game industry in the near future. The use of smart-contracts could also be an important element in the future of the video game industry.

    The different panelists highlighted that intellectual property is key to the different stakeholders in the market including developers, studios, publishers and also gamers. Several examples on how the protection of intellectual property allowed the further development of video games were given by leading companies such as Ubisoft and Microsoft.

    It was also emphasized during the event that the industry undertook extensive work to offer consumers a better experience.  From an extensive number of licensing agreements to create best-seller games such as the Microsoft Flight Simulator, from new partnerships to expand video games to other medias such as publishing, TV show and movies as it was the case with Ubisoft Assassin’s Creed.  The protection of intellectual property and licensing agreements were pointed out as likely to play an even bigger role in this industry, from cross-licensing agreements to inter-operability issues passing by the expansion of user-generated content in video games.

    IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #52 Are we shaping the digital market to all citizens?

    Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
    Updated: Sun, 19/12/2021 - 14:19
    Key Takeaways:
    We need collaboration and partnership approaches to enable accessibility and inclusivity as leading factors in the adoption of new processes, tools, and models of service delivery.,

    Technology standards and interoperability can help society to transform innovation into digital mainstream services. Data brings new opportunities, thus, people should not only be digitally literate but also data literate.

    Calls to Action

    Reskilling and upskilling the society as a whole is a key and valid strategy to anticipate evolving needs and a valid mean to give everyone the possibility to benefit from new opportunities arising from the digital transformation, by promoting a culture of lifelong learning, working against discrimination, for gender equality and equal opportunities.

    ,

    We need to continue working on the standards, skills for the citizens and making sure that we make the health information understandable for all. The trust of people in the services provided, even at policy level, is essential for a successful implementation of digital technologies in all the in all the different spheres of society.

    Session Report

    The aim of the session “Are we shaping the digital market to all citizens?” was to investigate how the ideas for the sustainable and inclusive digital health are being implemented in practice by current European research & innovation projects projects and initiatives, what’s the accessibility of the currently developed solutions when introduced to the market? The session touched on the issues of infrastructure, online education, digital literacy and skills, equal opportunities regardless of gender, race, disability, as well as adequate protection of workers’ rights and access to digital health information and services. 

    The following issues were highlighted by the stakeholders:

    • As technology is changing the lives of people at an unprecedented scale, they should be in the  centre of this evolution. It is people that drive the change enabled by innovation in science and technology. Thus, all solutions should follow the citizen-centric and service design approach during the development to ensure that they are accepted and used.  We need real word context solutions that can be scaled up to other different contexts thanks to a four-helix approach including the users.
    • The need for wide collaboration and partnerships  to enable accessibility and inclusivity as leading factors in the adoption of new processes, tools, and models of service delivery, 
    • The need to develop the digital skills of all citizens as a critical factor to assure inclusiveness of all age groups in the evolving society - the best digital solutions implemented without the investment in the skills of the society will not be used.

    It is also important to remember that despite the widespread digitalisation, not everyone has access to the internet and the skills to fully benefit from the digital solutions. As not to leave any people behind, avoiding stigma and distrust of institutions, actions are needed to reach out to channels other than social media, enhancing digital literacy and information in local languages.

    In general, reskilling and upskilling the society as a whole is a key and valid strategy to anticipate evolving needs and a valid mean to give everyone the possibility to benefit from new opportunities arising from the digital transformation, by promoting a culture of lifelong learning, working against discrimination, for gender equality and equal opportunities

    To scale up the good innovative solutions, we should start from good practices already implemented in the field and upscale them in other regions. A constant dialogue inspired by the principles of co-creation and codesign with relevant stakeholders will boost the possibility of developing qualitative services. Research should move towards qualitative outcomes versus quantitative results to assure solid sustainability and transferability possibilities.

     

    IGF 2021 WS #26 Digital Skillsets: Is this it?

    Workshop
    Updated: Sun, 19/12/2021 - 09:44
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:

    Localization of internet in terms of languages and infrastructure ownership to boost local content, This comes hand in hand with digital Literacy as they are intertwined together.

    ,

    Equality of spaces and meaningful connectivity goes hand in hand with a woke generation that can self regulate not only as consumers but as creators, innovators

    Calls to Action

    Local content task force in providing context and blueprints of achieving local data ownership and ability of use for every technology available

    ,

    Protection of the cyberspace, meaningful use goes with purposeful protection from aspects of infrastructure, identity and the content

    Session Report

    Introduction 

    When you bring and fully incorporate a member of a populace by overcoming a challenge, we open the matrix of solutions that that particular populace brings. This is how we build inclusion brick by brick with stronger formations.

    The IGF 2021 under the banner internet united brought a record number of young people, with seats at the table forming a critical juncture of the multistakeholder approach building and making decisions for a more safer and sustainable internet. 

    Covid-19 boost brought further inclusion and strengthened cooperation about 800+ million people came online as extracted from the report by the ITU, The African CDC being a big case study on the power of digitization with an attached cause,

    Rather it shouldn’t need a crisis for humans to understand and get access to solutions brought by the internet and technology.

    Solutions by private sector, in particular president of the MTN group there was emphasis on the importance of internet penetration by accelerating broadband it accesses and cheap availability, achieving 3G at 90% across most of the developing countries.

     

    Digital Transformation 

    Investing in digital growth and enabling capacities transcendent and transcontinental synergies in digital synergies, technology is a major defining factor of economic progress and increased GDP that’s an undeniable fact.

     

    Parts of digital transformation

    Parameter’s need be set to manage digital technologies

     

    Cybersecurity

    Protecting data and local content, infrastructure security by design at a hardware level, user and technical relationship in security policies to understand how to be protected and how to protect oneself.

    Coverage and connectivity, there should be ubiquity in the connectivity and translation of meaningful connectivity with localization, local use and local ownership to achieve seamless acceptance and growth of the connectivity, the resources and opportunities it brings.

    As digital penetration increases, so do the attack landscape and number of potential targets for cyber threats. The Covid-19 pandemic led to accelerated digital adoption even by communities where basic security knowledge is foreign. In order to limit the impact of this problem, there must be intentional effort to create secure applications and infrastructure, industry enabling laws and policies, and enlighten the Internet users on the threats that exist and how they can stay safe.

    Recommendations for Cybersecurity:

    The use of educative posters, jingles, and phrases, at academic institutions will serve as regular reminders of security tips that become memorable.

    At digitally dependent schools,, email blasts can be sent out occasionally to enlighten students on common schemes employed by cyber criminals and how to stay safe.

    Basic Cybersecurity education should become part of the general academic curriculum. This is simply because we are technology dependent at home, school, and work. This means that we are all potential targets of cyber threats, making Cybersecurity knowledge a vital survival skill in today's world.

    Relevant laws and regulations must be created to enable the growth of the Cybersecurity sector. Cases where cyber related laws have been abused to target political opposition and journalists must be resolved immediately, and those laws reviewed.

    Because people are the most dynamic and unpredictable part of the Security puzzle, it is important to educate the user. Government can empower organisations and non-profit bodies who are committed to creating Cybersecurity awareness, so they can reach more people, thereby leading to a more cyber resilient society. 

     

    Literacy,

     The literate today are far beyond basic arithmetic reading and writing; they are a class of new learners, a multiskilled and fast adapting breed that can keep up with the times. When each day poses as a threat of (find a word for expiring/ unworthy) the internet ecosystem presents a moral dilemma on how we fully equip the majority with the modern technological skills which are already part and parcel of daily activities and communities and how the social dynamics can favor these skills as a must have predicament for the future of society and sustainability.

    In an era of AI algorithms defining how societies are, how business is run the politics and economics of society are conducted, When quantum computing supremacy is not far fetched and virtual worlds and augmented reality causes philosophical redefinitions on how we understand reality, ourselves as species and civilization in general its time to really question what are digital skill sets, how we can achieve them across the world and how they are meaningful and ought to be accessible for all generations and people, especially under this year’s IGFS theme Internet United .

    There is always an interesting dynamic between business, labor, government and labor. Business needs employable labor that can sustain its modern and changing needs, Government needs to create employable labor that sustains the economy and is protected and well taken care of and labor is the activity that defines humans as worthy creates forging and creating a world that’s moving towards gradual progress and evolution. In the 21st century new labor means technical and digital savviness; new business means technology innovation within competent technocracies which are the future of government structures as seen throughout the pandemic.

     

     

    Recommendations for literacy: 

    Localization of the internet in terms of languages and infrastructure ownership to boost local content, This comes hand in hand with digital Literacy as they are intertwined together.

    Equality of spaces and meaningful connectivity goes hand in hand with a woke generation that can self regulate not only as consumers but as creators, innovators

    Protection of the cyberspace, meaningful use goes with purposeful protection from aspects of infrastructure, identity and the content 

     

     

    Leadership

    What is leadership really? It’s been reformed and critiqued in so many shapes and forms but its basic nature lies within simplistic paraments, a community + A communities needs and interests = Brought by Proper Leadership. In our internet community it means realizing pillars, values and our mantra of an “Internet united and Internet United” is realized through the multistakeholder approach which in its supreme form equates to Inclusion. We need to build the political economy with digital competences and digital philosophies that they become able to question and find rights solutions against threats like digital colonialisms, Distortion of digital sovereignties, abuse of digital rights, Cyber Warfare and importantly equal access to skill sets and usage of the internet and technologies equally distributed to all human beings.

    A society with digital competencies, knowledge and wisdom is self-sustaining economically, socially, politically and culturally. As its users are independent thinking self-regulating organisms that creates a complimenting social structure in distributing the technology resources and its dividends across all members of the particular society and generations to come. As it will leverage the internet and technology as a tool to simplify life in providing solutions to life problems in our daily activities from health through e-health and VR, AI Doctors to more happiness through truth of online content, social connections and immersive technology that will penetrate to deeper levels of our psychosis. Henceforth online mindsets adopted funneled through proper training of 21st century skill sets driven by technology can form true meaningful technocratically needed Leadership.

     

    Achieving Digital Transformation and its challenges

    Removing the Existing gap among digitization, uneven extent of the polarity of the digital resources Seen through financing, Skill Sets, Ownership and localization of Technologies.

    Promotion and the cultivation of Local content through multilingualism, Multiculturalism, Multilateral digital diplomacy and the existence of clear parameters of digital sovereignty.

    Focusing on people centered progress in digital solution and not metrics of number of users of a platform without clarity of the impact brought the digital solutions and innovations.

    As technology today determines economic progress and growth, People's freedoms and how we run democracies we need a global inclusive human-centered global framework for regulations of digital resources and their sustained innovation that is driven growth.

    People centered progress combined with global blueprints and frameworks for guidance and regulation especially for developing sustainable relationships between business and government are vital for equitable internet technologies.

     

    Democracy and Internet Advocates:

    Systems and processes built on merits of transparency are important in holding the base of accountable digital democracies, When the conversation about democratically leading digital resources equality and inclusion lead these dialogues, and most advocate to have the digital tools by governments and other stakeholders to be normatively distributed and fairly allocated that they don’t further the digital divide.

    We have witnessed the Covid digitization boost, where open data, open systems and shared infrastructure brought more people online and built more resilient people, organizations and communities the other side of coin has brough vaccine inequities and blatant dangerous disregard of human rights through targeted manipulation, Online harassment & xenophobia, Racism, Misogyny, Crony digital capitalism, Censorship, Mis and Disinformation to mention a few.

    Humanistic approaches intertwined with democratic values are potent in the creation of digital spaces. Humane contact needs to be refined under universal morally rich innovations that can be reflected in transparent diverse algorithms to solve our problems.

    To the users, the netizens, technical creators and innovators building stronger characters and personal institutions that can breach the polarity consisting of a thin line between the online and offline world is of vital significance. Digital Rights are human rights, Online harassment is still harassment, what we do online is simply an extension of our real lives and we ought to be more accountable and responsible. Our universal values should also constitute connectivity in its fullest.

     

    African United Internet

    Pan-Africanism is aging, Kwame Nkrumah’s ambition is a great grandchild’s dream now but if I may ask for how long? The internet and Africa have presented unprecedented achievements for a people, the profits of full inclusion, true democracy from pivoting and leapfrogging on how we understand and localize technologies to improve our local life standards a simple example is mobile money, how it has penetrated structures of a social construct and empowered communities to thrive economically and socially that our identity ties with this domestic innovation defining our unity as a civilization towards further technological progress.

    Intracontinental African alliances need to be strengthened in the internet governance space through building capacities correlating with contextual parameters that are user centric and emphatical towards normal African citizenry. The majority of internet users and consumers need to be suppliers, owners and creators of digital resources.

    The African CDC has stood for the values of a connected Africa through digitization, All nations have contributed to the points of a trajectory towards open data, open governments in regard to the mitigation of the risks and challenges brought by the pandemics, our capacities in the collective bargain of Vaccine procurements and supply chains on the digital space are testimonials of our adoption for ownership, sharing, management and unified consciousness of the digital spaces and tools needed for progress. We have become more resilient yet it shouldn’t take a pandemic for us to be pioneers of internet and technological development.  

     

     Encryption:

     To protect, Be protected and account for the protection is the baseline that supports law. A right something that one justifiably and innately is entitled to have. Digital Rights are built from ownership, understanding and moral justification of equity among netizens in an era driven by a pandemic we have seen how digital rights have translation, forming proclamations of the internet as a connection of life. Drastic impacts have risen from internet shutdowns, censorship, Targeted surveillance, Mis and disinformation to manipulation of elections. So how do we protect digital rights?! How do we protect ourselves? 

    Encryption is a part of the solutions, cryptography of data, content that stand on merit of privacy and autonomous independence interaction with digital resources.

    Encryption needs to be ubiquitous as a mean of protection, at a user level one can use BYOE STRATEGY, Bring your own encryption. At an institutional level added a layer of verification, validation and cryptography protection and open transparent coordination at a government level in managing and properly distributing safer protected cyberspaces.

    Users need the savviness and access to meaningful use of cyberspaces and digital tools. Through engagement and empowered use they can shape and consolidate a safe and more sustainable internet united. 

    Just like any thriving civic space contains civil liberties fiercely protected by law, the cyberspace should be intensely protected by encryption that respects Personal & Gvt sovereignty promoting civil liberties and civil discourse . That end to end pillar of the internet. 

     

     

    Conclusion and the Data Paradox:

    In the era of big data and 5G telecommunications fused with AI, the question rises on what data is? Content has a legal backing but data is not a legally recognized thing. Hence Corporations, Governments can use millions of salient points through an algorithm to provide a service or abuse people. With deepening psychological methodologies of targeting its difficult for a normal user knowing they are targeted whilst the AI tools know deep insights about a person and a persona deeper than their cerebral understanding. 

     

    Think of a tree, to farmers with land it's easy to sell a tree cheaply, an intermediary exports and a middle ground converts it into furniture that is sold as a finished product to the tree farmer at a higher price. Though this is known for data it's different as we unknowingly give data to corporations without proper regulations or protection, data is then sold back to its original source inform of a service. Capacities to understand with data conscious decision makers with data driven results are important in solving this paradox. 

     

    IGF 2021 DC-Gender Tangled like Wool: Gender, Social & Digital Inequalities

    DC Session
    Updated: Sun, 19/12/2021 - 09:01
    Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
    Key Takeaways:

    The gender gap has become stark, the pandemic has resulted in further exclusion of women from access to digital tools and platforms. Due to patriarchal social forces, they have been pushed further back, For instance girls who could earlier access technology through educational institutions lost access to those. In households with single mobile devices, women’s access to technology is not a priority hence they can’t acquire information about healt

    ,

    During the pandemic, governments have been pushing for normalizing excessive surveillance. Under the pretext of health and safety ,more and more data is being collected in places where consent is not considered. This poses severe safety and privacy issues for women.

    Calls to Action

    How content is generated, how it is circulated needs to be addressed. It needs to be created in local languages and needs to be meaningful to those it caters to. Most mainstream content that is circulated is in written English format, this excludes people who can't read or do not understand english. This also creates an accessibility issue with language as well as ability to read. Use of local languages in voice format can help to tackle this .

    ,

    Grassroot driven programs need to be created which rely on a community based approach. Raising awareness and involving stakeholders should precede policy solutions and implementation. Local women's groups have a strong presence in most regions of most countries and supporting them through structure can ensure that policies are implemented efficiently.

    Session Report

    Sadaf Khan reflected on how during the pandemic, the digital gender divide expanded due to patriarchal societal structure: In households having single devices, male members are in control. The pandemic further cut off women from digital access, where they could access it in places such as educational institutions. In the pretext of safety, women were not allowed to access public resources such as wifi while men were allowed to access them. In such a context, we need to rethink how GBV is defined, advocate for an environment that is not inherently hostile to women or inflicts violence on women.

    Mona Shtaya deliberated on how hate speech and harassment have increased in intensity in online institutes- women are withdrawing from online institutes and leaving the internet. Moreover, issues around stereotypical portrayal of women damage the cause and advocacy of women’s rights. The governments are using and normalizing surveillance to oppress women: for example, in Arab spring, officials took private photos of women from their phones and in Jerusalem, women feel surveilled within their homes due to the CCTV cameras everywhere. There's a need for collaborations between local women’s organizations and social media platforms to combat GBV, it has worked in the past when private photos of women were shared. Platforms consult women’s groups to understand the local context to derive solutions to GBV on a case-by-case basis till policy solutions are found. Policy solutions without raising awareness campaigns for people to understand GBV and surveillance; will not be efficient. People need to know and understand the issues. The movement needs to be grassroots-driven.

    Mallory Knodel spoke about the privacy enhancement and assessments research group: Insight required into spouseware (Apps that track movement of your partners) -There is a need to understand where the vulnerabilities are being exploited. A better understanding of secure protocols; Eg internet routers are trusted to be secure but can actually be used to exploit by those who have the technical knowhow. Double exclusion in a digitized world: people are excluded by not having access to the internet, as well as not having the option of access to resources physically. Eg driver’s license. Poeple are entitled to the right to be disconnected, a world that is enhanced by connectivity but not replaced by it. For accessibility of daily life to be available to everyone, not having to be “online” to access them. There is a cost to the digitization of government services: It creates a huge gap that civil society has to step in to fill in. Community organizations have to devise mechanics that cost time and resources. The platforms and services need to take more responsibility. Community-based spaces serve an important function of supporting women. They are not informal structures and need to be considered more seriously. If the internet is designed to be safer for those who are most vulnerable then it’s secure for everyone.

    Poncelet O. Ileleji spoke from the perspective of living in a developing country (Gambia) in terms of what has been done to get women more included in programs: 55% of voters are women but two factors that get overlooked are: the cost of data is affordable only for certain people, so women were excluded from not being aware due to this; they had to rely on the male members to form their opinions. Women were excluded from accessing information that was relevant for health or children. There is a need for developing countries to have community networks that will support women. Women have very strong collective groups but they were not utilized to create awareness in local communities. Women not being able to access data on health, their children etc have been affected by the cost of the internet; reducing the cost of internet can resolve this. It is important to have a community networks that supports women.

    Avis Momeni spoke about the inaccessibility of information about COVID in rural areas, not having access to the internet. Severe issues of misinformation regarding sanitization, hygiene, High cost also prevent certain populations from accessing the internet and digital devices and spaces.

    On strategies and tools that have been helpful in being rights affirmative, and which have not been

    • Avis Momeni:
      i. Govt conducted several consultations to provide information from the ministry of health, to prevent the spread of misinformation
      ii. Telecom sector reduced cost of internet to make it easier for people to communicate
      iii. Some actors developed websites to provide collated information to make it easier for people to find it.
      iv. Civil society needs to advocate for national geographic coverage of telecom infrastructure.
      v. There should be revised law on freedom of assembly and association taking in a non-digital aspect
      vi.
      Implementation of African declaration on gender rights and freedoms and national level in African countries 
      v. Implementation of the digital bill as the use of ICT to enable sustainable development goal
    • Sadaf Khan
      i. Bringing agency to women collectives needs to be strategized on priority. Agency on how speech on the internet is governed along with the (policy)process through which the governance is done such as affordability.
      ii. Treating the internet as a utility instead of a luxury, making it accessible for all, gender-neutral.
      iii. There is a need to have feminist influence in corporate governance. As well as a need to demand more accountability for corporations and platforms on how they behave since they hold private data, It will also affect how GBV is dealt with. 
      iv. Regarding local content in terms of ability to use, meaningfulness and format (text, audio) determine accessibility and inclusivity. How content is generated, how it is passed on in the media. It’s all in English text, this hampers the success of women's collective. There’s a drawback of using easy methods- English, catchy flashy content to get attention but it makes it inaccessible. This is a complicated issue to resolve due to intersectionalities Eg- certain intersectionalities are criminalized (LGBTQ).
    • Poncelet O. Ileleji:
      Local content perspective: one rule does not apply to all in terms of digital inclusion. Programs need to be grassroots-oriented, as more women and girls interact with the digital world. But the content that is available online is not catering to local audiences  (rural) Lang- French, Portuguese, etc It excludes women from rural areas.
    IGF 2021 WS #35 Building Capacities for Meaningful Access to the Internet

    Workshop
    Updated: Sat, 18/12/2021 - 18:43
    Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
    Key Takeaways:

    Technology must be human-centered; adapted to the people, their requirements and interests - through finding the right approach to empower people through technology and not to cause them harm. This is why is important to involve the community in developing training models and to capacity build in a sustainable way together with the communities.

    ,

    Training communities during the covid-19 pandemic has been a challenge; that has been managed by working in collaboration with communities and with different methodologies, like online workshops and mentorships.

    Calls to Action

    For developers and training providers, adopt a "mobile first" approach to ensure accessibility of courses and curricula to individuals and communities with access to cell phones (mobile learning).

    ,

    For all stakeholders working on connectivity and access in community contexts, mapping out Community Networks, finding out their challenges and experiences to provide data that helped build participatory training curriculum or refine existing curriculum.

    Session Report

    Key Issues Raised:

    1. One of the main threads through the round table panel discussion and presentations was the need to involve the community in developing training models and to capacity build in a sustainable way together with the communities.
    2. Training communities during the covid-19 pandemic has been a challenge; that has been managed by working in collaboration with communities and with different methodologies, like online workshops and mentorships.
    3. Taking a mobile first approach towards ensuring course and curriculum accessibility for people and communities with mobile phone access (mobile learning).
    4. Moving from knowledge to community- based action.
    5. Technology must be human-centered; adapted to the people, their requirements and interest - through finding the right approach to empower people through technology and not to cause harm.
    6. Mapping out Community networks, finding out their challenges and experience to provide data that helped build participatory training curriculums or refine existing curriculums.

    Presentation summary

    1. Capacity Sharing for Meaningful access in Northern CanadaDigitalNWT aims to support the foundation of community-based digital literacy in the Northwest Territories (NWT), Canada. With a ‘train the trainer’ approach, it equips community-based instructors to offer digital literacy training to participants through free, open access courses.  Workshops range from basics (how to use devices, browse the Internet, manage data, and stay secure online) to digital storytelling, data collection and community networks.
    2. Learning @ Internet Society - Moving from Knowledge to Community-Based ActionThe Internet Society supports and promotes the development of the internet as a global technical infrastructure, a resource to enrich people’s life, and a force for good. ISOC is focusing on accessible training to build skills needed to connect people, to also build practical skills that enhance employability, and keep communities connected.
    3. ITU - Meaningful access: A framework to track the components of connectivity that matters most for all users and help decision makers adopt the policies to help connect people to an internet that is useful and empowering. Is connectivity enough? The ITU training program has helped to enhance the lives of indigenous communities in Latinamerica. Working with these communities, and involving them by finding out their needs and knowledge has played a large role in the success of the training programmes. We must find the right approach to empower people, human-centered approach - adopted to the people, their requirement and interests.
    4. Internet Komunitas: School of Community Networks: Supporting Community-let approaches to address the digital divide challenges in Indonesia: Although in the past recent years there has been a significant growth in internet penetration in various regions in Indonesia, currently the digital divide still occurs among the public in general. These challenges primarily confronted with a number of issues, ranging from the absence of basic internet infrastructure, geographical challenges, large differences in bandwidth costs (outside and inside of Java island), unavailability of proper and affordable devices, inability to produce local content, which also include lack of digital skills and gender gap. The development, management, and utilization of community-based local internet infrastructure were initiated in the areas of the Kasepuhan Ciptagelar indigenous community region and Ciracap District. Both are located in Sukabumi Regency, particularly in the southern part of West Java Province.
    5. TunapandaNet: Supporting Community-led Approaches to Address the Digital Divide - Training and Mentoring: Mentorship is designed to strengthen Community Networks in Kenya through sharing learnings with the seven community networks in Kenya so as to elicit further input from others in the sector that can inform the training needs of CNs. Physical National School of Community Network is geared towards building a national movement and community of practice.

    Participant Questions - Additions

    1. Seán Ó Siochrú - What do you think is needed to expand community networks into new communities? What actions could be taken to extend the networks into different areas?
    2. Wisdom - For CNs to succed we have to consider we have to look at the role of the central government, collaboration with local government and the communities. If outsiders come with all the expertise to implement, when they leave the project dies off.
    3. Uganda Remote Hub: There should be content in local languages to increase accessibility.
      IGF 2021 WS #266 Data justice: What is to be done?

      Workshop
      Updated: Sat, 18/12/2021 - 08:41
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      Data justice work advocates for a move towards a new normative framing of the rule of law, in which data use and practices follows the interest of the people it represents throughout its lifecycle (as opposed to only benefitting corporates or skewed public agendas).

      ,

      Tokenistic multi-stakeholder frameworks selectively applied to some countries prevents all countries from playing an equal role in developing global data and AI governance policies. This practice contributes to a trickle down effect where policies (such as OECD Principles of AI) which do not reflect the local contexts of low to middle income countries or benefit them inform global practices.

      Calls to Action

      The global community needs a serious shift in the global digital agenda which requires new infrastructure and new modes of governance. Panelists called for data governance structures which allow the flow of public interest information among citizens and which have safeguards that include rights to information as a basic pillar, appropriately balancing the protection of privacy.

      ,

      The panelists also think it is important to promote global solidarity and platforms in which all countries equally contribute to the development of global policies on data and AI governance; reflecting all challenges and allowing opportunities for countries with varying socio-economic and political disparities.

      Session Report

       

       

      Moderator: Dr Alison Gillwald 

      Online moderator: Kristophina Shilongo

      Panelists: 

      Prof. Linnet Taylor 

      Parminder Jeet Singh

      Jamila Venturini

      Prof. Sizwe Snail Ka Mtuze

      Alexandria Walden (absent)

      Rapporteur: Kristophina Shilongo

       

      The objective of the session was to discuss data justice research and how it could be realised in practice. Data governance over the last decade has largely focused on data protection on the basis of individualised notions of privacy. The panel was convened by Research ICT Africa to engage with the work of the panelists on the extension of widespread negative or compliance regulation and the prevention of privacy breaches. Their work aims to influence positive and enabling policy that would allow for regulation. Regulation arising from such a policy would seek not only to protect and safeguard first generation rights of privacy and access to information but enable the realisation of second and third generation social and economic rights. Positive economic regulation could ensure more equitable access to quality information, provide incentives for investment in local industries and foster state, private sector and civil society interplays that could  redress the current unequal distribution of opportunities and harms associated within the globalised data economy.  Panelists discussed how policy research and theories of data justice could be realised in practice in the policy processes currently underway.

      Panelists brought together issues of surveillance, people’s collective right to development and their right to be seen and represented in data systems. They agreed that subjective needs can be brought into the picture when we think of the data economy. 

       

      A new normative framing based on equal global partnership and which centers data subjects needs (and ensures the inclusion of those not yet data subjects)

      Structures of governance matter as much as the set objectives and substantive elements of data justice. Global governance without the equal participation of countries and experts in the Global South results in involuntary incorporation of states to dominant global norms and standards. Or in instances where global consensus is achieved it is often tokenistic as economic interests are not equitably distributed. 

      To achieve the envisioned just outcomes, the interests and ideas of the marginalised need to be incorporated and considered at the conceptualisation stages of regulatory frameworks. 

      Parminder Jeet Singh expressed that experts from the global south and their concepts of data governance are ignored by global governance. eg the Indian governments assembled a committee which conceptualised a framework on community rights which has been ignored for over two years by the international community. 

      Part of data justice work aims to facilitate a shift towards a normative framing where data follows the interests of the people it represents through its lifecycle. According to both Prof Taylor, who is part of the leading researchers on data justice and Jamila Venturini who is working on practical ways to implement these ideas - this will require new infrastructure, new modes of governance and goes against large parts of current global data markets as we know them. This includes for example finding new data practices where data does not merely become a commodity on the market after they are aggregated and de-identified.

      The panelists agreed that the connection between the knowledge of uses and harms of data and international governance structures is lagging behind the ability to channel and use data. 

       

      Reframing the digital agenda in the global south

      Jamila Venturini also shared that current digital agendas in different countries (mostly in the global south) do not make further considerations on the legality, necessity and proportionality in the deployment of specific technology. There is concern about the absence of transparency and participation mechanisms behind these digital agendas. Just data practices should therefore begin at the design stages of technology. 

      Most of the discourse behind the promotion of these digital agenda’s in Latin America for instance has to do with development, inclusion and innovation. However there is no room for experimentation when exploring people’s data ( although with reason because of a history of deterministic attitudes towards technology causing harm to vulnerable communities).

       

      Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic 

      The current epidemiology is similar to past epidemiology, however it is digitised (for at least some parts of the world) and therefore it has scope and power. However this power has been fed back to the world and communities in very unequal and uneven ways. 

      Although there have been major developments in medical infrastructure due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there are instances where communities have had unequal access to that information because of limited infrastructure, data illiteracy and education, as well as exclusion from decision making processes about what should happen to data. 

      Panelists highlighted that current data sources and collection processes are reflecting and refracting the problems that we already have with data and inequalities that data can amplify. 

       

      Data protection as a metamorphosed right of the legal right to access to information  

      Panelists agreed that for the Global South, it is imperative that a new digital agenda is created which begins with developing data governance infrastructure that facilitates the achievement of public interests, and safeguards not only  the right to privacy but also to access to information as a foundational pillar. 

      Prof Snail shared that for countries like South Africa, access to the internet and the ability to communicate are an important part of ensuring just data outcomes. 

      In conclusion panelists agreed that there is a need for a serious shift in the global digital agenda requiring new infrastructure and new modes of governance, otherwise the current cycle of inequity and unequal distribution of opportunities and harms will continue to be reproduced. They also called for data practitioners and policymakers to adopt a golden rule where data serves the interests of those it represents and minimises further exclusion by deliberately including (if they so wish) the most vulnerable in society. This would require economic regulation that actively enables the participation of marginalised people not only as data subjects but as data producers.

      Resources:

      Botero, C., del Campo, A., Lucía Camacho, O., Paz Canales, M., Schatzky, M., Simão, B. and Venturini, J. (2021). Covid-19 Observatory Report of the Al Sur Consortium: A critical analysis of the technologies deployed in Latin America against the pandemic. Al Sur Consortium. https://www.alsur.lat/sites/default/files/2021-06/Informe%20Observatorio%20Covid-19%20del%20Consorcio%20Al%20Sur(2).pdf?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=sc 

      Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence and The Alan Turing Institute. (2021). Advancing Data Justice Research and Practice.   2021 GPAI Paris Summit, Paris, France. 

      http://magazine.gpai.paris/reports/annexs/2021_11_DG_Annex_1_Advancing_Data_Justice_Research_and_Practice_Interim_Report_DG_WG.pdf

      Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. (2020). Report by the Committee of Experts on Non-Personal Data Governance Framework. Government of India. https://static.mygov.in/rest/s3fs-public/mygov_159453381955063671.pdf 

      Singh, P. J., & Gurumurthy, A. (2021). Economic Governance of Data—Balancing individualist property approaches with a community rights framework. IT for Change. ​​http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3873141

      Taylor, L. (2017). What is data justice? The case for connecting digital rights and freedoms globally. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717736335

       

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #72 Youth IGF: Tutorial on the DNS Root

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Sat, 18/12/2021 - 00:58
      Key Takeaways:

      The speakers presented the functioning of the Root Serves Systems. It was a technical presentation, and no discussion followed. They outlined the technical functioning of the System, its history, as well as its governance.

      Session Report

       

      Day 0

      Youth IGF: “Tutorial on DNS Root”

      Monday, 6th December, 2021 (13:00 UTC) - Monday, 6th December, 2021 (14:00 UTC)

      Hybrid session. ~25 participants. 

      Speakers: Fred Baker, Internet Systems Consortium (ISC) Board Member, Technical Community, Western Europe and Other Groups (WEOG); Ken Renard, US Army Research Laboratory, Cyber Security Researcher, WEOG; Lars-Johan Liman, co-founder Netnod, Private Sector, WEOG

      Summary: Overall, the session focused on the technical functioning of the root server system, and the way root server operators organize.

      The speakers provided a description of the Domain Name System (DNS), particularly how it is used to translate human-memorable names to IP addresses. They also explained the method used to do those translations, how all names start from the DNS root, and how the RSS is used in the translation process. The names in the DNS root are managed by IANA, which is part of ICANN.

      The DNS has been around for more than 30 years, and many refinements have been carried out, especially to make it more secure. There have also been a number of privacy enhancements – the DNS has become more privacy-friendly.  

      The speakers provided a history of the root server system – right now there are thousands of machines, thousands of instances around the world, and 13 identities. The system is run by qualified experts. One of the organizing principles of the root server operators is that diversity is good. They avoid a single point of failure – if something happens in one location, it doesn’t in another. The system is designed so that if one operator goes down, end users will not notice. The panelists stressed that efforts are made to ensure that the system stays stable and robust. They noted that they do not change the data from the root zone as they serve it, and that they do not control the traffic on the internet. 

      The root server operators are organized in the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC), a formal advisory committed in the ICANN framework. The meetings are open, and some RSSAC members participate in meetings with other ICANN constituencies. The root server operators are updating the governance of the root server system.    

       

      IGF 2021 WS #254 Democracy and online voting: challenges and innovations

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 23:42
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      Successful online voting experiences in one country do not suggest successful online voting in all countries. Each one has a reality, and some have specific technologies (such as mandatory digital identities) that other countries may not have (yet). The countries also need legislation that subsidizes and matches the needs to protect against specific digital risks (such as leaks, breaching, and privacy issues).

      ,

      Regional and social differences must be considered. Marginalized people may not have access to the technology to vote online. In addition, one must consider the reality of domestic violence that groups such as women, the elderly, poor populations, and people with disabilities can suffer. Coercion in a domestic (private) environment is hardly identified and can compromise the integrity of the vote.

      Calls to Action

      For a country to have a successful experience, both aspects of digital maturity and democratic strengthening must be considered. The electoral system must be secure and reliable. The population must trust the system and institutions for the democratic experience to be ensured. Therefore, the government must take the necessary measures to guarantee security, transparency, and access during electoral periods.

      ,

      Technology does not work alone and there is a need for legitimacy within social dynamics. Therefore, despite the particularities, the common points and contexts must be shared and studied, so that the discussion can increasingly develop in different countries.

      Session Report

       

      The panel entitled “Democracy and online voting: challenges and innovations” took place on December 8th, from 14:00 to 15:35 (UTC). This panel's main objective was to debate practices and mechanisms in the context of electronic democracy and online voting technologies, considering how states, private companies, and other stakeholders are dealing with the protection of political participation of citizens - especially vulnerable populations - from the risks of abuse, frauds, and impacts in socio political realities.

      The first panellist, Rodrigo Silva (Expert Advisor at Nic.br), approached subjects related to the Brazilian context, regarding technical challenges, blockchain, and e-democracy. In his speech, he emphasised that he believes that internet voting is a feasible alternative and its implementation should be considered in Brazil. However, before this technology can be implemented, the entire voting processes must mature. 

      The second panellist, Florian Marcus (Digital Transformation Advisor at E-Estonia Briefing Centre), spoke about Estonia's experience with electronic voting. He mentioned the existence of a mandatory electronic RG for the entire population, which is used for elections. Furthermore, he highlighted that the possibility of this type of voting does not necessarily imply greater participation by the population, but rather that it allows other groups to vote (for example, elderly people who lived very far from polling stations). Finally, he emphasised that the experiment’s success could be related to the fact that the voting type was not imposed, nor was the replacement of paper voting by electronic voting. The adoption of both types of voting, combined with the possibility of voting several times, with only the last one registered effectively being considered valid, would be the reasons that would give credibility to voting over the internet.

      Meredith Applegate (Program Consultant for Sri Lanka and Bangladesh at International Foundation for Electoral Systems- IFES), the third panellist, addressed aspects related to marginalised people, especially in regard to disabilities and gender issues. She emphasised that if for one side the remote internet voting can give more access to more groups (in matters of logistics/ if they are part of a migratory diaspora/ in terms of accessibility), it can also lead to violations - especially considering issues of secrecy. She affirmed that votes ensure democracy, but for that to happen, the voting process has to take place in an environment free from intimidation – which may not be the case for votes taken outside polling stations.

      The final panellist, Apar Gupta (Executive Director at Internet Freedom Foundation) presented aspects of the Indian context, considering the digital divide and obstacles to the deployment of voting technologies. He indicated that an Indian biometric system already exists, which works with more than one digital database. However, despite the technological apparatus, India does not have a subsidiary legal system focused on data privacy or voting-related data. This lack of legal apparatus generates privacy, confidentiality, and trust issues.

      After this first round of debates, the four panellists interacted with each other to discuss the common and divergent points of their presentations. In this exchange, the conclusion drawn was that the use of online voting systems is successful in a specific region does not mean it will be so in another one. There is the necessity of a contextual deliberation, considering whether the population has access to technology, issues of accessibility for vulnerable groups at the time of voting, economic and social conditions, as well as issues related to violence aimed at marginalised populations, such as gender-based violence.

      After this stage, the floor was open for questions from the audience, both remotely and in person.

      The audience engaged with the discussion in a meaningful manner, who not only asked questions related to the voting experiences shared, but also connected to gender-based violence. Also, some participants reported experiences of their own countries with online voting (such as the case of online voting in Russia).

      It can be concluded from this panel that the deployment of technologies should not be assessed apart from each specific context, especially with respect to an electoral process. There is, above all, the need for legitimacy in these social dynamics. Therefore, for a country to have a successful experience, both aspects of digital maturity and democratic strengthening must be considered.

      In this sense, the electoral system must be both safe and reliable and, in addition, the population must trust the system and institutions. There must be laws that guarantee the functioning of the electoral process, as well as the privacy, security, and transparency of the data of those involved in the elections. Only then the democratic experience will be guaranteed. For this aim, the government must take the necessary measures to guarantee security, transparency, and access to connectivity during electoral periods.

      Furthermore, it is necessary to consider the evolution of this tool at a global level. Thus, despite the particularities of each country, different experiences must be shared and discussed in order to enhance - and even challenge - the development and deployment of such tools  around the world.

       

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #61 The building blocks to meaningful connectivity

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 20:32
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Key Takeaways:

      Promoting Universal Acceptance (UA) and IDNs is key to connecting the next 1 Billion Internet users and achieving meaningful connectivity. While ICANN dedicates an important part of its work to ensuring a strong foundation for this activity globally, ICANN cannot achieve it on its own. Meaningful connectivity can be achieved with support from governments and the private sector. UA will provide market and societal value--

      ,

      --if end users are aware that a multilingual Internet is possible, the demand will be there.

      Session Report

      Report

      IGF 2021, Day 3

      Open Forum: #61 The building blocks to meaningful connectivity (ICANN)

      Hybrid session. 45 online participants, 5 in-person participants. 

      Moderator: Maarten Botterman, Chair, ICANN Board

      Panelists: 

      Göran Marby, CEO, ICANN

      Manal Ismail, Chair. ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), ICANN Board

      Danko Jevtović, ICANN Board

       

      This session focused on the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) work in facilitating “meaningful connectivity” from a technical perspective. ICANN does this through the promotion of Universal Acceptance (UA) of all domain names, including internationalized domain names, with the goal of better adapting the Internet to the diverse scripts and cultures of the world, and making it accessible to both current users and the next billion that are expected to come online. The session was also an opportunity for ICANN to call for support among stakeholders to promote Universal Acceptance (UA), by asking their providers to make their systems UA ready, join UA working groups and set up local and regional working groups to promote UA. The main challenge is that the people who need UA most are not online- they don’t know it exists or how it could facilitate their online experience. We are in a cycle that needs to break- we need to convince supply and demand at the same time - the need will be there when the unconnected become aware that they could access the Internet in their language. There is a need for wide deployment from local level websites and emails to huge platforms, and it’s important for governments and manufacturers to work together to make the internet local. 

      The ICANN community and organization have been working to raise awareness of this digital divide for many years, through supporting internationalized domain names (IDNs) and Universal Acceptance (UA). However, it’s not only ICANN that plays a role in bridging the digital divide; the whole Internet ecosystem needs to come together, from software developers to keyboard manufacturers and many others in the private sector to local and regional governments. It is a collective responsibility to ensure the Internet speaks more languages, that it offers an opportunity for people to access the Internet in their own language, to type in their own script with devices made for them. We need to localize the global Internet. This goal directly supports WSIS Action Line 3--providing populations with access to information and knowledge, as well as Action line 8 on enabling cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content.  

      Göran Marby, ICANN’s President and CEO, pointed out that the Internet can be a big equalizer. However, too many people do not have access. Manal Ismail presented the stark statistics from the UN that there are still almost 3 billion people without access to the Internet- around 40% of the world. The COVID pandemic has accelerated the need for meaningful connectivity by demonstrating how so many are deprived of vital information. Bringing the remaining three billion people online requires addressing different needs than for those who are already connected. The next billion people are from the developing world and we should not expect them to master a foreign language. While the introduction of IDNs was a great achievement, their full benefit will not be attained without the wide deployment of UA. Ismail purported ensuring seamless end-to-end multilingual experience is key to enabling those who have a language barrier. This would require all systems and applications to be able to accept, validate, process, store, and display local scripts. 

      Danko Jevtović gave several examples of the advantages achieved through use of the cyrillic alphabet online and that full inclusion will need the backing of and support from stakeholders to include vendors and governments.

      The discussion addressed the efforts needed to focus on promoting the wide deployment of UA. All stakeholders are important in deploying UA. Governments are key and can lead the way- they can provide proof of concept in the market by demonstrating the strategic advantages of UA- the use of the country’s official language, online communication in local languages when using governmental services, reaching citizens nationwide, preserving the local culture and identity. One way governments could start to employ universal acceptance is to include it in contracts and purchase orders--make vendors deliver UA. The government could be a role model for UA. Beyond the immense value of social inclusion, there is market value in promoting meaningful access. This evolved local connectivity will inspire local innovation, thus strengthening human capital, sustainable growth and expanding opportunities for all.

      Josef Noll, professor of Digital Health at the Centre for Global Health in the University of Oslo, gave a powerful example of the benefits of making the Internet accessible in developing areas. His organization deployed “information spots” in rural villages in Africa using Swahili- provided information on diseases resulting in over 50% increase in disease literacy and knowledge. 

      Fred Quajo Azori, from Ghana, is a 2021 youth ambassador, who brought up the significant point that for the billions of unconnected people, computer literacy would need to be the first step. Much needs to happen in order to get the next billion users online. From policy-makers to the private sector, and from manufacturers to software developers--it will take many years and we need to come together now to promote the widespread deployment of universal acceptance which will also help expand the reach for the next round of new gTLDs on the horizon.  

      Fundamentally, all stakeholders should advocate for a better more inclusive user experience and work diligently to address the language barriers. If we are to use the Internet to its greatest advantage, there must be only one system, one DNS, that allows access to domain names in local languages and scripts for the current 4 billion plus users around the world, and the next billion waiting in the wings to get connected. When they do, it’s our collective responsibility to ensure that the Internet speaks their language.

       

      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #75 Police, law enforcement and data protection: regulating investigations for procedural justice and as a fundamental human rights

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 19:23
      Key Takeaways:

      Brazil has a concerning lack of legal framework to regulate the use of personal data for public security and criminal investigation purposes. In addition to that, there are some draft bills being analysed by the Congress that can aggravate the scenery of misuse and illegal use of personal data. This accentuates the need for a Personal Data Protection Law on public security and criminal investigations.

      ,

      The lack of regulation is already violating fundamental rights and constitutional principles such as presumption of innocence, liberty and privacy. The research presented focused on the use of mug-shot albuns and the problem of not having a defined data life cycle. The violation of fundamental rights calls for a rapid response, especially when looking at statistical data on that matter that shows that the most affected group is black people.

      Calls to Action

      Since there were just the presentation of results, we call all civil societies in Brazil that work regarding the matters: (i) personal data protection; and/or (i) public security and criminal investigation; and to representatives of the Brazilian Congress to add forces to put in voting the draft bill for the Personal Data Protection Law on public security and criminal investigations.

      Session Report

       

      In Brazil, we are noticing a recurrent problem regarding photo lineup and the imprisonment of innocents. There is an established practice in the police of organizing the Mug-shot album, as they are called. But the photographs placed in them go from real suspects and convicted individuals to innocent and/or acquitted people. Those images get there through oficial registers but also unconventional means, such as Whatsapp groups. According to a research conducted by the National Council of General Public Defenders (CONDEGE) alongside the Public Defender’s Office of the State of Rio de Janeiro, the errors in photo lineups affect mostly the black community, which also indicated a discrimination factor in the conducts.

      To worsen the situation, there is not yet a regulation to the use of photo lineups. The legal parameter, the Code of Criminal Procedure, is from the 40’s, that is, a very outdated law, that brings many practical difficulties. As a way to fix the legal gap, the National Council of Justice created a work group to diagnose Brazilian scenery and elaborate a draft bill on the matter. 

      Simultaneously, in the House of Representatives, another work group is analysing the bill for the new Code of Criminal Procedure. This draft tries to update the procedures including digital evidence to the norm, but fails for not reinforcing constitutional garanties and due process. Among the changes there are provisions that authorize unproportional massive retention of data in investigations, government hacking, setbacks in terms of already set garanties for calls interception and other questionable measures.

      Both regulations, the photo lineup bill and the new Code, lack another law to lean on. Last year, the Association helped the jurist commission responsible for the development of a first draft of a Criminal Data Protection Law which was inspired in the Directive 2016/680. We believe that this law is a necessary step in order to set a regulation of personal data processing in the public security and criminal investigation field.

      This lack of regulations on data processing concerns civil society organizations especially now that there are so many public security laws being reviewed by the Congress. Aside from the two already mentioned, Brazil has signed the Budapest Convention on Cybercrimes. The debates on the accession have been rushed not leaving much space to evaluate and criticize the text and make an appropriate inclusion in the Brazilian legal framework.

      Brazil is a country marked by a colonial history and a slavery regime which led to a profund inequality in its population. Also, a lot of actions conducted by the public apparatus are not as transparent as they should be, therefore an obstacle for social control. That is to say, that the decision making resides in a few hands, putting at risk the individuals. In addition to the local scenery, vigilantism is growing around the globe. That accentuates the need for international cooperation and defines shared responsibilities between the public and private sector. 

      In order to avoid further discrimination and to reduce/cease fundamental rights violations, we need to collect data, statistical data on how personal data is being processed for the purpose of public security or criminal investigations (since this is something that is not mapped or closely controlled). And then adapt and update our public security and criminal investigations law to reinforce fundamental rights and re estate the right to personal data protection.

      To obtain this result the stakeholders must come into terms and find a way to regulate the use of personal data not to impossibilitate police and prosecutors activities while protecting the individual and their rights. That said, the public defenders, lawyers and activists, who occupy the poll that is more concerned with data protection need to pressure lawmakers and decision makers to regulate as soon as possible those practices, understanding the limitations that public security matters might impose. The same must happen to public prosecutors and law enforcement agents who must adapt themselves firstly to make possible a regulation on the matter, and secondly to learn who to deal with personal data and limit their own activity to avoid violation of fundamental rights.

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #77 The Rising of Techno Authoritarianism: when the employment of technology is an enablers of Human Rights Abuses

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 17:04
      Key Takeaways:

      Authoritarianism practices related to information technologies are occurring within democracies in varying forms. Subtle forms are related to centralization of databases and projects of interoperability of data that might open room for abusive secondary uses. Aggressive forms are related to Internet shutdowns, imposition of rules regarding use of Internet application services and use of spyware to constantly monitor and target threats.

      ,

      Citizens are not aware of the assymetry of power that exists between them and the State. Without a clear comprehension of their rights related to data, States and companies can advance their projects of abusive uses of personal data in a instrumental way.

      Calls to Action

      Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya and Mexico have clear examples of techno authoritarian approaches. It is necessary to advance comparative analysis and research about violation of fundamental rights in the use of new technologies by the State.

      ,

      The expansion of digital rights are part of the solution, but must be complemented by a more robust agenda of the international community about the erosion of democratic principles by the interplay between authoritarian practices and affordances generated by new data-driven technologies.

      Session Report

      The panel analyzed the issue of the rise of authoritarian practices in democratic countries through the use of information technologies. In continuation of another panel held at RightsCon, the roundtable addressed the relationship between authoritarian uses of technology and government practices from a Global South perspective.

      In addition to Rafael Zanatta, director of the Data Privacy Brasil Research Association, Khadijah El-Usman, a feminist activist from Nigeria, and Tevin Mwenda from KICTANet, in Nairobi, Kenya, participated. The main points raised together in the panel were:

      • Authoritarianism practices related to information technologies are occurring within democracies in varying forms. Subtle forms are related to centralization of databases and projects of interoperability of data that might open room for abusive secondary uses. Aggressive forms are related to Internet shutdowns, imposition of rules regarding use of Internet application services and use of spyware to constantly monitor and target threats.
      • Citizens are not aware of the asymmetry of power that exists between them and the State. Without a clear comprehension of their rights related to data, States and companies can advance their projects of abusive uses of personal data in an instrumental way.

      From the points raised, the panelists debated the need to face the problem, advancing in the analyzes and researches on the violation of fundamental rights in the use of new technologies by the State. The expansion of digital rights is part of the solution, but it must be complemented by a stronger agenda from the international community on the erosion of democratic principles through the interaction between authoritarian practices and resources generated by new data-based technologies. According to the speakers, countries like Brazil, Nigeria, Kenya and Mexico have clear examples of techno-authoritarian approaches.

      IGF 2021 Networking #57 European Stakeholder Dialogue

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 16:55
      Key Takeaways:

      In the past decade, since the first installment of the pan-European Dialogue on Internet Governance in 2008, the narratives around key topics such as media, cybersecurity, and digital cooperation have constantly evolved and changed. EuroDIG established a series of publications under the title "A Decade of ..." to reflect this evolution in an accessible way.

      ,

      The involvement of parliamentarians and regulators has been a focus at the IGF for three years now, and has also been a goal in the European community pertaining to capacity building for decision-makers, active participation in multistakeholder fora, and support for sustainable decision-making on national and European level.

      Calls to Action

      Which issues should be discussed in Europe in 2022? We ask for issues (not for session proposals) of high interest to many stakeholders across Europe. Submit until 31 Dec 2021 at www.eurodig.org

      ,

      Participation at the annual EuroDIG event and all our activities is free of charge, thanks to the donations we receive from international organisations and companies. Each year we are reaching out to donors, inviting them to contribute whilst, underlining their commitment to the European dialogue in general. However, this finance model is unpredictable and challenging. Our funds are not guaranteed and you would help us to gain more sustainabilit

      Session Report

      The European Stakeholder Networking Session was organized by the European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG) to present the current state of activities, to mobilize interested stakeholder so actively participate, and to get input for the upcoming EuroDIG2022, taking place June 20-22,2022 in Trieste and online.

      The main exchange was on the publication series “A Decade of Change”, which has been introduced in 2021 as a reflection on the changing narratives around key Internet governance topics. 

      First, Yrjö Länsipuro, EuroDIG Subject Matter Expert on Media and Content, presented the publication “Media and Content: A Decade of Change. Coping with the digital shake-up” (https://www.eurodig.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/EuroDIG_Media-and-Content_A-Decade-of-Change.pdf), highlighting how the change in gatekeepers,  the rise of user content and media platforms and the phenomenon of information disorder have reflected in the EuroDIG messages.

      Nikola Frank, European Broadcasting Union (EBU), speaking on behalf of Noel Curran, Director General of EBU, who contributed the foreword, contributed the notion of trust and the importance of a trusted media sphere that people can access in their native languages, with solutions firmly rooted in multi-stakeholder dialogue.

      Thereafter, Tatiana Tropina, EuroDIG Subject Matter Expert on Security and Crime, presented the publication “Security and Crime: A Decade of Change. Sharing responsibilities and getting the balance right through inclusive dialogue” (https://www.eurodig.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/EuroDIG_Security-and-Crime_A-Decade-of-Change.pdf)

      In the publication she authored, the discourse around cybersecurity in the European context is analyzed around three phases, with the common interest in the topic starting around 2015 and now the global reach being recognized much more.

      Marina Kaljurand, MEP and former minister of foreign affairs of Estonia, authored the foreword and contributed a statement. She pointed out that states need to recognize that in order to effectively counter cyberattacks and other security issues, non-state actors have to be included. For a like EuroDIG are paving the way for this change, and should enable decision makers, especially parliamentarians, to participate in such policy exchanges.

      The effort to include parliamentarians was echoed by participants and EuroDIG Secretary General, Sandra Hoferichter.

      Following the discussion on cybersecurity, Mark Carvell, the author of the upcoming publication on the Development of the Internet Governance Ecosystems gave an insight into the ongoing process of drafting the report and highlighted that multi-stakeholder discussions on digital issues have gained more traction in recent years, as more policy areas are having digital aspects. The report will be published in early 2022 and will be accompanied by a EuroDIG Extra event.

      It was echoed from the participants that forums for exchanges among all relevant sectors need more support and policy makers need to be empowered through the exchange, to take more balanced decisions. Further cooperation with the European Internet Forum is envisaged in that matter.

      To conclude the session, the participants were informed that the Call for Issues for EuroDIG 2022 is currently open until December 31 at https://www.eurodig.org/. All interested individuals and organisations are called to contribute up to three ideas, which will shape the programme of the upcoming yearly event.The point was raised during the discussion that female policy makers are sometimes discouraged or hindered from fully participating in public debate online, as they are disproportionally targeted by online harassment. Therefore, these policy makers need to be especially supported to participate in multi-stakeholder exchange and be informed on how the Internet works.

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #98 Global Alliance for a Values-Based Digital World

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 16:12
      Key Takeaways:

      There need to be tangible steps taken for all, both public and private sectors as well as think tanks, to follow in incorporating a values-based approach towards digitalization.

      ,

      Greater importance needs to be placed on implementing the main value clusters of security, privacy, fairness, and accountability within cyberspace over the next decade.

      Calls to Action

      Societies should demand a new cyber social contract in which technology is no longer shaped by only profit considerations, but takes into account the daily lives of people.

      ,

      Internet governance measures and policies must be human-centric with the utmost value placed in preserving fundamental freedoms.

      Session Report

      The session began with opening remarks by moderator Maciej Góra of the Kosciuszko Institute. Maciej opened by illustrating how the rapid digital transformation has had a tremendous impact on both our daily lives and the world. Following the introduction, the panelists were introduced to provide their insights on the topic.  

      The speakers contributed their insights on the topic of a values-based digitalization approach that has been shaped by their individual experiences of working in think tanks and academia from around the world. There was a prolific conversation on the various aspects of the proposed declaration on a global alliance for a values-based digital world and how it may garner real-world application by being situated within international cyber policy.  

      Key points addressed:  

      • How to better design technologies and their underlying standards in a way that is compatible with the democratic processes.
      • Ensuring inclusivity in the conversations around a human-centric digitalization approach as well as encouraging the fair distribution of digital innovation benefits globally.  
      • Addressing the main negative cyber trends of disinformation campaigns and the erosion of privacy requires us to ask a plethora of questions:  
        • How do we assemble the right people?  
        • How long do we have to implement these changes?  
        • What does success look like?  
        • Will this change be gradual or discontinuous?  
      • Ensuring that privacy by design is implemented at the inception of digital innovation.
      • Disinformation poses one of the greatest threats to democracy and privacy as well as threatens the capacity of societies to properly function by sowing political fragmentation.
      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #99 Global Road(s) to Digital Sovereignty

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 16:09
      Key Takeaways:

      Digital sovereignty denotes states’ ability and efforts to re-establish authority over their digital domain, protect interests, and have greater authority over national data.

      ,

      Digital sovereignty needs to be collectively pursued by the international community through democratic processes that integrate various stakeholders to forge a consensus of what it should be and the means to acquire it.

      Calls to Action

      Developing data protection and digital sovereignty legislation democratically by relying on international cooperation to collectively determine digital aspects which in turn create stronger cyberspace with diverse input from around the world.

      Session Report

      The session started on time with opening remarks by Michał Rekowski of The Kosciuszko Institute. Michał opened up with a brief introduction of what digital sovereignty encapsulates and some of the most pertinent challenges facing digital sovereignty and the rise of data as a lucrative resource. Followed by the introductory statements, the expert speakers were introduced to share their opinions. Panelists include Capitaine Romaric Agbagla, Nathália Lobo, Ang Peng Hwa, and Paul Timmers.  

      The speakers commented on both their national strategies and hopes for international cooperation on developing digital sovereignty. An interesting conversation was had on the topic of collective governance bodies developing a unified approach to creating and protecting digital sovereignty. 

      Key points addressed:  

      • States need to be able to promote their digital innovation strategies, own systems, and own technology.  
      • Data is increasingly becoming a lucrative resource that requires greater data protection legislation, enhanced digital literacy, and awareness about data storage.  
      • Fragmentation is the single biggest challenge facing the development of digital sovereignty; global cooperation allows for states to better protect their national sovereignty.  
      • The increasing role of digital technology requires broader engagement with the private sector, enhanced capacity building, and the digital transformation of the economy and government. 
      IGF 2021 Town Hall #17 Emerging Technologies in conflict and maintaining peace

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 14:50
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:
      There is a need for international regulation for AI, cyber, autonomous weapons systems, and related technologies that can affect international security particularly related to the impact on human rights; however it is recognised there are challenges in gaining national compliance,

      There is a need for a unified international forum to discuss the impacts of AI, cyber, disinformation and autonomous weapons systems on international security, specifically to consider the overlaps of these technologies but taking into account thematic nuances.

      Calls to Action

      A unified forum should be established (possibly under the UN) to consider the impact of AI, cyber, autonomous weapons systems, disinformation, and related technologies in international security in order to consider the influence of the technologies amongst themselves.

      Session Report

      Introduction

      With the imminence of emerging technologies, a dire need has arisen to govern these emerging technologies due to the potential societal impacts, particularly related to conflict and peacekeeping scenarios. This requires the promotion of relevant legislation at national levels, as well as international levels through cooperation. In addition, developing nations may require support in their efforts to implement the regulations. From the session at the IGF, the need for policies on social media use is apparent, as these policies appear as not to align to national laws within a state.  This report presents the policy questions, findings and outcomes of the IGF session on “Emerging technologies in conflict and maintaining peace”.

      policy questions

      Three main questions were discussed as part of the forum. These were:

      • Is there a need to regulate cyber & AI use in conflict at an international level to ensure human rights are protected?
      • Should cyber, disinformation, AI and autonomous weapons systems (AWS) be considered under one ‘forum’, or under different forums as is currently done?
      • What is the role of developing nations, and the challenges they may face?

      Relation to SDGs Targets

      • S16.3 Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all
      • S16.8 Broaden and strengthen the participation of developing countries in the institutions of global governance
      • S16.a Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, for building capacity at all levels, in particular in developing countries, to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime

      discussion

      From the discussion of the policy questions, it was evident that in general, governments appear to be shutting down social media sites to prevent citizens from engaging on political issues, thus inhibiting the right to provide critical commentary and thereby deeming it illegal. Along with the implementation of international treaties and cyber, AI and AWS governance, the issue of sovereignty was discussed, as some of the developing nations appear to separate themselves in terms of vetting and agreeing to be signatories to the establishments of international agreements on the governance of cyber as a whole. With further reference to the regulation of AI, AWS and cyber, there is currently an over reliance on the Geneva Convention (Article 36, Protocol I), and the Marten’s Clause. And while these stipulations allow for the open interpretation and development of new international legislations, state leaders often avoid being signatories to the concept of global cyber governance, as they would need to be wary of the penalties or implications of using AI, AWS and cyber in conflict situations.

      With reference to policy question two, the majority of forums that are currently in place, are forcing governments to fulfil their agreements. States within the European Union have or are in the process of adopting AI and to some extent principles for Cyber weapons. However, these initiatives, in most cases are controlled and monitored by non-governmental organisations. While these NGOs normally have technology policies that discuss these two areas, the problem is still the nuances and implementation of laws as cyberweapons are considered as part of normal weapon system laws. And these subtle differences that can create conflict  between opposing perspectives.

      With reference to policy question three, there are international institutions e.g., IFIP research base communities, who as in this case must pay attention to the inclusion of developing  countries.  With developing countries, however, additional support in terms of funding for travel and attendance to these forums may be required. On the other hand, it is possible that developing countries value their sovereignty too much and feel that by agreeing to international protocols they may lose a part of their sovereign powers. Countries wants to control what is happening in their countries. Although they want to use the international security arguments.

      outcomes

      There were two key outcomes which were:

      • Policy question one : Participants of working groups should force governments to act in accordance with agreements and must join working groups. Consideration must be permitted for the role of cyber in conflicts.  International law must apply the law of humanity, and this must not be reactive when cyber related conflicts are involved, as the Geneva Convention does imply the openness to interpretation and collaboration in new areas of development. This would also include aspects of social media usage governance.
      • Policy question two: Citizens need to motivate the need for an international forum on the use of cyberweapons and international security as well as the use of the same weapons for cybercrime and cyber terrorism.  Disinformation is currently the primary means of income for criminals, and global awareness around this is important. Forums can act as the preventative but engagement medium with regard to mitigating the effects of disinformation while engaging in awareness. It was stated that a unified forum for AI, AWS and cyber would be beneficial , especially because of this *very* low barrier to entry for the use of AI, with tons of toolkits available on all of the major vendors' platforms.

      The third outcome was a general discussion on the challenges faced by developing nations, and the discussion followed the route that most developing nations have poor infrastructure and a general lack of awareness, which may entail additional support in terms of funding. The issue of sovereignty also plays a key challenge in the willingness of developing countries to participate, engage and become signatories to international governance frameworks. This is a major challenge which can only be addressed through mutual cooperation.

      links to additional sources

      IGF 2021 WS #177 From commitment to action: braking barriers to connectivity

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 14:50
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Key Takeaways:

      Takeaway 1: Connectivity projects are not about delivering infrastructure, they are about delivering opportunity. Opportunity for information sharing, education, access to public services, commerce, investment, innovation, growth and development.

      ,

      To deliver connectivity for all, we need innovation, sustainability, and collaboration -- between policy makers, regulatory authorities and other stakeholders at national, regional and international level. Multistakeholder cooperation, including with consumer and trade associations, is important for government interventions to leverage digital transformation and inform digital and regulatory tools, processes, and mechanisms.

      Calls to Action

      Policymakers and regulators need to embrace innovative regulation to enable innovative technologies and new business models. Such regulation must be flexible, evidence-based and forward-looking. Investment and innovation must be incentivized both on the supply and demand side of technology and it must be developed in collaboration with all stakeholders.

      Session Report

      IGF 2021 WS #177 From Commitment to Action – breaking barriers to connectivity

      Session Report 

      The session aimed to explore why, despite universal commitment, we are still so far away from universal connectivity. Conversations started from the premise that successful connectivity projects depend on technological, financial and regulatory support and evolved to identify specific barriers under these three categories that stand in the way of delivering connectivity to everyone, everywhere. Participants also shared their views and recommendations on how to overcome such barriers, based on learnings and best practices from projects they lead or collaborate on.

      Innovative technologies

      Speakers shared examples of projects and initiatives to deliver meaningful connectivity. They mentioned:

      • Internet Para Todos: an open access wholesale rural mobile infrastructure operator launched in partnership by Telefonica, Facebook, IDB Invest and CAF (Development Bank of Latin America) in Peru
      • Amazon’s Project Kuiper: a low Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellation aimed to provide fast, affordable broadband to unserved and underserved communities around the world
      • ITU’s GIGA initiative: launched in 2019 aiming to provide connectivity to every school in the world
      • Egypt’s Decent Life initiative: a large-scale government project with a connectivity component that aims to provide high-speed connectivity to inhabitants of rural areas to promote socio-economic development and a decent life for the most vulnerable groups nationwide

      Participants noted how the delivery of technology solutions to facilitate connectivity, especially new and innovative approaches to connect remote and hard-to-reach areas, is oftentimes linked with the development of new business models and / or with innovative regulatory approaches.

      Innovative financing

      Participants underlined the necessity of public-private partnerships to finance connectivity and stressed how partnerships that embrace multiple stakeholders and industry players from multiple sectors can be of added value. The role of development banks was also emphasized as a catalyst and facilitator for investments, especially to get projects off the ground.

      Speakers also commented on the need for the periodic review and improvement of existing financing mechanisms and incentive projects.

      The Discussion explored the interlinkages between access to infrastructure, digital content and services and skills, each acting as an enabler or driver for the other. Therefore, investments across all three layers are equally necessary to ensure meaningful connectivity for all.

      The conversation highlighted the need for enabling policy and regulatory frameworks that promote investments both on the supply and demand side of connectivity and support new and innovative business models.

      Innovative regulation

      Participants agreed that fit-for-purpose, flexible and future-proof regulatory frameworks are the only effective way forward to respond to the challenges of a digital transformation process that has been boosted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Such regulatory environments create an enabling framework not only to incentivize investments, but also to ensure these investments are viable and sustainable on the long term.

       

      The session concluded that there is no one single factor that drives connectivity, this issue requires a holistic approach and cooperation across the board from operators, investors and regulators, but also the users and local communities. Participants also on agreed on the importance of stimulating demand and investing in capacity building and skills, to ensure connectivity is fit-for-purpose, enabling and empowering for the users and to build trust and confidence in using the Internet and the technologies it enables.

      Throughout the conversation, participants were guided by their shared belief that delivering connectivity is not the goal itself, but the means toward delivering equal opportunity for all to access information, education, essential services, commerce – in short, economic and social development.

      IGF 2021 WS #154 Promoting Collective Action to Protect our Healthcare

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 13:45
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      The limitations of the current efforts include a lack of concrete support for implementation of the commitments already made at the UN level, inability to fully recognize the applicability of international law in cyberspace, and bridging digital gaps.

      ,

      The healthcare sector is vulnerable and that’s why it will continue to be attacked despite many efforts by government, private sector, and civil society. Healthcare and its cyber resilience remains a national issue first, and it is difficult to address it at a global scale. Its is important to compare how different regions address this issue.

      Calls to Action

      Bringing the perspective of the victims to the conversation to ensure informed decisions at the national level.

      ,

      Bringing together the law enforcement, industry, civil society to the conversation to discuss the proper way to address these issues.

      Session Report

      The workshop took a solution-oriented approach to cyber-attacks on the healthcare sector since the start of the pandemic. The sharp increase in the number of cyber incidents against hospitals, research labs, vaccination centers, as documented in the Cyber Incident Tracer,  has resulted in serious disruption to the provision of healthcare, causing direct harms to our individual and collective well-being. The panelists reflected on possible responses to address this crisis, from the perspective of the stakeholder group they were representing. 

       

      Healthcare sector perspective (Brazil)

      Based on the case of Brazil and the state of public healthcare, inequality is an important topic to address.

      There has been a change in mentality and cybersecurity is now approached at the systemic level and it is important for the entire healthcare sector.

      Technical part, as well as human operation, are essential. There is a need to develop digital operations strategies based on cyber security and also on training people on properly use these technologies.

       

      What options are on the table in Brazil?

      1. Healthcare sector as a whole is not organized to propose collective solutions
      2. Issues at the individual level at hospitals and companies are being discussed, it is however deficiency at this moment to not have an articulated action so that healthcare sector is more protected 
      3. If we are going to manage the network and groups of discussions to organize collective action, regulations are not enough, there is a need for a culture of inner preservation and communication technology operators need to be aware of data protection.

       

      Private sector perspective (global):

      Since the start of the pandemic we’ve learned just how vulnerable the healthcare sector is to cyberattacks.

      Healthcare protection is a national issue and it is difficult to address at a global scale, since all countries are different and approach it differently. This is why it is important to see how different regions address this issue. Regardless, healthcare protection should not be about how much money you can put into it.

       

      How to ensure effective efforts:

      1. Find practical solutions and start with small steps
      2. Bring more attention to the global level on how cyber norms need to be addressed, how we can protect the ICT supply chain in working within the UN structure
      3. Find the right partners to deliver results

      Private sector can and is currently bringing together policy makers, NGOs, and legal experts to discuss how the healthcare sector can be better protected by applying international law

      and what the gaps are.   Initiatives like the Oxford Process, Paris Call etc. help to raise awareness on actions that need to be taken on cyber security

      1. Consider how AI for health can empower different organizations to address the challenges in global health (working with researchers)

       

      Government perspective

      Currently there are 3 major areas where we are falling short:

      1. There is a lack of concrete support for the implementation of commitments already made at the UN level (need to mobilize political will; create an inclusive platform at the UN level to have more crossover debates with industry, civil society and technical experts, etc.)
      2. Inability to recognize fully the applicability of international law in cyberspace (need to have a conversation about specific cases and what we need to implement international law in reality)
      3. Bridging digital gaps in developing countries and cyber capacity building (digitalization to go hand-in-hand with cyber resilience; in the UN system, think about how to add cyber security and cyber resilience component to the existing projects so that we are not digitalizing and creating new vulnerabilities)

       

      What the government (and diplomats in particular) can do:

      1. Build bridges
      2. Empower the right voices, for example by emphasizing the victim perspective
      3. Bring the right people to the room (need to have technical specialists, people from industry to debate these issues and come to solutions together)
      4. Further discuss standards in cyberspace, for example security by design (these discussions are ongoing and sensitive).

       

      Civil society perspective

      2 things missing in the current efforts:

      1. Access to healthcare is a fundamental human right. Motivation to protect healthcare should therefore be looked at from this perspective (understanding the human impact on the individuals in the attacks on healthcare, because it is an important motivator for the collective action and thinking about accountability; understand how these issues impact individuals and try to measure and understand it
      2. Making the collective protection of healthcare a priority (collective action also means starting with the political attribution of attacks on healthcare). There is a need for governments, industry and law enforcement to work together; need to elevate the attacks to the level where other national security issues are put.

       

      What civil society can do:

      1. Bring perspectives of the victims to the discussion, share it with policy makers so that they can make informed decisions about how these things impact individuals
      2. Reach out to other civil society organizations around the world and help them to be part of this conversation
      3. Work on concerted diplomacy and bring together law enforcement, industry, and civil society into these conversations
      4. Foster a concrete and actionable conversation at the global level (understand what is the concrete goal to achieve and what are actionable recommendations)

       

      The multistakeholder actors in this workshop agree that the healthcare sector is extremely vulnerable and it will continue to be attacked despite many efforts by government, private sector, and civil society. The best way to tackle this problem is collectively, as all actors can learn from each other about the best approaches to better secure the healthcare sector.

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #84 Internet governance, with and for the citizens

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 12:17
      Session Report

      - Session 84 Open Forum – 77 participants (Many weren’t able to attend because of technical issues with the platform, more people on site than online)

      This session was impactful both for us as organisers since we received requests for partnerships but also for stakeholders who were present and who shed light on findings from our deliberative processes in their own way.

      The findings of the We, The Internet Dialogues were said by an attendee of the session that “they highlight the importance of education for online human rights, which are no different to offline human rights”.

      One participant acknowledged the fact that global citizens ask for more inclusion in internet governance: “Yes it is true, internet governance should be everyone’s responsibility”. This stakeholder agreed with what came out from our findings regarding governance.

      A participant in the room proposed a collaboration to become a national partner in Australia and implement a citizen dialogue locally and help reach impact at regional and national level specifically on the subject of human rights online. Another participant from Africa also showed interest in becoming a national partner.

      Stakeholders showed interest in the fact that they can implement a Dialogue independently from us by using our dedicated Toolkit, free and available on our internet site. This toolkit consists of a design based on Missions Publiques’ method of citizens’ participation and 4 modules that include step-by-step guidance, case studies, references, as well as key questions for launching group discussions and individual questionnaires. All tools are grounded in research and contextualized for the diverse operating realities of global stakeholders. This is encouraging because stakeholders from the IGF community would like to expand the Citizens’ Dialogues.

      On Twitter: 1 tweet from @MPubliques_EN with a thread

      #OF84 #IGF2021 has started! Enlightened citizens want action now with #WeTheInternet. What do stakeholders have to say? Discussions underway at the IGF's #OF84 (thread) https://twitter.com/MPubliques_EN/status/1467777469709262851?s=20

       

       

      - Session Townhall 7 – 41 registered persons (We are adding this here, because it seems we cannot edit the reporting for this session specifically) 

      One attendee from Belgium showed interest in wanting to expand the We The Internet process because they too wanted to bridge back discussions between “hand-users”(who we call citizens) and stakeholders and decision-makers.

      One intervention from a family doctor in England was very interesting. He understood our findings regarding AI in Ethics and found that the answer to the following question asked to citizens was of the utmost interest: “who, for citizens, should hire an AI ethicist?”. For him, one of the issues of biomedical engineers is that these “very clever people don’t deal with ethics.” These Citizens’ Dialogues are also a good way of shedding light on ethical subjects that every ordinary citizen should be concerned with, to complement to work of biomedical engineers. The participant also explained he had built a medical center to train patients: “when you look at the literacy of the population only 3% can standards legal texts.” This confirms what citizens said in the deliberations: that they want to be educated and they want literacy to be improved for all reasons such as understanding legal texts for example.   

      There was one Tweet made by @ramupetu: Here a few thoughs from #IGF2021 town hall #7 'Internet Governance with & for the Citizens': data from consultations on IG issues can help #libraries shape #digitalskills programmes, also they can offer space or step in as local facilitators of continous dialogue

      @MPubliques_EN

      https://twitter.com/ramupetu/status/1469337050302357506?s=20

       

       

      Finally, one participant took the floor and ended the discussion by saying:” Your role is not an easy one, but it should be done”.

      IGF 2021 WS #131 Money can’t buy me digital literacy

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 12:16
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      Accessibility should be considered as a basic human right! Not a luxury. Key is that a lot of societal and economic problems like poverty were even more visible during the pandemic. Society should reflect on the human violence against children, young people, women, minorities and vulnerable people transmitted by the digital networks.

      ,

      The educational system which is totally different in many regions of the world, was not prepared at all for the pandemic. Young people got the feeling that they are not really taken serious in many aspects of digital life, i.e. flagging process. Lack of accessibility: To be able to play an active role in society, you need „being connected“ to the society.

      Calls to Action

      We need to invite the youth to come in this discussion. The creation of youth ambassadors is crucial, to promote a multi stakeholder initiative, establish digital youth hubs.

      ,

      More Online Education – The majority of children felt that education had been better before the pandemic. Here is a big challenge for digital literacy.

      Session Report

      Following the introduction of the moderator, key speakers set the scene by responding to the following question: “Challenge the digital divide. What does your stakeholder group and/or region demand to bridge the digital divide?”

      Sonia Livingstone from LSE, representing the academic kicked-off by highlighting that technology can complement education but should not dominate it. 

      Following Kathrin Morasch, BIK Youth Ambassador from Germany and Youth IGF representative, echoed the voice of young people, raising three major problems young people see in regard to the digital divide: 
      1.    Educational systems are so very different across the world, and need fundamental improvements. And we have been saying this for many years. 
      2.    Young people don’t feel they are taken seriously. She gave the example of a young person reporting content on social media, but only got robotic replies. Youth feels discouraged by these actions, and feel they don’t get any support from platforms. 
      3.    Accessibility and connectivity is crucial for young people and should be a basic human right. 

      Next up Evangelia Daskalaki, Technical Manager at the Greek Safer Internet Centre, bringing in the local perspective and work the SIC does at regional level. The digital divide is big in Greece she says, also because Greece was in the frontline of the refugee crisis. In addition, many children are coming from lower socio-economic background. And that’s the challenge the Greek SIC is facing in regard to the digital divide. Hence, the work the Greek SIC does is crucial, trying to provide educational materials also taking into account language barriers of refugee children and cultural difference. In this regard the Greek SIC works with other national NGOs and municipalities, in rural areas and islands. 

      Following, Rodrigo Nejm, Coordinator of SafeNet Brasil, bringing in the perspective of the global south. He mentioned that the pandemic highlighted the big difference in regard to accessibility but also capability of people navigating the internet in a considered and safe way. In this regard he also highlighted that digital literacy is key not only for children and young people but also adults. This became especially clear with the amount of fake news circulating online throughout the pandemic. 

      Moreover, he pointed to the huge inequality in Latin America especially when looking at vulnerable groups such as children and women that often are the main target of sexual violence, hate speech and other issues in this area. Hence, it is key to outline once again the importance of digital literacy for all, as it fosters fundamental aspects such has human rights and bridges inequalities. Multi-stakeholder approach means a shared responsibility! 

      Lastly Emmanuel Niyikora Programme Officer at ITU Area Office for West Africa, Dakar-Senegal presented the work he does at national level and with youth in Africa. Moreover, he stated that accessibility should be considered as a basic human right! Not a luxury! However, accessing the digital infrastructure is a huge challenge in Africa, especially in the rural areas, as internet services providers only operate in big cities. Hence, access to internet is not affordable to many citizens in Africa and also schools struggled to provide remote teaching during the pandemic. Which made the digital divide even more visible at national level. Furthermore, he pointed out training teachers is another layer we need to take into consideration when discussing the digital divide. 

      Next, participants were able to gather in smaller groups online and onsite, to discuss the following questions: 
      1.    What can be learned from the Covid-19 pandemic? 
      2.    If something similar like the Covid pandemic happens again, are we ready to respond? 
      3.    What action points should be followed by the respective stakeholders from the public and private sector? 
      4.    Please share any good practices from your country that tackle digital inequality as well as social and economic inequality.

      Results from break-out discussions: 
      Break out 1 (onsite) – results
      •    Yes, money can buy digital literacy – because we need a fund to buy proper devices. It is not possible to be educated on a mobile phone. 
      •    No, money cannot buy digital literacy – we have to focus immensely on the social, psychological and emotional problems children have during the pandemic
      •    We need to be aware oft he situation that we cannot be always ready, so a constant fund for quality devices is needed.
      •    Participant from Nigeria is mentioning the huge problem of „internet displacd people“, people who have to become refugees in their own country because of internet violence. 
      •    Alex from Brazil is recognising the huge social and emotional factor – that young people are losing their boundaris and becoming estranged to their fellow boys and girls.

      Break out 2 (online) – results
      •    Educational system was not ready to change to a quality digital education.
      •    We learn that in crisis we learn, we learn to change.
      •    Human rights are very often not taken into consideration during moments of crisis.
      •    We have to highlight the crucial role of the big tech companies and yes, big tech was prepared – big tech should be taken more into responsibility.
      •    Key role of Safer Internet Centres talking about social wellbeing, mental health, etc.

      Break out 3 (online) – results
      •    If there will be a next pandemic (actually this one has not finished so far – remark by rapporteur), we are not prepared , we are not ready again.
      •    We should include more the public sector and the industry. 
      •    Sonia Livingstone: Children in UK are tired of the usual eSafety lessons teaching „you are responsible“, „you got the duty“, but young people are enthousiastic about digital questions when it comes to relationship, their own privacy etc. and stop patronising, young people are so much ready to learn.

      Takeaways/call for action from session: 
      •    The Digital Divide is a widespread phenomenon which became even worth in the pandemic.
      •    Online Education – The majority of children felt that education had been better before the pandemic. Here is a big challenge for digital literacy.
      •    Key is that a lot of societal and economic problems like poverty were even more visible during the pandemic. Society should reflect on the human violence against children, young people, women, minorities and vulnerable people transmitted by the digital networks.
      •    We should use the digital revolution for a change and discuss a much larger conversation of life. 
      •    We need to invite the youth to come in this discussion. 
      •    Digital devices are not only for fun and entertainment but to take action for a better society.
      •    Accessibility should be considered as a basic human right! Not a luxury 
      •    The creation of youth ambassadors is crucial, to promote a multi stakeholder initiative, establish digital youth hubs.

      Youth requests that were specifically mentioned:  
      •    The educational system which is totally different in many regions of the world, was not prepared at all for the pandemic.
      •    Young people got the feeling that they are not really taken serious in many aspects of digital life, i.e. flagging process.
      •    Lack of accessibility: To be able to play an active role in society, you need „being connected“ to the society.
      The session concluded with a nice video put together by young people from Brasil, demanding their needs to bridge the digital divide: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1irRBO28mWq6UM6tXS7bZnqrZCo-Pf-br/view  

      Furthermore, a final call for action made by Kathrin: Involve youth in policy making processes and your advisory boards. 
       

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #12 Digital Selfdetermination: Next Steps

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 11:34
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      People increasingly feel that someone else is in control of their data. There is a need to have more choices and greater control over data. Digital self-determination can provide the necessary agency. Better control is also needed where data is fundamental for socially relevant systems. The increasing concentration of data with few actors creates risks and dependencies. This is why international data governance is urgently needed.

      Calls to Action

      Multistakeholder collaboration on data issues is important and needs to be intensified. In addition, discussions on data governance need to be lifted to the policy level and trustworthy data spaces have to be developed. Conversations on digital self-determination should also be linked to sustainability. Successful experiences like the creation of an intergovernmental panel on climate change should serve as inspiration for data governance.

      Session Report

      The Open Forum on Digital Self Determination focused on the question How to realize the use and reuse of data in order to spur innovation despite current skepticism and barriers such as the centralization of data? The discussion centered the concept of digital self determination as a new approach that offers solutions in the realm of international data governance. The panel was represented by the two initiators of the Swiss concept of digital self determination, Ambassador Roger Dubach (Deputy Director, Directorate of International Law, Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs) and Ambassador Thomas Schneider (Head of International Relations, Swiss Federal Office of Communications). Torbjörn Fredriksson (Head E-Commerce and Digital Economy Branch, UNCTAD), Nydia Remolina, (Research Associate AI and Data Governance, SMU) and Gayatri Khandhadai (Asia Policy Regional Coordinator, Association for Progressive Communication) were also on the panel.

      Ambassadors Roger Dubach and Thomas Schneider introduced the concept and laid out its individual and collective components. In terms of the individual component, the key lies in the empowerment of individuals so that they do not remain passive users but become proactive co-creators of the digital environment. Knowledge, freedom of choice and the ability to act were highlighted as inalienable conditions for making digital self determination a reality for individuals. The individual component was illustrated on the Swiss Electronic Patient Record, which will allow full data control by the individual and easier information and knowledge transfer among health professionals. The collective component of digital self determination in turn focuses on the impacts of the digital transformation on society as a whole. In this context, the risks and potentials of the private sector’s push into the public service sphere were highlighted and the idea of integrating all mobility services (private and public) in Switzerland in one platform was introduced. Both the regulation of relevant (public) services and sectors as well as the creation of trustworthy data spaces that allow data sharing in a decentralized way were referred to as relevant factors for the collective component. In their view, digital self determination provides an approach to overcome current barriers to the data economy, such as the lack of data sharing and the lack of data control by individuals. It provides more agency of individuals and spurs economic and social benefits through the creation of new services.

      Torbjörn Frederiksson highlighted the economic and non-economic implications of the data economy and the diversity in data handling perspectives. Due to the diverse  perspectives, the current data governance framework is highly fragmented. He pointed to the need to find interlinked dimensions and ways to bring data governance to a global level. The international collaboration across borders, stakeholders and disciplines was deemed important to build a common understanding of data.

      The issue of fragmentation was also picked up by Nydia Remolina. She pointed to the different conceptual, theoretical and social perspectives on the theme of privacy among different stakeholders, jurisdictions and regions and their implications on data policy and data governance. She stressed that the data debate should be brought beyond the data protection regime of one jurisdiction and beyond the debate of personal data. Discussions should center on data empowerment and data access, the use and reuse of data, opinion data and how the outcome of AI models affects people. In her view, the value and potential of the concept of digital self determination lies exactly in making this stretch.

      According to Gaya Khandhadai, the discussion on data governance necessitates a discussion on data as such. She introduced an approach that perceives data as an extension of the body. In her view, the digital and physical selves are intertwined and cannot be detached from each other and the society in which they exist. The focus should lie on individuals as the data subjects and their empowerment. There should be alternatives to the outdated model of opt in or opt out. In her view, a good data governance requires a human rights-based approach, different choice options, and the control of the users. Lastly, she stressed that new models such as digital self determination should not be a privilege of the rich countries, but rather should be looked at it in an inclusive manner.

      The Swiss UN youth representative, Nikolas Kurek, drew attention to the importance of how we use the term “data” using statisticians and the public sector as examples. In his view, the challenge lies in aligning the terminology use. He was curious to know, which other stakeholders should be involved in the data discussion. The panelists agreed that all disciplines and stakeholders should be involved in the further data discussion, including states, civil society, the scientific community, and the private sector. Furthermore, they highlighted the importance of real time data and digital data as well as the challenges faced by statisticians as regards latter two categories.

      A question raised by a participant on the relationship between digital self determination and national sovereignty and on the main barriers in achieving digital self determination further stimulated the discussion. Here, it was argued that digital sovereignty – understood as the autonomy of a state to shield its infrastructure from influence and disturbance from another country – is a pre-condition for the functioning of digital self determination: states need to have control over their infrastructure in order to guarantee the realization of digital self determination. Although the two concepts are clearly interlinked, the concept of digital self determination is broader.

      To wrap up the session, it can be said that all panelists agreed that there is a need to provide more choices and greater control over data to individuals given their fundamental role in societal systems. The concept of digital self determination can provide the necessary agency. It is important to collaborate and intensify discussions with different stakeholders on data issues. In addition, discussions on data governance need to be lifted to the policy level and trustworthy data spaces need to be developed. Conversations on digital self determination should further be linked to the theme of sustainability. Successful experiences such as the creation of an intergovernmental panel on climate change could serve as an inspiration for data governance. It’s achievements in agreeing on a common language, depoliticizing the debate and identifying the main challenges were deemed relevant for data policy as well. All in all, it is about shaping the digital space and society in the present and the future.

      IGF 2021 WS #18 Cyber Diplomacy in Africa and Digital Transformation

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 10:13
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      Cyber Diplomacy is needed to reach the uniformization of strategy and policy on cybersecurity all over Africa and push for the ratification of the Malabo convention for more states in Africa.

      , Digital cooperation and cyber diplomacy across borders at the international and intra-national levels are key elements for the protection of an open, free and secure internet. Any point of failure will impact the global network.
      Calls to Action

      Capacity building on cyber governance, cybersecurity, and cyber diplomacy is a mandate for Africa. Decision-makers and politicians should be on-board for cyber diplomacy and cyber security matters.

      , Digital strategy should be included in each African member state national strategy
      Session Report

      The workshop which was held on the 8th December was moderated onsite by Dr. Margaret Nyambura Ndung'u and online by Mr. Adil Sulieman.

      The panellists were:

      1. Mr. Abdul-Hakeem Ajijola - Chair of AUCSEG and former commissioner, Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace

      2. Dr. Nnenna Ifeanyi-Ajufo - Vice chair of AUCSEG, Senior lecturer, Law and Technology at Swansea University, UK

      3. Mr. Vladimir Radunović – Diplo Foundation

      4. Mr. Pearse O’Donohue, Director Future Networks, DG CONNECT

      The Rapporteur was Ms. Rakotondrainibe Harimino Lalatiana

      The onsite moderator placed the discussion in the context of the digital transformation strategy launched by the AU in 2020 to 2023, where there is a need to build trust and ensure there is a liable and secure infrastructure across the continent. She highlighted that while The Malabo convention on cybersecurity and data protection was launched in 2014 to ensure safety and privacy online, less than 15 countries across Africa had ratified. She noted that Cyber Diplomacy works by building strategic partnerships across social, economic, and cultural dimensions of development.

      The following were the discussed questions

      1. Why is Cyber Diplomacy important for the continent? Should we as a continent be interested with issues related to Cyber Diplomacy? What opportunities does Cyber-Diplomacy present?

      2. Could cyber diplomacy be the panacea to unlock the ratification of the Malabo convention? Are African states ready for regulation of digital space through International law and cooperation?

      3. How can the African states prepare for Cyber diplomacy, participate and follow UN processes and ultimately implement the outcome of the processes

      4. In the 2020 EU Cybersecurity strategy the EU presented a series of actions related to global Internet security. How could African stakeholders be involved in the overall effort to increase Internet security?

      5. What is the relevance of digital cooperation in digital governance strategies including policy making, the African Digital Transformation Agenda and other continental efforts such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (ACFTA), African Single Market (ASM) and the AU Agenda 2063 aspirations?

      6. Are African Diplomats and senior leadership including parliamentarians well informed on the role of Cyber – Diplomacy in enriching their work in their respective mandates?

      7. Africa has diverse digital development status. What are the potential challenges in implementing the UN Framework(s) for Responsible State Behavior and Confidence Building Measures in Cyberspace?

      8. Can you share with us ongoing initiatives, if any, by EU to promote cyber-diplomacy in developing countries? If so, are there Africa specific initiatives?

      Key highlights:

      • Cyber diplomacy is important for Africa because norms (soft laws) created in cyberspace will impact us over the long term and Africa should be meaningfully at the table to discuss those norms as like others must live, in the future, with the precedents set and decisions that are made today.
      • The continent should be interested in issues related to Cyber Diplomacy because cyberspace like any global environment is only as strong as its weakest link, and Africa must NOT be the weak link.
      • There are direct interests in investing in Cybersecurity. The Cyber Security solution market across Africa will be anywhere between 10 and 15 billion dollars US and soon this field will offer 3,1 million vacant jobs. Thus, Africa must develop a generation of cyber diplomats that will be sufficiently informed to address the rules and the norms, and interaction among the states in cyber.
      • Cyber Diplomacy can be much needed to push for the ratification of the Malabo convention to have uniformity of strategy and policy all over the continent. -Africa is more disadvantaged when speaking about cyber diplomacy because we still lack the digital capacity to compete at the international level and participate in cyber diplomacy discussions. Furthermore, Africa is diverse and each state has its context, which influences the ideology and capacity to build the implication for dialogue and implication for cybersecurity measures. Taking the example of the Malabo convention, the failure or refusal to ratify this convention may have political dimensions rooted in our diversity (political, cultural, historical) in addition to the lack of capacity despite many initiatives, confidence building measures and capacity building, led by the AUC.  The preparation for Cyber diplomacy in Africa lies in two strategies:
        • Firstly, by ensuring buy-in from African leaders and decision-makers to ensure cybersecurity is on the agenda. This can be achieved by reconnecting or reframing cybersecurity to real issues.
        • Secondly, by dealing with human resources and capacity as Africa lacks informed resources which influenced their participation at the international level. There should also be better coordination at the national level between ministries and more inclusion by getting people who are not always officials on board.
      • The Internet is a global and unified ecosystem and should remain as it is. That is why it is important not to think of it as only a national or regional issue to avoid internet fragmentation. We should avoid thinking that the internet is a decentralized and distributed network, and as such is resilient without any point of failure. Governments and multistakeholder from Africa must be allowed to be fully engaged in any issues addressed on the global internet.
      • On the relevance of digital cooperation in digital strategies it was noted that diplomatic efforts will impact dialogues and negotiations for cybersecurity based on the capacity of countries. The discussions on digital cooperation should not only be limited to external international cooperation but extended to inter-cooperation.
      • It was note that there seems to be the misperception that Cyber Diplomacy is not an African problem to solve. This is compounded by a lack of awareness, a consistent approach, and consensus on cyber norms. To overcome this, we should encourage research to support African Parliamentarians and ultra-high level strategic decision- makers in drafting inter-linked and coherent norms and policies as well as the formation of global coalitions of cyber professionals and a mentoring ecosystem. Africa must articulate its Philosophy, Ethics, Policy, Strategies, and accountability frameworks across the spectrum of Cyber Diplomacy.
      • Regarding the challenges for the implementation of the UN Framework, it was noted that the main challenge is the perception that the UN Framework is only for big players in cyber diplomacy. Furthermore, this framework is only about a conflict, in essence, it sets the agenda and builds capacity, it is a geopolitical position, which boosts political awareness at a national level to take measures.
        • Among the ongoing initiatives, by the EU to promote cyber-diplomacy in developing countries includes:
      • “Cyber direct” project: contribute to the development of a secure international cybersphere, to support the principles of single open stable free secure cyberspace which adheres to the values of democracy and human rights. The initiatives promote the UN framework for responsible states' behaviour to ensure the stability of cyberspace.
      • In 2022, there will be an initiative that promotes open and free internet in Africa working with African partners. The vision is to assist in physical connection for millions of people and the need for cybersecurity to protect people.
      • The workshop ended with a round of questions with a point of reflection on:
        • Whether Africa needs to take part in Cyber Security as a priority knowing the fact that it is not yet digitized, with a lack of access and behind in terms of technologies? o What if cybersecurity doesn’t exist?
        • How do we build young cyber diplomats?
        • Do we have a cyber-diplomacy model that can be applied in other sub-regions?
      • It was noted that being the least digitized continent does not mean that we do not need cybersecurity considering that the new users of the internet are the most vulnerable and need to be protected. - we must develop our digital capacity based on teaching and research in the South.
      • All societies require trust to optimally function, and cybersecurity is a foundation to build trust in the digital society - We must think about the uniformity of the cybersecurity framework all over Africa.
      IGF 2021 DCCOS Regulate or prevent to protect children – a false dichotomy?

      DC Session
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 09:23
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      1. Regulation and prevention do not exist in a dichotomy but are too often framed in that way – it is possible and essential to have both.

      ,

      2. Regulation is often politically expedient and based on the values, priorities, and political interests of a country. Therefore, lessons must be learnt from public health messaging and other approaches to social problems, with attention given to disparities between Global North and Global South countries that are often missed in general regulation proposals for the internet.

      Calls to Action

      As the world looks at diverse ways to regulate online spaces, the Dynamic Coalition on Children's Rights in the Digital Environment calls on children’s rights groups to find a shared voice and improve cooperation and help build consensus around ways to balance regulation and child protection that respects fundamental human rights such as privacy online.

      ,

      The Dynamic Coalition on Children's Rights in the Digital Environment calls on governments, when considering legislation to regulate online spaces to protect children, to consider the limits of regulation without broader attention to prevention strategies informed by a public health approach and adapted to their context.

      Session Report
      • The session began with a participant poll on the question: What do you hope to get out of this session? The results: 
        • 27% were keen to inform themselves about the topic
        • 23% were keen to see the prevention prioritised as a way to protect children online
        • 22% were keen to find common ground and a roadmap for the future on this topic
        • 18% were looking for a clear answer to the question in the session title
        • 10% were keen to see regulation prioritised as a way to protect children online. 
      • From this starting point, the session speakers presented the following challenges and arguments:
        • (London School of Economics – Prof. Sonia Livingstone) The debate between digital child rights advocates and advocates of democracy and free expression has become problematic. This is in part because discussions around illegal and harmful content have been unhelpfully confused and may also be because child rights advocates have not sufficiently prepared for the debates around technologies such as encryption. This makes the safety/privacy-by-design movement an important one, because it offers solutions that are not dependent on heavy-handed content-based regulation, but on the regulation of processes and outcomes, combined with standards, training and remedy.
        • (Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention- Patrick Burton) Regulation and safety-by-design are important elements of (online) violence prevention, but they are too often overemphasized as solutions and in this sense can be seen as politically expedient, despite good intentions in many cases. Sustainable violence prevention requires behavioral change, which requires an understanding of the way children engage with tech and are supported to live online. Furthermore, because there is an intersection between online and offline violence, we need to learn from other sectors about the role of tech and industry in supporting interventions that regulate them, and we need to learn from public health messaging and other approaches to social problems.
        • (jugendschutz.net - Andreas Hautz) Prevention through education and regulation go hand in hand because you cannot effectively keep children safe online without a combination of detection and removal of illegal content, proactive reporting by online service providers, active creation of safe digital environments, including in relation to safety by design and safe settings, and strong reporting mechanisms for when harm does occur. This combination lies behind a new law in Germany this year. In brief, regulation is needed to get engagement from online service providers, but analysis of the problems is essential, and regulation is only fully effective when it leads to prevention. At the same time, you cannot regulate everything, which makes media literacy a crucial element.
        • (Safernet Brazil- Thiago Tavares) Latin America is a dangerous place for children due to high levels of poverty, social inequality, violence and insufficient public policy and education, but also for society due to state surveillance and other government control tactics. These underlying social factors pre-dated the internet and are sometimes missed in proposals for regulation of the internet. Different societies propose different approaches based on their values, priorities, and political interests, which has been seen starkly in Brazil where the Federal Government has proposed regulation to prohibit content moderation in relation to harmful behavior such as hate speech, cyber bullying, neo-Nazism, and misinformation. This has put civil society organizations advocating for digital safety in direct danger. It also highlights the importance of rejecting regulation that fails to respect the due process of law or the rights to free speech, data protection and privacy.
        • (Internet Watch Foundation – Michael Tunks) The UK draft online safety bill places a duty of care, as a well-established regulatory approach, on online platforms with user-to-user services and search providers to ensure the safety of its users. However, regulating is complex and takes time as has been seen in countries/regions such as the UK, EU, and Australia. Furthermore, regulation must complement not duplicate mechanisms that exist and work, it should be based on principles and be flexible enough to adapt to inevitable changes in technology, and it should respect the rights of children to privacy and a childhood free of abuse and exploitation. Having clear standards about what is and is not illegal is very helpful for multinational solutions. However, that does not mean companies should not go further and do more to keep children safe.
      • To the question of whether we have an option to overemphasize either prevention or regulation, participants responded:
        • The UN General Comment #25 offers clear procedures for achieving a balance, but a careful process is needed to decide how any decision might affect any or all of children’s rights. This is hard since children are individuals. This leads to an argument for regulation for ‘hygiene factors’ that governments and businesses must adhere to ensure children’s privacy, security and equity, combined with intermediators such as auditors, funders, trade associations and ethics organizations that can help ensure children rights more broadly.
        • Useful regulation would be regulation that lays out the responsibility of online platforms to have strong reporting, referral and victim support processes, and to focus not only on technology to detect the outcomes of violence such as child sexual abuse material, but also all the things before that go unreported.
        • Indeed, governments have so far failed to provide companies with a good regulatory framework that governs their proactive work in this area. We need better rules that guide companies and enable to them to take responsibility. 
        • Some regulation is needed, such as to require the use of automated tools to detect CSAM, but solutions should be implemented in a way that does not affect other human rights.
        • Regulation may be politically expedient, but it is also about what is possible at a given moment in time. And as much as we talk about global standards, the internet is not a global system that must be run in a global way. This Idea of global standards and systems has been an obstacle to action. The crucial question is how come up with a framework that recognizes the responsibility of internet companies to prioritize safety – so regulation is essential, but if we leave the decision to online platforms, they will not prioritize safety.
      • A participant from the Technical University of Munich asked what should be done to protect child influencers. Participants responded that there is no easy answer, but that there is a distinction between types of influencers. For example, there is clearly a role for regulation regarding the use of children to market certain products that can be harmful for children, and this also requires attention to child labor laws.
      • Dotkids.com asked about the value of creating child friendly domains/spaces. Participants responded that safe spaces are important, but that diversity is also important, for example in relation to language provision for access to information and safety measures (such as language recognition to ensure safety). Furthermore, at minimum regulation should not reduce spaces for children, which is what happened in relation to the ePrivacy Directive in the EU.

      Conclusions

      • We need regulation and prevention – there is no dichotomy between the two.
      • Regulation must be seen in context not in the abstract
      • We have to do the best we can for the children in our own countries/jurisdictions, rather than pursue goals of ‘global’ harmonization
      • Waiting for harmonization even on definitions will just lead to inaction, so we must focus on other areas and for local and contextual adaptation.

       

      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #10 Accelerating Information Accessibility for the Ageing Population

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 04:40
      Key Takeaways:

      Barrier-free environment needs a systematic construction and effect evaluation, in particular with further policy support from the government sectors and technical innovation from private sectors.

      Calls to Action

      The government sector is called upon to gradually legislate to encourage the development of industry technology and the formulation of industry standards for the information accessibility environment.

      ,

      The private sector, especially the Internet company, is encouraged to attach the attention to the needs of vulnerable groups from the initial top-level design by using new technologies.

      Session Report

      Co-organized by the Internet Society of China and the CICCST under China Association for Science and Technology, the session “Accelerating Information Accessibility for the Ageing Population” mainly discussed how to empower the ageing group and improve the capacity building of using new technology in nowadays digital and smart era.  

      Ms. LU ShiYu, Senior Researcher of Tencent Inc. and Ms. LI DuoDuo, PhD candidate in School of Journalism and Communication of Xiamen University were invited to share their insights and observations on the current status of ageing group-related digital divide and challenges faced.

      Ms. LU suggested that the science and technology industry should move from ICT adapting to aging to actively helping the elderly, by actively expand the application of science and technology in living communities, homes and related scenes, fully leveraging the energy of scientific and technological innovation.

      Ms. LI stressed that technology is the decisive factor of information accessibility development. At the same time, industry standards and national standards are the important prerequisites for the sustainable development of science and technology.

      The two speakers agreed that the barrier-free/information accessibility environment needs a systematic construction and joint efforts from all stakeholders, in particular with further policy support from the government sectors and technical innovation from private sectors.

      The moderator also introduced some best practice carried out in China. Regrading the Internet infrastructure, the Chinese telecom operators built the world's largest 4G network for easy access to the Internet everywhere. In terms of policy support, the governments release a series of industry guidance, for example, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of China had ever released two documents, one called Guidance on Promoting Information Accessibility, another named Implementation Plan to Help the Elderly Solve Problems in Using Smart Technologies, targeting to eliminate the obstacles for the vulnerable groups by reducing the cost, improving the terminal devices, services and application. To response the call, the Internet companies had actively conducted the re-build the the websites or APPs to support more functions to realize information accessibility standards, which set by industry associations or standard organizations. 

       

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #13 Christchurch Call & GIFCT: multi-stakeholder efforts for CVE

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 02:52
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:
      How to address terrorist and violent extremist content is a complex and important problem. Human Rights-based Multistakeholder approaches lead to better outcomes, but are also harder. Transparency is vital to their success, as is time spent building relationships in which challenging conversations can take place. It's vital such approaches succeed as the alternative is a cacophony incoherent and ineffective approaches damaging to all users.
      Session Report

       

      This Open Forum discussed multi-stakeholder approaches to addressing terrorist and violent extremist content online. 

       

      The Christchurch Call was presented as an example of an initiative that takes a voluntary approach where Governments and Companies agree to work based on a common set of commitments and underlying principles, where Leaders from all sectors set the priorities and where work is advanced through a number of different avenues. 

       

      The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) was founded by four tech companies to help respond to the complex issue of responding to terrorist use of platforms, where content & activity proliferates across and between platforms as well as across borders and languages.   The Christchurch terror attacks increased the complexity of the threat landscape and led to changes in the GIFCT’s structure and organisation including its establishment as an independent NGO.  

       

      Terrorist and Violent Extremist Content online is a complex and difficult issue to address.  Multi-stakeholder approaches are likely to be more effective but are also more difficult to implement effectively.  Human rights based approaches are vital, as is respect for the principles of a free, open, and secure internet.  Transparency is vital to their success, as is time spent building relationships in which challenging conversations can take place.  It's vital such approaches succeed as the alternative is a cacophony of incoherent and ineffective approaches damaging to everyone.

       

      Civil Society participants noted the importance of transparency, and accountability in this space.  There was a lot of legislative and regulatory measures being put in place on terrorist content, and it was important to include the voices of those most impacted by the online aspects of terrorism in the conversation. 

       

      Civil society participants were interested in seeing more information about how algorithms impact on the dissemination of terrorist content and are interested in the idea of independent assessments or audits to facilitate a better understanding of that issue.  They also wanted to see more transparency from both Governments and companies.  Online harm could also have real world impacts, and it was important to speak to people who understood those impacts best. 

       

      Tech participants noted the significant effort and resourcing directed at creating multi-stakeholder fora and solutions to some of these issues, including providing more transparency about what they were doing in this space.  They noted that often the most challenging voices were the ones that were most helpful in identifying and addressing problems. It was important to be able to live with those tensions and to accept that there would always be a level of dissatisfaction which could help to drive further improvement. 

       

      Government participants spoke to the importance of multistakeholderism being effective as well as inclusive.  Effectiveness was ultimately a key test of the legitimacy of the approach, and was key to getting Leaders engaged in similar processes.  Progress was being made in this area which was really important to highlight for those sceptical about multi-stakeholder approaches.  

       

      IGF 2021 WS #51 A Meaningful Standard for Necessary Scope of PI Processing

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 17/12/2021 - 02:36
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      The establishment of a necessary scope for personal information collection & processing and related standards in the scenarios of AI application must be completed step by step in the process of building an international Internet governance system that is fairer, more just, and reasonable. It is supposed to be gradually accomplished by encouraging multilateral and multi-stakeholder participation and giving full play to the role of various actors.

      Calls to Action

      It is recommended that the United Nations establish people-centered global universal rules and frameworks for personal information protection and AI application, and that the UN IGF play a greater role in guiding more stakeholders to engage and jointly build collaborative, trustworthy, and international community-oriented personal information protection and AI application rules & mechanisms.

      Session Report

      1. Summary of Issues Discussed

      1. The Chinese government has attached great importance to data security and personal information protection. Concerning legislation on personal information protection, China is a late starter and a smart riser. Over these years, the country has been committed to enhancing data security and personal information protection and has scored significant progress. A series of laws and regulations have been issued in this regard, including Data Security Law, Personal Information Protection Law, the Provisions on the Scope of Necessary Personal Information Required for Common Types of Mobile Internet Applications, and the Regulation on Protecting the Security of Critical Information Infrastructure in 2021. All of these laws and regulations have put forward clearer requirements for personal information protection from different levels, improving the legislative system and framework for personal information protection. Meanwhile, the international community, such as the European Union and Latin America, has also achieved new results. These practices fully demonstrate that all countries are currently facing new challenges and problems in the digital age, and that it is the consensus and new task of the international community to carry out exchanges and cooperation related to data security and personal information protection. 
      2. Data security and personal information protection have received considerable attention which are closely related to the development of digital economy in all countries. And one of its final goals should be promoting the healthy development of digital economy. The sustainable development of the digital economy calls for unified global data governance rules. We can learn from the related model of Internet governance to build an international exchange and cooperation mechanism to explore consensus on data governance.
      3. Excessive collection of personal data increases the risk of privacy leakage; deep data mining and analysis lead to the risk of data abuse; and "disguised data" generated by manipulating content of audio, video, image or text with AI technology disturb the decision-making system and cause national and social security risks.
      4. The establishment of a necessary scope for personal information collection & processing and related standards in the scenarios of AI application must be completed step by step in the process of building an international Internet governance system that is fairer, more just, and reasonable. Also it is supposed to be gradually accomplished by encouraging multilateral and multi-stakeholder participation and giving full play to the role of various actors such as governments, international organizations, Internet enterprises, technical communities, civil societies and individuals, etc.
      5. The emergence of data governance issues is closely intertwined with the development of digital economy across the globe. Hence we need to strike a balance between data security and development while acknowledging and respecting that countries have different concerns regarding data governance.

      2. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

      (1) It is recommended that the United Nations establish people-centered global universal rules and frameworks for personal information protection and AI application, and that the UN IGF play a greater role in guiding more stakeholders to engage and jointly build collaborative, trustworthy, and international community-oriented personal information protection and AI application rules & mechanisms, so as to ensure the healthy and sustainable development of the AI industry for the benefit of all mankind. 

      (2) China's practices in artificial intelligence and big data have won the unanimously approval of the experts, and countries such as Brazil are also actively promoting related processes. We suggest that countries should jointly promote the establishment of an international legal framework for cybersecurity, build globally recognized rules on data governance, set up a risk assessment mechanism, and clarify the rights of data subjects and the obligations of data processors. Moreover, the "multi-stakeholder model" for Internet governance should be referred to in establishing an international exchange and cooperation mechanism for more consensus on data governance. 

      3. Final Speakers

      (1) Moderator:

      Li Yuxiao, Secretary-General of Cyber Security Association of China

      (2) Speakers:

      Li Yuxiao, Secretary-General of Cyber Security Association of China

      Zhao Hui, Secretary-General of China Federation of Internet Societies

      Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director of Diplo Foundation, Head of Geneva Internet Platform, Former Executive Director of the Secretariat of the High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation

      Li Xiaodong, Founder & CEO of Fuxi Institution, Professor and Director of Center for Internet Governance, Tsinghua University (THUCIG)

      Luca Belli, Professor at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) Law School, Director of the Center for Technology and Society at FGV

      Shen Qiang, Director of China Internet Development Foundation, CEO of Xiamen Meiya Pico Information Co., Ltd.

      Wang Li, Senior researcher of Xi'an Jiaotong University Suzhou Information Security Law Institute

       

      IGF 2021 WS #50 Critical Times: Impact of Digitalization on Climate Change

      Workshop
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 21:40
      Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change
      Key Takeaways:

      - Shareable resources are the key to an Eco Internet, for instance, shared Internet infrastructure and open data, as well as the use of renewable energy. It relies on the close cooperation between different stakeholders to achieve an efficient yet environmental friendly Internet.

      ,

      - Both the carbon footprint and benefits of digital technologies need to be considered. Extensive use of the Internet generates increasing carbon footprint but it also replaces many activities which create much greater climate impact.

      Calls to Action

      - To urge the collaboration of multi stakeholders especially government and private sectors to prioritise the environmental issue with accelerating digitalisation and implement effective policies.

      ,

      - To develop standardised measurements and data transparency which can be used universally including developing countries.

      IGF 2021 DC-DDHT Health Matters: Data & Technology In The Healthcare Sector

      DC Session
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 17:09
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Key Takeaways:

      A rich spectrum of issues were highlighted for international collaboration for ehealth, mheath and mental health. Muli-stakeholder awareness of issues faced by public and private sector developers and deliverers of healthcare, patients, technical community for quality internet, legal and finanial community with Access for All must be facilitated by the UN agencies and especially from UN IGF, UN ITU with WHO.

      ,

      Covid 19 has accelerated the investment in ehealth and mhealth over the past two years in an already highly invested sector. There is need for rapid forward thinking policy making to provide guidelines, education and awareness for development and outputs that are safe, inclusive, ethical and have no harms. The managememt of data must consider the Rights of Passage of data moving from one system or data base to another &change of purpose of data.

      Calls to Action

      Urgent need for policies for collaboration on medical data sharing locally, nationally and internationally for public health for Covid19 and for ehealth development. Data Sharing Enabler systems must be developed for emergency situations such as Covid19 pandemic. Data Anonimity policies should be developed quickly for effective international data sharing.

      ,

      Quality internet for ehealth and mheath for telehealth, wearables, administration for public and private needs with citizen support for onboarding including education and skills development for ease of access

      Session Report

       

      The speakers for the session presented insights from their articles from the United Nations Internet Governance Forum recognized international, multi-stakeholder Dynamic Coalition on Data Driven Health Technologies 2021 Book: Health Matters, Technologies Driving Change in Healthcare, A Community of Thought. The book of articles is found @webpage DC DDHT under Intersessional Work of UN IGF Dynamic Coalitions, for free download.

      The writers / speakers were: Alex Buckham on "Surveillance and mental health" ; Frederic Cohen with "Robotization to renew our economy in a post pandemic period" and "Biotechnologies to support humanity"; Jorn Erbguth with "Inherent limits of use of AI (deep learning) in healthcare" ; Dr Galia Kondova and Amala Arockia on "Blockchain and healthcare data, current developments" ; Dr Christine Tan on "Digital technologies for new healthcareapplications under Covid-19" ; Vivien de Tusch-Lec (speaker)  Dr John Allen, Dr Carina Tyrrell (team lead), Dr David Holbrook, Fergus Hay, Dr Annalisa Jenkins, Shabir Chowdhary Dr Laila Samady-Mustad, Eric Kostegen on "Investing in technologies driving change in healthcare";  Herman Ramos on "Health data, exploring the adoption of the internet of things in healthcare" and "The implication of the digitization of healthcare on data protection and security" ; Amali De Silva-Mitchell on "Cloud technology and its impacts for healthcare technologies on the internet", "The role of statistics in healthcare", "The age of telehealth, internet a partner for resilent economies", "Quantum's impact on the culture of technology for healthcare on the internet", "The UN Sendai Framework, risk management considerations for mobile and ehealth initiatives on the internet", "Platos modern AI Humanist Society", "An approach to  addresing childrens rights in an AI dominated society on the internet" and mentioned were "Seven Rights / Rites of Data Passage".   Articles spoken for were from Emma Slade on "Ethics and technology, reflections of a Buddhist nun" and Ashvini Sathnur on "Health matters, driving change in healthcare, book on artificial intelligence".

      Amali De Silva-Mitchell Founder and Coordinator DC DDHT moderated the session. Dr Amado Espinosa provided the introduction to part 2, the audience discussion.

      The diversity and depth of the topics presented, provided the audience with a rich insight in to the technologies and issues driving change in the healthcare field as well as issues that should be considered for the future. Quality internet is Key for effective delivery and servicing.  Data sharing paired with privacy are critical areas for international and regional collaboration to enable emergency response, building of effective pharmacare products, devices, services etc. Audience noted future work in this area as critically important.

      The DC deliberated matters on ethics, ESG (environment, social, governance), branding, risk management, value propositions for multi-stakeholders , speed, trust and accessibility amongst other relevant issues through it's workshops and discussions and suggests seven areas for attention when developing healthcare and data systems which are called Data Rights/ Rites of Passage: 1) Multistakeholder Approach, Context and Intent 2) Diversity and Inclusion 3) Designs (including Green) and Data Management and Ethics 4) Protections, Privacy, Security 5) Communications Human, Computer and Interaction there-of, Interoperability and Connectivity 6) Feedback, Risk Monitoring and Bettering 7) Attention to Delivery, Service and Maintenance with Onboarding.

      Wearables and the medical internet of things will proliferate for the benefit of patient specific centered medicine, out patient services and preventative medecine for the future and the use will be enhanced by 5G and 6G+ communications devices which require a quality internet. AI will get embedded on a large number of devices and the issues of bias and quality outcomes  need to be managed effectively with a human touch.

      Over surveillance of society through device and communications and the associated data profiles must be managed with compassion, knowledge that mistakes can occur, so an open mind is required and deep insight applied for fairness and no harms which can inlcude even mindfulness of the human emotion of jealousy and attention to emotional intelligence.

      Robotics and biotechnology will assist but care must be taken of ethical use and right mindset applications for technologies. Block chain, cloud, hologram, nano, quantum technologies have the opportunity to assist healthcare in many areas including data management, for research, trust and speed to attainment of goals.

      Technology development and service maintenance costs require financing and financial investment  is  predicted to grow significantly. However, at the innovation stage financing may be still difficult to secure and new collaborations through P3 and other financial innovations will be of economic and social benefit.

      Human society is not isolated, nor uniform and the creation of equal, fair, non-harms access for disabled, elderly, youth, gender, children, dis-advantaged, unconnected, low technically skilled and all segments of society including animal and plant medical health must be addressed (host country Poland) by an Internet United.

      Reported by Amali De Silva-Mitchell

       

       

       

      IGF 2021 WS #252 Imagining the Future of International Internet Governance

      Workshop
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 16:39
      Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
      Key Takeaways:

      We still do not have inclusive internet governance. What we need now is to unpack that and be very specific in identifying who is excluded, when and why. We need to understand the power dynamics that lead to this in order to propose more inclusive models of internet governance for the future.

      ,

      Our exercise built on inputs from different stakeholders about the future of internet governance and the key takeaway from the exercise is how complementary the inputs were. Having all stakeholders represented meant a richer, more diverse and more challenging set of perspectives.

      Calls to Action

      We need concrete proposals to build structured models of multistakeholder governance that are bottom-up, but also effective in negotiating the interest of states (often related to cybersecurity space, driven by lack of trust, lack of solid cooperation frameworks) and dealing with the unbalanced power of tech corporations.

      Session Report

       

      Reasoning behind the session

      The internet is run by a myriad of bodies, institutions and entities located across the globe. Its decentralization has for long been praised as the reason behind the innovation, creativity and openness that characterized its early expansion. 

      Today, however, we are living in a new time where the internet has become a much more controlled, privatized and weaponized space. 

      In this current context, the manner in which the internet is governed has become an even more relevant and urgent question. The answers, however, are still few and lacking in their commitment to a people’s centered model that could ensure rights and freedoms, innovation and openness. 

      The global governance of the internet is pulverized; many bodies and institutions have claimed a role and there is a lack of coordination that increases as digitalization expands to new realms. This lack of coordination at the same time generates gaps and overlaps. Even where clarity in relation to roles is greater - as in the case of engineering technical bodies responsible for internet infrastructure - the loose systems and processes put in place to generate implementation and enforcement of agreed standards may contribute to both lack of accountability by large private actors in the field and the growing trend of regulatory impetus and anxiety at the national level. Users are the ones losing - not only their bytes, but their rights.  

      This session, and the regional dialogue that preceded it, sought to create a space for a deep dive into some of these discussions. Our goal was not only to collect inputs marked by plurality, with an emphasis on views from the Global South, but also to start to build a movement that possibly could lead to increased agreement, synergy and coordination in the work of civil society organizations in the area of internet governance and digital cooperation. 

      An important reference for this work will be the run-up to the WSIS+20 celebrations, when new negotiations will take place in relation to global digital governance, including new definitions in relation to the renovation or reform of the Internet Governance Forum. 

      For 2022, APC will continue to build on the results of this session through a series  of consultations and research pieces which will tentatively be presented in a follow up session in the 17th edition of the IGF. 

      The broader process in which this session is inserted has been called by the organizers ‘Imagining the Futures of Internet Governance initiative’.

       

      Overview of participation 

      The session counted with 61 participants online and 20 in person in Katowice. Two speakers were physically present in Poland, the others, including the facilitators, engaged virtually. 

      In addition to using the chat, participatory engagement was secured through the use of Miro - participants were presented an exercise (described below) and provided their inputs through sticky notes / contribution boards. 

       

      Overview of the session

      The overall objective of the session was to imagine the future of internet global governance 10 years from now. The session results will feed into a broader process that will seek to put together a strategic framework for advocacy and movement building, as explained above. 

      The session followed a planned flow, which started with looking at the past and taking stock of developments in internet governance this far. Then the ‘Imagining the Futures of Internet Governance initiative’ was presented to participants in a summarised way as well as the results of preparatory regional workshops. In such workshops, observable trends of what internet governance  will be in 10 years were identified.Such trends allowed the organizers to build a scenario for our digital world in 2031. This scenario was shared with participants through a video.  The ´future scenarios/prospective futures’ methodology was briefly presented as an introduction to the collective exercise. Participants were then invited to contribute with concrete suggestions of action points that they or their organizations could move forward in order to change the scenario presented and bring it as close as possible to an internet governance that promotes human rights, social and environmental justice and feminist futures. Contributions were collected per stakeholder groups (each stakeholder group had a dedicated board for contributions) and then systematized back to all participants. A final discussion took place about commonalities and also contrasting these views of the future with the initial intervention at the beginning of the session that looked at the past. Finally, the session was wrapped up with the sharing of information about the next steps in the broader process of the Imagining the Futures of Internet Governance initiative.  

       

      Summary of main discussions and contributions

      Opening remarks by Fredrik Westerholm, Sida

      • Sida focuses on technology as enabling the exercise of rights, including freedom of expression, privacy, economic, social, cultural rights, particularly of those communities  most impacted by inequality and discrimination. 
      • Sida and Sweden believe in, and promote, a free, open and secure internet. 
      • As for the role of IGF - it is a place for inclusiveness, a platform that provides equal space in discussion of digital issues. 
      • However, more can be done to strengthen it. How does IG need to change? What tools, mechanisms, capacity-building instruments for various stakeholders? This is part of what the session will discuss. 

       

      Acknowledging the past - Anriette Esterhuysen (MAG chair)

      • IGF origins: early collection of individuals, social movements, activists, academics who were part of the communication rights movement in the 90s. They started thinking about internet governance at a time of debate around how much global governance (for example, World Bank, IMF) was disconnected from the real needs of people on the ground. They imagined internet governance as an opportunity in a broader effort to reshape global governance in ways that are more bottom-up. 
      • IGF today represents that spirit of bottom-up governance. However, times changes and today, there are new challenges to internet governance, such as how to negotiate the interests of States (often related to the cybersecurity space, driven by concerns over lack of trust, lack of solid cooperation frameworks, fear of manipulation of the internet infrastructure), and the power of the corporate sector (which has used the platform to build unprecedented power, and power that we depend on). 
      • The key question is how to govern the internet and promote its operation as a ‘commons’ in the public sphere, when so much is done to facilitate its ownership and control by corporations, at great cost to rights and sovereignty. 
      • States are not doing enough to protect the internet as a ‘commons’. States need to regulate corporations in a manner that addresses such concerns, while harnessing creativity and innovation. 
      • We need to democratize internet governance. It is not yet inclusive. But we need to upack what we mean by inclusive internet governance. We need to be more specific - who is excluded, when, why, about what? 

       

      Key trends identified during regional workshops - highlights presented by partners: 

                LAC workshop - Jamila Venturini, Derechos Digitales

      • Increasing divide in access
      • Increasing surveillance by governments and internet shutdowns 
      • Unlikely that disconnecting from the internet and migrating to other networks could happen
      • Growing central role of global tech corporations in global economy
      • Call for more plural and diverse internet governance, given that some voices are missing 

       

      Africa workshop - Barrack Otieno, Kictanet

      • Access continues to be a challenge and in the context of the pandemic it became even more a major area of concern
      • Need for improved digital literacy to ensure optimal access 
      • Governments are becoming more and more interested in governing digital issues, there is a regulatory impetus at the national level and a need to consider its impacts
      • Gender-based discrimination and violence online continue to be a serious challenge

      Asia-Pacific regional workshop - Jennifer Chung, Dot.Asia 

      • Last of 3 regional workshops, reflected on trends from Africa and LAC
      • Also highlighted the issue of access, including cost of access and the impact of the pandemic
      • Internet governance through national regulation is becoming a trend in countries that are less democratic. There is a concern that governments and corporations will adopt non democratic approaches to internet governance
      • Growing trend of internet shutdowns, 
      • Adoption of regulations that are transborder in their impact, affecting different jurisdictions in Asia Pacific
      • Environmental sustainability is also a concern and internet governance should give further attention to it. 

       

      Exercise - Description: 

      Given the scenario presented, think of the political and institutional dimensions of global internet governance (policies, regulations, accountability schemes, collaboration, transparency) and share suggestions of concrete actions that could be taken or promoted by you / your organization in order to bring the projected future described in the video more in line with the following goals:

      (i) an internet governance that promotes human rights; 

      (ii) an internet governance that promotes social and environmental justice; 

      (iii) an internet governance that promotes feminist futures. 

       

      Exercise - key feedback - Anriette Esterhuysen:

      • We observe different proposals from different stakeholder groups - the collective and multistakeholder discussion provided a richer, more diverse, more challenging set of perspectives 
      • From governments - emphasis on standards, norms
      • From the tech community - solution-oriented proposals, harness tech for problem-solving
      • From civil society - a bit of everything, but clearly an emphasis on the need for increased capacity, with a recognition of gaps
      • From the private sector - need for frameworks stand out; there is clearly a need for predictability. In some ways the results coming from the private sector are the ones more ‘regulation-friendly’; a sense that cross-border regulation is important for business. 
      • In all stakeholders boards, however, we observed a lack of consideration of the offline work. This seems to indicate we are so immersed in the world of the internet that we pay little attention to the continuum between the online and offline, the digital and the physical world.
      • We need to create bridges and start to seek areas of consensus about how we understand the internet, what global norms we want, etc. We need to look at evidence, and build spaces for regulation that doesn't undermine the interoperability of the internet and the exercise of rights. A lot of work to be done. 

       

      Next steps

      • A report highlighting the main outcomes of the session will be circulated
      • Additional global and regional conversations will take place in 2022 and different research pieces will be launched

      The facilitation team was composed of APC’s staff Paula Martins, Roxana Bassi and Valeria Betancourt. 

       

      IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #25 Corporate action on digital inclusion: progress and prospects

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 15:11
      Key Takeaways:

      Stakeholders including governments, the private sector, the civil society and benchmarking organisations feel there's a strong need for a multi-stakeholder approach to address the pressing issues hindering achievement of digital inclusion such as laxity on the part of digital technology companies in enhancing access, developing digital skills and literacy of people, ensuring trust in technologies and innovating openly and ethically.

      Session Report

      Session Report: IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #25 Corporate action on digital inclusion: progress and prospects  

       

      The World Benchmarking Alliance and the United Nations Foundation co-hosted the launch of the second iteration of the Digital Inclusion Benchmark (DIB) results, which assessed 150 of the world’s most influential digital technology companies on their contribution to digital inclusion.  

      The companies have been assessed on four measurement areas; Enhancing universal access to digital technologies; Improving all levels of digital skills; Fostering trustworthy use by mitigating risks and harms; Innovating openly, inclusively, and ethically. 

      The results show that most tech companies still aren’t taking their responsibility to ensure that people are able to use technology – and in a way that benefits them – seriously. A handful is leading the way with robust child safety commitments or ethical principles regarding artificial intelligence. However, most of the world’s most powerful and influential aren’t displaying the maturity that the world expects of them to ensure that they help, rather than hinder our progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals. These findings call for swift action by stakeholders to ensure corporate accountability and responsibility in advancing efforts towards digital inclusion 

      The focus of the discussion at the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was on how multi-stakeholders including the private sector, governments, civil society and inter-governmental organizations can work together and use the findings of the benchmark to achieve an inclusive digital economy that benefits everyone in society. 

      Yu Ping Chan, Senior Programme Officer, Office of the Envoy on Technology, United Nations, called for cooperation among stakeholders, as envisioned in the UN Secretary General’s roadmap. This would include having a clear definition of digital inclusion that can draw on WBA’s DIB framework and having scorecards to help countries measure their progress towards digital inclusion. The upcoming Digital Global Compact was also highlighted as a potential avenue to bring together the private sector, governments and civil society for an inclusive digital society for everyone. Yu Ping noted that the DIB methodology and findings, along with other guiding principles, can be used to hold companies and the international community accountable, through pledges on achieving digital inclusion through the global compact. 

      Nnenna Nwakanma, Chief Web Advocate, World Wide Web Foundation urged stakeholders such as the World Benchmarking Alliance to keep raising evidence on the lack of commitment towards digital inclusion and engage the private sector for accountability. Nnenna emphasised the need to have a global meaningful and affordable connectivity so that everyone can have the opportunity to explore the opportunities that the internet provides, and called on the civil society and global actors to raise their voice on the need to leave no one behind while building the digital economy. 

      Prajna Khanna, Head of Sustainability at Prosus & Naspers said companies should focus on responsible innovation and positive impact on society in areas such as health, agriculture, off-grid energy access, banking and other sectors to unlock the true potential of digital inclusion.  

      Eduardo Navarro, Chief Corporate Affairs & Sustainability Officer, Telefónica S.A, the company that topped this year’s rankings in the Digital Inclusion Benchmark said they have focused on listening and learning from stakeholders and the World Benchmarking Alliance to improve on its efforts to advance digital inclusion. Eduardo called on the private sector to make commitments to contributing towards digital inclusion because technology helps in promoting an inclusive society, through connectivity which brings about numerous opportunities for economic growth. 

      Christine Brueschke, Sustainable Investing Analyst, Fidelity International said the investor group, with the help of the World Benchmarking Alliance, will be able to focus on digital ethics which is not all about access, but also includes enhancement of digital skills, trust in digital technologies and inclusivity in innovation. Christine added that it’s important to acknowledge efforts by tech companies doing well in advancing digital inclusion and work with stakeholders to motivate the laggards to step up and drive change in the digital sector.  

      Fidelity International will be working with WBA through the Collective Impact Coalitions, which will first take coordinated actions to address the lack of ethics in Artificial Intelligence as highlighted by the 2021 DIB findings to drive systemic change. Lourdes Montenegro, the Lead Digital Sector Transformation added that the DIB is well-placed to serve as a key component of an accountability mechanism to ensure companies address critical issues relevant to digital inclusion. Lourdes called on stakeholders to work together through the Collective Impact Coalition to advocate for change among companies to achieve an inclusive digital economy that benefits everyone. 

      We also had remote participants engaging on social media using session-specific hashtags. Below are examples of Tweets posted during and after the session: 

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #4 Free expression and digitalisation: compatibility mode

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 15:02
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      The the quality of regulation is about its capacity to provide efficient solutions that would, among others, respect, protect and promote human rights, and in particular – freedom of expression.Freedom of expression in the digital environment is not just about content moderation, but a structural problem. Among key solutions are the focus on processes and meaningful transparency.

      ,

      Regulation should be primarily focused on the processes through which internet intermediaries rank, moderate, and remove content, rather than on the content itself. Transparency, access to platform held data, re-alignment of interests of the states, researchers and platforms are among the conditions for evidence-based policymaking (and for independent research underpinning it).

      Session Report

       

      Still some years ago, the discussion focused on whether to regulate internet intermediaries’ activities in the field of media and information environment, or not. Today, as an answer, we see a range of regulatory attempts both at the national and international levels. What is at issue, however, is the quality of regulation and its capacity to provide efficient solutions that would, among others, respect, protect and promote human rights, and in particular – freedom of expression.

      As a follow-up to its earlier work on this subject, the Council of Europe developed the Guidance Note on best practices towards effective legal and procedural frameworks for self-regulatory and co-regulatory mechanisms of content moderation (adopted by the Steering Committee on Media and Information Society (CDMSI) in May 2021) and the draft recommendation on the impacts of digital technologies on freedom of expression (currently pending adoption by the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers).

      Both documents start from the premise that upholding freedom of expression in the digital environment is not just about content moderation, but it is rather a structural problem. Among key solutions, focus on processes (beyond the binary choice between taking content down or not) and meaningful transparency are proposed.

      In the session, speakers from different stakeholder groups (government, academia, business and NGOs) discussed this approach, adding insights from their specific perspectives.

      There was agreement that, as an alternative to fragmented regulatory response, the system as a whole should to be put under review. Up to date, both in Europe and beyond (e.g., in Japan) discussions continue about the types of content that should be considered legal/ illegal, or legal but problematic in different ways (e.g., harmful for certain categories of users). As values can often be contextual, regulation should be primarily focus on the processes through which internet intermediaries rank, moderate, and remove content, rather than on the content itself.

      Some speakers argued that an overarching framework for regulation and oversight of the digital platforms’ engagement in the media and information environment – ideally, at the global level, would be necessary, as it is the case with a number of other industries. At the same time, strong doubts were expressed against extending the rules governing legacy media to digital platforms. Instead of approaching the issue of platform regulation in isolation, it would be important to look at how they fit in a broad ecosystem of actors that follow different rules.

      As a common ground on this question, the panel agreed that standardisation of approaches was important and urgently needed. In this sense, the Council of Europe’s standard-setting documents provide an important reference point for alignment of practices across Europe and beyond. The panel also widely acknowledged their consistency with the EU’s relevant work.

      Apart from aligned approaches, the efficiency of regulation rests on the completeness and adequateness of factual information about individual and societal impacts of the use of digital technologies for human rights, particularly freedom of expression, across different social, political, legal, and cultural contexts. At the session, meaningful transparency was cited as a pre-condition for evidence-based policymaking (and for independent research underpinning it).

      It is crucial that researchers be provided due access to platform-held data, as freely available data only offers a limited view and may not invite the right questions. Access to substantial and full data would allow for an in-depth research on issues so far obviously problematic but little explored (such as disinformation, or the impact of social media on children), and would allow researchers to propose demonstrably true answers to policymakers. Re-alignment of interests of the states, researchers and platforms was proposed as a way forward – based on the provisions laid down in the Council of Europe’s new standards and the EU’s relevant documents.

      The speakers particularly stressed that meaningful transparency requirements should be tailored and aimed at efficient oversight and at user empowerment, including by offering them real choices (in contrast to providing numbers for the numbers’ sake”). And – most importantly - information gathered from transparency measures should then be translated into action. Access to data is just a first step. Researchers must have the conditions to fulfil their role, and to reach policymakers and platforms, so that research could be turned into efficient policies devising a compatibility mode for freedom of expression and digital technologies.

       

      IGF 2021 WS #86 A Toolkit to Measure and Shape an Inclusive Digital Economy

      Workshop
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 14:16
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      Measuring the societal impacts of digital transformation is very challenging, but innovative data collection techniques (e.g. apps) and surveys traditionally not used to measure digital transformation (e.g. the Census) can be used to complement existing ICT use surveys to provide new insights. Mis- and disinformation emerged as a key area that needs better measurement.

      ,

      Policymakers increasingly require more disaggregated data, particularly related to gender, age, income and firm size. Keeping up with this demand and still producing quality and comparable data is a major challenge going forward.

      Calls to Action

      The multistakeholder community must work together to provide “data stewardship”. That is, private companies, governments and civil society all have a role in helping ensure that data on the societal impacts of digital transformation are shared responsibly.

      ,

      Countries are making innovative strides in measuring various societal impacts of the digital transformation (e.g. social cohesion and targeted “quick response” surveys), but they are often incompatible with each other. International organisations like the OECD should produce definitions and tools such as model surveys to help countries produce harmonised and cross-country comparable statistics.

      Session Report

      Ms. Molly Lesher, OECD Senior Digital Economist, opened the workshop and gave scene-setting remarks. She suggested that understanding the impacts of digital technologies on people’s overall well-being is one of the most important issues of our time and, while difficult to assess, something that the multi-stakeholder community needs to get right so that nobody is left behind as digital transformation progresses. She highlighted the purpose of the workshop – that is, to brainstorm on the key priority issues the international statistical community should focus on with respect to bridging digital divides of all kinds so that our economies and societies become more inclusive.

      In this context, she invited all participants to contribute in the zoom chat their views on what – from a digital perspective – is the single most important issue we face today in terms of making our economies and societies more inclusive. The following issues were identified: Disinformation, the digital gender divide, access to affordable broadband, measurement frameworks, media competence and sovereignty in using digital technologies, digital divides, measurement of artificial intelligence (AI), and digital skills.

      Ms. Lesher introduced the OECD Going Digital Toolkit, which includes a core set of indicators to help country’s assess their state of digital development and is structured along the lines of the OECD Going Digital Integrated Policy Framework. The Framework) includes seven dimensions:

      • Access to data, communications infrastructure and services,
      • Effective Use of digital technologies and data by people, firms and governments,
      • Innovation, which pushes out the frontier of what is possible in the digital age, driving job creation, productivity and sustainable growth,
      • Jobs, which highlights that as labour markets evolve, we must ensure that digital transformation leads to more and better jobs and to facilitate just transitions from one job to the next.
      • Society, which reflects the fact that digital technologies affect society in complex and interrelated ways, and all stakeholders must work together to balance benefits and risks.
      • Trust in digital environments, because without trust nobody will use digital technologies.
      • Market Openness, which creates an enabling environment for digital transformation to flourish.

      Mr. Dominik Rozkrut, President of Statistics Poland, then gave keynote remarks on Poland’s efforts to measure the “inclusive” aspects of digital transformation. Mr. Rozkrut underscored the importance of ICT use surveys in producing cross-country comparable statistics. He also highlighted complementary domestic approaches, including a recent social cohesion survey in Poland that addressed some aspects of trust and subjective well-being from a digital perspective. He suggested that linking different surveys could yield important insights. He also noted that Poland implemented a census during the pandemic which interestingly also yielded insights about the Polish population’s use of digital technologies and their impacts. He further highlighted the need to work together to facilitate access to new data sources, particularly with respect to privately held data and the need for “data stewardship” at the European level. He responded to a question about how international co-operation can push forward the digital measurement agenda (e.g. through the development of model surveys and related tools).

      The workshop then moved into the panel discussion, which was kicked off by Ms. Nagwa El Shenawy, Undersecretary for Information and Decision Support in the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology of Egypt. Ms. El Shenawy informed the participants about work in Egypt to measure digital gender gaps and develop policies to support the inclusion of women and girls in the technology sector. In particular, she highlighted Egypt’s “ICT for Women and Girls” programme that offers education and training resources as well as hackathons to encourage female entrepreneurship. Ms. El Shenawy also highlighted three priority sectors for Egypt: 1) agriculture, 2) manufacturing and 3) the ICT sector, with artificial intelligence being a particular technology of interest. She also underscored the importance of connectivity in rural areas, which is a challenge Egypt is making strides to address. She responded to a participant question about the digital maturity of small and medium enterprises by highlighting the efforts Egypt is making to prepare tertiary graduates with AI-related skills, which will help entrepreneurs in the ICT sector.

      Mr. Mark Uhrbach, Chief – Digital Economy Metrics, Statistics Canada, informed participants about Canada’s efforts to measure well-being, both domestically and internationally. He highlighted the recent results from Canada’s Internet use survey, which attempts to measure victimisation online as well as other subjective measures of well-being in the digital age. He noted that Canada used the results from the survey to conduct correlational analysis, and that a new app-based survey tool has been deployed to try to measure disinformation. He underscored that data collection approaches need to evolve beyond traditional survey techniques, and that he hopes the app-based tool will be useful in this regard. Mr. Uhrbach responded to a question about the policy impact of subjective well-being measures in Canada (e.g. by describing how the measurement results feed into policy analysis and development).

      Mr. Alexandre Barbosa, Head of the Regional Centre of Studies on Information and Communication Technologies (Cetic.br), provided the last intervention of the panel. He discussed Brazil’s efforts to measure the societal impacts of digital transformation. He noted that Cetic.br has been producing regular ICT statistics since 2005, covering a wide range of areas such as households, enterprises, government, education, health, culture, among others. He underscored that Brazil is facing an increasing demand for high quality, timely and disaggregated data to support policymaking, but that data gaps may hamper evidence-based policies, particularly for new and emerging technologies, such as AI, or on new issues such as trust on the online environment, privacy and data protection. He responded to a question about innovative data collection approaches (i.e. the use of electronic questionnaires).

      Ms. Lesher noted that the OECD is undertaking work to understand better misinformation, disinformation and other forms of untruths that circulate online, and that this work includes a new typology of untruths online, in part with a view to try to measure this phenomenon. This issue was of great interest to the panellists and audience, who all intervened to mention efforts underway to measure this (Canada) and important issue to consider (Poland, Brazil, Egypt and online participants). The discussion was active and robust, and the workshop had to close for lack of time.

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #2 IFIP 60th Anniversary: Future of Information Processing

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 14:12
      Key Takeaways:

      Digital education in a rapidly evolving digital environment needs to be both sustainable and adaptive. Technologies change, but learners' and educators' needs are paramount and tend to be more stable.

      ,

      Digital education concerns all levels of educations and all subjects, but a strong basis is ccomputer science and computational thinking is important.

      Calls to Action

      Policy makers in educational fields need to realise access for all people to well-founded digital education.

      ,

      Educators and researchers need to base their resources and activities on the needs of learners, instead of just following the pace of technological changes.

      Session Report

      The webinar series on the outcomes of the Zanzibar Declaration brought together a group of experts from a diverse set of backgrounds and from various regions of the world. This particular panel featured four speakers from academia and two more academics as moderators. Gender representation on the panel was equal.

      The Zanzibar Declaration webinars have sought to explore future challenges arising from rapidly emerging education technologies. They have considered a range of topics covering recent important digital technology developments, their societal impacts, and the resulting educational challenges. The Zanzibar Declaration has aimed to cover as many countries, local contexts, experiences, and perspectives as possible and in so doing has attempted to be dynamic in its development. The goal has been to identify future research areas and conferences topics as well as provide direction for curriculum development.

       

      Benefits of digital educational systems

                  Cathy Lewin of Manchester Metropolitan University spoke on the benefits of digital educational systems, explaining the benefits to students as well as those for teachers. Through online education, students can access learning at any time, allowing them to fit activities into their own schedules and preferences. Technologies like chatbots can provide instant responses to students, regardless of the time at which they engage with these resources. For some subjects, this works particularly well, such as software that can correct pronunciation if a student is learning a foreign language, for example. Online services can identify gaps in student understanding and tailor lessons to suit the learner’s needs.

                  As for teachers, the benefits are also easy to see. Certain tasks can be automated, such as grading and even essay marking, reducing the teacher’s work load and allowing them to spend more time on other things. Such technology also allows for better monitoring of homework and other assignments as well as keeping track of student attendance. Digital systems can even identify which students cause the most disruptions and provide suggested seating arrangements in order to minimize disruptions. Predictive systems can also identify which students are likely to drop out, allowing teachers to intervene when possible.

                  Margaret Leahy of Dublin City University added in her perspective as a former special needs teacher, pointing out the benefits that such systems would have had for her while she was in this profession. She recalled that it had taken a long time for her to build her expertise in learning how to deal with specific and complex needs (she worked in particular with dyslexic students). The technology available today would have helped her diagnose students, learn from others through a pool of digital resources, allowed her to better track progression and identify gaps in order to develop curriculum in more quickly and efficiently.

       

      Issues arising from digital educational systems

                  With so many benefits, there are, predictable, also downsides. While the panelists rejected the idea that such technologies remove the process of critical thinking, they expressed concerns over the ways in which data from students, teachers, and schools are used, emphasizing the need for transparency in how people are informed as to what will happen with the data they provide. Leahy spoke on how tools can create a overreliance on outcomes and predictions, which are not enough in themselves to guarantee effective education. Additionally, there are concerns about what is done with the data. As gate keepers of formal education, teachers need to exercise good judgment in determining how this data is used. Lewin chimed in to underline the importance of data transparency, as digital education systems are only as good as the data they are provided. Without unbiased, complete data, digital education systems will not function effectively.

      Bernard Cornu of the University of Grenoble pointed out another issue in digital education systems: the lag time between rapid technological advancement and the acceptance and adoption of these technologies by the people they are intended for. He noted several timing disparities – not only between the advent of technology and its adoption, but also between the adoption by different sections of society, including between teachers and the students they are using the technology to teach. As advancements in technology are often driven by commercial factors, the societal end of the equation is often under-appreciated. Cornu called for education to be made sustainably. As a rejoinder, Lewin reflected on her own experience, saying that although sometimes it feels that technological progress is always moving quickly along, she has also seen schools – even progressive and innovative schools – fall behind for a variety of reasons. While sustainability is important, it should not be assumed that it is always in tension with rapid technological advancement. To close this topic, Leahy emphasized the need for urgency as schools adopt tools that will best allow them to prepare young people to succeed and thrive.

      Mary Webb of King’s College London had the last word on the issue of the black box in AI systems. In certain AI systems, there is little insight into how conclusions and predictions are made. Some people do not want such black boxes to be in play in educational technology, as they can potentially lead to discrimination. However, some technologies with relatively little transparency could potentially be very helpful. Limits will need to be set as to what people do with these systems and how they are regulated. 

      IGF 2021 DC-IUI UNESCO's call to all stakeholders to support ROAM and the DC

      DC Session
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 12:20
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Key Takeaways:

      Based on its deep engagement with IGF community in the past 15 years, international partners and members of the coalition shared their inputs on relevance of ROAM-X in global digital governance and way forward to improve the DC to enhance the global implementation of IUIs. The DC is a tool that must provide “brutally honest” evidence to empower stakeholders and experts as a shared space fostering the development of social and digital environments

      ,

      The Dynamic Coalition on IUIs can be improved through multistakeholder participation. The DC is an extremely important part of the process in terms of capacity building: UNESCO and the members of DC should exploit the capacity-building opportunities by promoting and fostering true multistakeholder engagement in order to tackle new challenges and give concrete responses to the SDGs.

      Calls to Action

      International stakeholders are strongly encouraged to share their lessons learned and good practices annually. By being a shared space for stakeholders to share their key outcomes, the Coalition as a platform should promote capacity-building to help the processes and the formulation of powerful recommendations by extracting the lessons learned from every ongoing or completed study while identifying common approaches and processes.

      ,

      In order to strengthen the Coalition, all stakeholders of the IGF community were invited to engage and join the Dynamic Coalition to support the Internet Universality ROAM-X project and enhance collaborations of national multistakeholder for advancing human rights online and digital cooperation at national, regional and global levels. UNESCO must find active synergies not only with external partners but also within their networks.

      Session Report

      On 9 December 2021, UNESCO convened a hybrid meeting with all stakeholders of the Dynamic Coalition (DC) on Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators (IUIs) at the Internet Governance Forum 2021 in Katowice, Poland. The meeting reinforced and expanded the global partnership for promoting human rights-based, open, accessible and inclusive Internet via multi-stakeholder dialogue and digital cooperation. 

      In his opening remarks, Dr. Tawfik Jelassi, UNESCO’s Assistant-Director General for Communication and Information, stated: “With the support of the IGF community and its Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) chair, UNESCO  launched  the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality ROAM-X indicators at IGF 2020. The Coalition facilitates advocacy, knowledge sharing and capacity building, so that countries can assess how well their digital ecosystems align to UNESCO’s ROAM principles, and implement recommendations to harness the potential of the Internet and of advanced technologies to promote achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

      Showcasing the newly-launched national assessment of IUIs in Germany, Dr. Lutz Möller, Deputy Secretary-General of the German National Commission for UNESCO, stated: “The national assessment of Internet Universality Indicators is a tool that provides ‘brutally honest’ evidence, empowering stakeholders and experts to foster the development of their national digital and social environments”.

      “The ROAM-X framework serves a holistic framework for uniting the Internet. It contributes to implementing the United Nations Secretary-General’s Roadmap of Digital Cooperation, and to creating a global Digital Compact” pointed out Anriette Estherhuysen, IGF MAG Chair. She stressed that the call for an “Internet United” aims to translate key principles into policymaking and practice, which can be facilitated through the implementation of the ROAM principles and indicators.

      Constance Bommelaer, Internet Society’s Area Vice President, Institutional Relations and Empowerment, and Dawit Bekele, Internet Society Africa’s Regional Vice President, underlined synergies that exist between ROAM and ISOC’s work, on topics such as openness and meaningful access. They both reiterated her support of the national assessment of IUIs through ISOC’s various regional chapters, in Africa and beyond.  

      Dorothy Gordon, UNESCO’s Information for All Programme (IFAP) Chair, affirmed IFAP's willingness to engage with the IGF community on Internet governance issues. She stated: “Good policy is based on evidence and knowledge-sharing. The IUIs assessments allow us to pull out lessons learned, and to create capacity building opportunities, by fostering multistakeholder engagement through the Dynamic Coalition on IUIs.”

      Representing the Council of Europe, Jan Kleijssen, explained that the Council’s engagement in the Dynamic Coalition sparked from the Internet Universality Indicators project being in line with the Council of Europe’s standards. He especially highlighted the 2016 Recommendation on Internet Freedom made by CoE’s Committee of Ministers, which can be used as a means of verification in the assessment of compliance with Internet Universality Indicators. 

      Alexandre Barbosa and Suada Hadzovic, respectively representing the Regional Center for Studies of the Development of the Information Society (CETIC.br) and ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee’s (GAC) Working Group on Human Rights and International Law (HRILWG), reflected on how the Internet Universality ROAM-X indicators have become a reference for Member States to assess their digital landscapes. They posited that the DC should build capacities of stakeholders involved in IUI assessments, to support formulation of actionable recommendations that lead to concrete Internet reforms.

      Mira Milosevic, from the Global Forum for Media Development, Tomasz Komorowski from the Polish National Commission for UNESCO, Anja Gengo from the Internet Governance Forum Secretariat and NRIs, and Kossi Amessinou of the African ICT Foundation, underlined the relevance of the ROAM framework as an evidence base to underpin advocacy for stronger uptake of human rights online as well as for digital cooperation.

      Participants were unanimous in pointing out the importance of multistakeholder participation, particularly of national governments as duty bearers, both in the Coalition and in national assessments. A richer range of perspectives enables closer and deeper collaboration towards transforming digital ecosystems.

      In her closing statement, Dr. Marielza Oliveira, UNESCO’s Director for Partnerships and Operational Programme Monitoring in the Communications and Information Sector, raised three points. First, with more countries conducting IUIs assessments, regional and global aggregate views become possible, potentially leading to regional and global policy recommendations. Second, she highlighted the importance of funding not only individual national reports, but also capacity development, data collection guidance, quality assurance, aggregate analytics, and other elements from which all countries can benefit.

      Finally, she  invited all stakeholders to join the Dynamic Coalition, concluding that: “Multistakeholder participation is the key to make the ROAM-X project move forward. So let us all join efforts to further mainstream the universal ROAM principles and apply ROAM-X indicators worldwide. These principles were designed to promote human rights and digital inclusion, so that the Internet can truly serve a as public good, leaving no one behind.”

      Related links:

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #21 Advancing  Internet Universality ROAM  principles  and  Indicators (IUIs) for the Internet United 

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 12:16
      Key Takeaways:

      With 33 countries conducting the national assessment of IUIs, international stakeholders and 25 national leading researchers shared the national initiatives, key findings and recommendations using Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators to measure national digital ecosystem for mainstreaming human rights, open and accessible Internet as well as multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

      ,

      Internet as a common good must cater to vulnerable groups (women, children, people with disabilities and remote communities) which not only means providing meaningful access to these groups but also actively protecting them from cybercrimes and violence online.

      Calls to Action

      Governmental and judiciary stakeholders are strongly encouraged to establish and foster legal and normative frameworks that equates rights offline and online. With the support of the ROAM-X framework and the Dynamic Coalition on IUIs, the judiciary could handle the application of offline laws into the online sphere through capacity-building and resource mobilization to have a better understanding of new trends and threats such as cybercrimes etc

      ,

      In order to protect vulnerable groups online, it is necessary to deepen existing initiatives to combat violence against women and children and promote a culture of peace. Through the formulation and implementation of strong recommandations in completed or ongoing assessment of IUIs, stakeholders were encouraged to set up digital support policies for vulnerable groups and raise general citizens’s awareness of cybercrime and child protection

      Session Report

      On 6 December 2021, UNESCO organized a 3-hour special pre-event on Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators (IUIs) on Day-0 of the Internet Governance Forum 2021 to conduct its annual showcasing the overall achievement of Internet Universality ROAM-X indicators project. With 34 countries conducting the national assessment of ROAM-X Indicators, 25 leading experts shared the national initiatives, key findings and recommendations to measure national digital ecosystem for mainstreaming human rights, open and accessible Internet as well as multi-stakeholder Internet governance.

      All participants called for more accountability from their national institutions and relevant stakeholders’ community, to help formulate stronger reforms and initiatives that protect human rights and gender equality online, and particularly those of vulnerable groups. They advocated for more representation and inclusive participation of under-represented groups (women, people with disabilities), notably through the multistakeholder approach of the ROAM-X framework.

      UNESCO Assistant Director General for Communication and Information, Mr. Tawfik Jelassi, addressed the session and delivered a strong message to all IGF stakeholders: “The support to all Member States and stakeholders provided by UNESCO through its ROAM-X indicators and the Internet Universality Dynamic Coalition is a unique contribution. Member States can apply this powerful policy toolkit and process to pinpoint digital gaps, and use the evidence generated to underpin recommendations for guiding humanistic digital transformation around the world.”

      Matthias Kettemann, Head  of Research  Program, Leibniz Institute for Media Research │ Hans-Bredow-Institut (HBI), presented the results and significant impact achieved of the newly completed national of assessment of IUIs in Germany. He informed that recommendations which emerged from the assessment have had a major presence in the topics raised by the German Coalition Treaty 2021-2026, and stated: “The Internet has arrived at the center of political debate, as digitization now shapes politics in Germany”.

      Following on the footsteps of Brazil, Benin, Senegal, Kenya and Germany, Anelia Dimova, Information Society Policy Expert/ Information Technology Directorate, Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications, announced that Bulgaria is taking up the national assessment of ROAM-X indicators. Its report will particularly focus on thematic areas such as transparency and public access to information.

      Representing Tunisia, Argentina, Paraguay and Kenya, Kamel Rezgui, Maria Fernanda Martinez, Eduardo Carillo, Grace Githaiga highlighted that human rights and gender equality online and offline are not effectively protected by the national legal framework and law enforcements at national level. Sadaf Khan, Co-founder of Media Matters for Democracy, highlighted current challenges in such as the lack of transparency in the legal framework for the development of Internet in Pakistan.

      Simon Ellis and Alexandre Barbosa, respectively leading the assessments in Thailand and Brazil and contributing theirexpertise as international advisors to the ROAM-X project, highlighted:  “The Internet Universality ROAM-X Indicators serve as a powerful tool for diagnosis of digital policy, relevant to all countries. They should become a standard, further contributing to applying human rights and universal values of the physical world into the digital world.”

      Nashilongo Gervasius Nakale, representing Internet Society, expressed her eagerness to follow an inclusive approach for the creation of the Multistakeholder Advisory Board and the overall implementation of the ROAM-X principles in Namibia by next year.

      Shavkat Sabirov, President of the Internet Association of Kazakhstan, shared processes and methodology of the ongoing study in Kazakhstan. He stressed the relevance of the ROAM principles and indicators to assess the state of the national digital landscape post-COVID.  Sergey Karpov, National Programme Officer at UNESCO Almaty, presented trends and challenges in the Central Asia region. He underlined that the proposed regional priorities include inclusive knowledge societies, freedom of information and freedom of expression.

      Marielza Oliveira, UNESCO CI’s Director for Partnerships and Operational Programme Monitoring re-iterated UNESCO’s continued support to the national implementation of ROAM-X indicators and pointed out that “ Internet Universality Indicators and the ROAM framework have been endorsed by UNESCO Member States. The number of new reports being developed shows that there is strong interest on the part of countries to voluntarily apply this global framework. As more reports are concluded, Members States and other stakeholders will also benefit from aggregated views that can provide insights at regional in addition to national levels”.  

      The event was moderated by UNESCO focal point of ROAM-X, Xianhong Hu. She informed about future actions, including scaling up the national assessment of ROAM-X indicator to encompass additional countries, conducting a new round of global consultations to assess the impact of ROAM-X indicators, and updating the indicator framework to capture the latest developments of digital technologies and policies. These actions aim to better serve the needs of all Member States and stakeholders, for improving their digital ecosystems.

      Related links

       

      IGF 2021 WS #125 Big Data for Environmental Sustainability

      Workshop
      Updated: Thu, 16/12/2021 - 07:19
      Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change
      Key Takeaways:

      Facing severe environmental challenges, we should make strong, rapid and sustained actions. Big data is a powerful tool in addressing environmental problems and promoting Environmental Sustainability, including renewable energies implementation, ecosystem and environment monitoring, environment protection, forest-dwelling animals monitoring etc.

      ,

      Efforts, actions and innovations are required in big data science technology, engineering, and governance, especially in finding effective ways to collect and process the data, ensuring data quality, safeguarding the privacy and security of data while accessing them openly, narrowing the digital divide, coordinating data policies and technical standards globally etc., in order to fully explore the great potential of big data in promoting enviro

      Calls to Action

      We need the group power and joint actions from the public civil society, governments, research community, and technology sectors to discuss the policies and strategies of open data, data innovation, global technical standards, technology integration, and to build a massive environmentally friendly community.

      ,

      We need to explore the big data application for environmental sustainability from the technical aspect and consider the application scenario to promote environmental application models.

      Session Report
      • Prof. GONG Ke, President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, Chair of CAST UN Consultative Committee on Information Technology, delivered the opening remarks. He mentioned that facing severe climate changes and other environmental challenges, we should make strong, rapid and sustained actions, especially by reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and energy decarburization to limit global warming. He stressed that big data is a powerful tool to empower us in these actions and called for innovations in big data science technology, engineering, and governance to fully explore the great potential of big data in promoting environmental sustainability.
      • Prof. Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo, Professor of Universidad Anahuac online, Mexico, delivered a presentation on “The implementation of big data in the use of clean energy within the framework of the United States – Mexico – Canada Agreement or USMCA”. He introduced the United States - Mexico - Canada Agreement (USMCA), the benefits of using big data and analytics in renewable energies to achieve a sustainable environment, and how Mexico incorporates new methodologies such as Big Data and Analytics to guarantee the supply, access, and integration of renewable energy to meet the objectives of the USMCA and the Sustainable Development Agenda. He also suggested implementation of specific legal instruments to implement big data analytics in the regulation of clean energies to achieve environmental sustainability.
      • Prof. LIU Chuang, Professor of Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, delivered a presentation on “2021 -2030 Joint Decadal Action on Environment Protection for High Quality Geographical Products and Sustainability”. She pointed out the challenges in achieving environmental sustainable development in China and many other developing countries. She also shared practical cases to illustrate how to overcome these challenges and maintain environmental sustainability through the joint actions of institutes and organizations (including government and companies) on Environment Protection for High Quality Geographical Products and Sustainability and the effective use of open data and knowledge.
      • Prof. ZHOU Xiang, Professor of Aerospace Information Research Institute, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China, delivered a presentation on “Big data analysis on Ecology and Environment & Green Development”. He mentioned that Big data finds new knowledge, creates new value and improves new capabilities, and is conducive to realizing the potential of ecological environmental data resources, promoting green development for human production and life, and supporting the implementation of SDGs. He also listed the Challenges for Environmental Sustainability and pointed out that we need the group power from the public Civil Society and research community, technology sector to discuss the policy of open data, innovation, and how to empower the technology and integration, and to build a environmentally friendly community.
      • Horst Kremers, General Secretary of CODATA-Germany, Germany, delivered a presentation on “Challenges, Risks and Gaps in Environmental Data Management”. He talked about the aspects of governance needed in big environmental data sustainability, including monitoring, assessing, accounting, valuing, pricing, defining/generating tradeable, and getting nature to the stock exchange and make money. He also mentioned the technical operational elements of sustainability information governance, such as techniques, operations, control, accountability, ethics, risk management or compliance, administration, especially all of society participative governance. He hoped that IGF could bring possibility or make proposals to collect a working group on observing or exchange ideas over this topic.
      • Dr. Daisy Selematsela, Executive Director of Library & Information Services, University of South Africa, South Africa, delivered a presentation on “Positioning of Data Management in university libraries”. She focused on issues around big data for environmental sustainability with regard to open data and open science. She emphasized that facing  a changing, increasingly connected and globalized environment and with the challenges in data management, we should strengthen OA/Open Data processes by building developing regions strategies, declarations & co-operations in support of OA/O Data policies and seeking national, regional & international support to strengthen scholarly led OA/O Data.
      • Dr. Tomoko Doko, president and CEO, Nature & Science Consulting Co. Ltd., Japan, delivered a presentation on “AI oriented advanced monitoring of forest-dwelling animals in Japan”. She gave a brief introduction on what are Big Data and AI and shared a case study on using big data and AI to monitor animals in order to show how can Big Data and AI be applied to science, especially environmental sustainability.

       

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #27 AU Interoperability Framework for Digital ID: Challenges, Opportunities and way forward

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 15/12/2021 - 17:31
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      With a significant number of Africans lacking legal identity, ensuring that Africans gain access to digital ID is critical for not only ensuring Africa’s active participation in digital economies. As more African governments work on creating new or upgrading existing digital ID ecosystems, putting in place normative frameworks to ensure that these ecosystems are inclusive, human rights respecting, and interoperable is of critical importance.

      ,

      Like other challenges in the Internet governance space, digital IDs pose both opportunities and risks. This includes the risk of exclusion from critical services. Having adequate protection mechanisms in place, including data governance frameworks that are appropriate for the contextual realities on the continent, is important for ensuring that Africans can meaningfully participate in global digital societies and economies.

      Calls to Action

      The AUC’s draft interoperability framework for digital identity is a critical step in the right direction for ensuring that African governments reach normative agreement over what and how enabling, inclusive and transformative digital identity ecosystems should look like. With digital identity being central to digital economies, all stakeholders should become more actively engaged in the design and development of these ecosystems.

      Session Report

      Open Forum #27 AU Interoperability Framework for Digital ID: Challenges, Opportunities and way forward

      Wednesday, 8 December 2021 (10:45-11:45 CET)

      Moderator: Teki Akuetteh Falconer

      Online Moderator: Mahlet Tesfahun

      Panellists: Mihret Woodmatas, Jonathan Marskell, Toby Norman, Gabriella Razzano, Robert Karanja
      Rapporteur: Anri van der Spuy

      The session not only provided an opportunity for the African Union Commission (AUC) to share recent developments pertaining to its Digital Transformation Strategy in general and its Interoperability Framework for Digital ID in particular, but it enabled various stakeholders to engage with the opportunities and risks of digital identities in global South contexts. 

      Featuring panellists from a diversity of stakeholder groups, including civil society (OpenUp and Africa Digital Rights' Hub), NGOs (SimPrints), aid agencies (the Omidyar Network), intergovernmental organizations (World Bank) (stakeholder categories loosely defined), the session explored the importance of digital IDs for both the development of more inclusive digital economies and for enabling more people to participate actively in societies.

      With a significant proportion of African citizens lacking legal identities, the session’s panellists emphasized the importance of ensuring that all Africans gain access to digital ID in order to ensure the continent’s meaningful, equitable and active participation in global digital economies. Panellists noted that digital forms of identification can help to bridge identity gaps as long as relevant safeguards and policy frameworks are put in place to mitigate the risks that accompany the digitisation of identity mechanisms and ecosystems. This is especially important for potentially marginalised communities like women, refugees, migrant, and people living in rural and remote areas.

      What would the ‘right’ digital ID infrastructure for Africa look like, i.e. one that responds and corresponds to the unique needs of Africans? In response to this guiding question from the moderator, Teki Akuetteh Falconer, a representative from the African Union Commission, Mihret Woodmatas, shared updates relevant to the implementation of the AUC’s Digital Transformation Strategy and its goals to drive innovative, inclusive and sustainable growth through innovation and digitalisation. To help address poverty, reduce inequality, and facilitate the delivery of goods and services, the DTS emphasises importance of digital ID as a cross-cutting theme. It notes that digital ID is a key mechanism for implementing the SDGs (especially SDG16.9, which calls for legal id for all) and the AUC’s Agenda 2063: The Africa we want. For this reason, Mrs. Woodmatas noted, the AUC recently put together a multistakeholder taskforce in order to develop a policy framework for digital identity. The framework not only builds upon existing efforts and policy guidelines, but also supports the draft data governance framework, which is currently being considered by the AUC and was also discussed in a separate session at the IGF (see Open forum #18).

      Other panellists noted that with growing digitisation (including expanding broadband penetration) on the continent, many African governments are currently working on creating new or upgrading existing digital ID ecosystems. This, some panellists argued, is an invaluable opportunity for digital ID to support gender equality, social protection delivery, financial inclusion, safer migration, and even Covid-19 (or other) vaccine delivery. 

      Given this growing appetite for digital ID in Africa, panellists agreed that putting in place normative frameworks such as the one being developed by the AUC is important in order to ensure that digital ID ecosystems are inclusive, human rights respecting, and interoperable. Ensuring that these ecosystems meets these basic norms might sometimes be difficult, panellists noted, given that African countries have to contend with tricky colonial histories relevant to identification ecosystems, vastly different contexts, limited resources, and institutions that sometimes lack the capacity or will to invest in better ways of digitising identities.

      Other risks highlighted by audience members, online participants, and panellists include not only the risk of exclusion from critical services (e.g., aid or benefit support), but also the risk of being included without adequate representation or protection from unlawful state, social or private sector surveillance. One panellist pointed out that the growing reliance on biometrics for both foundational and functional (digital) identity also introduces new risks. When the Taliban recently took control of Afghanistan, he warned, biometric data collected for humanitarian purposes came under the control of a terrorist organisation and can now be misused to identify dissidents or other at-risk communities. 
      While a number of technical developments and innovations might be promising for ensuring the privacy and safety by design of digital id ecosystems, adequate normative and policy frameworks – including relevant data governance frameworks – are crucially important for addressing the risks and maximising the benefits that can accompany digital identities on the continent.

      To conclude, panellists, online participants and audience members generally agreed that the AUC’s draft interoperability framework for digital identity is a critical step in the right direction for ensuring that African governments reach normative agreement over what and how enabling, inclusive and transformative digital identity ecosystems for the continent should look like. As the AUC and other multilateral organisations continue to work on the frameworks, other stakeholders (including civil society) should encourage the we implementation of policies that are aligned with the principles of “good” ID.
       

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #18 Harmonising African regulation for cross-border data flows

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 15/12/2021 - 17:27
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      The African Union Commission’s initiative to develop a data governance framework for Africa is not only unique and innovative on and for the continent, but also in the world. It is geared towards creating an enabling data policy framework that facilitates the development of a data economy across Africa while addressing the uneven distribution of opportunities and harms in the current global data ecosystem.

      ,

      Covid-19 has not only highlighted the importance of ensuring digital equity, but has exposed significant inequalities when it comes to the global digital economy. While some African policymakers might turn to data localisation mechanisms to address these risks, more sustainable ways of ensuring Africa’s equitable participation in the global digital economy need to be developed.

      Calls to Action

      African policymakers should think beyond prohibitive notions of “data localisation” by supporting more empowering, transformative and cutting-edge policies for the continent, like the AUC’s data governance framework. This framework will enable Africa to not merely be a lucrative market to extract data from: it and its citizens should actively participate in the global digital economy.

      Session Report

      Open Forum #18 Harmonising African regulation for cross-border data flows

      Tuesday, 7 December 2021 (16:15 CET-17:15 CET)

      Moderator: Alison Gillwald

      Online Moderator: Mahlet Tesfahun

      Panellists: Souhila Amazouz, Michuki Mwangi, Pilar Fajarnes, Pren-Tsilya Boa-Guehe, Lorrayne Porciuncula

      Rapporteur: Anri van der Spuy

      The session provided an opportunity for the African Union Commission (AUC) to share recent developments pertaining to its Digital Transformation Strategy in general and its Data Policy Framework in particular. It also enabled various stakeholders – including a lively audience – to engage with the opportunities and risks of datafication processes in global South contexts, and to share their views about the proposed policy frameworks. 

      Featuring panellists from a diversity of stakeholder groups, including civil society (Lorrayne Porciuncula), NGOs (Michuki Mwangi), the private sector (Pren-Tsilya Boa-Guehe), intergovernmental organizations (Pilar Fajarnes) (stakeholder categories loosely defined), the session explored the importance of putting in place adequate data governance frameworks for both the development of more inclusive digital economies and for enabling more people to participate actively in socio-digital societies on the continent. This is especially the case for women, refugees, people living in poverty, and other marginalised communities on the continent.

      Panellists noted that the Covid-19 pandemic has not only highlighted the importance of ensuring equitable digital inclusion that result in meaningful opportunities and outcomes (or digital equity) around the world, but has exposed significant inequalities when it comes to datafication and the global digital economy. This is especially the case in Africa, where low levels of Internet penetration has made the socio-economic impacts of prolonged lockdown periods more damaging than in better connected societies. Finding ways of addressing these inequalities is therefore important, and the African Union Commission’s draft data governance framework endeavours to so in a way that is not only ground-breaking for the continent, but also for the world. As the moderator explained, the framework adopts a data justice conceptual approach to enable the development of a data economy across Africa while addressing the uneven distribution of opportunities and harms in the current global data ecosystem.

      Souhila Amazouz, representative from the AUC, explained that the framework was developed using a wholly multistakeholder approach, with participants from various relevant stakeholder communities, and is currently being examined by the AU’s policy organs. The framework builds upon other policy efforts on the continent, including the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (the Malabo Convention), and ultimately aims to support African countries to leverage the transformative power of digital technologies to improve Africans’ lives. It also supports the draft interoperability framework for digital identity, which is currently being considered by the AUC and was also discussed in a separate session at the IGF (see the session report for the IGF open forum #27).

      Some panellists warned about the tendency, especially prevalent in the global South, of certain policymakers to opt for data localisation governance mechanisms to address these risks. One panellist, Lorrayne Porciuncula from the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, pointed out that data localisation measures have more than doubled in the past four years. She called for a more informed debate about the nature of data and how we enhance the opportunities while mitigate the risks of data sharing. A data governance approach which embraces considerations like socio-economic growth and development while enabling adequate protection and justice is critical for the continent, and requires thinking beyond data localisation as a narrative.

      From a supply side, some panellists argued that investments in training, creativity and innovations on the continent need to be bolstered in order to avoid Africa being primarily a consumer as opposed to a producer in digital economies. One panellist argued that Africa’s data markets currently largely being merely a lucrative market for foreign entities to extract data from, and that Africans need to be empowered to become more than raw products that are exploited for benefit elsewhere.

      From a demand side, panellists from Google and the Internet Society pointed to the importance of ensuring that appropriate infrastructure is put in place to enable the technical architecture of Africa’s data economy to thrive. Pren-Tsilya Boa-Guehe (Google) noted that organisations like Google are investing in sub-sea cables to increase network capacity on the continent, while Michuki Mwangi (Internet Society) stressed the crucial significance of ensuring better data flows for optimised performance. Mr Mwangi argued that policymakers need to be engaged to think more critically about points of interconnection rather than countries of interconnection.

      To conclude, panellists and audience members agreed on the need to encourage African policymakers to think beyond prohibitive notions of “data localisation” to more empowering, transformative and cutting-edge policies for the continent. Many panellists and audience members congratulated the AUC for its effort to harmonise data policies, which some pointed out to be a rather unique approach to data governance. One audience member noted that the data policy framework could indeed serve as an example to countries in the global north.

      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #65 Freedom on the Net: The Best and Worst Practices in Internet Regulation

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Wed, 15/12/2021 - 16:23
      Key Takeaways:

      Panelists agreed that narrow regulation can protect human rights online, a shift in thinking in recent years. Laws should be drafted in a multistakeholder & democratic fashion, & prioritize transparency, democratic oversight, & freedoms like privacy & free expression. Otherwise, regulation could increase state censorship & surveillance. More discussion should focus on how to hold actors accountable for their actions in a rights-respecting manner.

      Calls to Action

      Democratic policymakers should ensure that civil society and industry are thoroughly involved in the drafting, passing, and implementation of any new internet regulation. Specifically, civil society from the Global South should be robustly involved. A multistakeholder approach is key to ensuring new regulation properly tackles online harms while protecting human rights.

      Session Report

      The Session “Freedom on the Net: The Best and Worst Practices in Internet Regulation” was effective at exploring the current state of regulatory behavior around the world, with a focus on Brazil and Turkey. Freedom House’s Allie Funk moderated the conversation, with Gurkan Ozturan and Bruna Martins dos Santos participating as panelists. Gurkan is the author of the Freedom on the Net (FOTN) Turkey report. He recently joined the European Center for Press and Media Freedom as the Media Freedom Rapid Response Coordinator and has worked as a journalist and advocate in Turkey. Bruna is the author of the FOTN Brazil Report. She is a visiting researcher at the Berlin Social Science Center and is an expert on platform regulation and intermediary liability, particularly in Brazil. Approximately 20-25 attendees joined the session, and the panel received questions from audience members based in New York, Russia, and Tanzania.

      Allie began the session by summarizing the key findings from the FOTN 2021 edition, which was released in September 2021. Specifically, she highlighted how a growing number of governments are asserting their authority over the private sector. A laissez-faire approach to the tech industry created opportunities for authoritarian manipulation, data exploitation, and widespread malfeasance, and in the absence of a shared global vision for a free and open internet, governments are adopting their own approaches to policing the digital sphere. While some moves reflect legitimate attempts to mitigate online harms, rein in misuse of data, or end manipulative market practices, many new laws impose excessively broad censorship and data-collection requirements on the private sector. Allie concluded her introduction remarks by ringing the alarm that governments are attempting to use the current drive for greater regulation for their own political purposes, instead of curbing and decentralizing the power of tech companies. Due to this, democratic governments should work with civil society and industry to craft regulations that enable users to express themselves freely, share information across borders, and hold the powerful to account. But exactly how to craft those regulations so that they protect human rights and not undermine them is a key challenge of the digital age.

      Allie then asked Bruna to introduce some of the most worrisome laws coming out of Brazil. Bruna discussed how there has been a significant change in approach to regulation in the country. While the country is famous for Marco Civil and historically taking a multistakeholder approach to internet policy, President Bolsonaro has pursued problematic decrees that undermine encryption, outsource censorship to companies, and increase surveillance. Bruna also discussed what to expect ahead of the elections in the fall of 2022, and is particularly following how problematic or dangerous speech across Telegram, particularly by political candidates or state officials themselves, will undermine electoral integrity.

      Next, Gurkan discussed the Turkish environment, highlighting how government officials use restrictive laws regulating social media to censor political, social, and religious speech. Specifically, the state has exploited the language of child protection and gender-based harassment as justification to quickly pass and implement repressive policies. Gurkan also noted how some of the “worst” provisions on internet regulation include data localization components, the bypassing of the judiciary for content removal, and the anonymization of court verdicts that makes their outcomes non-transparency and means civil society and other advocates cannot effectively challenge them. Bruna concluded the Q&A section of the session by identifying the “best” components of tech regulation. These include transparency requirements on tech companies and provisions that tailor obligations based on companies’ type and size.

      Following this discussion, Allie opened up the floor for a question and answer. A participant based in New York asked how the private sector can resist broad content removal orders or demands for data in repressive countries. Gurkan answered that companies have a responsibility to not share users’ data and not comply with coercive laws. A representative from Tanzania raised the need for a balancing act between online freedom and responsibility, so that bad actors can be held effectively accountable for their actions online. Allie responding with the need to think more critically about how to empower free expression but still find avenues for accountability that doesn’t simply lead to more criminalization, censorship, or surveillance. Finally, an attendee from Russia criticized Freedom House’s FOTN report, arguing that the organization’s analysis of the internet freedom environment is inaccurate and problematic. Allie responded by communicating Freedom House’s rigorous research process that ensures country reports and key findings are accurate and effectively communicated.

      Beyond the engagement discussed in this report, Allie did not identify additional direct feedback about the session, including via the IGF hashtags online.

      IGF 2021 WS #271 Youth Talk about IoT Security and AI misuse

      Workshop
      Updated: Wed, 15/12/2021 - 14:57
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      The majority of participants who take part in the Mentimeter thought that the best approach to establish meaningful public participation in the development of national AI policies in Africa is to develop a common ethical and human-centered basis for AI. There is a need to ensure that AI is not biased because of the over-representation of certain factors in the training datasets and extrapolation of what is true of individuals to other groups.

      ,

      To address the issue of IoT security, participants agree in the majority that there is a need for IoT security standards as in this way, despite the gap of digital skills, users still have the first layer of protection. IoT should also be more accessible to end-users by promoting education on these emerging technologies.

      Calls to Action

      There is a need for inclusivity in the development of AI and IoT, and young people should take action and be involved especially in standardization for an inclusive and robust standard.

      Session Report

      The purpose of this session is to discuss AI and IoT, both in their usage, through a youth perspective. AI and IoT can be used together with AI being the brain that computes the data, and IoT the sensors that gather the data, they can also be found in one device when the computational capacity of the IoT is high enough to also run the AI algorithm which will analyze the data.

       

      • AI can be used for the public good and make our life simpler, however, there are issues and concerns that need to be addressed: the intersectionality between trust and security, and privacy; the lack of digitals and imbalance especially in developing countries, the transparency, and explainability of AI algorithm in Machine learning to avoid bias based on wrong data.

       

      • Regarding the IoT, the major concerns are security, privacy and reliability, and fragmented standards. Security because the device itself can be compromised due to malware and because the IoT devices can be used for bad purposes. However, securing the IoT is also a challenge as it needs some resources such as storage which is not always available due to cost constraints. Secondly, the IoT has a cloud-based operation, which means that all end-users data is sent to the cloud, and operation with the IoT is not always reliable.
      IGF 2021 WS #239 The Internet of Things is a Ticking Clock: Secure Design Now

      Workshop
      Updated: Wed, 15/12/2021 - 14:46
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      Citizen-centric approach solutions. Need for IoT especially in the context of pandemic, however, IoT devices are expensive and economic incentive policies would also be interesting.

      ,

      Initiatives about security in IoT are being taken by other stakeholders - which should be private sector initiatives - but which are happening in the IETF and even the IGF through the debates. People can also make their own policies, in order to customize their uses and know what is most appropriate for their needs.

      Calls to Action

      Need for more flexible policies between the product/company and the user, as well as greater communication and transparency efforts by the private sector.

      ,

      Measures proposed in IETF that tries to tackle the issue of managing vulnerabilities in heterogeneous IoT networks with a small security team. Also, there's the need for interoperability between IoT devices.

      Session Report

      This panel is a continuation of another workshop from last year, where the main conclusion was the need for security by design in IoT.

       

      One of the panelists from the private sector, Edgar Ramos, pointed out the problem of consent based on the practice of "take it or leave it". Thus, there is a need to negotiate, apply or monitor such policies, demanding new business models that are customizable and interoperable.

       

      Another representative from the private sector, Martha Teye, spoke about the impact of Covid and how it has driven the use and success of IoT. In this scenario, there is a need to address economic policies as well, as IoT devices are not cheap. Teye also spoke about smart cities and innovations enabled by 5G, which increase data collection and security uncertainty for users (data subjects). Bringing a more positive look, Teye spoke of the uses of IoT and Edge computing, in improving AI predictions and the very functioning of IoT, which demands greater collaboration between actors.

       

      Speaking from the technical perspective, the Brazilian Sávyo Morais made an introduction of the lifecycle of an IoT device, and the need for secure design for handling threats during the device's whole life. The main point pointed out by Morais was the issue of managing vulnerabilities in heterogeneous IoT networks with a small security team. Presenting ongoing efforts to address this issue, Morais spoke of his draft in the IETF that tries to tackle this problem - in the sense of sharing knowledge - and explained a little about INXU: taking care of the network based on well-known attacks. He referenced his work to RFC 8520 - Manufacturer Usage Descriptions (MUDs).

       

      The debate that followed with other participants in the session addressed the issue of having more transparency for the consumer and how to encourage them to take care of their IoT devices (doing a simple update, for example). There was talk about awareness, about privacy and security, while there is a mentality for the common user that if it's not broken it's better to leave it as it is. The debate ended with the reflection by Mark Datysgeld, that a greater communicative effort on these points and others discussed in this forum should be in the mainstream media, in order to reach the common user, which, in the final analysis, is the focus of IoT devices that seek to facilitate the day-to-day user’s life.

       

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #9 Commonwealth Hard Talk for Action

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 15/12/2021 - 11:13
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Key Takeaways:

      Technology has been democratised and this presents an opportunity to create new business models, and dynamic ecosystems that leverage the technology.

      ,

      Benefitting from the technical revolution requires an environment that invests in and supports those falling behind and empowers them to help themselves.

      Calls to Action

      Long-term developmental plans that transcend the politics of the day are essential for keeping the momentum on digital transformation.

      Session Report

      The session started well on time with welcome remarks from the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (CTO). She opened the session with a quick update on CTO’s work noting that CTO has restructured operations to support members in digital transformation. She reiterated that meaningful connectivity encompasses affordable and availability of appropriate content to advance citizens lives.

      The provocateur introduced speakers who discussed the topic of the day with a focus on the underlying issues of policy implementation as opposed to formulation only. It was clear that many governments have previously talked about lofty plans for ICT adoption but ultimately there has been no action.  Hence the session tried to expose platitudes and find substance of cogent thought that could lead to action that fosters meaningful connectivity for digital transformation. The session was attended by 36 participants of which 33.3% were women.

      Key points of discussion included:

      1. Long-term developmental plans that transcend the politics of the day are essential for keeping the momentum on digital transformation.
      2. Benefitting from the technical revolution requires an environment that invests in and supports those falling behind and empowers them to help themselves.
      3. Digital government is an important step for fostering access and connectivity and empowering citizens.
      4. Universal connectivity depends on partnerships.
      5. Technology has been democratised and this presents an opportunity to  create new business  models, and dynamic ecosystems  that leverage the technology.
      6. In digital transformations there are winners and losers and it is crucial to invest in the losers in order for them to benefit from the new economy brought about by the emerging technology.
      7. Committed support from key influencers in government to support the digital transformation such as Heads of governments is very crucial. This can be limited by the barriers to political will such as ignorance and cultural differences.

      Feedback:

      1. There is a need to cultivate mindsets that encourages the creation and ownership of technology.
      2. Challenging status quo breaks the political barriers.
      3. Appropriate legislation for digital environment is key to fostering digital literacy.
      4. Digital connectivity tends to increase inequality if it’s not affordable.
      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #45 Digital identity for gender equality and data justice - collection of practices for policy making and practice

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Tue, 14/12/2021 - 09:52
      Key Takeaways:

      We need a paradigm shift that involves promoting and applying a whole-of-government approach to developing digital ID systems; building private sector innovation upon of the digital enablers that the public sector provides; engaging with individuals and rethinking the development from a service oriented perspective.

      ,

      We need a paradigm shift that involves better engagement the local vendor ecosystem so that the value add remains where systems are developed

      Calls to Action

      We must make sure that we promote a better version of life via connectivity and not only repeat the same bad practices known from the life.

      ,

      We must be more evidence and research based and at the same time work more with the private sector.

      Session Report

      The session Digital Identity, Data Economy and Gender Equality organized by Finland and MyData Global was aimed at discussing the interconnections between digital identity (ID), data protection, data justice and gender equality. The purpose was to look at good and bad practices in the policymaking and practical implementation of the digital ID regimes, and identify a set of key takeaways that support technological progress and digital services while moving forward the issue of gender equality and empowerment. 

      In order to share the lessons learned and discuss ways forward, the session involved different stakeholders in the discussion. Panellists represented government, international organisations, business and civil society including the Global South namely World Bank, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, Afroleadership, Digital Public Goods Alliance, UN Global Pulse and Fujitsu Gender Empowerment Network. The session was moderated by MyData Global.

      Digital public infrastructure includes a range of factors such as civil registration, digital ID, payment systems and other registration systems. Digital ID is the most foundational of these because it connects citizens to so many services. It can enable us to unlock public services and access health services, education, communications, livelihoods opportunities and social capital.  A billion people worldwide lack legal identity and the vast majority of them are in low-income countries and women and marginalized groups. Even when people have ID, it is often not secure and verifiable. This is a human rights issue which affects the sustainable development of societies because of the barriers these people face in exercising their rights and accessing services. 

      The session highlighted experiences from the Global South. Access to finance and Internet is very low for women in the sub-Saharan region and it is difficult for them to acquire all the documents needed in order to have digital ID. Experiences are similar in India: women have low access to Internet and communication technologies. Another obstacle for women in India is that they are quite often illiterate. The digital divide in India presents itself both between and inside different socio-economic groups. Women in middle- and high-income groups have access to Internet but are often not aware of how data is collected and used. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation. It was also noted that there is often very little accountability when it comes to data protection. 

      Disparities are even more pronounced with displaced populations. UNHCR estimates that around 75 percent of refugees and displaced people are women and children. The gender mobile gap in this context is great and has received very little dedicated attention. UNHCR and GSMA research in Africa has shown that 62 percent of men, compared to 36 percent of women reported owning a mobile device. Access to mobile has become a powerful tool for delivering lifesaving and life enhancing information and is therefore important in refugee contexts. 

      The session concluded that there is a need for a paradigm shift in order to promote a better version of life without gendered norms through connectivity. In order to make this shift happen, the session panellists strongly emphasized the need to promote collaboration between governments, the private sector and other stakeholders in different regions in the development of digital ID systems. There is a need to find incentive structures for private sector and for-profit entities to be involved as enablers of this change. It is especially important to keep highlighting the needs of women and the most disadvantaged populations.

      Many governments do not have a system in place on how to implement digital ID. What is needed is promoting and applying a whole-of-government approach to developing digital ID systems; building private sector innovation upon of the digital enablers that the public sector provides; engaging with individuals, placing them at the heart of the equation and rethinking the development from a service-oriented perspective. Governments must take an active role and build in-house capacity to run ID systems. Moreover, there is a need for more knowledge sharing between regions as well as promotion of open systems that governments can adapt to their contextual needs.

      In order to bridge the gender digital gap in ID systems, there is a need to apply inclusion by design approach. This means removing barriers to access in laws, policies, procedures and technologies for ID systems. It is important to implement targeted strategies to address barriers faced by specific groups, especially women, the disadvantaged and the displaced. In the Global South context, this can mean, for example, bringing ID services closer to women and the disadvantaged so that they can overcome mobility and travel cost issues that may hinder their access to ID services and registration. 

      It is also crucial to build trust in ID systems by ensuring user privacy and data protection by design. Governments must be held accountable for how they use digital ID systems. The more authoritarian a government’s approach is, the more risks of human rights violations there are. Promoting good governance as a means to minimize risks related to data collection and user privacy is vital. Governments must protect civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights and promote non-discrimination, accountability and affordability when designing digital ID systems. Digital ID can promote access to public and private services only if the rule of law is respected. Transparency and accountability can increase trust in digital systems and trust increases the use of such services.

      As the use of digital services increases, there is also a clear need to ensure that populations are aware of how to use them safely. The panellists noted that it is important to place emphasis on improving digital literacy skills. It is essential to educate users, especially women and the disadvantaged groups on how to stay safe online, how data is collected and used and how to use digital space for increasing personal livelihoods and wellbeing. Employing communications strategies and training that highlight the value of ID systems for women and the disadvantaged is especially important. 

      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #43 Creative strategies to tackle the intersection between digital technologies and the climate emergency

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Mon, 13/12/2021 - 11:26
      Key Takeaways:

      The environmental justice movement has better understood the environmental effects of digital technologies than the digital rights movement itself.

      ,

      Based on the experience of the environmental justice movement, we need to question the role of the climate and ecological crisis of human rights in the digital context agenda.

      Calls to Action

      To complement different agendas working on the environmental effects of ITCs is necessary to look for creative and critical strategies that can push human rights further in a narrowing window of opportunities to climate action to avoid the planet-warming above 1,5 °C.

      Session Report

      Research and activism regarding the material effects of digital technologies -particularly towards the environment and the climate crisis- had indeed been part of the environmental justice activists' agenda. Examples are multiples, as activists denouncing the intensive use of fresh water in drought-affected zones by data centers, or the social, cultural, and environmental consequences of extractivism of lithium and rare earth minerals in different places in the world.

      If we add the crucial factor of the hurry humanity has to avoid the planet-warming beyond 1,5°C, it is vital to question what is then the role about the climate and ecological crisis of the digital rights agenda.

      Exponents propose to examine the lessons learned by the environmental justice movement that, on one side, has exhausted the institutional resources to protect the environment and the communities at the local, national, regional, and international spaces. So the question for the human rights agenda in the digital world should rather be how, through creative strategies, we learn and engage with a global movement and help push for a digitization that limits the climate and ecological disasters we are experiencing.

      Three creative strategies were discussed in this lightning talk:
      - To document human rights violations against communities because of the environmental effects of the use of ICTs beyond the idea of formal reports, as already many social justice groups are working on that strategy. It is also essential to overcome the concept of human supremacy and address other epistemologies such as posthumanism.
      - To build a new agenda, beyond the one working on ICTs, that brings together the movements from different traditions that already work on the environmental effects of technologies in various aspects, and let their experience develop their own methodologies, actions, agendas, and reflections, better suited to the climate emergency. 
      - To encourage a cross-cutting movement of reform and imagination within the UN mechanisms. Of reform, in the sense of convening multi-stakeholders including business, governments, technical sector, academia, and civil society that want to accelerate their human rights commitments in both digital and environmental rights. And a movement of imagination, because in the face of the most significant governance crisis we have ever faced, with both the environmental and digital rights movements, we must think about how international institutions that already exist could respond to the enormous challenges of a present and a future copping with climate disaster.

      IGF 2021 WS #142 One click to attack critical infrastructure. What can we do?

      Workshop
      Updated: Mon, 13/12/2021 - 08:39
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      Discussed some countries' approach to regulating critical infrastructure protection (CIP);

      ,

      Explored opportunities for cross-border cooperation between states and non-state actors in the event of a significant cyber incident.

      Calls to Action

      The global community needs greater knowledge on how non-binding cyber norms, including on CIP, are implemented at the national level;

      ,

      Some of the confidence-building measures (CBMs) (e.g. establishing national PoCs) could serve as a basis for more effective cross-border cooperation in an event of a cyberattack at critical infrastructure.

      IGF 2021 WS #115 Fan the Flames? Regulating Competition in Digital Markets

      Workshop
      Updated: Sat, 11/12/2021 - 07:37
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      Governments should not ignore the fact that local small and medium-sized enterprises are not often in the same level with big tech companies in complying with those regulations that can even be destructive to the SMEs. That’s why the governments should not always rush in the regulation without proper impact assessments.

      ,

      In the drafting process of digital market regulations, the multi-stakeholder approach may sometimes result in compromising the small and medium sized companies, even though the private sector is represented by big tech companies.

      Calls to Action

      Hear small and medium-sized enterprises in the multi-stakeholder meetings in the discussion of digital market regulations. Reorganize the ratio between the small and large enterprises in such discussions and involve more academia.

      ,

      Rethink digital market regulations before adopting and conduct proper impact assessments considering the future impacts as well. Reconsider if the regulation by "hard law" is the only feasible solution.

      Session Report

      As planned, the session organized by the Internet Society Youth Special Interest Group (aka Youth Observatory) opened with the moderator's short introduction of the topic and esteemed speakers with various geographical and academic/practical backgrounds. This report will divide the discussions based on the Policy Questions as executed in the session.

      PQ 1: How do the ongoing regulations to address the market imbalance created by large tech companies impact small businesses? 

      Veronica Piccolo, a member of the Ca' Foscari University of Venice and #DearGovernments, started by stating the huge number and role of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in the European economy. She identified the SMEs in Europe as competitors and customers of big tech companies, while their roles as competitors are rare. Continuing with the difficulties in the regulations in favour of the SMEs, she gave the example of the Mergers and Acquisitions, the rules of which usually do not allow finding violations when the SMEs are "eaten" by big tech companies. The reason lies in the assessment criteria of such mergers which often take into account the annual turnover, let alone the long-term impacts of such practices are usually overlooked by competition authorities. Nevertheless, she found hopes in the direction taken by the European Commission lately by the adoption of the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act given that the Commission is well aware of the importance of innovation by the SMEs. 

      Following the question from the audience by Cory Doctorow, the member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation about the requirements of the size of firms in the Copyright Directive and Digital Services Act, she also briefly touched upon the problems arising from the contrast between the Digital Markets Act and Digital Services Act given the prohibition of targeted advertisements in the latter. Also, after the online moderator, Elliot Mann asked whether we need something beyond amending competition law, such as taking a ground-level approach suitable for the competition in the digital markets by bringing new terms, Veronica Piccolo answered that this is what the policymaking in the EU is going towards via the New Competition Tools.

      Thierry Nathanael Kopia, a local entrepreneur and inventor from Burkina Faso, took the floor to give a comparative analysis of the emerging regulations around the world in search of the best practices that included the EU and Japan. In the absence of such solid regulations in the African region, generally, he mentioned that the problems the SMEs face are more or less the same around the world, whether there is a regulation or not. He added that the issue raised in the PQ1 is not only limited to competition, and there are other sides of the coin, such as the issues of data protection, consumer protection. 

      PQ2: In the example of the side effects of the ongoing regulations on other businesses, what is the best model to predict the consequences of emerging regulations concerning competition on the Internet?

      Paola Galvez, an advisor of the Peruvian Government, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, started to answer this question by mentioning the challenges faced by governments, especially, the Peruvian government, because most of the time the government representatives have a difficult time with understanding the dynamics of digital markets when the delineation of competition law is blurred by digitization. However, it is not only the governments challenged by the digitization of markets. When governments rush in the regulations, the local entrepreneurs (as well as, SMEs) also struggle with complying with such regulations - they either have to leave the market or sell their business to larger enterprises. That's why she continued that prompt regulations in the digital markets may not be the optimal solution; governments may wait in such cases, instead, conduct regular assessments, question-and-tests of the market, as well as the assessment of post-implementation periods. Regarding the issues of liability, she added that there is a mismatch between the transboundary nature of digitization and the fragmentation of regulations. Therefore, regulating all technologies one by one may not be a good idea after all.
      Another topic that popped up in her speech was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the policymaking process of digital market regulations, in general.

      PQ3: What role can the multi-stakeholder approach play in the creation of effective regulations on competition and should it be revised or modified?

      In this phase, Paola Galvez continued with the success of the multi-stakeholder approach in the emerging digital market regulations in Peru and other Latin-American countries she is aware of. She described how the equal participation of all stakeholders is mandatorily enforced by law, more precisely, the Urgency Decree of Peru, the law that she thinks, provides for a proven model to cope with the complexity of digital market regulatory discussions. The Peruvian Government also hosts an Innovation Lab that includes a group of researchers who regularly (notably, before the pandemic) were travelling to the rural areas to explore the talent gap and further problems challenging innovation in the regions.

      Raashi Saxena, a member of the Steering Committee of the Internet Rights Principle Coalition, presented a first-hand experience of the implementation of the multi-stakeholder approach by the I4Policy Foundation of the UN in the AI Policy Development. The policies like the ones concerning AI connect many stakeholders, and they naturally must be taken a multi-stakeholder approach to hear ad interacting with everyone before coming up with a final policy. She added that, however, in any implemented multi-stakeholder approach, the mere inclusion of everyone must be avoided, and the priority must be the effective participation of the stakeholders and promotion of the participation of the underrepresented communities. She did not forget to mention the downsides of the multi-stakeholder approach, such as budget and time concerns, as well as human resources. She finished with the remarks that the multi-stakeholder approach in the AI policymaking they are working on is, in fact, working.

      Veronica Piccolo added that although it has been argued that the multi-stakeholder approach cannot always be inclusive, and it is not always suitable for complex regulations, it has been proven that in practice, this method works well, such as in the discussion of the impact assessment of the New Competition Tool. However, the academic representatives were not sadly very involved in the discussion of that tool in the EU, therefore, they must be empowered. Despite these concerns, she was convinced that the multi-stakeholder approach can be improved and relied on.

      After the presentations, Theirry Nathanael Kopia raised his concerns from the voice of the SMEs that if the multi-stakeholder approach is promoted, it should not be done by compromising the interests of the SMEs, whose interests can be underestimated with the involvement of big companies. Veronica Piccolo agreed with this concern.

      This discussion was resumed by the comment from Vittorio Bertola, a member of a Germany open software company, Open-Xchange, who described the struggles their coalition was having when desiring to be involved in the policy discussions even though good practices exist like the IGF. Vittoria Bertola pointed out the financial gap between SMEs and big tech companies because the former is not always having access to high-level discussions to raise their voice. He said that the regulations like Digital Markets Act that differentiates between big and small companies are more favourable, while most of the regulations do not take into account such differences that make it difficult for the SMEs to comply with.

      In the last minutes of the session, Elnur Karimov, a Doctoral Student in Law from Kyushu University in Japan and Regional Engagement Director of the Youth Observatory, asked the question of how the emerging digital regulations can, at least, be challenged by those SMEs whose interests were not heard or were merely ignored in the policymaking process. Veronica Piccolo clarified that the Digital Markets Act was, indeed, supposed to be flexible by updating the blacklisted activities in the Digital Markets Act, however, to what extent such (in fact, infant) regulations are adaptable will be seen in the next years. This question was also answered by Theirry Nathanael Kopia who mentioned that in order to achieve success in challenging big tech companies by the SMEs, the SMEs need to be more organized; otherwise, independent actions taken by the SMEs may, unfortunately, come unsuccessful.

      The session moderator, Daphne Stevens from PERFECT DAY closed the session by introducing key takeaways and expressing gratitude to the speakers, organizing team and the audience for their valuable contributions.

      Rapporteur: Elnur Karimov

      IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #7 Launch of the New South School on Internet Governance

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 21:06
      Key Takeaways:

      The South School on Internet Governance has become one of the most important spaces for capacity building and more importantly for a multistakeholder and multidisciplinary space. All participants are able not only to learn but also to interact and create a very strong network,. The new structure of the SSIG Which includes a eight week self assisted and self evaluated asynchronous training, is a very good platform for the tradicional 5 day activit

      Calls to Action

      The school on Internet governance and the Argentina school on Internet governance will try to move to a hybrid formtat in 2022, granting fellowships to all participants as preiuous years. The school on Internet Governance will update as every year its program in order to reflect the new challenges and advantages that connectivy and Internet brings to the community.

      Session Report

      This session presented to the IGF audience the new structure of the South School on Internet Governance:

      This year the SSIG introduced two important innovations, a pre-training course of eight weeks based on the concept of micro e-learning including videos, podcasts and reading materials. These contents can be reviewed in any kind of device: mobile, tablet or pc. It is asynchronous, self-assisted with self-evaluations.

      This pre-training is a requisite for attending the full five days of the SSIG synchronous training program. All contents of this pre training course were offered in two languages: English and Spanish.

      Another important innovation is the SSIG App, which allowed the fellows to access the videos, program, and other relevant information during the training activity.

      For the second time in its thirteen years of existence, the SSIG has been organized in a completely virtual different way, with the challenge of maintaining the quality and quantity of content and interaction among participating fellows, allowing them to meet Internet leaders through their participation in the program of activities.

      In this virtual edition, the school broadened its horizons by convening more than one hundred experts from around the world who were connected in a virtual way to an audio and video studio to interact with more than 600 fellows from five continents.

      The fellows got in contact and interacted during two months prior to the event attending an online self-assisted asynchronous training course, where they were able to meet virtually, receive videos, podcasts, reading material and self-evaluations. This pre-training gave them the knowledge base to profit from the synchronous full five days training from 4 to 8 October.

      The virtual edition SSIG 2021 has been the largest of all its consecutive editions and the one that received the largest number of fellows with the greatest impact on social networks.

      This second virtual edition demonstrated, for this second time, the adaptability, strength, and resilience of our great community of fellows and experts.

      SSIG hopes to return to a on site or hybrid mode in the 14th 2022 edition.

      IGF 2021 WS #13 Digital transformation challenges in developing countries

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 20:44
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Key Takeaways:

      Important for digital transformation in developing economies is the digital cooperation specially in issues like cibersecurity, free flow of information, national safety. It is important to recognize what worked and what did not work in developing economies and learn from the experience. The infrastructure gap is still a big problem in developing economies. It is not enough to have a national digital agenda but create concrete actions. The gender

      Calls to Action

      Improve regional connecivity. Improve infrastructure specially in land locked countries and small countries and island countries. Work the update of regulations. Improve access to financial services using technologies like mobile phones. Share what worked well specially during the covid pandemic in order to learn from experience

      Session Report

       

      This session addresses the impact of digital transformation on economic growth and looks into lessons from successful cases related to universal access and meaningful connectivity worldwide. 

      More digital cooperation is required among the different Internet stakeholders. To address the problem in the global ecosystem, we need international/global methods. The Internet was designed to be a global shared infrastructure. Therefore, to maximize the potential of the internet, we need standard norms and infrastructure to achieve multiple SDGs. 

      For example, the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace has proposed various best practices related to the use of the internet. 

      Current international legal proposals risk fragmenting the internet in the name of data sovereignty. Although data sovereignty is a concept close to privacy, there are other means to protect and encrypt data without affecting the stability of the Internet ecosystem.

      Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the primary cells of national economies, and they can grow as much as conditions and circumstances permit. For SMEs to flourish, they need reliable Internet infrastructure, transportation, energy, education, finance, housing, food security, computing devices, and more. The achievement of this goal requires trans-sectoral and trans-national cooperation and collaboration. The challenge is to achieve models that effectively guide SMEs to take advantage of and rely upon digital technology. 

      Another significant challenge in achieving digital transformation is the digital divide, especially in rural areas from Africa, where the gender divide is also a complicated constraint. Internet access, unfortunately, is not for everyone. As of December 2020, the internet penetration rate in Africa amounts to 42%. More importantly, the pandemic demonstrated that universal access has become critical. 

      As mentioned, the gender divide has complicated the already existing access divide, moreover if we think about rural and urban areas. Senegal has promoted many ICT initiatives and programs to connect women from rural areas to the internet and help them have access to financial services. Yet, the gap is still vast.

      On the other hand, since the WSIS process, the ITU has put a lot of effort into mainstreaming gender, especially in STEM cases. However, in terms of connectivity, the gender divide persists. The situation is more complicated for marginalized groups such as people with disabilities, indigenous peoples, and communities that cannot access the internet in their local language. As long as half of humankind lacks Internet access, human progress cannot be achieved. Today, around 37% of the world population has never used the internet. In line with the WSIS declaration principles, ITU has recently launched the “WSIS Stocktaking Repository of Women in Technology,” a global portal that highlights national initiatives that would be of interest and relevance to gender mainstreaming.

      Besides the ITU, the Inter-American Development Bank policy considers the digital divide an issue even in developing countries with basic infrastructure. Access also means having a reliable and good-quality connection. We cannot have proper digitalization if we do not have good integration and regional interconnectivity. Latin America lacks appropriate infrastructure because significant investment by the private sector is required, alongside the proper government public investment. The private sector can provide additional regional submarine cables, and governments need to address the lack of border connectivity. Moreover, connectivity gaps still exist at the national level. Although multiple national digital agendas have been created, there are no resources to build infrastructure. It is crucial to understand that connectivity is vital for the continuity of the economy and the continuity of public services.

      Another problem related to digital connectivity is the increase in data flows and the difficulty to measure it. In 2022, it is expected that the overall traffic will increase, but data flows are immensely imbalanced. Only 20% of people in the least developed countries use the internet, and when used, it has very low bandwidth and very high cost.

      The multistakeholder model still represents a meaningful step towards developing a global data governance model. Technical coordination at the global level is critical to avoid further internet fragmentation. When it comes to IoT and 5G, international coordination can help to maximize the potential of these technologies while preserving common security standards.

      Among the main conclusions of this panel, we can mention the following ones: 

      1. Without improving Internet infrastructure, there cannot be a digital transformation. 
      2. Still, too many enterprises have not embraced digital transformation because they do no5 include the Internet within their value chain.
      3. It is necessary to bridge the gender gap to allow more women to get connected.
      4. The multistakeholder model represents a significant step toward developing a global data governance framework. International coordination could also ensure that we take full advantage of the IoT and 5G.
      5. Low earth satellites may be a project to close the digital divide, it is necessary to make it affordable in order to lower the entry barrier.
      IGF 2021 Launch / Award Event #28 Global Information Society Watch (GISWatch) 2020 IGF launch: Technology, the environment and a sustainable world

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 18:38
      Key Takeaways:

      The burden of environmental destruction and pollution falls disproportionately on communities that experience discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion.

      Calls to Action

      Continue the work of the Policy Network on environmental sustainability.

      ,

      IGF should build on the achievements of the Policy Network of Environment.

      Session Report

      Our analysis of the way in which environmental sustainability and digital technologies intersects is illustrative of the complexity of the challenges and issues, and how much they are entangled in global capitalism, including the emerging forms of capitalism such as surveillance capitalism, which replicate the same patterns of the previous and current one: the exploitation of extractivism and consumerism. It is not really possible to see the full picture of the impact of digital technologies on our planet, and it seems that it may be an intentional result of the global capitalist system. However, the thematic and country reports in the 2020 edition of GISWatch and the broader research that APC is conducting in this area provide an updated overview of the current and future challenges and the suitable responses to address them, particularly acknowledging that burden of environmental destruction and pollution falls disproportionately on communities that experience discrimination, marginalisation and exclusion.

      IGF can guide the operationalisation of policy recommendations in contextualised ways and in that sense the IGF can play a key role in breaking down the high level recommendations into actionable steps at national and local levels and complement bottom-up approaches to sustainability.

      IGF 2021 WS #253 Cutting carbon in a digital world - myths and facts

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 18:15
      Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change
      Key Takeaways:

      (1) We need a clearer picture on carbon emissions in the ICT sector, so data sharing, transparency, and standardization are key to help track and reduce emissions from the ICT sector (in addition to emissions reduction commitments). (2) Delivering emissions reductions both from operations and supply chains requires partnering closely with other companies, utilities, and governments to facilitate access to carbon-free energy sources.

      Calls to Action

      (1) The ICT industry should continue to reduce its emissions (including sharing energy use and emissions data to track progress) while also lending expertise and applying digital technologies to reduce emissions in other sectors and services. (2) As we look forward, we will also need to expand efforts to improve the sustainability of the entire supply chain (including energy, materials, water, and waste).

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #64: Global Forum on Cyber Expertise - GFCE Africa Program

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 17:18
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      Commonalities do not translate into automatically transferable capacity building. It is important to develop metrics for countries to understand where they are, where they are going and where the gaps are in their cyber capacity development. For digital cooperation to thrive, digital equality should be the basis of capacity building with equal standards as the core of initiatives that develop infrastructure and enable technology transfer.

      ,

      The understanding that cybersecurity is thoroughly a national security agenda is derailing Africa in ensuring a multistakeholder approach to cyber. Going beyond state actors in outreach and doing more to increasing awareness and understanding of the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders will help in defining an African approach to multistakeholder cooperation.

      Calls to Action

      Donors and those designing and implementing capacity building programs or initiatives should consider the longevity of their efforts. These should be linked to agreed frameworks, take account of existing efforts and plan for the long-term.

      ,

      States should be encouraged to develop approaches towards building lasting relationships with all relevant stakeholder groups, in particular civil society. A starting point could involve consultations at the national and regional levels when conducting and implementing national cybersecurity reviews.

      IGF 2021 Town Hall #53 AI for inclusion and diversity - 4 continents perspectives

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 17:15
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      Many of the challenges faced in Africa and Latin America with regarding to digital divide and exclusion are similar.

      ,

      AI regulation and policies are more advanced in North America and Europe, with an increasing emphasis on regulation aimed at fundamental rights. Nevertheless, certain groups, such as youth, still need to have their voices heard.

      Calls to Action

      Deepen inter-disciplinary research to understand the problem of AI based discriminatory practice and increase multiparticipation in political debate.

      ,

      A more structered and coordinated response and greater investments are needed to ensure that the minimum infrastructure and conditions exist for AI development in LATAM and Africa.

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #28 Online knowledge portals for national cyber capacity

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 16:43
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      Online portals can help with three things: research; dissemination of information; and training capacity builders. Users of portals can help by letting portals know when they spot content that could be improved or if they have suggestions and researchers should reference the portals they use in their published articles.

      ,

      There was strong appreciation for the good coordination between online portals that have been helpful for some sites in doing their work and avoiding duplication. To strengthen the cooperative network among portals, recommendations include: convening a meeting of portal teams in 2022, joint communications by portals (e.g. newsletter), and adding a page on all portals to signpost other relevant portals (with links).

      Calls to Action

      To portal users and potential users, please support the portals, let us know how we can improve or if you have any suggestions, and reference portals in your work.

      ,

      To portal owners/managers, let’s continue the conversation, you can show support for greater cooperation in the portal network, and identify and share good practices or stories with other portals.

      Session Report

      1. Key Policy Questions and related issues

      What lessons can the online portals used by international cyber capacity builders apply to support each other and their users?

      2. Summary of Issues Discussed

      Portal users in the Open Forum described how helpful the sites are with their research, with disseminating information, and will providing training and resources for international cyber capacity builders.

      The portal managers identified that the portals are growing.  They are growing in terms of their number (e.g. the meeting heard from a new cyber information portal in Brazil run by the Igarapé Institute).  They are growing in terms of the number of users (e.g. the Cybil Portal's unique monthly users grew this year from 1,000 to 3,000 a month).  And they are growing in terms of the quality and quantity of their content (e.g. UNIDIR's Cyber Policy Portal and Cybil Portal both launched updated versions of their sites this year).

      Some of the portal managers described how cooperation and information sharing between portals in the last year had helped their own sites.  For example, the Igarapé Institute said that they had talked with many of the other portal teams in the meeting for advice when they were setting up their new Brazilian Cybersecurity poral.

      The meeting shared insights on the technical aspects of running a portal, from their cybersecurity to the use of APIs to enable more ways to use their content by others.

      3. Key Takeaways

      Online portals can help with three things: research; dissemination of information; and training and resources for capacity builders.

      There was strong appreciation for the good coordination between online portals, which has helped them in their work and reduced the risk of duplication, with recommendations for strengthening this.

      4. Policy Recommendations or Suggestions for the Way Forward

      Recommendations for portal users and potential users: provide feedback to portals so they know how best to serve their users; and if you are producing research using information from the portals reference them as the source to spread awareness of how they can be used.

      To portal owners/managers: add links to other portals on your site; and join a follow-up call between portal teams in 2022 to discuss opportunities such as joint communications.

      5. Final Speakers

      • Moderator: Chris Painter, President of the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise (GFCE) Foundation
      • Stephanie Borg Psaila, Editor of the GIP Digital Watch observatory, DiploFoundation & Chair of the Cybil Steering Committee
      • Louise Marie Hurel - Digital Security Programme Lead, Igarapé Institute
      • Andraz Kastelic - Lead Cyber Stability Researcher, Security and Technology Programme, UNIDIR
      • Enrico Calandro - Co-Director, Cybersecurity Capacity Centre for Southern Africa

       

      IGF 2021 WS #33 Empowering Persons with Disabilities - Accessible Technology

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 16:42
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      -Affordability of accessible ICT products, especially those on the cutting edge, remains a major impediment to uptake. This is especially true in the Global South, where even basic internet access remains a challenge.

      ,

      -Governments in particular need to reconsider how the terms "disability" and "empowerment" are defined in order to restructure power relationships.

      Calls to Action

      -Advocates should look to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to forge international cooperation on minimum standards for disability access in ICT products that can be applied globally.

      IGF 2021 WS #123 Trust Me, I am a Seller: Regulating Online Business Accounts

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 15:37
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      There is an urgent need for the external regulation of online business accounts, however, accompanied by the self-regulation by social media companies. The consumer organizations can play an intermediary role between states and social media companies. Still, the legislative regulation must not be the only solution, and the education of consumers against fraudulent actions on the Internet is another important angle.

      ,

      The models like in the European Commission or Australia can be followed but some countries may need a more tailored protection regime, such as considering the liability of social media companies or service providers. The alternatives like pro-ethical design in the regulation and tax issues need further discussion.

      Calls to Action

      Make sure that the external regulation is accompanied by self-regulation within the social media and the education of the consumers executed via public authorities and NGOs. Consider the alternative tailored approaches like pro-ethical design in the regulation.

      ,

      Regulate online business accounts on the social media, however, with the consultation with the stakeholders like local and international consumer organizations and private companies.

      Session Report

      As planned, the session organized by the Young Lawyers Network Azerbaijan opened with the moderator's short introduction of the topic and esteemed speakers with various geographical and academic/practical backgrounds who meet in their shared background in Law. This report will divide the discussions based on the Policy Questions as executed in the session.

      PQ 1: How must the online business accounts on social media be regulated in emerging digital markets to ensure their reliability, prevent tax evasion, and protect consumers from fraud?

      Azad Mammadli, a legal practitioner from Azerbaijan, asked the core question: regulation or no regulation of online business accounts? He explained the different views from ultra-liberals who support no regulation or at least self-regulation by the social media companies where the state intervention is zero. Regarding self-regulation, he concluded that although social media companies are more mature today by using "verified account badges" and other tools of their algorithms to detect possible fraudulent accounts, this does not always ensure trust. "Help/Support" pages are not always sophisticated enough but give general information for the users. Thus, the speaker was convinced that self-regulation must be accompanied by external regulation like the one of the EU's, the initiative of the New Consumer Deals (2018). The speaker concluded that the regime currently implemented in cases of hate speech or racist comments on social media, the regime that allows to appeal and even enforce rights can be tailored for the violation of online consumers' rights.

      Regarding the liability of social media companies for the violations, it is quite jurisdiction-specific and gradually narrowed down by judicial institutions. Any solution taken by the governments must be applied jointly, not separately.

      After Azad Mammadli, Kathrin Morasch, a legal clerk at the District Court in Germany, focused on the question from the perspective of what we understand from online business accounts. She quoted currently ongoing court cases in the Federal Court of Germany and raised concerns about the ambiguous line between the advertisement by companies and influencers on social media. She also pointed out the unclarity in the relationship between the Media Act in Germany and general terms of competition law, because the advertisement by social media influencers sometimes do not breach Media Act but, in principle, against the rules that prohibit unfair competition. Kathrin Morasch here disagreed with Azad Mammadli in the sense that self-regulation is not really working, so the need for solid rules. Kathrin Morasch concluded with the importance of the education of consumers, the point that later was elaborated on in the session.

      PQ2: What technical or legal measures have been or must be taken by social media companies and/or governments respectively to ensure the smooth operation of online business accounts without prejudice to personal data protection?

      Yawri Carr, a Master's at the Technische Universität München, started with expressing the general concern by the youth collected through the IGF Youth Summit Project 2021 that youth do not feel safe on social media. Speaking from the technical perspective to the question, she mentioned that it is important first to empower consumers to stand behind their interests. Concerned by the fact the agents participating in digital markets that include social media are less aware of the skills they need to communicate as buyers/sellers and the responsibilities they bear, the pre-established designs are not successful. As an alternative, a pro-ethical approach implemented through ethical codes can help users have a sense of ownership and a critical view of their choices.

      Following Yawri Carr, Shradha Pandey, a Senior Law Student from India, commented on the legal measures that can be implemented, especially, from the viewpoint of India. Despite the positive economic impact of online business in the countries like India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, she was also concerned by the fact that the issues of privacy, misinformation are often overlooked on social media. However, she pointed out the issue of unreasonable pricing online that makes small businesses suffer, as a result, these small businesses cut down from the cost of data protection to compete with large businesses online where the breaches of privacy occur. Moreover, such cases are sadly overlooked by competition authorities due to their so-called trivial impact. She concluded with the best practices like Australia where the digital platforms are regularly audited by competition authorities and criticized the self-regulation because of its failure with data protection in India.

      The discussion then turned to the direction of the legal transplants or best practices like the EU or Australia where the speakers and the audience discussed whether those practices are really "great". Especially, consumers over-regulated like in the EU may find those regulations irritating, if they think they are already self-aware about the issues they may face.

      PQ3: What legal or other remedies are and must be available to compensate the damage to consumers by fake business accounts?

      Azad Mammadli started with the need for a balance between not letting unlawful online business transactions go unnoticed and avoiding over-compensation inflicted upon social media companies. He again emphasized the expected success of self-regulation in the ideal world where social media companies themselves can force online business accounts to observe consumer protection. However, in the real world, this is not the case. He continued with the example of Authorized Push Payments in the United Kingdom which is one of the technical/legal solutions to compensate the consumers who are frauded online. He concluded with the importance of the cooperation between social media companies and state authorities with the intermediary role of international or local consumer organizations.

      Kathrin Morasch mentioned in relation to PQ3 that here the problem is not the absence of the regulation for consumer protection, but, in fact, the identification of the person who committed the fraud. Here the regulations lack to a great extent. The liability of the platforms can be discussed here but it's not a straightforward solution.

      Following these presentations, the session witnessed an interesting practical question from the floor coming from a parliamentarian from Tanzania who asked about the best practice to compensate consumers in cases of fraud by online business accounts, such as enhancing security online. Kathrin Morasch answered this question by recommending the education of consumers with peer-to-peer learning centres. Azad Mammadli added that having legislation similar to the European Union can be another solution.

      The session continued with repeating emphases on the importance of consumer education that the speakers unanimously agreed on. The speakers also discussed the outdatedness of some laws in developing countries, especially, that do not differentiate or have specific laws on the digital markets at all, emphasizing the need for renewing those laws in line with the demands of the digital era.

      The session finally touched on the issue of taxes to be paid by online business accounts or influencers, for example, where the tax must be paid by the influencers who reside and work in different countries. However, this issue popped up at the end of the discussion, therefore, needs further discussion. The relevance of the tax discussion was also confirmed by the audience, more precisely, a speaker from Hong Kong who also stressed the need for regulations by the platforms themselves.

      The session moderator, Narmin Abilova concluded the session with key takeaways that have been reported on this page too.

      Session Rapporteur: Elnur Karimov (LLD Student at Kyushu University, Japan)

      IGF 2021 WS #233 Not Espionage as Usual

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 13:13
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      While espionage activities by governments are often tolerated in other domains of human activity and conflict, such activities which corrupt the ICT supply chain put too many at undue risk to be considered permissible under international expectations. The widespread impact of the attacks themselves and the costs associated responding to them call into question whether the proportionality can ever be justified.

      ,

      The rise of cyber mercenaries developing technology to conduct espionage online is compounding the challenge and proliferating digital spying capabilities. This creates a two-fold challenge of both very sophisticated persistent government actors, as well as those who can simply buy such capabilities in an open market.

      Calls to Action

      Various international forums exist, at the UN and beyond, to clarify what are international expectations for responsible behavior online, including as it relates to attacks which undermine the ICT supply chain.

      ,

      The emerging market of cyber mercenaries/private sector offensive actors, has little to no social utility as they proliferate malicious capabilities that often target the most vulnerable. They should be banned.

      IGF 2021 WS #119 The Next Chapter of UN Cyber Dialogues

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 13:08
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      Implementation efforts for cyber norms are of paramount importance and will be supported by confidence building measures, clarity in international law and its application online, and states living up to their due diligence obligations to stop malicious behavior. IGF may need to have an expanded role in facilitating either implementation or multistakeholder inclusion in cyber dialogues at UN.

      ,

      • Different forums, at the UN and beyond, need to have distinct roles, but multiple dialogues is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, the multiple UN processes from 2019-2021 seemed to reinforce one another, resulting in twin consensus reports. There is also a need to focus on the multilateral character, and multistakeholder inclusion, in cyber dialogues at the UN and to build from the foundation of the existing international cyber Aquis.

      Calls to Action

      The multistakeholder community should take advantage of the upcoming opportunities, beginning next week (Dec 16), to contribute to and participate in the new Open Ended Working group dialogues on cybersecurity.

      IGF 2021 WS #110 The Paradox of Virus Contact Tracing Apps

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 13:03
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      (1) Data minimisation. We should minimise data collected while maximising the benefits of public health. (2) Transparency & accountability. The models adopted for contact-tracing should be open. The intention of the use of data should be clear.

      ,

      (3) Balance for reality. Governments shouldn’t neglect issues of people’s access to Internet & device, and digital literacy before imposing the use of contact-tracing or vaccine passports. (4) Inclusivity & trust. To Avoid politicalization and to make people voluntarily adhere to the apps

      Calls to Action

      (1) Multistakeholder collaboration for transparency & accountability of policy-makers & businesses involved in the operation of the apps.

      ,

      (2) Raise awareness of the general public with the importance of their contribution to govern the development process and understanding over the use of such technology.

      Session Report

      On 7th December 2021, WS #110 is held both physically in Katowice, Poland, and virtually on ZOOM. The session started with a brief introduction to the session rundown delivered by Emilia Zalewska (onsite moderator). Followed by a 5-minute introduction in the background. Jenna Fung (online moderator) presented the idea that the session came from the COVID-19 pandemic since contact tracing apps were widely used to tackle the situation, especially before vaccination was launched. 

      There was a surge of dependence on the Internet, and conflicts between public health concerns and data protection. The workshop was meant to gather perspectives of different regions and attempt to achieve consensual conclusions about the delicate balance through diversification in the discussion.

      Three speakers were invited to the panel of this workshop. They are Patreek Waghre (India), Elliott Mann (Australia), and Janaina Costa (Brazil).

      The first speaker, Prateek Wahre began his presentation by elaborating on different approaches adopted by different regions. His sharing also covered the concepts of technology theatre, viability rating framework and personal considerations. Waghre pointed out that people are over-stressing the technology itself instead of the problem the technology is trying to solve, resulting in a change of balance in government power. 

      Since political issues turn into procurement processes, which make public debate more difficult. Waghre suggested some policy considerations, including (1) Equity vs. Expediency, (2) Voluntary vs Mandatory, (3) Operating within a legal framework, (4) Union vs Federal Response, (5) Algorithmic determination of risk/immunity, and (6) Platform power.

      Our second speaker, Elliott Mann, illustrated how the contact tracing apps were implemented in Australia. Mann mentioned that there were two types of apps launched, which are at the federal level (named COVIDSafe) and state level. Mann mentioned that some privacy laws were passed in Australia to preserve data related to these apps, but only on one of the levels.

      Mann questioned the apps and the stored data when the pandemic situation is not too critical in one’s country. Though he believes the apps are expected to be more useful when cases appear to increase. Mann pointed out that the paradox remains, whether we choose the (state-level) app where no privacy laws are applicable but implement well, or aim at the (federal-level) app with some specific and protective regulations but not penetrate that well.

      Our last speaker, Janaina Costa, illustrated the situation in Brazil and Latin America. The examples demonstrated the importance of a data protection framework in the implementation of contact-tracing apps and raised that the performance of the app might be relevant to the form of mandatory or voluntary.

      Costa pointed out that the main problem was how to create an efficient app out of anonymized data. Data could be used for public policymaking, but note that anonymized and pseudo-anonymized data are different in Brazilian data protection regulation. The law only allows the use of personal data under certain legal justifications, which the benefits of public policy and health are cases that require no user’s consent before the use of their personal data.

      The discussion of the panel then switched to the balance between privacy and the benefits of public health. Mann commented that hard privacy laws may be the reason why the federal app in Australia did not work that well, if there is too much regulation about privacy the purpose of the app in getting quality and broad data is defeated. Costa then reassured us that a balance is necessary. With clear and precise rules, personal data involved can be guaranteed not to be used beyond the purpose of its collection.

      Participants and speakers then split into 2 groups for a 20-minute breakout group discussion. Breakout group facilitators, Bea Guevarra, and Jenna Fung concluded with the following points from both groups:

      First, data minimization. We should minimize data collected while maximizing the benefits of public health. Besides, the concern over ill-intended agents hacking the data of these apps should not be neglected. As a result, cybersecurity is also an area we should be careful with.

      Second, transparency & accountability. The models adopted for contact tracing should be open. The intention of the use of data should be clear. The service providers of the apps should avoid making profits from users. To ensure transparency and accountability, multi-stakeholder collaboration in policymaking should be guaranteed. It is important to make the process of developing digital technologies an open one, with public participation and diverse views. Hard work is necessary to achieve positive results here.

      Third, inclusivity & trust. Making the apps mandatory creates inequality with people who don't have smartphones. Governments shouldn’t neglect issues of people’s access to the Internet & device, and digital literacy before imposing the use of contact tracing or vaccine passports. To Avoid politicization and to make people voluntarily adhere to the apps.

      Fourth, public awareness. It is the responsibility of all stakeholders to connect with one another to educate the public about the implementation of the technology, the potential issues inherent, and the importance of getting multi-stakeholder involved in the policy-making process. Guevarra highlighted the importance of forums like the IGF that provide a platform for us to learn collaboratively from each other.

      Lastly, our 3 speakers made the final remarks. Mann highlighted how this kind of discussion is important to broaden the views of those interested in this subject, due to the high variance around the world and new issues arising in this rapidly advancing world. Costa stated her remarks on reminding the audience not to get too distracted by contact tracing apps or vaccine passports (certificates) from the rising power of governments with these policies for the naming of protecting public health interests.

      IGF 2021 WS #139 Mind the Gender Gap OR Mend the Gender Gap

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 09:49
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:
      Evidence shared discloses that women and girls are disproportionately victimised online. Inconsistency in application of legislation with regards non consensual intimate image abuse. Challenging for platform policies to encapsulate the spectrum of global cultures, Availability of new technology tools that support victims of non consensual intimate image abuse. Girls specifically find obtaining support difficult. There are some wonderful sources of support, with specific references to Safer Internet Centres
      Calls to Action
      Join the 190 countries across the world in participating in Safer Internet Day – Feb 8th 2022. Progress is required by Governments to harmonise legislation to protect victims of NCII and specifically women and girls, All victims should have easy access to redress. Strengthening peer support networks for girls who are victims of online gender based violence. Improved digital literacy, predominantly through a planned and continuous school curriculum, to younger aged children before they venture online
      IGF 2021 Town Hall #35 Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network Session

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 09:40
      Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
      Key Takeaways:
      • When stakeholders work together under a common and structured methodology to address cross-border digital policy challenges they can produce concrete results., • The translation of resources into multiple languages is crucial for spreading international policy intelligence and should be encouraged and emphasized. There is a need to change the narrative on data and consider new innovative ways stakeholders can cooperate around data governance.
      IGF 2021 WS #74 Leveraging sustainable digital transformation

      Workshop
      Updated: Fri, 10/12/2021 - 09:39
      Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
      Key Takeaways:
      Multiple different actions are needed to boost inclusivity not only through internet access but also in developing ways to fight against illiteracy in the global south., There is a need to improve coherent use of terminology which can impact the accessibility of internet policy debates. Interoperable frameworks for cross-border data flows are important to address the lack of trust and support sustainable digital transformation. For example, there needs to be better translation between languages but also knowledge silos, schools of thought, and within and between regions.
      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #8 Tackling digital and social inequalities in a "combo" approach: Why we need to aim higher than technosolutionism?

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 23:25
      Key Takeaways:

      Although there is infrastructure for connectivity, the digital divide implies other barriers in terms of economic power, language, gender and age for meaningful connectivity.

      ,

      Public policies for connectivity that do not take into account or ignore social inequalities and other forms of disparity do not solve the digital divide, they only manage it.

      Calls to Action

      Meaningful connectivity entails that we stop relying only on regulatory frameworks and the provision of infrastructure, other public policies need to be developed at the same speed to tackle social, cultural and economic disparities between people.

      Session Report

      The session centered on an in-depth discussion around the implications of the pandemic in the digital rights of people, parting from the Mexican context as a case-study. The aim was to analyze and cross-reference (1) other forms of “social distance” the digital divide exacerbated (in terms of, health, education, work, entertainment, etc.), (2) the overall status of the right to information (right of access to public information and transparency, journalism, etc.), and (3) the government’s accountability on different issues (violence against women, militarization, extractive-projects, etc.); and how all this is related to what we usually understand as “meaningful connectivity”.

      Main findings include that:

      - The provision of infrastructure for connectivity and regulatory frameworks in that regard help, but do not actually solve anything regarding the digital divide. Once there is infrastructure and devices for connectivity it does not mean people can or will use them.

      - Intersectionality matters when you analyze connectivity. Weak economic structure, intertwined with the social and cultural circumstances of certain populations, create a panorama defined by different layers of social gaps and exclusion.

      - The people that are “connected” are using technologies more to communicate via social media than to search for information. What triggers this situation cannot be seen as a "lack of interest" or a "deficient digital education". Concrete conditions are the ones that open or close the possibilities of network use: economic, gender and age situations.

      - We cannot rely on communities to guarantee human rights for everyone, specially for women. One of the main challenges that the communities face is that the companies that sell the internet connection service usually offer coverage and technical service, but the signal range at the distribution point is far away from their homes. This technical detail has social implications, especially for women who, due to the social assignment of gender roles and the risks involved for them in public spaces, are limited in their ability to access the only source of connection in public spaces. Women are not free enough to have access to devices or the internet, and are not free to go out at certain times of the day. Indigenous women suffer most from the consequences of these inequalities.

      - One device is not enough for a family that has to use that same device for different activities.

      - At the federal level there is a tendency to distort reality through the public discourse of the authorities.

      - The pandemic circumstances generated fertile ground for disinformation by omission and insufficient information. In this regard, two facts became evident: how inequalities in access to technologies had an impact on the lack of timely information for communities and indigenous people and, on the other hand, the concern and fear generated in those who did have access to networks, due to the overexposure of unverified information.

      - For the population without access to traditional media, the way to learn about the circumstances were the people who commented on videos or messages they received via messaging services or social media, but that is all they got because they only had access to those services because of zero-rating practices. The main effect of this was the denial of reality.

      - When governments decide to promote online disinformation campaigns, at a time when the press is silenced and people need to stay at home for their own safety, the term meaningful connectivity needs to be challenged.

      - Meaningful connectivity entails that we stop relying only on regulatory frameworks and the provision of infrastructure, other public policies need to be developed at the same speed to tackle social, cultural and economic disparities between people. Public policies for connectivity that do not take into account or ignore social inequalities and other forms of disparity do not solve the digital divide, they only manage it.

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #58 Internet Commons Forum

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 21:30
      Key Takeaways:

      The "Digital Commons" and "Digital Public Goods" are powerful concepts to opertationalize digital rights. However, there is a need to improve the mechanisms through which they are organised and put into practice. Initiatives that can be initially commons-oriented might suffer proprietary capture through market forces, especially from large internet platforms that act as intermediaries.

      Calls to Action

      Multistakeholder regulatory efforts should aim at fostering digital commons and protecting the Internet as a Digital Public Good.

      IGF 2021 DC-Jobs Changing Jobs & Skillsets Post COVID - How Internet can Help

      DC Session
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 18:35
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:
      • Connectivity for Collaborative – knowledge-sharing & Skills • Online education • Virtual communities • Bridging the skills needed for seniors – older adults • Work-life balance in the age of the Internet • Focus on building smaller companies for the Internet to grow local businesses and create local jobs. • Lifelong learning • Enabling policy ecosystem
      Calls to Action

      • The need for an Economic and Social Governance framework or an organization that looks into it. • Online education and skilling – Lifelong learning curriculum • Global Knowledge Commons • Giving-back program – which enables seniors or older adults to get mentored by either youngster or well-to-do • Quality internet access • Bold leadership at every level to leverage full potential • Supportive Policy & friendly regulatory Ecosystem

      Session Report

       

       

      Session: Changing Jobs & Skillsets Post-COVID – How the Internet can help.

      Main Session IV

      Time: 15.35-17.05. Ballroom A. Rapporteur: Ms. Mevish P.Vaishav

      Session Chair: Prof. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, Chairman – Dynamic Coalition on Internet & Jobs, Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

      The session started with opening remarks from Prof. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, chairman of the dynamic coalition on Internet jobs at the Internet governance forum. He shared the findings of the Internet and jobs 2021 survey conducted online. Later, he moved to the expert panel to discuss the study's findings on how to leverage the Internet for the new job scenario and the issues around upskilling.

      He mentioned that we should realize the quantum power of the Internet to solve the problems the world faces. But for that, we need a large number of small companies and a not small number of large companies.  So that the people govern the Internet at the grassroots, and it's based on a distributed economic model, and there is a collaboration to address the digital divide.  The Digital Divide has multiple dimensions when it comes to the age of the Internet we have; the policy divide, the quality divide, the access divide, the age-based divide, the gender divide, and we have the divide based on the economic power of the nations.  He mentioned that education needs to move beyond the four walls to leverage the Internet's full potential.  He talked about the bold leadership at every level to keep the momentum on for harnessing the power of the Internet.

      Mr. Gunjan Sinha, a leading Internet entrepreneur and pioneer in the search engine space and Silicon Valley, talked about the role of education online-learning for digital inclusion, which was crucial to leverage the Internet's full potential. Gunjan also spoke about the ‘engagement’ leveraging the Internet and the importance of mentoring by youngsters and older people to ensure that the senior citizens or the older adults do not remain deprived of the skills needed to use the Internet. He further mentioned that we need an Environment and Social Governance (ESG) organization to ensure that the Internet does not harm the environment and is socially responsible. He informed us that the nature of jobs would change, and it will become tasks, and we will need specialization for jobs. The future of collaborative working amongst specialists with connectivity. We should create local economies to build an entrepreneurial ecosystem and have a funding support system.

      Sir George Crooks, a legend in the space of technology-driven care, talked about connectivity as the social determinant of health. He also talked about the knowledge skills, user-centered design, and the need for people to talk in a language that seniors or older adults understand to ensure that we leverage the Internet's full potential. He emphasized the need for bold policy leadership, setting up communities of interest. Sir Crooks mentioned that viruses and knowledge do not respect boundaries, and Internet should be leveraged to bridge the knowledge divide and community divide.

       

      Prof. Yunkap Kwankam, who pioneered e-Health at the World Health Organization and has been in technology-driven care for almost three decades, talked about the global knowledge Commons and how knowledge sharing can change the future of jobs and skills and solve world problems. He also touched upon the issue of infrastructure and the need for electricity as an enabler for the Internet. He further pointed that automation will not replace but transform and passive observers will become active participants. Prof. Yunkap further pointed that equal treatment does not mean equal outcomes, and specific work needs to be done in this area.

       

      Ms. Wathagi Ndungu, a young champion for Internet rights, talked about the divide between the global South and the developed world and asserted the importance of capacity building, re-skilling, and skilling to navigate the age of the Internet. She believes that the Internet will create more jobs, and we need to find a balance in our work life to leverage the Internet's full potential.

       

      Areas of agreement :

       

      Internet will create more opportunities and needs:

      • Connectivity for Collaborative – knowledge-sharing & Skills
      • Online education
      • Virtual communities
      • Bridging the skills needed for seniors – older adults
      • Work-life balance in the age of the Internet
      • Focus on building smaller companies for the Internet to grow local businesses and create local jobs.
      • Lifelong learning
      • Enabling policy ecosystem

       

      Further actions:

       

      • The need for an Economic and Social Governance framework or an organization that looks into it.
      • Online education and skilling – Lifelong learning curriculum
      • Global Knowledge Commons
      • Giving-back program – which enables seniors or older adults to get mentored by either youngster or well-to-do
      • Quality internet access
      • Bold leadership at every level to leverage full potential
      • Supportive Policy & friendly regulatory Ecosystem

       

      IGF 2021 WS #262 From Civil Society Participation-Washing to Decision-Making

      Workshop
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 17:23
      Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
      Key Takeaways:

      There is insufficient common language between stakeholders, inadequate participation and lack of critical assessment whether engagement is meaningful

      ,

      No level playing field and power inequity; Lack of resources in civil society and issue of compensations for consultation and engagement of CSOs

      Calls to Action

      Need to expand this conversation and launch a broader initiative focusing on civic participation in multistakeholder platforms. Develop clear “terms” of what meaningful engagement for civil society really means and conditions under which is safe and inclusive process.

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #50 Non-interference with the Public Core of the Internet: Next Steps after the OEWG & GGE

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 14:57
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      The Public Core norm should not be interpreted as enabling or encouraging government control over the Internet as a means of protection, but as a norm of restraint that is largely oriented towards moderating malicious state behavior and therefore an issue of governance “on” the Internet, rather than an issue of governance “of” the Internet.

      Calls to Action

      Call all actors to further define the elements of the public core of the Internet, in particular specify what is meant with “public”, and what constitutes a violation of the norm. To this end, civil society and other non-governmental actors should continue in calling out violations of the public core norm.

      Session Report

      Attacks, such as DNSespionage, man-in-the-middle attacks such as against Netnod, massed DDoS against DNS, and cable cutting, undermine the general availability of the Internet, having wide-ranging effects for fundamental human rights and on the overall trust in the Internet. At the same time, the development of national Internet segments was also considered to be a worrying trend that goes against the spirit of the norm.

      The GCSC norm on Non-interference with the Public Core of the Internet prohibits state and non-state actors to conduct or knowingly allow such activity that intentionally and substantially damages the general availability or integrity of the public core of the Internet. Components of the public core include: Packet routing and forwarding, Naming and numbering systems, The cryptographic mechanisms of security and identity, and Physical transmission media, which are further defined by the GCSC. In particular, experts highlighted the exploitation of the cryptographic mechanisms and the importance of promoting the open standard-setting processes and ways to encourage more widespread adoption and implementation of such standards.

      This norm should not be interpreted as enabling or encouraging government control over the Internet as a means of protection, but as a norm of restraint that is largely oriented towards moderating malicious state behavior and therefore an issue of governance “on” the Internet, rather than an issue of governance “of” the Internet. The preservation of the existing multistakeholder model of Internet governance lies at its core. After all, experience shows that the empowered community has been successful in managing the entire Internet system for decades. 

      Besides support through the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace and the EU Cybersecurity Act, the public core was also featured heavily in the UN GGE and OEWG processes, where it is referred to as the “general integrity and availability of the Internet” and considered an enhanced interpretation of the existing norm that prohibits states to conduct cyber operations that impair critical infrastructure. We are now at a point where greater attention needs to be paid to the implementation of the norm and monitoring compliance. Civil society already plays an important role for the latter and should continue to do so.

      Finally, the public core of the Internet is better referred to as a global public good – rather than a global public resource where government intervention can be more widely applied.

      Call to action:

      Call all actors to further define the elements of the public core of the Internet, in particular specify what is meant with “public”, and what constitutes a violation of the norm. To this end, civil society and other non-governmental actors should continue in calling out violations of the public core norm, whereas government actors are encouraged to show restraint as well as support capacity building efforts, for example, by encouraging the open-standard setting process, while maintaining support for the existing multistakeholder model of Internet governance.

       

      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #79 Legalize File Sharing! The Case of European Citizen Initiative "Freedom to Share"

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 14:24
      Key Takeaways:

      There is ongoing discussion on how to compensate the creative authors and rightsholders for correcting the imbalance between the copyright holders and users.

      Calls to Action

      sign the freesharing.eu ECI

      ,

      organizations should join the support network to promote the ECI legal instrument

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #41 Cyber Stability Games: Learning the Complexities of Technical Attribution

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 13:30
      Key Takeaways:

      The game training on learning the complexities of technical attribution has been conducted and it has been highlighted that in dealing with unknown cyber events or incidents, it is important to focus on investigation and take time to gather all required information before deciding and taking action.

      ,

      Technical attribution is complex. Many factors should be taken into account (TTPs, possible goals of attackers and motivation, incident severity, geopolitical context, etc.)

      Calls to Action

      Investigation & remediation will help collect the necessary pieces of evidence of what has happened for technical attribution and proper internal and external communication.

      ,

      International cooperation, including with other States, CERTs, international organizations and private cybersecurity professionals will help in achieving all three stages: investigation, remediation, and technical attribution.

      IGF 2021 WS #196 Human Rights Impact Assessments throughout the AI lifecycle

      Workshop
      Updated: Thu, 09/12/2021 - 13:18
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      Risk assessments will play a central role in the development of AI governance. Although human rights impact assessments lie at the core of the risk categorization of AI technologies, Europe is lacking a respective legal basis for the creation of such mechanisms. The upcoming convention of the Council of Europe’s CAHAI Committee could, complement existing mechanisms, such as the Data Protection Assessment under the GDPR.

      ,

      By limiting responsibility to the developer, the current AI Act proposal creates the risk that AI technologies are incorrectly deployed. This lack of accountability does not only limit customers’ right to redress, but risks negligence or abuse in the deployment of AI leading to human rights infringements. AI human rights impact assessments should, therefore, be applied to all stakeholders throughout the AI lifecycle.

      Calls to Action

      We need a stronger multi-stakeholder dialogue to address existing gaps and emerging challenges in the regulatory framework of the AI, particularly in the context of human rights.

      ,

      Regulators should consider creating the necessary space for effective human rights impact assessments, and carefully considering who should do them, what they should contain and when they should take place.

      IGF 2021 Town Hall #37 The Oversight Board, one year on: Lessons in online content moderation

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 21:17
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      Participants and speakers highlighted the importance of sharing the Board’s experience with other social media platforms to better understand differences and commonalities, consider their own oversight bodies, and educate the public.

      Calls to Action

      There was a strong call for a multi-stakeholder oversight model, not a single overarching structure, for online content governance.

      IGF 2021 WS #248 Framing meaningful access for inclusive digital policy

      Workshop
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 20:43
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Key Takeaways:

      There are three main elements that structure the concept of meaningful access: affordable access, social environment (skills, education, content, multilingualism) and meaningful connectivity (technical foundation that allows meaningful access to become a reality). 

      Calls to Action

      It is important that we start collecting at the local level inputs to understand what are the key elements to be agreed upon, which could help ungently the vulnerable or weaker social groups to gain autonomy and capacity to act in order to achive their polítical and personal goals.

      Session Report

      I

      IGF 2021 WS #248 Framing meaningful access for inclusive digital policy 

       

      The workshop was moderated by Laura Tresca, member of  the CGI.br board from the 

      Technical Community GRULAC.

      Findings 

      There are three main elements that structure the concept of meaningful access: affordable access, social environment (skills, education, content, multilingualism) and meaningful connectivity (technical foundation that allows meaningful access to become a reality). 

       

      Meaningful connectivity in urban and rural environments and also in terms of gender presents a deeply different distribution suggesting woman and inhabitants of rural areas cant afford to access the internet integrally.

      Many initiatives to circumvent or mitigate the connectivity challenge are mainly carried out by local organizations, including many versions of community networks.

      Meaningful access is also  about the ability to share local content too. 

       

      10 to 20% of the population in every country cannot afford the Internet, or even more.

      There must be free-of-cost solutions through alternative ways. 

       

      Areas of agreement

      We shall not to measure the Internet from a binary perspective - online vs. offline - it is not enough to understand who is connecting and who is not, how and why. 

       

      We need to call for much greater quality and affordable Internet connections. How we get to that point is the main driver of this workshop.

       

      Access to infrastructure is critical, but not determinant to meaningful access. 

       

      Even the market-based models can flourish, like the Brazilian approach to small access providers. Where the market has failed in providing meaningful, sustainable connectivity they have promoted community works as an alternative. Satellite stations that could not keep operative even with subsidies

       

      How to further the discussion

       

      Advance with revisiting and reframing these important concepts with the whole Internet community.

       

      It is important that we start collecting at the local level inputs to understand what are the key elements to be agreed upon, which could help ungently the vulnerable or weaker social groups to gain autonomy and capacity to act in order to achive their polítical and personal goals.

       

      Where the market has failed in providing meaningful, sustainable connectivity they have promoted community works as an alternative. Satellite stations that could not keep operative even with subsidies;

      Find the balance. Market solutions are not enough, but we need to address the extent to which they can function in each country. 

       

      All have to keep an eye on the innovation spectrum management and make sure that these dynamic spectrum sharing databases could be truly shared. 

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #44 Digital Cyber risk Management at The Age of Covid-19

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 19:16
      Trust, Security, Stability
      Key Takeaways:

      The panellists recognized that cybersecurity is ever more important as a result of Covid 19 hyper-digitalization. They described the importance of having these measures in place to support rapid digital transformation and enabling important social services to function online instead of physically.

      Calls to Action

      Participants called on promoting cross border collaboration, which will rely on agile policies and interoperability of cybersecurity measures. They stressed that it is ever more important to reduce compliance costs for organizations and suppliers of ICT services, such as cloud computing, and deal with risks in real time.

      Session Report

      The panellists recognized that cybersecurity is ever more important as a result of Covid 19 hyper-
      digitalization.
      They described the importance of having these measures in place to support rapid digital
      transformation and enabling important social services to function online instead of physically.
      Policies for cloud migration have become more flexible during Covid because of the dire need. They tend to rely on risk management that includes private cloud or
      localization of service for high risk systems or very sensitive data and public cloud including cross border service for lower risk.
      Cybersecurity maturity relies on setting the groundwork
      – creating and supporting public private collaboration, domestically and internationally.
      Emerging innovations in the civic space need to receive regulatory cyber risk mitigation attention from the start.
      Cybersecurity requires involvement and support from all professional disciplines, connecting technologists,
      managers, policymakers, lawyers and economists. Participants recalled that &quot; cyber&quot; hygiene is important to better prevent the rising ransomware threat, and discussed novel solutions to disrupt ransomware and contain its damages.

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #55 Enhancing the transparency of internet companies

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 16:52
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      Enhancing the transparency of internet companies is crucial. It allows all actors to develop evidence-based policies to combat the risks of digital space. Transparency is key for good policymaking and appropriate regulation that does not overstep to restrict freedom of expression. Transparency reduces information asymmetry – reduces unequal power dynamics between different actors, sectors and regions.

      ,

      Transparency is not simply about releasing information – it is also about making that information clear and legible to the public. Point of discussion: the difficulty of adapting and implementing transparency principles to a wide range of companies with different roles and different levels of resources at their disposal. Further consultations could benefit from taking consideration of a diverse set of actors – not just tech giants.

      Calls to Action

      Call to action to internet companies and other actors: Need to invest in content management system to avoid obfuscation and information overload.

      IGF 2021 Town Hall #22 Framing the Post-Pandemic Digital Rights Initiative (PDRI)

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 16:23
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Session Report

      Report – Framing the Post-Pandemic Digital Initiatives

       

      1. Ronaldo Lemos

       

      • Brazil was responsible for one of the first successful Bill of Rights regarding Internet and digital technology;
      • More than ever, we need initiatives to draft and implement Bills of Rights like Marco Civil da Internet in Brazil;
      • The key for understanding the Brazilian process is “multistakeholderism” – it was an open and collaborative process, a truly bottom-up initiative;
      • Brazilians debated the text of the Marco Civil da Internet through an online platform – this helped build consensus around the principles of the bill;
      • The Brazilian process was influential in other countries, especially in Italy, where it served as a starting point to debating the need for an Internet Bill of Rights;
      • To cope with the challenges we are facing now, we will need new institutions – Ronaldo gave the example of the Meta Oversight Board;
      • We need to think big – we need a post-pandemic digital rights initiative, with a new institutional framework.

       

      1. Sarah Wynn-Williams

       

      • There are thousands of open processes of regulating different aspects of tech – if you are looking to release a tech product today, you will face a different background if you compare it to a decade ago;
      • Marco Civil stands out for a number of reasons – its process, design and substance are trademarks – throughout the years that Marco Civil was being developed, interest groups changed their mind dramatically;
      • Marco Civil went through a very open process, no one voice dominated, opening up space so expertise could rise to the surface – all in all, it was a messy but effective process, which is a plus – the decision-making was refined constantly;
      • Issues of rights involve trade-offs, especially when technology is involved – for example, one can look at the debate on encryption and online safety – a big chunk of this debate is currently taking place at the national level;
      • When we are discussing the creating of new frameworks, we need to think carefully about the design choices, and Marco Civil can serve as a great starting point for that;
      • An open and participative process usually leads to a more enduring document, so this is the importance of looking to these processes and use them as starting points for new initiatives.

       

      1. Juan Carlos de Martin

       

      • The pandemic confirmed the importance of looking to digital rights and reflecting on the world we can to create going forward – many thinks we have been discussing before the pandemic is even more urgent now (inequality is one example);
      • It is important to launch an initiative on digital rights based on successful examples that came before, like the Brazilian and Italian legislations;
      • The Italian parliament was looking for a full-fledged declaration of rights – a commission came up with a draft of this declaration in eight months – there was also an important component of participation – the commission received many external comments, contributions and feedback through a consultation process;
      • The Declaration of Digital Rights of Italy has been greatly influential around the world and stood the test of time;
      • The current challenge in Italy is that everyone is talking about technological transformation ad being a purely technological problem – we should, nevertheless, be reminded more often of the social and legal part of the problem;
      • Digital rights are just one component of the problem we are facing right now – another part of the problem is, for example, the concentration of power.

       

      Discussion

       

      1. Ronaldo Lemos

       

      • Because of the pandemic, we can all agree that our digital infrastructure has become a key component of our lives;
      • Yuval Harari – we need to protect the stability, resilience and availability of the cyber infrastructure we have today – this is a first consensus we need to have;
      • We need to acknowledge that other initiatives are already taking place – we need to look at them to map what are the consensus that are emerging today;
      • Part of the problem we are facing right now is due to the fact that we have delegated a big chunk of decision-making to algorithms – we need to bring back participatory technologies that ounce flourished and are now forgotten (an example is Wikipedia – people that never met in person can come together to create a truly collaborative project);
      • Three elements: (1) drafting principles, (2) understanding that we are not alone (look to other initiatives), and (3) bringing back participatory technologies;
      • We need to be careful when we address freedom of expression – this is an issue that is being heatedly debate on the national stage;
      • We should be excited with the possibility of advancing a Bill of Rights at this moment – we have a great initial list and our challenge will be to get feedback and incorporate different comments and suggestions.

       

      1. Sarah Wynn-Williams

       

      • We took a cue from the principles in Marco Civil to build our initial framework;
      • Interoperability needs to be a cornerstone of the discussions going forward – it is surprising that we are not having this discussion right now;
      • We need to be careful about principles that may sink the whole initiative – probably Marco Civil would not be passed by the Brazilian Congress today, for example;
      • There is a limited window of opportunity – the challenge is that we tend to be rather reactive, and now we need to project our work into the future – it sounds ambitious, but it is as much as a daily necessity as it can be – we need to address this issue as early as possible.

       

      1. Juan Carlos de Martin

       

      • We need to think about the relation between the principles we are proposing in terms of Internet governance and our constitutional principles – some of these constitutional principles came under stress during pandemic;
      • The effort to establish digital rights is usually a niche initiative – it is hard to reach the masses – now the pandemic made people more conscious about the significance of having digital rights.
      IGF 2021 WS #130 The risks of pursuing digital autonomy

      Workshop
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 16:12
      Emerging Regulation: Market Structure, Content, Data And Consumer Rights and Protection
      Key Takeaways:

      A crucial difference exists between digital sovereignty and autonomy. It is important to focus on individual autonomy of Internet users within the digital realm.

      ,

      A need exists to balance solving problems on the Internet, without compromising the technical layer of the Internet.

      Calls to Action

      We mustn't politicize the Internet. Instead, we need to continuously ensure a multistakeholder approach.

      Session Report

      The risks of pursuing digital autonomy #WS130
      Organised by the Netherlands Internet Governance Forum (NL IGF) and the Dutch organisation ECP, this session addressed the notion of digital autonomy and the risks it creates for balancing national interests with preserving a global internet. Recent focus at the policy level on concepts such as digital sovereignty and digital autonomy has indeed raised fears that this pattern could lead to a splinternet. Moderated by Olaf Kolkman (Senior Advisor, Internet Society), this session proposed to explore what would be the implications and day-to-day risks of pursuing digital autonomy on a national and/or regional level. 

      Though increasingly a feature of Internet governance discussions, digital autonomy and digital sovereignty are controversial notions. As they do not convey the same meaning for all actors, it is important to clarify their definition before assessing their potential risks. Nadia Tjahja (PhD Researcher, UNU-CRIS) argued that framing discussions in terms of digital sovereignty often leads to thinking with a binary approach, pitting independence against the forms of interdependence on which the Internet relies. Also, the notion of digital sovereignty is state-centric and thus ill-suited to address the multi-faceted challenges faced by internet users. 

      Digital autonomy, on the contrary, is the right to make informed decisions, and thus more related to the individual level. Chris Buckridge (Advisor, RIPE NCC) argued that this notion is not necessarily in conflict with that idea of a global internet, since the internet relies on the interoperability of autonomous systems, and as enhancing autonomy does not necessarily require more regulations and state control. 
      Lousewies van der Laan (Executive Director, Transparency International Netherlands) agreed that autonomy is a concept that can translate into a plurality of practices. For instance, it can cover both the issue of how individuals can make informed choices in relation to digital aspects of their life, as well as challenges at the policy level. From a consumer perspective, van der Laan supported the emergence of ‘personal digital autonomy’, which would derive from an improved knowledge of Internet users on how these technologies function. 

      Moving to the policy level, participants also discussed the role of states and governments in guaranteeing ‘digital autonomy’. Roelof Meijer (CEO, SIDN) detailed that various actors, including the EU, intend to enhance their ‘strategic digital autonomy’, to have the possibility to decide on digital issues considered are strategically important. For critical resources service providers, such as Stichting Internet Domeinregistratie Nederland (SIDN), in charge of the management of a country code top level domain (ccTLD), the ability to choose between different options and avoid lock-ins or single points of failure is indeed very important.

      Gergana Petrova (External Relations Officer, RIPE NCC) explained that, since internet governance mechanisms departed from traditional decision-making centralised settings, there is a clear challenge posed by the increasing attempts of national governments to shape internet-related issues through national and regional policies. 

      As the EU is due to release its new Declaration of Digital Principles, there is a need to ensure that EU authorities further their commitment to a globally interoperable and unfragmented internet. Van der Laan agreed that more and more state actors are attempting to get greater control over the technical layer of the internet, characterising this pattern as an extremely dangerous development. 

      Buckridge argued in particular that the recent negotiations on the reform of the NIS directive at the European level could soon extend regulatory obligations to root server operators of the internet. This legislative text could have a negative effect for the stability of the internet, especially as other states may follow suit. Petrova additionally explained that international sanctions could also restrict the use of internet resources in certain countries and RIPE NCC investigates the possibility of getting an exemption for internet resources from EU sanction regulations. 

      On the other hand, Meijer underlined the fact that the behaviour of a number of corporate actors required action from public authorities, and thus partly triggered this trend of states’ engagement with internet policy arenas. Underlying that state actors are not the only stakeholders able to favour digital autonomy, Tjahja referred to various technological developments in the Netherlands related to ‘self-sovereign identity’. SURF for instance has developed a blockchain-based verifiable data registry, in which users become the owners of their personal data and determine what information they share and with whom. Such technology could become useful in providing new ways for individuals to protect their information and provide more decision-making power in relation to the data they share online. 

      Lousewies van der Laan concluded by stressing the importance of keeping these types of discussions, including this workshop on digital autonomy, at the IGF, as the Internet Governance Forum provides an open and transparent forum that fosters a multistakeholder debate.

       

      This session report is based on the report written by Clement Perarnaud, published by Digital Watch observatory, Geneva Internet Platform (https://dig.watch/events/igf2021/the-risks-of-pursuing-digital-autonomy/). 

      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #76 Platform Responsibility for Dangerous Products

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 13:48
      Key Takeaways:

      Traditional sellers and manufacturers are often liable to consumers for the damages caused by defective products. Liability law should be updated to include e-commerce platforms, especially when small sellers and manufacturers are effectively judgment-proof.

      ,

      E-commerce platforms should also have more clear obligations to reasonably police their platforms for harmful products and commercial misinformation (such as fake reviews or inaccurate merchant descriptions)

      Calls to Action

      Policymakers should update product liability and consumer protection law to account for the role that e-commerce platforms play in modern commerce and the way they have upended the traditional consumer product ecosystem.

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #48 Future of the Internet

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Wed, 08/12/2021 - 12:53
      Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
      Key Takeaways:

      - A positive vision for the future of the Internet has to draw together the strands of core values across technical principles, human rights, access and openness, as well as economic considerations. The future of the Internet needs to enable inclusion of the unconnected, and flexibility for a range of uses.

      ,

      - While vital, the multistakeholder ecosystem experiences some challenges including the number and complexity of governance and technical forums and the speed of governance processes compared with technical developments.

      Calls to Action

      - The multistakeholder governance ecosystem, as well as multistakeholder technical fora must be reinforced, and made more inclusive and joined-up, to tackle complex Internet issues in a way that reflects the perspectives of all, and to ultimately uphold a positive vision for the future of the Internet.

      IGF 2021 Open Forum #68 ESCWA Open Forum on Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region

      Open Forum / Town Hall
      Updated: Tue, 07/12/2021 - 20:55
      Inclusive Internet Governance Ecosystems and Digital Cooperation
      Key Takeaways:

      - The value of the Internet has been manifested by its role during the Pandemic. But this also showed the shortcomings related to the digital divide and the misuse of the internet and the need to protect people’s data.

      ,

      - These issues cannot be solved by one country or one stakeholder group. There is a strong need for global cooperation to achieve a safe open and fully inclusive internet by 2030. The UN Secretary General stated the call for a global digital compact bringing government, private sector and civil society together to outline the principles governing the future of the internet and the digital future.

      Calls to Action

      - The National and Regional (Arab) Digital Development Reviews (NDDRs/ADDR) constitute an effective tool for national and regional policy makers in detecting policy gaps and developing evidence-based policies to fill these gaps. Digital Cooperation platforms, such as the Arab IGF and the Arab WSIS, are the main venues in which such policy changes are to be debated and advocated, to reach a consensus among stakeholders.

      ,

      - Without such consensus, it will be extremely difficult to achieve substantial policy advancement. - A clear action plan is needed in the Arab countries to achieve digital development & make the best of use of the Internet & technology. - Collaboration between the stakeholders is needed to enhance Inclusion. - encourage youth in the IG process. - Detailed deliberations & policy debates on IG issues will continue in the Arab IGF6 during DCDF2021

      Session Report

      ESCWA Open Forum on Digital Cooperation in the Arab Region, took place on Tuesday 7 December 2021, 4:15-5:15pm (Beirut Time) and attracted 70 participants.

      Below are the key takeaway messages, intended as input into the IGF 2021 Messages.

      New Findings:

      A pioneering initiative that is the first of its nature in the world is needed, to present a ONE UN and Global/Arab proposition for breaking the siloes between WSIS Community and IGF Community as well as other related development communities, creating a consolidated blend geared towards Digital Cooperation & Development, that’s aligned with the UN Secretary General motions towards Digital Cooperation and towards our Common Agenda.

      Areas of Agreement:

      Digital cooperation in the Arab region is effectively sustained through the Digital Cooperation and Development Forum” (DCDF), convened by ESCWA. The preparation and development of National and Regional (Arab) Digital Development Reviews (NDDRs and ADDR), as well as the National Digital Agendas which should point to existing gaps in digital development policies and strategies, would also contribute to the digital cooperation in the Arab region.

      Consensus on how to further the discussion:

      It was agreed to continue and further the discussion for “shaping our digital future”, guided by the 2020 United Nations Secretary-General’s Roadmap on Digital Cooperation, the 2021 Secretary-General’s “Our Common Agenda report”, and the ESCWA Conceptual Model on Digital Development and Digital Cooperation, through the “Digital Cooperation and Development Forum” (DCDF), newly conceived by ESCWA as a consolidated inclusive and streamlined multipartite regional collaboration platform for Policy Dialogue on Digital Cooperation and Development issues.

      Embracing the Arab IGF forum and the Arab WSIS forum, DCDF consolidates the two global tracks of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and Internet Governance Forum (IGF) at the regional level, along with other several regional digital development related tracks, bringing together high-level government representatives engaged in digital cooperation and development, civil society networks and organizations, a wide range of regional and international institutions, the private sector, regional experts, and academic and research centres, offering a common space to hundreds of participants, to deliberate on digital cooperation and development priority issues of concerns to the Arab and global community.

      Areas of disagreement that need further discussion:

      • None

      Call to action to one or more stakeholder groups as discussed during the meeting:

      • The value of the Internet has been manifested by its role during the Pandemic. But this also showed the shortcomings related to the digital divide and the misuse of the internet and the need to protect people’s data.
      • These issues cannot be solved by one country or one stakeholder group. There is a strong need for global cooperation to achieve a safe open and fully inclusive internet by 2030. The UN Secretary General stated the call for a global digital compact bringing government, private sector and civil society together to outline the principles governing the future of the internet and the digital future.
      • Member countries to be represented at the ESCWA Digital Cooperation and Development Forum” (DCDF)
      • The National and Regional (Arab) Digital Development Reviews (NDDRs/ADDR) constitute an effective tool for national and regional policy makers in detecting policy gaps and developing evidence-based policies to fill these gaps. Digital Cooperation platforms, such as the Arab IGF and the Arab WSIS, are the main venues in which such policy changes are to be debated and advocated, to reach a consensus among stakeholders.
      • Without such consensus, it will be extremely difficult to achieve substantial policy advancement.
      • A clear action plan is needed in the Arab countries to achieve the digital developemnt and make the best of use of the Internet and technology.
      • Collaboration between the stakeholders is needed to enhance Inclusion.
      • encourage youth in the IG process.
      • Detailed deliberations and policy debates on internet governance issues will take place as part of the Arab IGF-VI’s during the DCDF-2021 next week (13-23 December 2021).

       

      IGF 2021 WS #133 Delivering children’s rights in the digital world

      Workshop
      Updated: Tue, 07/12/2021 - 18:40
      Economic and Social Inclusion and Human Rights
      Key Takeaways:

      Now the General Comment must find its way into national regulation and legislation, so regulators can insist its requirements are upheld. NGOs can play a central role in changing opinions, reaching out to politicians, consulting children and translating recommending into concrete proposals.

      Calls to Action

      For UNCRC: tailor recommendations to individual countries during review and dialogue. For States and regulators: translate those recommendation into law and regulation, and ensure compliance. For NGOs: look at specific recommendations, targeted at their government, and update their strategy to raise awareness and generate the energy to make sure it is implemented.

      Session Report

      Delivering Children’s Rights in the Digital World

      General Comment No. 25 on Children’s Rights in Relation to the Digital Environment makes official for the first time that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) applies equally to the virtual world. This authoritative document sets out the responsibilities of states and business, and for the first time offers a vision of what a digital world designed with children in mind will look like.

      Philip Jaffe

      Children’s rights in the digital environment have been on the international agenda since at least 2021, and the call for the Committee on the Rights of the Child grew as a lack of regulation of the digital environment became clear.

      General Comment 25 makes robust recommendations to the 196 State parties, on taking children into account and providing them with protection in the digital environment, covering their evolving capacities and applying to technology as it evolves (often at a pace that regulation struggles to match). Children, governments, civil society groups and other stakeholders were all consulted during the drafting. Some key concepts of the General Comment include:

      • Best interests – the child’s best interests should be a primary consideration in all actions regarding the provision, design, management and use of the digital environment
      • Access – children should not be unduly locked out of opportunities the digital world offers for education, play and socialising
      • Protection – the paramount concern of governments and stakeholders should be the protection of children
      • Evolving capacities – as children mature, their capacities, vulnerabilities and potential to exercise autonomy change

      The digital environment should be viewed not only as an environment for adults in which children happen to be present, but as children’s environment in their own right.

      Baroness Kidron

      Five concepts repeatedly crop up in the regulatory arena that the General Comment articulates:

      1. A child is a child until they mature, not until the moment they receive a smartphone. The de facto age of online adulthood has been set at 13 for decades – the General Comment reiterates that all children (that is, anyone under the age of the 18) deserve protection – with consideration for their evolving capacities – and to have their rights, as expressed in the UNCRC, upheld on all services they are likely to access in practice.
      2. Regulators and services cannot cherry-pick which rights to upheld – rights to free expression go along with rights to privacy, participation etc.
      3. Regulation should seek to address risk in advance, rather than only responding to harm after it occurs. The online world cannot be entirely risk-free, but as with all consumer products, digital services and products must meet a level of safety before they come into contact with users, especially children.
      4. Children must not bear the responsibility for products which are risky by design. Digital and data literacy are important, but responsibility for a poorly designed system should not be placed on their shoulders.
      5. Children across the world, not just in the Global North, want digital equity: they want access, but they want it on a fair basis: safety, access and empowerment – and a say in building the digital world.

      Now the General Comment must find its way into national regulation and legislation, so regulators can insist its requirements are upheld – for instance, the EU has cited the General Comment in its child rights strategy, so it can be pointed to in future regulation, including in the EU AI Act. The OECD has included it in its Recommendation on Children in the Digital Environment, articulating, as the General Comment does, a child’s right to participation as well as their data protection rights. Citing the General Comment will be recommended for inclusion in the UK’s landmark Online Safety Bill and the EU’s Digital Services Act.

      Without it, in its entirety, there is a risk that services will respond by locking children out of the digital world, rather than designing it to meet their best interests.

      Gerison Lansdown

      The content of the General Comment is important, but to be truly effective it must be reflected in national law and regulations. NGOs can play a central role in changing opinions, reaching out to politicians, consulting children and translating recommending into concrete proposals. An effective advocacy strategy requires seven things:

      1. Rights are indivisible, but NGOs should consider their entry point to the conversation: what are the priorities, nationally and for children themselves? What are the opportunities in your national context?
      2. Where is the evidence base of a problem that needs solving? Including children’s perspectives, gaps in existing regulation.
      3. Frame your goals carefully and concretely, including how they can be achieved.
      4. Identify your stakeholders – including children, professional bodies, media – and potential allies, and the skills, networks and resources they can offer.
      5. Who are you looking to influence, what are the points of resistance and how they can be persuaded or countered?
      6. How will your campaign be run? For instance, strategic litigation where the Convention is incorporated into domestic law, conferences, social mobilisation.
      7. Monitor and evaluate your strategies, and use those findings to renew your campaigns.

      Sonia Livingstone

      One central challenge is future-proofing the General Comment when innovation occurs so rapidly, hence the importance of the principles underpinning it.

      The General Comment counters the myth that the digital world is an adult space and children are interlopers, instead asserting that children have the same right to participate in the online world – not as a nuisance or in conflict with the freedoms of adults but as civic and political actors in their own right.

      Children are impacted by the online world, even if they do not access it directly: their lives are datafied.

      Evolving capacities: the digital world has struggled with this because providers often profess not to know which of their users are children.

      Internet access is the mechanism by which children now exercise their rights, so a critical question to address: at what point does internet access itself become a right?

      Call to action

      For UNCRC: tailor recommendations to individual countries during review and dialogue.

      For States and regulators: translate those recommendation into law and regulation, and ensure compliance.

      For NGOs: look at specific recommendations, targeted at their government, and update their strategy to raise awareness and generate the energy to make sure it is implemented.

      IGF 2021 WS #153 Error 404 - Freedom of Speech not found

      Workshop
      Updated: Tue, 07/12/2021 - 17:11
      Universal Access and Meaningful Connectivity
      Calls to Action

      Envisioning a coalition to help keep internet secure and open.

      IGF 2021 Lightning Talk #69 Measuring Internet Resilience and Shutdowns: An overview of Internet Society's Pulse platform

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Tue, 07/12/2021 - 11:28
      Key Takeaways:

      This short session offered a brief overview of the Internet Society Pulse platform and the data presented on it. The Internet Society Internet Resilience Index can help show how robust a country's Internet offering is and the data presented can help national policy makers and service providers to resolve problems and gaps in connectivity.

      ,

      The Internet Society Pulse platform's curated archive of data on shutdown events creates more transparency around artificial disruptions of Internet acess. The data and information presented on Internet Society Pulse can help stakeholders assess the impact of disruptions and they help to promote accountability. 

      Calls to Action

      Use Internet measurement data to inform policymakers and other stakeholders about the state of the Internet and the effects caused by shutting down or disrupting access. 

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #61 Technological assistance emphasis on teenagers during the pandemic — is it fair to distribute resources in such a way?

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Tue, 07/12/2021 - 03:39
      Key Takeaways:

      1. The live poll result that which target group distributing technical resources such as devices and internet service from government is better, 50% attendances prefer evenly distributed among all people. 45.5% for distributing to teenagers only and only 4.5% focusing on elderly/others.

      ,

      2. However, participants presented that there are many other targets need to be pay more resources to them such as refugees in African countries and elderly since the belief of ' every people should have the same human rights to be assisted in getting computer and internet devices, educational opportunities and services because pandemic affects everyone.

      Calls to Action

      1. Government should provide leading force to provide propaganda to the society in helping those vulnerable groups.

      ,

      2. Since the social distancing procedure such as prohibition on group gathering, civil society service to help the vulnerable groups, promoting mutual help network is important to help the potential vulnerable targets. NGOs or charity organization can make use of these network to help the people in need remotely.

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #33 Youth Perspectives on Digital Civility

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Mon, 06/12/2021 - 22:03
      Key Takeaways:

      Research shows that’s gains made towards online civility have reversed in the last year as a result of the ongoing pandemic. See https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2021/07/19/online-civility-de…

      ,

      2) Youth believe that digital civility can be improved through educational programs, better parenting and peer to peer mentoring. It is something that needs to be taught, not just experienced.

      Calls to Action

      Ensuring a safer online experience for young users is the shared responsibility of multiple stakeholders across civil society, government and the tech sector. More can and should be done by all stakeholders individually and collectively in helping to educate and protect youth from risks online.

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #119 Quantum Technologies in Poland: Quantum infrastructure and Quantum Computing

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Mon, 06/12/2021 - 19:35
      Key Takeaways:

      Quantum techology as compund of four layers: computing, sensing communication and simulation could solve some some specific problems based on now-a-day technoloy with hype phase of 2nd quantum revolution. Cooperation in fundamental quantum research with technological aspects of device and system construction between academia and industry would be profitable and will bring about major changes in society

      ,

      Introducing Quantum technology to standard internet to develop quantum internet with quantum device to build quantum communication infrasrtucture in scientic-industrial hub for researchh and implementation

      IGF 2021 Day 0 Event #26 Ensuring Diversity in the AI World

      Specific (lightning / launch / awards)
      Updated: Mon, 06/12/2021 - 18:58
      Key Takeaways:

      Ensuring #diversityinAI is key step for the since gender is a key priority for UNESCO, it also receives special attention in the Recommendation, with a dedicated policy area on gender. In this regard, Member States are asked to dedicate special funds from their public budget, linked to financing gender responsive schemes and ensure that national digital policies include a gender action plan. implementation of any AI governance policy.

      ,

      Ensuring #DiversityinAI will benefit all stakeholders, governments, the private sector, the users of the technology and more.

      Calls to Action

      Multi-stakeholder engagement is needed in order to achieve diversity in all aspects of AI, including gender, linguistic and geographical diversity.

      ,

      stakeholder must work with all communities, including margenalized communities in order to achieve true diversity in AI