Review Platform

Review Platform

Welcome to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Review Platform provided by the IGF Secretariat. This platform allows IGF Community members to review a document and leave public comments, which can be structured paragraph-by-paragraph. Users can annotate and debate, turning the document into a conversation.

Anonymous Mon, 16/10/2017 - 15:36

The Internet We Want

The Internet We Want lbobo Wed, 18/10/2023 - 10:33

In today’s digital societies, Internet governance is critical for economic, social, and environmental development. Internet governance is a crucial enabler of sustainable development, ensuring that the Internet is used in a responsible and inclusive manner, and can contribute to promoting access to information, communication, and innovation. The importance of this agenda cannot be understated in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing economic recovery, supply chain shocks, and unfolding geopolitical tensions, especially as economies worldwide are working towards a sustainable economic rebuild.

Internet and other digital technologies are vital components of a sustainable future. Leaders across all stakeholder groups globally must come together and collaborate in a cohesive and inclusive manner to ensure that their actions align with existing commitments to:

promote a human-centric Internet that ensures respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law and protects against harmful behaviours;

expand connectivity and guarantee meaningful and affordable access for everyone, everywhere;

preserve an open, free, globally connected, interoperable, unfragmented, and stable Internet.

unlock the value of data for development and enable data free flow with trust, while ensuring data protection and privacy, to support a truly global digital economy;

Foster a safe and secure online environment, in particular by increasing efforts to strengthen cybersecurity;

facilitate collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies in a trusted way while continuing to enable innovation;

adopt environment friendly practises consistent with reducing greenhouse gas emission when utilising the Internet and digital resources;

acknowledge, support and encourage the contribution of youth playing a key role in the achievement of sustainability; and

uphold the multistakeholder approach in the governance of the Internet.

 

In line with these commitments, the IGF Leadership Panel encourages all governments, private sector, civil society and technical and academic communities to come together to share this vision, define goals and targets to achieve the Internet we - as a global society - would want, and promote the necessary coordinated and effective actions at local, regional and international levels to realise this common vision.

We firmly believe in the multistakeholder model and the unique convening power of the Internet Governance Forum to achieve this vision and offer the following characteristics as a starting point for discussions.

The IGF Leadership Panel believes that the Internet We Want is:

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Regarding inclusion and universal

Today's internet is the internet for all. The concept of not using or no internet is an unimaginable situation for any country. In this situation and time when the world citizen are directly impact the use they should be able to develop l, contribute and collaborate the policy and standardization issues.  Having said that internet and it's basic standard differ from countries to countries and from region to region more focus has to be given to real level of inclusion and values of  universal standardization. In the nomination and selection of MAG members of IGF it is written the priority is said to be given to least developed and lower economies but in reality the syndicate runs the power politics where the same people are elected and they are there in the IGF and other internet organization. In the name of inclusion and diversity more people from least developed and lower economies have to be given chances to learn, practice  and collaborate with the policies 

The internet we want, should not be discriminatory it should be Multistakeholder and collaborative ......

0 People voted for this

If we care about human rights online lets cancel Riyadh

Writing a vision for the internet deeply rooted in human rights means nothing if our actions are not in line with it. I cannot contribute to an IGF mission document for the Internet in good faith, knowing that the next IGF’s meeting venue, and its host, fall short in upholding foundational human rights principles.
The selected host venue of Riyadh scores poorly on all matters of human rights, whether digital or not. And asking those of us who have been working on freedom of expression, media rights, labor rights, and women’s rights to go there—is in particularly bad taste.

The strength of an IGF document on ‘the Internet we want” lies in much more than advocating for inclusivity, freedom, and equity in the digital sphere, or on paper. It needs to be met with concrete actions, in person. Defining the Internet we want, means being willing to speak out about the politics we want, and the rights and freedoms we’re entitled to. This also means speaking out about who is a suitable host for the IGF, and who is not.

The decision to convene the IGF in Riyadh, a place that does not respect important human rights principles raises concerns about the authenticity and dedication of the IGF's efforts to safeguarding human rights.

Maintaining coherence between our professed principles and the chosen venue hosts is pivotal. This inconsistency not only challenges the credibility of our work but should prompt critical reflection on the consistency of our commitment to human rights within the broader spectrum of our actions—and the communities we hope to engage at the IGF.

0 People voted for this

If we care about human rights online lets cancel Riyadh 1

Writing a vision for the internet deeply rooted in human rights means nothing if our actions are not in line with it. I cannot contribute to an IGF mission document for the Internet in good faith, knowing that the next IGF’s meeting venue, and its host, fall short in upholding foundational human rights principles.

The selected host venue of Riyadh scores poorly on all matters of human rights, whether digital or not. And asking those of us who have been working on freedom of expression, media rights, labor rights, and women’s rights to go there—is in particularly bad taste.

 

0 People voted for this

Free-flowing and trustworthy;

The process in IGF needs to be standardized. In every protocol of  proposal selection, the MAG membership application  first needs to be transparent and accountable. From ages, it has been the same people and their group of circle people who have been getting the proposal and selected as MAG members.  

If possible, please check the data. We are talking about a multistakeholder and bottom-up approach that is always recommended and selected. Is this the multi-stakeholder approach where we want to select the people among the known...... 

1. How would the new people join if the same old people kept on doing what they did?
2. We are talking about evaluation with a descriptive language and process that is good for English-speaking people. How can that evaluate the competencies of a non-English-speaking scenario, and how can that keep people away from a multi-stakeholder environment?

The internet we want should not be biased toward any language, community, or region; it should be neutral, supportive, and collaborative. It should be open and transparent.

0 People voted for this

Whole and open;

The internet of today has a lot of challenges; openness has greater issues of acceptance, and the values are very vague. It needs to be collaborated on at the UN level, making a unilateral decision among countries, and then further worked on. 
The clarity needs to come from the basic value. The struggle of today in different regions and communities is the definition of openness, which is subject to many jurisdictions and  their local laws, which can only be solved with primitively defined values of collaborative effort.

one values and one world for humanity 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Timothy Asiedu

Regarding Safe and Secure

The Internet which was developed in the early 1970s continues to make an impact economically and socially on our global world. It has become a communication tool which is difficult not to be used on a daily basis. Consider its usage on the Social Media through LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, twitter,  etc every day. Whether young or old, the Internet through the social media is making a huge impact. Jobs are being provided through the Internet on a daily basis and this in effect is reducing the unemployment rate in many developing countries.  

Despite the benefits provided by the Internet, there are others on the Internet called Cyber-criminals who are on a daily basis mapping out strategies in order to hack into people’s account and steal funds from the accounts with financial organizations. If these cyber-criminals succeed, it will be realized that savings made through the efforts of these innocent ones in days, weeks, months or sometimes years would have been lost in few minutes or hours by these thieves on the Internet. This sad situation called Internet Fraud continues to affect many organizations through loss of fund on a daily or week basis.  In view of the negative impact of the behavior of these cyber-criminals, we all need to be involved in finding lasting solutions which continue to occur frequently. Solutions can be provided through adopting good Cybersecurity standards or strategies. Because these cyber-criminals are always around, it is an advisable that organizations whether small or large make an effort to create a unit or department to deal with these Cyber-criminals activities. Thank you.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user cveraq

Collaborative internet

I propose to look on a collaborative perspective as a goal for the Internet we want. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abraham Fiifi Selby

The Internet we want towards Universal and Inclusiveness

In the critical step towards building a digital future that benefits all, building a truly universal and inclusive internet demands ongoing dialogue, innovative solutions, and a commitment to shared values. By collaborating and setting ambitious but achievable goals, we can create a digital space that empowers everyone to thrive.

These goals and areas can help build more towards "the internet we want"

  1. Universal Access and Connectivity
  2. Inclusion and Diversity
  3. Content Accessibility and Multilingualism
  4. Openness and Participation
  5. Safety and Security

Stakeholder groups must be able to;

  • Ensure affordable and reliable internet access for all, particularly low-income populations and remote regions.
  • Empower marginalized communities to actively participate in shaping the internet and digital policy, ensuring diverse voice heard.
  • Promote the development and use of multilingual content and tools, fostering cultural understanding and knowledge exchange.
  • Encourage multistakeholder participation in internet governance, including civil society, technical communities, and private sector.
  • Promote transparency and accountability in online platforms and data practices, empowering users to control their information.
  • Protect user privacy and data security, implementing robust safeguards against misuse and exploitation.
  • Promote ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, mitigating potential risks to human rights and democracy.

These actions can be achieved through collaborative efforts where Governments, civil society, technical communities, and the p must work together to develop and implement effective solutions with youth advocates funding that can help address these ch the local level to the global level. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Maarten Botterman

Response from the Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things

The Dynamic Coalition on the Internet of Things (DC-IoT) has engaged in open meetings at IGFs, and at meetings in between IGFs on the usefulness of Internet of Things, specifically as a necessary resource in addressing global and local societal challenges, and on what issues need to be addressed in order to ensure that the Internet of Things develops in ways that serve people around the globe. It strives to develop and evolve a common view on Global Good Practice with IoT through a multistakeholder dialogue, as to ensure all stakeholders are involved.  

Based on its mission, DC-IoT is very happy to contribute to the IGF Leadership’s panel’s call and supports its invitation to collaborate on the existing commitments, to produce and sustain the IWW. The Internet would have never become what it is today without the tireless commitment of many to its stability, interoperability and adequate security. Only these properties can foster sufficient justified trust that use of the Internet will ultimately be to users’ benefit; and only this trust-based belief can fulfil the promise of the Internet. A good shared understanding of “global good practice” is important in this, as is the capacity building in regions to ensure local regions can develop and apply innovations in a way that serves them best.

We therefore believe it is crucial to remind ourselves of the necessity of the technical community’s adherence to Core Internet Values in order to create a durable One Internet for everyone: open, free, globally connected, interoperable, unfragmented (at least in technical terms), and stable.

With regards to the Internet of Things, there are specifics relating to “things connected to the Internet”, which are to serve us, directly or as part of larger (Cyber Physical) systems and services, that are important to ensure we actually can make sure we have a handle on how the Internet serves us, including through its extensions: the Things – and what specific requirements to “the Things” are necessary as they will be connected to the Internet.

Per section indicated on IWW we identify and comment on what we believe to be the key points presented by the IGF Leadership Panel:

1. Whole and open;

DC IoT supports the call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to ensure that the internet stays whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable, stable and unfragmented at its core.

Specifically for IoT: The Internet of Things will inevitably affect the way the world confronts societal challenges and develops business opportunities. For this influence to be beneficial, it must be developed in an open way, with predictable ways of working, according to commonly defined open global standards, allowing permissionless innovation – expecting from developers to take the impact on people and society into account from the outset.

2. Universal and inclusive;

DC IoT supports the call to move towards universal meaningful connectivity for everyone (and everything), everywhere, to encourage the development and appropriate uptake of promising new technologies that foster this and to address skills gaps.

Specifically for IoT: we believe that this initiative should prioritise universality in the sense that all can benefit from the use of IoT devices, systems and services and inclusivity in that this use will reduce marginalisation and damaging isolation. , it will be important to ensure development of and adherence to suitable global standards, and that the design of devices, systems and services involves users from the outset to ensure inclusivity; and it is also critical that the interests of stakeholders and affected parties from all over the world and all relevant sectors are taken into account (ideally by those most affected) in setting those standards in order to foster universality. NB: these standards both go for interoperability, as for security, and for data management. NB2: the fact that AI applications and services come up have specific meaning for IoT (and the other way around) as IoT devices generate data for AI as input, and AI may instruct IoT devices to take actions based on the data feeds.

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

DC IoT supports the call for Internet stakeholders to set goals to unlock the value of data flows to foster sustainable development of all and enshrine trust (or: trustworthiness) as a prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data.

Specifically for IoT: global technical standards should be open, widely and transparently accepted and information provision about devices, systems and services on the functioning and specifically the data sharing should be available online and dynamically updated, just as many of the devices will include software that can and will be updated during its use. Certification of this information is crucial, via globally recognized methods and procedural standards (smart certification), and there should be a compliance/guarantee function to ensure standards work as intended. In addition, updating should be possible, and ensured to be correct. All this in recognition of the different contexts in which devices, systems and services function.

4. Safe and secure

DC IoT supports the call for Internet stakeholders to set goals to establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime.

Specifically for IoT: in order for IoT devices, systems and services to be safe and secure, enabling this should be taken into account already in the design phase, taking real use cases into account. Certifiable information needs to be available online to enable users to assess and manage the risks associated with their particular IoT usage (smart labelling).

5. Rights-respecting.  

DC IoT supports the call for Internet stakeholders to set goals to ensure a human rights-based approach to Internet governance, and to promote human rights in the digital space.

Whereas many central aspects of respect for human rights depend very much on context (nature of use) and jurisdiction (the legal formulation and protection of those rights), smart labelling IoT devices, systems and services needs to disclose their specific nature to enable users to align their usage with applicable laws and regulations (e.g. not invading others’ privacy by capturing their images, sound and other information without adequate notice and consent) and so that human rights laws and regulations can keep pace with evolving IoT use.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

IWW premise

 

line 18-19:

facilitate collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies that pursue public interests in a trusted way while continuing to enable innovation; 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user AHM Bazlur Rahman S21BR

The Internet We Want

The Internet We Want:
What are the main challenges to Internet in the human rights online in Bangladesh?

• Use of digital technology to use for suppressing and violent Internet in the human rights

• Lack of due diligence which can ensure that technology products and terms of service comply with human rights principles and standards.

• Due to limited access to digital devices Internet in the human rights information are not accessible to a large number of people

• The benefit of the Judicial system is not yet fully digitalized, as a result, the benefit of online legal services takes more time

• Lack of awareness of policy-makers and mass people about Internet in the human rights online

• Lack of proper legal tools for addressing illegal and harmful contents

• Cyber-bulling of adolescent girls and women are risk of threats and attacks.
Which measures are necessary?

• Making access to the Internet affordable

• Judicial information both at upper courts and lower courts needs to be open digitally for easy access of the stakeholders

• Ensure online safe spaces, and transparent and accountable content governance frameworks.

• Framing legal framework for taking action against the persons responsible for misinformation, disinformation, and mal information

• Encourage the private sector to engage in dialogue with relevant State authorities and civil society in the exercise of their corporate social responsibility, in particular, their transparency and accountability encourage civil society to support the dissemination and application of the guide so that it provides an effective tool for Internet users.

• Promote and use trustworthy network infrastructure and services suppliers, relying on risk-based assessments that include technical and non-technical factors for network security

• Protect and strengthen the multistakeholder system of Internet governance, including the development, deployment, and management of its main technical protocols and other related standards and protocols.

• Refrain from undermining the technical infrastructure essential to the general availability and integrity of the Internet.

How can IGF contribute to addressing the issue?
• IGF can contribute towards guiding principles on business and Internet in the human rights

• Develop system-wide guidance on human rights, due diligence and impact assessment in the use of new technology.

• IGF should play an important role, as a catalyst for stimulating a united approach to the protection of human rights online.

• IGF should develop a regional framework to prevent misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information

• IGF should promote coordination with other state and non-state actors, within and beyond the country with regard to the standards and procedures which have an impact on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms on the Internet

• IGF should promote online safety and continue to strengthen our work to combat violence online, including sexual and gender-based violence as well as child sexual exploitation, to make the Internet a safe and secure place for everyone, particularly women, children, and young people

• Promote safe and equitable use of the Internet for everyone, without discrimination based on sex, race, color, ethnic, national or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of an indigenous population, property, birth, disability, age, gender identity or sexual orientation.

• Promote cooperation in research and innovation and standard setting, encourage information sharing regarding security threats through relevant international fora, and reaffirm our commitment to the framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace.
How can ensure access to Internet in the human rights digitally?

• Expansion of internet service across the country
• Expansion of digital literacy about human rights
• Making internet service affordable and accessible without disruption
• Protect the right to privacy and other human rights in the digital space

• The Internet has a public service value. People, communities, public authorities, and private entities rely on the Internet for their activities and have a legitimate expectation that its services are accessible, provided without discrimination, affordable, secure, reliable, and ongoing.

• Furthermore, no one should be subjected to unlawful, unnecessary, or disproportionate interference with the exercise of their Internet in the human rights and fundamental freedoms when using the Internet.

• Ensure that existing human rights and fundamental freedoms apply equally offline and online

• Actively promote the guide to Internet in the human rights for Internet users among citizens, public authorities and private sector actors and take specific action regarding its application in order to enable users to fully exercise their Internet in the human rights and fundamental freedoms online

• Promote affordable, inclusive, and reliable access to the Internet for individuals and businesses where they need it and support efforts to close digital divides around the world to ensure all people of the world are able to benefit from the digital transformation.

• Foster greater exposure to diverse cultural and multilingual content, information, and news online. Exposure to diverse content online should contribute to pluralistic public discourse, foster greater social and digital inclusion within society, bolster resilience to disinformation and misinformation, and increase participation in democratic processes.

• Protect individuals’ privacy, their personal data, and the confidentiality of electronic communications and information on end-users electronic devices, consistent with the protection of public safety and applicable domestic and international law.

• Promote the protection of consumers, in particular vulnerable consumers, from online scams and other unfair practices online and from dangerous and unsafe products sold online.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Ms Cheryl Langdon-Orr

The Internet We Want

The goals and principles identified by the IGF Leadership Panel

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

Resonate with, and are supported by not only me as an individual but are integral to the vision and purpose of the Internet Society Chapter of Australia (Internet Australia) that I have the honor to currently lead. 

Our support for these ideals is given here noting that in this current and upcoming times of so many risks and pressures on the Internet We Know becoming The Internet We Want; the IGF as it evolves should be in a prime position to facilitate and partner with other I* entities to better ensure that there is  fulsome and frank discourse using a multistakeholder model, that explores the risks and outcomes, intended and unintended, to our Internet with policies being made and actions taken; and to ensure a better understanding of these matters not only in those who make policy and take actions, but also those effected by these decisions and actions.  This is a timely and essential matter for a full focus of the IGF, not an opportunity we can risk missing (or messing up)  

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Ms Cheryl Langdon-Orr

The Internet We Want - Support for the 5 Principles

I wish to have recorded my personal support and endorsement as well as that of the Australian Internet Society Chapter (Internet Australia), which I have the honor of currently leading, for the 5 overarching principles or goals identified by the IGF Leadership Panel for 'The Internet We Want';

An Internet that is:-

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

This resonates with our principles, vision and goals and we will continue to find ways to pursue and protect these going forward as we have in the times to date.

We do however note that particularly at this current and near future time 'The Internet We Have' is exposed to a myriad of risks and pressures that are counter to, or have intended and unintended consequences on these ideals.

The IGF as it is currently evolving could and should take advantage of its unique multistakeholder model, and take the opportunity to work with other actors and I* entities to facilitate discourse and shared understanding of the intended and unintended effects of actions taken and policies made that threaten any or all of these principles;  ensuring not only that the decision and policy makers are fully cognizant of such effects but also that the communities and individuals effected by these actions are aware.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Whole and open

The importance of the Internet lays with being a “one unfragmented network”, open in its uses and available for all. This is important to all users and stakeholders especially in the economic and social context. Therefore, it is of importance to reach a clear understanding to the definition of "one unfragmented Internet" that is acceptable to all, especially in the technical aspects and in the usage aspects.

With the growth of internet users, the principle of "what applies offline applies online and vice versa" has emerged, which is an important concept related to the civil rights of individuals, the work of the private sector, and the responsibilities of governments. It also lead us to the concept of digital sovereignty as it is in national sovereignty in the context of protecting citizens’ rights, preserving private sector interest and invoking national laws and regulations. This will extend to collect revenues and fees related to users’ data, profiles and cross border transactions from the Internet global companies and any other party.

0 People voted for this

Support and suggesting the LP propose goals

As an overarching comment, we encourage the Leadership Panel to itself propose some specific goals for discussion in each area, to inform and challenge stakeholders. It is important that this discussion on internet governance focus on outcomes for users, not only organisational options.

auDA supports clear goals to guide the internet’s development, having argued for them in its August 2023 Internet Governance Roadmap (online at https://auda.org.au/IGroadmap). The Leadership Panel’s expertise and diversity, alongside its small scale, gives it a good opportunity to develop and propose some specific goals for community input. It should consider doing so as it assesses all the feedback received on this paper, and propose goals in time for community dialogue at the 2024 IGF.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user stellaanneteohmhgmailcom

NetMission.Asia & Asia Pacific yIGF

The following comment is made on behalf of NetMission.Asia and as an alumni of Asia Pacific yIGF on The Internet We Want;

  1. Whole and Open

We affirm an Internet where youths are empowered to act in processes of agenda-setting, policy formulation, and evaluation of establishment of legal frameworks that promote net neutrality and prevent Internet fragmentation. We support initiatives to leverage human creativity in order to close the intergenerational Internet governance knowledge gap.

  1. Universal and Inclusive

We aspire to sustain the progression of youth engagement, meaningful participation and leadership at all levels—local, regional and global. We stress the significance of acknowledging Internet access as a fundamental right, and the inclusion of youths (of equitable gender and geographical representation) in policymaking.

  1. Free-flowing and Trustworthy

We advocate for the acknowledgement of the youth perspective and contribution towards upholding Internet Freedom; and the fortification of trust in the role of youths in data protection.

  1. Safe and Secure

We assert the pivotal role of resilient youths as intergenerational-mediator for cybersecurity capacity building—privy to discussions on regulatory or compliance frameworks and in shaping cyberspace as digital natives.

  1. Rights-respecting

We acknowledge the human-rights based approach to Internet Governance, and appeal for the enablement of youths—students or legal professionals, to address issues of digital rights infringement through access to talent development and expertise.

(for our full comments please refer to our website)

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abdirashid Ibrahim

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa

 

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa prioritizes rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet. I recognize the pivotal role that a well-designed digital ecosystem plays in shaping Africa's future. To harness the transformative power of technology for equitable development, we must prioritize rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet across the continent.

Firstly, safeguarding fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information is paramount. Governments and stakeholders must enact robust policies and regulations to protect users' data privacy and ensure freedom of expression online. Bridging the digital divide is equally crucial, ensuring that all segments of society, including marginalized communities, have equal access to digital resources and opportunities.

Inclusivity is essential for a sustainable digital ecosystem. We need initiatives to promote digital literacy and skills development, particularly among underserved populations, empowering them to participate fully in the digital economy. Digital platforms and services must be designed with inclusivity in mind, catering to the diverse needs of users across Africa.

Security remains a top priority in the digital landscape. Strengthening cybersecurity infrastructure, fostering collaboration between stakeholders, and raising awareness about online risks are essential steps. By prioritizing cybersecurity, we can instill trust in digital technologies and encourage their widespread adoption.

An open and trustworthy Internet is the bedrock of innovation and collaboration. Governments should uphold net neutrality and refrain from imposing unnecessary restrictions on online content. Efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation are also critical, ensuring that users have access to accurate and reliable information.

 

In summary, establishing the optimal Internet ecosystem for Africa necessitates a holistic strategy centered on upholding rights, fostering inclusivity, ensuring security, and cultivating an open, reliable Internet environment. Embracing these principles will enable Africa to unlock the complete benefits of digital technologies, fostering inclusive development, empowering communities, and paving the way for a brighter future for everyone.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abdirashid Ibrahim

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa

 

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa prioritizes rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet. I recognize the pivotal role that a well-designed digital ecosystem plays in shaping Africa's future. To harness the transformative power of technology for equitable development, we must prioritize rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet across the continent.

Firstly, safeguarding fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information is paramount. Governments and stakeholders must enact robust policies and regulations to protect users' data privacy and ensure freedom of expression online. Bridging the digital divide is equally crucial, ensuring that all segments of society, including marginalized communities, have equal access to digital resources and opportunities.

Inclusivity is essential for a sustainable digital ecosystem. We need initiatives to promote digital literacy and skills development, particularly among underserved populations, empowering them to participate fully in the digital economy. Digital platforms and services must be designed with inclusivity in mind, catering to the diverse needs of users across Africa.

Security remains a top priority in the digital landscape. Strengthening cybersecurity infrastructure, fostering collaboration between stakeholders, and raising awareness about online risks are essential steps. By prioritizing cybersecurity, we can instill trust in digital technologies and encourage their widespread adoption.

An open and trustworthy Internet is the bedrock of innovation and collaboration. Governments should uphold net neutrality and refrain from imposing unnecessary restrictions on online content. Efforts to combat misinformation and disinformation are also critical, ensuring that users have access to accurate and reliable information.

 

In summary, establishing the optimal Internet ecosystem for Africa necessitates a holistic strategy centered on upholding rights, fostering inclusivity, ensuring security, and cultivating an open, reliable Internet environment. Embracing these principles will enable Africa to unlock the complete benefits of digital technologies, foster inclusive development, empower communities, and pave the way for a brighter future for everyone.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abdirashid Ibrahim

The ideal digital ecosystem in Africa

 

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa prioritizes rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet.

I recognize the pivotal role that a well-designed digital ecosystem plays in shaping Africa's future. To harness the transformative power of technology for equitable development, we must prioritize rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet across the continent.

Firstly, safeguarding fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information is paramount. Governments and stakeholders must enact robust policies and regulations to protect users' data privacy and ensure freedom of expression online. Bridging the digital divide is equally crucial, ensuring that all segments of society, including marginalized communities, have equal access to digital resources and opportunities.

Inclusivity is essential for a sustainable digital ecosystem. We need initiatives to promote digital literacy and skills development, particularly among underserved populations, empowering them to participate fully in the digital economy. Digital platforms and services must be designed with inclusivity in mind, catering to the diverse needs of u

In summary, establishing the optimal Internet ecosystem for Africa necessitates a holistic strategy centered on upholding rights, fostering inclusivity, ensuring security, and cultivating an open, reliable Internet environment. Embracing these principles will enable Africa to unlock the complete benefits of digital technologies, fostering inclusive development, empowering communities, and paving the way for a brighter future for everyone.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abdirashid Ibrahim

The ideal digital ecosystem in Africa

 

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa prioritizes rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet.

I recognize the pivotal role that a well-designed digital ecosystem plays in shaping Africa's future. To harness the transformative power of technology for equitable development, we must prioritize rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet across the continent.

Firstly, safeguarding fundamental rights such as privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information is paramount. Governments and stakeholders must enact robust policies and regulations to protect users' data privacy and ensure freedom of expression online. Bridging the digital divide is equally crucial, ensuring that all segments of society, including marginalized communities, have equal access to digital resources and opportunities.

Inclusivity is essential for a sustainable digital ecosystem. We need initiatives to promote digital literacy and skills development, particularly among underserved populations, empowering them to participate fully in the digital economy. Digital platforms and services must be designed with inclusivity in mind, catering to the diverse needs of u

In summary, establishing the optimal Internet ecosystem for Africa necessitates a holistic strategy centered on upholding rights, fostering inclusivity, ensuring security, and cultivating an open, reliable Internet environment. Embracing these principles will enable Africa to unlock the complete benefits of digital technologies, fostering inclusive development, empowering communities, and paving the way for a brighter future for everyone.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Abdirashid Ibrahim

The ideal digital ecosystem in Africa

 

The digital ecosystem I envision for Africa prioritizes rights, inclusivity, security, and an open, trustworthy Internet. Recognizing its pivotal role in shaping Africa's future, we must prioritize these aspects to harness technology for equitable development.

Safeguarding fundamental rights like privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information is paramount. Robust policies and regulations are needed to protect users' data privacy and ensure freedom of expression online. Bridging the digital divide is crucial for ensuring universal access to digital resources, particularly for marginalized communities.

Inclusivity is essential, requiring initiatives for digital literacy and skills development, especially among underserved populations. Digital platforms and services must be designed to cater to diverse needs.

In summary, establishing the optimal Internet ecosystem for Africa demands a holistic strategy focused on upholding rights, fostering inclusivity, ensuring security, and cultivating an open, reliable Internet environment. Embracing these principles will unlock the full benefits of digital technologies, fostering inclusive development and empowering communities across the continent.

0 People voted for this

Increased Reference to UN Charter, UDHR, UNGPs

The introduction to the IWW would be strengthened through referencing the UN charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The IWW should include in its introduction a clear recognition of a state’s obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law and the responsibilities of companies under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). The IWW should also make reference to the fact that human rights apply online and offline in the introduction (in addition to the reference in the section on a “rights-respecting” internet) rather than just committing to “promote a human-centric Internet that ensures respect for human rights…”

The first commitment should be shortened to “promote a human-centric Internet that ensures respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law.” “Harmful behaviors” is a subjective term that can be  weaponized to promote narratives and policies that undermine human rights. Additionally, the introduction should include a commitment to ensure that the IWW’s implementation be connected to discussions in related fora and processes, including but not limited to the Pact for the Future / Global Digital Compact, Code of Conduct on Information Integrity, NetMundial+10, and the World Summit of the Information Society+20 Review. The IWW should also include a commitment to “proactively integrate other communities working on relevant internet governance issues to mitigate the difficulties faced by civil society and small, island, and developing states, which lack the resources to track multiple, simultaneous processes.”

The section on facilitating collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies would be strengthened if rephrased as such: “facilitate collaboration for the development of new and emerging technologies in a trusted manner while continuing to enable innovation and ensure human rights safeguards are protected”

Lastly, on the sentence on internet connectivity, we would recommend rephrasing as follows: “expand connectivity and guarantee meaningful, regular, secure and affordable access for everyone, everywhere”.

0 People voted for this

 

 1. Whole and open

A whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable and stable Internet is vital for sustainable development, the functioning of digital societies and economies, for supporting business operations worldwide, and a prerequisite to the effective functioning of public services such as education, health care or various governmental services. When properly harnessed, information and communication technologies (ICT) and digital technologies are formidable engines of innovation, competitiveness development, sustainable economic growth, and instruments of social, cultural, and economic empowerment for all.

This unique potential can only be fully exploited if the fundamental nature of the Internet as an open, whole, interconnected, and interoperable network of networks is preserved. However, at present, there is a heightened risk that some potential policy or business decisions might fragment the Internet into siloed parts.

The potential fragmentation at either the technical, content or governance layers, threatens the open, whole, interconnected, and interoperable nature of the Internet, and its associated benefits to social and economic development, while also harming human rights.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to ensure that the internet stays whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable, stable and unfragmented.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

chapter 1 "Whole and open"

LINE 3:

A whole, open, free, globally connected, interoperable and stable Internet is vital for sustainable development, the functioning of digital societies and economies, for supporting business operations worldwide, and a prerequisite to the effective functioning of public services such as education, disaster prevention, health care or various governmental services. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Ms Cheryl Langdon-Orr

Support for the 5 principles of 'The Internet We Want'

I wish to have recorded my personal support and endorsement as well as that of the Australian Internet Society Chapter (Internet Australia), which I have the honor of currently leading, for the 5 overarching principles or goals identified by the IGF Leadership Panel for 'The Internet We Want';

An Internet that is:-

1. Whole and open;

2. Universal and inclusive;

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy;

4. Safe and secure; and

5. Rights-respecting.

This resonates with our principles, vision and goals and we will continue to find ways to pursue and protect these going forward as we have in the times to date.

We do however note that particularly at this current and near future time 'The Internet We Have' is exposed to a myriad of risks and pressures that are counter to, or have intended and unintended consequences on these ideals.

The IGF as it is currently evolving could and should take advantage of its unique multistakeholder model, and take the opportunity to work with other actors and I* entities to facilitate discourse and shared understanding of the intended and unintended effects of actions taken and policies made that threaten any or all of these principles;  ensuring not only that the decision and policy makers are fully cognizant of such effects but also that the communities and individuals effected by these actions are aware.

0 People voted for this

Comments from auDA (.au) in support

auDA supports the direction proposed by the Leadership Panel in this section. To avoid fragmentation of the internet , with all the negative consequences for users and innovation this would entail, requires a coherent governance structure, and governance fragmentation should not be allowed to occur.

Where stakeholders, including governments, see the need for new strands of coordination or cooperation, the first approach should be to ground these in existing mechanisms – primarily the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This could include instigating new working methods within those mechanisms that can deliver on new needs, issues and concerns. Such an integrating approach supports coherence and ensures the diverse technologies and policy issues that have the internet at their core, or rely on the internet, will remain able to shape its evolution and be developed in ways more fully aware of the internet’s realities.

If new areas of policy require different assemblies of stakeholders, we suggest applying the internet’s multi-stakeholder approach, given its proven track record in the successful stewardship of the evolving and resilient internet. It is the genuine inclusion of stakeholders and consensus decision-making that has led to the internet’s success. This successful approach can and should be applied more broadly. 

In both current and new areas of internet governance, bolstering the participation of people from all around the world is vital. More participation from under-represented regions and communities is vital to ensure the system is shaped by everyone’s needs and concerns.

0 People voted for this

Integrate Concrete, Action-Oriented Commitments

This section could build on work that has already been carried out within the internet governance community to understand and address internet fragmentation, e.g within the IGF’s Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation. It could call on the global community to further study and advance the recommendations by that mechanism. To address this, we propose adding the following sentence: “The development of technical standards and other state-based efforts to regulate the internet may directly support the enjoyment of human rights and ensure an open, interconnected and interoperable internet. An internet that is not whole and open poses a number of risks to human rights, including the right to privacy, freedom of expression and access to information, amongst others. These risks can emerge from specific laws, policies or other efforts that impact the development and implementation of technical standards and broader user experience.”

The addition of the following principle would also strengthen this connection: “We call on all stakeholders to commit to a principle-based approach to internet governance, grounded in human rights and that commits to protecting the critical properties of global connectivity.” The IWW should also encourage all stakeholders to not only promote the continuity of a whole and open internet but also efforts to counter threats to it such as by adding the following to the last sentence of this section: “A commitment to not politicise the core technical elements of the internet - such as domain name systems, identifiers, etc.; refraining from imposing bans or restrictions on international data flows or engaging in techno-protectionist initiatives, interfering with free expression, and Internet shutdowns all work towards achieving this aim.”

Additionally, the call to action is currently very high-level and lacks sufficient detail to provide adequate guidance to stakeholders. We would encourage the drafters to integrate the following to strengthen this section: “A principle-based approach grounded in human rights and that commits to protecting the critical properties of global connectivity is needed. These commitments need to be specific and tied to concrete actions.” Examples of such commitments include conducting research to ‘connect the dots’ between policy discussion and the technical components of the internet, ensuring there is meaningful engagement with stakeholders in all stages of  policy development with a view of identifying threats to an open internet, and developing and implementing means of measuring the incremental steps that are leading to internet fragmentation, among others.

0 People voted for this

2. Universal and inclusive

Since its inception, the Internet has evolved from an information exchange network to the platform for sustainable social and economic development we recognise it to be today. An open, stable, and trusted Internet is vital for the effective functioning of a diverse array of services, as varied as agriculture, energy, healthcare, manufacturing, or education, continuously reimagining the way people interact with their peers, businesses, and governments. However, despite the enormous progress in expanding connectivity in recent years, 2.7 billion people remain unconnected.

Connecting the unconnected and reconnecting the disconnected is not just about infrastructure and access to the Internet. Meaningful connectivity also requires focus on bridging the barriers to adoption, including creating and maintaining an enabling environment in which locally relevant, local language content is created, as well as adopting policies and tools designed to identify and address skills gaps. The enduring digital divides in access, application, and skills among and within countries emphasise the need for universal, affordable, and meaningful connectivity in order to reach the development potential of the Internet, ICTs, and digital technologies. Meaningful connectivity should also be secure, resilient and cost-effective.

In pursuit of these goals and of a human-centric, sustainable digitalization, all stakeholders must improve their understanding of how ICTs work in practice, including knowledge of the ICT ecosystem, the roles of the various stakeholders and relevant policy issues.

Frameworks that enable Internet connectivity should be based on light-touch ICT policy and regulations, encourage universal access through competition and the entry of new players into the ICT ecosystem to foster the emergence of innovative products, services, and business models. Policy and regulatory mechanisms should consider the value of the entire communications and digital services ecosystem. They should be non-discriminatory, technology-neutral, and supportive of innovative business models and the development of a wide range of technologies, standards, and system architectures. Successful efforts to deliver universal meaningful connectivity need to balance the needs of all stakeholders, should be grounded in evidence and data, should seek global harmonisation in terms of interoperability and standards, should enable the effective management of spectrum between all stakeholders, and must facilitate investment across the entire digital value chain.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to move towards universal meaningful connectivity for everyone, everywhere, to encourage the uptake of new technologies at need, and to address skills gaps.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Abraham Fiifi Selby

The Internet we want towards Universal and Inclusiveness

In the critical step towards building a digital future that benefits all, building a truly universal and inclusive internet demands ongoing dialogue, innovative solutions, and a commitment to shared values. By collaborating and setting ambitious but achievable goals, we can create a digital space that empowers everyone to thrive.

These goals and areas can help build more towards "the internet we want"

  1. Universal Access and Connectivity
  2. Inclusion and Diversity
  3. Content Accessibility and Multilingualism
  4. Openness and Participation
  5. Safety and Security

Stakeholder groups must be able to;

  • Ensure affordable and reliable internet access for all, particularly low-income populations and remote regions.
  • Empower marginalized communities to actively participate in shaping the internet and digital policy, ensuring diverse voice heard.
  • Promote the development and use of multilingual content and tools, fostering cultural understanding and knowledge exchange.
  • Encourage multistakeholder participation in internet governance, including civil society, technical communities, and private sector.
  • Promote transparency and accountability in online platforms and data practices, empowering users to control their information.
  • Protect user privacy and data security, implementing robust safeguards against misuse and exploitation.
  • Promote ethical and responsible use of artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies, mitigating potential risks to human rights and democracy.

These actions can be achieved through collaborative efforts where Governments, civil society, technical communities, and the p must work together to develop and implement effective solutions with youth advocates funding that can help address these ch the local level to the global level. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

new wording for para 2 : Universal and inclusive

LINE 12:

The enduring digital divides in access, application, and skills among and within countries emphasise the need for universal, affordable, and meaningful connectivity in order to reach the development potential of the Internet, ICTs, and of all digital technologies. Meaningful connectivity should also be secure, resilient and cost-effective, and able to reach the whole of the population (including rural areas and the poorer). 

LINE 17: 

Policy and regulatory mechanisms should consider the value of the entire communications and digital services ecosystem but have to prevent the creation of monopolies.

LINE 25:

should seek global harmonisation in terms of interoperability and standards, should enable the effective management of spectrum between all stakeholders (preserving the free-to-air services for emergency communication), and must facilitate investment across the digital value chain. 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Anna Kompanek

Address barriers to access

To achieve a truly universal and inclusive internet, the IGF community should consider how women and marginalized communities such as persons with disabilities, refugees, and LGBTQ+ communities experience the internet, and what barriers to access they face which are often greater than the barriers for general population. Barriers to access go beyond insufficient ICT infrastructure or prohibitive costs. Factors such as online gender-based violence and harassment and inaccessible technologies have further hindered the promise of a universal and inclusive internet for all. The IGF Secretariat should consider including metrics that seek not only to promote the affordability of the internet access, but also take steps to reduce harassment online (which often translates into physical risks offline) and examine how to improve the accessibility of online content and affordability of assistive technologies, especially for persons with disabilities from Global Majority countries.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Universal and inclusive

As we are approaching twenty years since the inception of the forum, Internet access is still an important topic for the Arab region and for many developing countries. Issues related to access are not limited only to the number of Internet users, but they became more complex to include the quality of service, bandwidth, reasonable cost for all, size of investment in Internet infrastructure and securing this infrastructure. Furthermore, finding alternative means and quick solutions for Internet access in areas of instability and natural disasters to alleviate the suffering of individuals in these areas remains a huge challenge for everyone.

0 People voted for this

Comments from auDA (.au) in support

auDA supports the direction proposed by the Leadership Panel in this section. In our view, the primary goals should be:

  • To ensure affordable connectivity to the internet is accessible to all people everywhere, through the diverse and increasingly resilient physical connectivity models now available.

     
  • To ensure that all people everywhere have access to the training and support that would allow them to realise the internet’s promise, and to be equipped to deal with the risks that can come with internet access.

     
  • To encourage widespread adoption of universal access principles so that all online services and systems accept input in all scripts, making the online world more fully multilingual.

The first goal is in sight, and would require stakeholders (particularly governments, given their role) to support infrastructure rollout and to engage in targeted support for disadvantaged people and communities.

The second goal is underway but is a multi-generational effort. All stakeholders could engage in supporting training and other initiatives that help people learn about the opportunities the internet offers and how to use it securely and confidently.

The third goal requires action by all stakeholders offering online services and should simply be factored in as an essential component of all system renewal efforts. It could be helpful for the Leadership Panel to propose a date after which all stakeholders publicly commit that any service or product launched will be characterised by universal accessibility.

0 People voted for this

Need for an Intersectional Gender Perspective & Accessibility

The IWW should encompass an intersectional gender perspective that recognizes and takes into consideration the different impact that digital technologies have on women, girls and people of diverse genders and sexualities. Currently, this section mentions the digital divide but does not address its disproportionate impact on women and girls, persons with disabilities, and those in vulnerable or marginalised situations. We encourage the drafters to ensure their perspectives are integrated into the final document.

 

Additionally, while we applaud the commitment to non-discrimination, we encourage the drafters to integrate the following as essential to ensuring an open and diverse model of internet governance: “the inclusion and integration of all perspectives, particularly those subject to discrimination or other forms of marginalisation.”

 

There is also a concerning lack of commitment to accessibility. This could be remedied through the addition of a commitment to ensure that internet governance processes and forums are “open, inclusive, accessible, consensus-driven, and transparent. This includes ensuring that stakeholders from the Global Majority and other under-represented groups in global public policymaking can fully participate in decision-making processes and providing adequate notice and funding and accessible accreditation systems.”

 

This section should also encourage all stakeholders to take a comprehensive and holistic approach to understanding the potential impact of regulatory frameworks on the internet. We encourage the drafters to include a recommendation for governments and policymakers “to meaningfully engage with all stakeholders in policy development, with the view to identifying threats to an open internet - particularly as these might be inadvertent.” This call to action would strengthen this section.

0 People voted for this

3. Free-flowing and trustworthy

Cross-border data flows underpin many aspects of business today — cloud services, remote work, workplace collaboration, management of human resources, customer relationships and supply chains. They also underpin distance learning, telemedicine, the fight against cybercrime and child abuse online, fraud monitoring and prevention, investigation of counterfeit products, and a broad range of other activities. The processing and transfer of both personal and non-personal data are integral to many of these exchanges, making trust a vital element for resilient and sustainable economic growth and recovery.

However, there is an increasing lack of trust, or confidence, due to concerns that policy objectives—such as privacy, national security, consumer and human rights protection, access to data or even industrial competitiveness—would be compromised when data moves abroad. This lack of trust serves as the rationale for the adoption of an increasing number of data localisation and sovereignty measures, leading to fragmented national approaches to data governance and a growing number of restrictions that prohibit or considerably encumber cross-border data flows. Failure to address this lack of trust and to find an appropriate trust model risks impeding cross-border data flows, thereby limiting economies of scale and scope, driving inefficient, unsustainable investment, and restricting innovation.

Promoting policies that facilitate the adoption of applicable technologies and the global movement of data, including through governance models that allow for data-sharing for public good, is fundamental to harnessing their significant economic and social benefits. In particular, policymakers should support open cross-border data flows, while also assuring the protection of privacy, security, as well as intellectual property, and that those protections are implemented through a risk-based approach and in a manner that is transparent, non-discriminatory and in line with the principles of necessity and proportionality.

Trust is strengthened when governments adopt robust and comprehensive commitments to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, including the fundamental right to privacy. In addition, cooperation between governments and stakeholders including business and multilateral organisations is needed to advocate for interoperable policy frameworks that would facilitate cross-border data flows, enabling data to be exchanged, shared, and used in a trusted manner, thereby aiming for high privacy standards.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to unlock the value of data flows for sustainable development of all and enshrine trust as the prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

New wording for para 3: Free-flowing

LINE 28: (conclusions)

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to unlock the value of data flows for sustainable development of all and enshrine trust as the prerequisite for data sharing regimes, founded on the protection of data. The free-flow of data could then happen among countries that guarantee the same level of data protection to their citizens and companies.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Free-flowing and trustworthy

With our life becoming more digital, misleading and false information has become a major concern for everyone. Its impact is not limited only to economic harm, but it extends to destabilize societies, harm civic peace, and threaten the lives of individuals. During the covid pandemic, it reached to the level where it harmed public health and caused the loss of lives. Therefore, it is important to adopt appropriate and acceptable mechanisms and frameworks that verify such information, its sources, and reduce its dissemination. These mechanisms and frameworks must take into consideration that the world is a mixture of cultures and ideas and that what is acceptable in one part of the world may not be acceptable in another part. Consequently, these mechanisms and frameworks must be neutral and not influenced by the ideology or thoughts of any group.

0 People voted for this

auDA (.au) support of this

auDA supports the Leadership Panel’s direction. The internet is a global network of networks. It was not designed to follow national boundaries and there is no public interest in shaping it, or the services that operate using the internet, in such a fashion.

Concerns around security and privacy of data are important, and should be dealt with through multi-stakeholder processes that would see rising standards, and thus rising trust and confidence in every corner of the internet and for all those offering services online.

Likewise, governments in particular could collaborate under IGF auspices to drive shared ideas and establish norms for consumer protection approaches. Doing so could drive compatible or somewhat harmonised regulatory and policy approaches. This is important to help make sure that national concerns and priorities can be achieved in a way that does not compromise a broadly free-flowing and trustworthy internet environment.

The alternative approach of increasingly national silos with specific regulation, lack of cross-border data flows and decreasing trust, would be a poor alternative option. It would lead to fewer opportunities for people in any given place, and overall higher costs and less efficiency. That is a high price to pay, and it is a price we can choose not to pay if we work collectively to mitigate current privacy and security risks and concerns.

0 People voted for this

Stronger Statement on the Right to Privacy

This section would benefit from a stronger statement on the right to privacy, such as by including the following: “States should recognize the right to privacy as a universal, indivisible, interdependent human right that applies across borders and media and is intrinsically linked to the effective protection of personal data. This could be complemented through the inclusion of the following recommendation: “ that the collection, processing, sharing and use of personal data be subject to personal data protection regulation that is in line with international human rights law standards.” The IWW should also emphasise that the adoption and implementation of data protection regulation should be a prerequisite for the adoption of applicable technologies and the global movement of data; these protections are even more important in light of the vast capabilities of generative AI to process personal data.

 

This section would also be strengthened by adding the following: “It is important for all stakeholders - especially policymakers - to recognise the importance of technical solutions to protecting the confidentiality of digital communications, such as encryption and anonymity, which are critical for the enjoyment of all human rights offline and online.” We would recommend adding this sentence at the end of the paragraph on trust and the right to privacy. 

 

Additionally, we suggest adding the following sentence to the call to action:  “We encourage all stakeholders to not seek to influence technical protocols and standards or their implementation in a way that would impede the free flow of information globally or otherwise act in ways that do not promote and encourage respect for human rights and/or facilitate human rights violations and abuses.”

 

To the paragraph on “....cooperation between governments and stakeholders including business and multilateral organisations,” we would suggest noting that “cooperation is needed among different stakeholders not only for interoperable policy frameworks that would facilitate cross-border data flows, but also to ensure that these security principles do not inadvertently limit the global, open nature of the Internet.”

 

0 People voted for this

4. Safe and secure

Cyberspace is now an intrinsic part of every country’s development, creating enormous opportunities and enabling economic and societal growth. At the same time, the indispensable nature of cyberspace in day-to-day human activities also generates growing vulnerabilities. Rapid digitalisation is testing the resilience of cyber infrastructures. The escalating vulnerabilities resulting from disparate states of cyber hygiene hinder the effectiveness of countermeasures against cyber attacks, threatening to thwart the potential economic impact of ICT and digital technologies.

The borderless nature of the Internet and the associated digital economy, the increased cyber-physical interdependency of IoT, and cybercrime paint a complex legal and operational picture for cybersecurity. A collective, collaborative multistakeholder approach is required to find meaningful ways and effective solutions to mitigate local, cross-border and global cybersecurity concerns.

To empower and protect societies from increased cybersecurity risks, the international multistakeholder community should explore practical ways to mainstream cybersecurity capacity building (CCB) into broader digital development efforts. This is also essential for building resilient societies and promoting a whole-of-society approach to dealing with threats emanating from cyberspace.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user nocheaptraffic

Effects of Low Price of Non-targeted Web Traffic

While governmental agencies have been focusing on the topic of targeted onlline advertising and the subsequent privacy concerns, the  topic of non-targeted traffic has been left completely out of the discussion for web safety and the ethics of advertising.
 

The sale and purchase of non-targeted web traffic for the purpose of advertising has created a massive financial incentive for rampant online advertising of unregulated health products, illegitimate retailers, borderline-legal scams and predatory industries such as online gambling. These types of malignant advertisers, including many ones involved in criminal activity, depend on the low price of non-targeted traffic to continue their operations which often prey on vulnerable web users such as seniors and underage users.

A proposal as seen at https://nocheaptraffic.com suggests that the reallocation of funds from massive governmental advertising budgets could raise the price of non-targeted traffic and remove the financial incentive for the advertising of unregulated products, criminal activities and malware. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

New wording for para 4: Safe and secure

LINE 8:

The borderless nature of the Internet and the associated digital economy, the increased cyber-physical interdependency of IoT, disinformation and cybercrime paint a complex legal and operational picture for cybersecurity. A collective, collaborative multistakeholder approach is required to find meaningful ways and effective solutions to mitigate local, cross-border and global cybersecurity concerns. 

LINE 11: 

his is also essential for building resilient sustainable societies and promoting a whole-of-society approach to dealing with threats emanating from cyberspace, especially during elections times.  

LINE 17 (conclusions):

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to establish and implement robust frameworks for high levels of cybersecurity, and strong recommendations for legal structures, practices, and cross-border cooperation to combat cybercrime. Principles of the Open internet will apply to countries that are committed to this system.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Anna Kompanek

Include perspectives from the local private sector

To assess how to ensure the digital economy remains safe and secure, multistakeholder consultations should include perspectives from local business communities from across the Global Majority, such as small and medium-sized enterprises, business associations, and chambers of commerce. These local private sector actors are important drivers of the ever-growing digital economy yet are largely excluded from crucial conversations on internet governance and cybersecurity. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user qshatti_1897

Safe and Secure

Cybersecurity is becoming increasingly important with the growth in internet use. Internet users are increasingly exposed to cyber risks. Economic losses from cyber risks are in the increase too. With time, we have experienced how cyber risks evolve into new patterns that we did not experience before. There is an urgent need for international and regional mechanisms to confront cyber risks and enhance cooperation in this field among all stakeholders. The need for an international convention similar to the “Budapest Convention on Cybercrime” is becoming more of an urgent matter that requires the cooperation of everyone.

0 People voted for this

auDA (.au) supports this goal

auDA broadly supports the Leadership Panel’s direction. We propose adding two areas of focus:

  • Embedding Secure-by-Design principles into the creation of all internet-connected devices, such that they are less likely to become security risks over time
  • Generating momentum - particularly in the small business and small organisation sectors - towards more effective maintenance and management of software and services, so that for example, patching and updating key systems happens more often.

Both would be best achieved by effective and well-resourced multi-stakeholder forums that bring all the relevant expertise and perspectives together so that all stakeholders are informed and can share commitments to act. Trying this approach is justified given the failure of the current global approach to deliver the levels of security that are needed.

Secure-by-Design: https://www.cyber.gov.au/resources-business-and-government/governance-and-user-education/secure-by-design#
 

0 People voted for this

Development, Data Privacy, and Int'l Peace & Security

The IWW should reiterate that international law, including the UN Charter, international humanitarian law and the international human rights law apply to the maintenance of international peace and security - including in cyberspace. The IWW should also make reference to the acquis of responsible state behaviour in cyberspace, and to the establishment and operationalisation of a Cyber Programme of Action where relevant. As a call to action, the IWW should integrate the following: “We encourage all stakeholders to commit to supporting the effective implementation of the acquis, and of international law which underpins the acquis and international peace and security in cyberspace.”

 

The IWW should also recognise the asymmetries and inequalities that underlie the global digital economy, and emphasise the need for investment in digital technology for the public good by ensuring that all peoples can benefit, including groups subject to historic and structural forms of discrimination and persons in vulnerable situations. The IWW should subsequently recognise that human rights and sustainable development are not competing values but mutually reinforcing: it should reaffirm that human rights is an enabler of sustainable development – noting that the goals and targets correspond with states’ existing human rights obligations – and that attainment of the Agenda 2030 can only be achieved through the effective realisation of human rights. The IWW should also incorporate a commitment to mainstream cyber resilience across international development programming and the integration of cyber capacity building community of practise with the development field.

 

Finally, the IWW should reiterate that the protection of personal data is intrinsically linked to the right to privacy, and emphasise the importance of the adoption and implementation of comprehensive data protection frameworks The IWW should also emphasise the important role data protection safeguards play in enabling effective cybersecurity and of peace and security in the use of data-driven technologies.

 

0 People voted for this

5. Rights-respecting

Human rights must be respected online and offline. Governments are responsible to ensure that human rights are respected, protected, and promoted, while businesses and digital service providers are obliged to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights. Governments must refrain from internet shutdowns. Any restriction of access to the Internet must be lawful, legitimate, necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory.

All stakeholder groups have the responsibility to promote transparency, accountability, and human rights due diligence throughout the lifecycle of existing, new and emerging technologies. We have learned that certain behaviours on the Internet can be very harmful to our societies. The Internet we want will protect us from them.

A human rights-based approach to Internet governance is required in order to realize the full benefits of the Internet for all, including the rights to education, to participation in public and cultural life or to access to information, as well as empowering businesses of all sizes. To that end, standards development organisations should introduce processes to ensure due consideration of human rights in their work, including by inviting participation of experts from all stakeholder communities.

We call on the stakeholders of the Internet to set goals to ensure a human rights-based approach to Internet governance, and to promote human rights in the digital space.

If we are to achieve the Internet we want, we have significant multistakeholder work ahead of us, including collaboration with existing and ongoing initiatives.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user giacomo.mazzone_19850

New wording for para 5: Rights respecting

LINE 3:

Human rights must be respected online and offline. Governments are responsible to ensure that human rights are respected, protected, and promoted, while businesses and digital service providers are obliged to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights, including the one of the citizens to be properly informed. Governments must refrain from internet shutdowns. 

LINE 14: 

To that end, standards development organisations should introduce processes to ensure due consideration of human rights in their work, including by inviting participation of experts from all stakeholder communities, with the aim to deliver HR compliant-by-design standards.

LINE 18:

If we are to achieve the Internet we want, we have significant multistakeholder work ahead of us, including collaboration with existing and ongoing initiatives, starting from WSIS follow up and the GDC, plus all the others concerning Artificial Intelligence.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Anna Kompanek

Embed rights considerations into the internet governance process

Multistakeholder consultations that include perspectives from Global Majority stakeholders from civil society, the local private sector, and independent media are essential in achieving a rights-respecting digital space. However, these important stakeholders are often absent or underrepresented during the development and implementation of national legislation and regional frameworks that impact the future of the internet and human rights on- and offline. Similarly, international technical bodies on internet governance should provide more opportunities for inclusive consultations across diverse stakeholder groups. Therefore, we recommend that the IGF Secretariat considers including goals for both governments and international multilateral organizations to expand opportunities for multistakeholder consultations on how to achieve a digital space that respects human rights in the digital age. 

0 People voted for this

auDA supports this goal (.au)

auDA supports the Leadership Panel’s contention that human rights apply offline and online. The human rights framework is substantially intergovernmental in character, given the nature of such frameworks are grounded in law and protected by the state (noting also the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights).

In many areas of life, it is the technology industry and the Standards Development Organisations (SDOs) that underpin the design and deployment of new and emerging technology. It is essential that, in pursuing innovation, human rights centered designs are the norm and appropriate human rights guardrails are included.  Where they are not, new and emerging technologies can pose an increased risk to human rights.

It may be that internet governance and human rights stakeholders should be convened (under the auspices of the IGF) to consider the issue of how the internet governance system – not just SDOs but, the IGF processes, WSIS, and indeed all parts of the community – can better integrate human rights-supporting approaches in their work, and come to a common understanding of how the human rights framework can best be included and fully implemented online.

Given the rapid pace of change in technology, including those that rely on the internet, this may need to be an ongoing dialogue over time.

0 People voted for this

Ensure Grounding in IHRL and Frameworks

This section would be strengthened if it begins with reference to the “universal respect for, and observance and protection of, all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, other relevant instruments relating to human rights, and international law" and then followed by “any restriction of access to the Internet must be lawful, legitimate, necessary, proportional, and non-discriminatory.” This could be in addition to the point that “Governments are responsible to ensure that human rights are respected, protected, and promoted while businesses and digital service providers are obliged to comply with all applicable laws and to respect human rights.”

0 People voted for this

Report from Expert Group Meeting

Report from Expert Group Meeting

Below are the key action points from the IGF Expert Group Meeting (EGM) hosted in New York on 30 March - 1 April 2022. The EGM action points are subject to public commenting. Comments can be added through the platform below after each section by clicking on ''View and Add Comments for Paragraph''.
A full report of the EGM is available here.

Deadline to post comments is 26 May 2022.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Anonymous Wed, 13/04/2022 - 22:35

[EGM REPORT]

The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) convened an Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) from 30 March to 1 April 2022.  The Meeting was hosted by the Mission of the Government of Finland in New York. 

The meeting was convened, in the context of the Secretary-General’s Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and report on Our Common Agenda, to consider:

  • how the IGF can contribute to ‎advancing digital cooperation and implementing proposed initiatives related to it; and
  • the ongoing process on strengthening and improving the IGF as a space for ‎global multistakeholder discussion on Internet policy issues. 

The meeting was attended by 35 invited experts from developing and developed countries and from diverse stakeholder groups concerned with Internet governance and the IGF including governments, international and intergovernmental organisations, the private sector, civil society and the technical community.   

The agenda was structured through a series of sessions exploring different aspects of its theme.  These began on Day 1 with discussion of the role of the IGF in relation to the Digital Cooperation agenda and the development of ‘actionable’ outputs; continued on Day 2 with discussions, in the light of those held on Day 1, of the IGF’s plenary and intersessional activities and the future roles of its Leadership Panel and Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG); and concluded on Day 3 with discussion of fundraising, outreach and capacity development. 

This short report lists the observations and suggestions made during each session on which there was significant consensus.  A longer version of this report includes more detail concerning discussions at the Meeting.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

35 invited experts from developing and developed countries

IGF is a Multistakeholder group or concept with bottoms up approach. 
why is it that every time when it comes to topics like representation, inclusion and diversity the lower economic region  countries are missed out. I see the same people in the internet community with the same issue and same agenda. IGF has to grow better than the concept of gender in the inclusion, New and fresh leaders in the concept of representation and  diversity.

I highly recommend  to the IGF secretariat to have better inclusive and collaborative approach with new and fresh leaders from the community. 
 

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

EGM Report consultation process

It is important to read the full EGM report (only 21 pages covering 11 themes) at  https://www.intgovforum.org/en/filedepot_download/8/21302  because it provides the necessary context and explanations in order to fully understand the rationales for all the observations and suggestions.

More time should have been allowed for large corporate organisations and public agencies, governments and regulators, and for the NRIs and dynamic coalitions in the IGF eco-system, to consult their stakeholder communities and members on the EGM's proposals. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Introduction

The EGM held detailed and active discussions on each item on its agenda, beginning with the framework for digital cooperation identified by the Secretary-General and, in that light, considering how the IGF can most effectively contribute to digital cooperation, improve and develop its own work, and establish partnerships and directions for the future. 

Participants recognised that the Internet has changed markedly in the seventeen years since the mandate for the IGF was established at WSIS, and that the Forum needs to adapt, innovate and reform in response to this.  Critical changes since that time relate not just to the technology and services that constitute the Internet, but to its increasingly pervasive reach; its impact on economy, society and culture; its effects on relations between government, business and the citizen; and its relationship with further innovations in digital technology, such as artificial intelligence.  International discourse on these issues is increasingly concerned with the interface between the Internet and other areas of public policy, and with risks as well as opportunities associated with pervasive digitalisation as this reshapes societies in ways that are often unpredictable.  It now takes place within a much larger range of institutions and decision-making fora than was the case when the IGF was founded.

It was generally recognised in the Meeting that the modalities established at the Forum’s outset have served it well, and that its model of multistakeholder dialogue has been both successful and influential.  It was also recognised that these modalities need to evolve.  The Forum itself has changed over the years, transitioning from an annual conference to an ecosystem that includes intersessional activities and regional and national fora alongside its global meeting.  There have been a number of discussions over the past decade concerning possible improvements to the IGF, especially concerned with the call for it to develop more substantive outcomes.  There has been increased focus recently on finding ways for the Forum to become more coherent and cohesive, taking a more holistic view of its various components and leveraging these for greater impact.  The emergence of the Digital Cooperation agenda and the introduction of the Leadership Panel reflect heightened awareness of digital issues across the UN system and provide an opportunity for the IGF community and stakeholders to reflect on how it should develop and revitalise, and implement improvements, ahead of the scheduled mandate review in 2025.

Observations and suggestions

The following observations and suggestions arose from the discussion.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

International discourse on these issues is increasingly concerne

IGF has a bigger hinderance of 
1. communication barriers 
2. lack of core values 
3. Language barriers 
4. Many more 

At regional level generally what happens is the bigger nation eats up the smaller nation issues. The major focus goes to the good communication skills and a lot of the times proposal and discussion happens on the basis of merit of evaluation  not on seriousness  of the issue.

Asia is dominated by the few developed nation where the focus goes to those nation whoes representative have good English and china is excluded out of it. There is a greater part of the politics that goes hand to hand with this   

The core issue of the multistakeholder challenges at grassroots level remains same and untouched. 

At national level a lot of the times NGOs and INGOs manifests their problems and challenges exploiting the opportunity  where the grassroots level issues and problems remains untouched. 

 

1 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Kapil Goyal

Reply to

Lack of political will power

Dear Shri, 

Apart from said concerns, I believe Lack of strong support from regional and state government is one of the key issue. We all need to voice our concern at various stakeholders meet both online and offline to address this issue. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

On how internet has changed, and pervasive reach/digitalization

Within the Internet ecosystem, change is inevitable. The "change" is not technical but largely driver by the users. But what the participants in this meeting should have weighed is whether this mutated internet ecosystem over the years has served the IGF's interests which was mandated 17 years ago. Where have we failed and where have we succeeded? Have we really endorsed the multistakeholder governance model? Have we made taken substantial leaps every year(or an assigned timeframe) to practice this model?

In choice of words, "pervasive" should be balanced with "progressive" too. Use of only one word can bring negative connotations. 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF and the Global Digital Compact (GDC)

I agree with the report's advocacy of the IGF being the preeminent multistakeholder platform for developing the Global Digital Compact  which will also be an important milestone in the lead up to the WSIS+20 review and the UN's review of the IGF mandate in 2025. The Compact  will also be an important milestone in the lead up to the WSIS+20 review and IGF mandate review in 2025. The timeline for agreeing the Compact ahead of next year's Summit for the Future includes the holding of only one IGF meeting. The planning now for this year's IGF in Addis Ababa should therefore include an open preparatory phase for agreeing and delivering  a substantive contribution to the Compact that is based on inclusive multistakeholder discussion involving communities in all regions of the world. The global network of over 150 regional, sub-regional, national and youth IGFs needs to be involved in this process as soon as possible in order for them to hold stakeholder consultations within their own timelines and schedules of events. The views of young people need to be taken into account in the Compact.      

1 People voted for this

The Forum itself has changed…

The Forum itself has changed over the years, transitioning from an annual conference to an ecosystem that includes intersessional activities and regional and national fora alongside its global meeting. 

credit card processing 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

1.   The role of the IGF in relation to the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Our Common Agenda

  1. The IGF is an ecosystem and should act as a platform for stakeholder engagement on implementation of the Roadmap and development of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) which is to be prepared ahead of the Summit of the Future.  Steps towards this would include consultation within and beyond the IGF community and could include aggregation by the Forum of inputs from diverse organisations.
  2. National, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives (NRIs) should be invited to support this process, in order to enable comprehensive local input, by conducting their own consultations and discussions on their own agendas.
  3. The Secretariat should consider what existing outputs from the IGF ecosystem could contribute towards the GDC, and how this contribution might be realised.
  4. The annual meeting in 2022 should focus on the GDC, building on the MAG’s decision to align the agenda with its overarching theme and five focus areas.  The MAG should consider how to facilitate this, in order to encourage more focused discussions, leading to more substantive messages of particular relevance to the GDC.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

National, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives (NRIs)

Should add and highlight independent "individuals" in the process.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user amritachoudhury8_1459

Role of IGF wrt Roadmap of DC and GDC

Agree with all the recommendations mentioned under Point 1.   The role of the IGF in relation to the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Our Common Agenda.

Additinally,  IGF will also have to play a role with the help of the NRIs need to conduct capacity building sessions to explain to different communities spread across the globe (who may not have a similar understanding) on what the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and Our Common Agenda is. This will help to get inputs from communities who till now have not engaged in IGF processes. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

2.   The relationship of the IGF to intergovernmental, international and other decision-making bodies, including those within the Internet governance ecosystem and those in wider global governance

1.   The MAG should consider the needs of other organisations and decision-making bodies, concerning the Internet itself and issues impacted by the Internet, when deciding its agenda.  To achieve this, it should identify/map organisations and decision-making spaces that are particularly relevant to its work and prioritise the development of relationships with them.

2.  Stronger interactions should be built with other UN and international entities, including the General Assembly, the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, the Office of the Envoy on Technology, lead agencies within the UN Group on the Information Society (UNGIS) that facilitate the implementation of WSIS outcomes, and the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development.  IGF outputs should be communicated to UN entities and consideration given to how these can disseminate them and raise the visibility of the Forum with Member States.

3.   The Leadership Panel should play a leading role in promoting IGF outputs and building relationships with senior staff including those in government and business communities, not least by encouraging participation by senior personnel in the annual meeting’s high-level and parliamentary tracks.

4.   The work of the Leadership Panel should, as resources permit, be supported by a dedicated member of the Secretariat staff with responsibility for liaising with decision-making bodies and enhancing the Forum’s visibility.

5.   The annual IGF meeting could consider including an additional special track for judges, lawyers and law enforcement specialists, in addition to the existing high level and parliamentary tracks.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The Leadership Panel should play a leading role in promoting IGF

The most important role of MAG or leadership panel is to give continuation of what our MAG chair Ms. Anriette Esterhuysen achieved. The MAG process needs to be fluid and open,  transparent and more collaborative with the community and people. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

Stronger interactions should be built with other UN and internat

maybe including that stronger interactions should be built between National and Regional initiatives and the UN entities. For example this year for the first time we had some sinergies between the Youth Coalition and the UNGMCY, maybe that could be the start of a relationship that is mutual benefit for widening the IGF worldwide.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

Top priority should be to fulfill SDG, target 9.c

The Sustainable Development Goal -target 9.c commits to “Significantly increase access to information and communication technologies and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the internet in least developed countries by 2020.” But nearly two year has passed since the deadline.  It is becoming more urgent to achieve this goal- hence all the UN agencies and respective stakeholder should concentrate and progress towards achieving this as the foremost priority. "Access" is the most important thing and LDC's are decrying for what they think is  a "privilege"- while this is a fundamental "right". 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Role of the Leadership Panel

I support the role of the Leadership Panel as "ambassadors for the IGF", promoting worldwide the IGF model of multistakeholder governance and the impact of the IGF's  outputs. The Panel has a key role in increasing the diversity of participation in all IGF sessions so that they include more high level policy makers from governments and regulators, more decision-takers from industry sectors and representative organisations outside the Internet's technical community and service providers, and more representatives of youth organisations. The Panel should work in close coordination with the MAG in identifying priority themes, and key global/regional issues for the IGF's multi-year strategy. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

3.   Development of outputs and expected outcomes that will facilitate the extended role of IGF in the international decision-making ecosystem

1.   The MAG, supported by the Secretariat, should plan strategically to develop actionable outputs that address issues which matter to decision-making bodies, on which it can make a substantial contribution (building on its unique multistakeholder character and ecosystem), and consider how to build consensus towards such actionable outputs.  This goal relates to consideration of issue focus and multi-annual programming (see session/theme 7).

2.   Outputs should be focused on the needs of target audiences.  A limited number of concise messages, focused on programme themes, should be prepared at or following the end of annual meetings.  These should be forwarded to the Secretary-General for the attention of the General Assembly, and separately addressed to Internet governance entities and senior decision-makers.  The Leadership Panel could play an important role in ensuring that IGF messages reach these intended targets.  More substantial, evidence-based supporting outputs are appropriate for policy advisers and for subject experts. 

3.   The development of outputs should involve all parts of the IGF ecosystem, including discussions and participants in NRIs as well as the main meeting and intersessional activities, in order to maximise the value of experience within the IGF community.

4.   The Secretariat should map outputs that have already been prepared, identifying those that could be used now to contribute to decision-making processes and to the GDC. 

5.    The MAG should consider what outputs might result from IGF discussions when structuring the annual agenda.  It should encourage session organisers to have the scope for potential recommendations and outputs in mind when planning sessions.  The meeting programme should be structured in ways that build momentum towards outputs (see session/theme 7).

6.  A new communications strategy should be developed to enhance the visibility of the Forum, including the promotion of outputs/messages.  This could include new dissemination mechanisms such as senior-level and “ambassadorial” endorsements, policy briefings, seminars and improved website content.  Modalities should be included to enable impact assessment.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

A new communications strategy should be developed

Communication has been a major challenges in the community
1. From collaborating with the leaders to getting feedback from the community, Ambassadors, leaders,  fellows  and new leader should also be given responsibility and opportunity to grow 
2. A collaborative inter communication strategy should be developed with all (I star organization ) for better collaboration 
3. Better engagement strategy is also needed 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

Development of outputs and expected outcomes that will facilitat

This was widely discussed at least since 2016, about maintaining a real bottom-up structure, that is, where the outputs of the national IGF events go to the regional ones (this does not have to be ordered in 1 year but in a process continuous). From the regional to the global, in this way, all the workaround public policies, replication, and other elements of digital cooperation that are being lost today can be captured.

The idea then would be to fine-tune these processes of multistakeholderism, including artificial intelligence for consensus and having a single text-based platform like the IGF Review platform that we're using right now, extended to really be able to seek consensus. There should be some committee of volunteers or experts in the area who carry out the consensus with the help of some AI tool.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

On Communication Strategy

The communication strategy should be revamped every year in accordance with the new trends and platforms. Transmedia storytelling could be a great way to move forward for wider reach and simplified content.  Different mediums and platforms for communication can be used for disseminating variety of content. Let's focus on identifying, how the same content can be modified for serving various mediums. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF Outputs

It is important for the impact of the IGF's more substantive outputs to be measured,  reported and promoted worldwide through the UN system with the help of the Leadership Panel. The IGF session organisers have an important role in contributing to the definition and context of key "messages" and tangible outcomes such as menus of policy options, charters of principles, toolkits and guidelines, so that they can be promoted by the Panel as based on the authoritative consensus of experts convened by the IGF. The leaders and coordinators of the intersessional work of the IGF's policy networks, best practice fora and the dynamic coalitions should also be regularly consulted by the Leadership Panel on the definition, progress, reporting and dissemination of IGF outputs.  This will also help to achieve more cross-fertilisation and coherence within the IGF eco-system on issues of shared concern, and reduce the incidence of work being conducted  in silos of IGF activity.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

4.   The IGF ecosystem

1.   The IGF should describe itself as an ecosystem rather than an annual conference that has accrued associated activities.  This will recognise the importance of intersessional activities and NRIs.

2.   MAG and Leadership Panel terms of reference should pay more attention to the wider ecosystem.  Named members of the MAG should take responsibility for liaison with intersessional activities and NRIs.  Members of the Panel could also engage with these initiatives.

3.   Intersessional activities should be integrated in the work of the annual meeting.  They should be offered enhanced opportunities to contribute to main sessions and other programme components, rather than being directed into siloed sessions that focus on their own activities.  Intersessional activities should also consider how they can contribute most effectively to the programme of the annual meeting.

4.    Intersessional bodies and NRIs should be invited by the MAG to play a more substantial role in developing the annual programme.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Intersessional bodies and NRIs should be invited by the MAG

The NRI is a loose network of national and regional level initiatives which has to be driven in a more progressive way.

1. There has to better opportunity of learning, funding and collaboration  
 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Integration of Dynamic Coalitions in the IGF meeting

The IGF's Dynamic Coalitions have great potential as pools of global expertise that can serve as policy incubators for the overall IGF process. Representatives of the Dynamic Coalitions should therefore be invited by the MAG to participate in the IGF programme planning, the various activities and events in the IGF’s preparatory phases, in the development of the IGF’s multi-year strategy  and the process for agreeing priority themes. I agree therefore with the suggestion that IGF main session organisers reach out to dynamic coalitions for their participation in particular when a clear thematic linkage has been identified.   

It must be borne in mind that the DCs are voluntary associations of stakeholders who bond together in the global IGF eco-system in order to advance a shared interest and objectives in a specific policy area or issue. As such they do all not easily conform to a single template or set of rules of procedure. However, they should be mindful of the importance of demonstrating transparency and accountability in their process for reaching decisions based on rough consensus so that their outputs are received by target audiences as credible for adoption and implementation.

The suggestion in the report that the MAG "should....encourage DCs to focus on issues related to the main themes of the annual meeting" runs counter to the DC concept because it introduces an external direction of their activities and priorities. In the follow up to the EGM report, the MAG should therefore discuss this suggestion with the Dynamic Coalitions Coordination Group (DCCG).  

I agree that intersessional activities would benefit substantially from enhanced reporting, profiling and visibility generally in the IGF eco-system. This would enable them to gain strength and diversity of participation, enhance their sustainability in resources, and recognition of their outputs by policy-makers and decision-takers worldwide. I support the EGM  report's suggestion of achieving this through greater prominence on the website and other media, and updating of their progress for example in regular online bulletins and opportunities such as media interviews with the lead coordinators for individual PNs, BPFs and dynamic coalitions.   

 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

5.   The role and work of intersessional bodies, including dynamic coalitions (DCs), best practice forums (BPFs) and policy networks (PNs)

  1. The MAG should commission BPFs and PNs and encourage DCs to focus on issues related to the main themes of the annual meeting.  With multi-year programming, this could enable iterative dialogue between the annual meeting and intersessional activity which would enhance the quality of outputs.
  2. Intersessional activities should establish focal points responsible for reaching out to potential participants within and beyond the IGF community, including UN bodies, in order to engage them with their work.
  3. Modalities should be identified to strengthen the work of Dynamic Coalitions, including procedures and responsibilities to IGF stakeholders; guidelines for participation and deliberation; and quality standards for the work they produce.  This would help to validate the work presented by DCs and facilitate their contribution to IGF outputs.  Appropriate models may be available from other Internet governance bodies such as ICANN. 
  4. The Secretariat should seek to raise awareness of intersessional outputs through the website, social media and other communications.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

6.   The role and work of national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiatives (NRIs)

  1. The MAG should consider ways of enhancing the participation of NRIs at the annual meeting.  It was suggested, for example, that they might be invited to contribute more substantially to the development and/or delivery of main sessions rather than focusing primarily on a collaborative session.
  2. MAG and Leadership Panel members should be encouraged to play an active part in their communities’ and regions’ NRIs.  At least one member of the MAG should take responsibility for liaison with NRIs.
  3. NRIs should be encouraged to discuss some or all of the forthcoming annual meeting’s selected themes/topics in the year before each annual meeting, and to submit observations concerned with national experience to that meeting.
  4. More attention should be paid to networking between NRIs to share experience.  A common platform, for instance, could be developed for coordination of youth NRIs.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The role and work of national, regional, sub-regional and youth

The most important things for any national, regional, sub-regional and youth initiative has to be transparent, accountable  and open to all. A lot of the times these initiatives is run by selective group and people with vested interest. These initiative have to be monitored and most importantly cross checked.  

IGF funding in such initiative has to be open and accountable and needs to have a process to verify its social existence. 

Values 
1. Openness 
2. Accountable 
3. Transparent 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Integration of NRIs and youth initiatives

The NRIs provide an extremely valuable two-way channel between discussions at the global level and the diversity of regional and local experience. Youth initiatives such as the Youth Coalition of Internet Governance (YCIG) and YouthDIG in the European region provide the route for young people and young professionals to bring their perspectives for the future to the forum at the centre of the global Internet governance eco-system, for the attention of policymakers in governments and decision-takers in industry. There needs therefore to be much more effective engagement with them in the programme development of the IGF. Session organisers should seek to involve NRI and yout representatives in the conduct of their sessions.

Annual NRI events and related youth events take place throughout the year so ways need to be found to mitigate the practical challenges of integrating the IGF's annual timeline of for calls for themes etc leading to an end-of-year meeting with the highly varied timelines of NRI processes for stakeholder consultations etc.    

  

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

7.   The annual meeting of the IGF, including multi-year programming, hybrid format and issue focus in programme development

  1. Future annual meetings should be hybrid, with attention paid to enabling equal participation by online and face-to-face participants.  This will require further improvements in the Forum’s online facilities and innovative approaches to facilitating networking.  Adjustments to cater for time zones will need to be considered.  The technical community may be able to assist in developing appropriate modalities.
  1. The MAG, supported by the Secretariat, should develop a multi-year programme, integrating the annual meeting with intersessional activity and, where appropriate and desired, with NRIs.  This could include iterative dialogue between successive annual sessions and intersessional activities, allowing the latter and NRIs to participate more effectively in output generation.  The Leadership Panel should work with the MAG in developing this programme.
  2. Within this context, the MAG should focus each annual meeting on a smaller range of more specific topics, concerned with issues of importance in international decision-making on the Internet and impact of the Internet.  These should be selected following consultation with IGF stakeholders, discussion with other stakeholders including UN agencies, and input from the Leadership Panel.  There should be opportunities for emerging and urgent issues to be added to the programme if required.
  3. The MAG should invite proposals for workshop and other sessions to be submitted on these selected topics, thereby enabling greater focus to be achieved across the programme.  Session types should be reviewed and consolidated, and opportunities taken to experiment with modalities like ‘open space’.  There should be dialogue between the MAG and session organisers throughout the period between session approval and the annual meeting, to ensure quality of delivery and maximise the contribution that all sessions make to the Forum as a whole.
  4. More attention should be paid to integrating the high-level and parliamentary tracks with main and other sessions.  In particular, the high-level track could be moved from the beginning of the meeting to the end, when it would be informed by discussions in main and other sessions that had already occurred and contribute to the finalisation of messages and other outputs.  The Leadership Panel should actively encourage participation in these tracks.
  5. The MAG should focus on broad programming issues and revert much of the responsibility for workshop evaluation to the Secretariat. 
  6. Expertise from the technical community could assist in supporting technical implementation of the meeting, including improvements to the website display of the programme, search functions, and adjustments to the modalities of online participation.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

hybrid format and issue focus in programme development

A better engagement strategy has to be developed at leadership, communication and operation level. The efficiency of the event  cannot be evaluated with the number of people who have participated but how many communities have been reached and what are take their away from the forum.

Regarding the submission of the proposals a relative strategy have to developed promoting generic issues and problems of the region. As a lot of the times evaluation is based on merit basis where stereotype representation is done on the basis of gender, population, people and region....

Just because a person is not able to communicate doesn't mean he or she is not part of the multistakeholder engagement. It is our responsibility to bring such voice to the table as we are the privilege ones to lead the community.       

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

The annual meeting of the IGF, including multi-year programming,

In order to widen the IGF, a possibility could be to shape it more like the IETF is. The IETF has 3 hybrid sessions each year, but the actual work happens at the mailing list and drafts, ordered by WG and area. The IGF is similar to the IETF process, but it lacks best-ordered documentation processes. In order to achieve recommendations and best practices for the worldwide Internet-related matters and public policies, and in order to widen the voice of IGF I come up with 4 opportunities:
* Take the Leadership Panel as a session for compile the results of the intersessional process at the time of the panel.
* Creation of a platform for policy recommendations based on the bottom-up multistakeholder model including NRI, DCs, BPFs and PNs and the MAG.
* Follow an SDGs/HR approach, via software so people can match with concepts for consensus-driven discussions.
* Expand the sessions at the GLOBAL IGF to include different timezones and maintain a IGF Review platform sites with public comments linked for every session. so the more disadvantaged in terms of language barriers, and timezones could catch up with the content of the session and put comments and questions for 1 or 2 weeks period, so the meaningful part of the session will happen via the platform instead of the session itself (more like the IETF)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

Developing sophisticated platforms to secure online format

It is important to develop better platforms for online participants. In 2021, online platforms were zoom bombed with explicit contents which was a shame for all of us. We should ensure, better safety when it comes to online platforms. We should  concentrate on solving this problem for this year's hybrid IGF.

While hybrid is a great way to ensure more participating it comes with more challenges. Unstable internet, power cuts and lower bandwidth can hassle users from lower economies. IGF should facilitate access to the needy ones who require uninterrupted access. Also, the sessions should also be scientifically allocated considering the time zones. All my pleas from last year's online event.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Benefits of IGF's Hybrid Format

Experience has broadly demonstrated that the hybrid format enables more diverse participation of stakeholders who in the past would not have had the capacity and resources to travel to a physical venue.  Furthermore, senior government representatives, parliamentarians and senior business representatives are more likely to agree to participate online in view of the significant opportunity cost arising from participation on site.

The advent of the fully open hybrid forum with online participation fully equivalent to on site participation therefore presents an important opportunity to correct some of the long-standing deficiencies in representation at the IGF from senior levels in government and the business sectors, and from the Global South and small island developing states. I support the proposal that the IGF Secretariat and the MAG examine the rapidly evolving potential of the hybrid formatting of the MAG consultation meetings, the IGF preparatory phases and the IGF meeting programme, in achieving this critical objective.      

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Smaller range of specific topics

It is important that decisions to narrow the scope of the IGF meeting in terms of number of specific topics are taken in full and open consultation and endorsed by the MAG, ideally within a  structure of multi-year programming to avoid the risk of gaps in issue coverage. 

Programme space should always be provisioned for emerging and urgent issues.  

Transferring the major task of workshop proposal evaluation from the MAG to the Secretariat would require the latter's resources to be substantially expanded.  Implementation of this suggestion needs further discussion of the implications for resources and process therefore.   

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

8.   The Leadership Panel, the MAG and the place of the IGF within the United Nations system

  1. The development of a constructive, cooperative and complementary relationship between the Leadership Panel and the MAG should be a priority.  This will require clarification of the responsibilities of each, and of the Secretariat in relation to them, defining what each body does and does not do, and establishing modalities for collaboration.  The chairs of the Panel and MAG will need to establish effective liaison arrangements. 
  2. The Leadership Panel should focus on its strategic roles in relation to strategic and urgent issues, the engagement of high-level personnel including those from government and business, the promotion of IGF outputs, and fundraising.  Members of the Panel could act as ‘ambassadors’ for the IGF.  They should engage with the whole IGF ecosystem, including NRIs, and could be invited to participate in MAG meetings when appropriate.
  3. The Leadership Panel should, in future years, comment on strategic priorities for the Forum’s annual meeting before the MAG begins to work on programme design.  Collaboration on strategic and programme aspects of the 2022 meeting, with its focus on the digital cooperation agenda, could be crucial in determining the effectiveness of the IGF’s contribution to the GDC and should be prioritised once the Panel is established.
  4. The MAG’s terms of reference should be reviewed, on their own terms and in relation to those of the Panel, perhaps with the assistance of a MAG working group.   More clarity should be introduced concerning MAG members’ responsibilities, including the MAG’s engagement with intersessional work.  MAG working groups could assume responsibility for activity in areas such as capacity development.
  5. The Secretariat should resume responsibility for some aspects of programme development currently undertaken by the MAG, particularly workshop evaluation, in order to free MAG time for more proactive developmental work, such as that concerned with issue focus, multi-year programming, the integration of the main Forum and intersessional work, and preparation of outputs.  Forward planning and additional resourcing for the Secretariat will be required for this.
  6. The MAG should consider ways of engaging all MAG members more effectively in its discussions.  More should be done to assist new MAG members to participate in meetings, particularly where they are not experienced Forum participants.  The expertise of former MAG members could help in this regard.  Experienced current MAG members should avoid acting in ways that dominate discussion, and should actively encourage engagement by new members.
  7. Past experience of the IGF – and/or NRIs – could be made a requirement for selection as MAG members.  Eligibility for annual renewal could be associated with demonstrated active participation in MAG work.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The MAG should consider ways of engaging all MAG members

The role and responsibilities of a MAG members is immense as they are the representation of the different stakeholders and communities. Even the MAG member selection process needs to be further made open and transparent. The current process of selection is hugely politicized and a group of people have been controlling the process, this needs to be made scientific and processed so that better and new group of people with better voice can join and further have efficiency and effectiveness in the MAG enagagment process.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

More engagement and outreach

I have been following IGF activities for a few years and feel it is dormant for most of the year. While a lot takes to organize an annual conference, IGF could do more for rest of the year. I also feel that the outreach and engagement programs could be done more extensively in various regions. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Xiaobo YANG

Concerns on the Secretariat's workload

There are hundreds of workshop proposals needed to be evaluated each year (in a short few months). As pointed out in this report, the Secretariat is "under-resourced and over-stretched". Will the evaluation work further increase its burdens? Considersing that the Leadership Panel will definitely need the Secretariat's support. A rough idea: will it be able and feasible to form a global evaluation work supporting team and get representatives from the NRIs involved?

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Decisions relating to the IGF's strategic priorities.

I agree with the report's observation that defining the separate but complementary roles of the MAG and the Leadership Panel  should now be a priority as the Roadmap on Digital Cooperation proceeds to implementation - including the reforms of the so-called "IGF Plus" - and the IGF's role as the central platform for the Global Digital Compact beds down in the year ahead.

Consistent with the "bottom-up multistakeholder model," I believe the MAG should continue to take the lead in setting the IGF's strategic and thematic programming decisions. The Leadership Panel, drawing on its diversity of experience and expertise, should be invited by the MAG to contribute its views, ideas and suggestions for the overall direction of the IGF's strategy, the relative urgency of specific issues, the allocation of resources, and the phasing of the IGF's multi-year programming of activities and events.    

The process for reviewing and updating the MAG's terms of reference and responsibilities should be full open to stakeholder participation and consultation on proposed amendments and revisions. 

 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

9.   Funding of IGF activities including the IGF Secretariat

  1. The IGF needs a clear fundraising strategy, to bring more financial sustainability to the Forum and enable the Secretariat to meet expanding responsibilities including those related to the Leadership Panel.  It will also be important to focus on effective resource mobilisation.
  2. The Leadership Panel should play a significant role in fundraising, leveraging the senior status of Panel members to encourage more governments and other stakeholders to make contributions to the Trust Fund.
  3. The Forum should seek to diversify funding sources, for instance by approaching development banks, national development agencies and foundations for funding for specific activities, and by encouraging small donations.
  4. The Secretariat should provide more information about income and expenditure, including quarterly or half-yearly reports to donors and the wider IGF community.
  5. DESA should review the bidding process for countries to host the annual meeting to improve visibility, clarity, openness and hosting criteria, including financing arrangements.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Funding of IGF activities

Funding of IGF activities or regional activities have to be 
1. Open Any funding activities has to be open and  transparent
2. Transparent Any funding activities has to be transparent and open 
3. Accountable  Local Level Audit at countries law must be adopted 

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user amritachoudhury8_1459

Funding for IGF Secretariat

Apart from the points mentioned under 9.   Funding of IGF activities including the IGF Secretariat   want to reiterate the importance of increasing funding for the IGF Secretariat.  Especially considering the workload of the IGF Secretariat that is ever increasing.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF Funding

The deficiency in IGF funding which arguably has constrained the IGF's range of year-round activities, is a key challenge that the Leadership Panel is empowered to resolve through members' high level contacts and channels of engagement in government and industry circles.  Success in sourcing additional donor funding will result in a strengthened Secretariat with more capacity to support and coordinate the expanding range of "IGF Plus" year-round activities.   

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

10. Modalities to extend outreach, engagement and participation in the IGF

    1. The Leadership Panel should encourage high-level participation in the annual meeting.  Members of the Panel could act as “ambassadors” for the IGF, encouraging participation from within their regions and stakeholder groups and from decision-making bodies in which they participate.
    2. The MAG should consider whether the high-level track should be moved to the end of the annual meeting so that it can focus on outcomes from previous discussions and contribute to the development of IGF messages/outputs.
    3. The annual meeting agenda should include headline speakers whose presence would attract participation from a wider audience.
    4. More detailed assessment should be made of participation in IGF activities, including active engagement in annual meeting sessions, intersessional activities and NRIsNRIs should be encouraged to act as channels for input to the annual meeting from under-represented groups.
    5. The Leadership Panel, MAG and Secretariat should develop a communications strategy for the Forum aimed at building awareness and disseminating outputs.  This would benefit from professional public relations support.  DESA and the Office of the Envoy on Technology could support and promote the work of the Forum within the UN system.
    6. The MAG should consider innovations in the annual meeting structure that would be attractive to under-represented groups, such as “hackathons” and sessions concerned with the impact of the Internet on particular sectors or public policy issues (such as climate change).  NRIs could consider similar innovations.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user samik.kharel_13029

All engagement activities should disseminated to the community

There is a rising trend of tokenism and crony circle within internet governance activities. IGF's mandate should make sure that everything should be shared with everyone and not limited to a circle of people. An appeal should be sent out to all internet governance bodies and its ramifications- to make sure that "no one is left behind". Everyone should know about every initiative- which is the core idea behind the celebrated multistakeholderism. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user amritachoudhury8_1459

Increasing outreach engagement and participation in the IGF

Apart from what has been mentioned, there is clearly a need to relook at the communication, outreach and engagement strategy adopted so far, in terms of what has worked and what has not. This will help to better strategies.

Further new modes of communication should be adopted to reach out to different age groups or stakeholder communities from different parts of the world.

Engaging the IGF Community members (NRIs, DCs etc) for outreach and communication may help to reach out to local communities with the information.

Further apart from the UN languages, if important messages can be translated and sent in other languages (that are used widely) it may help to connect to new people.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

Reply to

Increasing outreach engagement and participation in the IGF

I agree 100% with Amrita's points concerning the need for a strategic communications strategy for the IGF. The new website is a step forward in enhancing the messages and online interaction but much more can be done to converge the range of thematic inputs from the various intersessional activities in the IGF ecosystem. It still seems fragmented and difficult to navigate: as Amrita says, a review would identify a more coherent ands strategic approach. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

11. Strengthening the IGF in relation to capacity development

1.   The Secretariat should work with other organisations that already offer capacity development programmes on Internet governance (including the Schools on Internet Governance) to add maximum value with limited resources. 

2.   The Secretariat should provide information and access links to capacity development resources through its website.  Capacity development experiences could also be shared online.

3.   Capacity development initiatives concerned with participation in the IGF itself should recognise the needs of diverse audiences, seeking to maintain the engagement of established as well as new participants, and reaching beyond the governance of the Internet to include its impact on other areas of public policy.

4.   The global meeting and NRIs should discuss and communicate priorities for capacity development to other stakeholders. 

5.   The Secretariat should consider other options for capacity development, including internships and the establishment of an alumni network.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

IGF in relation to capacity development

At grassroots level there is a greater need of core values development in terms of Internet and need to create better awareness about openness, transparency and accountability. 

The secretariat had developed a toolkit ages back which further needs to be reviewed and updated with  better engagement tools and techniques. 

Collaborative initiative and efforts are need in creating better engagement and awareness tools.  

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark Carvell - IS3C and EuroDIG

IGF, capacity building and the Sustainable Development Goals

It is widely recognised that ICTs and digital technologies are enablers for all 17 SDGs because they provide the backbone for an inclusive global digital economy that is a catalyst for sustainable development of all sectors of national and regional economies. I agree that the IGF should use its website for providing resources for capacity development in the cyber and digital sectors. There is a strong fit here with digital cooperation initiatives in support of the SDG targets. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

12. Follow-up and implementation

  1. The Leadership Panel and the MAG will need to work rapidly, with DESA and the Secretariat, to establish cooperative working modalities that will enable them to initiate the Panel’s work, implement proposals from the EGM and develop the IGF’s contribution to the GDC.
  2. This will require clarification of the relationship between the Leadership Panel and the MAG, including review of terms of reference.
  3. The MAG should determine modalities for the work of the 2022 meeting in relation to the Roadmap and the GDC, encourage contributions to discussion of this theme from intersessional fora and from NRIs, and invite session proposals from the IGF community related to it.  It should also consider modalities for the preparation of an output document related to the Compact.
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Conclusion

The EGM started from the premise that the IGF should do more than maintain its current role and level of activities, but respond to the changing Internet and Internet governance environment and achieve greater impact from its work.  The observations and suggestions listed in this report stem from the desire of Meeting participants to fulfil those goals.

A number of clear priorities can be identified.

  • In the immediate term, the Forum needs to establish effective collaboration between the Leadership Panel and the MAG, enabling it to implement improvements along the lines identified by the Meeting.  Participants recognised that the quality of the relationship between the Panel and the MAG will be crucial to achieving progress towards a more impactful IGF.
  • In the short term, the MAG, with support from the Leadership Panel, needs to ensure that the 2022 annual meeting enables the IGF to make an effective contribution to development of the Global Digital Compact which is to be presented to the Summit of the Future in 2023.  Participants recognised that the quality of the IGF’s contribution to this will affect perceptions of its ongoing value to digital cooperation.
  • In the longer term, participants agreed, the Forum needs to build more coherent collaboration within the ecosystem that has evolved around its annual meeting, intersessional activities and NRIs, leading to more substantive, evidence-based discourse and to the production of actionable outputs which will have more substantial impact within the United Nations and in international decision-making fora concerned with the Internet and its impact on society.  Its ability to achieve this will have substantial influence on the scheduled review of the Forum’s mandate by the General Assembly in 2025.

Participants recognised that substantial work towards these goals has been realised in recent years, and were optimistic that their suggestions would enable them to be achieved.  While some of those suggestions would require additional funding, which should be sought as a priority, others were cost-neutral and could be implemented quickly.  The short time now available between the EGM and the 2022 Forum should encourage all stakeholders to progress improvements with a sense of urgency.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

more substantive, evidence-based discourse and to the production

As I stated earlier, the IGF needs evolution in terms of "grounding the processes" on a single platform.
Many discussions about public policies on the Internet take place in a disaggregated manner, beyond the efforts to consolidate the reports, there is no automated mechanism for crossing discussions and opinions between events and processes, the important thing here would be to focus on specifying PDP processes, which remain non-binding and open but where the statements are submitted for review and consensus, by a specialized group such as the IGF Leadership panel.
Year after year we have seen that little by little the NRIs align in a certain way and achieve joint results, but many times the disaggregated nature is not respecting the bottom-up from subnational to national to sub-regional to regional to global and that is where I see an opportunity for improvement to achieve a more contemplative and inclusive process.

1 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Report of the UN Secretary-General’s ‎High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation

Report of the UN Secretary-General’s ‎High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation

About the Report

The United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. António Guterres, convened the High-Level Panel on ‎Digital Cooperation to advance proposals to strengthen cooperation in the digital space among ‎Governments, the private sector, civil society, international organizations, academia, the technical ‎community and other relevant stakeholders.‎

The 20-member panel, co-chaired by Ms. Melinda Gates and Mr. Jack Ma, was expected to raise ‎awareness about the transformative impact of digital technologies across society and the ‎economy, and contribute to the broader public debate on how to ensure a safe and inclusive ‎digital future for all, taking into account relevant human rights norms.‎

During its work, the panel broadly consulted with various stakeholders, including the IGF ‎community.‎

The Panel submitted the final report to the Secretary-General on 10 June 2019. During the ‎launch, the Secretary-General called for a broad consultation process on the topics covered in ‎the report. ‎

While the consultation launched below focuses mainly on Digital Cooperation and the IGF/IGF ‎Plus, the full report is also available for consultation (here) and there are many important topics ‎and recommendations that deserve consideration and careful review.‎


Digital Cooperation at the IGF 2019 

The IGF 2019 Annual Meeting will feature a main session dedicated to Digital Cooperation, ‎scheduled to be on 26 November, from 10:00-13:00 p.m. CEST, Main Hall. This session will ‎reflect on the HLPDC Report recommendations, with special focus on the Recommendation 5 ‎and the proposed model for global digital cooperation called: The Internet Governance Forum Plus ‎‎(IGF Plus). ‎

In preparation for this session, the IGF community is invited to provide feedback to the Recommendation 5 - Global Digital Cooperation and the IGF Plus model. Relevant sections of the Report are extracted further below. Respondents can also email written contributions to [email protected]. These contributions will be posted on the IGF website.

All received inputs will be synthesized in a written output document and this will be posted in late October as an input to the above-mentioned main session during the 14th IGF in Berlin, where we will facilitate online as well as physical participation.

It is very important that this report and subsequent discussions have a very broad outreach. We ‎need to do all we can to include those voices not historically engaged in discussions on Internet ‎Governance or Digital Cooperation. This is a great opportunity to reach out and increase ‎engagement from marginalized groups as well as other ‎disciplines. Concrete and actionable feedback will help all our improvement efforts. ‎

Please log into the IGF website and post your comments by clicking on 'Add new comment at this ‎section'. ‎


Received contributions, in addition to the below in-line comments:

  1. CGI.br - Brazilian Internet Steering Committee
  2. Microsoft
  3. Web Foundaton
  4. Government of Australia, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade
  5. Government of France, Ministry of Europe and Foreign Affairs 
  6. République Française, Ministère de l'Europe et des Affaires étrangères
  7. Government of Finland, Ministry for Foreign Affairs
  8. Governance Primer, Brazilian Association of Software Companies (ABES), AR-TARC Certification Authority
  9. Mercari Inc.
  10. RIPE NCC
  11. Government of Denmark, Ministry of Industry, Business and Financial Affairs
  12. Government of Switzerland
  13. Raúl Echeberría 
  14. Instituto de Pesquisa em Direito e Tecnologia do Recife - IP.rec
  15. ICC Basis
  16. Pathways for Prosperity Commission 
  17. Government of Germany
  18. UK Government
  19. European Broadcasting Union
  20. Group of stakeholders gathered around IGF 2019 Best Practice Forums
  21. Media 21 Foundation
  22. United States Council for International Business
  23. The Association for Progressive Communications  (APC)
  24. Internet Society (ISOC)
  25. Juan Alfonso Fernández

See the Consolidated Summary of Received Feedback 


 

Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:42

CALL FOR FEEDBACK: Section 1

GLOBAL DIGITAL COOPERATION

Recommendation 5A


We recommend that, as a matter of urgency, the UN ‎Secretary-General facilitate an agile and open consultation ‎process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital ‎cooperation, with the options discussed in Chapter 4 as a ‎starting point. We suggest an initial goal of marking the UN's ‎‎75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation” to enshrine shared values, principles, ‎understandings and objectives for an improved global digital ‎cooperation architecture. As part of this process, we ‎understand that the UN Secretary-General may appoint a ‎Technology Envoy.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation

Global digital cooperation is certainly a need but with the growing trend of control over the internet and technology, the possibility of creating a uniform practice is a question of standard. The problem with the variation of interpretation and values has resulted in a chaos of Internet being manipulated by the rich and the powerful. Still today in major parts of the developing world, internet is not a choice but a question of access. In such scenario where the world is reaching the next billion, the question of Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation is a bigger issue. Yes, shared values, principles, ‎understandings and objectives for an improved global digital ‎cooperation architecture is a basic need but at the developing level these values differentiate at individual country and region.
We must collaborate and understand the dynamics of such commitment where the role of multistakeholder is eminent. 

0 People voted for this

Reply to

Role of third world countries in digital era

The third world countries will bring the digitalization into mainstream. This will be an era of change where the leaders will follow these developing nations. This will be the start of digital cooperation. The best alternatives to the heavy economies will be small but composite economies of these developing nations.

0 People voted for this

Global commitment need uniformity

Global digital cooperation is certainly a need but with the growing trend of control over the internet and technology, the possibility of creating a uniform practice is a question of standard. The problem with the variation of interpretation and values has resulted in a chaos of Internet being manipulated by the rich and the powerful. Still today in major parts of the developing world, internet is not a choice but a question of access. In such scenario where the world is reaching the next billion, the question of Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation is a bigger issue. Yes, shared values, principles, ‎understandings and objectives for an improved global digital ‎cooperation architecture is a basic need but at the developing level these values differentiate at individual country and region.
We must collaborate and understand the dynamics of such commitment where the role of multistakeholder is eminent.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user vukovinski

The Role Of The UN

Concomitant to the recommendation 5A, which is sound, and together with the realization that a global digital cooperation mechanism requires a certain technical solution, I feel that a part of the UN's role in this process is to share their experiences with large technical solutions facilitating cooperation. Maybe this could be a task for the purported technology envoy.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

Global Digital Cooperation

The U.S. Council for International Business  would support marking the UN’s 75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation,” using the nine values outlined in the report as the foundation and identifying the IGF Plus model as the mechanism. We urge revision of the final value – “harmony” – as follows:

Harmony and Cohesiveness – The use by governments and businesses of digital technologies in ways that earn the trust of peers, partners and people, and that avoid exploiting or exacerbating divides and conflicts and causing the Internet to fragment.

§  The italicized revision reflects our view that policies must ensure an open, safe, highly secure, stable, interoperable, seamless, and sustainable global Internet to fully realize the economic and social benefits of digital transformation.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

Technology Envoy

A Technology Envoy would be valuable were they a respected member of the community that most would find able to accurately represent and describe the issues being faced by the involved stakeholders. Were the person somebody appointed for reasons other than their unmistakable expertise, this would just generate a large degree of distrust in the community. This is a nomination that should require much thinking from those responsible for making the choice.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Recommendation 5B

We support a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age.

Proposed questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):

  1. How would you improve the current existing frameworks for digital cooperation?
  2. ‎What/if any new frameworks/mechanisms would you recommend?‎
  3. ‎How might we strengthen the practices/impacts of digital governance mechanisms?‎
  4. ‎How can we properly resource and fund multi-stakeholder processes to ensure:‎
    • Broad, inclusive and adequate participation
    • Ability to implement desired programmes
    • On-going improvement efforts are successful
  5. How do we further enhance our collaboration to advance our shared values, principles, understandings ‎and objectives for digital cooperation? ‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Multistakeholder also leaves space for politics and manipulation

Multistakeholder environment has been collaborated in various process and practice but in developing countries the push of multistakeholder approach is more complex in terms of lack of values and leadership. Representation and inclusion are a higher concern when it comes to global level but at national or country level right person and right choice is a major priority.
From multistakeholder to collaborative environment there are challenges of resource and commitment.
Multistakeholder is not just a concept of diversity or inclusion but it is the democratic value which we all have undermined. Reality is Multistakeholder concept is hugely misinterpreted by wrong interpretation and manipulated in developing countries, so it needs better core values and collaboration in terms of creating that dynamics.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Uffa Modey

Reply to

power sharing between stakeholders

Global diversity makes it a bit difficult for there to be simiar sets of values and leadership universally. The differences becaome more apparent as you move down the levels from global to regional to national. For developing countries, the power assigned to the stakeholder groups is not usually done equally. A possible rason for this is the lack of the need to bear responsibilty by some groups and the need for ultimate control by some other groups. All the stakeholder groups should be able to showcase equal committment towards global development. This will enable collaboration among them.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user susanders02_17132

Extended & Enhanced Framework

  1. The report identifies the shortcomings in the current existing frameworks for digital cooperation and identifies architectures. It does not document how and what low cost, high impact detailed processes it can use to resolve the issues, including but not limited to the need to:
    1. Distribute the Internet and its economy to all nations and peoples;
    2. Promote the development of local content that is culturally and linguistically relevant to the different regions to welcome existing users and on-board new users;
    3. Create an online local entry point into Internet Governance for bottom-up, inclusive participation in building and governing the Internet;
    4. Track trends and progress in resolving identified technical, security, policy or online Human Rights violations at the local, regional and global levels using documented, standardized processes for transparency;
    5. Identify, adopt, and distribute the Stakeholder Group portals/sub-portals to all 193 countries with escalation paths to regional and global levels;
    6. Move from discussion to operation;
    7. Grow new Internet Governance leaders from all countries and across identified Stakeholder Groups;
    8. Balance the disparate voices and needs between developing and industrialized countries;
    9. Balance the disparate voices and needs between Private Sector Stakeholder Groups and those of the public good;
    10. Facilitate and promote vertical and horizontal collaboration within and across Stakeholder Groups that promote the public good so they can share the knowledge, plans, needs and resources required to meet the 2030 deadline for implementing the SDGs;
    11. Fund the development and operation of the Internet and its Stakeholder Groups so the Internet can remain an independent global public asset; and
    12. Support the existing Internet Governance mechanism(s).
  1. I recommend the IFG incorporate “new ways” and “new mechanisms” by adopting and implementing the Search Skate system (https://searchskate.com). The system’s patent was issued in 2013, and between 2013-2016 an embodiment was specifically designed to deliver workable, low cost solutions to resolve the identified needs of the Internet Governance Community while working within the existing Internet Governance mechanisms. The patent has not been moved to the Creative Commons in order to reserve the rights to the system and its multi-billion-dollar revenue stream to benefit of the Internet and its stakeholders; and to ensure the Internet can remain an independent global public asset. It is Search Skate’s intent is to permanently license the system with $0 licensing fees to the Internet and the global non-profit it chooses to run the system.

The Search Skate system:

  1. Creates tens-of-thousands of locally owned and operated, interest-based portal businesses that can distribute both the Internet and its economy across all 193 nations. The portals make a profit by providing value added services such as website design, development, hosting, translation and other aids to related businesses and individuals. Their existence in an area can grow the local Internet economy while fueling the need to improve the infrastructure and growing the demand for inclusiveness. But the real bonus is Search Skate’s Portal Businesses can be equipped to serve as Internet Exchange Points (IXPs), improving connectedness, reaching the “forgotten” and systematically closing the digital divide;  
  2. Links interest-based portal businesses to existing related local content and promotes the development of new content. This creates culturally and linguistically comfortable digital spaces that welcome existing local users, and on-board new users. Spaces where users can connect with others who share similar interests; network; post or collaborate to resolve issues. In addition, users can easily access links to sites on literacy/training/education, healthcare, jobs, Internet Governance system, digital skills enhancement or building the Internet;
  3. Increases local, bottom-up participation by providing a local entry point to its online Governance System and its “Common Workflow/Service Management System.” Users at the local level can submit and track their concerns about the misuse/abuse of the Internet including technical, security and on-line human rights violations; or offer ideas for solutions or enhancements to the Internet. The workflow system then uses standardized, transparent processes to evaluate, route the concern to the appropriated stakeholder group or committee at the local, regional or global level, tracks and reports the progress back to the contributor for transparency;
  4. Creates standardized top-tier Stakeholder Groups in each country along with escalation paths to the regional and global levels (MAG and IGF) to move from discussion to operation. Links to the Stakeholder Groups from each interest-based portal increases visibility and encourages local users to grow their leadership skills by participating in on-line meeting or volunteering to work in a group or committee;

 

                              

 

  1. Balances the disparate needs between the developing nations and the more industrialized nations. By bringing the countries of the Southern Hemisphere (plus Haiti) together as a “region” they can work together to develop a unified plan for advancing their needs and a stronger voice in discussions, and with the more heavily industrialized countries of the Northern Hemisphere “region;”
  2. Balances the needs of the Private Sector Stakeholder Groups and those of Stakeholder Groups promoting the public good.  Search Skate noticed they’re quite different!  The Private Sector is profit driven, built on marketing and selling of goods and services and there’s competition between organizations. The components of Civil Societies focus on meeting the basic human needs to survive and thrive (food, water, shelter, health, literacy/training/education and employment.) To achieve this, Civil Society organizations need a collaborative, cooperative way to work together locally, regionally and globally. Search Skate’s solution? Keep and enhance our existing Commercial Function of the Internet, but add a new, separate but integrated Non-Commercial Function to support the collaborative and cooperative needs of Civil Society organizations. Our Civil Societies perform critical function for us all. They are the silent partner of commerce, helping grow an educated, well-trained and healthy workforce; retooling workers for the Media Age; when the economy dips or industries falter; rebuilding lives after disaster strikes and transforming impoverished, forgotten communities into healthy, employed workers and consumers; and implementing the SDGs by the 2030 deadline;
  3. Creates and maintains consolidated, interest-based calendars. One major benefit of linking related local content to the local Interest-Based Portal Businesses is it opens the opportunity for the Non-Commercial Function Portals to create and maintain consolidated interest-based calendars. The calendars promote collaboration and coordination across Civil Society activities, within and across portals, to facilitate local problem solving and open-up opportunities for sharing of knowledge, resources, transportation and lodging as the organizations work together in building ecosystems to transform impoverished communities, meet the 2030 deadline for implementing the SDGs and coordinate local/global disaster response;
  4. Generates a new, independent multi-billion-dollar revenue stream by establishing a “franchise-like” relationship between the locally owned and operated interest-based portal businesses and the system (the Internet) wherein the portal businesses agree to adopt and work to entrench the openness and interoperability of the Internet and its published policies and standards; and to pay a small annual participation fee that supports Internet operation costs.  This creates another balance, since up until now businesses used a global public asset at no cost to generate trillions of dollars in trade, then charged the public owners of the Internet a fee to access it; and
  5. Integrates with the existing Internet Governance mechanisms at the global level, with clear local entry points for mechanisms at the national level. Search Skate’s committee at the global level that brings together the Non-Commercial and Commercial interests, is the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group (MAG).  It’s composed of one representative from each of the Top-Tier Stakeholder Groups, to include members from different nations in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and diverse interest areas. All committee members at this level must have experience in Internet governance and be elected by their stakeholder peers for a 3-year term, with a 2-term limit. Meetings are held once a month, are publicly broadcast over the Internet and are staffed by the IGF or other independent global Internet policy group providing administrative support for the Internet. Then annually, the MAG uses information from the “Common Workflow/Service Management System” to set the agenda for the global meeting the IGF. The IGF is the final arbiter in decisions made in Search Skate’s Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance System, and in setting goals, issues to be addressed and timelines for the upcoming year. All issues and recommendations presented at the Global Level were directed by the IGF and/or entered into the “Common Workflow/Service Management System,” providing the public with transparent processes and trackable progress. In addition, the issues and recommendations have been reviewed, studied and prioritized by committees at the Top-Tier Stakeholder Group Level, National Level, Hemisphere Level, Commercial/Non-Commercial Function Level and now the Global Level. The Internet and the world need a bottom-up, inclusive Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance System empowered to make decisions on the Internet’s direction, strategies, uses, rules, policies and the use of the funds it generates.

 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user m-yokozawa_1482

WGEC experience

Some of the past discussions including the Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation 2016-2018 under CSTD/UNCTAD had good experiences in answer to these questions. I would suggest revisiting these discussions and think about what we have to add and renew to them. A number of examples of what we had discussed in the past may include;

- Mapping of existing mechanisms regarding Digital Cooperation will help us find duplicated or missing areas of required work. (improve existing frameworks)

- Multistakeholder structure is essential, but it will work best if each stakeholder can clearly show "who represents what". (adequate participation) Common classification of stakeholders like "government, private sector, academia (technology) and civil society" is only looking at the ground floor of a multiple story building. 

- Governance can be re-designed as combinations of four elements which are the law, social norms, the market, and architecture. Market-based governance and "by design" governance are sometimes not seriously considered with innovative ideas. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user john_1529

Multistakeholderism

Multistakeholderism is referred to many times in the Report, but not sufficiently critically. There was a time when multistakeholderism, linked to a belief in and support for the superiority of self-regulation as a way of tackling any emerging difficulties with the new technology, was the only option available to policy makers across the world. Few politicians, civil servants and police officers and only a small number of civil society organizations had any kind of deep understanding of how these new exciting cyber businesses operated.  

At the beginning of the mass consumer internet, layered on top of the challenges public bodies faced in understanding it, the companies at the forefront of the internet revolution somehow managed to identify with a counter cultural, insurgent liberal spirit. They promoted themselves as wholly different types of ventures, principally driven by social goals rather than more traditional commercial ones. It was all about making life better, overturning old-fashioned clunky ways of doing things. Since many tremendous products some of the leading firms were providing at that time appeared to be “free” to the end user at the point of use, this helped cement this benign view of the internet into the public’s and the media’s consciousness.

 

The new orthodoxy consequently centred on a belief that the only important thing was to keep Governments out of the way.  Multistakeholderism meant everyone would talk but that was it. Regulation became a dirty word. Innovation  and market forces would take care of everything. This would be a wholly virtuous circle. Industry was not only  given pretty much a free hand, states even gave them special exemptions from certain types of liability e.g. via the EU’s e-Commerce Directive and s.230, CDA, 1998.

 

The Report remains strongly wedded to the idea of multistakeholderism. Its theoretical attractions are clear but the actual experience of it is a long way from being satisfactory. Multistakeholderism without concrete and deeply embedded measures to ensure a greater equality of arms  between the participants is simply another way of creating a platform which allows those with the deepest pockets to shout loudest and win or delay change while the cash keeps rolling in.

 

Turning more specifically to the position of children, while there are several excellent references in the Report,  save in respect of a passing comment  about “children’s agency” (page 17) the document as a whole makes no explicit mention of the importance of children’s rights to participate and their right to be heard in respect of matters affecting them. This subject deserves a much larger exposition, not least because children now constitute one in three of all human internet users.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Enhancing digital cooperation will require both reinvigorating existing multilateral partnerships and potentially creating new mechanisms that involve stakeholders from business, academia, civil society and technical organisations. We should approach questions of governance based on their specific circumstances and choosing among all available tools.



Where possible we can make existing inter-governmental forums and mechanisms fit for the digital age rather than rush to create new mechanisms, though this may involve difficult judgement calls: for example, while the WTO remains a major forum to address issues raised by the rapid growth in cross-border e-commerce, it is now over two decades since it was last able to broker an agreement on the subject. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Digital cooperation at various stakeholder level is manipulated

Digital cooperation at various stakeholder level is manipulated at leadership level. The concept of power and lobbying attitude has engulfed the dynamics. The value of internet must be very clear in terms of standardization so that internet can be treated equally for all. Today the difference in not in-between people who have internet and technology but it’s between people who have no connection and they aspire to be connected and it’s a radical different thing.
The inter-governmental forum needs to mechanize the various process and values so that it can be neutralize in mitigating the gaps of net neutrality and Digital Divide. Though called a multistakeholder but the values of the practice have created gaps in process where still today the bottom up approach highlights the civil society to put the rich and famous as Multistakeholder Advisory group and there is limitation of developing countries and representation.  
 Technology has not just empowered people, but it has also brought in light the level of how it can be used see before and after the process. The limitation of inter-Governmental process is catered in the limited practice of the representation which needs to be addressed with proper values.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

Creation of new mechanisms

New mechanisms make themselves necessary due to the fact that Internet Governance touches upon such a variety of subjects that discussions carried out within other fora may be useful to advance specific matters, but end up further fragmenting the overall debate landscape. While integration with other fora is certainly important, there is no doubt that a fresh approach is needed for issues to be discussed in a more encompassing manner that is able to produce elaborate results.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Given the speed of change, soft governance mechanisms – values and principles, standards and certification processes – should not wait for agreement on binding solutions. Soft governance mechanisms are also best suited to the multi-stakeholder approach demanded by the digital age: a fact-based, participative process of deliberation and design, including governments, private sector, civil society, diverse users and policy-makers.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The aim of the holistic “systems” approach we recommended is to bring together government bodies such as competition authorities and consumer protection agencies with the private sector, citizens and civil society to enable them to be more agile in responding to issues and evaluating trade-offs as they emerge. Any new governance approaches in digital cooperation should also, wherever possible, look for ways – such as pilot zones, regulatory sandboxes or trial periods – to test efficacy and develop necessary procedures and technology before being more widely applied.213 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

We envisage that the process of developing a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation” would be inspired by the “World We Want” process, which helped formulate the SDGs. Participants would include governments, the private sector from technology and other industries, SMEs and entrepreneurs, civil society, international organisations including standards and professional organisations, academic scholars and other experts, and government representatives from varied departments at regional, national, municipal and community levels. Multi-stakeholder consultation in each member state and region would allow ideas to bubble up from the bottom. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The consultations on an updated global digital cooperation architecture could define upfront the criteria to be met by the governance mechanisms to be proposed, such as funding models, modes of operation and means for serving the functions explored in this report. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

More broadly, if appointed, a UN Tech Envoy could identify over-the-horizon concerns that need improved cooperation or governance; provide light-touch coordination of multi-stakeholder actors to address shared concerns; reinforce principles and norms developed in forums with relevant mandates; and work with UN member states, civil society and businesses to support compliance with agreed norms. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

It is really important to

It is really important to look into the current practice and gaps of multistakeholder practice and the gaps. The multistakeholder evolution also needs better enriching values which needs to be polished and collaborated time and again.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Envoy’s mandate could also include coordinating the digital technology-related efforts of UN entities; improving communication and collaboration among technology experts within the UN; and advising the UN Secretary-General on new technology issues. Finally, the Envoy could promote partnerships to build and maintain international digital common resources that could be used to help achieve the SDGs.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

CALL FOR FEEDBACK: Section 2

A possible architecture for Global Digital Cooperation

''INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM PLUS"205

The proposed Internet Governance Forum Plus, or IGF Plus, would build on the existing IGF which was established by the World Summit on the Information Society (Tunis, 2005). The IGF is currently the main global space convened by the UN for addressing internet governance and digital policy issues. The IGF Plus concept would provide additional multi-stakeholder and multilateral legitimacy by being open to all stakeholders and by being institutionally anchored in the UN system.

The IGF Plus would aim to build on the IGF’s strengths, including well-developed infrastructure and procedures, acceptance in stakeholder communities, gender balance in IGF bodies and activities, and a network of 114 national, regional and youth IGFs206. It would add important capacity strengthening and other support activities.

The IGF Plus model aims to address the IGF’s current shortcomings. For example, the lack of actionable outcomes can be addressed by working on policies and norms of direct interest to stakeholder communities. The limited participation of government and business representatives, especially from small and developing countries, can be addressed by introducing discussion tracks in which governments, the private sector and civil society address their specific concerns.

The IGF Plus would comprise an Advisory Group, Cooperation Accelerator, Policy Incubator and Observatory and Help Desk.

The Advisory Group, based on the IGF’s current Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, would be responsible for preparing annual meetings, and identifying focus policy issues each year. This would not exclude coverage of other issues but ensure a critical mass of discussion on the selected issues. The Advisory Group could identify moments when emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected, and issues that are not covered by existing organisations or mechanisms.

Building on the current practices of the IGF, the Advisory Group could consist of members appointed for three years by the UN Secretary-General on the advice of member states and stakeholder groups, ensuring gender, age, stakeholder and geographical balance.

Potential questions for your feedback ‎(suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. What are in your view criteria that the proposed Advisory Group should fulfil that are not ‎yet being taken into account by the IGF Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group in present IGF ‎setting?‎
  2. How do you address the concerns that these proposals may be considered going ‎beyond the original IGF governance structure and mandates?‎
  3. How might the current Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group be strengthened?‎
  4. What changes (if any) should be considered to the role and responsibilities of the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group/Advisory Group?‎
  5. How do we ensure the Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group/Advisory Group has appropriate ‎funding and support?‎

     
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

On "emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected"

I believe this is a key aspect of the problem to be solved. The advisory group should have the extra responsibilities of:

1) Have a common format and platform for input and be very attentive to consolidate all the information of all processes.
2) Offer this collaborative tool and provide tutorials on how to include comments in an orderly manner (by topic, stakeholder).
3) Ensure that the tools are being used in the correct manner, that is, control mechanisms and easy process auditing.
4) Very important - the final part of a multistakeholder process is the most delicate and tedious, for this there should be shared responsibilities and auditors that rotate in the community to ensure the key aspect of consolidating comments in the most transparent way possible.

0 People voted for this

The Advisory Group

The Advisory Group ---> WHAT

Its task is to identify WHAT policy issues should be discussed.

0 People voted for this

The Present Advisory Group

The Present Advisory Group Model has been limited within the limitation of the standard process. The level of cooperation and collaboration needs to search better in context of adaptation where the new model suggested can certainly bring in a new angle. The internet that was created in room has today expanded beyond the geography and every day its shortcoming the limitation of what is possible.

With such growth and mechanism we certainly need a dynamic approach. The model suggest can be a new beginning to encapsulate the idea of adaptation for better collaboration and cooperation.  

Regarding the concern, internet must outgrow the expectation and it needs radical solution which is pervasive and more inclusive and adaptive.  

The current Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group needs to be more operational in the IGF as they have been limited. Their effectiveness can be only utilized when they are active and beating in the model. From the past few years I have seen very lame and less active people in the MAG position. This needs to change, we need young and energetic young leaders.  

The MAG members selected from consolidated groups highlights the politics and manipulation. People involved in real grounds needs to be selected.  The MAG basic criteria highlight least developed nation and other priority criteria which are never followed. Especially with civil society group the politics and manipulation an issue.   

MAG member needs to be funded and should be provided the best possible way of facilitation as they are volunteers and they expect the least.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Advisory Group

The Advisory Group has proven to be a stable organism that is capable of organizing the yearly IGF event and coordinating the selection and allocation of panels. As far as its objective structure is concerned, it shouldn’t be a problem to maintain it in a similar way to how it operates at the moment.

What does need to be changed, however, is the question of representation. Once selected, MAG members do not owe any sort of accountability to their constituents, in spite of theoretically representing their interests. Currently there is no public or transparent way to ask these representatives to address concerns, so one has to rely on direct contact, which while not wrong, is not always ideal or even desirable.

A non-binding system should be established in which stakeholders are able to communicate their positions and ideas to MAG members in a transparent way, so that a broader sense of debate and representation can be achieved. There have in the past been decisions made within the MAG that did not resonate with numerous stakeholders but went unaddressed due to the lack of proper communications channels, and this should be avoided in the future.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user ca_2035

IGF Plkus, MAG and other proposed structures

This is a non-exhaustive list of Internet governance initiatives (not necessarily coordinated or interacting with the IGF), which keeps growing:

    • Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network (2012-ongoing)
    • Alliance for Affordable Internet (A4AI, 2013-ongoing)
    • Smart Africa (2013-ongoing)
    • Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG, 2014-2016)
    • NetMundial Conference (2014)
    • Global Cyberalliance (2015-ongoing)
    • IEEE Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems (2016-ongoing)
    • Global Commission on Stability of Cyberspace (GCSC, 2017-ongoing)
    • Entrepreneurial Charter of Trust (2018-ongoing)
    • Entrepreneurial Cybersecurity Tech Accord (2018-ongoing)
    • Web Foundation's Contract for the Web (2018-ongoing)
    • High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation (HLPDC, 2018-2019)
    • Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace (2018)
    • International Panel on Artificial Intelligence (2019)

These initiatives generate many recommendations (with several overlaps), basically under the general goal of proposing actions to ensure a single, open and secure Internet for everyone. The list is testimony to the intense interest in finding ways to tackle several global challenges of Internet governance, but they lack a much needed coordination or integration of efforts in order to be more effective – something the HLPDC report recognizes as one of the six main gaps in these processes as a whole.

I trust several other commentators have covered the relevant aspects of the HLPDC proposals. I wish to make just a few observations. The IGF Plus proposal contemplates a MAG with additional functions. On the basis of my experience in earlier and current MAGs, I need to remind proponents that nearly all MAG members are volunteers who have their other time-consuming jobs. To cope with the current challenges is already hard enough, and the HLPDC proposal for the MAG seems to overlook this aspect. One of the proposed additional functions would be identifying "moments when emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected". Here is another reason for including the above non-exhaustive list of "other forums" – this task would be an impossible challenge for a voluntary group. In addition, this would be a function better carried out by the proposed Observatory/Help Desk, if these were to be implemented.

While recognizing the need of efforts to monitor and consolidate so many processes, this would ought to be the job of a specialized staff on a full-time basis. Should this be done as part of a UN-led forum? Some critics of the report think the whole idea of the Observatory/Help Desk, or even the Cooperation Accelerator, does not belong to the IGF at all, and should be thought of in other formats and fora. I agree with this view.

As to the Policy Incubator, I have to say that the intersessional activities (the many Dynamic Coalitions, the Best Practice Forums and so on) try to do just that, with the difficulties inherent to a voluntary effort, practically since the beginning of the IGF. There is a need here for qualified help in gathering and consolidating their ongoing work and recommendations.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user john_1529

IGF and IGF Plus

A key reason why the IGF was created in the first place was to avoid a diplomatic rupture between States involved in the WSIS process in respect of how parts of the internet were to operate at a global level in the future.  

 

There was never any intention of allowing the IGF to be anything more than a talking shop. Talking shops have their value, no doubt, but  to say they are linked in any meaningful way to questions of “governance” is dubious.

 

The IGF today is a bit like a cross between a trade fair for people who work in and around internet policy questions and going back to University for a week where a vast array of interesting seminars are laid on by lots of equally interesting people who are there to deliver papers or participate in the discussions. Marvellous but not “governance” by any commonly understood meaning of the word, or rather if it has any impact on “governance” it is incredibly diffuse and tenuous and perhaps of lesser importance than discussions which take place elsewhere in other forums.

 

Whether it is necessary to have such elaborate or expensive mechanisms to organize a week of seminars linked to a trade fair must be moot but it would be a pity if the annual gathering disappeared because there is nothing else like it.

 

Thus the proposals to create an “IGF Plus” are welcome, but they fall a long way short of what is needed if the public interest across the whole internet governance eco system is to be adequately safeguarded.

0 People voted for this

The proposed Internet

The proposed Internet Governance Forum Plus, or IGF Plus, would build on the existing IGF which was established by the World Summit on the Information Society (Tunis, 2005). The IGF is currently the main global space convened by the UN for addressing internet governance and digital policy issues. The IGF Plus concept would provide additional multi-stakeholder and multilateral legitimacy by being open to all stakeholders and by being institutionally anchored in the UN system.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Cooperation Accelerator would accelerate issue-centred cooperation across a wide range of institutions, organisations and processes; identify points of convergence among existing IGF coalitions, and issues around which new coalitions need to be established; convene stakeholder-specific coalitions to address the concerns of groups such as governments, businesses, civil society, parliamentarians, elderly people, young people, philanthropy, the media, and women; and facilitate convergences among debates in major digital and policy events at the UN and beyond.



The Cooperation Accelerator could consist of members selected for their multi-disciplinary experience and expertise. Membership would include civil society, businesses and governments and representation from major digital events such as the Web Summit, Mobile World Congress, Lift:Lab, Shift, LaWeb, and Telecom World.

Potential questions for your feedback ‎(suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. ‎How would you envision the work of the Cooperation Accelerator in practice?‎
  2. How do we ensure the Cooperation Accelerator has appropriate funding and support?‎
  3. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community ‎support/participate in a Cooperation Accelerator?  For example, Best Practice Forums ‎‎(BPFs), National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or Dynamic ‎Coalitions (DCs)?‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The Cooperation Accelerator

The Cooperation Accelerator ---> WHO

Its task is to identify WHO should sit at the table to discuss a particular policy issue identified by the Advisory Group, and to coordinate such discussion. It is paramount the participation of the relevant UN agencies (ITU, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNDP, regional economic commissions, etc.)

0 People voted for this

Dynamics of internet demands

Dynamics of internet demands a collaboration among the different accelerated actors. With the ever-changing roles and values, it needs a matrix of collaboration and cooperation from all sides. The work of the cooperation accelerator in practice needs to be open and transparent giving the space and indicator of basic values.

It is relevant that cooperation accelerator needs a proper funding for research survey and information access which needs better guidance and mapping where the internet organization can help.

The current model needs to be readjusted the accelerators as they are the need and the previous model are the basic structure. So, it has to be strategically aligned. 

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Cooperation Accelerator

The core idea around this organism is solid, as there is indeed a lack of communication between initiatives in Internet Governance, which is ironic considering the reason why the Internet was created in the first place. It can be hard to visualize how your project interacts with other ventures in such a broad landscape, even more so because there are linguistic and visibility barriers to overcome in the identification of overlaps and potential synergies.

However, there are different ways in which this accelerator could work and a clear vision needs to be chosen for it to be effective. A first, cheaper, idea would be for it to act as a sort of repository in which stakeholders could sort through initiatives categorized by tags, being able to find and communicate with other project leaders to facilitate partnerships and knowledge sharing. Even if the idea appears simple, currently no such resource exists and it would be a big step forward for the community.

Another, costlier, idea would be for it to count with the assistance of a team that would actively attempt to match projects and enhance their cooperation. This is something that could potentially be run on a voluntary basis, but there is an important component of outreach and actually getting stakeholders to buy into the project that would require much more sophisticated and therefore paid work.

In either case, some sort of central organization is necessary, with proper management of the available resources and monitoring of how the platform is being utilized to improve it in significant ways that react to how the system is actually being employed.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Uffa Modey

The Cooperation Accelerator

I agree that the IGF cooalitions will achieve a lot more if there is more cooperation among them. Although they fulfil their individual roles and objectives, they will require the Cooperation Accelerator to identify common goals among them and map out a strategy for their collaboration. To carry out this task members of the cooperation will need to have up to date knowledge of all the activities being carried out by the coalitions. To attain this information, the cooperation accelerator memberhip could consist also of volunteer representatives of the IGF community. All BPFs, NRIs and DCs should be encouraged to assign a volunteer role to one of their members who will be responsible for ensuring that the cooperation accelerator is kept up to date of their activities. 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Policy Incubator would incubate policies and norms for public discussion and adoption. In response to requests to look at a perceived regulatory gap, it would examine if existing norms and regulations could fill the gap and, if not, form a policy group consisting of interested stakeholders to make proposals to governments and other decision making bodies. It would monitor policies and norms through feedback from the bodies that adopt and implement them.207

The Policy Incubator could provide the currently missing link between dialogue platforms identifying regulatory gaps and existing decision making bodies by maintaining momentum in discussions without making legally binding decisions. It should have a flexible and dynamic composition involving all stakeholders concerned by a specific policy issue.

Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. ‎How should the Policy Incubator be organized, locally and globally?‎
  2. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community ‎support/participate in the Policy Incubator?  For example, Best Practice Forums (BPFs), ‎National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or Dynamic Coalitions ‎‎(DCs)?‎
  3. ‎How do we ensure the Policy Incubator has appropriate funding and support?‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The Policy Incubator

The Policy Incubator ---> HOW

Its task is to identify HOW a particular policy issue should be "solved". The policy incubation should be done in coordination with the Cooperation Accelerator to create synergies and avoid duplications. Additionally, the identified gaps in the existing norms and regulations, should be submitted to the Advisory Group so the corresponding policy issue is considered for discussion.

0 People voted for this

First the policy incubator

First the policy incubator needs to understand the dynamic of how the world works. In Developed nation the policy is an open and transparent where people have their rights and responsibility and the government itself is willing to adapt and understand. In developing countries, the situation is a bit complex as people are aware and there can be rigidity from the government in adaptation process. But when we talk about the least developed country there is a huge gap of rights and acceptance.  IN such region the government is solely responsible for the public policy process where the consultation is a desired way of cooperation. People are the end just to face the consequences.

The current Intersessional Activities have to be further collaborated with better values to engage leaders as it can be great source of policy.

The only solution to the policy incubator can be a strategic planning with internet organization like ISOC, and ICANN to create better governance model.   

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

Policy Incubator

The US Council for International Business sees the potential of the Cooperation Accelerator and Policy Incubator to retain the brainstorming, sharing of best practices, and other informal aspects that we have come to value from the current IGF. But we have questions about how the incubator would be staffed and how stakeholders would be permitted to join the “policy groups.” Further, we are concerned that government stakeholders might question the legitimacy of the Policy Incubator proposing regulations for their adoption. We do not foresee how such bodies would be sufficiently expert or reflective of key stakeholder interests.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Policy Incubator

Out of the organisms that have been proposed, this is the one that might have the most complications. Conceptually it is a good idea, but how to structure and carry out its activities seems a difficult question. Taking our experiences from the ICANN community as an example and supposing that Working Groups and “policy groups” share the same core concepts, it is genuinely hard to be very inclusive and at the same time create the correct incentives for policy to follow an evidence-based approaches in which effective compromises are made and result in quality policy.

Over at ICANN, to achieve such results demands years, with the recent Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) having generated significant results within a year at the cost of much exertion from the community, which at the end of the day burned out important volunteers and generated great tension around the subject. How would this be replicated with even broader policy subjects involved?

A very structured approach would need to be taken for this organism to function properly, which includes the establishment of firm criteria for policy group membership, which should have a limited number of participants, have a cut-off date for joining, follow firm deadlines, and overall not pursue loose goals, but rather have the aim of finding the best evidence available or generating it via research to end up with strong advice on specific matters.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Uffa Modey

Influencing policies from other regions

It may be quite difficult for stakeholders to influence policies from other regions outside of their region. The main reason for this is because they may not be fully aware of the grassroots issues surrounding the policy within the region. For the policy incubator to function optimally, there will be a need for serious local participation from the stakeholder being affected by the regulatory gap. This may be easy for developed countries but not quite as easy for developing countris where the representation and participation of citizens in global Internet governance is already low. 

0 People voted for this

Thanks

Thank you for this amazing guide and it really help me a lot 

 

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The Observatory and Help Desk would direct requests for help on digital policy (such as dealing with crisis situations, drafting legislation, or advising on policy) to appropriate entities, including the Help Desks described in Recommendation 2; coordinate capacity development activities provided by other organisations; collect and share best practices; and provide an overview of digital policy issues, including monitoring trends, identifying emerging issues and providing data on digital policy.

Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. ‎How do you see the implementation of the Observatory and Help Desk? ‎
  2. How do we connect the local and global levels through this proposed mechanism?‎
  3. How could existing intersessional activities from across the IGF community ‎support/participate in the Observatory and Help Desk?  For example, Best Practice ‎Forums (BPFs), National, Regional, Sub-regional and Youth IGF Initiatives (NRIs), or ‎Dynamic Coalitions (DCs)?‎
  4. How do we ensure the Observatory and Help Desk has appropriate funding and support?‎
  5. How do you address the concern that these proposals will go beyond the original mandate ‎add an operational workstream to IGF, with significant resource implications?‎ 
View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user Nicolas Fiumarelli

2.

A good way to connect ideas and suggestions is through a multistakeholder collaborative software like the one I am using to make this comment. But given the mass of comments and participations, it should has like a filter (by stakeholder, by topic), and address these issues in an agile process. Have lessons learned section and use collective replication would be great.

0 People voted for this

The Observatory and Help Desk

The Observatory and Help Desk ---> 2 main functions:

The Observatory function: Continuously evaluate the whole IGF Plus process and emit timely reports. Also to do prospective studies in collaboration with the UN Tech Envoy.

The Help Desk function: To function as an efficient "clearing house" collecting needs from the different stakeholder groups and dispatching them to the appropriate IGF Plus body. (See point 12 in: https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/igf-meeting/igf-2016/takingst…)

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

Observatory and Help Desk

The U.S. Council for International Business understands the practicality underlying these two IGF innovations.  We urge active consultation with the OECD as they are being designed because some of the functions proposed -- providing an overview of digital policy issues, identifying emerging issues, and providing data on digital policy – already have been developed or are on track to be developed as part of the OECD’s Going Digital Toolkit. Rather than replicating the Going Digital Toolkit’s functions, the Observatory and Help Desk should, as described in the report, focus on directing requests for help on digital policy to appropriate entities and coordinating activities provided by other organizations. A properly funded Help Desk also could tap the wealth of written information provided by IGF workshop reports, Best Practices Forums, and Connecting the Next Billion recommendations.

o   More clarity is needed, however, about how the Help Desk would “coordinate the capacity development activities provided by other organizations,” particularly those unaffiliated with the UN.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The Observatory and Help Desk

This represents a key set of components that risk being sidelined in the face of other, more noticeable, organisms being proposed in this IGF overhaul. From our experience, most stakeholders find it difficult to keep around specialists that can tackle the varied issues that emerge from the digital environment. Even coming up with structures to deal with pressing issues such as data protection and cybersecurity present a challenge to many businesses and governments, never mind dealing with all relevant matters in a proactive manner. This is why this component would be quite useful.

It is important to note, however, that these Help Desks cannot be assembled as a “best effort”, they need to employ specialized teams that can effectively deal with situations instead of answering to the concerns from stakeholders using a limited FAQ or something similar. There is not much margin for error, if a few attempts are made by a stakeholder to be helped and they end up with non-answers or experience a massive delay, they will not come back for another attempt.

An important role for this organism could be to act as connector between stakeholders in need of help and service providers that are qualified to support them. This should not be a cumbersome process, but providers should be vetted in some way, needing to prove proven competence in the area. This should not be a situation in which the UN acts as some sort of gatekeeper to services, but rather it would establish a slightly more organized market that allows problems and solutions to be matched at a global level.

In this sense, it could not be run on a voluntary basis. People need to be remunerated to take part in such an effort and be able to adhere to deadlines – unlike the ever-slipping deadlines of voluntary multistakeholder efforts. It could be that companies and organizations donate the time of their employees, or money could be pooled from involved stakeholders to pay for the time of contractors. This is something that needs to be discussed in an open and realistic manner.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

The IGF Trust Fund would be a dedicated fund for the IGF Plus. All stakeholders – including governments, international organisations, businesses and the tech sector – would be encouraged to contribute. The IGF Plus Secretariat should be linked to the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General to reflect its interdisciplinary and system-wide approach.

Potential questions for your feedback (suggestions only, all feedback welcome):‎

  1. Do you believe the IGF Plus model is implementable, given that the IGF Trust Fund is based on voluntary donations?
  2. ‎What can we do to ensure the IGF Plus has appropriate funding and support? The IGF ‎Trust Fund historically lacked sufficient funding to fulfil its current (and basic) budget.  ‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The IGF Trust Fund

The IGF Trust Fund  ---> Taxes

Who "owns" the common words (not names or brands) in the different languages that are used as domain names in the Internet?
Who "owns" the personal data of Internet users?
Who "owns" the content (text, audio/music, video) that individuals share in the Internet?
While there is a debate around these questions, a handful of companies are "monetizing" these words, data and content.
So a tax could be imposed to these companies.
The collected taxes should be more than enough to finance the IGF Plus.
Additionally, the surplus monies accrued could go to a Universal Internet Fund that can be used to finance developmental projects to achieve meaningful Internet use in undeserved communities.

0 People voted for this

It is a great initiation of

It is a great initiation of the IGF Plus model that is more focused towards the engagement and creating better scope. Yes, the IGF plus model is implementable based on the voluntary donation. As the model itself is very practice in context of toady’s internet and internet behavior of the users. Better collaboration with the stakeholder and business and private sector can result in better solution.

0 People voted for this

The IGF Trust Fund ---> A clarification

I have received some questions about whether my previous comment on the IGF Trust Fund reflects any animosity against the Internet companies mentioned.
I want to clarify that this is not the case!
On the contrary: I am an admirer of these companies that in a creative way have managed to extract value from ICTs, for their own gain, but also creating 'spills' that benefit others in the global economy.
As a former computer programmer in the 80s, I can fully assess the merit of the founders of these companies, who with their intelligence and effort, and that of their collaborators, managed to solve definitively the "Solow Paradox", and turn the ICTs into an engine for economic, social and cultural development in many parts of the world.
These companies and their business models grew in an environment dominated by a corporate culture that gives priority to the profit of its shareholders over other considerations.
But I am pleased to know that very recently a major US business organization released a new Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation.
(see: https://www.businessroundtable.org/business-roundtable-redefines-the-pu…)
The Statement says at the end: "Each of our stakeholders is essential. We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, our communities and our country."
I hope that for transnational corporations, as in the case of Internet companies, this refers to all countries and communities of the world.
Therefore, to be consistent with this new commitment that these companies have adopted, their participation in the global mechanisms for digital collaboration is essential.
It is in this sense that I consider appropriate to suggest that these companies dedicate a small part of their income to this purpose, which includes, among other actions, the financing of the IGF.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user bwanner

IGF Trust Fund

Innovations such as the Cooperation Accelerator, Policy Incubator, and Observatory/Help Desk will require resources to be effective and truly transform the IGF. USCIB appreciates that the report states that “all stakeholders” would be encouraged to contribute to the IGF Trust Fund. All business sectors have been affected by the digital transformation of the economy. For example, the agricultural sector, which is using cutting-edge technologies to improve crop yields and realize other efficiencies, has a significant stake in global digital cooperation. Thus, encouraging “business stakeholders” to contribute to the Trust Fund – and not calling out a specific sector – would better serve the objective.

At the same time, however, we highlight that the IGF Trust Fund has never garnered enough funds to support the existing IGF. Thus, we remain skeptical that – notwithstanding the report’s call to all stakeholders -- that the Trust Fund will generate enough funds to support the IGF Plus with its additional functions. Other options should be explored.  For instance, if accompanied by a commitment to full transparency with respect to budgeting and programming decisions, including regarding meeting site selection and any commitments to and support from host governments, it may be effective to have the United Nations assume responsibility for directly funding the Forum. This would be consistent with the report’s recommendation that recognizes a bigger role for the multistakeholder model in the UN system and proposes moving the IGF Plus to the UN Secretary-General’s office.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user Mark W. Datysgeld

The IGF Trust Fund

While several UN agencies dealing with critical contemporary matters are treated as priorities and enjoy wide support and funding from the institution’s regular budget and additional donations from highly interested countries, the IGF has been treated as a non-entity that is nice to have but not essential. While the matter of the Internet and the digital space certainly intersect with other themes and appear as part of the work of different agencies, the fact remains that the IGF is the reference space for this sort of discussion within the UN.

The continuation of the vision that the IGF is something fairly ad-hoc does not make sense considering the scope of the issues being addressed. To establish a proper functioning environment that would be able to deal with the massive challenges that lie ahead requires not only commitment from the stakeholders, but the UN itself needs to evaluate what its role is in an IGF Plus environment. While it should not be made into an agency, it should not be something detached that is ran on a volunteer basis either.

0 People voted for this
Profile picture for user mokabberi_11410

suggestion for The IGF Trust Fund

my suggestion is a precent of Tech companies and private sectors income or a precent of Taxes that is paid by global tech companies them to governments can be dedicated to the IGF Trust Fund. these can really help  IGF to implement its strategic plans and reseach and development projects in the field of Internet Governance capacity building. 

0 People voted for this

thanks

.

0 People voted for this
Comments are closed on this paragraph.

Foreword

Foreword Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:57

THE AGE OF DIGITAL INTERDEPENDENCE ‎ 

REPORT OF THE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL'S HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON DIGITAL COOPERATION

We live in an era of increasing interdependence and accelerating change, much of it driven by technological advances such as low-‎cost computing, the internet and mobile connectivity. Moments of change present new opportunities to solve old problems. The ‎efficiency, innovation, and speed of a digitally connected world can expand what is possible for everyone – including those who ‎historically have been marginalised. ‎

At the same time, humanity faces significant new challenges. Modern technologies can be used to erode security and violate privacy. ‎We are also beginning to see complex impacts on education systems and labor markets. ‎

We believe the opportunities for human progress in the digital age ultimately outweigh the challenges – if we join together in a spirit of ‎cooperation and inclusiveness. ‎

We urgently need to lay the foundations of an inclusive digital economy and society for all. We need to focus our energies on policies ‎and investments that will enable people to use technology to build better lives and a more peaceful, trusting world. Making this vision a ‎reality will require all stakeholders to find new ways of working together. That is why the Secretary General appointed this Panel and ‎what we have sought to do with this Report. ‎

We are grateful to each member of the Panel, the Secretariat, and the many groups and individuals we consulted; though the views ‎expressed were not always in agreement, they were always conveyed with respect and in the spirit of collaboration. ‎

No one knows how technology will evolve, but we do know that our path forward must be built through cooperation and illuminated by ‎shared human values. We hope this Report will contribute to improved understanding of the opportunities and challenges ahead, so ‎that together we can shape a more inclusive and sustainable future for all.

Melinda Gates and Jack Ma

Co-Chairs (signed)


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

sattamatkabond.net

Satta Matka Bond Is an Old Matka Website provides you <a title="Kalyan Matka" href="http://sattamatkabond.net" >Satta Matka Result</a>   Kalyan Matka  Jodi open-close panel today. Matka gameplays and wins Indian people through Bond matka site. Bond always gives you<a title="Kalyan Matka" href="http://sattamatkabond.net" >Kalyan Matka</a> Milan matka, Rajdhani matka, and time matka perfect guessing game. Online matka industry opening matka result, i quickly publish all satta matka results on Matka result board. Matka game update on our website, top matka guesser team suggest you best satta matka tips and trick with best evergreen games. Public need fastest matka result and daily matka game, Bond sir all-time full fill his work on Satta.

Visit https://sattamatkabond.net

0 People voted for this

I hope to see elaboration on…

I hope to see elaboration on the education and labor system part. It is indeed complex to tackle such.

tree trimming auckland

0 People voted for this

Executive Summary

Executive Summary Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:03

Digital technologies are rapidly transforming society, simultaneously allowing for unprecedented advances in the human condition and ‎giving rise to profound new challenges. Growing opportunities created by the application of digital technologies are paralleled by stark ‎abuses and unintended consequences. Digital dividends co-exist with digital divides. And, as technological change has accelerated, ‎the mechanisms for cooperation and governance of this landscape have failed to keep pace. Divergent approaches and ad hoc ‎responses threaten to fragment the interconnectedness that defines the digital age, leading to competing standards and approaches, ‎lessening trust and discouraging cooperation. ‎

Sensing the urgency of the moment, in July 2018 the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN) appointed this Panel to consider the ‎question of “digital cooperation” – the ways we work together to address the social, ethical, legal and economic impact of digital ‎technologies in order to maximise their benefits and minimise their harm. In particular, the Secretary-General asked us to consider how ‎digital cooperation can contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – the ambitious agenda to protect ‎people and the planet endorsed by 193 UN member states in 2015. He also asked us to consider models of digital cooperation to ‎advance the debate surrounding governance in the digital sphere. ‎

In our consultations – both internally and with other stakeholders – it quickly became clear that our dynamic digital world urgently needs ‎improved digital cooperation and that we live in an age of digital interdependence. Such cooperation must be grounded in common ‎human values – such as inclusiveness, respect, human-centredness, human rights, international law, transparency and sustainability. ‎In periods of rapid change and uncertainty such as today, these shared values must be a common light which helps guide us. ‎

Effective digital cooperation requires that multilateralism, despite current strains, be strengthened. It also requires that multilateralism ‎be complemented by multi-stakeholderism – cooperation that involves not only governments but a far more diverse spectrum of other ‎stakeholders such as civil society, academics, technologists and the private sector. We need to bring far more diverse voices to the ‎table, particularly from developing countries and traditionally marginalised groups, such as women, youth, indigenous people, rural ‎populations and older people. ‎

After an introduction which highlights the urgency of improved digital cooperation and invites readers to commit to a Declaration of ‎Digital Interdependence, our report focuses on three broad sets of interlocking issues, each of which is discussed in one subsequent ‎chapter. As a panel, we strove for consensus, but we did not always agree. We have noted areas where our views differed and tried to ‎give a balanced summary of our debates and perspectives. While there was not unanimity of opinion among the Panel members ‎regarding all of the recommendations, the Panel does endorse the full report in the spirit of promoting digital cooperation. ‎

Chapter 2, Leaving No One Behind, argues that digital technologies will only help progress towards the full sweep of the SDGs if we ‎think more broadly than the important issue of access to the internet and digital technologies. Access is a necessary, but insufficient, ‎step forward. To capture the power of digital technologies we need to cooperate on the broader ecosystems that enable digital ‎technologies to be used in an inclusive manner. This will require policy frameworks that directly support economic and social inclusion, ‎special efforts to bring traditionally marginalised groups to the fore, important investments in both human capital and infrastructure, ‎smart regulatory environments, and significant efforts to assist workers facing disruption from technology’s impact on their livelihoods. ‎This chapter also addresses financial inclusion – including mobile money, digital identification and e-commerce –, affordable and ‎meaningful access to the internet, digital public goods, the future of education, and the need for regional and global economic policy ‎cooperation. ‎

Chapter 3, Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies, underscores the fact that universal human rights apply equally online as ‎offline, but that there is an urgent need to examine how time-honoured human rights frameworks and conventions should guide digital ‎cooperation and digital technology. We need society-wide conversations about the boundaries, norms and shared aspirations for the ‎uses of digital technologies, including complicated issues like privacy, human agency and security in order to achieve inclusive and ‎equitable outcomes. This chapter also discusses the right to privacy, the need for clear human accountability for autonomous systems, ‎and calls for strengthening efforts to develop and implement global norms on cybersecurity. ‎

To take significant steps toward the vision identified in Chapters 2 and 3, we feel the following priority actions deserve immediate ‎attention: ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

AN INCLUSIVE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND SOCIETY ‎

1A: We recommend that by 2030, every adult should have affordable access to digital networks, as well as digitally-enabled ‎financial and health services, as a means to make a substantial contribution to achieving the SDGs. Provision of these services ‎should guard against abuse by building on emerging principles and best practices, one example of which is providing the ability to ‎opt in and opt out, and by encouraging informed public discourse. ‎

1B: We recommend that a broad, multi-stakeholder alliance, involving the UN, create a platform for sharing digital public goods, ‎engaging talent and pooling data sets, in a manner that respects privacy, in areas related to attaining the SDGs. ‎

1C: We call on the private sector, civil society, national governments, multilateral banks and the UN to adopt specific policies to ‎support full digital inclusion and digital equality for women and traditionally marginalised groups. International organisations such as ‎the World Bank and the UN ‎ should strengthen research and promote action on barriers women and marginalised groups face to digital inclusion and digital ‎equality. ‎

1D: We believe that a set of metrics for digital inclusiveness should be urgently agreed, measured worldwide and detailed with sex ‎disaggregated data in the annual reports of institutions such as the UN, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, other ‎multilateral development banks and the OECD. From this, strategies and plans of action could be developed.‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

HUMAN AND INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

2: We recommend the establishment of regional and global digital help desks to help governments, civil society and the private ‎sector to understand digital issues and develop capacity to steer cooperation related to social and economic impacts of digital ‎technologies. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN AGENCY

3A: Given that human rights apply fully in the digital world, we urge the UN Secretary-General to institute an agencies-wide review of ‎how existing international human rights accords and standards apply to new and emerging digital technologies. Civil society, ‎governments, the private sector and the public should be invited to submit their views on how to apply existing human rights ‎instruments in the digital age in a proactive and transparent process.

3B: In the face of growing threats to human rights and safety, including those of children, we call on social media enterprises to work ‎with governments, international and local civil society organisations and human rights experts around the world to fully understand ‎and respond to concerns about existing or potential human rights violations. ‎

‎3C: We believe that autonomous intelligent systems should be designed in ways that enable their decisions to be explained and ‎humans to be accountable for their use. Audits and certification schemes should monitor compliance of artificial intelligence (AI) ‎systems with engineering and ethical standards, which should be developed using multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches. ‎Life and death decisions should not be delegated to machines. We call for enhanced digital cooperation with multiple stakeholders ‎to think through the design and application of these standards and principles such as transparency and non-bias in autonomous ‎intelligent systems in different social settings. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

TRUST, SECURITY AND STABILITY ‎

4. We recommend the development of a Global Commitment on Digital Trust and Security to shape a shared vision, identify ‎attributes of digital stability, elucidate and strengthen the implementation of norms for responsible uses of technology, and propose ‎priorities for action. ‎

If we are to deliver on the promise of digital technologies for the SDGs, including the above-mentioned priority action areas, and avoid ‎the risks of their misuse, we need purposeful digital cooperation arrangements. To this end, in Chapter 4, Mechanisms for Global ‎Digital Cooperation, we analyse gaps in the current mechanisms of global digital cooperation, identify the functions of global digital ‎cooperation needed to address them, and outline three sets of modalities on how to improve our global digital cooperation architecture ‎‎– which build on existing structures and arrangements in ways consistent with our shared values and principles. ‎

Given the wide spectrum of issues, there will of necessity be many forms of digital cooperation; some may be led by the private sector ‎or civil society rather than government or international organisations. Moreover, special efforts are needed to ensure inclusive ‎participation by women and other traditionally marginalised groups in all new or updated methods of global digital cooperation. ‎

The three proposed digital cooperation architectures presented are intended to ignite focused, agile and open multi-stakeholder ‎consultations in order to quickly develop updated digital governance mechanisms. The 75th Anniversary of the UN in 2020 presents an ‎opportunity for an early harvest in the form of a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation” enshrining goals, principles, and priority ‎actions. ‎

The chapter also discusses the role of the UN, both in adapting to the digital age and in contributing to improved global digital ‎cooperation. ‎

We feel the following steps are warranted to update digital governance: ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

UN is pretty much doing…

UN is pretty much doing almost everything. Some netizens are bothered by it so much.

https://www.aucklandfencingpros.co.nz/

0 People voted for this

GLOBAL DIGITAL COOPERATION ‎

5A: We recommend that, as a matter of urgency, the UN Secretary- General facilitate an agile and open consultation process to ‎develop updated mechanisms for global digital cooperation, with the options discussed in Chapter 4 as a starting point. We suggest ‎an initial goal of marking the UN's 75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation” to enshrine shared ‎values, principles, understandings and objectives for an improved global digital cooperation architecture. As part of this process, we ‎understand that the UN Secretary-General may appoint a Technology Envoy. ‎

5B: We support a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive and fit for ‎purpose for the fast-changing digital age. ‎

We hope this report and its recommendations will form part of the building blocks of an inclusive and interdependent digital world, with ‎a fit-for-purpose new governance architecture. We believe in a future in which improved digital cooperation can support the ‎achievement of the SDGs, reduce inequalities, bring people together, enhance international peace and security, and promote ‎economic opportunity and environmental sustainability.‎


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

1. Introduction: Interdependence ‎in the Digital Age

1. Introduction: Interdependence ‎in the Digital Age Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:10

Digital technologies are rapidly transforming societies and economies, simultaneously advancing the human condition and creating ‎profound and unprecedented challenges. How well are we managing the complex impacts on our individual and collective lives? How ‎can we use digital technologies to contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals? What are current best ‎practices and gaps in digital cooperation? What new ways of working together are needed, and who should be involved?

These are among the questions the UN Secretary-General asked us to consider.1 We approached our task with both humility and ‎urgency. The challenges are multi-faceted and rapidly evolving. The potential that could be unlocked by improved digital cooperation is ‎enormous – and so are the perils if humanity fails to create more effective and inclusive ways for citizens, civil society, governments, ‎academia and the private sector to work together. ‎

‎“Digital cooperation” is used in this report to describe ways of working together to address the societal, ethical, legal and ‎economic impacts of digital technologies in order to maximise benefits to society and minimise harms. ‎

As digital technologies have come to touch almost every aspect of modern life, a patchwork of cooperation and governance ‎mechanisms has gradually emerged to generate norms, standards, policies and protocols in this arena. In 2014, the United Nations ‎identified 680 distinct mechanisms related to digital cooperation,2 and the number has since risen to over a thousand.3 In many ‎technical areas, these mechanisms work well. But they struggle to keep up with the unprecedented pace and increasingly wide range ‎of change. ‎

While digital technologies have been developing for many years, in the last decade their cumulative impacts have become so deep, ‎wide-ranging and fast-changing as to herald the dawn of a new age. The cost of massive computing power has fallen.4 Billions of ‎people and devices have come online.5 Digital content now crosses borders in vast volumes, with constant shifts in what is produced ‎and how and where it is used. ‎

The spread of digital technologies has already improved the world in myriad ways. It has, for example, revolutionised the ability to ‎communicate with others and to share and access knowledge. Individuals from long-neglected populations have used mobile money ‎and other financial services for the first time, and started businesses that reach both domestic and global markets.6 If we are to achieve ‎the flagship ambition of the Sustainable Development Goals, to end extreme poverty by 2030, improved digital cooperation will need to ‎play a vital role. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Definition of digital cooperation

‎Does the definition include governance, and policy-making? It is not entirely clear. “Digital cooperation” is used in this report to describe ways of working together to address the societal, ethical, legal and ‎economic impacts of digital technologies in order to maximise benefits to society and minimise harms. ‎"

0 People voted for this

Definition for digital cooperation

It is not entirely clear whether the definition is intended to include governance, policy and/or regulation.

0 People voted for this

But digital technologies have also brought new and very serious concerns. Around the world, many people are increasingly – and ‎rightly – worried that our growing reliance on digital technologies has created new ways for individuals, companies and governments to ‎intentionally cause harm or to act irresponsibly. Virtually every day brings new stories about hatred being spread on social media, ‎invasion of privacy by businesses and governments, cyber-attacks using weaponised digital technologies or states violating the rights ‎of political opponents.7

And many people have been left out of the benefits of digital technology. Digital dividends co-exist with digital divides. Well more than ‎half the world’s population still either lacks affordable access to the internet or is using only a fraction of its potential despite being ‎connected.8 People who lack safe and affordable access to digital technologies are overwhelmingly from groups who are already ‎marginalised: women, elderly people and those with disabilities; indigenous groups; and those who live in poor, remote or rural areas.9 ‎Many existing inequalities – in wealth, opportunity, education, and health – are being widened further. ‎

The speed and scale of change is increasing – and the agility, responsiveness and scope of cooperation and governance mechanisms ‎needs rapidly to improve. We cannot afford to wait any longer to develop better ways to cooperate, collaborate and reach consensus. ‎We urgently need new forms of digital cooperation to ensure that digital technologies are built on a foundation of respect for human ‎rights and provide meaningful opportunity for all people and nations.

The speed and scale of change is increasing – and the agility, ‎responsiveness and scope of cooperation and governance mechanisms ‎needs rapidly to improve. We cannot afford to wait any longer to develop ‎better ways to cooperate, collaborate and reach consensus. We urgently ‎need new forms of digital cooperation to ensure that digital technologies ‎are built on a foundation of respect for human rights and provide ‎meaningful opportunity for all people and nations.‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

OUR DIGITAL INTERDEPENDENCE

If we want to use digital technologies to improve life for everyone, we will have to go about it consciously and deliberately – with civil society, companies and governments recognising their interdependence and working together. The unique benefits and profound risks arising from the dramatic increase in computing power and interconnectivity in the digital age reinforce our underlying interdependence. Globally and locally, we are increasingly linked in an ever-expanding digital web, just as we are increasingly linked, and mutually dependent, in the spheres of economics, public well-being and the environment. 

The critical need to improve digital cooperation comes at a time when many of the mechanisms of multilateral cooperation developed since World War II are under unprecedented duress. Although far from perfect, these avenues for cooperation between national governments underpinned one of the most peaceful and productive periods in human history. Their erosion is dangerous: it will make it harder to capitalise on the benefits of digital technologies and mitigate the hazards.

Reinvigorating multilateralism alone will not be sufficient. Effective digital cooperation requires that multilateralism be complemented by multi-stakeholderism – cooperation that involves governments and a diverse spectrum of other stakeholders such as civil society, technologists, academics, and the private sector (ranging from small enterprises to large technology companies). 

While only governments can make laws, all these stakeholders are needed to contribute to effective governance by cooperating to assess the complex and dynamic impacts of digital technologies and developing shared norms, standards and practices. We need to bring far more diverse voices to the table, particularly from developing countries and traditionally marginalised populations. Important digital issues have often been decided behind closed doors, without the involvement of those who are most affected by the decisions. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The unique benefits and risks arising from the dramatic increase in computing power and interconnectivity in the digital age reinforce our underlying interdependence."

Managing digital technologies to maximise benefits to society and minimise harms requires a far-sighted and wide-ranging view of the complex ways in which they interact with societal, environmental, ethical, legal and economic systems. The Panel is enormously grateful to the many individuals, institutions and others who provided us with their insights and expertise as we sought to better understand how to navigate this new landscape. We endeavoured to consult as broadly as possible in the time available.

Drawing on many thoughtful reflections,10 we identified the following nine values that we believe should shape the development of digital cooperation:

  • Inclusiveness – Leaving no one behind, so that we can maximise equality of opportunity, access and outcomes to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals;
  • Respect – Embodying respect for human rights and human dignity, diversity, the safety and security of personal data and devices, and national and international law; 
  • Human-centredness – Maximising benefits to humans, and ensuring that humans remain responsible for decisions; 
  • Human flourishing – Promoting sustainable economic growth, the social good and opportunities for self-realisation; 
  • Transparency – Promoting open access to information and operations; 
  • Collaboration – Upholding open standards and interoperability to facilitate collaboration; 
  • Accessibility – Developing affordable, simple and reliable devices and services for as diverse a range of users as possible; 
  • Sustainability – Furthering the aim of a zero-carbon, zero-waste economy that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs; and, 
  • Harmony – The use by governments and businesses of digital technologies in ways that earn the trust of peers, partners and people, and that avoid exploiting or exacerbating divides and conflicts. 
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

ABOUT THIS REPORT 

As a panel, we strove for consensus, but we did not always agree. We have noted areas where our views differed and tried to give a balanced summary of our debates and perspectives. While there was not unanimity of opinion among the Panel members regarding all of the recommendations, the Panel does endorse the full report in the spirit of promoting digital cooperation.

The next three chapters highlight issues that emerged from the Panel’s deliberations, setting out the backdrop for the recommendations in the final chapter. Our report does not aim to be comprehensive – some important topics are touched briefly or not at all – but to focus on areas where we felt digital cooperation could make the greatest difference. These chapters deal broadly with the areas of economics, society and governance, while noting that many issues – such as capacity, infrastructure and data – are relevant to all. 

Chapter 2, Leaving No One Behind, assesses the contribution of digital technologies to the Sustainable Development Goals. It addresses issues including financial inclusion, affordable and meaningful access to the internet, the future of education and jobs and the need for regional and global economic policy cooperation.

Chapter 3, Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies, discusses the application of human rights to the digital age, the need to keep human rights and human agency at the centre of technological development, and the imperative to improve cooperation on digital security and trust.

Chapter 4, Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation, identifies gaps in current mechanisms of global digital cooperation, the functions of digital cooperation and principles digital cooperation should aim to follow, provides three options for potential new global digital cooperation architectures, and discusses the role of the United Nations in promoting digital cooperation.

Drawing on the analysis in the preceding chapters, Chapter 5 shares and explains our Recommendations for shaping our common digital future.

As members of the Panel, we brought a wide range of experience of working in government, business, academic institutions, philanthropy and civil society organisations – but we engaged in our task as equal citizens of a digitalising world, appreciating the vital role of all stakeholders and the need for humility and cooperation.

In this spirit, we invite all stakeholders to commit to a Declaration of Digital Interdependence: 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

DECLARATION OF DIGITAL INTERDEPENDENCE

Humanity is still in the foothills of the digital age.

The peaks are yet uncharted, and their promise still untold. But the risks of losing our foothold are apparent: dangerous adventurism among states, exploitative behaviour by companies, regulation that stifles innovation and trade, and an unforgivable failure to realise vast potential for advancing human development.

How we manage the opportunities and risks of rapid technological change will profoundly impact our future and the future of the planet.

We believe that our aspirations and vulnerabilities are deeply interconnected and interdependent; that no one individual, institution, corporation or government alone can or should manage digital developments; and that it is essential that we work through our differences in order to shape our common digital future.

We declare our commitment to building on our shared values and collaborating in new ways to realise a vision of humanity’s future in which affordable and accessible digital technologies are used to enable economic growth and social opportunity, lessen inequality, enhance peace and security, promote environmental sustainability, preserve human agency, advance human rights and meet human needs. 


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

2. Leaving No One Behind

2. Leaving No One Behind Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:14

The Sustainable Development Goals represent humanity’s shared commitment to achieve ambitious global gains for people and the planet by 2030. Of the SDG’s 17 goals and 169 targets, not a single one is detached from the implications and potential of digital technology. From ending extreme poverty, to promoting inclusive economic growth and decent work, to reducing maternal mortality, to achieving universal literacy and numeracy and doubling the productivity of small farmers – progress is intertwined with the use of digital technology and new forms of digital cooperation.11 

However, technological solutions are not enough. Diverse political systems, history, culture, resource constraints and other factors which have marginalised far too many people, are – and will continue to be – of critical importance. The application of technology must be aligned with investments in human capital, infrastructure and environmental protection. Widening access to digital technologies is necessary, but not sufficient. Access needs to be affordable to be meaningful. Special efforts are needed to remove barriers for marginalised groups who often face a double bind: they already face discrimination in its many analogue forms and are least likely to be connected. Pre-existing forms of marginalisation should not be perpetuated or aggravated in the digital sphere. 

Success will require a commitment by all involved stakeholders to hard work and learning over many years about how to broaden opportunity and build truly inclusive economies and societies. We believe that there is significant room for digital technology and improved cooperation to contribute to these efforts.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

2.1 CREATING AN INCLUSIVE DIGITAL ECONOMY

2.1 CREATING AN INCLUSIVE DIGITAL ECONOMY Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:29

With mobile internet and increasingly powerful and lower cost computing, every person can theoretically connect to anyone else, obtain and generate knowledge, or engage in commercial or social activity.12 For organisations of whatever size, likewise, there are fewer technical barriers to global economic interaction at scale. Digital technology can support economic inclusion by breaking down barriers to information, broadening access, and lowering the level of skills needed to participate in the economy.13 

Of course, this does not mean that everyone and everything should be connected or digitised. Nor does it mean that the social and economic consequences of digital technology are necessarily inclusive or beneficial. Digital technology can both provide opportunity and accentuate inequality. 

The challenge for policy makers, and other stakeholders seeking to contribute to progress toward the SDGs, is how to cooperate to leverage technology to create a more inclusive society. As we emphasise in this chapter and our recommendations, we believe digital cooperation must steer how digital technologies are developed and deployed to create meaningful economic opportunities for all. 

Developing an inclusive digital economy will require sustained and coherent effort from many stakeholders across all walks of life. National policy frameworks and international agreements need to find ways to promote financial inclusion, innovation, investment and growth while protecting people and the environment, keeping competition fair and the tax base sustainable. 

Developing an inclusive digital economy will require sustained and coherent effort from many stakeholders across all walks of life. National policy frameworks and international agreements need to find ways to promote financial inclusion, innovation, investment and growth while protecting people and the environment, keeping competition fair and the tax base sustainable.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

FINANCIAL INCLUSION: MOBILE MONEY, DIGITAL IDENTIFICATION AND E-COMMERCE 

The ability of digital technologies to empower traditionally marginalised people and drive inclusive economic development is illustrated by financial inclusion.14 Mobile money, digital identification and e-commerce have given many more people the ability to save and transact securely without needing cash, insure against risks, borrow to grow their businesses and reach new markets. 

According to the World Bank’s Global Findex 2017 report, 69 percent of adults have an account with a financial institution, up by seven percentage points since 2014. That means over half a billion adults gained access to financial tools in three years. But many are still left behind, and there is scope for further rapid progress: a billion people who still have no access to financial services already have a mobile phone. 15 

Mobile money – the ability to send, receive and store money using a mobile phone – has brought financial services to people who have long been ignored by traditional banks.16 It reaches remote regions without physical bank branches. It can also help women access financial services – an important aspect of equality, given that in many countries women are less likely than men to have a bank account. 

New business models enable people who have no physical collateral to demonstrate to lenders that they are creditworthy – for example, by allowing the lenders to see phone location data and online transaction and payment history.18 Mobile finance matters in wealthy countries, too, where low-income and historically marginalised groups generally both pay higher interest rates and receive a narrower range of financial services.19 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Well-known examples of mobile money include Kenya’s M-Pesa and China’s Alipay. Launched in 2007 by Vodafone, M-Pesa received support from diverse stakeholders who all have a role to play in digital cooperation. A private sector innovation with donor funding, it originally addressed microfinance clients in partnership with civil society – then citizens found new uses, including low cost person-to-person transfers.20 Alipay has made millions of small business loans to online merchants, more than half of whom are aged under 30. 21 

What works in one country may not work in another.22 Rather than try to replicate specific successes, digital cooperation should aim to highlight best practices, standards and principles that can create conditions for local innovations to emerge and grow based on local issues, needs and cultural values. India, for example, has added 300 million bank accounts in three years as new business models have been built on the India Stack, a set of government-managed online standards in areas including online payments and digital identity. 23 

Across many areas of financial inclusion, fragmented systems and lack of cooperation within and across states make it difficult to fully realise the benefits of digital technology. Common standards for cross-border interoperability of mobile money could unleash much more innovation: discussions to develop them should be a priority for digital cooperation. 24

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Digital identification (ID) can support inclusive economic development more broadly. More than a billion people today lack an official way to prove their identity: this means they may not be able to vote, open a bank account, transact online, own land, start a business, connect to utilities or access public services such as health care or education.25 The consulting firm McKinsey & Company studied seven large countries and concluded that digital ID systems could add between 3 and 13% to their gross domestic product.26 

However, digital ID systems require caution. A digital ID can help unlock new opportunities but can also introduce new risks and challenges. They can be used to undermine human rights – for example, by enabling civil society to be targeted, or selected groups to be excluded from social benefits.27 Data breaches can invade the privacy of millions. To minimise risks, countries should introduce a digital ID system only after a broad national conversation and allow for voluntary enrolment and viable alternatives for those who opt out. They should establish ways to monitor use and redress misuse. Countries could cooperate to share experience and best practices in this regard. 

The World Bank Identification for Development (ID4D) initiative has identified ten Principles of Digital Identification covering inclusion, design and governance “to improve development outcomes while maintaining trust and privacy”.28 This initiative draws on the experiences of countries that have already implemented digital ID systems. Among the most successful is Estonia, where citizens can use their digital ID to access over 2,000 online government services. Building on the positive and cautionary lessons of early adopters, the Modular Open Source Identity Platform (MOSIP) is developing open source code countries can adapt to design their own systems.29 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Recent years have also seen a dramatic increase in e-commerce, including by individuals and small businesses selling products and services using online platforms. When e-commerce platforms provide technological services to small entrepreneurs, rather than compete with them, they can level the playing field: it is relatively cheap and simple to start a business online, and entrepreneurs can reach markets far beyond their local area. 

Inclusive e-commerce, which promotes participation of small firms in the digital economy, is particularly important for the SDGs as it can create new opportunities for traditionally excluded groups. In China, for example, an estimated 10 million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) sell on the Taobao platform; nearly half of the entrepreneurs on the platform are women, and more than 160,000 are people with disabilities.30 E-commerce can support rural economic inclusion as clusters of villages can develop market niches in certain types of products: in China, an estimated 3,000 “Taobao villages” have annual online sales of more than one million dollars annually.31 A growing e-commerce sector also creates demand and employment in related businesses including logistics, software, customised manufacturing and content production. 

E-commerce shows how digital technologies with supportive policies can contribute to inclusive economic development – it has done best in countries where it is relatively easy to set up a business, and where traditionally neglected populations are able to get online.32 As with inclusive mobile finance, as more individuals and small enterprises buy and sell internationally, there is also a need to create more supportive rules for cross-border e-commerce. 

As e-commerce grows, there are also concerns about its relation to local and international markets, as discussed below in Section 2.3. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

HARNESSING DATA AND ‘DIGITAL PUBLIC GOODS’ FOR DEVELOPMENT 

The immense power and value of data in the modern economy can and must be harnessed to meet the SDGs, but this will require new models of collaboration. 

The Panel discussed potential pooling of data in areas such as health, agriculture and the environment to enable scientists and thought leaders to use data and artificial intelligence to better understand issues and find new ways to make progress on the SDGs. Such data commons would require criteria for establishing relevance to the SDGs, standards for interoperability, rules on access and safeguards to ensure privacy and security. 

The immense power and value of data in the modern economy can and must be harnessed to meet the SDGs, but this will require new models of collaboration.

We also need to generate more data relevant to the SDGs. In a world which has seen exponential growth of data in recent years,33 many people remain invisible. For example, the 2018 UN SDG Report notes that only 73 percent of children under the age of 5 have had their births registered.34 The World Health Organization (WHO) estimated in 2014 that two-thirds of deaths are not registered.35 Only 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa have data on poverty from surveys conducted after 2015. Most countries do not collect sex-disaggregated data on internet access. 36

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Anonymised data – information that is rendered anonymous in such a way that the data subject is not or no longer identifiable – about progress toward the SDGs is generally less sensitive and controversial than the use of personal data of the kind companies such as Facebook, Twitter or Google may collect to drive their business models, or facial and gait data that could be used for surveillance.37 However, personal data can also serve development goals, if handled with proper oversight to ensure its security and privacy. 

For example, individual health data is extremely sensitive – but many people’s health data, taken together, can allow researchers to map disease outbreaks, compare the effectiveness of treatments and improve understanding of conditions. Aggregated data from individual patient cases was crucial to containing the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.38 Private and public sector healthcare providers around the world are now using various forms of electronic medical records. These help individual patients by making it easier to personalise health services, but the public health benefits require these records to be interoperable. 

There is scope to launch collaborative projects to test the interoperability of data, standards and safeguards across the globe. The World Health Assembly’s consideration of a global strategy for digital health in 2020 presents an opportunity to launch such projects, which could initially be aimed at global health challenges such as Alzheimer’s and hypertension.39 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The slowing progress in bringing more people online points to the urgent need for new approaches to building digital infrastructure, a complex task that requires better coordination among many stakeholders: governments, international organisations, communications service providers, makers of hardware and software, providers of digital services and content, civil society and the various groups that oversee protocols and standards on which digital networks operate.

Improved digital cooperation on a data-driven approach to public health has the potential to lower costs, build new partnerships among hospitals, technology companies, insurance providers and research institutes and support the shift from treating diseases to improving wellness. Appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure the focus remains on improving health care outcomes. With testing, experience and necessary protective measures as well as guidelines for the responsible use of data, similar cooperation could emerge in many other fields related to the SDGs, from education to urban planning to agriculture. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Data collaboration for climate change, agriculture and the environment 

The Platform for Big Data in Agriculture was launched in 2017 by the Colombia-based International Center for Tropical Agriculture after consultation with public, private and non-profit stakeholders. By providing ways to share data on agriculture, it seeks to transform research and innovation in food security, sustainability and climate change.40 

More broadly, cheaper sensors generating more data – and better AI algorithms to analyse it – can further improve our understanding of how complex environmental systems interact and the likely impacts of climate change.41 

Digital technologies can also be used to reduce waste. The methods of complex coordination that have lowered costs by enabling supply chains to touch every corner of the planet can also help to meet higher environmental standards and design devices with repair, reuse, upgrading and recycling in mind. For this, new forms of digital cooperation and data sharing would be needed among suppliers, customers and competitors

 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Many types of digital technologies and content – from data to apps, data visualisation tools to educational curricula – could accelerate achievement of the SDGs. When they are freely and openly available, with minimal restrictions on how they can be distributed, adapted and reused, we can think of them as “digital public goods”.42 In economics, a “public good” is something which anyone can use without charge and without preventing others from using it.43 Digital content and technologies lend themselves to being public goods in this respect.

Combinations of digital public goods can create “common rails” for innovation of inclusive digital products and services. The India Stack is an example of how a unified, multi-layered software platform with clear standards, provided by public entities, can give government agencies and entrepreneurs the technological building blocks to improve service delivery and develop new business models which promote economic inclusion.44 

There is currently no “go to” place for discovering, engaging with, building, and investing in digital public goods. Along the lines of the MOSIP model – and with the participation of civil society and other stakeholders – such a platform could create great value by enabling the sharing and adaptation of digital technologies and content across countries in a wider range of areas relevant to achieving the SDGs. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

EXPANDING ACCESS TO DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

The proportion of people online in the developing world expanded rapidly in the last decade – from 14.5% in 2008 to 45.3% in 2018 – but progress has recently slowed.45 Internet access in many parts of the world is still too slow and expensive to be effectively used.46 The cost of mobile data as a percent of income increased in nearly half the countries according to a recent study.47 Without affordable access, advances in digital technologies disproportionately benefit those already connected, contributing to greater inequality. 

The people being left behind are typically those who can least afford it. Growth in new internet connections is slowest in the lowest-income countries.48 Rural areas continue to lag, as companies prioritise improving access in more densely populated areas which will offer a better return on investment.49 

The slowing progress in bringing more people online points to the urgent need for new approaches to building digital infrastructure, a complex task that requires better coordination among many stakeholders: governments, international organisations, communications service providers, makers of hardware and software, providers of digital services and content, civil society and the various groups that oversee protocols and standards on which digital networks operate.50 As these actors cooperate, it also represents an important moment to re-emphasise and address the complex social, cultural and economic factors that continue to marginalise many groups. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Some countries, such as Indonesia, have set targets that treat internet connectivity as a national priority.57 While finance alone will not achieve universal internet access, it can help if invested wisely: some countries are generating financing from fees on existing communication network providers to help expand systems to those who are currently uncovered, for example through Universal Service Funds.58

Advance market commitments deserve further consideration as a possible way to incentivise investment, as they have in other areas such as vaccine developments. They involve a commitment to pay for a future product or service once it exists; the commitment in this case could come from consortia of governments, international organisations or others interested in enabling specific uses in areas such as health or education.59

Many local groups are also working on small-scale community solutions: for example, a rural community of 6,000 people in Mankosi, South Africa, built a solar-powered “mesh network” in collaboration with a university.60 Such community projects are often not just about getting online but building skills and empowering locals to use technology for development and entrepreneurship.61

Digital cooperation should increase coordination among the public and private entities working in this space and help tailor approaches to economic, cultural and geographic contexts. Governments have an important role to play in creating a policy framework to enable private sector enterprise, innovation, and cooperative, bottom-up networks.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

SUPPORTING MARGINALISED ‎GROUPS AND MEASURING ‎INCLUSIVENESS

Even where getting online is possible and affordable, extra ‎efforts are needed to empower groups that are discriminated ‎against and excluded. For example, digital technologies are ‎often not easily accessible for elderly people or those with ‎disabilities;62 indigenous people have little digital content in their ‎native languages;63 and globally an estimated 12 percent more ‎men use the internet than women. 64

Even where getting online is ‎possible and affordable, extra ‎efforts are needed to empower ‎groups that are discriminated ‎against and excluded.

Responses need to address deep and complex social and cultural factors, such as those contributing to the gender gap in access to and usage of mobile phones, smart phones and digital services – gaps which persist in many cases despite increases in women’s income and education levels.65 Social marketing could play a role in changing attitudes, as it has in many other areas with backing from donors, governments and civil society organisations.66 Initiatives to improve access for marginalised populations should start with consultation involving these groups in the design, deployment and evaluation of such efforts.

Efforts to improve digital inclusion would be greatly helped if there were a clear and agreed set of metrics to monitor it. Initial work – notably by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the Group of Twenty (G20), ITU, and the Economist Intelligence Unit – needs to be broadened to reflect the wide variety of global contexts and, importantly, needs greater buy-in and participation from developing countries.67 The Panel urges international organisations, civil society and governments to develop action plans around reliable and consistent measures of digital inclusion with sex disaggregated data. Discussion about measurements and definitions would also focus attention on the issues underlying inclusion.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

2.2 RETHINKING HOW WE WORK AND LEARN

2.2 RETHINKING HOW WE WORK AND LEARN Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:39

Many previous waves of technological change have shifted what skills are demanded in the labour market, making some jobs obsolete while creating new ones. But the current wave of change may be the most rapid and unpredictable in history. How to prepare people to earn a livelihood in the digital age – and how to protect those struggling to do so – is a critical question for digital cooperation for governments and other stakeholders who aim to reduce inequality and achieve the SDGs.

At this stage, there appears to be limited value in attempting to predict whether robots and artificial intelligence will create more jobs than they eliminate, although technology historically has been a net job creator.68 Many studies attempt to predict the impact on the jobs market but there is far from being a consensus.69 The only certainty is that workers have entered a period of vast and growing uncertainty – and that this necessitates new mechanisms of cooperation. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

REFORMING EDUCATION SYSTEMS AND SUPPORTING LIFELONG LEARNING

Modern schools were developed in response to the industrial revolution, and they may ultimately need fundamental reform to be fit for the digital age – but it is currently difficult to see more than the broad contours of the changes that are likely to be needed.

Countries are still in early stages of learning how to use digital tools in education and how to prepare students for digital economies and societies. These will be ongoing challenges for governments and other stakeholders. Some countries are now exposing even very young children to science and robotics. Alongside such broader digital literacy efforts, it may be even more important to focus from an early age on developing children’s “soft skills”, such as social and emotional intelligence, creativity, collaboration and critical thinking. One widely referenced study concludes that occupations requiring such soft skills are less likely to be automated.70

Teaching about specific technologies should always be based on strong foundational knowledge in science and math, as this is less likely to become obsolete. At a degree level, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) curricula need to borrow from the humanities and social sciences, and vice versa: STEM students need to be encouraged to think about the ethical and social implications of their disciplines, while humanities and social science students need a basic understanding of data science.71 More informal approaches to learning may be needed to prepare students for working in cross-disciplinary teams, and where such informal approaches already exist in the developing world they should be fully appreciated for their value.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

As the boundaries increasingly blur between ‘work’ and ‘learning’, the need to enable and incentivise lifelong learning was emphasised in many of the written contributions the Panel received.

Lifelong learning should be affordable, portable and accessible to all. Responsibility for lifelong learning should be shared between workers themselves, governments, education institutions, the informal sector and industry: digital cooperation mechanisms should bring these groups together for regular debates on what skills are required and how training can be delivered. Workers should have flexibility to explore how best to opt into or design their own approach to lifelong learning.

There are emerging examples of government efforts to use social security systems and public-private partnerships to incentivise and empower workers to learn new skills and plan for a changing labour market. Among those drawn to the Panel’s attention were efforts by the International Trade Union Confederation in Ghana and Rwanda,72 France’s Compte Personnel de Formation, Scotland’s Individual Training Account, Finland’s transformation of work and the labour market sub-group under its national AI programme, and Singapore’s Skills Framework for Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

However, reskilling cannot be the only answer to inequality in the labour market – especially as the workers most able to learn new skills will be those who start with the advantage of comparatively higher levels of education.73

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

PROTECTING WORKERS, NOT JOBS



New business models are fuelling the rise of an informal or “gig” economy, in which workers typically have flexibility but not job or income security.74 In industrialised countries, as more and more people work unpredictable hours as freelancers, independent contractors, agency workers or workers on internet platforms, there is an urgent need to rethink labour codes developed decades ago when factory jobs were the norm.75

Promising initiatives include Germany’s Crowdsourcing Code of Conduct, which sets out guidelines on fair payment, reasonable timing and data protection for internet platform workers, and employs an ombudsman to mediate disputes; and Belgium’s Titre-Services and France’s Chèque Emploi Service Universel, which offer tax incentives for people engaging casual workers to participate in a voucher scheme that enables the workers to qualify for formal labour rights. There are also examples of digital technologies enabling new ways for workers to engage in collective bargaining.76

While the gig economy tends to make work less formal in industrialised countries, in the developing world the majority of people have long worked in the informal sector.77 For these workers, gig economy arrangements may be more formal and transparent, and – with appropriate cooperation measures with technology firms – easier for governments to oversee.78 The challenge, as with industrialised countries, is to uphold labour rights while still allowing flexibility and innovation.

In all national contexts, protecting workers and promoting job creation in the digital age will require smart regulations and investments, and policies on taxation and social protection policies which support workers as they seek to transition to new opportunities.

 
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

2.3 REGIONAL AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC POLICY COOPERATION

2.3 REGIONAL AND GLOBAL ECONOMIC POLICY COOPERATION Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:42

Taxation, trade, consumer protection and competition are among the areas of economic policy that require new thinking in the digital age: they are the ‘guard rails’ of the digital economy. Increased cooperation could lead to effective national approaches and experience informing regional and global multilateral cooperation arrangements.

Taxation, trade, consumer protection and competition are among the areas of economic policy that require new thinking in the digital age: they are the ‘guard rails’ of the digital economy. Increased cooperation could lead to effective national approaches and experience informing regional and global multilateral cooperation arrangements.

Currently, however, there is a lack of regional and global standards in these areas, and multilateral cooperation is generally not working well. This may inflict far higher costs than is widely recognised. To take one relatively simple example, regional and global standards in areas such as interoperability of mobile money systems and best practices for digital ID would have considerable benefits. To discourage misuse, such standards and practices would also need to include clear accountability.



International trade rules need to be updated for the digital age. Technologies and trade have changed dramatically since 1998, for example, when the World Trade Organisation (WTO) last brokered an agreement on e-commerce.79 In January 2019, 76 WTO member states announced the initiation of plurilateral negotiations on trade-related aspects of e-commerce.80 Any agreement will need to address concerns of a diverse range of countries, including lower-income countries in which the e-commerce sector is less developed.81

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Some argue that restrictions on data flows should be treated like any other trade barrier and generally minimised.83 However, views differ sharply, and decisions on national legislation are complicated by concerns about privacy and security – discussed in the next chapter. Countries that require companies to store and process data within their national borders argue that it promotes local innovation and investment in technology infrastructure and makes it easier to tax global corporations.84 Others argue against such approaches on the basis that they are protectionist or represent an effort to obtain access to the data.



There is growing recognition that taxation is an area where digital technology has moved faster than policy frameworks. In particular, technology firms may operate business models – such as multi-sided platforms or “freemium” models – which offer free services to some individual users and earn revenue from other users, merchants or advertisers.85 A company may provide services to millions of people in a country without establishing a legal entity or paying tax there. This has become a source of growing popular resentment.86

Where possible, new regulatory approaches should be tested on a small scale before being rolled out widely – through, for example, pilot zones, regulatory sandboxes or trial periods.

International digital cooperation could assist countries to develop appropriate tax policies. The G20 and OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project is currently seeking consensus on issues such as how a global company’s tax receipts should be allocated to different jurisdictions based on its business activities.87 An agreement in this area could offer countries a source of revenue that they could, for example, use to invest in human capital or lower the tax burden on small businesses.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Some countries are now taking unilateral action. Countries such as Italy, France and the United Kingdom (UK) have announced the intent to impose taxes on digital sales rather than profits, at least on an interim basis.88 Other countries, such as Thailand, have amended tax rules relating to offshore digital services.89 The lack of cooperation and coordination among different regulators is creating a patchwork of different national rules and regulations which makes trade and e-commerce more difficult. Ensuring that such emerging tax policies do not have unintended consequences on small enterprises or poor populations deserves special attention.



An international perspective is also needed to tackle concerns about competition, which have grown as large firms have established leading positions in many digital services. This is due in part to network effects: the more users a platform already has, the more attractive it becomes for new users and advertisers.

Recent discussions have proposed three main approaches.90 First, a relatively laissez-faire approach that favours self-regulation or minimal regulation. Proponents argue that government regulation is often poorly conceived and counterproductive, harming innovation and economic dynamism. Critics counter that an overly hands-off approach has led to a concentration of market power in large firms and abuses of privacy that have sparked public and government concern.

A second approach calls for more active state intervention to set rules for digital companies. Experience in industrial policy shows that such an approach can either help or hinder depending on many factors, including regulators’ willingness and ability to engage varied stakeholders in a smart discourse to balance competing interests effectively.91

A third approach suggests regulating digital businesses as public utilities, analogous to railroads or electricity companies. The analogy is not an exact one, however, as physical infrastructure is easier to segment and harder to replicate than digital infrastructure and lends itself more easily to hosting competition among service providers. There is also dispute about how contestable are digital markets – that is, how vulnerable are the leading firms to new competitors. Moreover, traditional competition law operates far more slowly than changes in technology.

 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Finding the right approach in these areas will require not only different countries to work together, but also regulators in different government agencies. Models for how agencies can come together for peer-to-peer information sharing include the International Conference of Data Protection & Privacy Commissioners and the International Competition Network.92



Alongside existing models, new models of governance and cooperation may be needed. They will need to be multi-stakeholder, including the private sector, civil society and users. Their debates should be transparent and open to citizens, as modelled by Mexico’s National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection.93



Where possible, new regulatory approaches should be tested on a small scale before being rolled out widely – through, for example, pilot zones, regulatory sandboxes or trial periods. We stress the overall need for a “systems” approach to cooperation and regulation that is multi-stakeholder, adaptive, agile and inclusive in Recommendation 5B.



However, regulators need to have sufficient resources and expertise to engage in such an approach – and the Panel’s consultations highlighted concern that many regulators and legislators have insufficient understanding of complex digital issues to develop and implement policies, engage with companies developing technologies and explain issues to the public.94 This increases the risk of regulations having unintended consequences.



There are several existing examples of initiatives to develop the capacity and understanding of public officials, from countries such as Israel,95 Singapore96 and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).97 But much more could be done, and the Panel’s Recommendation 2 envisages “digital help desks” which would broaden opportunities for officials and regulators to develop the skills needed for the smart governance that will be required to create inclusive and positive outcomes for all.

 


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

3. Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies

3. Individuals, Societies and Digital Technologies Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:51

The ultimate purpose of digital technology should always be to improve human welfare. Beyond the socio-economic aspects discussed in the previous chapter, digital technologies have proved that they can connect individuals across cultural and geographic barriers, increasing understanding and potentially helping societies to become more peaceful and cohesive.

However, this is only part of the story. There are also many examples of digital technologies being used to violate rights, undermine privacy, polarise societies and incite violence.

The questions raised are new, complex and pressing. What are the responsibilities of social media companies, governments and individual users? Who is accountable when data can move across the world in an instant? How can varied stakeholders, in nations with diverse cultural and historical traditions, cooperate to ensure that digital technologies do not weaken human rights but strengthen them? 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

3.1 HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN AGENCY

3.1 HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN AGENCY Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 10:57

Many of the most important documents that codify human rights were written before the age of digital interdependence. They include the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women; and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The rights these treaties and conventions codify apply in full in the digital age – and often with fresh urgency.

Digital technologies are widely used to advocate for, defend and exercise human rights – but also to violate them. Social media, for example, has provided powerful new ways to exercise the rights to free expression and association, and to document rights violations. It is also used to violate rights by spreading lies that incite hatred and foment violence, often at terrible speed and with the cloak of anonymity.

The most outrageous cases make the headlines. The live streaming of mass shootings in New Zealand.98 Incitement of violence against an ethnic minority in Myanmar.99 The #gamergate scandal, in which women working in video games were threatened with rape.100 The suicides of a British teenager who had viewed self-harm content on social media101 and an Indian man bullied after posting videos of himself dressed as a woman.102

But these are manifestations of a problem that runs wide and deep: one survey of UK adult internet users found that 40 percent of 16-24 year-olds have reported some form of harmful online content, with examples ranging from racism to harassment and child abuse.103 Children are at particular risk: almost a third of under-18s report having recently been exposed to “violent or hateful contact or behaviour online”.104 Elderly people are also more prone to online fraud and misinformation.

Governments have increasingly sought to cut off social media in febrile situations – such as after a terrorist attack – when the risks of rapidly spreading misinformation are especially high. But denying access to the internet can also be part of a sustained government policy that itself violates citizens’ rights, including by depriving people of access to information. Across the globe, governments directed 188 separate internet shutdowns in 2018, up from 108 in 2017.105

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE

Universal human rights apply equally online as offline – freedom of expression and assembly, for example, are no less important in cyberspace than in the town square. That said, in many cases it is far from obvious how human rights laws and treaties drafted in a pre-digital era should be applied in the digital age.

There is an urgent need to examine how time-honoured human rights frameworks and conventions – and the obligations that flow from those commitments – can guide actions and policies relating to digital cooperation and digital technology.

There is an urgent need to examine how time-honoured human rights frameworks and conventions – and the obligations that flow from those commitments – can guide actions and policies relating to digital cooperation and digital technology. The Panel’s Recommendation 3A urges the UN Secretary-General to begin a process that invites views from all stakeholders on how human rights can be meaningfully applied to ensure that no gaps in protection are caused by new and emerging digital technologies.

Such a process could draw inspiration from many recent national and global efforts to apply human rights for the digital age.106 Illustrative examples include

  • India’s Supreme Court has issued a judgement defining what the right to privacy means in the digital context.107
  • Nigeria’s draft Digital Rights and Freedom Bill tries to apply international human rights law to national digital realities.108
  • The Global Compact and UNICEF have developed guidance on how businesses should approach children’s rights in the digital age.109
  • UNESCO has used its Rights, Openness, Access and Multi-stakeholder governance (ROAM) framework to discuss AI’s implications for rights including freedom of expression, privacy, equality and participation in public life.110
  • The Council of Europe has developed recommendations and guidelines, and the European Court of Human Rights has produced case law, interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights in the digital realm.111
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

We must collectively ensure that advances in technology are not used to erode human rights or avoid accountability. Human rights defenders should not be targeted for their use of digital media.112 International mechanisms for human rights reporting by states should better incorporate the digital dimension.

In the digital age, the role of the private sector in human rights is becoming increasingly pronounced. As digital technologies and digital services reach scale so quickly, decisions taken by private companies are increasingly affecting millions of people across national borders.

The roles of government and business are described in the 2011 UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Though not binding, they were unanimously endorsed by the Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly. They affirm that while states have the duty to protect rights and provide remedies, businesses also have a responsibility to respect human rights, evaluate risk and assess the human rights impact of their actions.113

There is now a critical need for clearer guidance about what should be expected on human rights from private companies as they develop and deploy digital technologies. The need is especially pressing for social media companies, which is why our Recommendation 3B calls for them to put in place procedures, staff and better ways of working with civil society and human rights defenders to prevent or quickly redress violations.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

As any new technology is developed, we should ask how it might inadvertently create new ways of violating rights – especially of people who are already often marginalised or discriminated against.

We heard from one interviewee that companies can struggle to understand local context quickly enough to respond effectively in fast-developing conflict situations and may welcome UN or other expert insight in helping them assess concerns being raised by local actors. One potential venue for information sharing is the UN Forum on Business and Human Rights, through which the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva hosts regular discussions among the private sector and civil society.114

Civil society organisations would like to go beyond information sharing and use such forums to identify patterns of violations and hold the private sector to account.115 Governments also are becoming less willing to accept a hands-off regulatory approach: in the UK, for example, legislators are exploring how existing legal principles such as “duty of care” could be applied to social media firms.116

As any new technology is developed, we should ask how it might inadvertently create new ways of violating rights – especially of people who are already often marginalised or discriminated against. Women, for example, experience higher levels of online harassment than men.117 The development of personal care robots is raising questions about the rights of elderly people to dignity, privacy and agency.118

The rights of children need especially acute attention. Children go online at ever younger ages, and under-18s make up one-third of all internet users.119 They are most vulnerable to online bullying and sexual exploitation. Digital technologies should promote the best interests of children and respect their agency to articulate their needs, in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Online services and apps used by children should be subject to strict design and data consent standards. Notable examples include the American Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule of 2013 and the draft Age Appropriate Design Code announced by the UK Information Commissioner in 2019, which defines standards for apps, games and many other digital services even if they are not intended for children.120

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user jcroll_1359

Duty of Care / Safety by Design

Duty of care is an highly appropriate approach to ensure companies respect the principle of priority to "the child's best interest" as laid down in article 3 of the UN-Convention on the Rights of the Child. The private sector, esp. social media firms, should be encouraged to base their services on a "safery by design" approach in order to ensure that children's rights - but also other consumers' rights - are thoroughly taken into account.

0 People voted for this

Everybody should know how…

Everybody should know how human rights should be addressed properly.

Yang Ruflo

0 People voted for this

HUMAN DIGNITY, AGENCY AND CHOICE

We are delegating more and more decisions to intelligent systems, from how to get to work to what to eat for dinner.121 This can improve our lives, by freeing up time for activities we find more important. But it is also forcing us to rethink our understandings of human dignity and agency, as algorithms are increasingly sophisticated at manipulating our choices – for example, to keep our attention glued to a screen.122

It is also becoming apparent that ‘intelligent’ systems can reinforce discrimination. Many algorithms have been shown to reflect the biases of their creators.123 This is just one reason why employment in the technology sector needs to be more diverse – as noted in Recommendation 1C, which calls for improving gender equality.124 Gaps in the data on which algorithms are trained can likewise automate existing patterns of discrimination, as machine learning systems are only as good as the data that is fed to them.

Often the discrimination is too subtle to notice, but the real-life consequences can be profound when AI systems are used to make decisions such as who is eligible for home loans or public services such as health care.125 The harm caused can be complicated to redress.126 A growing number of initiatives, such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)’s Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems, are seeking to define how developers of artificial intelligence should address these and similar problems.127

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Other initiatives are looking at questions of human responsibility and legal accountability – a complex and rapidly-changing area.128 Legal systems assume that decisions can be traced back to people. Autonomous intelligent systems raise the danger that humans could evade responsibility for decisions made or actions taken by technology they designed, trained, adapted or deployed.129 In any given case, legal liability might ultimately rest with the people who developed the technology, the people who chose the data on which to train the technology, and/or the people who chose to deploy the technology in a given situation.

These questions come into sharpest focus with lethal autonomous weapons systems – machines that can autonomously select targets and kill. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for a ban on machines with the power and discretion to take lives without human involvement, a position which this Panel supports.130

Gaps in the data on which algorithms are trained can likewise automate existing patterns of discrimination, as machine learning systems are only as good as the data that is fed to them.

The Panel supports, as stated in Recommendation 3C, the emerging global consensus that autonomous intelligent systems be designed so that their decisions can be explained, and humans remain accountable. These systems demand the highest standards of ethics and engineering. They should be used with extreme caution to make decisions affecting people’s social or economic opportunities or rights, and individuals should have meaningful opportunity to appeal. Life and death decisions should not be delegated to machines.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The right to privacy131 has become particularly contentious as digital technologies have given governments and private companies vast new possibilities for surveillance, tracking and monitoring, some of which are invasive of privacy.132 As with so many areas of digital technology, there needs to be a society-wide conversation, based on informed consent, about the boundaries and norms for such uses of digital technology and AI. Surveillance, tracking or monitoring by governments or businesses should not violate international human rights law.

It is helpful to articulate what we mean by “privacy” and “security”. We define “privacy” as being about an individual’s right to decide who is allowed to see and use their personal information. We define “security” as being about protecting data, on servers and in communication via digital networks.

Notions and expectations of privacy also differ across cultures and societies. How should an individual’s right to privacy be balanced against the interest of businesses in accessing data to improve services and government interest in accessing data for legitimate public purposes related to law enforcement and national security?133

Societies around the world debate these questions heatedly when hard cases come to light, such as Apple’s 2016 refusal of the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)’s request to assist in unlocking an iPhone of the suspect in a shooting case.134 Different governments are taking different approaches: some are forcing technology companies to provide technical means of access, sometimes referred to as “backdoors”, so the state can access personal data.135 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Complications arise when data is located in another country: in ‎‎2013, Microsoft refused an FBI request to provide a suspect’s ‎emails that were stored on a server in Ireland. The United States ‎of America (USA) has since passed a law obliging American ‎companies to comply with warrants to provide data of American ‎citizens even if it is stored abroad.136 It enables other ‎governments to separately negotiate agreements to access their ‎citizens’ data stored by American companies in the USA.

There currently seems to be little alternative to handling cross-‎border law enforcement requests through a complex and slow-‎moving patchwork of bilateral agreements – the attitudes of ‎people and governments around the world differ widely, and the ‎decision-making role of global technology companies is ‎evolving. Nonetheless, it is possible that regional and ‎multilateral arrangements could develop over time.

For individuals, what companies can do with their personal data ‎is not just a question of legality but practical understanding – to ‎manage permissions for every single organisation we interact ‎with would be incredibly time consuming and confusing. How to ‎give people greater meaningful control over their personal data ‎is an important question for digital cooperation.

Alongside the right to privacy is the important question of who ‎realises the economic value that can be derived from personal ‎data. Consumers typically have little awareness of how their ‎personal information is sold or otherwise used to generate ‎economic benefit.

There are emerging ideas to make data transactions more ‎explicit and share the value extracted from personal data with ‎the individuals who provide it. These could include business ‎models which give users greater privacy by default: promising ‎examples include the web browser Brave and the search engine ‎DuckDuckGo.137 They could include new legal structures: the ‎UK138 and India139 are among countries exploring the idea of a ‎third-party ‘data fiduciary’ who users can authorise to manage ‎their personal data on their behalf. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
Profile picture for user bwanner

Data Fiduciary

The concept of a “data fiduciary” is not widely understood or supported among UN countries and US business. Until this concept is more fully developed and clarified by countries and organizations exploring the data fiduciary concept, we do not support the reference in this report.

0 People voted for this

Human rights advocates has…

Human rights advocates has been an issue for many countries who are into democratic government. So it is very assuring to have this article.

Yang, 

https://www.landscapingwellingtonpros.kiwi/

0 People voted for this

3.2 TRUST AND SOCIAL COHESION

3.2 TRUST AND SOCIAL COHESION Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:01

The world is suffering from a “trust deficit disorder”, in the words of the UN Secretary-General addressing the UN General Assembly in 2018.140 Trust among nations and in multilateral processes has weakened as states focus more on strategic competition than common interests and behave more aggressively. Building trust, and underpinning it with clear and agreed standards, is central to the success of digital cooperation.

Digital technologies have enabled some new interactions that promote trust, notably by verifying people’s identities and allowing others to rate them.141 Although not reliable in all instances, such systems have enabled many entrepreneurs on e-commerce platforms to win the trust of consumers, and given many people on sharing platforms the confidence to invite strangers into their cars or homes.

In other ways, digital technologies are eroding trust. Lies can now spread more easily, including through algorithms which generate and promote misinformation, sowing discord and undermining confidence in political processes.142 The use of artificial intelligence to produce “deep fakes” – audio and visual content that convincingly mimics real humans – further complicates the task of telling truth from misinformation.143

Violations of privacy and security are undermining people’s trust in governments and companies. Trust between states is challenged by new ways to conduct espionage, manipulate public opinion and infiltrate critical infrastructure. While academia has traditionally nurtured international cooperation in artificial intelligence, governments are incentivised to secrecy by awareness that future breakthroughs could dramatically shift the balance of power.144

The trust deficit might in part be tackled by new technologies, such as training algorithms to identify and take down misinformation. But such solutions will pose their own issues: could we trust the accuracy and impartiality of the algorithms? Ultimately, trust needs to be built through clear standards and agreements based on mutual self-interest and values and with wide participation among all stakeholders, and mechanisms to impose costs for violations.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

 

How can trust be promoted in the digital age?

The problem of trust came up repeatedly in written contributions to the Panel. Microsoft’s contribution stressed that an atmosphere of trust incentivises the invention of inclusive new technologies. As Latin American human rights group Derechos Digitales put it, “all participants in processes of digital cooperation must be able to share and work together freely, confident in the reliability and honesty of their counterparts”. But how can trust be promoted? We received a large number of ideas:

Articulating values and principles that govern technology development and use. Being transparent about decision-making that impacts other stakeholders, known vulnerabilities in software, and data breaches. Governments inviting participation from companies and civil society in discussions on regulation. Making real and visible efforts to obtain consent and protect data, including “security-bydesign” and “privacy-by-design” initiatives.149

Accepting oversight from a trusted third-party: for the media, this could be an organisation that fact-checks sources; for technology companies, this could be external audits of design, deployment and internal audit processes; for governments, this could be reviews by human rights forums.

Understanding the incentive structures that erode trust, and finding ways to change them: for example, requiring or pressuring social media firms to refuse to run adverts which contain disinformation, de-monetise content that contains disinformation, and clearly label sponsors of political adverts.150

Finally, digital cooperation itself can be a source of trust. In the Cold War, small pools of shared interest – non-proliferation or regional stability – allowed competitors to work together and paved the way for transparency and confidence-building measures that helped build a modicum of trust.151 Analogously, getting multiple stakeholders into a habit of cooperating on issues such as standard-setting and interoperability, addressing risks and social harm and collaborative application of digital technologies to achieve the SDGs, could allow trust to be built up gradually.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

All citizens can play a role in building societal resilience against ‎the misuse of digital technology. We all need to deepen our ‎understanding of the political, social, cultural and economic ‎impacts of digital technologies and what it means to use them ‎responsibly. We encourage nations to consider how educational ‎systems can train students to thoughtfully consider the sources ‎and credibility of information.

All citizens can play a role in building societal resilience against the misuse of digital technology. We all need to deepen our understanding of the political, social, cultural and economic impacts of digital technologies and what it means to use them responsibly.

There are many encouraging instances of digital cooperation being used to build individual capacities that will collectively make it harder for irresponsible use of digital technologies to erode societal trust.145 Examples drawn to the Panel’s attention by written submissions and interviews include:

  • The 5Rights Foundation and British Telecom developed an initiative to help children understand how the apps and games they use make money, including techniques to keep their attention for longer.146
  • The Cisco Networking Academy and United Nations Volunteers are training youth in Asia and Latin America to explore how digital technologies can enable them to become agents of social change in their communities.147
  • The Digital Empowerment Foundation is working in India with WhatsApp and community leaders to stop the spread of misinformation on social media.148
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

3.3 SECURITY

3.3 SECURITY Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:06

Global security and stability are increasingly dependent on digital security and stability. The scope of threats is growing. Cyber capabilities are developing, becoming more targeted, more impactful on physical systems and more insidious at undermining societal trust.

“Cyber attacks” and “massive data fraud and threat” have ranked for two years in a row among the top five global risks listed by the World Economic Forum (WEF).152 More than 80% of the experts consulted in the WEF’s latest annual survey expected the risks of “cyber-attacks: theft of data/money” and “cyber-attacks: disruption of operations and infrastructure” to increase yearly.153

Three recent examples illustrate the concern. In 2016, hackers stole $81 million from the Bangladesh Central Bank by manipulating the SWIFT global payments network.154 In 2017, malware called “NotPetya” caused widespread havoc – shipping firm Maersk alone lost an estimated $250 million.155 In 2018, by one estimate, cybercriminals stole $1.5 trillion – an amount comparable to the national income of Spain.156

Accurate figures are hard to come by as victims may prefer to keep quiet. But often it is only publicity about a major incident that prompts the necessary investments in security. Short-term incentives generally prioritise launching new products over making systems more robust.157

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The range of targets for cyber-attacks is increasing quickly. New internet users typically have low awareness of digital hygiene.158 Already over half of attacks are directed at “things” on the Internet of Things, which connects everything from smart TVs to baby monitors to thermostats.159 Fast 5G networks will further integrate the internet with physical infrastructure, likely creating new vulnerabilities.160

The potential for cyber-attacks to take down critical infrastructure has been clear since Stuxnet was found to have penetrated an Iranian nuclear facility in 2010.161 More recently concerns have widened to the potential risks and impact of misinformation campaigns and online efforts by foreign governments to influence democratic elections, including the 2016 Brexit vote and the American presidential election.162

Other existing initiatives on digital security

The Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace is a multi-stakeholder initiative launched in November 2018 and joined by 65 countries, 334 companies – including Microsoft, Facebook, Google and IBM – and 138 universities and non-profit organisations. It calls for measures including coordinated disclosure of technical vulnerabilities. Many leading technology powers, such as the USA, Russia, China, Israel and India – have not signed up.173

The Global Commission on Stability in Cyberspace, an independent multi-stakeholder platform, is developing proposals for norms and policies to enhance international security and stability in cyberspace. The commission has introduced a series of norms, including calls for agreement not to attack critical infrastructure and non-interference in elections, and is currently discussing accountability and the future of cybersecurity.

The Global Conference on Cyberspace, also known as the ‘London Process’, are ad hoc multi-stakeholder conferences held so far in London (2011), Budapest (2012), Seoul (2013), The Hague (2015) and New Delhi (2017). The Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, established after the 2015 Conference, is a platform for identifying best practices and providing support to states, the private sector and organisations in developing cybersecurity frameworks, policies and skills.

The Geneva Dialogue on Responsible Behaviour in Cyberspace provides another forum for multi-stakeholder consultation.

The Cybersecurity Tech Accord and the Charter of Trust are examples of industry-led voluntary initiatives to identify guiding principles for trust and security, strengthen security of supply chains and improve training of employees in cybersecurity.174

Compared to physical attacks, it can be much harder to prove from which jurisdiction a cyber-attack originated. This makes it difficult to attribute responsibility or use mechanisms to cooperate on law enforcement.163

Perceptions of digital vulnerability and unfair cyber advantage are contributing to trade, investment and strategic tensions.164 Numerous countries have set up cyber commands within their militaries.165 Nearly 60 states are known to be pursuing offensive capabilities.166 This increases the risks for all as cyber weapons, once released, can be used to attack others – including the original developer of the weapon.167

As artificial intelligence advances, the tactics and tools of cyber-attacks will become more sophisticated and difficult to predict – including more able to pursue highly customised objectives, and to adapt in real time.168

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Many governments and companies are aware of the need to strengthen digital cooperation by agreeing on and implementing international norms for responsible behaviour, and important progress has been made especially in meetings of groups of governmental experts at the UN.169

The UN Groups of Governmental Experts (GGE) on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security have been set up by resolutions of the UN General Assembly at regular intervals since 1998. Decisions by the GGE are made on the basis of consensus, including the decision on the final report.170 The 2013 GGE on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security agreed in its report that international law applies to cyberspace (see text box).171 This view was reaffirmed by the subsequent 2015 GGE, which also proposed eleven voluntary and non-binding norms for states.172 The UN General Assembly welcomed the 2015 report and called on member states to be guided by it in their use of information and communications technologies. This marks an important step forward in building cooperation and agreement in this increasingly salient arena.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

DIGITAL COOPERATION ON CYBERSECURITY

The pace of cyber-attacks is quickening. Currently fragmented efforts need rapidly to coalesce into a comprehensive set of common principles to align action and facilitate cooperation that raises the costs for malicious actors.175

Private sector involvement is especially important to evolving a common approach to tracing cyber-attacks: assessing evidence, context, attenuating circumstances and damage. We are encouraged that the 2019 UN GGE176 and the new Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG)177 which deal with behaviour of states and international law, while primarily a forum for inter-governmental consultations, do provide for consultations with stakeholders other than governments, mainly regional organisations.

In our Recommendation 4, we call for a multi-stakeholder Global Commitment on Digital Trust and Security to bolster these existing efforts. It could provide support in the implementation of agreed norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviour and present a shared vision on digital trust and security. It could also propose priorities for further action on capacity development for governments and other stakeholders and international cooperation.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The Global Commitment should coordinate with ongoing and emerging efforts to implement norms in practice by assisting victims of cyber-attacks and assessing impact. It may not yet be feasible to envisage a single global forum to house such capabilities, but there would be value in strengthening cooperation among existing initiatives.

Another priority should be to deepen cooperation and information sharing among the experts who comprise national governments’ Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs). Examples to build on here include the Oman-ITU Arab Regional Cybersecurity Centre for 22 Arab League countries,178 the EU’s Computer Security Incident Response Team (CSIRT)s Network,179 and Israel’s Cyber Net, in which public and private teams work together. Collaborative platforms hosted by neutral third parties such as the Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams (FIRST) can help build trust and the exchange of best practices and tools.

The pace of cyber-attacks is quickening. Currently fragmented efforts need rapidly to coalesce into a comprehensive set of common principles to align action and facilitate cooperation that raises the costs for malicious actors.

Digital cooperation among the private sector, governments and international organisations should seek to improve transparency and quality in the development of software, components and devices.180 While many best practices and standards exist, they often address only narrow parts of a vast and diverse universe that ranges from talking toys to industrial control systems.181 Gaps exist in awareness and application. Beyond encouraging a broader focus on security among developers, digital cooperation should address the critical need to train more experts specifically in cybersecurity:182 by one estimate, the shortfall will be 3.5 million by 2021.183


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

3.3 SECURITY

Security is paramount in any context. Whether it's physical, digital, or personal, having robust measures in place is crucial. Regular assessments, updates, and a proactive approach are key to staying ahead of potential threats and ensuring a safe environment 

https://fmapps.org/

0 People voted for this

SECURITY

Security is non-negotiable across all realms - be it physical, digital, or personal. Employing stringent measures and staying proactive through regular assessments and updates are indispensable. This vigilant approach is vital for preempting threats and upholding safety in any environment.

visit - https://aerowaapps.com/

0 People voted for this

4. Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation

4. Mechanisms for Global Digital Cooperation Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:09

No single approach to digital cooperation can address the diverse spectrum of issues raised in this report – and as technologies evolve, so will the issues, and the most effective ways to cooperate. We should approach digital cooperation using all available tools, making dynamic choices about the best approach based on specific circumstances. In some cases, cooperation may be initiated and led by the private sector or civil society, and in some cases by governments or international organisations.184

Most current mechanisms of digital cooperation are primarily local, national or regional. However, digital interdependence also necessitates that we strengthen global digital cooperation mechanisms to address challenges and provide opportunities for all.

Most current mechanisms of digital cooperation are primarily local, national or regional. However, digital interdependence also necessitates that we strengthen global digital cooperation mechanisms to address challenges and provide opportunities for all.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

This chapter identifies gaps and challenges in current arrangements for global digital cooperation and summarises the functions any future cooperation architecture could perform and what principles could underpin them. It then outlines three possible options for digital cooperation architectures and concludes with a discussion of the role the United Nations can play. There was not unanimity of opinion among the Panel members about the shape, function and operations of these different models. Instead, they are presented as useful alternatives to explore in the spirit of digital cooperation and as an input for the broad consultations we call for in Recommendation 5A.

Ultimately, success of any proposed mechanisms and architecture will depend on the spirit in which they are developed and implemented. All governments, the private sector and civil society organisations need to recognise how much they stand to gain from a spirit of collaboration to drive progress toward the achievement of the SDGs and to raise the costs of using digital technologies irresponsibly. The alternative is further erosion of the trust and stability we need to build an inclusive and prosperous digital future.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

4.1 CHALLENGES AND GAPS

4.1 CHALLENGES AND GAPS Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:15

The international community is not starting from scratch. It can build on established mechanisms for digital cooperation involving governments, technical bodies, civil society and other organisations. Some are based in national and international law,185 others in “soft law” – norms, guidelines, codes of conduct and other self-regulatory measures adopted by business and tech communities.186 Some are loosely organised, others highly institutionalised.187 Some focus on setting agendas and standards, others on monitoring and coordination.188 Many could evolve to become better fit for purpose.

The need for better digital cooperation is not so much with managing the technical nuts and bolts of how technologies function, as mechanisms here are generally well-established, but with the unprecedented economic, societal and ethical challenges they cause. How to tell, in context, when conversations on social media cross the line into inciting violence? How to limit the use of cyber weapons possessed not only by states but non-state actors and individuals?189 How to adapt trade systems designed for a different era to the newly emerging forms of online commerce?

The 2003 and 2005 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) established the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue.190 Global, national and regional IGF meetings have contributed to many important digital debates. But the IGF, in its current form, has limitations in addressing challenges that are now emerging from new digital technologies.

The need for strengthened cooperation mechanisms has been raised many times in recent years by broad initiatives – such as the NetMundial Conference,191 the Global Commission on Internet Governance192 and Web Foundation’s Contract for the Web193 – and more narrowly focused efforts such as the Broadband Commission, the Alliance for Affordable Internet, the Internet & Jurisdiction Policy Network, the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace, the Charter of Trust, Smart Africa, and the International Panel on AI recently announced by Canada and France.194

View and Add Comments for Paragraph
In our consultations, we heard a great deal of dissatisfaction with existing digital cooperation arrangements: a desire for more tangible outcomes, more active participation by governments and the private sector, more inclusive processes and better follow-up. Overall, systems need to become more holistic, multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder, agile and able to convert rhetoric into practice. We have identified six main gaps:
 
First, despite their growing impact on society, digital technology and digital cooperation issues remain relatively low on many national, regional and global political agendas. Only recently have forums such as the G20 started regularly to address the digital economy.195 In 2018, the UN Secretary- General for the first time delivered an opening statement in person at the IGF in Paris.196
 
Second, digital cooperation arrangements such as technical bodies and standard-setting organisations are often not inclusive enough of small and developing countries, indigenous communities, women, young and elderly people and those with disabilities. Even if they are invited to the table, such groups may lack the capacity to participate effectively and meaningfully.197
 
Third, there is considerable overlap among the large number of mechanisms covering digital policy issues. As a result, the digital cooperation architecture has become highly complex but not necessarily effective. There is no simple entry point. This makes it especially hard for small enterprises, marginalised groups, developing countries and other stakeholders with limited budgets and expertise to make their voices heard.198

Fourth, digital technologies increasingly cut across areas in which policies are shaped by separate institutions. For example, one body may look at data issues from the perspective of standardisation, while another considers trade, and still another regulates to protect human rights.199 Many international organisations are trying to adjust their traditional policy work to reflect the realities of the digital transformation, but do not yet have enough expertise and experience to have well-defined roles in addressing new digital issues. At a minimum there needs to be better communication across different bodies to shape awareness. Ideally, effective cooperation should create synergies.

Fifth, there is a lack of reliable data, metrics and evidence on which to base practical policy interventions. For example, the annual cost of cybercrime to the global economy is variously estimated at anything from $600 billion200 to $6 trillion.201 Estimates of the value of the AI market in 2025 range from $60 billion202 to $17 trillion.203 The problem is most acute in developing countries, where resources to collect evidence are scarce and data collection is generally uneven. Establishing a knowledge repository on digital policy, with definitions of terms and concepts, would also increase clarity in policy discussions and support consistency of measurement of digital inclusion, as we have noted in our Recommendation 1D.

Sixth, lack of trust among governments, civil society and the private sector – and sometimes a lack of humility and understanding of different perspectives – can make it more difficult to establish the collaborative multi-stakeholder approach needed to develop effective cooperation mechanisms.

Inter-governmental work must be balanced with work involving broader stakeholders. Multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches can and do co-exist. The challenge is to evolve ways of using each to reinforce the effectiveness of the other.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

As noted in the discussion of values in Chapter 1, we believe global digital cooperation should be: inclusive; respectful; human-centred; conducive to human flourishing; transparent; collaborative; accessible; sustainable and harmonious. Shared values become even more important during periods of rapid change, limited information and unpredictability, as with current discussions of cooperation relating to artificial intelligence.

It would be useful for the private sector, communities and governments to conduct digital cooperation initiatives by explicitly defining the values and principles that guide them. The aim is to align stakeholders around a common vision, maximise the beneficial impacts and minimise the risk of misuse and unintended consequences.

Alongside these shared values, we believe it is useful to highlight operational principles as a reference point for the future evolution of digital cooperation mechanisms. The principles we propose for global digital cooperation mechanisms include that they should: be easy to engage in, open and transparent; inclusive and accountable to all stakeholders; consult and debate as locally as possible; encourage innovation of both technologies and better mechanisms for cooperating; and, seek to maximise the global public interest. These are set forth in more detail in Annex VI, based on the experience of internet governance and technical coordination bodies – such as the WSIS process, UNESCO and the NetMundial conference.204

Defining values and principles is only the first step: we must operationalise them in practice in the design and development of digital technology and digital cooperation mechanisms. Where the reach of hard governance is limited or ambiguous – for example, at the stage of innovation or when the long-term impact of technologies is hard to predict – values-based cooperation approaches can play a vital role.

We should look for opportunities to operationalise values and principles at each step in the design and development of new technologies, as well as new policy practices. For example, educational institutions could encourage software developers, business executives and engineers to integrate values and principles in their work and use professional codes of conduct akin to the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath. Businesses can integrate values into workflows, use values-based measures to assess risk and institute a suitable incentive structure for staff to follow shared values. Self-assessments and third-party audits can also help institutionalise a business culture based on shared values.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

4.2 THREE POSSIBLE ARCHITECTURES FOR GLOBAL DIGITAL COOPERATION

4.2 THREE POSSIBLE ARCHITECTURES FOR GLOBAL DIGITAL COOPERATION Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:22

The Panel had many discussions about possible practical next steps to improve the architecture of global digital cooperation and the merits of proposing new mechanisms or updating existing ones. Some suggested that many cooperation challenges could be best addressed by strengthening implementation capacities of current agencies and mandates.

There was broad agreement that improved cooperation is needed, that such cooperation will need to take multiple diverse forms, and that governments, the private sector and civil society will need to find new ways to work together to steer an effective path between extremes of over-regulation and complete laissez-faire.

While no single vision emerged, there was broad agreement that improved cooperation is needed, that such cooperation will need to take multiple diverse forms, and that governments, the private sector and civil society will need to find new ways to work together to steer an effective path between extremes of over-regulation and complete laissez-faire. Based on our consultations, the Panel felt that presenting options for digital cooperation architectures would best contribute to the discourse on global digital cooperation.

Annex VI sets out functions that a digital cooperation architecture could be designed to improve. These include generating political will, ensuring the active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, monitoring developments and identifying trends, creating shared understanding and purpose, preventing and resolving disputes, building consensus and following up on agreements.

Below three possible models are proposed that could address some of these functions. The first enhances and extends the multi-stakeholder IGF. The second is a distributed architecture which builds on existing mechanisms. The third envisions a ‘commons’ approach with loose coordination by the UN. All have benefits and drawbacks. They are put forward here to provide concrete starting points for the further discussion and broad consultation which we recommend the UN Secretary-General initiate in our Recommendation 5A.

 

A note on inclusive representation

All three models highlighted below would need to take special steps to ensure that they are broadly representative and develop specific mechanisms to ensure equitable participation of developing countries, women and other traditionally marginalised groups who have often been denied a voice.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

 “INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM PLUS"205

The proposed Internet Governance Forum Plus, or IGF Plus, would build on the existing IGF which was established by the World Summit on Information Society (Tunis, 2005). The IGF is currently the main global space convened by the UN for addressing internet governance and digital policy issues. The IGF Plus concept would provide additional multi-stakeholder and multilateral legitimacy by being open to all stakeholders and by being institutionally anchored in the UN system.

The IGF Plus would aim to build on the IGF’s strengths, including well-developed infrastructure and procedures, acceptance in stakeholder communities, gender balance in IGF bodies and activities, and a network of 114 national, regional and youth IGFs206. It would add important capacity strengthening and other support activities.

The IGF Plus model aims to address the IGF’s current shortcomings. For example, the lack of actionable outcomes can be addressed by working on policies and norms of direct interest to stakeholder communities. The limited participation of government and business representatives, especially from small and developing countries, can be addressed by introducing discussion tracks in which governments, the private sector and civil society address their specific concerns.

The IGF Plus would comprise an Advisory Group, Cooperation Accelerator, Policy Incubator and Observatory and Help Desk.

The Advisory Group, based on the IGF’s current Multi-stakeholder Advisory Group, would be responsible for preparing annual meetings, and identifying focus policy issues each year. This would not exclude coverage of other issues but ensure a critical mass of discussion on the selected issues. The Advisory Group could identify moments when emerging discussions in other forums need to be connected, and issues that are not covered by existing organisations or mechanisms.

Building on the current practices of the IGF, the Advisory Group could consist of members appointed for three years by the UN Secretary-General on the advice of member states and stakeholder groups, ensuring gender, age, stakeholder and geographical balance.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The Cooperation Accelerator would accelerate issue-centred cooperation across a wide range of institutions, organisations and processes; identify points of convergence among existing IGF coalitions, and issues around which new coalitions need to be established; convene stakeholder-specific coalitions to address the concerns of groups such as governments, businesses, civil society, parliamentarians, elderly people, young people, philanthropy, the media, and women; and facilitate convergences among debates in major digital and policy events at the UN and beyond.

The Cooperation Accelerator could consist of members selected for their multi-disciplinary experience and expertise. Membership would include civil society, businesses and governments and representation from major digital events such as the Web Summit, Mobile World Congress, Lift:Lab, Shift, LaWeb, and Telecom World.

The Policy Incubator would incubate policies and norms for public discussion and adoption. In response to requests to look at a perceived regulatory gap, it would examine if existing norms and regulations could fill the gap and, if not, form a policy group consisting of interested stakeholders to make proposals to governments and other decision-making bodies. It would monitor policies and norms through feedback from the bodies that adopt and implement them.207

The Policy Incubator could provide the currently missing link between dialogue platforms identifying regulatory gaps and existing decision-making bodies by maintaining momentum in discussions without making legally binding decisions. It should have a flexible and dynamic composition involving all stakeholders concerned by a specific policy issue.

The Observatory and Help Desk would direct requests for help on digital policy (such as dealing with crisis situations, drafting legislation, or advising on policy) to appropriate entities, including the Help Desks described in Recommendation 2; coordinate capacity development activities provided by other organisations; collect and share best practices; and provide an overview of digital policy issues, including monitoring trends, identifying emerging issues and providing data on digital policy.

The IGF Trust Fund would be a dedicated fund for the IGF Plus. All stakeholders – including governments, international organisations, businesses and the tech sector – would be encouraged to contribute. The IGF Plus Secretariat should be linked to the Office of the United Nations Secretary-General to reflect its interdisciplinary and system-wide approach.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

“DISTRIBUTED CO-GOVERNANCE ARCHITECTURE”

The proposed distributed co-governance architecture (COGOV) would build on existing mechanisms while filling gaps with new mechanisms to achieve a distributed, yet cohesive digital cooperation architecture covering all stages from norm design to implementation and potential enforcement of such norms by the appropriate authorities.

COGOV relies on the self-forming ‘horizontal’ network approach used by the Internet Engineering Task Force, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the World Wide Web Consortium, the Regional Internet Registries, the IEEE and others to host networks to design norms and policies. This proposal would extend this agile network approach to issues affecting the broader digital economy and society.

Given the wide range of issues which the COGOV architecture could encompass, it will be imperative to ensure there is broad representation beyond the relatively homogenous expert communities which predominate for some of the technical issues discussed above.

The COGOV architecture decouples the design of digital norms from their implementation and enforcement. It seeks to rapidly produce shared digital cooperation solutions, including norms, and publish them for stakeholders to consider and potentially adopt. These norms would be voluntary solutions rather than legal instruments. In themselves, the COGOV networks would not have governing authority or enforcement powers. However, the norms could be taken up by government agencies as useful blueprints to establish policies, regulations or laws.

The COGOV could consist of three functional elements: a) Digital Cooperation Networks; b) Network Support Platforms; and, c) a Network of Networks.

a) Digital Cooperation Networks. These networks would be issue-specific horizontal collaboration groups, involving stakeholders from relevant vertical sectors and institutions. They could be formed freely by stakeholders in a bottom-up way, self-governed, and share the same goal of cooperation – including potentially the design of digital norms. They could be created or supported by one or more governments and/ or intergovernmental organisations with the same concerns. Their functions would include developing shared understandings and goals for a specific digital issue, strengthening cooperation, designing or updating digital norms, providing norm implementation roadmaps and developing capacity to adopt policies and norms.

Participation in digital cooperation networks should be open for all relevant and concerned stakeholders, including governments, intergovernmental institutions, the private sector, civil society, academia and the technical community. Special efforts would need to be made to include and support representatives from developing countries and traditionally marginalised groups. The digital cooperation networks may be stand-alone voluntary networks or hosted by the network support platforms described below. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

b) Network Support Platforms. These platforms could host and enable the dynamic formation and functioning of multiple digital cooperation networks. While the digital cooperation networks would operate in defined and limited timeframes, the network support platforms are proposed as stable long-term elements of the architecture, supporting the digital cooperation networks and enabling them to evolve as necessary to update their cooperation and relevant digital norms.

The network support platforms should not interfere in the work product or composition of the self-governed and stakeholder-initiated digital cooperation networks; they should simply support the networks to operate efficiently. The platforms would help the networks to identify emerging issues, secure the commitment of relevant participants, provide necessary resources and facilities, and promote their outcomes.

c) Network of Networks. The network of networks would loosely coordinate and support activities across all digital cooperation networks and network support platforms. The role of the network of networks is to ensure integrity and enable coherent outcomes that account for the complex inter-dependencies across digital policy issues.

The network of networks would consist of: 1) a support function, which would organise an annual forum, a ‘research cooperative’ and a ‘norm exchange’; and 2) a voluntary peer coordination network, which would bring issues to the attention of the annual forum and follow up on its recommendations by promoting action from specific stakeholders to form digital cooperation networks.

The network of networks should avoid a controlling top-down form of administration: it is simply there to loosely coordinate the activities across the decentralized COGOV architecture; its decisions would not be binding.

Once norms are available, governing authorities may choose to establish enforcement mechanisms and may choose to use these norms as policy input or blueprints. The following table summarises the mechanisms across the norm design, implementation, and enforcement stages:

Norm Design

• Identify digital governance issues

• Form digital cooperation networks

• Support networks through digital cooperation platforms
Norm Implementation

• Develop norm design and adoption capacity

• Provide a ‘norm exchange’ to connect communities

• Offer implementation incentives
Norm Enforcement

• Develop norms into laws/regulations

• Adjudicate/resolve disputes and conflicts

• Establish clear guard rails for digital technologies
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

“DIGITAL COMMONS ARCHITECTURE”

In areas such as space, climate change and the sea, the international community has entered into treaties and developed principles, norms and functional cooperation to designate certain spaces as international ‘commons’ and then govern ongoing practice and dialogue.208 For instance, the “common heritage” principle, introduced by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, imposes a duty to protect resources for the good of future generations.209

While norm-making and guidance in digital technologies will pose different challenges, some aspects of the digital realm, such as common internet protocols, already share characteristics with ‘commons’ requiring responsible and global stewardship. ‘Digital commons’ have also been mentioned recently in the context of data and AI developments.210

The proposed “Digital Commons Architecture” would aim to synergise efforts by governments, civil society and businesses to ensure that digital technologies promote the SDGs and to address risks of social harm. It would comprise multi-stakeholder tracks to create dialogue around emerging issues and communicate use cases and problems to be solved to stakeholders, and an annual meeting to act as a clearing house.

Each track could be owned by a lead organisation – a UN agency, an industry or academic consortium or a multi-stakeholder forum, with the choice of participants governed by guiding principles of the kind listed in this report to ensure inclusiveness and broad representation. Light coordination of the tracks, and servicing of the annual meeting where their reports are considered, could be ensured by a small secretariat housed within the UN.

Analogous to processes such as the International Competition Network, the Digital Commons Architecture tracks would have flexible, project-oriented and results-based working groups. They would enable learning on governance and related capacity development to be driven by practice. Annual meetings could aggregate lessons for use in soft law or more binding approaches in the appropriate forums. This could rapidly build a repository of norms and governance practices to guide stakeholders in their respective roles and responsibilities.

The Digital Commons Architecture tracks could focus on issues agreed by the participants. For example, they might initially wish to address issues emerging from the preceding chapters, such as using data in support of the SDGs, using AI to improve agriculture and health, or developing a global values/ethics certification process for new technology.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration around these issues could pave the way for wider cooperation. For example, realising the potential of AI to provide insights to a global health challenge might require the pooling of reliable data, clear privacy measures, a common data architecture and interoperable standards. Successful outcomes could then be progressively extended to other areas. An additional benefit would be to promote transparency and build confidence.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The annual meeting would not make rules, but provide guidance to stakeholders, which they can use in the appropriate forums. The meeting would discuss the output of the various tracks as well as implementation of the governance guidance produced by these tracks through a ‘soft’ review of reports by stakeholders.

The Digital Commons Architecture might not specify technical solutions, but instead propose technical models, and standards of accountability and trustworthiness, which could be applied across the globe. It could also facilitate a discussion of lessons from around the globe on implementation of existing norms in specific areas.

The annual meeting could build on and connect discussions taking place in other fora and could in turn feed its results into discussions taking place in other fora. This would reduce the current burden of multiplicity of forums by clarifying who is doing what, eliminating potential overlap, and identifying partnership opportunities.

The Digital Commons Architecture could be funded through voluntary contributions. Along the lines of the International Chamber of Commerce, membership fees could be considered for private sector participation; these could be waived for certain categories such as small businesses or civil society participants. 211 A dedicated trust fund could assist with civil society and least developed country participation.


The three potential models share common elements, such as multi-stakeholder participation, dedicated trust funds to enhance inclusivity, reducing policy inflation by consolidating discussions across for a, and a light coordination and convening role for the UN. The values in Chapter 1 and principles and functions in Annex VI provide shared design elements that further emphasise inclusivity and multi-stakeholder participation.

Equally, there are differences in emphasis and approach. The COGOV, for example, foresees a larger role for new networks of experts and multi-stakeholder governance; the Digital Commons Architecture presumes more of a focus on iterative learning of governance through practice in both multilateral and multi-stakeholder tracks; and the IGF Plus adds functionalities to an existing multi-stakeholder forum with a UN mandate.

The common design elements across the models could be flexibly brought together once the broad thrust of a new digital cooperation architecture has been defined. As suggested in Recommendation 5A, a common starting point could be a Global Commitment for Digital Cooperation based on shared values and principles. 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

4.3 THE ROLE OF THE UN

4.3 THE ROLE OF THE UN Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:28

The UN’s three foundational pillars – peace and security, human rights and development – position it well to help spotlight issues emerging in the digital age and advocate on behalf of humanity’s best interests. In our consultations, we heard that despite its well-known weaknesses, the UN retains a unique role and convening power to bring stakeholders together to create the norms and frameworks and assist in developing the capacity we need to ensure a safe and equitable digital future for all people.

the UN retains a unique role and convening power to bring stakeholders together to create the norms and frameworks and assist in developing the capacity we need to ensure a safe and equitable digital future for all people.

Digital technologies are increasingly impacting the work of the UN in three ways: changing the political, social and economic environment in the ways this report has discussed; providing new tools for its core mandates; and creating new policy issues.

UN entities have begun to embrace the digital transformation and are revamping programmes and launching initiatives to apply digital technology to further their missions. Some UN agencies – such as UNICEF, UNESCO, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – have made a priority of exploring how the digital transformation can provide them with new approaches to achieve their mandates. The Task Force on Digital Financing of the SDGs, for example, will explore how digital technologies can be leveraged to finance the SDGs.212

When digital issues often do not fit neatly within the traditional mandates of UN agencies, some have sought to expand their mandates, causing overlaps and friction. This duplication also causes confusion for external partners and stakeholders, who find it difficult to discern among the many fora, events and initiatives hosted by various parts of the UN on science, technology and innovation issues and policy setting. Some UN entities have responded to converging mandates by launching cross-cutting initiatives. For example, in 2010 the ITU and UNESCO established the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development; in 2016 the ITU, UN Women, the International Trade Centre (ITC), the GSM Association (GSMA), UNESCO and the United Nations University set up the EQUALS partnership to tackle the digital gender gap.

UN entities have also tended to go about digital issues in their own way, often without sharing information, at times duplicating each other’s work, and not reflecting on whether the systems they are building might scale to other UN entities. UN agencies can do much more to pool their human and computing capacities and develop shared tools and common standards – for example, through joint procurement of cloud computing, to reduce price and increase interoperability, and promoting open and interoperable standards for data produced and used by the UN.

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The UN has begun to engage the private sector and tech community much more directly. For example, Tech Against Terrorism, a public/private partnership launched in April 2017 by the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate, aims to support the technology industry to develop more effective and responsible approaches to tackling terrorists’ use of the internet, while respecting human rights. However, working with stakeholders such as the private sector and civil society is still not part of the DNA of many UN agencies. More can be done to partner with other stakeholders effectively and consistently.

How can the UN add value in the digital transformation?

As a convener – The AI for Global Good Summit, the Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, ITU’s Global Symposium for Regulators, the WSIS Forum, the Multi-stakeholder Forum on Science, Technology and Innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals (STI Forum).

Providing a space for debating values and norms – the IGF, the Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Privacy and on the promotion and protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, UNESCO’s Artificial Intelligence with Human Values for Sustainable Development initiative, UNICEF’s efforts around children’s online safety.

Standard settingITU’s Telecommunication Standardization Sector, the UN Statistical Commission and its Global Working Group on Big Data for Official Statistics, WHO guidelines on digital health interventions, the Humanitarian Data Exchange – an open platform and standard for sharing data across crises and organisations.

Multi-stakeholder or bilateral initiatives on specific issues – EQUALS: The Global Partnership for Gender Equality in the Digital Age, the Emergency Telecommunications Cluster hosted by WFP, the UN Global Compact’s Breakthrough Innovation for the SDGs Action Platform, the Famine Action Mechanism hosted by the World Bank and the UN in partnership with industry.

Developing the capacity of member states – UNDP’s Accelerator Labs, the Technology Facilitation Mechanism, UN Global Pulse Labs, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development’s trainings, the Digital Blue Helmets initiative, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime’s Global Programme on Cybercrime.

Ranking, mapping and measuring – the annual E-Government Survey produced by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research’s Cyber Policy Portal, an online reference tool that maps the cybersecurity and cybersecurity-related policy landscape, ITU’s Measuring the Information Society report and Global Cybersecurity Index.

Arbitration and dispute-resolution – The World Intellectual Property Organization’s Internet Domain Name Process, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.

 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Created by the innovation units of several UN agencies in 2015, the UN Innovation Network is working on sharing best practices and recommending harmonisation of policies which may help reduce fragmentation across the UN system. The UN’s highest-level coordination body, the Chief Executives Board for Coordination, is trying to encourage more system-wide coordination through initiatives such as the UN Data Innovation Lab and UN data privacy principles. The High-level Committee on Programmes could also have a role to enable more knowledge sharing, efficiencies of scale and scaling up of successful practices and initiatives across the UN system.

The development of the UN Secretary-General’s Strategy on New Technologies, issued in September 2018, has helped identify points of overlap and convergence, and UN agencies meet regularly to track progress. The strategy notes that the Secretary-General may consider appointing a “Tech Envoy” following the work of this Panel.

The UN can play a key role in enhancing digital cooperation by developing greater organisational and human capacity on digital governance issues and improving its ability to respond to member states’ need for policy advice and capacity development. 

 


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

5. Recommendations

5. Recommendations Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 11:34

The preceding chapters of this report have shown that our ‎rapidly changing and interdependent digital world urgently ‎needs improved digital cooperation founded on common ‎human values. Based on our analysis and consultations with ‎diverse stakeholders, and noting that not all Panel members ‎were supportive of all recommendations, we make the following ‎recommendations: ‎

AN INCLUSIVE DIGITAL ECONOMY ‎AND SOCIETY

‎1A: We recommend that by 2030, every adult should have ‎affordable access to digital networks, as well as digitally-‎enabled financial and health services, as a means to make a ‎substantial contribution to achieving the SDGs. Provision of ‎these services should guard against abuse by building on ‎emerging principles and best practices, one example of ‎which is providing the ability to opt in and opt out, and by ‎encouraging informed public discourse. ‎

1B: We recommend that a broad, multi-stakeholder alliance, ‎involving the UN, create a platform for sharing digital public ‎goods, engaging talent and pooling data sets, in a manner ‎that respects privacy, in areas related to attaining the SDGs. ‎

1C: We call on the private sector, civil society, national ‎governments, multilateral banks and the UN to adopt specific ‎policies to support full digital inclusion and digital equality for ‎women and traditionally marginalised groups. International ‎organisations such as the World Bank and the UN should ‎strengthen research and promote action on barriers women ‎and marginalised groups face to digital inclusion and digital ‎equality. ‎

1D: We believe that a set of metrics for digital inclusiveness ‎should be urgently agreed, measured worldwide and detailed ‎with sex disaggregated data in the annual reports of ‎institutions such as the UN, the International Monetary Fund, ‎the World Bank, other multilateral development banks and the ‎OECD. From this, strategies and plans of action could be ‎developed. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

In this report we have emphasised that the role of digital technologies in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals goes far beyond simply promoting greater access to the internet. With the right blend of policy, investment in infrastructure and human capacity, and cooperation among stakeholders, they can revolutionise fields as diverse as health and education, governance, economic empowerment and enterprise, agriculture and environmental sustainability.

The specific decisions needed to promote inclusivity and ‎minimise risks will depend on local and national conditions. ‎They should consider four main factors. ‎

First, the broader national policy and regulatory frameworks ‎should make it easy to create, run and grow small businesses. ‎These frameworks should ensure that digital service providers – ‎including e-commerce and inclusive finance platforms – support ‎the growth of local enterprises. This requires enabling policies ‎on investment and innovation, and structural policies to ensure ‎fair competition, privacy rights, consumer protection and a ‎sustainable tax base. Efforts to agree regional or global ‎standards in these areas are welcome. ‎

Second, investments should be made in both human capacity ‎‎(see Recommendation 2 below) and physical infrastructure. ‎Creating the foundation of universal, affordable access to ‎electricity and the internet will often require innovative ‎approaches, such as community groups operating rural ‎networks, or incentives such as public sector support. ‎

Third, targeted measures should address the barriers faced by ‎women, indigenous people, rural populations and others who ‎are marginalised by factors such as a lack of legal identity, low ‎literacy rates, social norms that prevent them from fully ‎participating in civic and economic life, and discriminatory land ‎ownership, tenure and inheritance practices. ‎

Fourth, respect for human rights – including privacy – is ‎fundamental. Panel members had divergent views on digital ID ‎systems in particular: they have immense potential to improve ‎delivery of social services, especially for people who currently ‎lack legal identity, but they are also vulnerable to abuse. As ‎digital ID becomes more prevalent, we must emphasise ‎principles for its fair and effective use. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Achieving this ambition will require multi-stakeholder alliances ‎involving governments, private sector, international ‎organisations, citizen groups and philanthropy to build new ‎models of collaboration around “digital public goods” and data ‎sets that can be pooled for the common good. SDG-related ‎areas include health, energy, agriculture, clean water, oceans ‎and climate change. These alliances could establish minimum ‎criteria for classifying technologies and content as “digital public ‎goods” and connect with relevant communities of practice that ‎can provide guidance and support for investment, ‎implementation and capacity development.

We are concerned that women face particular challenges in ‎meaningfully accessing the internet, inclusive mobile financial ‎services and online commerce, and controlling their own digital ‎IDs and health records. Policies should include targeted capacity ‎development for female entrepreneurs and policy makers. We ‎call on the technology sector to make more sustained and ‎serious efforts to address the gap in female technology ‎employees and management, include women’s voices when ‎determining online terms and conditions, and act to prevent ‎online harassment and promotion of domestic abuse, building ‎upon the work of existing initiatives such as the High-level Panel ‎on Women’s Economic Empowerment.

While some preliminary work is underway, there is currently no ‎agreed set of clear metrics or standards for the inclusiveness of ‎digital technologies and cooperation. While any metrics will ‎evolve over time, we call for research and multi-stakeholder ‎consultation to establish a basis of shared global understanding ‎as promptly as possible. We encourage the UN, international ‎development agencies and multilateral banks such as the Asian ‎Development Bank, the New Development Bank and the World ‎Bank to drive this process by incorporating digital inclusion as a ‎key metric in approving and evaluating projects. Facets of digital ‎inclusion which may be considered include gender, financial ‎services, health, government services, national digital economy ‎policies, use of online e-commerce platforms and mobile ‎device penetration. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

HUMAN AND INSTITUTIONAL ‎CAPACITY ‎

2: We recommend the establishment of regional and global ‎digital help desks to help governments, civil society and the ‎private sector to understand digital issues and develop ‎capacity to steer cooperation related to social and economic ‎impacts of digital technologies.

Many countries urgently need to make critical choices about the ‎complex issues discussed in this report. In what types of ‎infrastructure should they invest? What types of training do their ‎populations require to compete in the global digital economy? ‎How can those whose livelihoods are disrupted by technological ‎change be protected? How can technology be used to deliver ‎social services and improve governance? How can regulation ‎be appropriately balanced to encourage innovation while ‎protecting human rights?

Policy decisions will have profound impact, but many of the ‎decision-makers lack sufficient understanding of digital ‎technologies and their implications. Capacity development for ‎government officials and regulators could help to harness ‎technology for inclusive economic development to achieve the ‎SDGs. Priorities could include diagnostics on digital capacities ‎and how they interact with society and the economy, and ‎identifying skills workers will need. Capacity development ‎initiatives with the private sector would also develop the capacity ‎of officials and regulators to engage with the private sector so ‎they can understand the operations of the digital economy and ‎respond in an agile way to emerging issues (see ‎Recommendation 5B).

For decisions to be well informed and inclusive, all stakeholders ‎and the public need also to better understand the benefits and ‎risks of digital technologies. Decisions around technology ‎should be underpinned by a broad social dialogue on its costs, ‎benefits and norms. We encourage capacity development ‎programs for governments, civil society organisations, the ‎private sector – including small- and medium-sized enterprises ‎and start-ups – consumers, educators, women and youth. ‎Existing capacity development initiatives by civil society, ‎academia and technical and international organisations could ‎benefit from the promotion of best practices.

A regional approach is recommended to develop capacity, to ‎enable differing local contexts to be addressed. Regional help ‎desks could be led by organisations such as the African Union ‎or the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, in collaboration ‎with UN Regional Commissions. The regional help desks would: ‎conduct research and promote best practice in digital ‎cooperation; provide capacity development training and ‎recommend open-source or licensed products and platforms; ‎and support requests for advice from governments, local private ‎sector (particularly small and medium enterprises) and civil ‎society in their regions. Staff would have regional expertise, and ‎coordinate closely with the private sector and civil society.

A global help desk to coordinate the work of regional help desks ‎could form part of the new digital cooperation architecture we ‎recommend exploring in Recommendation 5A. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN ‎AGENCY

3A: Given that human rights apply fully in the digital world, we ‎urge the UN Secretary-General to institute an agencies-wide ‎review of how existing international human rights accords ‎and standards apply to new and emerging digital ‎technologies. Civil society, governments, the private sector ‎and the public should be invited to submit their views on how ‎to apply existing human rights instruments in the digital age in ‎a proactive and transparent process.

3B: In the face of growing threats to human rights and safety, ‎including those of children, we call on social media ‎enterprises to work with governments, international and local ‎civil society organisations and human rights experts around ‎the world to fully understand and respond to concerns about ‎existing or potential human rights violations.

3C: We believe that autonomous intelligent systems should ‎be designed in ways that enable their decisions to be ‎explained and humans to be accountable for their use. Audits ‎and certification schemes should monitor compliance of AI ‎systems with engineering and ethical standards, which ‎should be developed using multi-stakeholder and multilateral ‎approaches. Life and death decisions should not be ‎delegated to machines. We call for enhanced digital ‎cooperation with multiple stakeholders to think through the ‎design and application of these standards and principles ‎such as transparency and non-bias in autonomous intelligent ‎systems in different social settings.

As discussed in Chapter 3, while human rights apply online as ‎well as offline, technology presents challenges that were not ‎foreseen when many foundational human rights accords were ‎created. National laws and regulations must prevent advances ‎in technology being used to erode human rights or avoid ‎accountability. We need to cooperate to ensure that digital ‎technologies advance the inherent dignity and equal and ‎inalienable rights of every human. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

Applying human rights in the digital age requires better ‎coordination and communication between governments, ‎technology companies, civil society and other stakeholders. ‎Companies have often reacted slowly and inadequately to ‎learning that their technologies are being deployed in ways that ‎undermine human rights. We need more forward-looking efforts ‎to identify and mitigate risks in advance: companies should ‎consult with governments, civil society and academia to assess ‎the potential human rights impact of the digital technologies ‎they are developing. From risk assessment to ongoing due ‎diligence and responsiveness to sudden events, it should be ‎clarified what society can reasonably expect from each ‎stakeholder, including technology firms.

In some areas there is consensus that much more needs to be ‎done – notably, companies providing social media services ‎need to do more to prevent the dissemination of hatred and ‎incitement of violence, and companies providing online services ‎and apps used by children need to do more to ensure ‎appropriate design and meaningful data consent.

Consensus is also emerging that more needs to be done to ‎safeguard the human right to privacy: individuals often have ‎little or no meaningful ‎understanding of the implications of providing their personal ‎data in return for digital services. We believe companies, ‎governments and civil society should agree to clear and ‎transparent standards that will enable greater interoperability of ‎data in ways that protect privacy while enabling data to flow for ‎commercial, research and government purposes, and ‎supporting innovation to achieve the SDGs. Such standards ‎should prevent data collection going beyond intended use, limit ‎re-identification of individuals via datasets, and give individuals ‎meaningful control over how their personal data is shared.

We also emphasise our belief that autonomous intelligent ‎systems should be designed in ways that enable their decisions ‎to be explained and humans to be held to account for their use. ‎Audits and certification schemes should monitor compliance of ‎AI systems with engineering and ethical standards. Humans ‎should never delegate life and death decisions to machines. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

TRUST, SECURITY AND STABILITY

4. We recommend the development of a Global Commitment ‎on Digital Trust and Security to shape a shared vision, identify ‎attributes of digital stability, elucidate and strengthen the ‎implementation of norms for responsible uses of technology, ‎and propose priorities for action.

As the digital economy increasingly merges with the physical ‎world and deploys autonomous intelligent systems, it depends ‎ever more on trust and the stability of the digital environment. ‎Trust is built through agreed standards, shared values and best ‎practices. Stability implies a digital environment that is peaceful, ‎secure, open and cooperative. More effective action is needed ‎to prevent trust and stability being eroded by the proliferation of ‎irresponsible use of cyber capabilities.

The Global Commitment on Digital Trust and Security could ‎build on and create momentum behind the voluntary norms ‎agreed in the report of the 2015 GGE, and complement relevant ‎global processes. It could address areas such as ways to ‎strengthen implementation of agreed norms; developing ‎societal capacity for cybersecurity and resilience against ‎misinformation; encouraging companies to strengthen ‎authentication practices, adhere to stricter software ‎development norms and be more transparent in the use of ‎software and components; and improving the digital hygiene of ‎new users coming online. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

GLOBAL DIGITAL COOPERATION

5A: We recommend that, as a matter of urgency, the UN ‎Secretary- General facilitate an agile and open consultation ‎process to develop updated mechanisms for global digital ‎cooperation, with the options discussed in Chapter 4 as a ‎starting point. We suggest an initial goal of marking the UN's ‎‎75th anniversary in 2020 with a “Global Commitment for ‎Digital Cooperation” to enshrine shared values, principles, ‎understandings and objectives for an improved global digital ‎cooperation architecture. As part of this process, we ‎understand that the UN Secretary-General may appoint a ‎Technology Envoy.

‎5B: We support a multi-stakeholder “systems” approach for ‎cooperation and regulation that is adaptive, agile, inclusive ‎and fit for purpose for the fast-changing digital age.

Enhancing digital cooperation will require both reinvigorating ‎existing multilateral partnerships and potentially the creation of ‎new mechanisms that involve stakeholders from business, ‎academia, civil society and technical organisations. We should ‎approach questions of governance based on their specific ‎circumstances and choosing among all available tools.

Where possible we can make existing inter-governmental ‎forums and mechanisms fit for the digital age rather than rush to ‎create new mechanisms, though this may involve difficult ‎judgement calls: for example, while the WTO remains a major ‎forum to address issues raised by the rapid growth in cross-‎border e-commerce, it is now over two decades since it was last ‎able to broker an agreement on the subject.

Given the speed of change, soft governance mechanisms – ‎values and principles, standards and certification processes – ‎should not wait for agreement on binding solutions. Soft ‎governance mechanisms are also best suited to the multi-‎stakeholder approach demanded by the digital age: a fact-‎based, participative process of deliberation and design, ‎including governments, private sector, civil society, diverse ‎users and policy-makers. ‎

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

The aim of the holistic “systems” approach we recommended is ‎to bring together government bodies such as competition ‎authorities and consumer protection agencies with the private ‎sector, citizens and civil society to enable them to be more agile ‎in responding to issues and evaluating trade-offs as they ‎emerge. Any new governance approaches in digital cooperation ‎should also, wherever possible, look for ways – such as pilot ‎zones, regulatory sandboxes or trial periods – to test efficacy ‎and develop necessary procedures and technology before ‎being more widely applied.213

We envisage that the process of developing a “Global ‎Commitment for Digital Cooperation” would be inspired by the ‎‎“World We Want” process, which helped formulate the SDGs. ‎Participants would include governments, the private sector from ‎technology and other industries, SMEs and entrepreneurs, civil ‎society, international organisations including standards and ‎professional organisations, academic scholars and other ‎experts, and government representatives from varied ‎departments at regional, national, municipal and community ‎levels. Multi-stakeholder consultation in each member state and ‎region would allow ideas to bubble up from the bottom.

The consultations on an updated global digital cooperation ‎architecture could define upfront the criteria to be met by the ‎governance mechanisms to be proposed, such as funding ‎models, modes of operation and means for serving the ‎functions explored in this report.

More broadly, if appointed, a UN Tech Envoy could identify ‎over-the-horizon concerns that need improved cooperation or ‎governance; provide light-touch coordination of multi-‎stakeholder actors to address shared concerns; reinforce ‎principles and norms developed in forums with relevant ‎mandates; and work with UN member states, civil society and ‎businesses to support compliance with agreed norms.

The Envoy’s mandate could also include coordinating the digital ‎technology-related efforts of UN entities; improving ‎communication and collaboration among technology experts ‎within the UN; and advising the UN Secretary- General on new ‎technology issues. Finally, the Envoy could promote ‎partnerships to build and maintain international digital common ‎resources that could be used to help achieve the SDGs. ‎

 




We believe in a future which is inclusive and empowering; a ‎future in which digital technologies are used to reduce ‎inequalities, bring people together, enhance international peace ‎and security and promote economic opportunity and ‎environmental sustainability.

Our recommendations toward that future will require sustained commitment to fundamental human values. They will require ‎leadership and political will, clarity about roles and responsibilities, shared meanings to ease communication, inclusive partnerships ‎with capacity development, aligned incentives, greater coherence of currently fragmented efforts, and building a climate of trust.

We hope this report has shown why individuals, civil society, the private sector and governments urgently need to strengthen ‎cooperation to build that better future.‎


 

View and Add Comments for Paragraph

ANNEXES

ANNEXES Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:19

I. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE PANEL

I. TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE PANEL Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:18
  1. The High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation convened by ‎the UN Secretary-General will advance proposals to strengthen ‎cooperation in the digital space among Governments, the ‎private sector, civil society, international organisations, the ‎technical and academic communities and all other relevant ‎stakeholders. The Panel’s report and its recommendations will ‎provide a high-level independent contribution to the broader ‎public debate on digital cooperation frameworks and support ‎Member States in their consultations on these issues. 
  2. The Panel will consist of 20 eminent leaders from ‎Governments, private sector, academia, the technical ‎community, and civil society led by two co-chairs. Its ‎composition will be balanced in terms of gender, age, ‎geographic representation, and area of expertise. The Panel ‎members will serve in their personal capacity. ‎
  3. The Panel shall meet in person at least once. Additional ‎interactions shall be organised for the Panel as a whole by ‎electronic means or through ad hoc group consultations. The ‎Panel will engage and consult widely with governments, private ‎sector, academia, technical community, civil society, and inter-‎governmental organisations across the world. It shall be agile ‎and innovative in interacting with existing processes and ‎platforms as well as in harnessing inputs from diverse ‎stakeholders. ‎
  4. In its report to the Secretary-General, the Panel shall identify ‎good practices and opportunities, gaps and challenges in digital ‎cooperation. It shall also outline major trends in the ‎development and deployment of emerging digital technologies, ‎business models, and policies and the possibilities and ‎challenges they generate for digital cooperation.
  5. In particular, the report shall: ‎

    - Raise awareness among policy makers and the general public ‎about ‎ the transformative impact of digital technologies across society ‎and the ‎ economy; ‎

    - Suggest ways to bridge disciplines on digital cooperation by ‎identifying ‎ policy, research and information gaps as well as ways to ‎improve ‎ interdisciplinary thinking and cross-domain action on digital ‎ technologies; ‎

    - Present recommendations for effective, inclusive, accountable ‎systems ‎ of digital cooperation among all relevant actors in the digital ‎space. 
  6. ‎The recommendations in the report shall seek to maximise ‎the potential of digital technologies to contribute inter alia to the ‎achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development ‎and to support progress across a range of themes, including ‎digital empowerment, inclusive finance, employment, ‎entrepreneurship, trade and cross border data flows. ‎
  7. They shall also contribute to raising individual and systemic ‎capacities to ‎​maximise the benefits of emerging digital technologies; to ‎facilitating the participation of all stakeholder groups, especially ‎youth and women, in the digital sphere and; to enhancing ‎implementation of existing digital policies as well as norms. ‎
  8. The Panel shall avoid duplication with existing forums for ‎digital cooperation. It shall fully respect current UN structures as ‎well as national, technical community and industry prerogatives ‎in the development and governance of digital technologies.
  9. The Panel will complete its deliberations and submit its final ‎report, including actionable recommendations, within a nine-‎month period. ‎
  10. The deliberations of the Panel will be supported by a small ‎secretariat and funded by donor resources. The Secretariat shall ‎seek to leverage existing platforms and partners, including UN ‎agencies, working in the related domains. ‎
View and Add Comments for Paragraph

II. PANEL MEMBERS ‎

II. PANEL MEMBERS ‎

Co-Chairs ‎

‎• Melinda Gates (USA), Co-Chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation ‎

‎• Jack Ma (China), Executive Chairman, Alibaba Group

Members ‎

‎• Mohammed Abdullah Al Gergawi (UAE), Minister of Cabinet Affairs and the ‎

Future, UAE ‎

‎• Yuichiro Anzai (Japan), Senior Advisor and Director of Center for Science ‎

Information Analysis, Japan Society for the Promotion of Science ‎

‎• Nikolai Astrup (Norway), Former Minister of International Development, ‎

now Minister of Digitalisation, Norway ‎

‎• Vinton Cerf (USA), Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google ‎

‎• Fadi Chehadé (USA), Chairman, Chehadé & Company ‎

‎• Sophie Soowon Eom (Republic of Korea), Founder of Adriel AI and ‎

Solidware ‎

‎• Isabel Guerrero Pulgar (Chile), Executive Director, IMAGO Global ‎

Grassroots and Lecturer, Harvard Kennedy School ‎

‎• Marina Kaljurand (Estonia), Chair of the Global Commission on the ‎

Stability of Cyberspace ‎

‎• Bogolo Kenewendo (Botswana), Minister of Investment, Trade and ‎

Industry, Botswana ‎

‎• Marina Kolesnik (Russian Federation), senior executive, entrepreneur ‎

and WEF Young Global Leader ‎

‎• Doris Leuthard (Switzerland), former President and Federal Councillor of ‎

the Swiss Confederation, Switzerland ‎

‎• Cathy Mulligan (United Kingdom), Visiting Researcher, Imperial College ‎

London and Chief Technology Officer of GovTech Labs at University ‎

College London ‎

‎• Akaliza Keza Ntwari (Rwanda), ICT advocate and entrepreneur ‎

‎• Edson Prestes (Brazil), Professor, Institute of Informatics, Federal ‎

University of Rio Grande do Sul ‎

‎• Kira Radinsky (Israel), Director of Data Science, eBay ‎

‎• Nanjira Sambuli (Kenya), Senior Policy Manager, World Wide Web ‎

Foundation ‎

‎• Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah (Australia), Chief Executive, Oxfam GB ‎

‎• Jean Tirole (France), Chairman of the Toulouse School of Economics and ‎

the Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse ‎

Ex officio

‎• Amandeep Singh Gill (India), Executive Director, Secretariat of the High-‎

level Panel on Digital Cooperation ‎

‎• Jovan Kurbalija (Serbia), Executive Director, Secretariat of the High-level ‎

Panel on Digital Cooperation

Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:22

III. PANEL SECRETARIAT AND SUPPORT TEAMS ‎

III. PANEL SECRETARIAT AND SUPPORT TEAMS ‎

Panel Secretariat ‎

‎• Isabel de Sola, Senior Adviser, Engagement ‎

‎• Amandeep Singh Gill, Executive Director ‎

‎• Jovan Kurbalija, Executive Director ‎

‎• Ananita Maitra, Project Officer, Policy and Engagement ‎

‎• Chengetai Masango, Senior Adviser (on loan from the IGF Secretariat, ‎

July-October 2018) ‎

‎• Lisa McMonagle, Intern ‎

‎• Madeline McSherry, Project Officer, Engagement ‎

‎• Claire Messina, Deputy Executive Director ‎

‎• AJung Moon, Senior Adviser, Research & Industry ‎

‎• Athira Murali, Intern ‎

‎• Anoush Rima Tatevossian, Senior Communications Officer ‎

‎• Talea von Lupin, Intern ‎

‎• Andrew Wright, Writer ‎



Sherpas and Support Teams ‎

‎• Co-Chair Melinda Gates: Gargee Ghosh, John Norris ‎

‎• Co-Chair Jack Ma: James Song, Jason Pau, Sami Farhad, Yuan Ren

Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:24

IV. DONORS ‎

IV. DONORS ‎

The Panel gratefully acknowledges the financial and in-kind contributions of the following governments and partners, without whom it ‎would not have been able to carry out its responsibilities: ‎

Robert Bosch Stiftung ‎

Government of the People’s Republic of China ‎

Government of Denmark ‎

Government of Finland ‎

Ford Foundation ‎

Global Challenges Foundation ‎

IGF Secretariat ‎

Government of Israel ‎

Government of Norway ‎

Government of Qatar ‎

Government of Switzerland ‎

Government of the United Arab Emirates ‎

UN Foundation ‎

Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:26

V. THE PANEL’S ENGAGEMENT ‎

V. THE PANEL’S ENGAGEMENT ‎

As per its terms of reference, the Panel engaged widely with ‎governments, private sector, academia, the technical ‎community, civil society, and inter-governmental organisations ‎across the world. The aims of its engagement strategy were to ‎provide stakeholders with an opportunity to contribute ‎meaningfully to the reflection process of the Panel; catalyse ‎multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary cooperation on digital ‎issues; and co-create the report’s recommendations with ‎stakeholders, with a view to building buy-in for their ‎implementation. ‎

The engagement strategy was guided by three main tenets: ‎

‎• Breadth and inclusivity: The Panel aimed to consult as ‎broadly as ‎

possible across regions, demographics, topics, sectors and ‎disciplines. ‎

The process strove to be as inclusive as possible of diverse ‎groupings. ‎

‎• Depth: The Panel worked with experts and conducted ‘deep ‎dives’ on ‎

specific focus areas through virtual or in-person consultations ‎as well as ‎

bilateral interviews. ‎

‎• Interdisciplinarity: Many digital challenges are currently ‎addressed in ‎

policy or agency silos; to promote more holistic approaches, the ‎Panel’s ‎

activities invited interdisciplinary and multisectoral perspectives ‎to the ‎

table.

The Panel was conscious of the importance of avoiding ‎duplication of efforts and ‘consultation fatigue’ amongst digital ‎stakeholders. Building on existing networks and policy forums, ‎engagement activities took place as close as possible to ‎stakeholders on the ground. The Panel also consciously ‎assumed the learnings of previous commissions and existing ‎working groups while also harnessing opportunities to connect ‎the issues in new ways.

ACTIVITIES

Conducting a global consultation in the span of few months ‎would not have been possible without the immense support of ‎dozens of organisations and governments worldwide who lent ‎their resources and networks to the Panel.

Engagement proceeded in two phases: in the ‘listening’ phase, ‎in the autumn of 2018, the Panel actively collected stakeholders’ ‎concerns and ideas on digital cooperation. Feedback from ‎stakeholders was fed into the Panel’s scoping of its work and ‎formed the basis of the nine “enablers of digital cooperation” ‎articulated mid-way through the Panel process. In the spring of ‎‎2019, the focus shifted to ‘road-testing’ the Panel’s emerging ‎recommendations. Stakeholders from across sectors were ‎invited to comment on and critique the draft recommendations ‎with a view to improving them.

Overall, the Panel and its Secretariat carried out 125 ‎engagement activities; these included participating in 44 digital ‎policy events and organising 10 thematic workshops (on ‎subjects such as values and principles, digital trust and security, ‎data, digital health), 28 briefings to various stakeholder ‎communities, 11 visits to digital hubs and capitals, 22 virtual ‎meetings with subject-matter experts, and 10 townhall meetings ‎open to the public. In addition, the Panel held a large number of ‎bilateral meetings with a variety of stakeholders.

A virtual window for consultation was opened via the Panel’s ‎website. In October 2018, an open Call for Contributions was ‎launched; by January 2019, when the call closed, 167 ‎stakeholders had sent written submissions. Additionally, an ‎informal public opinion survey was set up to capture the views ‎of stakeholders on the digital issues of greatest concern.

In total, the Panel and its Secretariat engaged with over 4,000 ‎individuals representing 104 states, 80 international ‎organisations, 203 private sector companies, 125 civil society ‎organisations, 33 technical organisations, and 188 think tanks ‎and academic institutions.

Our analysis of approximately 1200 core participants in our ‎engagement process finds that 40% were women; 3% were ‎aged under 30; and the regional breakdown was 20% North ‎America, 19% Europe, 13% Sub-Saharan Africa, 8% Latin ‎America and the Caribbean, 7% South and Central Asia, 7% ‎Southeast and East Asia, and 4% Middle East (the rest had a ‎global remit).

These results show that we did not wholly avoid a skew towards ‎male and Western voices, though they compare favourably with ‎many such exercises in the technology sector. They indicate the ‎continuing need for digital cooperation mechanisms to make ‎specific efforts to ensure inclusivity, and highlight in particular ‎the challenge of bringing the “digital native” youth generation ‎into digital policymaking.

PARTNERS ‎

The Panel would like to thank the following partners for their ‎generous assistance and support to its engagement process: ‎

Access Now ‎

African Union Commission ‎

Alibaba Group ‎

APEC China Business Council (ACBC) ‎

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Argentina ‎

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) ‎

Association for Progressive Communication (APC) ‎

Government of Benin ‎

Botnar Foundation ‎

Business Council for the United Nations ‎

Consulate General of Canada in San Francisco ‎

CERN ‎

China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC) ‎

Data2x ‎

Digital Empowerment Foundation ‎

Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL) ‎

Diplo Foundation ‎

Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations and ‎Other International Organisations in Geneva ‎

Direction interministérielle du numérique et du système ‎d’information et de communication de l’Etat, France ‎

Freedom Online Coalition ‎

Gateway House ‎

Geneva Internet Platform ‎

Global Commission on Stability of Cyberspace ‎

Global Partners Digital ‎

Global Partnership on Sustainable Development Data ‎

Global Tech Panel ‎

GSM Association (GSMA) ‎

Hangzhou Normal University ‎

Impact Hub Basel ‎

Infosys ‎

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)‎

International Telecommunications Union (ITU) ‎

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) ‎

iSPIRT ‎

JD.com ‎

JSC National ICT Holding Zerde ‎

Government of Kazakhstan ‎

King’s College London ‎

Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy ‎

New America Foundation ‎

Nokia ‎

Observer Research Foundation ‎

Office of Denmark’s Technology Ambassador ‎

Omidyar Foundation ‎

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ‎‎(OECD) ‎

Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF) ‎

Schwarzman Scholars, Tsinghua University ‎

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore ‎

Stanford University ‎

Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai ‎

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development ‎‎(UNCTAD) ‎

United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and ‎the Caribbean (ECLAC) ‎

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ‎‎(UNESCO) ‎

United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) ‎

United Nations Global Pulse ‎

United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) ‎

United Nations Office at Geneva ‎

United Nations University ‎

University of California, Berkeley ‎

University of Geneva ‎

Verizon Wireless ‎

Web Summit ‎

Western Balkans Digital Summit ‎

Wonder Ventures ‎

World Bank ‎

World Economic Forum ‎

World Economic Forum Center for the Fourth Industrial ‎Revolution, San Francisco ‎

World Government Summit, Dubai ‎

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) ‎

World Internet Conference ‎

World Summit AI

Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:29

VI. PRINCIPLES AND FUNCTIONS OF DIGITAL COOPERATION ‎

VI. PRINCIPLES AND FUNCTIONS OF DIGITAL COOPERATION ‎

In the course of our outreach, many stakeholders suggested ‎principles to which digital cooperation mechanisms should ‎adhere and functions they should seek to serve. Drawing also ‎on work of previous initiatives in these areas, this annex ‎summarises the principles and functions we suggest are most ‎important to guide the future evolution of digital cooperation. ‎



KEY PRINCIPLES OF DIGITAL COOPERATION ‎

‎• Consensus-oriented: Decisions should be made in ways that ‎seek ‎ consensus among public, private and civic stakeholders. ‎

‎• Polycentric: Decision-making should be highly distributed and ‎loosely ‎yet efficiently coordinated across specialised centres. ‎

‎• Customised: There is generally no “one size fits all” solution; ‎different ‎communities can implement norms in their own way, according ‎to ‎circumstances. ‎

‎• Subsidiarity: Decisions should be made as locally as possible, ‎closest to ‎where the issues and problems are. ‎

‎• Accessible: It should be as easy as possible to engage in ‎digital ‎cooperation mechanisms and policy discussions. ‎

‎• Inclusive: Decisions should be inclusive and democratic, ‎representing diverse interests and accountable to all stakeholders. ‎

‎• Agile: Digital cooperation should be dynamic, iterative and ‎responsive to ‎fast-emerging policy issues. ‎

‎• Clarity in roles and responsibility: Clear roles and shared ‎language ‎should reduce confusion and support common understanding ‎about the ‎responsibilities of actors involved in digital cooperation ‎‎(governments, ‎private sector, civil society, international organisations and ‎academia). ‎

‎• Accountable: There should be measurable outcomes, ‎accountability and ‎means of redress. ‎

‎• Resilient: Power distribution should be balanced across ‎sectors, without ‎centralised top-down control. ‎

‎• Open: Processes should be transparent, with minimum ‎barriers to entry. ‎

‎• Innovative: It should always be possible to innovate new ways ‎of ‎cooperating, in a bottom-up way, which is also the best way to ‎include ‎diverse perspectives. ‎

‎• Tech-neutral: Decisions should not lock in specific ‎technologies but allow ‎for innovation of better and context-appropriate alternatives. ‎

‎• Equitable outcomes: Digital cooperation should maximise the ‎global ‎public interest (internationally) and be anchored in broad public ‎benefit ‎‎(nationally). ‎



KEY FUNCTIONS OF DIGITAL COOPERATION ‎

‎• Leadership – generating political will among leaders from ‎government, ‎business, and society, and providing an authoritative response ‎to digital ‎policy challenges. ‎

‎• Deliberation – providing a platform for regular, comprehensive and impactful deliberations on digital issues with the active and effective participation of all affected stakeholders.

• Ensuring inclusivity – ensuring active and meaningful participation of all stakeholders, for example by linking with existing and future bottom-up networks and initiatives.214

• Evidence and data – monitoring developments and identifying trends to inform decisions, including by analysing existing data sources.

• Norms and policy making – building consensus among diverse stakeholders, respecting the roles of states and international organisations in enacting and enforcing laws.

• Implementation – following up on policy discussions and agreements.

• Coordination – creating shared understanding and purpose across bodies in different policy areas and at different levels (local, national, regional, global), ensuring synchronisation of efforts, interoperability and policy coherence, and the possibility of voluntary coordination between interested stakeholder groups.

• Partnerships – catalysing partnerships around specific issues by providing opportunities to network and collaborate.

• Support and capacity development – strengthening capacity development, monitoring digital developments, identifying trends, informing policy actors and the public of emerging risks and opportunities, and providing data for evidence-based decision making – allowing traditionally marginalised persons or other less-resourced stakeholders to actively participate in the system.

• Conflict resolution and crisis management – developing the skills, knowledge and tools to prevent and resolve disputes and connect stakeholders with assistance in a crisis.

Anonymous Mon, 15/07/2019 - 12:31

NOTES

NOTES

‎1 See Annex I for the Panel’s terms of reference. ‎

‎2 United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development, Mapping of international Internet ‎public policy issues, 17 April 2015, ‎

E/CN.16/2015/CRP.2, available at https://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/ecn162015crp2_en.pdf

‎3 GIP Digital Watch Observatory, May 2019, available at https://dig.watch

‎4 AI Impacts, “Trends in the cost of computing”, 10 March 2015, available at https://aiimpacts.org/trends-in-the-cost-‎of-computing/ ‎

‎5 Internet World Stats, “World Internet users and population statistics”, March 2019, available at ‎https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm; and IoT

Analytics, “State of the IoT 2018: Number of IoT devices now at 7B – Market accelerating”, August 2018, available ‎at https://iot-analytics.com/state-of-the-iot-update-q1-q2-2018-number-of-…

‎6 The World Bank, Global Findex Database 2017, April 2018, available at https://globalfindex.worldbank.org

‎7 Council on Foreign Relations, “Hate Speech on Social Media: Global Comparisons”, 11 April 2019, available at ‎https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/ hate-speech-social-media-global-comparisons; United Nations General ‎Assembly, resolution on the right to privacy in the digital age (A/RES/73/179), December 2018, available at ‎https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/73/179; FireEye, M-Trends 2019 (Annual Threat ‎Report), 2019, available at https://content.fireeye.com/m-trends; Freedom House, “Freedom on the Net 2018: ‎The rise of digital authoritarianism”, October 2018, ‎

available at https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018/rise-digit…

‎8 Internet World Stats, “World Internet users and population statistics”, March 2019, available at ‎https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm

‎9 The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) is one of the many entities that recognise the multiple ‎dimensions of the digital divide and work toward ‎

facilitating digital inclusion of marginalised groups. More details at ITU, Digital Inclusion, available at ‎https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Digital-Inclusion/ Pages/default.aspx ‎

‎10 Our public call for contributions received a number of suggestions on values, available at ‎www.digitalcooperation.org/responses. We also engaged a ‎

diverse set of stakeholders and experts to elicit relevant values and how they could be embedded in policy ‎approaches and cooperation architectures. ‎

Our engagement built on a recent surge of interest in values and ethics in the digital context: see Future of Life ‎Institute, Asilomar Principles, 2017, ‎

available at https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/; WEF White Paper on Values, Ethics and Innovation, August 2018, ‎available at http://www3.weforum. org/docs/WEF_WP_Values_Ethics_Innovation_2018.pdf ; Montreal ‎Declaration for a responsible development of AI, ‎

‎2018, available at https://www.montrealdeclaration-responsibleai.com/the-declaration; the World Wide Web ‎Foundation’s Contract for the Web, ‎

available at https://contractfortheweb.org; the EU High-Level Expert Group on Artificial Intelligence’s Ethics ‎Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial ‎

Intelligence, 2019, available at https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/ai-alliance-consultation/guidelines#Top

‎11 WEF report “Our Shared Digital Future Building an Inclusive, Trustworthy and Sustainable Digital Society”, ‎December 2018, available at http://www3. ‎weforum.org/docs/WEF_Our_Shared_Digital_Future_Report_2018.pdf ‎

‎12 For an introduction to the underlying technology trends and impact on the economy, see “Vectors of Digital ‎Transformation”, OECD Digital Economy

Papers: January 2019, No. 273. ‎

‎13 World Bank, World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends, “How the Internet Promotes Development”, ‎‎2016. ‎

‎14 Financial inclusion is defined as the ability to “access and use a range of appropriate and responsibly provided ‎financial services offered in a well-‎

regulated environment.” (UNCDF, Financial Inclusion, available at https://www.uncdf.org/financial-inclusion) ‎

‎15 World Bank, World Bank Global Findex Database: Measuring Fintech Inclusion and the Fintech Revolution, 2017, ‎available at https://globalfindex. worldbank.org/ ‎

‎16 Mobile money serves as a tool for financial inclusion, allowing those without traditional bank accounts to ‎participate in the economy on a greater level ‎

‎(McKinsey, “Mobile money in emerging markets: The business case for financial inclusion”, March 2018). ‎

‎17 Women Deliver, “If We Want to Go Far, We Must Go Together”, 21 January 2019, available at ‎https://womendeliver.org/2019/if-you-want-to-go-far-you-must-go-togethe…

‎18 Financial Stability Board, “FinTech and market structure in financial services: Market developments and potential ‎financial stability implications”, ‎

‎14 February 2019, available at https://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/P140219.pdf

‎19 The Economist, “Financial inclusion in the rich world”, 4 May 2018, available at ‎https://www.economist.com/special-report/2018/05/04/financial-inclusion…

‎20 M-Pesa is a mobile money service that allows users to transfer cash using their mobile phone numbers without ‎the need for a bank account. It serves ‎

over 17 million Kenyans and offers loan and savings products as well. See The Economist, “Why does Kenya lead ‎the world in mobile money?”. 02 March ‎

‎2015, available at https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2015/03/02/why-does-ke…-‎world-in-mobile-money. ‎

‎21 Ming Zeng, “Smart Business: What Alibaba Success Reveals about the Future of Strategy”, Harvard Business ‎Review 2018, pp 58-59. ‎

‎22 Harvard Business School, “Replicating MPESA: Lessons from Vodafone (Safaricom) on why mobile money fails ‎to gain traction in other markets”, 20 ‎

November 2016, available at https://rctom.hbs.org/submission/replicating-mpesa-lessons-from-‎vodafonesafaricom-on-why-mobile-money-fails-to-gain-traction-in-other-markets/ ‎

‎23 Accion, “The game-changing innovation that could bring financial services to millions in India”, 30 October 2017, ‎available at https://www.accion.org/ the-game-changing-innovation-that-could-bring-financial-services-to-‎millions-in-india ‎

‎24 GSM Association, State of the Industry Report on Mobile Money 2018, available at https://www.gsma.com/r/wp-‎content/uploads/2019/05/GSMA-State-of-the-Industry-Report-on-Mobile-Money-2018.pdf ‎

‎25 World Bank, Global ID4D Dataset, 2017, and World Bank, ID4D-Findex survey. ‎

‎26 MGI, “Digital Identity: A Key to Inclusive Growth”, MGI (Jan 2019). The report focuses on 7 diverse economies: ‎Brazil, China, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, the United Kingdom, and the United States. ‎

‎27 See for example Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the ‎Poor (St. Martin's Press, 2018), excerpt available at https://us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9781250074317

‎28 ID4D, available at http://id4d.worldbank.org/

‎29 MOSIP, available at https://www.mosip.io/

‎30 Luohan Academy, “Digital Technology and Inclusive Growth”, 2019, available at ‎https://gw.alipayobjects.com/os/antfincdn/DbLN6yXw6H/Luohan_ Academy-‎Report_2019_Executive_Summary.pdf ‎

‎31 World Bank: “E-commerce Participation and Household Income Growth in Taobao Villages”, April 2019, ‎available at http://documents.worldbank.org/ curated/en/839451555093213522/pdf/E-Commerce-Participation-‎and-Household-Income-Growth-in-Taobao-Villages.pdf; World Bank, ‎

‎“E-commerce for poverty alleviation in rural China: from grassroots development to public-private partnerships”, 19 ‎March 2019, available at http:// beta-blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/e-commerce-poverty-alleviation-rural-‎china-grassroots-development-public-private-partnerships; World Development Report 2016, “E-commerce with ‎Chinese characteristics: inclusion, efficiency and innovation in Taobao villages”. ‎

‎32 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Information Economy Report 2015, Unlocking the ‎Potential of E-Commerce for Developing ‎

Countries, 2015, available at https://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/ier2015_en.pdf

‎33 “Riding the Big Data Wave in 2017”, Medium, 17 April 2017, available at ‎https://medium.com/@Byte_Academy/due-to-an-exponential-increase-in-data…-‎big-data-was-coined-few-8f02a5973023 ‎

‎34 United Nations, The Sustainable Development Goals Report: 2018. ‎

‎35 World Health Organization, “Civil registration: why counting births and deaths is important”, 30 May 2014, ‎available at https://www.who.int/news-room/ fact-sheets/detail/civil-registration-why-counting-births-and-deaths-‎is-important ‎

‎36 The World Bank, PovcalNet, available at http://iresearch.worldbank.org/PovcalNet/povOnDemand.aspx

‎37 This definition is substantially drawn from Recital 26 of the GDPR which defines anonymized data as “data ‎rendered anonymous in such a way that the ‎

data subject is not or no longer identifiable.” ‎

‎38 United States Agency for International Development, “Fighting Ebola with Information”, available at ‎http://www.digitaldevelopment.org/fighting-ebola-‎

information ‎

‎39 World Health Organization, Global Strategy on Digital Health, 26 March 2019, available at ‎https://extranet.who.int/dataform/upload/surveys/183439/ ‎files/Draft%20Global%20Strategy%20on%20Digital%20Health.pdf ‎

‎40 CGAIR Platform for Big Data in Agriculture, available at https://bigdata.cgiar.org/

‎41 Jason Plautz, “Cheap, Portable Sensors are Democratizing Air-Quality Data”, Wired, 7 November 2018, available ‎at https://www.wired.com/story/cheap-portable-sensors-are-democratizing-ai…

‎42 For more information on global digital public goods, see: https://digitalpublicgoods.net/public-goods/

‎43 Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, Microeconomics (Worth Publishers, New York, NY, 2013). ‎

‎44 See “About India Stack”, available at: https://indiastack.org/about/

‎45 Pathways to Prosperity Commission, 2018, available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-‎D/Statistics/Pages/stat/default.aspx ‎

‎46 WIRED, “Global Internet Access is Even More Worse than Dire Reports Suggest”, 23 October 2018, available at ‎https://www.wired.com/story/global-internet-access-dire-reports/

‎47 The index measures 84 countries from 2018-2019. The Economist, The Inclusive Internet Index 2019, available ‎at https://theinclusiveinternet.eiu.com/

‎48 Ibid. ‎

‎49 In India nearly two-thirds of urban areas have connectivity, compared to just over a fifth of rural regions. See The ‎Internet and Mobile Association of India (IAMAI), Mobile Internet Report, 2017. ‎

‎50 World Economic Forum, “Delivering Digital Infrastructure Advancing the Internet Economy”, April 2014, available ‎at http://www3.weforum.org/docs/ WEF_TC_DeliveringDigitalInfrastructure_InternetEconomy_Report_2014.pdf ‎

‎51 The Alliance for Affordable Internet, available at https://a4ai.org/

‎52 Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development, available at ‎https://www.broadbandcommission.org/Pages/default.aspx

‎53 UNICEF, "Project Connect, in Partnership with UNICEF’s Office of Innovation, Launches First of Its Kind, ‎Interactive Map Visualizing the Digital Divide in Education", 02 November 2017, available at ‎http://unicefstories.org/2017/11/02/schoolmappingprojectconnect/

‎54 World Bank, “Connecting for Inclusion: Broadband Access for All”, available at ‎http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/digitaldevelopment/brief/connecting-f…

‎55 IEEE Spectrum, "How Project Loon Built the Navigation System That Kept Its Balloons Over Puerto Rico", 8 March ‎‎2018, available at https://spectrum. ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/internet/how-project-loon-built-the-navigation-‎system-that-kept-its-balloons-over-puerto-rico ‎

‎56 Reuters, "Amazon plans to launch over 3,000 satellites to offer broadband internet", 04 April 2019, available at ‎https://www.reuters.com/article/ us-amazon-com-broadband/amazon-plans-to-launch-over-3000-satellites-to-‎offer-broadband-internet-idUSKCN1RG1YW; Reuters, "U.S. regulator approves SpaceX plan for broadband ‎satellite services", 29 March 2018, available at https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spacex-fcc/u-s-regulator-‎approves-spacex-plan-for-broadband-satellite-services-idUSKBN1H537E

‎57 The Jakarta Post, "Govt to expand broadband connectivity as internet use grows", 20 February 2018, available at ‎https://www.thejakartapost.com/ news/2018/02/20/govt-to-expand-broadband-connectivity-as-internet-use-‎grows.html ‎

‎58 ITU, “Universal Service Fund and Digital Inclusion for All Study”, June 2013, available at ‎https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Conferences/GSR/Documents/ ITU%20USF%20Final%20Report.pdf ‎

‎59 One example of building internet access around community needs, in this case health, is a collaboration ‎between the Basic Internet Foundation and health centres in Tanzania; see Vision 2030, available at ‎https://www.vision2030.no/index.php/en/visjon2030-projects/non-discrimi…. The ‎Panel has been informed that a ‘common bid’ for connectivity is being prepared by ITU, UNICEF and the World ‎Bank. ‎

‎60 BBC, Video: Internet access in Africa - Are mesh networks the future?, 28 March 2019, available at ‎https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47723967. There is another example from rural England of the power ‎of a cooperative approach: farmers waived right of way charges and volunteered to help dig up trenches for ‎fibre optic cable in exchange for shares in the network. See ISPreview, “B4RN Set to Hit 5000 Rural UK FTTH ‎Broadband Connections Target”, 11 September 2018, available at ‎https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2018/09/b4rn-set-to-hit-5000-rura…. ‎html ‎

‎61 Alliance for Affordable Internet, available at https://a4ai.org/rethinking-affordable-access/

‎62 Written contribution, Centre for Socio-Economic Development. This does not take away from the tremendous ‎role that digital technologies have played in improving the lives of people with disabilities. ‎

‎63 UNESCO, “Multilingualism in Cyberspace: Indigenous Languages for Empowerment”, 27-28 November 2015, ‎available at http://www.unesco.org/new/ ‎fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/multilingualism_in_cyberspace_concept_paper_en.pdf; Brookings ‎Institute, “Rural and urban America divided by broadband access”, 18 July 2016, available at ‎https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/07/18/rural-and-urban-amer…

‎64 ITU Facts and Figures 2017, available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-‎D/Statistics/Documents/facts/ICTFactsFigures2017.pdf ‎

‎65 Pathways for Prosperity Commission, Digital Lives: Meaningful Connections for the Next 3 Billion, 2018, ‎available at https://pathwayscommission.bsg. ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2018-11/digital_lives_report.pdf ‎

‎66 Recognising the importance of marketing in addressing socio-cultural issues, the Unstereotype alliance, an ‎initiative convened by UN Women, unites leaders from across business technology and creative industries to ‎use marketing-based techniques to combat gender stereotypes. Available at http:// ‎www.unstereotypealliance.org/en/about

‎67 The OECD and WTO-led inter-agency Task Force on International Trade Statistics is one example of work being ‎undertaken by the OECD and others to update traditional metrics of macroeconomic change and trade flows ‎‎(OECD, Toward a Framework for Measuring the Digital Economy, 19-21 September 2018). The G20 Toolkit for ‎Measuring the Digital Economy identifies methodologies to measure the digital economy as well as gaps and ‎challenges surrounding measurement; (G20 Digital Economy Ministerial Declaration, available at ‎http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2018/2018-08-24-digital. html#annex3). The ITU’s ICT Development Index (IDI) ‎measures the level and evolution over time of ICT developments across developed and developing countries ‎‎(available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Pages/publications/mis/methodol…). The EIU Index ‎covers 100 countries as of 2019 using benchmarks of national digital inclusion across readiness, relevance, ‎affordability, and availability (Ibid). ‎

‎68 The World Bank, World Development Report: The Changing Nature of Work, 2019. ‎

‎69 Thereza Balliester and Adam Elsheikhi, “The Future of Work: A Literature Review”, March 2018, available at ‎https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/- --dgreports/---inst/documents/publication/wcms_625866.pdf ‎

‎70 Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne, The Future Of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs To ‎Computerisation? (Oxford Martin School, 2013), available at ‎https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/downloads/academic/The_Future_of_Empl…

‎71 Towards data science, “Humanities Graduates Should Consider Data Science”, 31 August 2017, available at ‎https://towardsdatascience.com/ humanities-graduates-should-consider-data-science-d9fc78735b0c ‎

‎72 Tim Noonan, Director, International Trade Union Confederation, interview, 25 January 2019. ‎

‎73 CNBC, “The future of work won't be about college degrees, it will be about job skills”, 31 October 2018, available ‎at https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/31/ the-future-of-work-wont-be-about-degrees-it-will-be-about-skills.html ‎

‎74 The Guardian, “All flexibility, no security: why conservative think tanks are wrong on the gig economy”, 23 ‎January 2019, available on https://www. theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/jan/24/all-flexibility-no-‎security-why-conservative-thinktanks-are-wrong-on-the-gig-economy ‎

‎75 International Labour Organization, “Helping the gig economy work better for gig workers”, available at ‎https://www.ilo.org/washington/WCMS_642303/ lang--en/index.htm ‎

‎76 Klaus Schoemann, “Digital Technology to Support the Trade Union Movement”, Open Journal of Social Sciences, ‎Vol. 06 No. 01 (2018), available at https://file.scirp.org/Html/5-1761684_81823.htm

‎77 WIPO, “The informal economy in developing nations: a hidden engine of growth”, June 2017, available at ‎https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/ en/2017/03/article_0006.html ‎

‎78 OECD, “Tax and Digitalisation”, March 2019, available at www.oecd.org/going-digital/tax-and-digitalisation.pdf

‎79 South Center, “The WTO’s Discussions on Electronic Commerce”, January 2017, available at ‎https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ AN_TDP_2017_2_The-WTO%E2%80%99s-‎Discussions-on-Electronic-Commerce_EN.pdf ‎

‎80 European Commission, "76 WTO partners launch talks on e-commerce", 25 January 2019, available at ‎http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index. cfm?id=1974 ‎

‎81 UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report 2018: Power, Platforms and the Free Trade Delusion, Chapter III. ‎

‎82 OECD, “Vectors of Digital Transformation” (OECD Publishing, Paris, 22 January 2019). ‎

‎83 Michael Mandel, Data, Trade and Growth, Progressive Policy Institute, April 2014, available at ‎https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/ uploads/2014/04/2014.04-Mandel_Data-Trade-and-Growth.pdf ‎

‎84 Parminder Jeet Singh, “Digital Industrialisation in Developing Countries”, paper for the Commonwealth ‎Secretariat, 2018. ‎

‎85 OECD, “Tax and Digitalisation”, March 2019, available at www.oecd.org/going-digital/tax-and-digitalisation.pdf

‎86 OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Shifting Project, Tax Challenges Arising from Digitalisation, Interim report 2018, ‎available at: https://read.oecd-library.org/ taxation/tax-challenges-arising-from-digitalisation-interim-‎report_9789264293083-en#page3; Esquire, “Silicon Valley’s Tax-Avoiding, Job-Killing, Soul-Sucking Machine”, ‎available at https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a15895746/bust-big-tech-silicon-v…

‎87 OECD, Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, available at https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/

‎88 Bloomberg Tax, “What’s Next for Countries Going it Alone on Digital Taxes”, 21 March, 2019, available at ‎https://news.bloombergtax.com/daily-tax-report-international/whats-next…-‎tax ‎

‎89 KPMG, “Taxation of Digital Assets: New Laws Issued”, 15 May 2018, available at ‎https://home.kpmg/xx/en/home/insights/2018/05/tax-news-flash-issue-380…

‎90 Jean Tirole, “Regulating Disrupters”, Project Syndicate, 9 January 2019, available at www.project-‎syndicate.org/onpoint/regulating-the-disrupters-by-jean-tirole-2019-01?barrier=accesspaylog. ‎

‎91 For more on these processes, see Jean Tirole, Economics for the Common Good (Princeton University Press, ‎‎2016). ‎

‎92 Since 1979, the International Conference of Data Protection & Privacy Commissioners (ICDPPC) has provided a ‎forum for connecting the efforts of 122 data protection and privacy authorities from across the globe; and since ‎‎2001, the International Competition Network (ICN) has provided a specialised yet informal venue for ‎maintaining regular dialogue across the global antitrust community to build procedural and substantive ‎convergence and address practical competition concerns for the benefit of consumers and economies. ‎

‎93 The National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection (INAI) is an ‎autonomous constitutional body responsible for upholding the right to access to public information. It is also in ‎charge of upholding the right to protection of personal data held by the public and the private sectors. See ‎http://www.networkforintegrity.org/continents/america/instituto-naciona…-‎informacion-y-proteccion-de-datos-personales-inai/ ‎

‎94 OECD, “Strengthening digital government”, OECD Going Digital Policy Note, OECD Paris, March 2019, available ‎at www.oecd.org/going-digital/ strengthening-digital-government.pdf ‎

‎95 See Creators, available at https://www.creatorspad.com/pages/govtech-program

‎96 Infocomm Media Development Corporation, available at https://www.imda.gov.sg/imtalent/training-and-courses

‎97 Minister Omar Al Olama, Remarks at the World Government Summit, 10 February 2019. ‎

‎98 The Verge, “The mass shooting in New Zealand was designed to spread on social media”, 15 March 2019, ‎available on https://www.theverge. com/2019/3/15/18266859/new-zealand-shooting-video-social-media-‎manipulation ‎

‎99 Myanmar went from minimal connectivity in 2013 to virtually half the population in 2016 owning smartphones. ‎Facebook became the dominant communications platform almost by accident. See Reuters, “Why Facebook is ‎losing the war on hate speech in Myanmar”, 15 August 2018, available at ‎https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-facebook-ha…

‎100 National Public Radio, "#Gamergate Controversy Fuels Debate On Women And Video Games", 24 September ‎‎2014, available at https://www.npr.org/ sections/alltechconsidered/2014/09/24/349835297/-gamergate-‎controversy-fuels-debate-on-women-and-video-games ‎

‎101 The Guardian, “Instagram bans 'graphic' self-harm images after Molly Russell's death”, 7 February 2019, ‎available at https://www.theguardian.com/ technology/2019/feb/07/instagram-bans-graphic-self-harm-images-‎after-molly-russells-death ‎

‎102 Hindustan Times, “24-yr-old commits suicide after being bullied for dressing up as a woman”, 19 October 2019, ‎available at ‎

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/24-yr-old-commits-suicide-aft…-‎woman/story- 8PlWvf0fMwcd72A5Tp8tBI.html ‎

‎103 Ofcom and UK Information Commissioner’s Office, “Internet users’ experience of harm online: summary of ‎survey research”, July 2018, available at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/120852/Internet-‎harm-research-2018-report.pdf ‎

‎104 NSPCC, “Net Aware report 2017: ‘Freedom to express myself safely’”, 04 September 2018, available at ‎https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/2017/net-aware-report-…-‎safely/ ‎

‎105 India alone had over 100 incidents in 2018. See Freedom House, “Freedom on the Net 2018”, October 2018, ‎available at https://freedomhouse.org/ sites/default/files/FOTN_2018_Final%20Booklet_11_1_2018.pdf ‎

‎106 United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Human Rights Appeal 2019”, 17 January ‎‎2019, available at https://www.ohchr.org/ Documents/Publications/AnnualAppeal2019.pdf ‎

‎107 Electronic Frontier Foundation, “India's Supreme Court Upholds Right to Privacy as a Fundamental Right”, 27 ‎August 2017, available at https://www.eff. org/deeplinks/2017/08/indias-supreme-court-upholds-right-privacy-‎fundamental-right-and-its-about-time ‎

‎108 Written contribution, the Paradigm Initiative. The bill has not received presidential assent. ‎

‎109 United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Global Compact, Save the Children, “Children’s Rights and ‎Business Principles”, 03 March 2012, available at ‎https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/human_rights/CRBP/Child…

‎110 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “Steering AI and Advanced ICTs for ‎

Knowledge Societies”, available at https://en.unesco.org/system/files/unesco-‎steering_ai_for_knowledge_societies.pdf ‎

‎111 Council of Europe, Freedom of Expression, Standard Setting, available at https:/www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-‎expression/internet-standard-setting; and European Court of Human Rights decisions, for example, in the case ‎of Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey, available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/ eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%22]} ‎

‎112 IFEX, “Saudi Arabia arrests at least 13 more human rights defenders”, 14 April 2019. ‎

‎113 UN Global Compact “Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations ‎‎“Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework”, 2011, available at https://www.unglobalcompact.org/library/2

‎114 The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, available at https://www.business-humanrights.org/

‎115 A Corporate Accountability Index is published annually by Ranking Digital Rights. Available at ‎https://rankingdigitalrights.org/

‎116 Carnegie UK Trust, “Reducing harm in social media through a duty of care”, 08 May 2018, available at ‎https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk/blog/ reducing-harm-social-media-duty-care/ ‎

‎117 Pew Research Trust, “Online Harassment 2017”, 11 July 2017, available at ‎https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/

‎118 Amanda and Noel Sharkey, “Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly”, University of ‎Sheffield, 03 July 2010. ‎

‎119 United Nations Children’s Fund, “One in Three: Internet Governance and Children’s Rights”, discussion paper, ‎‎2016. ‎

‎120 U.S. Government Publishing Office, “Electronic Code of Federal Regulation”, 26 April 2019, available at ‎https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=49 ‎‎39e77c77a1a1a08c1cbf905fc4b409&node=16%3A1.0.1.3.36&rgn=div5; UK Information Commissioner’s ‎Office, “Age appropriate design: a code of practice for online services”, 15 April 2019, available at ‎https://ico.org.uk/media/about-the-ico/consultations/2614762/age-approp…-‎consultation.pdf ‎

‎121 Elon University, “Survey X: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humans”, 2018, available at ‎

http://www.elon.edu/e-web/imagining/surveys/2018_survey/AI_and_the_Futu…

‎122 Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm: How the quest for the ultimate learning machine will remake our world ‎‎(Basic Books, 2015). ‎

‎123 Cathy O’Neil, Weapons of Math Destruction (The Crown Publishing Group, 2016); Digital Society, “Human rights ‎in the robot age - Challenges arising from the use of robotics, artificial intelligence, and virtual and augmented ‎reality”, 11 October 2017; Umoja Noble, “Algorithms of Oppression – How Search Engines Reinforce Racism”, ‎‎08 January 2018, available at https://nyupress.org/9781479837243/algorithms-of-oppression/

‎124 Investors and founders are finally waking up to the gender problem in tech after high-profile scandals and ‎walkouts by employees at companies such as Google. See Aliya Ram, “Tech investors put #MeToo clauses in ‎deals”, Financial Times, 22 March 2019. ‎

‎125 Virginia Eubanks, Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor (St. Martin's ‎Press, 2018); excerpt available at https:// us.macmillan.com/excerpt?isbn=9781250074317 ‎

‎126 Harvard Law Today, “Algorithms and their unintended consequences for the poor”, 07 November 2018, ‎available at https://today.law.harvard.edu/ algorithms-and-their-unintended-consequences-for-the-poor/? ‎fbclid=IwAR2yLUMpEYj8YKhvZDQktU0LNHNDateRtqVBgZHW45uHMEYubyQr36h08H8 ‎

‎127 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, “Ethically Aligned Design: A Vision for Prioritizing Human Well-‎being with Autonomous and Intelligent Systems”, available at https://standards.ieee.org/content/dam/ieee-‎standards/standards/web/documents/other/ead_v2.pdf ‎

‎128 One important discussion is on the applicability of International Humanitarian Law and accountability thereunder ‎for the use of military systems that might deploy AI. See Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of ‎Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate ‎Effects, “Report of the 2018 session of the Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the ‎Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems”, 23 October 2018, available at ‎https://undocs.org/en/CCW/GGE.1/2018/3

‎129 Wendell Wallach, An Agile Ethical/Legal Model for the International and National Governance of AI and Robotics ‎‎(Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 2018). ‎

‎130 António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General, remarks at the Web Summit, Lisbon, 05 November 2018, ‎available at https://www.un.org/sg/en/ content/sg/speeches/2018-11-05/remarks-web-summit; “Autonomous ‎weapons that kill must be banned, insists UN chief”, March 29, 2019, available at ‎https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/03/1035381

‎131 Provisions similar to the U.S. Fourth Amendment exist in several Constitutions and the 1980 OECD Guidelines ‎codified 8 principles that have influenced privacy regulations since then. These were updated in 2013 as ‎Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Trans-border Flows of Personal Data and are available at ‎https://www.oecd.org/sti/ieconomy/oecd_privacy_framework.pdf

‎132 David Dodwell, “The integration of mass surveillance and new digital technologies is unnerving”, The South ‎China Morning Post, 17 February 2018, available at https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-‎opinion/article/2133617/integration-mass-surveillance-and-new-digital-technologies; United Nations General ‎Assembly, Summary of the Human Rights Council penal discussion on the right to privacy in the digital age, 19 ‎December 2014. ‎

‎133 The 2016 Privacy Shield framework (earlier Safe Harbor), which governs personal data flows between the U.S. ‎and the E.U. and Switzerland based on self-certification by companies, is an example of the former; available at ‎https://www.privacyshield.gov/welcome

‎134 National Public Radio, “A year after San Bernadino and Apple-FBI, where are we on encryption?”, 3 December ‎‎2016, available at https://www.npr.org/ sections/alltechconsidered/2016/12/03/504130977/a-year-after-san-‎bernardino-and-apple-fbi-where-are-we-on-encryption?t=1532518316108 ‎

‎135 For example, Australia’s Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment (Assistance and Access) Act ‎‎2018, available at https://www.legislation. gov.au/Details/C2018A00148 ‎

‎136 U.S. Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act (CLOUD Act, H.R. 4943). ‎

‎137 Brave automatically blocks ad trackers (ad trackers collect data from users’ online behaviours for the purpose of ‎boosting the effectiveness of ads and marketing campaigns). DuckDuckGo does not track user search ‎behaviours. ‎

‎138 UK Open Data Institute, “UK’s first ‘data trust’ pilots to be led by the ODI in partnership with central and local ‎government”, 20 November 2018, available at https://theodi.org/article/uks-first-data-trust-pilots-to-be-led-by-the-‎odi-in-partnership-with-central-and-local-government/ ‎

‎139 India Stack, “About Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture”, available at https://indiastack.org/depa/

‎140 United Nations Secretary-General, Address to the General Assembly, 25 September 2018, available at ‎https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/ speeches/2018-09-25/address-73rd-general-assembly ‎

‎141 Mareike Möhlmann and Andrea Geissinger, Trust in the Sharing Economy: Platform-Mediated Peer Trust ‎‎( Cambridge University Press, July 2018), available at ‎https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326346569_Trust_in_the_Sharing…-‎Mediated_Peer_Trust ‎

‎142 European Political Strategy Centre, “Report from the High Level-Hearing: Preserving Democracy in the Digital ‎Age”, 22 February 2018, available at https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/files/epsc_-_report_-‎‎_hearing_on_preserving_democracy_in_the_digital_age.pdf ‎

‎143 The Guardian, “You thought fake news was bad? Deep fakes are where truth goes die”, 12 November 2018, ‎available at: https://www.theguardian.com/

technology/2018/nov/12/deep-fakes-fake-news-truth ‎

‎144 Kai-Fu Lee, AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order (Houghton Miller Harcourt, 2018), ‎available at https://aisuperpowers.com/

‎145 Here capacity is understood as “the ability of people, organizations, systems of organizations, and society as a ‎whole to define and solve problems, make informed choices, order their priorities, plan their futures, and to ‎implement programmes and projects to sustain them.” See Swiss Agency of Development and Cooperation, ‎‎“Glossary Knowledge Management and Capacity Development”, available at https://bit.ly/2FwORDl

‎146 5Rights Foundation, “5Rights Partner with BT to Co-Create with Children on Digital Literacy”, 2017, available at ‎https://5rightsfoundation.com/in-action/5rights-partner-with-bt-to-co-c…

‎147 United Nations Volunteers, “Shape the Future of Volunteering: Online Conversations”, 25 April 2019, available at ‎https://www.unv.org/planofaction/ dialogues ‎

‎148 The Times of India, “Fake news: WhatsApp, DEF host training for community leaders in Jaipur”, 19 November ‎‎2018. ‎

‎149 The “security by design” approach is described in the 2015 White Paper of Amazon Web Services, available at ‎https://www.logicworks.com/wp-content/ uploads/2017/01/Intro_to_Security_by_Design.pdf; the EU General ‎Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) contains the “privacy by design” principle; some examples of what it means ‎in practice are available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/reform/rules-bu…-‎organisations/obligations/what-does-data-protection-design-and-default-mean_en. ‎

‎150 European Commission, Final Report of the High Level Expert Group on Fake News and Online Disinformation, ‎‎12 March 2018, available at https:// ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/final-report-high-level-expert-‎group-fake-news-and-online-disinformation; Facebook, “Protecting Elections in the EU”, 28 March 2019. ‎

‎151 See for example Joseph Nye, “Nuclear Learning and U.S.-Soviet security regimes”, International Organization, ‎‎41, 3, (1987), p. 371-402; Emmanuel Adler, “The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities ‎and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control”, International Organization, 46, (1992), p. ‎‎101-145; Clifton Parker, “Cooperation of U.S., Russian Scientists Helped Avoid Nuclear Catastrophe at Cold ‎War’s End, CISAC Scholar Says”, June 28, 2016, available at https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/news/cooperation-us-‎russian-scientists-helped-avoid-nuclear-catastrophe-cold-war%E2%80%99s-end-says-cisac ‎

‎152 World Economic Forum, The Global Risks Report 2019, 15 January 2019, available at ‎https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2019

‎153 World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 2018-2019. ‎

‎154 WIRED, “That Insane, $81m Bangladesh Bank Heist? Here's What We Know”, 17 May 2016, available at ‎https://www.wired.com/2016/05/insane-81m-bangladesh-bank-heist-heres-kn…

‎155 CBS, “What can we learn from the ‘most devastating’ cyberattack in history?”, 22 August 2018, available at ‎https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lessons-to-learn-from-devastating-notpetya…

‎156 Bromium, Inc., “Hyper-Connected Web Of Profit Emerges, As Global Cybercriminal Revenues Hit $1.5 Trillion ‎Annually”, 20 August 2018, available at https://www.bromium.com/press-release/hyper-connected-web-of-profit-‎emerges-as-global-cybercriminal-revenues-hit-1-5-trillion-annually/ ‎

‎157 Business Insider, “Travis Kalanick lasted in his role for 6.5 years — five times longer than the average Uber ‎employee”, 20 August 2017, available at https://www.businessinsider.com/employee-retention-rate-top-tech-‎companies-2017-8 ‎

‎158 Symantec, Internet Security Threat Report, April 2016, available at https://www.nu.nl/files/nutech/Rapport-‎Symantec2016.pdf ‎

‎159 Europol’s Internet Organised Crime Threat Assessment (IOCTA) 2018 has a summary of the evolving threat ‎environment; Japan’s National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT) estimates on ‎the basis of scans of the darknet that 54% of the attacks it detected in 2017 targeted IoT devices: see NICT, “The ‎‎‘NOTICE’ Project to Survey IoT Devices and to Alert Users”, 1 February 2019. ‎

‎160 IOT Analytics, “State of the IoT 2018, Number of IoT devices now at 7B – Market accelerating”, 08 August 2018, ‎available at https://iot-analytics.com/ state-of-the-iot-update-q1-q2-2018-number-of-iot-devices-now-7b/ ‎

‎161 CBS, “Stuxnet: Computer Worm Opens Era of Warfare”, 04 June 2012, available at ‎https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stuxnet-computer-worm-opens-new-era-of-war…

‎162 CNN, “US announces new set of Russia Sanctions”, 20 December 2018, available at ‎https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/19/politics/us-treasury-russia/index.ht…; The New York Times, “Signs of ‎Russian Meddling in Brexit Referendum”, 15 November 2017, available at https://www.nytimes. ‎com/2017/11/15/world/europe/russia-brexit-twitter-facebook.html ‎

‎163 Gail Kent, Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, “The Mutual Legal Assistance Problem ‎Explained”, 23 February 2015, available at http:// cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2015/02/mutual-legal-assistance-‎problem-explained ‎

‎164 Bloomberg, “Huawei Reveals the Real Trade War with China”, 6 December 2018; Associated Press, “German ‎leader Angela Merkel testifies on alleged U.S. surveillance revealed by Snowden, 16 February 2017 and “Costs ‎of Snowden leak still mounting 5 years later”, 4 June 2018. ‎

‎165 TechRepublic, “Governments and nation states are now officially training for cyberwarfare: An inside look”, 1 ‎September 2016, available at https://www. techrepublic.com/article/governments-and-nation-states-are-now-‎officially-training-for-cyberwarfare-an-inside-look/ ‎

‎166 The Wall Street Journal, “Cyberwar Ignites a New Arms Race”, 11 October 2015; The Wall Street Journal, ‎‎“Cataloging the World’s Cyberforces”, 11 October 2015. ‎

‎167 The Register, “Everything you need to know about the Petya, er, NotPetya nasty trashing PCs worldwide”, 28 ‎June 2017. ‎

‎168 IBM researchers have shown it is possible to conceal known malware in video-conferencing software and ‎trigger it when it sees a specific individual, available at https://securityintelligence.com/deeplocker-how-ai-can-‎power-a-stealthy-new-breed-of-malware/ ‎

‎169 Russia placed information security on the agenda of the UN in 1998. Since then several Groups of ‎Governmental Experts have studied ICT security and three of them have adopted reports by consensus. See ‎https://www.un.org/disarmament/ict-security/ and https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/ ‎paris_call_cyber_cle443433-1.pdf ‎

‎170 They are composed on the basis of equitable geographical distribution, and each has included the five ‎permanent members of the UN Security Council. ‎

‎171 UN GGE report of 2013 (A/68/98), paragraph 19, available at https://undocs.org/A/68/98; reconfirmed by the UN ‎GGE report of 2015 (A/70/174), ‎

paragraph 24, available at https://undocs.org/A/70/174

‎172 United Nations General Assembly, Group of Governmental Experts on Developments in the Field of Information ‎and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security, report A/70/174, page 13, 22 July 2015, ‎available at http://undocs.org/A/70/174

‎173 Government of France, “Cybersecurity: Paris Call of 12 November 2018 for Trust and Security in Cyberspace”, ‎available at https://www.diplomatie.gouv. fr/en/french-foreign-policy/digital-diplomacy/france-and-cyber-‎security/article/cybersecurity-paris-call-of-12-november-2018-for-trust-and-security-in ‎

‎174 Cybersecurity Tech Accord, available at https://cybertechaccord.org; Siemens, Charter of Trust, available at ‎https://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/ feature/2018/corporate/2018-02-cybersecurity/charter-of-trust-e.pdf ‎

‎175 The case has been made strongly in recent studies such as Samir Saran (ed.), Our Common Digital Future ‎‎(GCCS and ORF, 2017), available at https:// www.orfonline.org/research/our-common-digital-future-gccs-2017/

‎176 United Nations General Assembly, “Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of ‎international security”, 18 October 2018, available at https://undocs.org/A/C.1/73/L.37

‎177 United National General Assembly, “Developments in the field of information and telecommunications in the ‎context of international security”, 29 October 2019, available at https://undocs.org/A/C.1/73/L.27/Rev.1

‎178 Oman ITU-Arab Regional Cybersecurity Centre, available at https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-‎D/Cybersecurity/Pages/Global-Partners/oman-itu-arab-regional-cybersecurity-centre.aspx ‎

‎179 CSIRTs Network, available at https://www.enisa.europa.eu/topics/csirts-in-europe/csirts-network

‎180 Cathy Mulligan, “A Call to (Software) Arms”, LinkedIn, 30 March 2019. ‎

‎181 International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC 27034, 2011; SAFECode, Fundamental Practices for ‎Secure Software Development, March 2018, available at https://safecode.org/wp-‎content/uploads/2018/03/SAFECode_Fundamental_Practices_for_Secure_Software_Development_March_20‎‎18. pdf; SAFECode, Managing Security Risks Inherent in the Use of Third-Party Components, 2017, available at ‎https://www.safecode.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017/05/SAFECode_TPC_Whitepaper.pdf; SAFECode, Tactical ‎Threat Modeling, 2017, available at https://www.safecode.org/wp-content/ ‎uploads/2017/05/SAFECode_TM_Whitepaper.pdf; and Microsoft, Security Development Lifecycle. Microsoft, ‎available at https://www.microsoft.com/ en-us/securityengineering/sdl. ‎

‎182 The Global Cybersecurity Capacity Centre at Oxford University has created a repository of existing efforts in ‎partnership with the GFCE: the Cybersecurity Capacity Portal, available at ‎https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/cybersecurity-capacity/explore/gfce. The report “Cybersecurity Competence Building ‎Trends” provides examples of public-private partnerships in OECD countries: see Diplo, Cybersecurity ‎Competence Building Trends, 2016. ‎

‎183 Cybersecurity Ventures, “Cybersecurity Jobs Report 2018-2021”, 31 May 2017, available at ‎https://cybersecurityventures.com/jobs/. The Delhi Communiqué on a GFCE Global Agenda for Cyber Capacity ‎Building provides a framework for such efforts: see GFCE, Delhi Communiqué, 2017, available at ‎https://www.thegfce.com/delhi-communique

‎184 OECD, “Unlocking the potential of e-commerce”, OECD Going Digital Policy Note, OECD, Paris, 2019, available ‎at www.oecd.org/going-digital/unlocking-the-potential-of-e-commerce.pdf. Page 2 notes that “SMEs could also ‎benefit from multistakeholder initiatives such as the Electronic World Trade Platform, which aims to foster a ‎more effective policy environment for online trading”. ‎

‎185 In the areas of cybersecurity and cybercrime, for example, national laws and regional and international ‎conventions create frameworks for digital cooperation in addressing cyber-risks. One example is the Council of ‎Europe Cybercrime Convention, available at https://www.coe.int/en/web/ conventions/full-list/-‎‎/conventions/treaty/185 ‎

‎186 Content policy is one area where there are many examples of “soft law” instruments, such as the “Code of ‎conduct on countering illegal hate speech online” (agreed in 2016 by the European Commission and major ‎internet companies; available at https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/item-detail. cfm?item_id=54300), the ‎‎“Manila Principles on Internet Intermediaries” (developed in 2015 by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ‎other civil society groups and endorsed by many entities, available at https://www.manilaprinciples.org), and the ‎‎“Guidelines for industry on child protection online” (initially developed in 2015 through a consultative process ‎led by the International Telecommunication Union and UNICEF, available at https://www. ‎unicef.org/csr/files/COP_Guidelines_English.pdf). ‎

‎187 The Internet Governance Forum can be seen as a loosely organised framework for digital cooperation (more ‎details at https://www.intgovforum.org/ multilingual/tags/about), while the Internet Corporation for Assigned ‎Names and Numbers (with its multiple advisory committees and supporting organisations) can be seen as a ‎more institutionalised framework (more details at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/groups-2012-02-06-‎en). ‎

‎188 The Internet Engineering Task Force, for example, develops technical standards for the internet (more details at ‎https://www.ietf.org/standards/), while the European Commission’s High Level Group on Internet Governance ‎has the role of facilitating coordination among EU member states on internet governance issues (more details ‎at http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm?do=groupDetail.gro…). ‎

‎189 See Anderson, C., Cyber Security and the Need for International Governance (Southern University Law Center ‎‎24 April 2016). ‎

‎190 Paragraph 72 of the WSIS Agenda lists this and other functions of the IGF. Available at ‎https://www.itu.int/net/wsis/docs2/tunis/off/6rev1.html

‎191 NETmundial, “NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement”, April 2014, available at ‎http://netmundial.br/netmundial-multistakeholder-statement/

‎192 Global Commission on Internet Governance, “One Internet”, June 2016, available at ‎https://www.cigionline.org/publications/one-internet

‎193 World Wide Web Foundation, “Contract for the Web”, available at https://contractfortheweb.org

‎194 Government of France, “France and Canada Create new Expert International Panel on Artificial Intelligence”, 7 ‎December 2018, available at https://www. gouvernement.fr/en/france-and-canada-create-new-expert-‎international-panel-on-artificial-intelligence ‎

‎195 In 2016, at the G20 Summit in Hangzhou the G20 leaders adopted a “G20 Digital Economy Development and ‎Cooperation Initiative”, available at https:// www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185874.pdf. Annual G20 Digital Economy ‎Ministerial Meetings have been held since 2017. ‎

‎196 UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Address to the Internet Governance Forum 2018, available at ‎https://www.intgovforum.org/content/ igf-2018-address-to-the-internet-governance-forum-by-un-sg-‎antónio-guterres ‎

‎197 Many documents and publications released over the past decade underline the need for better inclusion of ‎underrepresented communities in internet governance and digital policy processes. Examples include the ‎report of the Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum, 2012, available at ‎https://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf, and the NetMundial Multistakeholder ‎Statement, 2014, available at http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeho…-‎Document.pdf. ICANN has also recognised the need for better inclusion of under-represented communities and ‎is working on address