IGF 2024-Day 2-Plenary-Main Session 2 Protecting Internet infrastructure and general access during times of crisis and conflict-- RAW

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Good afternoon, everyone. And welcome to this Internet Governance Forum, 2024 main session. Under the theme of the contribution to the Internet looking to peace and sustainability. My name is Anriette Esterhuysen.  I'm from South Africa. I'm a Senior Advisor on Internet Governance at APC.

And this session is, I think, one of the most significant and one of the most topical sessions that we have at this year's IGF. It is trying to address the concern of how do we protect and ensure access to Internet infrastructure and core Internet resources in the context of conflict, crisis and disasters. And we're going to explore the session from the perspective of what the impact is, what the impact is on ordinary people and communities when Internet infrastructure is destroyed, it becomes available. We're going to look at what are the norms, are there norms, are there normative frameworks for responding or preventing this from happening? 

And then we're also going to look at what are the alternatives?  What measures can be taken?  What actions can be taken to get this multistakeholder community to play the role that it is usually so fundamentally committed to, which is to ensure an open, free, interoperable Internet for everyone. And finally, we will look at future oriented actions. Where are the grapes?  Are there gaps at normative level or action level, what can the IGF do? 

And I'm balancing too many devices here. To introduce you to my panel and also introduce you to my fellow Moderator, Peter Micek from Access Now, who is joining us from New York. I can hear an echo. Can everyone hear an echo?  Is there anything to do about the echo?  Should I hold the mic further away?  That helps. That helps.

Peter Micek will join us from New York and will make opening remarks. I first wanted to introduce you to my panel.

So starting immediately from my left, we have one Mohamed Shareef, from OXIQA and is in the Maldives and previously been Minister of State for the Maldives.

Next to him is Ernst Noorman, the Ambassador of the Netherlands. And next to him is Cynthia Lesufi the Minister Counsellor, South African Mission to the UN Office and other International Organisations and Working Group Chair for the World Summit on the Information Society. And the Sustainable Development Goals.

Next to Cynthia Lesufi we have Lama Fakih from Human Rights Watch who leads their work. The Director, Middle East and North Africa Division, Human Rights Watch. And next we have Kojo Boakye, Meta Vice President, Public Policy for Africa Middle East and Turkiye. And joining us online we have from Palestine, Nadim Nasif, 7amleh, Arab centre for social media advancement and we have Professor Madeline Carr also online. Is Madeline with us?  Professor of Global Politics and Cybersecurity at University College London and to get us welcomed, Nadim Nasif, and mad line and Peter everyone with us online. Peter, do you want to start us off with some of the reflections and talking points we feel we should address in this session? 

>> PETER MICEK: I share your excitement and agree, this is an important session. I'm excited to explore this intersection of connectivity, infrastructure and instability and how they relate to peace, development, and sustainability. It is core to the work of my organisation Access Now and my teaching at Columbia University. And talking beyond the Internet Governance, we have sobering new facts (background noise) the (distorted)

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Peter, just pause a little bit. We have an audio issue. Can our tech support team please help?  Peter try speaking again. Let's test if it works. Go ahead, speak. I don't think we can hear you right now. Can you hear me, nod if you can hear me. Okay. Try speaking?  We can't hear you. My MAG colleagues here, who helped organize the session, can you check and help us fix this?  I think, Peter, try once more. Try speaking again.

>> PETER MICEK: As I was saying   

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: It is working.

>> PETER MICEK: By UNDP Oxford, 1.1 billion are living in acute poverty and staggering, 450 million are experiencing war or fragility. Nearly half of people in acute poverty are experiencing war. These conflicts have intensified and multiplied, creating widespread disruptions.

(indistinct chatter)

The poverty reduction will slow the conflict affected Regions, where incidentally, access to electricity is seeing higher deprivation, you're lacking electricity, in extreme poverty and suffering war and conflict.

In this situation, the foundational infrastructure of electricity, again, is hard to come by. That is going to effect what the infrastructure that we're talking about today of Internet infrastructure and digital. So this is not a strong Foundation to provide access. Unfortunately, we have to add climate change. Climate related natural disasters intersect withstand poverty and conflict in ways that exacerbate destruction of infrastructure.

Think of direct damage from violent storms to stress from extreme weather, like heat and wildfires that take out telecom infrastructure towers, overhead wires, even cables.

At these times, information is key to saving lives and directing humanitarian relief.

Yet, with this deprivation, there are policy decisions. These don't always go in the right direction. In 2023, the Coalition (background noise)

The Internet shutdowns. (Background noise)

39 countries are intentional disruptions, 2024 saw higher numbers than 2023, despite States in the Global Digital Compact saying we must refrain from Internet shutdowns and measures that target Internet access.

With all of the problems, what do we do?  In response, we attempt to mitigate. We scramble to create fixes and work arounds through technological innovation, public and private donors devote energy and resources to whip up networks in dire conditions, while humanitarian actors increasingly relying on digital say Cloud based systems or biometric solutions, remote delivery platforms and communication channels, the humanitarian actors have automated systems and rely on digital to do their work. They are just like we are, looking to these technical fixes, whether it is satellite Internet or joining emergency telecommunication clusters, to provide quick import of hardware and assets. And seeking unlikely partnerships across all industries in real time. This is tough work. It is a scramble. So there has to be a better way, right? 

All of our societal systems rely on connectivity and electricity. We recognize the sheer important brilliance of connectivity in civilian life and perhaps more so when everything around you is engulfed in violence and war.

So we    I want to put out there that we need to focus on connectivity and providing it and protecting that infrastructure because it is a lot harder to bring back and these Sisyphean efforts in the moment of crisis encounter a lot of trouble.

Let's start by looking at first principles and in addition to the reactive work arounds we have all been putting together. Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks a lot, Peter. I want to check that French translation is sorted out now. There were issues with the French interpretation. I just I'm assuming that it is okay. I'm just checking on the Zoom. To see if it is? 

And it looks now they cannot hear me. I'm not audible. Apparently, the Zoom participants say they cannot hear me. No audio for Zoom. I can't see the tech team. Who is doing the Zoom?  Can you hear me through the headsets?  People in the room can hear me. No one can hear me on remote. You still can't hear me?  No? 

I'm sorry, please, can you find someone dealing with the Zoom and sort this problem out?  Thank you. The Zoom participants have lost audio completely. Oh, it is back. It is back. It is fine. It is back. I think it is back now. Good.

So let's act at what the impacts are. Lama Fakih, I want you to start. When we talk about these disruptions and the destruction of infrastructure or the interference of infrastructure or damage, what does this actually mean for people on the ground?  For ordinary citizens, for civilians, for communities? 

>> LAMA FAKIH: Thank you, I hope everyone can hear me well. During times of conflict, civilians, journalists, first responder   

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I'm sorry to interrupt you. The Zoom audio problem has not been sorted out. We will continue, but please can we have our virtual participants able to hear the session. Can you see the transcript?  Peter, and Nadim Nasif, can you see the captioning?  Nod if you can. You can't hear me. Let's go ahead, Lama Fakih, I will type.

>> LAMA FAKIH: Thank you. During times of conflict, civilians, first responders they rely on the Internet to document and share evidence of abuse and to provide life saving assistance.

During times of political crisis, protestors leverage the Internet to organize online and to stand up for their rights.

And yet time and again, we have seen States and armed Groups take action to deliberately shut down access and to destroy telecommunication systems.

In ways that violate people's rights.

In conflicts, as Peter was laying out, there may be multiple causes of these disruptions to communications networks, and they're sometimes deployed in tandem. Palestinians in Gaza have had ongoing phone and Internet disruptions by the strikes from the Israeli Government and other actions taken. Including damage to core communication infrastructure, cuts to electricity, fuel blockades, and apparently deliberate shutdowns through technical means.

According to UNOCHA, air strikes conducted targeted several telecommunication installations. Destroyed two of three main lines from mobile communication and this left residents in Gaza with one line for mobile and telecommunication connectivity, this resulted in disruption of services. On October 27 at the start of the ground incursion into Gaza, the connectivity came to a grinding halt during an approximately 34 hour communication blackout.

Pal tele, one of the few remaining service providers that is still operational in Gaza confirmed to Human Rights Watch in November 2023 that when service was restored without their intervention, it was clear the disruptions were intentional.

In times of conflict, Authorities and armed Groups should refrain from deliberately shutting down or destroying telecommunication infrastructure. Because of the harm it has on civilians. When Governments and armed Groups target the infrastructure, they often justify these measures as necessary for public safety.

Curbing the spread of misinformation or for legitimate military reasons.

But such sweeping measures are more like collective punishment, when the Internet is off, people's ability to express themselves is limited. The economy suffers. Journalists are not able to upload evidence of abuses that they're documenting.

Students are cut off from lessons, taxes can't be paid. And those needing healthcare often cannot access life saving assistance.

When India blocked access in late 2019 for months, Indian officials justified the action by saying it was necessary to temporarily limit access to the Internet during the period the crisis to avoid permanent loss of life. Four UN Special Rapporteurs condemned the move warning it was inconsistent with the norms of necessity and proportionality, in other words, inconsistent with the law.

Practically at least one study by a researcher at Stanford Global digital policy incubator found shutdowns are counterproductive to deterring violent incidence. It tracked a quadrupling of violence when networks were disrupted, as compared to cases when the Internet stayed on. Shutdowns draw headlines. Subtler, equally devastating techniques deserve attention.

Authorities have an arsenal from blocking specific social media or messaging applications to throttling traffic to restricting live streaming.

These are all of the weapons we need to contend be to ensure that people have connectivity during crisis and conflict.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much, Lama Fakih. I believe our Zoom participants can hear now, if they use not original audio but go to one of the language tracks. Audio works in English, and you can also select captioning to those of you who are online, by clicking on more at the bottom of the Zoom screen and selecting captions.

And Nadim Nasif, can you tell us more about the specific context, I know there is research by 7amleh on the intelligence infrastructure in Gaza and what that is doing to people.

>> NADIM NASIF: Hi, over there. I'm not sure if you are hearing me or not. There are issues with the audio.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We can hear you.

>> NADIM NASIF: Thank you, everybody for having us today and having the civility to speak and be part of this event. I'm here also was asked to speak about the situation specifically in Gaza. And basically, regarding the destruction of the telecom infrastructure as was mentioned. It is important also to go back and because the infrastructure in Gaza, this has been held captive and controlled by the Israeli occupation since 1967. So the occupation of Israeli occupation controls the Palestinian telecom infrastructure since the occupation of 1967. Since then, basically, it is a kind of infrastructure that was not allowed to perform to progress. And historically also, one of the agreements were signed by the Palestinian Authority and Israel it was agreed basically that this arrangement would develop into a Palestinian communication industry or Sector that would be independent finally, as there will be independent Palestinians there.

Talking early 1993 or 94, with the Oslo agreement, Paris support, and all of the agreements that happened at that time, never were realized. Today, as we know, obviously there was no Palestinian independent state, the infrastructure is the end to be controlled by the Israeli side.

Which means all of the components of the Palestinian telecom will be for other components, have to get approval by the Israeli side. Right? 

And for many years, and for economic reasons, and for assuming that also Palestinian users would prefer the companies and not the Palestinian ones, they prevented the Sector from developing.

So that Sector was held captive. And there is no independence in the sense of being connected to the world. All of the infrastructure goes through the Israeli side. The Israeli side gives the Palestinian side gives access to the Internet, simply as they have the access, they can cut the access. This is what happened in Gaza. During the genocide happening in Gaza, it is not only about destruction of the infrastructure, that Israel did. And deliberate attacks on the infrastructure, it performed at least 17 times deliberate shutdown, total shutdown of the whole Internet and communication of the Palestinian in Gaza. We speak about the infrastructure that the assumption of the estimate is basically 75% at that time, speaking about the research that was done in this year. That 75% of the infrastructure was done damaged, and 50% of the telecommunication infrastructure was destroyed and does not exist. We assume that the level of destruction is even much worse.

So this is where we are now. We are at situation where there is destruction of the telecommunication and we know the impact on the lifeline and crisis. And it is to make sure they are okay and even people who are with the rebels with the situation for help they cannot do this. So you can imagine how much this is devastating situation that people cannot go for any help, for families in times of crisis, in times where this communication is most needed.

It is important really to think about what is happening. On the broader context, because if this is being precedent in wartime, countries like this Israeli Government will do this, this will be repeated in other places. Many things, many more limits that we are used to be respected in that humanitarian role are being broke by Israel and violated by the Israeli Government. We need to think what is the impact globally on other wars and other conflict zones when something happen in the future and why collectively we need to think about mechanisms how we can stop that. How we can prevent the situation from happening in other places. I think for Gaza, there is a need for obviously for cease fire to stop the attack and genocide and stop the war, there is beyond that immediate solutions that need to be given to Gaza in order to overcome the right now situations, specifically when you speak about the emergency people specifically when we speak about journalists and media people who need the connection. This is one of the solutions, with the ESIM, that the telecom sector is talking about and it is important to emphasize when we speak about the future and hopefully that one day there will be cease fire and will be reconstruction of the telecommunication Sector in Palestine and will get the newest technologies to move on.

One thing that I did not mention at the beginning that we will speak about the telecom infrastructure in Gaza that was destroyed, it was one of the last places, that only had second generation.

So the need now is basically that international community will put enough pressure that there will be reconstruction after the cease fire of the telecom and Israel will allow the newest technology to enter Gaza, be rebuilt, to make sure the people there are reconnecting and there is a long term solution happening there.

Again, I think many people spoke about Palestine and what is happening in Palestine as one kind of big event in terms of surveillance and infrastructure. But what is happening there is really something that is impacting globally. It is not only Palestinian problem, lots of impact there, lots of the precedent happening in Gaza, unfortunately, we will see them in other places, if we don't put the right mechanisms to stop that and have enough pressure to stop the war. Thank you for having.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, very much, Nadim Nasif for that. Peter, I have been kind of kicked out of the Zoom or my Zoom is frozen. I'm relying on you to watch what happens online.

I mean, we have talked about shutouts, we have talked about the destruction of infrastructure. I'm not sure, Lama Fakih, I was so busy with the tech issues, if you mentioned sanctions. That is another form of excluding people, in Sudan that is not impacted by war and conflict, but also by a long time by sanctions, which has made people not able to access certain applications and services.

And I would like you to speak about climate change, and the issue of small island developing States that are incredibly vulnerable to cyclones, other forms of destruction, tsunamis. How does that kind of    when you have one fiber optic cable link, how does that impact people, if it is disrupted? 

>> Mohamed Shareef: Thank you, small island States and other areas, our are connectivity to the rest of the world is really primarily these days with submarine cables. Take the case of the Maldives, a few submarine cables in the Maldives. Couple to India and Sri Lanka and a few more cables we are working on to connect us directly to the Southeast Asia and up to Europe.

But also hundreds of small community island communities impacted by domestic submarine cables, hundreds and hundreds of kilomitres from North and South, in the ocean.

Now we depend on this as a nation today, for everything. Especially when things go wrong. In crisis we depend on connectivity even more than usual. We talk about natural hazards as opposed to natural disasters because we as humans have a big part to play in the crisis than nature itself. Nature gives us the hazards like earthquake or tsunamis. Today with climate change, the frequency and power of these events actually pose significant threat, which means this submarine cables that come on to our islands face threats from erosion of the beaches in the power of tidal waves.

Plus we don't have the capacity to go and repair this as developing Nations. We definitely need to invest in our own submarine cable laying in repair capabilities, including this extremely expensive vessels.

So today, climate change is a new front that is opening up to us.

And actually studies show that the long term impact of sea level rise will have a much more and very significant effect, as more and more coastal areas get washed into the sea, we may have to redeploy all of the landing points, maybe even 20, 30 kilomitres inland. We don't have 20, 30 kilomitres in small islands to move this.

So yeah, definitely it is extremely important for us. That critical infrastructure protection becomes part of the COP series and funding goes into developing alternatives so in the Maldives, we are one of the first countries in South Asia to connect with Starlink.

And there are other alternatives that maybe in the next round we'll talk about. Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that Mohamed Shareef.

That's talk now about what the normative framework is that exists. Unfortunately Madeline Carr cannot join us. She's having an issue with her registration. We have Ambassador Ernst Noorman and Cynthia Lesufi as well. Starting with Ernst Noorman, you are looking the freedom Coalition. This is something you looked at and the Netherlands introduced the idea of the norm to protect the public call of the Internet.

What do you feel we have within this multistakeholder community from a normative framework that gives guidelines?  There is also what came out of the Group of Governmental experts as well. About well the norm of the public call is very clear. It says no state or non State actor should interfere with the public core of the Internet. It defines the public core as including transmission media, naming a numbering system as critical Internet resources.

But from your perspective, what do we have from a normative    at the level of normative frameworks?  Ernst Noorman? 

>> ERNST NOORMAN: I have to talk about the UN, we talk about right now in the so called opening Working Group in the UN about the implementation of norms.

It is actually already some years ago that the UN, all of the starts have established several nonbinding norms under responsible state behavior in cyberspace. The 11 norms endorsed by the General Assembly and are part of the framework of the responsible state's behavior in cyberspace.

This framework also refers to the core Internet infrastructure. Let me explain how. Indeed these three norms have to do with critical infrastructure.

First, States that    first, it States that States should not conduct or knowingly support ICT activity contrary to its obligations on the international law. That intentionally damages critical infrastructure.

Second, provides that States should take appropriate measures to protect their critical infrastructure.

And according to the third norm, States should respond to appropriate requests for assistance by another state whose critical infrastructure is subject to malicious ICT acts.

Now, what is interesting norms are provided, in the areas the port is critical and in other areas the port is less important. But it depends on the country itself.

They do include that technical infrastructure that is critical to the Internet.

While the norms are nonbinding they do articulate a clear expectation by the international community with regard to the behavior of States.

And for the normative framework to be valuable, it needs to be implemented effectively.

Effective implementation means complimentary initiatives and enhance each organisation and stakeholder to support infrastructure also in time of conflict. Now, as you also will talk about the role of the technical communicates part of the FOC, Freedom Online Coalition.

There is the functions that have a role in ensuring resilient infrastructure and general availability in the integrity of the Internet. Who should better understand what is needed other than the organizations? 

I will talk briefly about the role of ITU. It will the coordination that is lesser known for the ITU. They do important disaster relief work and in the crisis in Ukraine and Gaza and we need the collective information to assist in repairing and ultimately rebuilding the damaged infrastructure. In essence, we also have to plan ahead and my neighbour talked a lot about the submarine cables and importance.

I was briefly as appointed as the new Advisory Board for submarine cable resilience, this body brings expertise from different disciplines. I hope that we can contribute as an advisory body and thinking and ensuring how submarine cables can be protected, how they can become more resilient and how we can quickly repair also in case of malfunctioning or damaging the damaged cables.

Because that was already explained how crucial they have become part of our Internet infrastructure.

Now most importantly with technical organisations such as ITU but also ICANN and NCC and other Regional Organizations need to remain neutral for them to be able to function effectively.

They also mean for all of us that we need to protect them. That is so they can do their important work that they have to do. It means that we should show some restraint in asking this organisation to intervene, find the operations in functioning of the public core of the Internet or the Global digital networks that carry out data. So you talk about sanctions, but on this level, we say you should leave them to their neutral work to protect the core of the Internet to make sure that indeed human rights workers, Act activists, journalists, healthcare workers can keep working using the Internet.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Ambassador Ernst Noorman, you make it clear and simple. In practice we know it is not. Lama Fakih, are there international human rights laws that apply in these contexts.

>> LAMA FAKIH: In parallel to the normative frameworks that the Ambassador laid out, we have the legal frameworks that the international human rights and humanitarian law. Under the human rights law, there is the obligation to ensure that Internet based restrictions and attacks on infrastructure are both necessary and proportionate to a very specific security concern.

General shutdowns and attacks on the infrastructure violate multiple rights including rights to freedom of expression and information and hinder other rights like the right to freedom of Assembly.

In their 2015 joint Declaration on freedom of expression and responses to conflict situations, United Nations experts and Rapporteurs declared that even in times of conflict, using communications kill switches can never be justified under human rights law.

Multiple UN Resolutions have condemned intentional interruption of Internet access and call on States to refrain from carrying them out, including during conflict.

When it comes to the laws of war, while computer network attacks or cyber warfare are not specifically addressed in the Geneva Conventions, the basic principles and rules on the methods and means of warfare remain applicable.

That means the attacks must be targeted against military objectives, they can neither be indiscriminate nor disproportionate.

For example, an attack on an electrical grid that causes long term harm for the civilian population is unlikely disproportionate whether through air strike or cyber warfare.

The principle of necessity has measures that accomplish the military objective that are not otherwise prohibits by International Humanitarian Law.

Shutting down the Internet may serve a purpose such as denying belligerent forces communication. However the principle of proportionality prohibits actions in which the expected civilian harm is related to the military advantage and excessive.

We know the Internet shutdowns and attacks on infrastructure can cause considerable harm to the civilian population including leading to death and injury by preventing civilians from communicating with each other around safety considerations, limiting them from being able to access the medical facilities and sources of food and shelter.

They also hinder the work of journalists and human rights monitors to provide information on the ground, including possible laws of wars violations and the restrictions hamper the humanitarian agencies to assess and provide assistance to those at risk, the lack of information regarding conditions and circumstances facing the affected population may increase the likelihood of injury and death.

This is very acute in the case of Gaza that Nadim Nasif laid out.

A shut down of communications to large areas can amount a form of punishment by imposing penalties on people without a clear legal basis. With regard to the ITU, Article 34 of the ITU's constitution on the stoppage of telecommunication gives license to ITU member countries to block telecommunication in quote which may appear dangerous to the security of the state or contrary to laws, public order or decency. End quote. Article 35 on the suspension of services gives Member States the right to suspend the international telecommunication service.

These Articles have been invoked by some States as granting legally communication and including Internet shutdowns. The provisions must be applied together with and subject to the additional obligations States have under international human rights law to respect the rights of freedom of expression and other applicable rights.

Both the office for the High Commissioner for human rights and other Assembly associations have called for them to be aligned specifically with human rights standards.

The Special Rapporteur recommended that the identity issue guidance clarifying the provisions should never be understood as authorizing Internet shutdowns. In a welcome move the ITU did take the step of condemning the communications blackout in Gaza and called for life saving access for networks to be restored there.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that Lama Fakih. It is actually I think really notable that there is an elaborate body of international laws and norms that do apply in these context.

Before I open it to the audience, I want to ask Peter, Nadim Nasif and panelists in the room, if you have anything to add before we move to the next Segment, which is looking at alternatives and responses? 

But anything to add at this point or any questions you have for one another? 

Anyone from the audience with a question?  If you have a question, you have to move to the front to the stage. And Peter, if you can solicit comments online, please.

>> PETER MICEK: We have comments online including the alarming shutdowns, during critical times, protests, selections and civil unrest, if you can use my prerogative, I would add the ITU rules even require some process, some procedural requirements that States notify the ITU of the disruptions and reasons for temporary blockage in telecoms. Often the procedural requirements are not followed. And you will see that even in States that do allow for Internet shutdowns under law, that they're often not followed according to procedure.

So there is no notice to the population of the reason, of the duration. The extend of the blocking.

Yeah, as a lawyer, personally, that has given courts the opportunity to step in and say, you may have this power, but you are not exercising it according to the methods and protocols set out in law.

So just one more aspect.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Ambassador Ernst Noorman and then Kojo Boakye.

>> ERNST NOORMAN: One point to add because I didn't go into the Freedom Online Coalition, which we are chairing this year maybe not all know about the Freedom Online Coalition. It exists since 2011. It is a Coalition of countries UNGA the advisory network of NGOs, Academia and also the Private Sector. In how to protect human rights online.

And we are chairing this year, the human rights Coalition and now we have added four members and now we're a 42 member Coalition. Objective is to strengthen ourselves in the discussion like with the UN level with the WSIS+20 process. And with the angle of human rights with how to protect the Internet and open accessibility and operability of the Internet. The freedom of the net is importance and Internet shut down is discussed time and again. And how to bring it about also in the international discussions to see and ensure more responsible behavior of States as Lama Fakih indicated also in her contribution on the rules, which already exist on keep think the communication lines open.

We did a lot of effort also in the GDC to ensure strong language and on the Internet shutdowns. We were looking Federal stronger language, stronger linkage to international law. In the end, that was not part of it. It was indeed the Internet shut down should be afforded. We're very much aware as a Freedom Online Coalition, that we have to continue working on that. It is not an issue that has been settled in actually the freedom on the net report, the freedom shows it is on the increase, unfortunately.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks Ambassador. Kojo Boakye.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: Thanks for the interventions from my colleagues. I want to point out I feel like I have been a part of this WSIS process since 2005 and we learned a lot. We broadly use Internet shutdowns and some that might be less learned and think that the whole place goes dark. There are partial shutdowns there are more so troubling, when it is particular apps or parts of the Internet that are used for freedom of expression or human rights.

The other piece that is important and sometimes we'll forget about it. I have to remind people, not that many need reminding, there are so many still offline, the great overview from Peter spoke about 1.1 billion in abject poverty and their infrastructure being out of place.

It is important to remind ourselves that despite the huge effort and impact we have had in connecting people, so many people still remain offline and many of the issues, especially with sustainability and challenges from that actually amount to people being in abject poverty, not being connected or getting jobs and actually destroying parts of the ecosystem themselves as a result as they seek to eke out a life. I wanted to point that out. I felt the opening comments are fantastic.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That is always important to acknowledge. Two speakers from the audience. Introduce yourself and be brief.

>> AUDIENCE: I'm JJ I run an Internet resilience firm. This is one of the most robust conversations on the concept of shutdowns. You mentioned good points. The Dutch Ambassador mentioned ESIMs and there was also discussion about COP and energy.

My question would be, I have lived through an Internet shut down, I'm from an area that has experienced to be shutoff from your community as a diaspora attic system. And we accept that ESIMs in Gaza have allowed for a constant live streaming of the atrocities, do you feel that as a Coalition, the UN and various Member States have a duty to their citizens who are from those Regions that they encouraged to emigrate to countries for versus benefit and support, do they have a duty to focus on ESIMs and power infrastructure because their citizens deserve the ability to connect and communicate with their family members in the shutdowns Regions?  And how do you see a Coalition that actually focuses on these nation state's duty to citizens to get involved in the conversations?  Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, JJ. The next person.

>> AUDIENCE: I am on the Meta Oversight Board. I want to say that the cutting of the Internet, it is not only regarding humanitarian and lives of people lost.

The question is there is no enforcement or enforceability of the big body and also States, rightly so, maybe have the sovereign right to make decisions using other elements of the international law to justify that.

And I guess my question to Lama Fakih and Nadim Nasif and others, what is the way out, in light of the lack of enforceable mechanisms and in lack of the technical solution that will probably happen in a few years where Internet access will not be subject to sovereign Authority. Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Lama Fakih one was directed to you, Nadim Nasif. Anyone want to respond?  Let's start with you Lama Fakih.

>> LAMA FAKIH: Thank you for the easy questions. I think issues around compliance with international human rights law are always a challenge. We do need to see enforcement from, you know, other countries. And in the context of Internet shut downs, these are abuses that often take place in the context of other violations that are also being perpetrated. The Government of Iraq may be imposing an Internet shut down while using expressive force against protestors.

And the actions in response to that, that States can take are varied. And they can include things like targeted sanctions, in some cases stopping providing military assistance. Condemnation.

But also accountability does not to be a critical component of this, particularly when we are discussing attacks on infrastructure and the better context of war crimes perpetrated. We have seen with the crisis in Gaza that there has been a real crisis in enforcement and ensure think accountability for crimes.

But at the same time, there are judicial processes that are moving forward. I think we need to support and invest in and collectively use our influence with other Governments to use their leverage to ensure more rights respecting practice.

Anyone want to add?  Ambassador.

>> ERNST NOORMAN: Thank you for the easy questions. I felt obliged to react to the question on Coalition. We are in diplomacy, and that means discussion and a lot of dialogue. Enforcement of international laws is always a challenge. But it doesn't mean we are excluded from the responsibility to have serious in depth consultations with other countries. We for instance, have from my side cyber consultations with many countries, especially in the Chair of the Freedom Online Coalition. I felt it was easy to bring up the subject like human rights online, Internet shutdowns and our concerns if it happens in a certain question. Asking questions when they think about it. And what lamb Lama Fakih said, if violence goes up after a shout down, there is a lot of arguments to present the arguments that are counterprotective to such measure.

In this world, it is complicated, different interests, different views on topics, it is the role as diplomats to convince others of the unjust measures.

>> PETER MICEK: Anriette we have a hand online. Nadim Nasif.

>> NADIM NASIF: The issue is accountability, clearly that there is lack of accountability to Governments and States who are violating specifically about the context of the war of Gaza and ongoing genocide in Gaza that is not being held accountable.

As a Palestinian, it is sad to see the double aspect happening. The enforcement that happened when the Russians invaded and occupied Ukraine is directly not included, and it was negotiation, and with companies that reacted to the crisis in a decisive way, in a way they have context around certain context, companies like Starlink and others suggested and gave help, not in a conditional way. This is the opposite when it comes to the Palestinians and Israeli Government. And now we learn there is double standard in the way that some of the Governments are dealing with the situation. Not saying this is great is happen in Ukraine and a social approach.

This does not happen in the countries when there is a genocide. We're speaking about Palestine, I can speak about other places and how those people who are supposed to be protecting the democracy and human rights values and enforcing, did not have any clear action in those cases.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Nadim Nasif for mentioning that, that is an issue to address in this session. How do we have a more coherent response in terms of international and humanitarian law and from the Internet Global multistakeholder community. Now move    did you want to respond? 

>> LAMA FAKIH: We didn't answer JJ's question, with the Internet shut down, the response is more Private Sector engagement to find solutions for people on the ground. I hear you and what you are saying in terms of what more can States do to ensure that their residents are citizens maintain context with others in the shutdown.

It is a space where those in the Private Sector can reinforce what Governments are doing to try to keep people connected. I think, you know, looking at how ESIMs have been uses in Gaza and thinking about how people have tried to circumvent shutdowns in places like Iran. There needs to be a strong Alliance there in terms of thinking through the solutions.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Lama Fakih. Kojo Boakye let's start with you, how can Private Sector companies respond?  What are the concrete, technical operational policy measures.

I see Peter is adding a question here, can international laws regarding shutdowns be taken to international courts?  Your reply is yes, we can. The Private Sector how can it respond, Kojo Boakye? 

>> KOJO BOAKYE: I like to think our approach and effort to responding is comprehensive, despite the challenges people have outlined in their communities and questions. I think as you spoke, you asked about policies.

So for us as a company, we founded our work on human rights principles and a Global human rights policy part of the global network initiatives, alongside other companies. We have the UN guiding principles on business and human rights as well that all of our work is founded in. Having that mainstreamed into the company, in everything we do in terms of product development is as there is a super important start. It is about analyzing some of the issues. The short term shocks we have, in terms of total Internet shutdowns and partial Internet shutdowns, we mention where particular services or parts of the Internet are shut town is something we have    shut down is something we have thought about for a long time. And I think the example was Iran, but we can cite a number of other Governments that have shut down the Internet or destroying infrastructure or telling service operators to serve a service off.

We can talk about how to continue to deliver services so people are not voiceless. One step is WhatsApp, which everybody here has used. Unfortunately not able to make calls from KSA. Hopefully soon. Has used in some way. With WhatsApp, we built a proxy service to WhatsApp, where volunteers and others around the world, set up servers to enable people to continue using a version of WhatsApp that enables them in places like Iran to carry on connecting with people and delivering services and help and sharing information about what's going on. That is important. I think I have been struck by over the eight years with the company the way we approached infrastructure.

A challenge that a number of people on the panel have mentioned, there are challenges around infrastructure, certainly submarine cable was a vivid example where the submarine cables are cut. I am heartened by the fact that the most recent builds, the longest Internet to connect East to West and more capacity than all the cables at the moment. All the talking points. I'm heartened that we buried it more than 50% deeper than normally buried, in part to ensure that the cuts we have seen, my own family have suffered from in Ghana, when the Internet is cut off for five Thais as they seek to go through difficulties of repairing are avoided. That is a super important part to the approach of dealing with things. In the midst of crisis, there is a range. One, conflict to impact infrastructure and services. Also natural disasters.

Most recently earthquakes in Morocco, Turkiye, devastating earthquakes everywhere. But some more devastating in Turkiye or Syria. We are working with disaster agencies, sharing data for good with agencies like disaster relief to able people to be helped in the way the disaster agencies do.

Sharing some of the network insight with the Private Sector partners in the mobile industry. Where is the network damaged most?  How should you route particular traffic to ensure people can stay connected?  Those elements of thinking about how to approach from a human rights perspective policy and mainstream into the company, how do we work in the midst of across or Internet shutdowns as they happen. And the proxying. And thinking about the future. How do we build normalities that are more resilient to the shocks. And companies that have a range of data to support people in crisis, how do we share it in a privacy way, privacy compliant way. And certainly how do we share with organisations who have best placed to help. I think we have done all of that.

There is for us and many competitors and partners in Government and Civil Society much, much more work to do.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Top question on that. Are you engaging in these responses as Meta?  Is there a collaborative mechanism of some type between different Private Sector corporations? 

>> KOJO BOAKYE: Meta is always about partnership. This is something we are a key Partner in. We continue to work with NGOs and any other partners, the infrastructure builds the cable is built with other industry partners, including MTN, China mobile, et cetera. We will continue to approach it in this way through partnership. That is key.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: In the context of the conflicts the conflict in Gaza, the conflict in the war in Russia and Ukraine, what measures have you taken in the Gaza context in particular.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: It would take more time than other panelists would allow. We sort through that. And keep voices open when possible. There is conversations between what ourselves and others have done.

We have the Global human rights team engagement and action team that is dedicated to continue engaging with those on the ground. If I gave you measure insight into the work with journalists and we know how many killed in this conflict and other organisations on the ground, it would take too much time. We're proud of the work we have done. And clearly have much more work to do in the conflict, the Ukrainian conflict and the other conflict I have to stress we should not forget is the conflict in Sudan as well, in which more than 12 million have been displaced. We continue to work hard on that as well.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We have many Sudanese participants here at IGF. Good to hear from them as well.

Cynthia Lesufi I turn to you, one of the responses from the Governmental Sector is the ITU Council Resolution on assistance to Palestine in restoring infrastructure.

I think it is significant that certainly from where I look at this issue, we have probably had a more public and more deliberate response from the Intergovernmental community than the multistakeholder community, which is a challenge to the IGF.

Tell us about that Resolution and how it came about and how you see it having an impact.

>> CYNTHIA LESUFI: Thank you, I want to thank the organizers the opportunity to speak here.

First, one thing that one would want to highlight in terms much the role of the ITU in as far as the issue of Palestine is concerned, is to firstly look at the preamble of the ITU constitution, which is quite clear, in terms of the increasing significance of the telecommunication in supporting the economic and social development of all Nations.

The Convention of the ITU goes further to state that its objective is to facilitate the development of telecommunication services and also to provide the widespread benefit of new telecommunication technologies for all people around the Global.

And earlier on, we heard about the persisting Digital Divide that the world continues to experience.

And maybe just to give specific numbers in terms of what the ITU has published to date in terms of the people who are online. We have about 5.5 billion people that are online. And which then gives us an estimate of about 68% of the Global population online.

However, this does not mean that our problems are over. I'm talking from the point of the view of ITU. Is that the Digital Divide persists to really haunt us as the Governments in the ITU. Having said that, you mentioned that the ITU has been adopted Resolution. A Council Resolution. Perhaps there is a need to also mention that before the doing of the Council Resolution, this year in 2024, the ITU adopted a number of Resolutions to assist the rebuilding of the telecommunication infrastructure in countries which are in need.

For instance, there is a Plenipotentiary Conference which the ITU adopted which is Resolution 125. Which among others is calling for a framework of activities by the three Sectors of the ITU.

To continue and enhance in order to provide the assistance and the support to Palestine for building and developing the telecommunication infrastructure.

And that Resolution is calling Palestine to install and manage its own fiber and broadband telecommunication network including fiber optic links between Governments and major States.

In addition to that, there is another Plenipotentiary Resolution that the ITU has adopted which is on assisting and supporting countries in special need for building their telecommunication Sector.

And that Resolution in particular, it resolves that the special action undertaken by the general Secretary of The ITU and Director of the Development Bureau, with special assistance from the Radiocommunication Bureau of ITU and standardization Sector should continue to be activated in order to provide appropriate assistance and support to countries in special need, referred to in the Index for all the countries that are needing the resilient infrastructure.

Again, there is as you said, the ITU recently in its Council of 2024 adopted the ITU Council Resolution. A new Resolution, in addition to what I have mentioned.

The Resolution is actually calling for continued assisting in the monitoring and providing regular reports on particular needs of Palestine in the field of telecommunication and to prepare proposal for effective technical assistance.

And among other things that Resolution resolves to direct or instruct the Directors of the three Sectors of the ITU to particularly to monitor and provide regular reports on particular needs of the Palestine in the field of telecommunication and prepare proposals for effective technical assistance.

In addition to that, to carry out the assessment on the impact of the war in Palestine on ITU Programmes and activities in the Region and to provide the report to the Council.

And thirdly, that Resolution calls to ensure adequate financial and human resource mobilization, including under the budget of the ITU and the information communication technology development fund for the implementation of the actions that are proposed by the number of ITU Resolutions.

And with this, it is quite clear that the ITU is really    and its members, is trying to put together the Resolutions that are guiding its membership to ensure that the problems that are currently experienced in Gaza and any other country as a result of the devastating wars and conflicts happening in the world.

The ITU is actually putting in place measures and procedures to ensure that those countries, they rebuild that telecommunication infrastructure.

I think I will stop at this. Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that Cynthia. I think it is also worth us looking and sharing, if there are people in the audience or online from the Internet technical community that have engaged in similar initiatives to respond to this to share that as well. Because I would assume also Cynthia, that implementing that Resolution will require collaboration. Not, you know, ITU Member States are not going to be able to do that on their own. They have to work with the Private Sector, they have to work with national will Ministry, Civil Society and the technical community. But I will hand over to Peter here. My battery is also running out. Any comments online we should share?  Any questions you have before we go into our final Segment, looking at what can this community do to help get us to a more concrete place of securing access and infrastructure? 

>> PETER MICEK: Thank you so much. I want to follow up on the great presentation of the work of the international Telecommunications Union, it is remarkable and heartening to see the swift action across the ITU in response to the conflict and the war in Gaza, and as you say, coming out with coordination Programmes that are applicable across many situations of conflict and crisis.

So building on that, I wanted to ask, what coordination should we expect from humanitarian aid agencies to provide populations they serve with access to the Internet or to secure and open communications tools?  I know, in Sudan, for example, most agencies have trouble fulfilling their Missions of accessing people in need and in those places, are citizen led mutual aid Groups standing up to play a role and ensuring access while in Gaza as we have heard, there are restrictions on the transfer of telecommunications assets. What should we special and what can we expect from the aid agencies? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Anyone wanting to respond to that?  Cynthia, Lama Fakih?  Kojo Boakye?  Did you not hear the question?  The question is what response from the international humanitarian agencies, is that right Peter?  You can repeat the question.

>> PETER MICEK: Okay. Sure. So I was noting that in places like Sudan, humanitarian aid agencies are having trouble accessing the populations in need. Their mutual aid Groups have played a role in providing access to the Internet. In Gaza there are restrictions on transferring telecom hardware to populations in need.

In these situations, what should we expect of humanitarian and aid agencies to fulfill their Mission of protection of civilians?  And the provision of aid, should we expect them to provide access to the Internet?  And secure telecoms? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I would say, I think some of them try to do that. I think the International Red Cross and Red Crescent does try to do that. Can they do it alone?  I think that is very difficult for them to do.

I think they recognize that they need to do that. But it is extremely difficult for them to do that. Not all of them have the capacity to do that.

But Cynthia, I see you wanted to add there? 

>> CYNTHIA LESUFI: Yes, thank you. Earlier on, you said that in terms of the implementation of some of the Resolutions that the ITU have adopted, and, you know, it is not easy to implement them. And that is quite    you are quite correct, it is not easy at all. And you pointed out to the continuation of the multistakeholder approach in terms of implementing some of this.

Now, talking from the ITU perspective and trying to respond to the question is that I think from the ITU as Ambassador has mentioned before, we are operating in a very diplomatic environment.

The decisions that we take are based on consensus based and, you know, the continuous deliberation is quite important.

So for the ITU if I were to talk from that perspective, we believe in continuous facilitation with the stakeholders, co creating and aligning around common Agenda for action and advocacy regarding the nonfragmentation of the Internet infrastructure during conflict.

From where we're standing as ITU Member States is that this will ensure combining and leveraging the complementary roles and diverse capabilities of larger stakeholders and promote an inclusive participation in protecting the Internet infrastructure. Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Cynthia. Lama Fakih, you want to add? 

>> LAMA FAKIH: Previously to respond to the question. Governments have obligation to facilitate humanitarian assistance. When they encumber the Internet access it is incumbered in unlawful ways. There will be humanitarian agencies that do seek to provide connectivity for staff and in the communities where they are operating so they can deliver on their Mission. It is not their obligation to do so.

I think what can help is the monitoring of the impact, the lack of connectivity also has on the delivery of assistance. That helps to underline where the Government is not adhering to obligations under the law.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: Everything that Lama Fakih said. I think I ask for a repeat of the question, but very mindful it doesn't feel like me place to call on humanitarian agencies to do much more than we Meta see them doing already. We have supplied app credits to a number of humanitarian agencies working on the conflicts you mention. And WhatsApp is a key tool for many humanitarian agencies. We see the effort they go to.

Some of the comments made about the breakdown of the response of the international community to many of the crises highlight the challenges they face. It would be great to have someone from the disaster Agency response community on this panel to speak to it. Thanks for repeating the question

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: In fact, we did have real interest from Felipe with the Red Cross to be here. But he was not able to participate. They actually do very significant work in this field. I see there is a question. I don't think if there are online hands, Peter. I see two people. Please go ahead briefly introduce yourself and ask your question.

>> ATTENDEE: Thank you, my name is Michael, I'm working with the Canadian organisation called Equality. We are dedicated to build alternative technology partly to respond to Internet shutdowns and disruption. We managed a splinter process. I hope most of you know it. Splinter process is gathering every meeting, hundreds of people with new technologies. Partly to respond to those situations, the last edition was last week in Berlin. My community is, I mean, we have all kinds of technologies, they're working well, not well, but globally speaking we're not having access to the resource to implement them properly as the political side or big Private Sector is struggling to find ways to respond to the issues. Not having really    we could play a role there, but we're still    I mean, maintaining some sort of the margin. Just have some sort of resource to small project, it looks nice, fun. At the end of the day, not responding to the across to deliver to eventually do it. I feel that is a bit of a lost student that the world is having here. We could engage more, particularly in protracted crisis where we know tomorrow there will be another situation, and still not involving or engaging enough to use the resources that we have. It is a call.

We are here, that Committee is here. It is an alternate chance to respond we could contribute more if there is a means to engage with us.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks Michael, we will come back to how this community can respond soon. Thank you. Next speaker.

>> ATTENDEE: Hi, I'm Mike Wilton from the United Nations Refugee Agency. I want to flag out the Programme we work on that is truly a multistakeholder approach in working with ITU, GMSA and many Governments. Connectivity in crisis is critical. As soon as connected, information is critical. We have 14 million refugees visiting our help websites. Without that access they would not be able to have access to the information. I want to flag out that as soon as connectivity in the channels are up, they can be the subject to misuse. Across the multiple languages and platforms that exist, it is a question, of how to make sure and moderate that context policies are properly policed or managed when there are so many different languages and capacities at place and what is the balance between the people role and the balance in the AI role in that, if there is one at all.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that. We actually fairly deliberately did not want to delve into content moderation. It is in itself such a challenging issue. I will let Peter take over for me right now. See Nadim Nasif has his hand up.

>> PETER MICEK: Yes, just before, there are comments in the chat about also an initiative in Ukraine of operators trying to provide hardware and support to keep the Internet working. Also concern about States asserting kind of sovereignty and sovereign rights, and to push back against, I think efforts to serve populations in their States.

So, yeah, Nadim Nasif, take it away.

>> NADIM NASIF: I know Anriette said you don't want to get into context moderation. It is important to speak about access on platforms, access that is responsibility of the companies. Because on the infrastructure, and to get the access through them. But what would happen if you have the Internet access but the platform is deplatforming you or preventing you from using it. We saw this in social media platforms, including Meta that is deplatforming and restricting accounts during the work in Palestine and other places, not allowing newsworthiness, not allowing journalists to do their job or document what is happening on the ground. This is not only social media but payment platform. The payment platform, we know major one is not allowing certain countries to use the platform. This is very problematic. We know that there are crowdfunding platforms that have been deplatforming certain people when they try to make donations for Gaza for other places.

So just to say that it is not only about the infrastructure, we need also to speak about the access that people have or do not have from which countries, especially when it comes to the Global majority that there are either not allowed to use the platform or even when they are on the platform, are being deplatformed. I think this is also important issue to deal with.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Peter, anyone online that wants to respond?  Anyone here that wants to respond? 

>> PETER MICEK: This gets at fragmentation we have seen in previous Forums.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: And the interpret issue Forum on Fragmentation, that is significant, the highlighting of the fragmentation of user experience, which is something we can't underestimate.

Any of the panelists want to add anything before we go into our next segment?  Any other questions from the room?  I saw a comment in the Zoom, when I was in the room, was someone expressing the concern that there is harmful use of infrastructure or Internet infrastructure can be used by people with bad intentions?  That is an important point. I want to come back. I think Lama Fakih covered that. I was part of the Global Commission of Cyberstates, our conclusion was when it comes to the Internet, it is difficult to isolate what part of the infrastructure is being used by hospitals, by aid workers, as opposed to what is being used by bad actors. I think the point Lama Fakih about proportionality is relevant here. This notion that it is legitimate to disrupt or destroy Internet infrastructure because bad actors are using it. I think that illustrates how disproportionate of a response that is.

Peter, am I right, there was a comment to that effect in the chat? 

>> PETER MICEK: Yes, definitely, under the guise of protecting Internet infrastructure, States could be protecting combatants or, you know protecting their own sovereignty in ways that are ultimately harmful or emotionless even.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We will move on if nobody will add anything. I want to recognize we have probably not done justice to the range of responses and alternatives and solutions being developed by businesses by Civil Society organisations, relief organisations, activists national Governments, local Governments. I think there is a lot happening also in the technical community. It is very fragmented. It is hard for us, I think to see those responses connect to normative frameworks and application and compliance of international law. And of voluntary norms.

But let's now think about the Internet Governance multistakeholder community that comes together here at the IGF. Panelists, what do you think this community should be done? 

I think you made it clear that the gap is not really at the level of norms. Or is there a gap at norms, if you want to highlight that.

What do you think the IGF can do?  And participants in the IGF community, from the Internet technical community as well as from Governments from UN system. And Civil Society what can we do to prevent Ad Hoc responses to the types of disruptions and distractions. Ad Hoc characterized by double standards. Often too late, too little. So Kojo Boakye, you look like you have something to say. I will start with you.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: I was trying to capture the question in terms of what we can do as a multistakeholder Group or individuals? 

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: I think you are very welcome to talk about what you can do as individuals or individual companies.

But I think what we want to get at is a more structured intervention. A more coherent intervention, which can galvanize the diversity of role players and actors that we have in this Forum. And that create more compliance, consistence and coherence and create access to the Internet in the crisis and conflict.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: Having sat on this panel and having learned from others coming in previously, this diversity you speak about is beautiful and creates challenges in understanding what different parties and indeed the multistakeholder Group might do.

Conversations like this are very helpful. Capturing the ways in which companies, Civil Society organisations, Governments, international organisations, et cetera, are working toward, this would be the first step. And to be frank because I'm a simple man and we like to simplifies things to get them done. Carving away some of the things that drive that diversity, if that makes sense.

There are a myriad of things, that can create confusion and ambiguity of what we might do.

I think clarity over what works, I know that there are infinite things that might work. Clarity over what works and what is optimal is important. Whether that is under the guise of the IGF, which continues to be a super important platform, under the guise of the ITU or the UN itself, I'm not    it is above my pay grade to answer that particular question.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Kojo Boakye. Ambassador? 

>> ERNST NOORMAN: Not sure it is my pay grade, but I will go into the UN part also. You know, the discussions on norms are incredibly difficult, challenging, and of course, geopolitics is in play with the subject in all discussions.

But now we have a set of norms which are not legally binding. And they are based on and complement international law. So we have recognized the international law applies in cyberspace, we have legally binding obligations under the Charter, but also under international humanitarian and human rights laws.

What we need now is not new norms as some countries are suggesting, but we have to make sure that the 11 norms we have endorsed are also being implemented.

And to ensure implementation is efficient, we need engagement of all stakeholders. This means of course, a role for the UN agencies, and the technical community as the Private Sector, Civil Society, and Academia.

And next year, the open ended Working Group will end its mandate and we hope it will be followed by an action oriented mechanism allowing for constructive and active participation of stakeholders.

And the so called Programme of Action.

So our focus right now should be on implementation. The implementation should not only be multistakeholder, but also multidisciplinary and multisectoral. And we need to develop a common understanding of how international law applies. And we welcome the Resolution adopted recently at the Conference of the ITRC that provides further elements on the implementation of humanitarian law in the context of the use of ICTs.

And we should work hard on capacity building. And that is also something we cannot do alone as States. We have to do it all together. This means, this is the basis for greater implementation of the normative framework, and we can leave no one behind, and growing expertise on cyber is crucial.

We say Cybersecurity and cyberspace is teamwork. We have to work to do it together to make resilient and keep it open and free and accessible. 

 May be a nice example of how we do the capacity building at the UN level is the Women in Cyber Programme where we have trained 47 women from countries that were not actively participating in the discussion in New York.

We have got 47 women at the table, well trained with good contribution. That means the female voice is heard, in 2023 more than 50% of the contributions were from women. But also countries that were previously not involved didn't really understand the discussions are completely involved and understand the topics and play an important role

In that sense, it is a common and shared responsibility also to make sure that everyone has a capacity, and that also to create stable involvement which is one of the topics at IGF today.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: That sounds like Internet Governance Forum, a modality in the IGF could look at.

My organisation is very involved in Forum on Online gender based violence, it is about six, seven, eight years ago. It really helped map how responses can take place without compromising human rights.

Mohamed Shareef, what do you think can be done? 

>> MOHAMED SHAREEF: From the perspective of climate change, extreme weather, and in the context of small island Nations, I think IGF particularly the specialized Dynamic Coalitions within the IGF could actually play a bigger role in supporting the island Nations, take the case of making resilient digital development in these small islands to the COP series and support these Nations in securing funds for digital resilience.

And enhance bridge the gap between technology, multistakeholder, technology efforts going on here, and multistakeholder environmental discussions in how the developed world can support the developing Nations, with the challenges they're facing with respect to man made climate change and the result that we're talking about disruption to Internet.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Mohamed Shareef. Lama Fakih? 

>> LAMA FAKIH: Thank you, I think we need to stigmatize Internet shutdowns, so it is the act of a pariah state to shut down the Internet. The Internet is so intertwined in the ability to realize our rights, that undermining connectivity is, you know, so abhorrent that States in good standing do not exercise this kind of behavior. I think we do that by enforcing the normative framework with things like the keep it on campaign, which Access Now has spearheaded. And we do work collectively to minimize the effectiveness of attempts to shut down the Internet. And I think a lot of the initiatives there have been generated from the Private Sector and we can think through more of what are ways to undermine Governments that are trying to do it.

And there is a role here also for Internet Service Providers. The Governments that dictate the blackouts, the Internet Service Providers that are implementing them. What more can they do to push back against the requests, interpret them narrowly. Is there scope under domestic law to file lawsuits in response to the demands? 

You know, businesses also have responsibility under the guiding principles, the UN guiding principles, business and human rights, that should anchor them in thinking about how to respond to the requests that can be far reaching and have far reaching consequences to human rights.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks for that, Lama Fakih. Peter there is a comment online? 

>> PETER MICEK: Yes, a practical proposal for a project to fund and operate a mini fleet of UN cable laying ships. So it is very expensive to lay the submarine cables and expensive to operate the ships that repair them. But to help LDCs and Developing Countries especially after a climate crises to get faster service, a maybe little UN cable force.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Rapid response. Kojo Boakye, by the way I didn't buy the comment about a simple man. I will give you the mic again.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: I want to add.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Microphone.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: Sorry, I should always remember the microphone.

I want to add to what Lama Fakih said about the need to penalize as well. We had that offline. One thing we found helpful in our engagement with those Governments that are doing full Internet shutdowns or partial Internet shutdowns or things like Instagram and Facebook, it is the actual economy, when all of us are well attuned and speaking with policymakers, it boils down to costs and benefits, many of the decisions.

Some of the things we have spoken about today have boiled down to a Government or regime or whoever assuming will this be staying in power or not?  Others it is an economic cost or whatever else. Actually pointing out the cost and letting that information become part of the calculus of the cost benefit analysis is so important.

I align with Lama Fakih and stigmatize where possible, penalize, and really the engagement in ensuring the Governments understand the cost is really important. And the fact that in many countries, the digital economy is the economy and underpins everything, it is helpful in that.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: It is absolutely true. I also, having worked to oppose and counter shutdowns, it is very much aware of the cost. It does not stop them.

>> KOJO BOAKYE: That is what I meant. Sometimes you won't get down a Government that believe this is the only way to maintain national security or stay in power. Increasingly you want that information to be part of their calculus. I think that is really important.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Cynthia.

>> CYNTHIA LESUFI: Thank you. I'm thinking out loud as I'm sitting here, as I'm listening   

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Little closer to the mic.

>> CYNTHIA LESUFI: I'm thinking as I listen to my fellow panelists trying to answer the question you asked. And saying to myself, perhaps we as the Internet Governance Forum community, we have a good opportunity in front of us, I mean, next year, we are talking about the WSIS+20 Review process. And some of the ideas that are being shared here, perhaps there is a need for us to consider highlighting them or reflecting them in the WSIS+20 Review process. And just to make them more visible and try to solve some of the problems that we spoke about here.

So I think that is what I thought we should consider as the IGF community to consider. Thanks.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much for that. Very relevant remarks Cynthia. Nadim Nasif? 

>> NADIM NASIF: Yes, I think I mean, obviously, as a Civil Society organisation, we are limited with our status what we can do. It is important to get it down, in terms of the conditions that are happening there. And from the side of Government and companies and to make sure there is at least a process of accountable and there is publicity to those violations that are happening.

Beyond that, I think it is also important for us as Civil Society, especially ones that are in the humanitarian field to give the needed assistance that in terms of ESIMs, short assistance and other technical smart solutions that are maybe in our capacity to help the residents, especially when we speak about Segments of the populations like journalists, media, people in the first responder and others who their work is urgent and it is important to keep them online and keep them connected with the rest of the world.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks, Nadim Nasif. Peter? 

>> PETER MICEK: Thank you. Again, the chat is giving technical and concrete. That is great. There is another suggestion for ESIM infrastructure and community networks that exist on top of the decentralized power grid. I started by talking about how conflicts impact access to electricity and there is a request for a fleet of Wi Fi mobile batteries charged by solar stations. Very concrete proposals. But if I could use my prerogative and speak a bit to the normative and Governance discussions.

This has been really rich. I think again, from our perspective, the best way to preserve civilian telecommunications is to have armed Groups and armies respected as nonmilitary in nature and as OHCHR recently said in our own documentation we found the Internet is a resource indispensable to the survival of civilian populations.

As Lama Fakih said, the distinction of proportionality apply. Corporate and Private Sector plays a role. They're targeted with partial shutdowns, but they also can at times push back and help circumvent disruptions and hold Governments accountable.

We have seen companies file lawsuits against Governments for demanding disproportionate disruptions.

As we have gathered today at the IGF, I think it is a good time to reassert if we will reach the 2030 Agenda and provide interpret access in all countries, to protect our common digital home, recognize the protected status of the public core and remind folks that to preserve connectivity in conflict, the responsibility lies first and foremost with the parties to the conflicts themselves.

And those parties, perhaps in the environmental and climate realm accountable for that climate change. These of course, this means as we heard, can and must proceed in concert together. We can't see destruction of ICT normalized in conflict, but rather the solution to protect civilians in conflict and preserving access to good legitimate information sources requires good connectivity.

If I can put out there what I heard in terms of a few ways forward. I believe the Global Digital Compact did set out good language on the Internet shutdowns. Perhaps there is language that can come forward with a new Best Practice Forum on this topic at the IGF. I know we will convene again soon in Norway in June.

The Freedom Online Coalition has spoken I think about telecommunication acts as having conflict and expect them to continue coordination with those 41 Member States.

And then on accountability, I think it is incumbent on courts like the international criminal court and Regional bodies the OECD which did find against telecom A1 in Austria for contributing to a shut down in accountability and the UN Security Council should incorporate attention to telecommunication and the conflicts it monitors.

That is enough from me, I think. I used my prerogative. Thank you, Anriette.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thanks very much Peter.

Yes, I think I want to really add, Lama Fakih said we should stigmatize shutdowns. I think we should stigmatize violation of international law. We have become as a Global community far too tolerant of the disregarding of international law by some of our Member States in the UN community. There is a role for the IGF in this state. While we might clarify what the accountabilities of States are, we need to explore what the technical community can do, I think we might see an absence of a technical community voice in these context.

And that might simply be because they're not clear on exactly what their roles and accountabilities are.

And I think that is something that the IGF can explore. I think Cynthia mentioned WSIS. They're two concepts that are part of WSIS that are relevant here. That is international cooperation and digital solidarity.

I think if we can use the IGF and use the space to build that solidarity and build that cooperation, we are in an era where people talk about the digital Cold War, that is the work of the IGF to counteract digital Cold Wars and bold the collaboration across borders and stakeholder Groups to ensure that people have access always, everywhere. So thanks very much to everyone, to the panelists, and thank you to the MAG members to Lito and those who assisted to organize this session. To the captioners and tech team.  Even though the Zoom was a disaster in the beginning, we forgive you. And to everyone here in the session, thank you very much. And a big hand to the panel. 

>> ATTENDEE: Excuse me.

I'm here, I'm just short. I think because I'm not tall. I am from Sudan I work with grassroots movement. From 2018 to 2022, the Internet been shut down in Sudan collectively for up to four months. When the war start, tomorrow will be one year out of the Internet in Sudan. And when the international community talk about the humanitarian aid, especially in different States, the food plan ask people to apply online. When we say it is not that flexible idea, you need to talk with the grassroots people and emergency room people to know the solution for this stuff, but how we can ask people to apply online and there is no Internet to have the food aid.

The second thing, when it comes to the Internet, they can bring Starlink and it is equal one hour, $2 for people to ask for help. When the international community work with the Starlink people or work with the grassroots movement, we can find a solution to help those people that ask for help and this online thing.

Yes, I agree with the sanction for 30 years that affect in our rights as a human being to have access to ask for help. Thank you.

>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: Thank you, Wim for that. We wanted to talk about Starlink. We didn't. It is good we're closing the session with an example there of perhaps a very uneven response from a Private Sector operator that can actually make a huge difference and has in some parts of the world but not everywhere.

But we do have to close the session. So thanks again, everyone else. Please have a good IGF. Let's continue the work.

(Applause)