APrIGF Document Platform

I fear the emerging technologies being adopted in some parts of the Asia Pacific region because of surveillance and privacy issues. I am more vary of the internet now because I feel nothing is private anymore. Also I do feel more conversations around content moderation should be taking place. Civil society does a lot of content moderation for Big Tech companies and this is added labor on our part. Also when we are talking about AI we need to first address exclusionary policies adopted by European countries through AI. If AI is making our lives more easier why is it leaving out so many people and being used as a means of surveillance on them?

In my opinion, I feel that while choosing the venue for such forum where multistakeholder, inclusion and bottoms up approach is valued, I feel that APrIGF also needs to consider the economic condition of every economy in Asia Pacific Regions so that participants from low economic countries are not left out and included in the discussion.

I think it’s important to mention how emerging technology would be affecting gender in the Asia Pacific in all this. The Asia Pacific is a special region where structural patriarchal issues still exist particularly in South Asia so it would be good to mention gender as a separate theme here.

Emerging technologies pose a significant challenge to global peace and security, particularly when it comes to their military applications. In the Asia-Pacific region, China and India have taken substantial steps to advance their capabilities in fields like Big Data, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and Quantum Computing. Notably, China has assumed a leadership role in these areas and is proactively gearing itself towards addressing potential challenges of the coming century.

However, the situation in the rest of the countries in the region is concerning, as many have not yet formulated coherent strategies to navigate this technological landscape. This lag in preparedness could potentially compromise their security and stability in the face of evolving threats associated with emerging technologies. It is crucial for these nations to recognize the urgency of the situation and proactively develop their own strategies to safeguard their interests in this rapidly changing landscape. Collective efforts and cooperation among nations in the Asia-Pacific region are essential to ensure a more stable and secure future in the era of emerging technologies.

While I do think that these three thematic areas are highly important, I do think there should be a separate thematic area for policy and regulation. In South Asia, we’re seeing an increase in data privacy and AI policy measures. Regulation doesn’t always mean good in some countries’ context so having that somewhere in the document instead of just having it on the side would be good.

I noted that the main thematic tracks represent the pressing issues internet governance must address in the region. For the Pacific, the issue of trust is beyond pressing, especially when trust issues on the internet are becoming more of a common occurrence.

The APrIGF’s decision to implement high-level theme tracks is an acceptable effort to address the complex issues of Internet Governance in the Asia Pacific region. It demonstrates a knowledge of the complex web of problems that influence the digital world and the necessity for a comprehensive comprehension of their interconnection. Discussions on policy that are imaginative and interdisciplinary can help participants come up with creative answers to the region’s many problems. This open-ended and comprehensive strategy appears to be the best way to encourage productive discussion and cooperation among stakeholders in the achievement of strong Internet Governance regulations.

Good to specify that meaningful access is something that deserves further consideration but in this paragraph it is understood as something that is only linked to connectivity and while this is certainly part of it. It is also good to address how meaningful is Internet access/access to information once people have it and what are the current methods (if any) that we can use to track this

What will be the role of governments belonging to the Asia Pacific region? How will they help and expedite the adoption of the emerging technologies.

In my opinion, the impact of emerging technologies on the digital divide is not inherently positive or negative,it largely depends on various factors, including accessibility, affordability, education, and policy decisions. Technologies with values are preferable than technologies for profit.

I agree with Namkha. I think that it can go both ways: make services and products inclusive or exacerbate the already uneven distribution of access and opportunities. This depends on digital literacy and affordability, among other things. The design should also be questioned. Who says it’s inclusive? Does it include everyone or just the sectors or groups that developers or companies want to target? It was mentioned earlier how the concerns of persons with disabilities are not always considered in the design. Social norms and morals should also be considered. Because of the diversity of cultures and beliefs, there may be some resistance against accessibility.

About the software updates bloatware situation, I think there should be a smaller, high priority updates that only contain security patches for vulnerabilities so, that people can update their devices with the latest security definitions, without having to install other non-essential updates at the same time. Major version updates that contain new features and UI changes could still be optional. This separation would ensure devices get critical security fixes as soon as possible, while allowing users to decide when they want larger updates that change functionality.

Emerging technologies are undeniably shaping our society, presenting both challenges and opportunities. It can be influenced by stakeholders’ approach towards implementing these technologies in society. Failing to address current challenges related to existing technologies will only exacerbate future regulatory difficulties. Collaboration among governments, civil society, academia, and the private sector is key in addressing these issues. When introducing new technologies into society, continuous monitoring and impact assessments are vital tools to safeguard human rights and ensure responsible implementation.

The discussion on Emerging Technologies made me realize that any form of technology, be it traditional or emerging, is a double-edged sword, that can be used for good in the hands of good people, or used for bad purposes in the hands of people with bad intentions. I therefore think, Emerging Technology will close or widen the digital divide, especially when accessibility parameters are not equal between economies that have little to no internet access, and those that have meaningful access. At the helm of Emerging Technologies to close the gap are the digital skills to use or operate them. When people have the digital skills to operate an Emerging Technology, there will be so many interesting use cases we can churn out of any form of Emerging Technology.

To deploy guidelines about accessibility on public sector developments. Becasue governments are big purchasers so it would be helpful to shape public sector purchasing with inclusion and government people in mind.

From the discussions in a session that looks into this area, the main challenge to finding the right balance in professional development is the perceived risks and promised rewards presented to a workforce. Obviously, the path with the least resistance will always be chosen, which means minimal risk for its corresponding reward. However, there are others who value the high-risk and high-reward model, and these are ones that definitely reap the rewards and valuable opportunities presented to them.

It’s crucial for policymakers to prioritize the development of robust governance principles to address these issue as biometric technology is indeed becoming ubiquitous, and while it offers convenience, it poses significant privacy and security risks.

Well Governments can reduce barriers and ensure universal access by implementing inclusive policies, improving digital infrastructure, offering education and training, and prioritizing affordability and user-friendly designs for services.

I learned that it’s sad that net freedom is always at the mercy of the state and whether is based on fair or unfair reasons, the state always has the legal upper hand to control the access of the internet to its citizens or a group of them. The case of West Papua and the Civil Society Experience is a sad one and I hope for the best for them.

In two days’ discussion in yIGF, one crucial issue was media literacy. IGF should promote digital literacy for young people and be held by the youth organisations concerned with media literacy. Then, protecting youth social and political movements on the internet (especially on social media) is crucial to increasing youth participation in internet governance.

I somehow agree with this statement because I think persons with disabilities are more likely to left behind even compared to other marginalized communities,

There is an urgent need for clear industry guidelines for how civil society engagement should take place. A lack of mutually agreed expectations between industry and civil society has contributed to frustration and lack of trust. Some companies do almost no engagement, whilst even those that do a lot comparitively (i.e. Meta) often fail to follow through effectively, which leads to its own frustrations. In the case of escalation channels such as trusted flagger programs lack of clear expectations and performance benchmarks can result in serious harms when companies do not respond in timely or considerate fashion (plugging research on trsuted flaggers’ experience here: https://internews.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SafetyAtStake_Internews.pdf). Clear industry standards around processes such as policy consultation or trusted flagger programs would build trust and improve outcomes for all stakeholders.

Libraries have a big role in bridging the digital divide maybe good to mention this in the context of the Asia-Pacific region

I think it is a complex issue and related to numerous other social challenges such as poverty, poor economic condition, inequalities and etc.

We also need to think about the factors like content quality, engagement with the community, and a commitment to unbiased reporting when we talk about community radio. Additionally, supporting community radio financially and through training can enhance its impact and sustainability.

There was a noticeable dichotomy between how different countries currently tackle the protection of youth against online abuses such as intimate image abuse. Some comparative examples given by the panellists are:

Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions Law (from Ms Avida Veda’s panel)- which has focused on on criminalising the actual content, to the point where the responsibility is often placed on the victims for posting such explicit content in the first place.

On the otherhand, in Japan – Ms Yamaguchi’s PhD studies interviewed instances of women posting out of free will – who may even feel empowered by the fact they can choose what parts of themselves that they show.

This wasn’t a issue that was delved into in the session, but I think it is imporant that these cultural differences are acknowledged, as governments must consider how to balance the protection of victims of online abuse while also allowing for sexual autonomy for others. I wonder if, realistically, it would even be viable to have international collaboration for this, or whether this issue be left to individual countries to decide.

I would like to use “information asymmetric” instead of “market failure”, as it more accurately describes the situation where individuals are unaware that they can acquire a domain name in their native language.

Ordinary internet users often opt for social media platforms to voice their opinions rather than owning or managing a website. Their focus lies in conveying their intended message while conserving time on communication. Maintenance tasks are not their preference, and the cost of obtaining a domain name, particularly multiple ones, can be prohibitive. Additionally, businesses must consider their target audience and determine the languages that facilitate easier website access.

Domain names serve purposes of identification and branding, constituting integral elements of a company’s identity framework. Nonetheless, if a company employs distinct characters in its domain name, consumer confusion might arise.

Considering the broader computing interface, the internet, and user interfaces designed for internet access follow the left-to-right, horizontal layout of English text. This contrasts with the vertical reading orientation of traditional Chinese books.

What are the ways how we can face the key challenges and harvest the benefits of the digital economy towards Access and Inclusion, Trust, Sustainability.

Internet shutdowns have become a powerful tool for oppression of opposition and their increase in the region is part of an authoritarian trend. Examples from Myanmar, Bangladesh and India shared in this session are very powerful – and there are other countries taking the same path. The international community must take a firm stance on this issue to mitigate harms and establish safeguards.

As discussed and pointed out in the session by the speakers it is unfortunate but true that various stakeholders including the government might only be interested in looking at the impact of internet shutdowns from an economic point of view.

At Youth IGF India we got a chance to understand the workings of a NetLoss Calculator developed by the Internet Society. This tool can calculate the economic impact of an internet shutdown over a period of time in different countries. It calculates loss in terms of GDP, FDI, and increase in unemployment at the national level. I believe that we should develop more such tools that not only keep track of shutdowns but also quantify their impact. This would help incentivize not only the civil society but also the private sector and the government to stand against the use of internet shutdowns to maintain public order.

Digital technology must be designed to the needs and circumstances of individual states. Nevertheless, there could be much to gain from cost-effective collaboration between SIDS for the purposes of sharing and developing:

(i) an understanding of the economic and social impact of COVID-19 and ways of mitigating these effects through digital communications;

(ii) market-shaping policies and practices for increasing the availability of digital communication at an affordable price;

(iii) strategies and programs to support the provision of expertise in digital technology and its use by business, public services and the general public; and

(iv) knowledge of relevant progress made on these issues throughout the world.

A multifaceted strategy is required if these technologies are to be sustained over the long run. Its core criterion is universal accessibility to dependable and resilient connection, even during crises, wars, or natural catastrophes. This fundamental element serves as the framework for the sustainable development of developing technologies.

We are situated at the intersection of societal wellbeing, ecological harmony, and technological growth. The solution calls for a multidisciplinary symphony in which ethical questions, social inclusion, and environmental responsibility dance with technical progress. By balancing these factors, we may direct developing technologies to live up to their potential as builders of a just and sustainable digital future.

Mentioning how data localization can adversely affect the environment and how most states are moving to localize data can also be addressed here.

When people are sending the satellite into the space, who is responsible for the greenhouse gases emitted into the environment and space debris? These are some of the concerns that need to be discussed and think of.

There is a need to recognize that connecting the unconnected and resolving the digital divide are still the main problems faced by many developing countries in Asia Pacific. In this context, complementary connectivity initiatives have been offered as solutions and creating an ecosystem, an enabling environment for supporting the development and scaling up of sustainable complementary connectivity models need to be a central part of sustainability discussions.

Addressing sustainability challenges of complementary connectivity initiatives require a combination of data-driven impact measurement, effective communication strategies, stakeholder engagement, as well as policy advocacy with the private sector and governments.

Given the different contexts and levels of development of communities of Asia Pacific, there is no “one size fits all” in sustainability of complementary connectivity initiatives. The development of such needs to be iterated given the nature of diverse geographical and socio-cultural elements and interrelated components to consider, including but not limited to policy and regulation, infrastructure, as well as social and economic resources.

With the various challenges even, “it takes a village” to support complementary connectivity initiatives ‘with shared purpose.’ This further requires an agile and adaptive management with flexible financing support. Also, the promotion of different technological solutions adapting to changing customer needs, culturally appropriate services and billing models and community ownership in terms of operations, management and responses to community needs and preferences contributes to a collaborative and open ecosystem needed to address the sustainability agenda. The collaborative and open ecosystem also requires cooperation from local authorities, national governments, industry players and possible legislative measures, also given the extreme costs of interconnectivity and solutions rely on teamwork of local, subregional and national stakeholders.

Measuring the impact of community networks is also important. By showcasing the tangible benefits and positive outcomes of such, we can make a compelling case for governments and resource institutions to support sustainable models of community networks and complementary connectivity initiatives. An M&E system based on IP traffic and other related data must be developed and supported to measure impact in terms of online behavior, which in turn may inform overall impact.

Legislation of favorable policies supportive to complementary connectivity initiatives may also be a solution given some experiences on reluctance of governments to allow smaller carriers even with 7-year track record and 100% uptime.

There are various experiences of evolving sustainability models such as the ISEA project linking community networks to social enterprise and local economic development which needs to be further documented, supported and scaled-up. Emerging sustainability strategies of four pilot community networks in different value chains (coffee, organic vegetables, crafts, agro-ecological/ cultural/ educational tours) are towards enhancing efficiency, productivity and incomes beyond project timeframes.

Can IoT act as a disruptor rather than being an enabler?
A simple drop of connection can be fatal in the areas of critical importance such as medical healthcare, security of the country, etc.

I think there should also be an inclusion of sustainability concerns that particularly emphasize the importance of considering the well-being of the entire ecosystem, not just human needs and desires, and also overlooking the ecological consequences of technology in favor of human convenience can lead to environmental degradation.

The current hegemony of tech corporations which belong to the global west must be examined, and whether they push countries in the Asia-Pacific region to a state of dependency on such corporations. Does the need to break this power dynamic push for fragmentation?

Sustaining and balancing the digital needs with envrironmental capacities and concerns cannot be a choice anymore. It is a utmost need and necessity to have a safe and secured digital green future of the upcoming digital generations. Users digital needs are multiplying and so are buying and usage of multiple devices and networks. A circular process and framework can sustainably meet these needs through maximising the waste reduction of devices, electrical and electronic equipments and maximising repair, reuse and recycling.

Circular design principles should guide electronics products and devices to ensure sustainable lifecycle management. This involves designing products for longevity, easy disassembly, repairability, and material recovery. Manufacturers should prioritize modular designs, using standardized connectors and components to facilitate upgrades and repairs. Additionally, the use of eco-friendly materials and minimized hazardous substances should be emphasized. Governments can enforce regulations that mandate eco-design criteria, such as minimum product lifespan, reparability scores, and recycled content targets. They can incentivize manufacturers to adopt circular practices through tax benefits, grants, or certification programs. Collaboration between governments, manufacturers, and consumers is vital to establish a circular economy ecosystem that fosters innovation, reduces waste, and ensures the longevity of electronics products while minimizing their environmental impact.

Achieving digital circularity in the electronics sector necessitates a collaborative effort between governments and device manufacturers, grounded in key principles and commitments. Governments must prioritize the development and enforcement of robust regulations that encourage product design for longevity, repairability, and upgradability. Additionally, they should incentivize the adoption of sustainable practices, such as extended producer responsibility and eco-labeling.
Device manufacturers, on the other hand, must commit to producing electronics with modular components, standardized interfaces, and clear documentation for repairs.
Embracing open-source designs and sharing repair information can foster a culture of circularity. Moreover, both parties should collaborate on efficient collection, recycling infrastructure, and safe disposal of electronic waste.

As a community, I think we can play a critical role in fostering trust in the emerging technologies landscape. By promoting education, transparency, security, and ethical practices, while contributing to creating a safe and trustworthy digital environment for all stakeholders.

I think trust and accountability have to be discussed together because in order for us to foster growth and innovation, there needs to be a certain level of trust among stakeholders. However, there has to be measures in place to ensure accountability; for that trust be kept. We need to have a way to check that stakeholders are doing what they say are doing and nothing more. Once people see how stakeholders are held accountable for their actions, trust will grow.

It is important that we should firstly build the trust among multistakeholder group. There should be trust between all the regional organisations, governments, civil society so that our global digital landscape is built on trust.

I believe that the current 3 policy questions on trust – as provided during townhall discussions – are not fully reflective of the concerns that the younger generations may have regarding trust.

While the current policy questions for trust are valid and legitimate concerns on how we can foster and broaden the scope of trust especially for less accessible communities, what was lacking from this discussion was the considersation of the many youth that already place significant trust in technology as digital natives.

I would have liked to hear more acknowlegement about the power that governing and commercial bodies already hold through youth’s trust in technologies, placing importance on REGOGNITION and ACCOUNTABILITY that product developers and governmentment should be held by, to ensure a e-environment where youth are able to feel and be safe, and be allowed to enjoy technology.

We can also add how we ensure representation on the internet. More Asia Pacific voices on the internet and not just representatives from the Global North. It’s essential to have different regions and their diverse contexts represented on the internet.

In my observation, several Western nations have established their own AI governance frameworks. However, before these frameworks were put in place, they first established foundational principles and regulations regarding data, cross-border data transmission, usage, privacy, and security requirements.

Within the diverse landscape of Asia, both Japan and South Korea have released their own data and copyright regulations and principles. Similarly, China has issued guidance on AI and generative AI labeling, accompanied by substantial governmental laws and regulations concerning AI and data. Indian Prime Minister Modi advocated for a global ethical AI framework during the B20 summit.

Shifting to the business perspective, certain enterprises have formed alliances to urge government regulations on AI development, while concurrently investing in or developing AI applications.

From a community standpoint, aside from concerns about potential AI applications negatively impacting human rights or employment opportunities, it’s also imperative to contemplate how AI can be harnessed to enhance our well-being. This mirrors the evolution of the Industrial Revolution, where despite initial worries about automation and computerization impinging on individual rights, society ultimately found ways to adapt, improve productivity, and boost the economy.

As we all know, AI technology is definitely redefining our world now. This session highlighted a wide range of topics on AI, such as sovereignty and inclusion.
I was particularly impressed by the proposal of open-sourcing LLM (Large Language Models) as one of the strategies to increase accessibility for underrepresented groups. Of course, it would be best if all countries could produce their own large language model, but there are practical limitations. The internet started with a few, but now it can be considered the most successful example of open-source technology everyone uses and develops. It was an excellent session that presented the direction of AI technology for everyone.

There are some issues worth discussing more in this session. 1) Time difference is one of the issues for the global community. The UI is not really friendly to online participants in different time zones. It usually shows in UTC or in CEST but Asian participants need to figure it out by themselves. 2) Gender issues, especially when the sponsors may have a limited budget, they would support a single man or woman, not a woman with children or family concerns. 3) It may not have enough budget to support facilities for disabled participants. 4) There should be more think tanks to participate the digital/cyber diplomacy, but it depends on the whole society and the development in different countries. 5) There are some people facing internet shutdown and government surveillance issues, how could make more stakeholders to participate it?

This session discussed many issues about the concerns of parenting, government surveillance, and the obligations and responsibilities of service providers.
The US, EU, and UK governments have bills or laws about online safety to prevent CSAM from happening in encrypted channels without the opinions of technical experts. And that may destroy the trust and privacy on the internet, even safety. The same conditions may also happen in our region. Some governments may join some alliances or communities to ask for a back door to break the trust between internet users and service providers.
But in the other perspective, there were 12 data protection organizations that signed a joint statement on data scraping and the protection of privacy[1] in early August. The statement expects for social media platforms and some public websites to be against data scraping. This is another way to see the government making some principles for enterprises.
The session also mentioned a concern about the digital or internet literacy of parents. Some parents may not have enough awareness or confidence to help their children prevent the internet of harm. They may not know how to identify disinformation and misinformation

[1]Joint statement on data scraping and the protection of privacy, https://www.oaic.gov.au/newsroom/global-expectations-of-social-media-platforms-and-other-sites-to-safeguard-against-unlawful-data-scraping

A complex issue here is that while the global community is pushing for regulation of tech platforms, in many countries in the region (and globally) governments are using regulation of online content as a way to limit freedom of expression and other human rights, especially targeting activists, journalists, women, and minorities. The focus on regulation in EU, NZ, Australia, etc. has made it harder for companies to push back on bad regulation in other regions (to the limited extent that they did). The companies are being forced to invest $$ in compliance in EU, and seem to be cutting voluntary human rights and trust and safety programming in the rest of the world. Regulators in one juristiction need to be mindful of impacts elsewhere, as the tech companies are global in scope.

Platforms appear to siding with state actors in many countries in Asia, and not protecting the rights of their users. Individual privacy/data protection and civic freedoms can co-exist. However, domestic regulations that force the social media platforms to not use personal data points and behaviours to target harmful advertising should be considered by civil society as a way to hold platforms more accountable.

Fostering effective collaboration between government agencies and civil society presents a complex challenge.

Certain government bodies have instituted platforms for petitions, enabling people or groups to voice their demands. These platforms incorporate mechanisms that compel regulatory authorities to respond, fostering improvements in public services and policies. Such systems exist in countries like the US and Taiwan, constituting the initial step towards engaging with governmental bodies. However, this approach isn’t universally prevalent, particularly in diverse cultural contexts and organizations—especially when addressing intricate matters such as “data.”

As I know, the Indonesian government is preparing the ethical guidelines for AI, and asking the data scraping need to comply with the regulations. The government is also drafting personal data protection rules and consulting for comments. It is a channel to provide opinions from civil society perspectives.

APC’s framework looks good and practical. I hope it can improve a more safe, respectful, and free cyberspace.

In my observation, cyberspace is not enough for women and gender diversity groups to express their opinions. They are easier to be attacked on the public internet. The same (policy) opinions from men or women will show different conditions. The opinions provided by men will be not challenged strictly and people will focus on the opinions. But if the opinions are provided by women or other gender diversity groups, the focus will be led to their privacy issues, gender, or families. Seldom people will focus on their opinions. Some harmful words also attack them.

Maybe try to hide genders when people express their opinions, try not to point out their genders in their words. It is easy in English, but not easy in Chinese characters.

Are the countries future ready? With the evolving technologies in place, new challenges are emerging. How are countries strategising the use/misuse of the technologies in the near future? How are countries looking forward to adopt changes based on internet intervention. Have the countries developed an ecosystem for seamless transition to future technologies?

Multistakeholder approach only works if there’s full and active participation of every stakeholders during Internet governance discussions. It is crucial that we ensure harmonisation between the ‘technical dialogues’ and ‘policy dialogues’. Some of the challenges the Internet is presenting are due to the lack of cohesion (or discussion) between the stakeholders.

With regards to governments and their role in internet governance, we the various stakeholders from different backgrounds need to be more proactive in informing our own governments with regards to the issues in today’s internet and how they could be resolved.