APrIGF Document Platform

1. Humanistic Dimensions:
•Comment on Paragraph 18: “While focusing on resilience at the design stage is critical, I believe we should also consider the humanistic dimensions of resilience. This includes ensuring that digital infrastructures serve the diverse needs of all communities, especially those who are marginalized or vulnerable. By integrating a human-centric approach, we can build systems that are not only technically robust but also equitable and inclusive.”
2. Cultural Sensitivity:
•Comment on Paragraph 19: “It’s important to acknowledge the cultural diversity across the APAC region. The document could benefit from addressing how local cultural contexts influence digital adoption and resilience. Policies and practices should be adaptable to these varying cultural contexts to ensure they are effective and embraced by local communities.”
3. Foresight and Future Scenarios:
•Comment on Paragraph 18: “In addition to immediate resilience measures, I suggest incorporating foresight and scenario planning into our approach. By imagining different future scenarios—such as technological advancements or environmental changes—we can better prepare for and manage potential risks. This proactive approach can help us stay ahead of emerging threats and maintain resilience over time.”
4. Proactive Risk Management:
•Comment on Paragraph 19: “We should emphasize the need for proactive risk management that anticipates future challenges. Beyond current risks, we need to consider emerging threats like AI-driven cyberattacks or the implications of quantum computing on encryption. Foresight tools could be valuable here in identifying and mitigating these risks before they escalate.”
5. Future Readiness:
•Comment on Paragraph 18: “Resilience isn’t just about surviving current challenges; it’s about being prepared for the future. I believe we need to develop adaptive governance frameworks that can evolve with changing circumstances. Additionally, building capacity for continuous learning and adaptability within communities and organizations will be crucial for future readiness.”
6. Holistic Approach:
•Comment on Paragraph 19: “Resilience must be viewed holistically, considering the interconnectedness of digital infrastructures with other critical systems like energy, healthcare, and transportation. By adopting a holistic approach, we can enhance societal resilience as a whole, rather than addressing digital infrastructure in isolation.”
7. Sustainability and Ethics:
•Comment on Paragraph 19: “Sustainability and ethical considerations should be a priority in our resilience strategies. We need to ensure that our digital infrastructures are not only resilient but also environmentally sustainable and ethically sound, aligning with principles that protect human rights and dignity.”

There are two major types of fragmentation —the logical/infrastructure layer and the content layer. Any solutions addressing the fragmentation issue should be developed through community-driven processes rather than the top-down approach driven by government.

The statement like “Stakeholders need to work together closely when developing policies that impact the interoperability of the Internet”, I just wonder how can we bring the government stakeholder in developing the policies when the time of crisis, especially like the counties with civil war, or the existence of dual government. And also, I just wonder is that possible to achieve the collaboration of all stakeholders in developing policies, for example, like I don’t see any representatives from mainland China and Russia, they don’t care that much IG discussion, only the the people from democratic countries are taking again and again! Because I feel like Russia is part of Asia, so we need to bring the voices of Russia or mainland China in IG discussion. Without their participation, how can we make sure to implement the more inclusive and sustainable policies? 

Proactive early detection of deepfakes, for instance, through analysis of behaviour patterns, distilling the number of security reports, or the adoption of advanced biometric technology would be essential; however, this will only be successful if collaborative efforts between government and private sectors are being fostered, especially companies and governments oftentimes will have conflicting interests when it comes to regulatory issues. Strategies are always there, but the question we should really ask is how we can effectively implement the strategies and thereby enforcing the rules?

It is important to recognize that the legal side of emerging technologies is consistently lagging behind the incredible pace of the technological development. Around the world, deepfake nudity in school environments has become a major issue, but little can be done because there is no legal or regulatory framework to deal with these issues. How can we make sure legal teams can keep up with the rate of emerging technologies?

I wish to reiterate a comment made by the audience on inviting more government stakeholders and add that people from the military/police/intelligence/defense establishments should also be invited to speak in sessions where their insights can be relevant. Inviting them should be driven by the need for more accountability and, in many cases, these actors have made operational, tactical, and strategic-level decisions on the use of tech and internet within their respective countries. Audrey Tang stated during the plenary session that security and human rights do not negate each other. If this statement were to be made true for most countries in APAC, more candid and transparent discussions between all stakeholders and defense establishments is needed. Sessions in subsequent APrIGF can start by inviting officers with track records of being open to the idea of speaking in multistakeholder meetings/discussions similar to APrIGF, given that most establishments in APAC might be less inclined to partake in APrIGF.

Ensuring that the organizing economy provides visas for all attendees is indeed vital for promoting inclusivity and upholding the multistakeholder model at APrIGF. This approach would ensure that participants from various regions and backgrounds can attend, fostering a more diverse and representative dialogue. It also aligns with the principles of openness and accessibility that are central to the values of Internet governance.

The sessions were very engaging and interesting. However lesser time was given for question and answer round at end. Request the organizers that for next events please consider allocating atleast 10-15 mins for the Q&As.

Greatest challenge of Internet will be at the intersection of Internet technologies and ethical governance issues in human rights as well as digital rights. Especially, when technology advancements are hard to predict, we can hardly formulate guidelines, regulations or rules to deal with ethical governance issues.

HKyIGF participants deliberated on the above topics and crafted their own statement with reference to the three thematic tracks of this year’s Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) – “Security and Trust”, “Resilience”, and “Ethical Governance of Emerging Technologies”.
Specifically, we underscored several core principles towards a human-centric digital future. By ensuring a digital economy that is Sustainable, Multistakeholder-involved, Accountable, Resilient and Trusted (S.M.S.R.T.), technological innovation and social progress in Hong Kong and the world would be encouraged and better developed to integrate across both cyber and physical spaces.
Hong Kong youth acknowledges the interdependencies and overlaps of efforts in achieving equitable sustainability, meaningful multistakeholder involvement, balanced accountability, high resilience and strong trust in shaping the desired digital future.
While government agencies should generally assume the leadership/coordination role in charting a SMART digital economy and Internet governance, the success of such an ambition requires a robust whole-of-society approach that aligns with international standards and practices.
Strategic partnerships and resource allocation, coupled with inclusive involvement across sectors and stakeholders, are crucial in ensuring a just digital transformation without hindering innovations and leaving certain underrepresented groups of people behind.High-level comments based on the 2024 Hong Kong Youth Collective Statement on Internet Governance also made below for specific paragraphs correspondingly.

Hi, I had raised this last year, and raising this issue this year as well: We need to discuss the idea of mathematical trust. Blockchain is an example of how mathematical trust can give confidence to users to transact and interact with each other even when there is no central authority. Does mathematical trust work? What are its limitations, if any? The DC can consider recommending greater discussion on mathematical trust next year at APrIGF.  

The mention of safeguarding user data, ensuring information Integrity and protecting online identities resonate strongly with current global concerns. However, it could be strengthened by discussing the role of education and awareness in empowering users to protect themselves online. 

Collaborative approach among Global South and Global North as well as interoperable governance frameworks can avoid splitting of future internet, which is also hard in view of power struggles of global leaders. But there is to cooperate and collaborate instead of competition for the sake of next generation and to empower resilient Internet.

· A transparent accountability mechanism needs to be established to ensure users’ right to avail Internet for information and expression without being fragmented by any geographical, governmental or political, technical, economic, social, or cultural boundaries.

·  Simultaneous initiatives and actions are necessary for expanding and ensuring internet access for all and ensuring digital literacy and digital rights regardless of any intersections.

The rapid growing rate of Internet have indeed producing numerous challenges regarding security risks and cyber attacks,etc.
We can have a control on them by:
=>>Effective Collaborative Goverance which involves public and private sector companies to have a multi-stake holder approach.
=>>Data Literacy and Education:
This means to empowering knowledge and awareness among people about cybersecurity threats so that primary cases should be handled.
=>>Transparency and Holding Accountability:
Means to ensure that online products and services or any other items should be transparent about their data collection.

It would be better if on  Point 5 we can give example of how the dynamic nature of Internet ecosystem has made it complex issue for security and trust like linking multiple accounts with a single identity proof can lead to issues like Synthetic Identity Theft.

To prevent account takeovers via SIM card swapping, implementing biometric verification during SIM issuance is a strong solution. This would add a secure layer of identity verification, making it harder for attackers to fraudulently obtain a SIM card. Additionally, holding telecom providers liable if important accounts are hacked due to SIM swapping can incentivize them to enhance security measures, ensuring greater protection for users. This dual approach can significantly reduce the risk of SIM card fraud and protect users’ sensitive accounts.

Proactive measures by Governments in collaboration with Telecom operators to create awareness campaigns and to educate the citizens on the cyber threats and online scams can be fruitful. Use of conventional media like TV, radios in addition to mobile internet etc. can increase the awareness at large. Telcos should make responsible and liable under laws of the land to take necessary measures to prevent fraudulent activities. 

Balancing security and privacy is key in combating messaging scams. Telecoms and governments should have limited, regulated access to messaging content, ensuring user consent and transparency. AI-driven pattern analysis can detect scams without breaching privacy, while end-to-end encryption remains essential. Regulations must clearly define acceptable monitoring, with judicial oversight to prevent abuse. Transparency and accountability can be ensured through regular reports. International fraud calls can be tackled through global databases and cooperation, and fraudulent messages detected using a combination of user reporting and advanced algorithms—all while protecting privacy and democratic freedoms.

A clear legal framework is essential to define the boundaries of such access. This framework should include:

Strict oversight: Independent oversight bodies should be established to ensure that any access is justified and not abused.
Judicial approval: Access to content should require judicial approval, ensuring a checks-and-balances system.
Transparency and Accountability: Telecoms and governments should be transparent about their monitoring practices and accountable for any breaches of privacy.

This is very sensitive when talking about end-to-end encryption and ensuring data integrity. However, a balanced approach is appreciated. Pakistan government has currently allowed law enforcement agencies to intercept any communication to ensure safety. Capacity building of Police, Judiciary, and other Law Enforcement Agencies to tackle the cyber diplomacies, to learn international best practices and legal strategies is the need of hour.

This panel would be enriched with the presence of HR defenders.

There is need to create platforms to engage HR defenders in view of urgency of issues, as the mechanisms with traditional methods sometimes take months as well as less responsive. But again, there are issues to restrict voices. Awareness and advocacy to HR Defenders in view of UN Guidelines should be promoted. But there is lack of implementation, where it comes to protection of human rights defender or caregivers etc. The use of technology is double edge sword, which can be used for creativity as well as offensive use can create challenges. There are several discussions on AI liability withing global AI governance conversations.
 

If there is solution that interest me in the entire forum is the solution of Taiwan in establishing a public platform where all citizen can submit a proposal that will be compulsorily addressed by the Government, and through this platform everyone can contributing to fact checking and other activities. This remind me during the activity of ” Bottom up advocacy for a resilient internet” where I got an outside chat with the professor who told me that one of the many reason why India Government shut down the internet is that they do not actually involve in any lost as well as not being educated about such issue. The exclusion of minority voice is also a worth noting problem, nonetheless they are easily to be stripped off. Such platform being established will not only help raise an inclusive voice, especially from people who are vulnerable to exclusion like the minorities, indigenous, women and children but also help the Authority to have better knowledge of what the people truly need, thus helping upgrading law and policies better. 

Infrastructure investment and expansion, one of the criteria, and an area that needs to be worked on, policy and regulatory reform, public-private partnerships, capacity building and digital literacy, regional cooperation and knowledge sharing, supporting innovative  technology, inclusive Internet Governance, affordable access solutions, and being open.

A Digital Bill of Rights should encompass these several key principles. First, it must guarantee the right to privacy. This includes protecting personal data from unauthorized access, ensuring transparency in data collection and use, and granting individuals the right to delete their data. Second, the Digital Bill of Rights should safeguard the right to free expression in the digital realm. This entails protecting freedom of speech, opinion, and assembly online. Third, the Digital Bill of Rights must ensure the right to access information. This includes guaranteeing access to reliable and unbiased information, as well as protecting against the spread of disinformation and propaganda. Fourth, the Digital Bill of Rights should protect the right to due process in the digital context. This means that individuals should have the right to challenge government actions that infringe upon their digital rights. Finally, the Digital Bill of Rights should address the right to digital inclusion. This entails ensuring that everyone has access to the internet and digital technologies. Governments can invest in digital infrastructure, provide affordable internet access, and promote digital literacy programs to bridge the digital divide.

In the Broader Pacific region, how can we develop and implement data interoperability standards that ensure seamless data sharing while promoting inclusiveness and equitable access to data for all people? What lessons can we draw from global examples to address challenges and ensure that this efforts are both securely and culturally sensitive.

This discussion is timely, especially for the Pacific Region. The idea of forming a regional coalition for fact-checking is promising, but it’s essential that it reflects our unique challenges and diverse contexts. Collaboration across the Asia-Pacific is crucial, but we need to ensure that the principles like transparency and accountability are adaptable to our local realities.
It’s also important that smaller Pacific nations aren’t overlooked in these efforts. While a coalition could be a powerful tool, we should be realistic about its limitations and complement it with grassroots initiatives already happening in our communities

It is important to establish a regional coalition for emerging technologies that encompasses not only Artificial Intelligence but also other emerging technologies such as Blockchain, Cloud computing, and Data management (ABCD). This coalition aims to harmonize regulations in the region and encourage other jurisdictions to develop adaptable regulations to foster innovation. It will address issues related to platform accountability and ensure efficient cross-border data transfer.

Efforts to strengthen fact-checking should directly link to platform accountability, given that the majority of fact-checking efforts rely on heavy involvement of big tech platforms. There are already cases of platform shadowbanning certain political content (e.g. in Israel-Palestine conflict), or promoting and taking sides in such conflict. This may affect which content gets fact-checked (through fact-checker dashboard), and which don’t.

To ensure the validity and trustworthiness of fact-checking, mechanisms should include independent third-party audits, certification standards, and ongoing reviews for fact-checkers. Fact-checking organizations should disclose their methodologies and provide source links for transparency. A peer review system among fact-checkers, public feedback channels, and community ratings can enhance accountability. Additionally, a code of ethics, monitored by regional oversight committees, should govern fact-checkers, with regular reports and corrective actions to maintain high standards and public trust.

Idea for regional coalition for fact checking initiative is appreciated. There are number of issues surrounding the political conversations with misinformation, disinformation and fake news. Such discussions are gaining momentum with prevailing situations of elections this year. 

Harmonizing regional approaches to improve social media accountability and safety involves creating consistent policies, fostering collaboration, and implementing shared frameworks across different jurisdictions. This can be achieved by developing common standards for content moderation, data privacy, and transparency that align with international human rights principles. Regional coalitions should promote cooperation among governments, tech companies, and civil society to address challenges like misinformation, hate speech, and online harassment. Establishing regional oversight bodies or forums can facilitate dialogue, monitor compliance, and ensure that platforms adhere to these standards. Additionally, investing in digital literacy and public awareness campaigns can empower users to engage safely and responsibly online, while legal frameworks should be adaptable to address emerging threats without compromising freedom of expression.

Platform accountability, like many other governance, should take a risk-based approach for a balanced accountability for different kinds of platform (and, preferrably, different features of a platform – a sandbox approach). 
 
Should also be cautious about the “pessimistic” risk-avoidance approach of platforms that could further exacerbate disinformation on those platforms – Wary of responses surrounding AND evolved from Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code, which was also considered in Taiwan and Malaysia in this part of the world (ripple effect)Latest development – [Australia] https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-says-it-may-block-news-facebook-australia-2024-06-28/
[Canada] https://about.fb.com/news/2023/06/changes-to-news-availability-on-our-platforms-in-canada/
 

To whom the Social Media is accountable to?
Is there any existing accountability mechanism for Social Media? Is that an inclusive one with all other stakeholder groups?
Is there any legal obligation or legal mechanism to keep the social media platforms stay on service to the users ensuring their all kind of rights on the platforms at any situation?

These basic questions and requirements were not discussed in the discussion. 
 

I was particularly struck by the emphasis on the proactive measures that tech companies like Meta and Google are taking to design safer platforms, as well as the importance of user education and continuous feedback. However, what resonated with me most was the call for collaboration between tech companies, researchers, and society to address the complex and evolving challenges of online harm, especially against women. It reminded me that while technology can be a powerful tool for progress, it must be guided by ethical considerations and a deep understanding of its impact on society.

Fo Digital safety space the basic and most important aspect is Digital Education at student, college and parents level as well including the office training as well. Digital Safety is not specific to a generation, instead every generation especially the woman is most affected by it. So i don’t know whether to mention here it or not but during this session a gender issue indirectly showcased by a participant in his Insta story buy not directly but questioning an old lady question saying it is not Lok Sabha of India. So, a platform where we are openly discussing about digital space, someone targetting some other on basis of Gender, nation and age is quite not good.

when think about policies, it need to be based on the research with goes through relevant data, after that, all the stakeholders have to work together in developing policies, while going through the right balance between improving safety and preserving freedom of expression
 

In Asia, women, trans and gender diverse people are often major targets of disinformation campaigns that are designed to attack their gender identity. The main objective of such campaigns is to delegitimise their voices and credibility and ensure that they are excluded from public debates and cultural spaces. While women in the public sphere, such as political actors, journalists and HRDs are most often the targets of these campaigns, it can in fact impact all women, even those without a public profile. 
This is due to the fact that gendered disinformation attacks are often opinions and emotional content aimed at inflaming people and exploiting existing biases, prejudices and stereotypes. They are also in most cases combined with other types of online gender-based violence, including hate speech, harassment and doxxing of the target. The disinformation campaigns are aimed at othering the targeted individual, allowing other forms of attack and harassment that accompany it to be normalised, creating an unsafe environment for those targeted online and offline.
Countering gendered disinformation requires a whole-of-society approach, with both states and the private sector playing a key role. While states must regulate disinformation with caution, to ensure that it is does not disproportionately limit legitimate freedom of expression through criminalisation, it must seek to regulate emerging technologies such as deepfakes and other AI tools that are being increasingly used to manipulate content and spread disinformation against women and other gender-diverse persons.
Social media platforms must better regulate disinformation on their platforms, including by having robust, transparent reporting mechanisms that recognise gendered disinformation, demonetising mis and disinformation and disincentivising such content on their platforms by removing such content, reducing its virality, and providing fact-checks and labels where relevant. 
Finally, states must work with civil society to raise awareness about the issue and counter existing societal biases and stereotypes about women and gender-diverse persons, provide support and protection for those targeted, and build capacities including through digital literacy of its citizens. 
 

In the context of Internet fragmentation, Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) often set minimum bandwidth requirements for cache servers to be available in a country. For smaller countries like Bhutan, which have limited populations and lower bandwidth, this can lead to the absence of local caching servers. As a result, users in such regions may experience restricted access to certain content or slower load times, contributing to a fragmented experience where content availability and performance differ compared to other regions with better infrastructure.

I’ve previously discussed the neglect of small ISPs by big tech companies during townhall sessions, highlighting their critical role in providing internet access to unreached and remote areas. Building resilient internet infrastructure for these small ISPs is important, even though they generate less income. It is crucial that big tech companies give equal importance and attention to these ISPs. We should work together to bridge the digital gap and uphold human rights, rather than focusing solely on profit.

Largely agree on this, but declarations alone are not suitable. I don’t recall which session this was discussed and need more time to review the content to contribute meaningfully. As an audience member raised, the CrowdStrike outage needs to be examined and whether it is appropriate that so much is being led by current multinational corporations.If they are to play advisory to Governments for critical infrastructure or services that include digital ID or the like, then at what point should their business model be required to be separated from their targeted advertising components. Where is the governance on conflicts of interest?

As technological development accelerates, integrating eco-friendly practices is crucial. This involves adhering to green computing principles, optimizing energy usage, and minimizing the carbon footprint of data centers. Encouraging the adoption of renewable energy sources and promoting energy-efficient hardware and software solutions are key steps in this direction and session should address vital points taken in this direction

Regarding national security, some countries are started to implement their own Internet with the support of the counties with similar political ideology. For instance, in Myanmar case, the current ruling council developed the Myanmar E-Governance Master Plan 2030, in this document, they said like they are now developing backbone Internet with the help of China, the problem is the people within the country are already experienced with interaction with all over the world in terms of culture, economics, social, etc before the crisis. So attempting to developing this backbone Internet is really impacting to the daily lives of the people. That’s why I believe this is the ongoing problem that need to take in account in terms of Internet fragmentation. 
To address – all the international communities could put the pressure to the ruling council both politically and economically. And also, considering about the alternative way of accessibly for the people within the country like StarLink Internet. But there is still problem with this, only a few household could affordable to connect through this Internet. Due to inflation and mismanagement of the ruling council, the people are struggling with their basic needs, so buying this kind of connection really expensive for them. So my proposed solution is to provide some kind of knowledge and capacity to the local communities to implement the community-based Internet with the help of organizations within IG community like Nepal or Bhutan

– More than half of the world’s population who remain offline are located in South Asia, pointing to the importance of efforts in bridging the digital gap. Three key policy questions need to be addressed: i) Why most of the economies in South Asia have over 50% of their population offline, despite having a direct access to submarine fiber? ii) What role can public-private partnerships and regional cooperation initiatives play to assist in accelerating efforts to bridge digital gaps in the region? iii) What can be done to link digital development with rural development to enhance rural connectivity and access. 

There is a digital gap in South Asia, particularly in countries like Bhutan, where urban centers such as Thimphu have better internet connectivity and access to digital services. In contrast, rural and remote areas often lack the same level of infrastructure, resulting in limited or no access to the internet. This digital gap is primarily caused by the rugged terrain, which makes it difficult to build and maintain digital infrastructure, particularly in remote and mountainous regions. The cost of internet services and digital devices can be prohibitive for many Bhutanese, especially in rural areas. This economic barrier further widens the gap between those who can afford to access digital services and those who cannot. In a country like Bhutan, Starlink could potentially improve internet accessibility in rural areas. The lack of local content and services that cater specifically to Bhutanese users also contributes to the digital divide. Limited access to relevant content in local languages or content tailored to the needs of the Bhutanese population can hinder effective internet use.

From a Small Developing Country perspective, particularly in Samoa, we have seen firsthand the transformative potential of technology like Star Link in improving connectivity.
However, regulatory blocks and infrastructural limitations has impeded such advancements. In Samoa, and more broadly in the Pacific, there are specific challenges related to regulatory frameworks that impact the deployment and utilization of technologies like satellite internet. These include stringent regulations that may not yet fully accommodate new emerging technologies.
Overly restrictive or inconsistent regulations can inadvertently promote fragmentation, particularly in rural areas that need connectivity the most.
This can exacerbate the digital divide and limit the effectiveness of efforts to provide universal access.

The government or telecom regulators in the country should develop a framework requiring every ISP and telecom provider to establish a Business Continuity Plan (BCP) to ensure Disaster Recovery (DR) sites are in place. Additionally, these ISPs should have multiple routes to their uplinks so that the entire internet is not disrupted during disasters. They should also consider using one of the uplinks as Starlink to ensure that communication is maintained even in the event of a disaster.

Based on the insights from this session, I think most of the countries from East Asia countries were successfully moving forward to greening the Internet through policy intervention. So when we think about the going toward to green Internet, we need to consider the involvement of government stakeholder, which play a crucial role in greening the Internet infrastructure. And also, the main narrative of this session is “to think about the environmental-frinedly data center or the Internet infrastructure whenever thinking about to implement the projects”. The last point is to share the best practices regarding Eco Internet among the countries, for instance, the Japan is doing good job in sustainable work, so it will be more beneficial if the more developed could share the resources and best practices to the third world countries to make sure greening the Internet.

+1 for Jasmine’s comment.

Thoroughly enjoyed this session. Although only 1 speaker was present in Taipei, this session was extremely productive. This session could have been strengthened by:
1. Having a speaker to represent cable contractors and one who might be able to speak from the perspective of local communities around the landing points.
2. Address the lack of knowledge on the environmental impact of undersea cables and the need for more research on this.

Implement DNS-over-HTTPS (DoH) and DNS-over-TLS (DoT) to encrypt DNS queries, protecting users from eavesdropping and manipulation by third parties. This would help mitigate some forms of DNS-based censorship by making it harder for intermediaries to monitor or block specific DNS requests.

Only civil society has a legitimate mandate to identify both the problem and the solution to these issues.They do not have the ear and attention as the other stakeholder groups.  They should be supported to contribute to good policy and that takes a significant shift in the practices and access that is ‘gifted’ to them or taken away or siloed.
The stakeholder community must focus on the processes and practices of the MS governance arenas as it is on the outcomes of these spaces. Many times the outcome documents appear to not have taken in to account the many same voices for the same things for the many years they’ve been raising them.Transparancy, bias, privacy and data protection cannot be conversations led by companies that are simultaneously contributing if not creating the problems.

Technologies are evolving at a fast pace and with every passing day, data and information is a sensitive topic with regard to manipulation or predictive analysis for decision making. Data can lead toward an informed policy making process as well as can contribute to misleading the decisions of opinion leaders through fake news. Artificial Intelligence is learning from data and Blockchain or digital ledger technology is a mechanism to reliably capture data transaction history in a distributed manner. Internet Governance is all about debates or conversations on emerging topics in a multi stakeholder manner, which encourages participation of all segments of society and promotes the inclusive process.

Representation is not just having civil society turn up so as to seem like they are there.

There are some points that needed to be properly introduced and reinforce for a clean and safe digital environment in the AI era that I’ve learned after attending the event. To enhance user safety and digital integrity, we should improve AI-based techniques for detecting and preventing scams by incorporating advanced machine learning and user feedback in collaboration with the private sector. Increasing transparency in content recommendations and providing users with greater control over their personalized experiences would be beneficial. Additionally, fostering international cooperation and engaging with civil society and multi-stakeholder groups can help effectively tackle fraud and scams. Plus, by prioritizing digital and ethical AI literacy for marginalized groups, including women, girls, rural, and indigenous communities, it could help prevent fragmentation and empower these populations. Furthermore, educating policymakers to create well-informed policies would support a fair and equitable digital environment.

International cooperation among different organizations to address their working groups, processes can lead towards a better world. However there are challenges to co relate the processes and frameworks of different organizations. There is high time in formulation of Global Digital Compact, which has been preparing for the next twenty years of World Summit of Information Society WSIS process of ITU. However, meaningful participation from Global South is still needed.

AI has the potential to significantly enhance financial inclusion for vulnerable populations in the APAC region. By leveraging AI’s capabilities to improve credit scoring, enhance financial literacy, and address biases, it is possible to create a more inclusive and equitable financial system. However, careful consideration must be given to the potential challenges and risks associated with AI deployment. By taking proactive steps to mitigate these challenges, we can harness the power of AI to improve the lives of millions of people in the region.

As we consider the key challenges for AI governance, it’s crucial to recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach may not be effective due to the varied cultural, legal, and socioeconomic landscapes across the region.
 In particular, I’d like to emphasize the importance of contextualizing AI frameworks to reflect local realities. As an example, what works in urban centers may not be suitable for rural or marginalized communities, where access to technology and education can be limited.
Therefore, AI governance must be flexible enough to adapt to these differences while ensuring that ethical standards are upheld.

How can a AI module be build in a inclusive way taking in off various representative of identification from Asia to Pacific

I raised a point regarding the deep-tech AI startups in Silicon Valley and the impact they have on public perception by creating a sense of Fear of Missing Out. These companies often suggest that AI is superior at certain tasks and could potentially take over jobs, which in turn enhances their market capitalizations and stock values. I believe that this strategy warrants consideration for regulation. It’s critical to address the ethical responsibilities of AI startups and ensure transparency to prevent market manipulation and mitigate unnecessary societal anxiety.

The pursuit of fairness in intelligent automation (machine intelligence) is a delicate business, complicated by the various socio-cultural contexts in which automated reasoning frameworks operate. As there is a growing consensus above the value of virtuous ai, the specific obstacles and answers can change significantly across realms. By taking these steps, we can help to ensure that Al is a force for good in our society, benefiting everyone regardless of their background or circumstances.
The inherent biases which may be present in the information used to train such structures are one of the primary obstacles to achieving fairness in AI. For example, if the dataset used to train the facial recognition algorithm consists mainly of pictures of certain race of people, the algorithm is likely to be less precise in recognizing a person of color. In order to deal with this issue, it is essential to ensure that train data represent the various communities that it will assist.
The ability of Al systems to perpetuate or exacerbate existing social inequalities is another problem. For instance, an algorithm used to mark credit could disproportionately deny loans to individuals of marginalized populations, thereby exacerbate existing fiscal disparity. In order to mitigate this liability, it is essential to carefully assess the potential outcomes of machine intelligence systems and take measures to ensure that they do not worsen the existing bias.

In my country, the case like the implementation of digital laws like Myanmar Cybersecurity bill 2022 and cyber security bill 2023 are serious affecting the the digital rights of the people within the country, in terms of freedom of expression or the human rights online. 
To address – I think there will no perfect solution for this issue, because every issues related to my country is completely related with geopolitical competition among the big super powers, so as Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), it will be better if conduting the more credible research or assessments regarding the impacts of the adoption of these laws to the people, based on the results, it should be go through the future process through working the the local organizations in finding the most possible ways to take the problems related to these law or policies. 

I found it really interesting listening to the panel share the challenges and successes of healthcare data governance in Taiwan. It’s clear that this is a really important topic, especially as we start to see similar developments in the Pacific region.
It is very crucial to make sure that people know how their data is being used and that they’ve agreed to it. In places like the Pacific, where community trust is key, getting this right from the start is essential.
The experiences shared today, particularly Taiwan’s use of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) to safeguard health data, highlight how transparency and ethical practices can build trust in the points of Personal data only be used for the specific purposes for which it was collected and Data Subject Rights to agree/disagree of using their personal data or opting out.
I believe that this framework could serve as a best practice or guide for other countries looking to implement or improve their own healthcare data governance systems.

As it was raised in the commentary the advocacy of civil society and technical groups in the adoption of the Cyber Crime Treaty is an afront to any trust that there is an ability to affect change and secure protections.The forum seemed completely absent from the actions that Meta has been doing to data scrape for their AI models without updating consents unless it was under the GDPR.  It was also absent that Meta ignored the nearly 66,000 researchers and journalists who signed a petition to retain CrowdTangle.
Instead Meta has in the weeks prior to the aprIGF, disbanded it and replaced with what they call ‘Content Library’. This in the significant election year.The question remains how the multistakeholder community balances the asymetrial power imbalance. This will require some form of self awareness of these companies in this fora.

I hope that this will also put some focus on the accuracy of AI when it comes to integrating it with content moderation. If they plan on including it, then it should aim to be unbiased and really focus on the facts to avoid misinformation.

       Addressing digital literacy for parents is crucial for enhancing online safety and understanding. Here are some effective strategies:
        Educational Workshops: Organize community workshops and webinars focused on digital safety, privacy settings, and online behavior.
         Resource Centers: Develop online resources, guides, and toolkits that explain digital risks, privacy settings, and how to monitor and guide children’s online activities.
        Collaborate with Schools: Partner with schools to provide parents with information and training on digital literacy as part of school programs or events.
         Support Groups: Establish online and offline support groups where parents can share experiences, ask questions, and get advice on digital issues.

It can seen that the parents create and maintain social media accounts for their kids. In this context, their privacy is not protected and there should be policies to limit the content published in social media on behalf of kids by parents/ guardians, until the kid is grown up enough to decide what he/she consider as privacy information and what they want to publish in social media.

The Internet Governance has been developing on a continuous basis and on a proactive basis by addressing by products challenges, problems, and situations which were not foreseen during its inception. 
After COVID situation, the parents and the children experienced internet and the virtual life got accepted. Now the safety, security and authenticity need to be safeguarded by ensuring these at all aspects and by all means. 
It is important to let the children grow free by offering them safe and secured digital space. 
Children are not supposed to be burdened with the option of doing wrong or right.
They need to be led by good example and best practices.