Public Commenting on APrIGF Documents
Recent Comments in this Document
-
Yien Chyn Tan
Might be good to spell out GDPR (seems like it wasn’t mentioned before in earlier paragraphs).
-
Seems like only paragraph 131 mentions private sector. But all paragraphs after under this main header did not explicitly mention about private sector’s role. Proposing perhaps to update overall header for paragrahs 131-146
-
See comments in paragraph 112, as it relates to 115. Both parts from 112 and 115 might fit better under this subheader.
-
This seems to be related to paragraph 104 on elections, might be worth to have content shifted along paragraph 104, or integrate content.
-
Proposing to move 2nd half of this paragraph starting “Thus, a regional approach is necessary…” to after paragraph 115. That might flow better in terms of discussing multistakeholder regional collaboration.
-
Perhaps this can be the starting paragraph for AI section, with header “Public perception and AI accountability”; and move paragraph 103 after this paragraph, with “Bias and fairness in AI systems” as a sub topic under the broader AI topic.
-
Perhaps it might be good to have AI parts in paragraph 100 move to this section instead.
-
Proposing to have clarity on what monopolies mean here. The current sentence might be implied as the monopolies are “the Internet, the dotcom boom, or modern social media generation”.
-
Parts on Samoa seem duplicative as paragraph 79.
Comments on the Pages
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2017 Bangkok Synthesis Document – Draft 0 (140 comments)
We may wish to clarify the meaning and definitions of couple of legal terms mentioned here. Data localization is not equal to prohibition of cross-border data flow. Protectionism is too broad and negative to be used here.
While the document is a great way to summarise the content at the conference, my concern is around the use and dissemination of the document and the learning thereby after the event.
New proposed section: Capacity Building (Joyce Chen, ICANN, Townhall 1)
Think an additional paragraph referencing the desirability of governments working with all stakeholders in promulgation of such policies and legislation should be added; this was consensus of the Session this morning (run by Joyce Chen).
Adding to the earlier comment it not just important to increase accessibility in the technological format sense, I also feel it is important to simplify the content in such a way that it is understood easily by all the end users of Internet broadly and can also serve as a user friendly document for referencing, learning for the new comers in the fraternity.
[31]multi stake holder approach for government in developing the policy relate to the electronic authentication and electronic signature. Technology limitation and user experience.
To include another section dedicated to activities around capacity building on Internet Governance such as newcomers capacity building day, and encouraging APAC participation in IG issues.
If we mention Reliable with I. Access, we do not need section 19. Reliable Access means the Internet blocks is already covered in that.
Kindly include entry re PWD and accessibilities.
It should be Reliable Access, not just Access.
We say “strategies must be developed” but in fact the ITU & World Bank InfoDev already have excellent strategies published in their ICT Regulation Toolkit. Should we instead seek to update or promote their work?
Digital economy and trade[commerce]
This I think should be lifted from here. It actually covers all the sections, from access, security, digital economy, to human rights.
Youth-driven initiatives have been mentioned in this paragraph. Adding a section on the discussion outcomes of the YIGF role-play session from each of the three committees that have been formed after the final round-table discussion on the final day.
When it comes to improving access to Internet, one of the biggest hurdles is digital divide. Even if the Internet is taken to their door step, digital illiterate (or even uneducated ones) gets left out from the inclusion. So the strategies must be also focused on helping/supporting those people who are first time ICT users. For example, community centers with Internet facilities can be setup within the community and the operators can support those people.
from TPP Definition :
Data Localization -> Location of Computing Facility (article 14.13)
Cross-border data flow -> Cross-Border Transfer of Information by Electronic Means (article 14.11)
…
+1 on the aspect of clarify the meaning and actually in the TPP text there were no definition of the term in the article text
…
Protectionism were the term widely use in the “Trade” . As the text contain in the chapter were under the ecommerce chapter of trade agreement. “Protectionism” were well understood on the method/measure use by each party. But in the technology aspect of this tech might lead to different understanding. We could try to get some suggestion on what should be the appropriate term to use.
Ref: https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/TPP-Final-Text-Electronic-Commerce.pdf
Thank you Jonathan. The text was a filler taken from the workshop 12 description, but thank you for reminding us of the toolkit and how it would be useful to refer to it with respect to strategies already in place.
Comments made in Town Hall session 1
* Kuo Wei – long workshops and ‘next billion’ focus
* Visharaad – inclusion of disability and accessibility guidelines
* Nigel – include data related to workshops and attendance, etc
* Ali – elearning – to raise greater awareness – different approaches for different target audiences
* Joyce – add capacity building as a separate ection
* Edmon – Privacy (transferred to S11)
* Jemil – include PWDs and acessibility
*Adeel – access issues..
* Edmon – supported capacity building – separate section explaining what we want to say about CB
* Vashkar – the SD must be accessible to all users – and language needs to be user friendly
* Winston – report consists of complicated language – format is great but formal concepts are expressed by technical experts – their credentials?
* Hong – general structure – some sections closely related – current headings may need to be renamed
* Mili – supported CB section – for newcomers – perhaps set up an information portal to assist with CB
*Wanawit – government – trade vs commerce
Volunteers
* Access – Michael Pepen, Benjz, Waqas, Hongwu Dai, Wanawit, Anna Thomas, Gangesh Varma
*Human Rights – Valencia
* Capacity Building – Mili
Online personal information protection and cross border flow of information is one of the major topic under the III. Digital Economy and Enabling Innovations . Whether we need to have more text reference to the aspect of e-commerce under this para 15.
Or we address the privacy and data protection aspect under the para III. Digital Economy and Enabling Innovations.
+1 to Adeel
The reference WS.25 (Supporting National Computer Emergency Response Teams for Improving Cyber Security) were not relate to the title of the para 20.
Data about requests should be…
–>
Data about requests, such as user data request and shutdown request, should be…
(give examples, for readability)
Internet is not something which is created by single entity, it’s a wish, work and infrastructural development of every stakeholder, but unfortunately most of the Internet infrastructure is owned by private corporations rather than the civil society. Majority of Internet infrastructure is copyrighted. So it’s the responsibility of governing bodies to make the basic infrastructure which builds the Internet under the Open access and accessible to the public.
protection from … [illegal] and harmful online contents
–>
mind the word “illegal”, as the legality and legitimacy are two different things.
Encrypted (“secure and private”) communication is illegal in some countries, for example.
As the opening plenary was on the Gender Divide, perhaps this item should be moved higher if not close to the very top.
suggestion: “common issues of interest”
Suggest to add a point on consideration for “expiration date” of protection measure and mechanism.
Some data encryption or data masking used today to protection data may works today but not necessary works 10 years from now. But the owner of the personal data still alive, without the protection.
More comments will be collected from workshop “WS83 Upgrade Required: Obfuscation and cryptographic standards for data protection law in the age of linked and big data” tomorrow – http://apps.2017.rigf.asia/submission/proposaldetail?id=113
There should be more discussion on Free and open-source software (FOSS). Since, it is one of the fundamental components for an internet that is open and accessible to all, an internet that repects our privacy. FOSS ensures that we have control over the technology we use in our daily life. FOSS ensures that the technology we use is transparent, and does not do anything malicious behind our back.
The recent trend is that censorship does not merely come in closing down of network or interrupted access to the Internet, but sometimes authoritative governments deliberately create traffic jam for websites that voices unfavourable opinions or opinions from the minority so that the website becomes unaccessible. Maybe this could also be acknowledged in the synthesis document and assistance and protection for those websites could be considered.
Also, in my opinion any disruptions to the access to mobile and Internet services should be avoided at all cost, no matter whether standards have been established in national legislation or what because access to internet is a basic human right which should not be violated. Laws that are against this human right are not justified, and provides an excuses for authoritative regimes in censorship.
The statement section here should note the importance of protecting the right of users to secure communications and the role that encryption plays in that and ensuring digital security as a whole.
[ protection of children[27] and youth]
Not only children and youth are vulnerable. Senior citizens are too, if they have lesser experience about the internet.
Child protection in itself is an idea from offline world that taken for granted that senior citizens are more experienced. This is not true for online, may be true in the future but not now.
I don’t think there is unanimous consensus that the COE Convention on Cybercrime should always from the basis for national legal frameworks on this.
We should also explicitly note that legal frameworks in this area should build on the increasing international human rights law norms in this area, particularly those from the UN Special Rapporteurs on Free Speech, Privacy, and others, along with documents from the Human Rights Council such as General Comment 34 (on free expression under the ICCPR).
Because computer getting faster, more data available, reidentification techniques are smarter. — Data encryption, data masking, data obfuscation techniques for data protection that work 10 years ago may not work today. Those work today may not work 10 years from now.
This means the owner of the personal data who still alive 10 years from now will no longer have technical protection.
The regulation should address this and make the regulation future-proof, at least to the life span of a human.
Sorry, this comment supposes to be for the whole document not just for this paragraph.
Suggested addition: The challenge then is for us to streamline investments towards an integrated digital economy. The same is accorded to how data is prized as a government asset and a catalyst for private sector investments.
Suggested Addition: The bottomline objective is to build on the experience of the multi-stakeholder process involving government, businesses, civil society and other sectors of the digital community, and to harness their energies into bringing the benefits of the digital economy to all citizens.
Suggested addition: As a basic right, qualified access to information is a democratizing platform and with this sense of confidence, the APrIGF lays the necessary groundwork for the development of the broadband ecosystem for the use of internet in participatory democracy.
Public access not only helps to improve digital literacy and provide access to marginalized and under served communities, it also helps to provide “assisted access” to people who are not internet savvy.
For ensuring Cyber security, Privacy and Safer Internet, it is imperative that there is collaboration and more emphasis on capacity building among decision makers on the implications of their decisions,
Even though it’s a very good idea to help the people with lack of English skill to be able to access to internet easily but from my experience now people with lack of English skill still have the ability to access to the internet. For example if they want to search for the information there is a google app on the mobile phone. Both iOS and Android system have local language instruction. They don’t really remember what URL the website have all there care about is the tittle and short description on Google.
For the EAI, for Thailand. I have ask some of my friend and all of them never know about IDN and EAI and they are all don’t interested in having local language email or domain. If I have any chance to interview people from more rural area I will updated here.
[resilience to disasters]
While ‘resilience to disasters’ and, in general, ‘availability’ (which is part of information security) is important, I don’t think it should come as the first thing under ‘Access’.
Hmm.. or should the substances from the discussion be mentioned in the relevant sections, instead of having a separated section on youth? I’m thinking more of the integration of all demographic groups.
Say, if there’s a concern or observation on cybersecurity from the YIGF role-play, should that comment be put in cybersecurity section? Likewise, if there’s a comment from YIGF on access, put it in access section.
Data protection section should mention about the data-driven discrimination.
Right to explanation (of algorithmic decision-making) is proposed in WS80.
The International Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications Surveillance (the “Necessary and Proportionate Principles” or “13 Principles”) should be mentioned here, as it is one of the principle related to the most fundamental part of the internet and it is in itself the principle that developed in multi-stakeholders fashion.
Conclusion section is needed.
[Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)[18] and Email Address Internationalization (EAI)]
In order to support this, as well as other native language interface and input/output, the infrastructure like Unicode encoding and supporting fonts for languages are also needed.
There are also cases that the Unicode for a language is supported on desktop operating systems, but not on mobile operating systems. This rendered the access
to names and contents in that language impossible or confusing.
Take the example of non-Unicode ‘Zawgyi’ font of Burmese language, which is popular in mobile phones but make it difficult to access to Burmese Wikipedia. (for more details, see ‘Burmese Wikipedia’ in English Wikipedia)
The problem now is that many mobile phone vendors prefer to install non-Unicode font (‘Zawgyi’ in Burmese) as default font of their devices.
While installing Unicode font is possible by the user, it takes further effort and technical skill which not necessarily has in every users.
Mobile phone manufacturers should work together with internet governance community and language community [esp ethnic/minority language communities] to guarantee access to languages in a standard way on the internet.
This comment (on character encoding, font, and access) has been addressed in side-event Internet Universality Indicators by UNESCO and APC during APrIGF 2017 (29 July 2017).
Mobile phone and IoT manufacturers and software developers should responsible on providing security patch in a timely manner for a guaranteed period of time after the time of purchase.
‘Capacity building’ is pretty much addressed and highlighted in different venues of internet governance, but cybersecurity & privacy on the internet platform is the area where capacity building alone doesn’t work — as people are heavily rely on the device and network that they use – and they don’t have a [technological/administrative/legal] permission to upgrade/update/patch these devices by themselves even they do have ‘capacity’.
Safe behavior on vulnerable device is not safe.
There should be a form of regulation to make sure that internet-connected manufacturers will take responsible in making their devices secure for a reasonable time period.
For example, if the average mobile phone changing cycle of consumers is 3 years, the reasonable time period for manufacturers to keep releasing security patch of their mobile phone can be 3 years or more.
Support this comment on FOSS, which can also related to the transparency of algorithmic decision-making as well – as discussed in WS80.
Agree. At least it is the fact that Convention on Cybercrime is signed in 2001 or 16 years ago.
Internet has changed a lot since then. Facebook founded on 2004, YouTube 2005. iPhone released in 2007, Android in 2008. It’s quite a different internet.
How about having a “Human-readable version”, like what Creative Commons License has? :D
+1
Data should have classification. For example personal data, financial data, historical records, fake news etc. And each class should have its own models and methods for being forgotten. Emphasis on financial data and if forgetting financial data is wise or not is also a topic worth exploring.
case studies of cyber crime and model/traditional penalties (of course with anonymizing the victims) could be made available to the cyber crime eradication training programs
We often talk about how to reach the users to raise awareness. We could consider the power of advertisements on websites as advertisements contributes heavily to the digital economy. different advertisements can promote holistic internet governance and the multi-stakeholder approach and make them aware that they have a say and they can make their voices count.
Each APrIGF could reflect on its predecessor. That is we could set out some goals each year and next year evaluate what have we done to achieve those goals.
ICT infrastructure prerequisites other facilities such as uninterrupted electricity supply. However internet connection is useless if we don’t have the power to fuel it. so we need to speed up other development processes to match digital progress
why is it conflict to each other?
Can we say ‘appropriate level of protection which meets international standard should be’…..
Also, we may add what should be done e.g. incorporating social norm + laws + tech is needed to address the problem?
I agree with you. I think it’s for us who are part of the IG to take it up and simplify further. But I do feel that these documents should not just remain as technical publications and shelved. Can a group of volunteers like us take it up and reach these issues to the actual end users of the internet? I am ready to volunteer.
Agree Amrita, and going forward I feel there is a strong need of a group that exclusively works or provides guidance on how such a public access could be provided, what infrastructure is needed, cost effectiveness, local ownership of such an infrastructure are some of the issues that need urgent attention especially in the context of hard to reach communities.
I really don’t seem any reason for isolating the so-called the right to be forgotten from privacy and data protection. Is there any strong and compelling reason for so doing?
Lets do it! You can reach me at [email protected] and I will brief you on the plan. (Got one in my head)
A compiled list of actionable items/ or key takeaways…that summarises the discussion in the document for a quick scan. Point form. precise and objective.
Youth initiatives like yIGF, Netmission programs, various capacity building platforms to engage and encourage more and more youth to contribute to IG discussions. But necessary to highlight issues they face like the major problem is sustainability, funding, gender diversity especially in ASEAN.
Access issues in Asia are majorly driven by infrastructure and lack of basic facilities like electricity. Need to strengthen them first specially in remote terrains – Indonesia, Phillippines, India, etc in order to promote use of Internet.
People do not however, want to compromise freedom and speech for better access. Monopolisation of Internet by ISP’s or large telecom operators are detrimental to the pricing thus making internet access more affordable.
May be, we should rephrase this para slightly. e.g
“The Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) serves as a multi-stakeholders driven platform for discussion, knowledge sharing, and collaboration at a regional level, and also where possible to aggregate national and local IGF discussions, to ultimately advance the Internet governance debate and initiatives in the Asia Pacific region.
The terms “Access” here is referring to “connectivity”. I think we should have something related to “accessibility” as well.
Expanding digital literacy and access will also have a (generally) positive economic impact. I’ve seen reports that a 10% increase in access results in a 1% increase in GDP. It is important, I think, to make sure that Digital Literacy goes hand-in-hand with Access because this will ensure users will be able to discern good from naughty.
(PS: Your system rejected my IDN email address)
There is a LOT of meat in this one paragraph and could well do with breaking it up.
Technologies
Policies
Processes
Should there also be encouragement for consistency across jurisdiction so that bad guys can’t hide somewhere where there’s inconsistent rules from where they act.
[serious economic consequences]
…serious economic, social and cultural consequences…
May take a ‘drop-down bullet’ approach adopt by Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability (google that).
Show simplified headings, click on a heading for more explanation bullets. And a click on ‘Read More’ for background papers full of references.
Please link to https version when available.
Please link to https version.
Wonder if this short url (igf asia / WS_1) will be a permanent link?
If it’s not and the destination may change in the future, we shouldn’t use it for reference. (should use the full url instead)
[Community networks and public access to ICT]
We have at least three big things here, at least according to the heading “Access, Empowerment, and Diversity” – and may need to break this down to subsections for readability.
# Access
This is more about infrastructure, and as other comments already pointed out, can be many things in this package.
To take something similar from other public policy circle, can think of 3As of Availability, Accessibility, and Affordability, widely adopted in public heath, or 5As, with additional of Adequacy and Appropriateness, from patient perspectives.
Resilience is also here [WS 38].
“Digital Economy” workshop like [WS 57] is obviously connected to this subsection.
# Empowerment
This may be more about the ability of a person or a social group to use the available infrastructure.
Digital natives (youth) [WS 41], digital migrants (older people who new to digital environment), and marginalized communities whose their offline social status may also undermined their online social status, should be all under the consideration of this Empowerment section.
(The ‘Internet Universality Indicators’ by UNESCO seems to discussed a lot on this.)
# Diversity
IDN, EAI, Unicode, fonts, local contents are here – and may need collaboration with wider circles and this is something that have to rely on standards that larger that internet alone.
I understand that the librarian people who attend IGF take this very serious. May able to take more comments from [WS 74].
—-
Take one example: Mother who have to raise their kids at home all day can’t afford to go to telecenter. This is Access + Empowerment issues combined and an example of building network or access points alone does not necessary addressed the access problem.
So in this sense [WS 93] can also be discussed here (there are a lot of overlapping, i know).
I agree with Art’s point here as well as his comment on the priority given to “ICT resilience to disasters”.
I’d also like to highlight a key differentiator between Access and the Ability to use. Maybe we can add a little line on digital literacy.
[ IPv6]
When more and more focus is geared towards IPv6 adoption, it is also equally important to make such adoption affordable. Else those users who can not make the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 will be impacted, and consequently, for giving access to the next billion users, the old users will be sidelined.
[Community networks and public access to ICT]
In the workshop session – public access of ICT, there was greater emphasis to develop more local contents to diversify the Internet resources, which will enable easy access to non-English speaking users.
[Privacy and data protection]
When it comes to security, privacy and data protection, the policy makers are confronted with the balancing act of CIA framework, which emphasize on “Confidentiality”, “Integrity” and Availability. It is always challenge to sufficiently protect the data, but also making easily available to intended users. So it again drives down to policy decision of providing appropriate balance between “restricting access” and “granting access”.
Gender based violence not only women and child also affected socially marginalized groups.
Please include an word inclusive
Please include inclusive Internet Governance in the last line.
eUniversal Acceptance issue including E-mail Address Internationalization and IDNs is very Important for AP region as Next 500 million Internet users are from AP region itself.
Ascii based Internet is barrier to those who are not familiar with ASCII based languages,in getting online.A multilingual internet is useful for all so that every one can have the benefits of this marvelous technology.
We should also come together to solve issues related in to Universal Acceptance i.e. Speech to text search in local languages
1.”Access” is one component of New Media Competence or Digital literacy. All groups need ability to access as same as they need knowledge to “analyze” messages and “Create” their own message at the same time.
2. As we know the population of senior citizens all over the world are grew up and Digital literacy and digital access have become increasingly important for all cohorts. That’s the reason why we can not ensure that senior citizens may be regarded as a homogenous group, We can not think this group does not want or is not able to make use of ICT but we need to understand their limitation and support them.
Cybersecurity contain many sub-themes (i.e. system/infrastructure resilience, safety, privacy, cyber crime, etc) and many actors. It is important to encourage the technical community in those domains to engage with other stakeholders so there is clear understanding of the problems and discussion on possible solutions.
In addition in 2018, the High Level Political Forum at the UN HQ in New York will be an opportunity for the National Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) to showcase how this is achieved on a practical level around the world.
On the issue of Access. there are a host of organizations who are involved across the multistakeholder environment who deal with “Access”. At the WSIS 2017, Chinese Multinational Corporations such as Huawei presented on how they intend to connect the next billion. You have IGOs that have diverse strategies on bridging the digital divide but what we want to do is (in IGF fashion) allow for the opportunity to synergize efforts to bring development whether at policy level, infrastructure level, technical standards, innovation at the edge etc. Asia Pacific is on the cutting edge of development with crypto banks in Malaysia, and Indonesia happens to be chair of the UN 2nd Committee which looks after the Addis Ababa Agenda which was passed by the UNGA. However with Accessibility there are issues of inclusion and threats that come with growing Access which require mitigation.
China has recently introduced law banning VPNs which pose as a threat to freedom of expression or freedom from surveillance by the State. Other countries have for years attempted to stifle accessibility by internet shutdowns and we have seen this in the deliberate throttling of the internet in Iran, internet shutdowns in countries like Pakistan, attempted banning of You Tube and Facebook etc in other countries.
Countries are not obliged to respect international law only those which they have ratified. We cannot impose they respect the conventions. But what needs to happen is that the NRIs are afforded a unique opportunity to dialogue within their communities and advocate for an open and free internet. However, something that has been missing are international minimum standards that the global community can agree to abide by in diverse areas including but not limited to privacy, data protection, surveillance, inclusivity etc.
The jump from para 12 to para 13 is disjointed. Para 13 is clearly referring to cyber crime. There should be mention on the need for Digital or Electronic Evidence rules, issues of admissibility, uniform timestamping protocols, judicial training etc.
I mentioned something on Privacy in a previous comment in relation to the banning of VPNs in China…etc. There was also discussion in the remote chat during the APrIGF about the need to regulate agreements and create international minimum standards. For instance telcos and providers at the edge or OTT onsell customer information etc. So it’s not just government doing surveillance but private sector as well. The NRIs are well positioned to foster and engage in dialogue in the macro APrIGF level as well as in their respective jurisdictions to engage in elaborate discussion.
You madе some go᧐d points there. I checked on the
web for more information about the іsѕue and found most peoρle wіll go along with your views on this website.
Agree. We should put emphasis on the effort in bridging and narrow the digital divide with the aim to enhance the Internet environment with higher access, empowerment and diversity, like the fundamental infrastructure and adequate and sustainable capacity building.
I totally agree with Arthit that “resilience to disaster” should not come first under the section access, but an item after basic access for the general public is achieved. Thus, it will be better and make more sense if we put it at later part.
About IDNs, in the awareness level, every party should study and explore the linguistic factors of domain names contributing to the global digital divide, how Internet domain names are managed, citing the IDN development cases in Thailand and Russia.
People in many countries still do not recognize the cert, both cyber attacks, people should know.
Should be done public guide. To let the public know what the cert is responsible for, why should you know?
Make a public guide about Cybersecurity For the common people.
The Cybersecurity public guide and Cert public guide are must not use a lot of manual text, use the infographic to explain.
The capitalist economy of world is going into the hands of few rich people and the divide of rich and poor is increasing. In order to meet the sustainable development Goals the policy should reduce the gap between rich and poor citizens.
I support what Lokesh has purposed thus I would like to volunteer also
There should be updated cyber crime legislation in every country but the legislation must be adopted after the consensus from multi-stakeholders independent of law enforcement.
MANILA PRINCIPLES ON INTERMEDIARY LIABILITY https://www.manilaprinciples.org/
We should discuss to give sense of ownership to the communities. Support them to create their own Internet or local network infrastructure and let them help within themselves. Communities helping to the communities. People tend to be protective and caring towards their own properties.
There are number of ways to provide a low cost access to the rural areas where major ISPs consider it not profitable. And they also offer net neutrality through that network infrastructure (e.g. community network). We should raise awareness to the government and locals. It is time to try bottom-up approach rather than top-down approach
We should not only depend on the government to do the things for us. It takes time. I think people help themselves to create their own infrastructure.
Agree with you. There is no use of creating an infrastructure if there are noone to use it.
[Access and empowerment]
While providing an access to the rural areas, empowering local people to benefit from the Internet is one of the most important thing. Creating a business opportunities through Internet, periodical education programs, practical workshops are must!
Also, age gap of Internet users should be considered more. Because some areas younger people are more interested of using the Internet, but what about middle aged and older people? How are they going to benefit?
Similarly; those who are disable and those suffering mental or cognitive impairments; disorders and dysfunctions since this group of users are vulnerable on the internet and need protection.
Need to publicize why large organizations should have their own cert.
Mesh networks should be also be included when dealing with infrastructure, digital literacy and empowerment’ and accessibility
Freedom of expression in the public sphere, such as public Tweets; remain public as opposed to protected Tweets; these has not correlation with breach of privacy.
+1
+1 A similar approach is being take by the current Fiji Government but is limited to schools in rural areas
Freedom of expression and privacy needs greater clarification since in the real world public sphere, such as public Tweets; remain public as opposed to protected Tweets; thus has no correlation with breach of privacy.
There is a need to protect the IG multi-stakeholder model from political and corporate lobbying
An example from Fiji, Software Foundation; a non-profit organisation had instituted an eLearning project at a rural school this was achieved by creating the needed digital infrastructure.
+1
+1
The might be a need for a sub-heading for blocking of anti-government websites in the region. But, to this; Fiji has provided an interesting example, when in 2006; there was a coup and subsequently a military lead government; there was no blocking of anti-government websites by the regime.
A sub-heading on ‘Hate Speech’ and ‘Freedom of Expression’ is needed? Including a paragraph on how to distinguish them is need? In the Pacific region, Fiji has issues relating to Racial and Religious Hate Speech over the internet and particularly in social-media.
Is there a need for a sub-heading/paragraph on pornography, profane, indecent, nudity and sexual content? For social-media, same guidelines for women should apply to women (unless the content is anthropological in nature). Men should not be allowed to post photographs which show exposed chest similar to women.
I suggest giving the full title of the WS.
In the last line I suggest you delete ‘from’ and give the exact dates in December.
Online Harassment
Efforts are required involving all stakeholders to make the Internet a safe space for all, including the voices of the minorities. Solutions to online harassment can take many forms, such as victims speaking out about their abuse, better community standards by social media companies, digital security precautions, self-help strategies, stricter laws, and better efforts by law enforcement agencies.
Algorithmic Transparency
Algorithms form a basic part of data analysis and artificial intelligence. They are made by various entities in order to analyse data and make use of data for purposes such as profiling, showing targeted advertisements, showing relevant search results, as well as performing automated tasks such as those performed by self-driving cars.
Disclosure of algorithms can facilitate governments, researchers and the general public in understanding what kinds of data is used and how that data is used, leading to an increase in privacy awareness through openness and transparency.
Hi, as the convenor of WS74, I’m glad to see lots of people ‘got’ what our panel of speakers were saying. It is also correct that the library sector experts (civil society) who I represented at APrIGF regularly attend the global IGF and advocate for “access to information”. I refer you back to the WSIS Geneva ‘Principles’ (2003) which have very clear wording on the need to plan for appropriate technology + skills training + buildings (telecentres, libraries, dual-purpose schools/community information kiosks, whatever you want to call them…) to help grassroots communities cross the digital divide. ‘Access to information’ is not a nice ideal, it is a basic necessity to help people get education, to improve their life chances. It has an economic impact. That is why the WSIS Geneva action lines included e-health, e-education, e-agriculture, etc…
I agree with the person who said this section probably needs to be split up a little more, to give a little more space to expand the ideas. But it doesn’t need too much rewriting, just enough to refer to the authoritative documents which already exist, briefly quoting a few key concepts from them.
A multi stakeholder approach to resolve the issue of universal acceptance is of prime importance. Industry, government, technolologist, academia, civil society, need to come together, discuss and work to resole the issue. It is also very important to take the views of internet users and non users about what they want, since they would be the ones who would use internet in local language in the future.
Shut downs leads to social instability, human insecurity and loss of peoples trust in situations often marked with social and political unrest. It is important to measure the impact of internet shut down and also to analyse what situations trigger internet shutdowns and who is given the iscretionary power to do so. Further what are the extreme situtaions when internet can be shut down and what is the process that will be followed needs to be discussed.
Infact rather than trying to shut the internet Dialogue, transparency and openness to try and find alternate solutions to this difficult issue could be the approach.
The gender digital divide should also highlight in access and the strategies which need to be adopted by nations to connect the women, the marginalised and disable.
Consult the public before issuing Internet control or censorship rules. Because some cases do too unnecessarily. Violations of privacy and privacy
In Thailand I very concerned about this concept. “The Council for the Advancement of the Reform of the Nation,” with the intention of “fully regulating Social Media,” with excessive censorship or blockade, violating privacy rights, being able to sneak information at any time, blocking its services. nation By claiming that the protection of the internet and games addict.
(News link (in thai) https://www.beartai.com/news/179268 )
The opening and many of the panel showed as gender is crosscutting and cannot be considered or highlighted just under the human rights section. Access to infrastructure, information, knowledge shown how the excluded are women and individuals discriminated by being gender non conforming. I would suggest a preamble acknowledge gender as a key divide and engage with substiantial strategy to practice inclusion. Innovation with no gender thinking/designing will never be really inclusive. Furthermore gender violence has to be considered non onlyy an effect of sexism, discrimination and so on but as one of the key factor that prevent women to fully access the information society.
Rtbf cannot be considered without data protection framework.
Privacy should be linked with consent and agency. Both factors have being constantly stressed during the session focusing on gender, sexual rights and freedom of expression and should be mentioned here too.
I want thailand Should be like this
I do not agree to have access to services blocked. But it should guide the public to know how to prevent the danger of content on the Internet for your children, however, should be better. Because the current system to support parents are already good. But parents lack knowledge.
I think : I do not agree to have access to services blocked. But it should guide the public to know how to prevent the danger of content on the Internet for your children, however, should be better. Because the current system to support parents are already good. But parents lack knowledge.
Before the law governing the use of online media, content censorship. Should ask people first. Because there are times when the government has a broader law or violated the privacy rights too.
I think : Before the law governing the use of online media, content censorship. Should ask people first. Because there are times when the government has a broader law or violated the privacy rights too.
I think the problem with RTBF is that it does not make such distinction, i.e., for any personal data whether consisting of public content or private content, people accessing that data or search engine helping such people are imposed a burden to prove “public interest’ or drop from search. For instance, a stock broker puts out his financial information online to demonstrate his investment skills. Can he later suppress that information from search results “for being personal data” (maybe to avoid criticisms when his clients complain about bad performance of his portfolios)? If you say “no”, who is there to show public interest in keeping that data when the broker files a suppression request.
I think that RTBF has proximity to Internet shutdowns in para 19 because it disables critical functions of internet governance for reasons not related to access to illegal information. RTBF rule applies to information that is perfectly legitimate by itself and requires that information to be hidden from search. Internet shutdown does similar things to internet traffic.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2024 Taipei Synthesis Document – Draft 0 (125 comments)
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.”
Measures and accountability is not sufficient to ensure a functional, secure and fair use of internet.
Outside the accountability, when it comes to liability, I think it is important to notice the contextual basis of our today’s multilateral legal enforcement. As platforms run their accountability system and framework to adopt instrument to escalate complaints, it doesn’t necessarily align with liability reach-out enforce by state or Interpol. In example, when this related to political stance adopted to base the accountability system of the platform, it oftentimes contradicts the liabilities; as in the shadowbanning that represent a political understanding/perception/stances (ex. Palestine, Hamas, Israel, conflicts).
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.
When it comes to legal frameworks, resiliency can be a call to the words interpretation means we put normative words such as “means of communication” or “networks of networks” rather than specific “internet”. Or when it comes to violation, say that unlawful access rather than hacking or Mysql injection. So the norms will last longer throughout the technology advancement.
And also there is one other call to the institutional approach.
There is this theory of legal melee saying that law actually is what social dynamics create through their interaction of power, aspiration, and custom. I am long have been a part of this school of thought that brings me to recognize internet governance as a sphere to this understanding. Therefore when it comes to resiliency to orderness or regulatory frameworks, it is important to introduce a way to legal recognition and alignment to this dynamic output. As now many countries/government in APAC build regulatory bodies for various specific functions, such as telecommunications, general elections, others, we then need to expand this alignment to the private sector too, as it called as self regulatory organization, some industry has this approach already in global scale as in banking and sports.
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?
The statement like this, 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?
The statement like “developing technologies with eco-friendly practices is necessary to ensure that progress does not come at the cost of environmental degradation”, regarding this, I think there are division of developed and developing countries in the APAC region, so most developed economies could be shifted to the consideration or implementation of eco-friendly internet infrastructure, so it need to bring to the consideration of sharing best practices or resources to the developing counties will be the more appropriate option in going forward to sustainable future instead of looking for the national interests of each country.
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?
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.
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.
Miss information and Disinformation is not just reviewing information. It is to raise awareness on platforms. Technology plays vital roles in disinformation.
Technology also plays a vital role in fact Checking. Can the Asia pacific fact Checking with collaboration with the sub region of Pacific fact Checking engage more awareness of their roles within NGOs and Church groups including Governments in the Pacific so we can have more organizations joining in.
This panel would be enriched with the presence of HR defenders.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
For all research that has been done, acknowledging limitations is critical – as the first step. The next step is addressing the gap on improving the research initiative.
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.
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
This discussion is timely, especially for the Pacific from where I come from. 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
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, emphasize the importance of contextualizing AI frameworks to reflect local realities. For 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.
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.
How can a AI module be build in a inclusive way taking in off various representative of identification from Asia to Pacific
I believe this was spoken by one of the speaker or the panel.
Taiwan’s experience with health data governance, particularly through constitutional litigation led by the Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR), underscores the importance of robust legal frameworks that balance public interest with data subjects’ rights. In the pacific there is no current Act to protect Data, In Papua New Guinea our National data Governance and Data Protection Policy was just passed, we are drafting instructions for a Data Protection Act in the coming year. This is a good case scenario the pacific can learn from Taiwan by adopting clear legal safeguards and accountability measures that protect personal data while enabling its use for public good. Civil society plays a crucial role in this process by advocating for transparency, ensuring that data governance policies prioritize individual rights, and holding governments and institutions accountable for ethical data practices.
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.
One way for the APAC fact-checking coalitions to tackle the existing challenges is to be practical and create accountability-based time tables and collaborate to create a regional framework for multiple coalitions within the APAC region sometime during the big, planned event in 2025. It is highly effective to share each other’s strategies and tips to maximize efficiency and lessen redundancy and inaccuracy.
To make AI ethical in the Asia Pacific we need to take the data from the local communities that resonate within the local and marginalised communities. For example, as mentioned by one of the speakers the AI should have a context from the situation like effective plan use in the the communities and the different languages. Training AI in local languages will be more effective as despite Asian languages housing few of the most spoken languages on the world does not have a local language LLM model
Based on the AI and Education discussion we had during yIGF 2024, I feel an important point was brought up about whether our educational goals should prioritise developing empathetic, community-oriented individuals or focus on cultivating experts who can drive technological advancements, which I feel could be included in the synthesis document.
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.
The governance of health data should respect data subjects information autonomy by assuring the exercise of informed consent and rights to opt-out. The use of term “public interest” should be specific. Because when implying commercial benefits, it might be used to skip the consent from data subjects. Opt-out rights is the last approach data subjects and engage the implementation of data processing, it should not be used as the only right that people can control their own data.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
There is a very high need for a third-party authentication solution which will ensure that the citizens of a country can decide and know the receiver of said money. There is an implemented method in Vietnam where if someone is trying to transfer money more than a certain threshold, the bank needs the user to use facial recognition but it can be bypassed with a image, which needs to be improved and implemented in more than just one country in the Asia-Pacific.
Fact-checking organisations should be neutral parties in any conflicts or any situation as if a politically inclined organisation will be responsible for the censorship of an opposition party and a very low amount of fact-checking for the side the organisation is inclined towards. There is also the issue of some private organisations that are active in public relations, as stated by one of the speakers public relations and fact-checking do not go together.
There is also a reason for fact-checking takes so much time and resources the organisation has to check every single content that is being generated to properly remove the false content and unsafe content. Fact-checking is really in its early stages which is being worked upon by most of the currently active groups in the field
Children living in APAC are underrepresented in the development of internet frameworks. Coupled with gender stereotypes, inadequate digital literacy movements in developing areas render them and their peers susceptible to the dangers of the internet. The promotion of online safety is best addressed by those who have first-hand experience, users. Children in APAC must be given an avenue to raise out their concerns and provide feedback on the adjustments made in internet policies. Youth-focused programs should not just be limited to knowledge enhancement with digital literacy and bridging the digital gap. Initiatives like youth empowerment camps will better train them to take control of their digital lives. Code of conduct is best inculcated from a young age. Following this, youths should be encouraged to partake in IGFs as a major stakeholder. Listening to children’s perspectives is important. This can be treated as a form of investment for the inclusivity and progressiveness of the digital world as they may be a creator and innovator in the next future of IT. Being insightful of the corresponding risks that come with their activities is not enough. They need to equip others with the skills of online safety while enjoying the innovation of technology and promulgate the positive benefit of a healthy digital life. The virtual and physical space are merging, we need empathy not apathy. Even though they are considered one of the most vulnerable, children cannot be protected all the time and need to learn to step out of their comfort zones. Age should never be a deterring factor but rather a motivator for change. In terms of governance, child protection systems and regulations need to be enforced for fortification of child safety while interacting in online games. Child exploitation is one of the forefront ethical issues of the digital world; therefore, prioritizing the appropriate digital citizenship and integrating sexual education in the national educational curriculum is a must. Teaching rights in digital world consequently teaches rights in the physical world. Parents and teachers collaborate to make up a child’s support system. Empowering and educating them fortifies learning at home and in school. Adults have a responsibility to guide children. Gaming and social media platforms should invest in real age verification system to provide a clear and accessible reporting mechanism and to serve as another form of support system for young users. Children should learn not only to keep safe from danger but recognize the opportunity to consume and create content that combat these dangers.
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.
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.
I refer to an article by Bruce Schneider (Schneider on Security) that positions Security as both a feeling and a reality.
As a multistakeholder group I wonder whether we are doing enough to ensure that our communities (of users) are trusting or untrusting of the real vs perceived threats?
Are we also creating more panic over new concepts as a threat and diverting attention from actionable mitigations?I’m not sure that the current multistakeholder model within our evolving ecosystem is one that fosters trust.
Trust when interacting on the Internet is a series of micro-trust decisions and automating a large number of these processes is also disempowering people to understand and be empowered in these decisions. The promotion of more AI and to encourage governments to adopt more AI by the private sector feels irresponsible.
https://www.schneier.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/paper-psychology-of-security.pdf
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?
There seems to be a difference in understanding the concept of bottom up advocacy in the IG systems.Is the Technical Community the bottom of which the other stakeholders should heed their advocacy work?
Or should the civil society be enabled by the other stakeholders to contribute their significant knowledge and experience, supported by the technical community to provide best practices? The private sector could provide innovations in funding these models, but it is not in their interest to do so.So where and what is the bottom? What reasoning is there to determine that civil society cannot comprehend the policy and business decisions that causes fragmentation?Or is it that other stakeholders dominate these forums and do not give proper time, attention or weight to the voices of civil society?
If there is any weight to the latter scenario, is that not a risk to fragmentation that perhaps the technical community is contributing to?
+1 for Jasmine’s comment.
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.
Representation is not just having civil society turn up so as to seem like they are there.
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.
This was an excellent presentation and initiative.However it was such a small part of the program, instead of a way to showcase different ways technical solutions could be used.It was also disturbing to hear in this session how hard addressing localisation of language including lingo was, but in another session Google saying how they could address these things.
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.
– 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 need of governments to relook at their national broadband strategies. There needs to be real effort to understand and connect the remaining unconnected people. Many of the current strategy are merely ticking the box exercise.
Issues such as cost of devices, availability of electricity, gender issues need to be carefully considered.
– Lack of coordination between the different government agencies to provide their own services also acts as a hinderance and that needs to be corrected.
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.
Being an academician, I can contribute to the development of educational programs and awareness campaigns that empower individuals and communities to navigate the Internet safely and securely. This aligns with the principle of inclusivity, ensuring that all users, especially vulnerable groups, are protected and can participate in the digital space without fear. I would like to give feedback that in next sessions there should be some practical work or sessions where the fellows from academia can contribute in development of such programs.
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
End-to-end encryption should be encouraged as it protects users’ privacy and data integrity. While this makes it harder to monitor content directly, it also strengthens overall cybersecurity, reducing the risk of unauthorized access.
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.
Promote the development and use of technology that incorporates privacy by design, ensuring that privacy is built into the core of digital tools and services.
If certain applications are perceived to pose national security concerns, cybersecurity laws should be crafted to hold the owners of these applications fully liable for any risks or breaches. This liability ensures that application developers and operators maintain high standards of security and transparency, mitigating potential threats without resorting to broad restrictions that could compromise internet freedom. By focusing on accountability and compliance with stringent security requirements, such laws can protect national security while preserving the open and free nature of the internet. This approach ensures that security measures target specific risks, rather than imposing unnecessary limitations on digital freedoms.
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.
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.
Educating people about the ethical use of social media platforms such as Meta, Google, and TikTok is of paramount importance. As Edmon Chung highlighted, posting private information on these platforms, which are privately owned but publicly accessible, can lead to Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV). Sharing personally identifiable information, personal videos, and photos online can have serious consequences. Therefore, it is crucial to educate individuals about safe and responsible social media use through various channels to prevent TFGBV and protect personal privacy.
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.
Suggest to edit the third last sentence to “This involves addressing cybersecurity risks, data privacy concerns, online safety, and the protection of vulnerable groups – all the while ensuring that the Internet will not be fragmented”.
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.
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.
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.
Messaging scams are very prevalent in developing countries as their government have a very weak digital infrastructure in their country. For example Philippines does not even host its own country code domain which is hosted by Hong Kong, and this allows the Chinese government to employ whatever rules and regulations on the Philippines domain. Messaging scams have come a long way and the scammers are using very advanced tactics to scam people out of their money. One thing the governments can do is to send the citizens of the country push notifications which informs people what the scammers can do to steal money and what the government or the banks will never do. Like the bank will never ask its users to sent the OTP or the CVV from a user. There should also be a third party in monetary transactions, that can be used to check the authenticity of the receiving party. Prevention is always better than cure hence citizens themselves should stay alert and aware while performing transactions. The governments and administrative agencies should also regulate the monetary transactions and increase awareness regarding the same.
1. False Takedown- If a person or an organisation has high influence they can falsely claim against someone that the content is defamatory even if it is not.This can lead to the author’s loss in terms of content and personal/professional reputation. 2. Platform Accountability- There is a low workforce and funding for fact-checkers. Due to these reasons, there is a huge widespread of fake news over multiple platforms.
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.
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.
The Pacific’s rich cultural diversity and deep connection to the environment make it essential that these technologies are implemented in a way that respects local traditions, upholds human rights, and preserves natural resources.
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.
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.
Presently, 2.5 billion people are active social media users in the Asia-Pacific region which is, therefore, the world’s largest user community. Information disorders have gained a strong foothold in the region which is the result of the situation.
The spread of disinformation and misinformation, intended to deceive or manipulate, has become a major worry for both the media and the general public.
Types of disinformation and misinformation vary from deepfakes, hoaxes, propaganda to fake news. These fables can be transmitted in many ways, for example, social media sites, internet news sources, and traditional media. Misinformation may look harmless, but it may sway a big part of the populace to take action, make the politicians come up with a certain result, be untrustworthy to the institutions, and even make the society fight each other.
Journalists, together with the news channels, are the ones who take the responsibility of checking the information and presenting accurate and reliable papers. However, the wide distribution of online information is so fast that the checkers can’t face the task. On another hand, media business, which is known to be economically heavy, may result in exciting stories and clickbait, it probably is the cause of disinformation spreading.
The public has a crucial role to play in tackling the disinformation epidemic. The key point to construct critical thinking skills is that one should always be suspicious of what is presented as too good (or too bad). It is fundamental to the process of information acquisition to make sure that such information is taken from multiple sources and to be critical of the biases of people who share the content.
Overall, the digital age has made it hard to tell the difference between what is real and what is not. Mishap information and disinformation even the rest of the problems of information (information disorders) are the most serious challenge the media and the public discourse. We can help to build a more aware and resilient community by promoting media literacy, supporting fact-checking projects, encouraging the development of critical thinking skills, and most importantly, chartering a path for a regional fact-checking coalition.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The proposal emphasizes the need for public awareness but could benefit from a more structured approach. Advocate for the integration of gendered disinformation awareness into digital literacy programs, especially targeting young people, educators, and vulnerable communities. This could include workshops, online courses, and the development of educational materials in multiple languages.
AI can analyze vast amounts of data to offer personalized financial products tailored to the needs of vulnerable populations. For instance, AI-driven platforms can assess the financial behavior of individuals with no credit history, enabling microloans, savings plans, and insurance products to be designed according to their specific circumstances. Encourage partnerships between fintech companies and local financial institutions to create AI-driven products that address the unique needs of different communities within the APAC region.
Very important and timely discussions. Other sub-/extended topics for consideration
1. Highlighted the need to take into account the environmental impact and look for more sustainable solutions for subsea cable laying, installation, and maintenance.
2. Effectiveness and how could digital trade agreements could shape the future resilience of subsea cables/connections – resources:
EU-Singapore Digital Partnership (EUSDP) as part of DEA -https://www.mti.gov.sg/-/media/MTI/Microsites/DEAs/EUSDP/EU-SGP-Digital-Partnership.pdf
(See also similar DEAs between Singapore with the UK, Australia; as well as mentions @ RCEP/IPEF)
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/
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.
High-level comments based on Hong Kong Youth Collective Statement on Internet Governance 2024 (extracted):
Upholding privacy rights and ensuring secure data handling is crucial for preserving trust in digital systems and preventing misuse of personal information. Digital privacy, data protection, and transparency of data processing should be safeguarded, empowering individuals and restoring trust in digital platforms by giving users meaningful control over their personal information.
Against the backdrop of more rampant cyber incidents. Cybersecurity firms in the private sector to work closely with the Hong Kong government, educational institutions, and financial organisations to establish and enforce stringent remediation and best practices that aligns with international cybersecurity standards.
Strengthening cybersecurity measures with advanced technology implementation, providing training for employees as well as holding their responsibilities in case of data breaches and constantly addressing vulnerabilities in the system.
High-level comments based on Hong Kong Youth Collective Statement on Internet Governance 2024 (extracted):
A resilient digital economy requires a multi-pronged approach that addresses cybersecurity threats, digital inequalities, and the effective integration of emerging technologies. By fostering collaboration between the public and private sectors, investing in digital infrastructure, and empowering all citizens with digital skills, Hong Kong can build a thriving, secure, and inclusive digital ecosystem.
With the prominent use of digital technologies in various industries especially in the finance industry, the issue of cybersecurity and information privacy remains a prevalent issue. Sector-specific cybersecurity risk management framework should be developed. Corresponding sectoral regulators should collaborate with industry experts and regulators to create a risk-based comprehensive risk management framework that helps fintech companies, for example, identify, assess, and mitigate cyber threats.
In promoting social resilience, we can create a more inclusive and sustainable digital economy with enduring growth potential by ensuring that all segments of society have equal access to and benefit from digital technologies. Moreover, integrating eco-friendly practices into the digital landscape is crucial to mitigate environmental impacts. This twin-pronged strategy ensures the long-term viability of the digital economy while safeguarding our planet.
Developing technologies with eco-friendly practices were especially underscored with the rapid growth of data centres that causes the rise in energy consumption and carbon emissions, posing a threat to Hong Kong’s economic goals. The rapid expansion of data centres in HK (revenue from data centres is expected to grow massively by 5.24% in 2029, reaching a cap of around USD 1.73 billion) highlighted the concerns about the difficulties in achieving net zero emissions which was planned to be achieved by 2050.
High-level comments based on Hong Kong Youth Collective Statement on Internet Governance 2024 (extracted):
It is important to consider the involvement and partnership of different stakeholders in policy-making as well as provide the necessary support to promote the participation of various parties, especially the underprivileged students and the older generation. Individual End Users should be able and have the know-how to access the Internet and benefit from the digital economy.
Youth involvement is important not just for their role as future workforce who can shape digital inclusion but also for their subjectiveness to digital inclusion policies.
Digital inclusion not only can help cultivate talent and expertise but also promote successful policies and project-making due to the consideration of stakeholder value and needs.
Education transformation is also important as it provides the participants with an effective learning and teaching experience.
Education Bureau, for example, can establish a strategic partnership between technology companies and educational institutions to promote AI teaching assistants in offering personalised learning support for students with different backgrounds.
The Government to ensure that AI is designed safely and ethically by promoting framework and regulation for AI development. Non-profit organisations should be empowered (by the government and the private sector through partnerships/funding) to educate citizens about AI fraud.
Technologies companies and AI developers to prioritise fairness and accountability in algorithm design, implementing robust bias detection and mitigation measures – emphasising to uphold human-centric values in AI systems, preventing algorithmic bias and discrimination.
More broadly, a risk-based and easy-to-understand regulatory frameworks, transparent (data processing) practices, and active citizen participation in digital governance are necessary for ethical governance.
The issue of the dominance of a few tech giants in the digital sphere should also be addressed, which raises concerns about competition, innovation, and consumer welfare. Addressing this concentration of power is key to nurturing a diverse digital landscape that encourages innovation and safeguards consumer interests.
(S.M.A.R.T.)
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.
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.
The session provided an opportunity for participants to share with the Freedom Online Coalition the key issues in the Asia-Pacific region that require their support. This included:
– There is a disconnect when it comes to how digital rights are perceived in many countries in the region between citizens and states. States seek to regulate the internet for social and economic reasons, without really considering the rights of people online. There is a need to have more open dialogue between states and other stakeholders, and to bring them into spaces like the APrIGF so they can hear from the people.
– Disinformation and online propaganda is becoming an increasingly big problem in the region, with states in many cases being the perpetrator. It is impacting online discourse, public participation, election and democratic processes. There is a need to counter this more actively.
– Young people, who are digital natives, and most impacted by the internet and digital technologies are not really present in internet governance spaces and not given enough opportunities to share their thoughts, experiences and shape the conversations. Particularly in spaces such as the FOC, which have a high degree of eligibility to access.
– There is a need to raise more funds for CSOs working in Asia-Pacific. Can Coalitions like the FOC be involved in this?
– Increasingly, CSOs and other non-state actors apart from the private sector, are being shut out from spaces where states are having dialogue about internet governance issues. The GDC drafts seem to indicate that the future of internet governance will be more centralised through states, more opaque and harder to access. For non state actors in Asia, who have difficulty in accessing their states already, closing of these spaces will be extremely detrimental. What can the FOC do in keeping these spaces and processes open, and ensuring the civil society and other voices are heard?
– Accountability of states and private actors for the violation of human rights is being increasingly difficult. It seems like we are failing the SDGs, but there seems to be no clear way forward for those interested in protecting rights as they are often targeted and face hate and other attacks. What can FOC and others do to improve this situation?
– There is a danger that issues related to surveillance technologies being exported and are in fact rights violations are being spoken about by states as “digital transformation” or “digitisation”; similarly, regulation of online content is being reframed as “online safety”. While these are important, it is critical that things are framed as they are and not reframed to suit other agendas.
– Private sector companies in the region act very differently when it comes to protection of rights in Asia countries, as opposed to how they act in countries where they are headquartered. They must reconcile these differences so rights are protection on their platforms everywhere.
– CSOs are in a very vulnerable position in APAC, due to funding difficulties, legal harassment and surveillance, among other issues. They need to be given more protection and more space in international fora to raise issues.
Parents play a critical role in setting online boundaries for children as they serve as their first teachers in life. As technology evolves, the need for comprehensive and multifaceted solutions to online safety issues becomes increasingly important. This highlights the importance of ongoing research to improve cyberspace policies and ensure they are adaptable to new challenges. Implementing these policies is complex due to the diversity in individual behaviors and personalities, requiring tailored approaches that consider the unique needs of each child. Collaborative efforts among policymakers, educators, tech companies, and other relevant stakeholders are essential to create a safer online environment for the younger generation.
I strongly agree that discussions about ethical AI in the Asia Pacific region must include the voices of people from local/marginalized communities. Coming from the medical field, I often find it challenging to communicate effectively and gather a complete history of a patient’s present illness, along with other pertinent information, especially if we do not speak the same local language. Knowing the language of your patient allows you to connect with them on a much deeper level, fostering trust and understanding. These difficulties can sometimes hinder my ability to build that essential connection. Integrating AI into healthcare could significantly enhance our ability to establish a more personal and empathetic relationship with patients. By assisting with language barriers, understanding cultural nuances, and even providing real-time insights, AI could bridge the gap between healthcare providers and patients, ultimately improving patient outcomes and satisfaction.
The overarching theme of APrIGF was inline with current conversations of IG space. When Global Digital Compact has also been in draft stage and shape of the future internet may shift from multi-stakeholder to multilateral model. International governance of interoperable frameworks will be challenging for open, secure, resilient and interoperable Internet.
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.
Although there are growing challenges with the evolution of technology, yet a resilient apprach with a more responsible manner can shape a better Internet.
Through meaningful participations and inclusive conversations, youth leaders in our communities can be empowered to address the key issues of Internet Governance around cutting edge technologies. This is esentially helpful to prepare future leaders and critical thinkers to participate in informed policy making.
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.
While talking about protection of vulnerable groups, we must keep in mind the religious affiliations of people, not to hurt the feelings of certain group or targeting religion in the name of freedom of expression. Blasphemous content on the Internet is like red line, which is always condemned and not allowed to cross anyone.
Data protection and privacy is a relative issue, which relate the culture of different economies. It even depends upon the personal choice of individuals, as to how s/he makes his data public or private on public domain.
Collection, storage and maintenance of critical data, information of healthcare, defence, education, power/energy and banks etc in addition to compliance with local regulations, alignment with global frameworks and international legislations are paramount. With evolution of technology, there comes complex use case scenarios, which are challenging for governments to fix the responsibility and accountability.
With increasing demand of data storage due to AI, there is dire need to ensure safety measures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Digital Right bill should ensure privacy, transparency and accountability in the digital realm.
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.
Media literacy and inclusion of community leaders in such discussions are important. Local presence of platform in addition to compliance to local regulations are crucial conversations in Internet Governance realm.
There need for interoperable governance frameworks around different processes. Roles of technical communities are eminent in Internet Governance conversations. However, a balanced approach of multilateral and multistakeholder processes could shape the secure and resilient Internet and address the key issues of Internet Governance.
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.
The Internet has been playing a significant role in empowering the communities and groups as well as minimizing the burgeoning gaps of the digital data divide. Persons with disabilities and minority groups can potentially become an effective part of the decision making process while using assistive technologies. People from all groups including women, youth, minors, elderly abled, disabled and/or under-represented groups can become part of the respective process (locally, regionally, globally) and help in shaping the secure and resilient internet for future. Access to the internet can be increased through creation of meaningful content in local languages and national language, IDN ccTLD, Multilingual Internet, Sign language for PwD etc have great potential to promote resilient Internet among communities.
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.
Covid has exacerbated the usage of Internet during pandemic. There have been collaboration platforms for interaction of different stakeholders.
Increased participation of governments across globe regarding expansion of digital public infrastructures and dialogue is necessary to presenting context with each other as well as enabling policies to bring private sector for investment and expansions.
· 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 mechanism shall establish a legal mechanism to ensure data privacy and combat misuse of private information in people’s virtual lives (maybe) by aligning with international standards like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (Article 12) that ensures the right to privacy. All stakeholder groups shall commit to ensuring this alignment with the national level constitution (for example, the right to privacy is constitutionally protected in Bangladesh under Article 43, part 3)
· Non-inclusivity was highly remarked. There was no Human Rights Defender in the Panel
· The panelists from Meta and Microsoft explained what kind of initiatives they do have in their mechanism by giving examples of publishing statement/s on human rights violation happenings and having their safeguarding policies on the website to check on.
I’m stating below my observations and opinion on their shared information and statements:
· Safeguarding is more than having policies and expressing solidarity.
· Big tech companies like Meta, Microsoft, etc, shall develop action-oriented Corporate Social Responsibility that leads to a proactive approach and safeguarding mechanism to secure their customers’ rights in terms of freedom of expression, right to information, digital security, data privacy and prohibit the violations of human rights like restrictive internet or internet shutdown by weaponizing their technical strength.
· A mechanism of transparent accountability shall be established for the technical groups/private sectors, governments, and civil society to ensure the users’ rights.
Also the role and impact of politicization was totally absent in the discussion
Is there any set criteria and rules and regulations to become fact-checker?
Who decides those criteria?
Is there any accountability mechanism? If and if not playing the expected roles?
If yes, who are they accountable to? Is the legal system involved in that mechanism?
Quoting a statement of one panelists, ‘Fact-checking and public relations cannot work/go together’
Echoing that to be noted as the core value, obligation and commitment for taking the responsibility of fact-checking.
The politicization of factchecking and factchecker was totally absent in the discussion.
Factcheckers need to be legally bound to stay accountable and gain the trust of the users ensuring neutrality and openness.
(When/if factcheckers have political stands, it misleads the users’ community and impacts a false situation which costs peoples’ lives)
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.
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.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2023 Brisbane Synthesis Document – Draft 0 (123 comments)
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
Libraries have a big role in bridging the digital divide maybe good to mention this in the context of the Asia-Pacific region
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
We should also add how emerging technologies data data-keeping techniques affect the marginalized. Terms like data justice and data governance issues are essential to be addressed here.
Mentioning how data localization can adversely affect the environment and how most states are moving to localize data can also be addressed here.
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.
Not only Southeast Asia have such problem rising, many East Asia countries also facing such problem during/after the pandemic due to either the online scamming/misinformation are rapidly increasing or the political situation within/between countries changed.
Governments have designed some kind of mechanism to block contents. They might use those to also block unwanted content, and which will lead to the censorship issues.
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.
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.
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.
The right to access and inclusion of internet must mention the right of communities (i.e. indigenous communities) to refuse the internet in their area or want to be isolated from the internet signal to protect and value their culture.
References (Indonesian case):
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/28/the-village-that-wants-to-cut-off-the-internet
https://asianews.network/indonesian-ministry-to-honor-baduy-peoples-demand-for-internet-blackout/
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/indonesia-indigenous-group-requests-internet-blackout/102464636
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.
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.
This was shared by Mr. Jordan in the room.
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?
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?
I think it is also important to include how the APrIGF and other sorts of discussions in the IGF sector can enable fostering international collaboration on technology standards and norms to ensure consistency and fairness in the global tech landscape. If it would also complete the landscape, there is also a possibility of collaboration on solutions to global challenges, such as climate change and public health, using emerging technologies.
Australia’s experience suggests that the digital divide can be reduced but that it is extremely difficult for it to be eliminated. Some of this is because of the challenge of providing connectivity to small numbers of people in very remote locations. While LEO satellite is an obvious emerging solution here, finding ways to address affordability become fundamental to solutions.
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.
In the context of Emerging technologies in education, such as online learning platforms, digital content, and virtual classrooms, have the potential to reach remote and underserved areas, thus addressing the pre-existing digital divide. However, challenges such as lack of internet infrastructure, device availability, and digital literacy still need to be overcome. This involves ensuring that educational platforms are accessible to all, including people with disabilities.his will require a combination of innovative approaches, public-private partnerships, and regulatory frameworks to ensure that these technologies contribute to a more inclusive and equitable education system in the Asia Pacific region and beyond.
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.
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
On the back of the trust/accountability discussion –
it’s been said we are in a post-truth world, perhaps this is a post-trust world too?
An attempt to reframe that question:
how do we re-establish trust in a post-truth online world?
Youth SG – IGF Working Groups Sub-Committee
– Formed annually by members of the Youth SG
– Main responsibilities are to engage with the youth to coordinate and incentivise the development of workshop proposals (and finding associated roles, such as speakers, rapporteurs etc.) for the IGF’s topical themes
As the consultation calls all stakeholders, including Youth, to submit inputs, the Internet Society Youth Standing Group has launched its own consultation to enable individual members to have a say on matters they care about the most.
Traditionally, there is a youth section called “IGF Youth Summit” at the annual IGF. This meeting connects young people from around the world that are participating of the IGF. Emilia Organized last year and it was awesome. We seek to cooperate with Ethiopian organization to maintain the Youth Summit.
As youth, it is important to make our voice heard in the annual meeting, that is why Youth SG & YCIG joined to create Working Groups for submitting session proposals.
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.
There should be decentralized as well as multi-stakeholders’ endrosement then I believe accountability as well as transparancy would be ensured. There should be clear indication in terms of privcy as well as governance. It is worth mentioned that without good governance, it would be difficulat to gain trust and reliability. And, definitely along with people and process, there will be requried for technologies to enfornce as we have to trust with verificaiton.
Internet is like open ocean and quite difficult to track over there. There should be multi-stakeholders’ approach for the betterment of internet governance. One cannot be responsible or accountable, instead a group or team. There could be monopoly in case of centralization, power exercise, suppression, etc. as we are observing region to region or country to country. Beside this, privacy along with accountability need to be ensured.
PLEASE DISCARD MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS
There should be decentralized as well as multi-stakeholders’ endorsement then I believe accountability as well as transparency would be ensured. There should be clear indication in terms of privacy as well as governance. It is worth mentioned that without good governance, it would be difficult to gain trust and reliability. And, definitely along with people and process, there will be required for technologies to enforce as we have to trust with verification.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed with Namkha.
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.
My comment is regarding the Consent and Right to Withdrawal, there should be a proper, easy and reliable way for people to withdraw their consent later on and a place for users to revoke access to their data when they want. A lot of times, people only use an app or service for a short period of time, and they may not want their personal information to be lingering around at companies they no longer engage with frequently. Many tech companies don’t provide a single and straightforward way for general public to withdraw consent and delete data. There should be simple, accessible options within services to allow people to revoke consent and remove their information.
I would say that in Asia Pacific, the adoption of new technology has the potential to reduce or increase inequality. Greater informational accessibility, economic expansion, and entrepreneurial opportunities can all help to promote inclusivity. On the other hand, a technology divide, skills gap, concentration of power, and employment upheaval may make inequality worse. Governments must put in place inclusive policies, control technology, nurture skill development, encourage entrepreneurship, and support collaboration in order to guarantee beneficial outcomes.
I would like to say that governance of biometric data must be a top priority for policymakers, with clear legislation. The following guidelines should be followed: informed consent; data encryption; short-term storage; data breach measures; and strict access limits. For ethical biometric data collection and utilization, it’s essential to strike a balance between technological advantages and privacy and security protections.
I agree with both the points stated by Usman and Paribhasha that biometric data should also be included in the top priorities for legislation. With the evolution of today’s technology and transference information from physical to digital, including the vast amount of information captured through metadata, there needs to be clear and specific rules to simply look over the protection of these sensitive items. Any misappropriated use of biometric data falls under threats to data privacy and cybersecurity.
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.
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?
What do panellists think about industry / platform providers using self regulation codes? Or other codes of practice? From listening to the excellent presentations there did not seem to be any calls for these. Curious about views on this given many providers default content moderation settings. Thanks.
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.
how do you validate the regulations in the website database, because I found that in Indonesia, there are regulations with cybersecurity tagging, but the content has nothing to do with cybersecurity.
I think this comment refers to paragraph 42.
I think it is important that we include and highlight ‘language’ as a category that limits access to technology and is a barrier to full inclusion online. Much of the internet is in English. Important tools, technologies, apps and platforms still lack localization into major non-european languages. And if you come from a linguaistic minority within a global majority country, then forget it. Worldwide, 87% of people do not speak English as either a first or second language. In Asia almost 35% of people are still not online – you can bet that those people without access are non-English speakers, and that people from linguistic minorities are over-rerepresented among those without connectivity. As we think about specific emerging technologies (in the next paragraph) we need to think about localization and how these will be made inclusive for non-English speakers and especially linguistic minorities.
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.
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.
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.
It is important at Asia Pacific regional IGF to relate the impact of new technologies to internet governance – Iam learning in this conference how to listen for what is under the topic to find the internet governance issue
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.
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.
Sustainability of internet governance is also worth considering, in the current environment this would need to consider the sustainability of the multi stakeholder model. Questions arise for how to regather support for this model globally, as well as how we improve the approach and practice nationally, regionally and globally
Strong encryption of our stored personal data, and end-to-end encryption, is critical if we are to have trust in the internet and services connected via the internet. We need to carefully consider the long-term impact of ideas such as client-side scanning, and keep watch on actors that are pushing to break or weaken encryption and the protection of our data and communications.
I believe sustainability with the emerging technology mindset can be a driving factor towards combating our social issues faced in our own region. The efforts to maintain a sustainable Internet, demands collaboration between multi-stakeholders with guided principles on moral ethics and good governance and capacity development on digital literacy forms and practices.
It is important that we detect when ‘online safety’ is weaponised by regulators to undermine privacy. The nefarious use of the internet and its services is very real and needs to be addressed. It’s important our countries resource investigators, law-enforcement and civil society organisations properly to conduct investigations, instead of taking a ‘techno-solutionist’ approach to addressing ‘online safety’.
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.
These paragraphs are not only for mobile phones.
1. Considering governmental aspects, the EU’s CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) could foster global manufacturers’ awareness of carbon emissions. Governments could aid their manufacturers in aligning their operations with EU regulations, should they wish to engage in commerce with the EU.
2. Examining the business viewpoint, while upgrading facilities and enhancing employee skillsets can incur significant costs, such efforts can also establish the foundation for sustainable business practices. This approach not only contributes to enduring success but may also create additional opportunities for the workforce. Encouraging manufacturers to adopt environmentally conscious production processes and implement waste recycling could be essential.
3. Approaching this from the community angle, it’s pivotal to safeguard the rights of workers and maintain a proactive stance.
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.
The organisation or any government and government agencies collecting biometric data must ensure that an individual has the right to access, correct, and delete the biometric data. This empowers individuals to have control over their personal information.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you
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.
Effective and achievable circular economy policy frameworks are crucial for digital environmental sustainability due to the rapid growth of the electronics sector and its associated environmental challenges. As digital technologies become increasingly integral to our lives, the production and disposal of electronic devices contribute to resource depletion, electronic waste, energy consumption, and pollution. Circular economy policies ensure that electronic products are designed for longevity, repairability, and recyclability, reducing the strain on resources, minimizing waste, and curbing emissions. By encouraging responsible consumption, efficient resource use, and innovative recycling practices, these frameworks are essential for balancing the digital world’s expansion with the urgent need to preserve and protect our environment.
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.
Embracing a digital circular economy makes strong business sense and presents opportunities for entrepreneurship.
By adopting practices like product leasing, refurbishment, and component reuse, businesses can tap into new revenue streams and markets.
Designing products with durability and repairability in mind can enhance brand reputation and customer loyalty. Circular strategies often lower operational costs through reduced resource consumption and waste management expenses.
Moreover, embracing a circular economy fosters innovation, encouraging entrepreneurs to develop novel technologies and services in areas like sustainable materials, efficient resource recovery, and reverse logistics.
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.
How can we develop some guiding principles for platforms trusted flagger programs for the Asia Pacific region. What might the common features be and how can civil society, tech, law enforcement, government work together on developing a guideline.
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 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.
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.
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.
The internet, like a double-edged sword, is wielded by political parties aiming to manipulate it for their objectives, often under the guise of national security or societal stability. This discourse also surfaces a critical dilemma: While the internet holds universal benefits, its misuse poses widespread harm. The veil of political power is draped over the act of shutting down the internet.
The ramifications are profound:
– Students lose their access to education.
– Individuals face heightened concerns about government surveillance through digital tools, curbing their right to free expression.
– The absence of adequate internet infrastructure robs people of business opportunities without online access.
And these challenges are not unique to South Asian or East Asian countries; they resonate globally. Some individuals fear their mere participation in discussions could jeopardize their families and safety.
Government entities orchestrate G20 and G7 conferences, yet their emphasis on the digital economy often overshadows the critical topic of internet rights. This is where the voice of civil society assumes its vital role. The global, national, and local Internet Governance Forum (IGF) platforms as a platform for civil society to articulate their perspectives, fostering a conduit to convey diverse viewpoints to government bodies.
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.
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.
There is also an interest in establishing a community of practice on sustainability and social impact of connectivity initiatives. There is an initiative of ISEA, APC and Angels of Impact through the Technological Innovations for Sustainable Development Platform and we invite interested organizations to join.
When we talk about the term ‘trust’ the concept of ‘consent’ becomes really significant. In the Indian context, the recent DPDP Act introduces the concept of ‘consent manager’. A third-party entity responsible for managing the consent of a user – whether or not a data fiduciary can use their data and if yes then how. Whether this is the best way to manage one’s consent or not is something that is subjective. Still, I believe if we are to develop a framework that ensures that the ‘consent’ of the user with respect to their personal data is given the utmost priority, we would be able to lay a strong foundation of trust between various stakeholders in the digital world.
I completely agree with Maria. The meaning of the term ‘meaningful access’ extends beyond infrastructure to digital literacy. It is essential in order to enable such marginalized groups to raise their voices and enjoy the benefits of the Internet. One such example is the Indira Gandhi Smartphone Yojana in Rajasthan, India wherein over 1.4 crore smartphones would be distributed to women and students. While the scheme aims at empowering women, not proportional attention is given to making them digitally literate to actually use such a device and keep themselves safe from rising cybercrimes like online sexual harassment, identity theft and many others.
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.
I agree to promote digital literacy. But, it is important to address the access to information. There is a language barrier that causes minimal participation of young people in participating in internet governance dialogue. Therefore it is important to coordinate with the national yIGF to help amplify the voices of young people.
We changed the title of the session to “the Challenges of attempting digital transformation in Small Island Developing States” when the team was reduced by two discussants who hadstories to tell from their islands. They had had a conflict with High level ICT conferences that were being held on PNG in the same week.
This is just a comment. We are putting together a summary of our session presentations and will get it to you by the 3rd.
Totally agree with you. Moreover, as some countries like Myanmar have very weak passport, participants from those countries can have to fulfill a lot of requirements for visa process for counties like Australia.
In the region, developed countries like Japan and Australia have been utilizing the emerging technologies while developing countries like Myanmar are still having significant portions of people lacking digital literacy and accessibility to internet. I think the role of those developed countries in assisting developing nations to take advantage of emerging technologies in a sustainable and inclusive way (such as making a partnership to advance infrastructure, offering opportunities to youth and so on) is very important to tackle uneven digitalization in the region.
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.
Digital transformation is an aspiration for many small island developing states in the Pacific. As a case-study, the Cook Islands government has utilised valuable overseas aid support over the years to lay the groundwork for greater connectivity for its citizens on tiny and remote outer islands. Six-hours a day of diesel-powered electricity has now been replaced by 24×7 clean electricity powered by solar energy, and they can all now connect to 4G mobile broadband. Most of the tiny island populations have smart phones and are becoming more competent digital natives as more services become available and are more affordable. The government’s newly published ICT Policy depicts ICT being used by all sectors and ages and abilities of internet users – leaving noone behind. Setting up an appropriate infrastructure has been important so that citizens will be able to access more online government services as they are developed. An important pre-requisite to this access will be ensuring that everyone has a legal identity through a comprehensive civil registration system which records ALL births and deaths in the country. While the Cook Islands already maintains a successful record of this important information, transferring it to a digital system will also enhance citizen access to the wider range of government services, including e-Commerce and other important internet-related economic opportunities. Other Pacific nations are following similar trends.
Hi Trang
Thank you for you great comments. I hope I covered at least some of your concerns in my paragraph about what we are doing in the Cook Islands.
Maureen
While I agree that access and inclusion is important, we must also take into account communities that choose not to be connected such as the indigenous people due to a myriad of reasons, one of which could be because of sacred culture and the need for them to protect it. At the same time, the government and other parties involved should still find a way to ensure they are not neglected and completely shut out from the world.
It is really interesting to discuss and prepare youth policy statement based on these three thematic tracks. I think they generally cover a lot of topics under internet governance and emerging technologies.
Agree with Rafiq. Language barriers are one of the biggest challenges for the population without English skills to connect to internet, utilize technologies and participant in meaningful discussion.
Furthermore, I think we should encourage more representatives from the nations with larger number of people still unconnected to participate in such capacity building programs so that they can create positive changes in their communities.
In my opinion, to overcome these issues, the role of combating other social issues such as poverty, quality education, gender equality, sustainable economy, and SDGs are also important because they are related to each other. Thus, all the stakeholders need to work together on those wicked issues to spread digital awareness, educate digital literacy, improve infrastructure as well as the economy.
Agree with Namkha. Because sometimes governments themselves can be collecting biometric data in not very ethical way. In addition to legislation, I think equipping technicians and students with data background with the knowledge of ethical and legal usages of technology would be necessary.
I somehow agree with this statement because I think persons with disabilities are more likely to left behind even compared to other marginalized communities,
I think it is a complex issue and related to numerous other social challenges such as poverty, poor economic condition, inequalities and etc.
Since youth are current and future leaders, they have really strong capabilities and potentials to shape future internet, The opportunities to uplift their skills, connect with each other and other stakeholders as well as support for their initiatives are the critical to be provided for youths.
In my country, parents believe that social media and using phone and other device is waste of time for their children. On the other hand, many kids and teenagers do not have proper skills and knowledge about these things. It leads to having a lot of online conflicts and problems. Thus, I think it is necessary to put digital literacy and proper use of internet in school curriculum and educate the young students.
AI can indeed be harnessed for numerous societal benefits. However, it’s equally crucial to scrutinize the potential challenges it can introduce to society. The Asia Pacific region is home to diverse countries each with its unique governmental structure which includes, Democratic Republics, Constitutional Monarchies, One Party States, and so on. When a novel technology like AI is introduced into society, its impact is inevitably shaped by policies and regulations enforced by the respective governments.
For example, when it comes to China the government has implemented stringent regulations governing AI and other emerging technologies. These regulations form a robust framework that guides the development, deployment, and use of AI within the country. And these approaches will contrast with those of other nations in the region and across the globe.
When exploring the potential for AI to contribute to societal advancement, it is imperative to delve deeper into the intricate interplay between this technology and varied governmental structures found within the region. Government wield the capacity to employ these technologies strategically, shaping the flow of information within society by deciding what should be disseminated and what should be withheld. This complex dynamic underscores the necessity of a comprehensive examination, not only regarding the potential benefits that AI can offer but also regarding its capacity to influence public discourse, mould societal narratives and influence the boundaries of transparency and control within each unique governmental context.
The emerging technologies will not wait whether we are ready or not. Thus, it is important to prepare for the next phase of the internet by combining the efforts of multiple stakeholders while reducing current challenges.
Paragraph 56 beautifully encapsulates the essence of the principle of inclusivity. In a world that’s rapidly advancing with technologies like AI, 5G, and blockchain, it is absolutely vital that we ensure no one is left behind. The commitment to inclusivity means that factors like background, gender, disability, or social standing should never be the reason for anyone to be at a disadvantage. The mention of the ongoing challenge of meaningful access, particularly for marginalized communities, highlights the urgency of the situation. To truly harness the potential of these technologies for the betterment of society, it’s crucial to engage in open and collaborative discussions involving all stakeholders. Only by working together and focusing on infrastructure and access for all can we unlock the full promise of these emerging technologies for the benefit of everyone, promoting socio-economic development across the board.
With emerging technologies, many have been developed environ tech, renewable energy and digital power. multiple stakeholders are necessary to work together on advancing green technology in any possible ways in the regions. Moreover, policies like carbon tax also play a crucial part in forcing industries to use green tech and reduce carbon emission.
I have noticed IoT tech are used widely in creating innovative green technologies like smart bins. On the other hand, they can cause e waste and large energy consumption. I think the role of innovators and technicians with the support of other stakeholders in making IoT tech more energy efficient and effective are very important.
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.
I couldn’t agree more. I find this model of discussion to be very mind-opening and engaging, especially when the participants are accorded the preference to choose the sessions that are aligned with either their interests, experience, or both. The only downside is when multiple sessions of interest happen at the same time, which causes a bit of a dilemma of which session to sit in at.
I noted that Meaningful (Connectivity) Access is the ultimate aim that our local economies must strive for, and whilst this has been achieved in mostly developed economies, it is still a challenge for the Asia Pacific region. As such policies and legislative supports that push for access and inclusion, are of prime importance with the use of a multistakeholder approach when tackling the challenges we face to achieve Meaningful (Connectivity) Access.
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.
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.
Encryption is crucial when collecting and storing biometric data because generative AI based on biometrics requires a lot of raw data to feed into Machine Learning algorithms. This means transparent terms and conditions and policies and even frameworks must be put in place so that people understand that Biometric AI needs their data, and at the same time, be confident that the storage of these very personalized data is highly protected.
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.
The Asia Pacific region presents its own set of challenges in Bridging the Communications Divide, the main one of them being geography. Therefore there is no one-size-fits-all solution for this, but a multi-communication model that encompasses all forms of communication technologies on terrestrial, maritime and aviation connection points. There will be more dependence on satellite communication, especially when the cost of launching (and maintaining) satellites into space are reduced with advancing technology.
In response to the question raised during the Q&A session, it is important to address the issue of misconceptions surrounding multistakeholderism. It is vital to make it clear that multistakeholderism involves the inclusion of a diverse range of voices in decision-making, not limited to the tech industry but encompassing various sectors. Moreover, instead of viewing multistakeholderism solely as a product of Silicon Valley’s influence, it is essential to highlight the fact that its positive impact on different regions around the world and its role in expediting technology adoption. The collective efforts towards multistakeholdrism should be geared towards ensuring that decision-making in the digital realm is both comprehensive and effective.
Fostering trust in the internet, including the processes and infrastructure that underpin it, has been an aspirational goal for decades. But the involvement of governments, corporations and malicious actors in the governance and functioning of the internet has meant that this goal has been unreachable. The idea of mathematical trust, wherein two parties interacting or transacting on the internet can trust each other by relying on mathematical principles, is a good solution. Wider adoption of blockchain technology, which has mathematical trust at its core, may be helpful in fostering trust in the internet.
Agree with you Paribhasha and Brian.
Response to Brian: It is indeed a downside. Multiple sessions happening in parallel often leads to dilemmas about what to attend and what to forego. But there is no feasible alternative to parallel sessions given the need to squeeze in a number of sessions (and co-located events) in a span of a few days. However, one thing that reduces the ‘opportunity cost’ associated with attending any given session is to check the recordings of the missed sessions at the official APrIGF YouTube channel. Thanks to the hybrid format, both offline and online inputs are captured in these recordings.
While ‘walled gardens’, lack of interoperability and other techno-economic factors contribute to internet fragmentation, the more potent threat to universal internet may come from political side. The US, Europe, China and Russia are all promoting their own visions of how the internet should function and be governed. This geopolitical push and pull may fragment the internet in the future.
I certainly agree that persons with disabilities are more likely to be left behind during rescue efforts at the time of calamities. The app ecosystem in the disaster management domain still predominantly depend on the use of the touch interface, since all smartphones use that as the primary method of user interaction. It is tough to cater to all disabilities since it is a vast spectrum in itself. However, enabling more methods of interaction such as voice, the use of inbuilt motion sensors, use of physical buttons and integrating peripheral devices such as smartwatches can certainly help in bridging this gap in accessibility.
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.
Comment to be added to my statement above.
However, as with any successful change activity in the Pacific or elsewhere, technology is the comparatively simple part of digital transformation, the difficulties often lie in a behaviour change within the society itself – not only to drive usage and adoption of digital, but also to break down silos within and beyond government, and to change ways of working and thinking. A whole-of-society approach to digital transformation is crucial. It is not the domain of a single sector, actor, or institution.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2022 Singapore Synthesis Document - Draft 0 (122 comments)
This could suggest that APrIGF is in favor of regulating the social media? Is that a factual position?
Suggest adding a question as below:
Can we deploy technology based innovative tools to identify and label disinformation/misinformation to attempt prevention rather than damage control?
Suggest adding the following question:
How can APrIGF contribute in building capacity on digital skills for the unserved and underserved?
Listing these disparities would be helpful to analyze and recommend solutions. Specificity would help in discussion and resolution.
This is a very interesting point-of-view, because there is actually a community and project dedicated to digital accessibility called a11ty. It is a community-driven effort to make digital accessibility easier.
As an aspiring developer myself, I think that at the heart of building a more accessible online community are the ones that build the platforms themselves. Therefore, I believe pushing for a more accessibility-driven development and design to the point that it’s mainstreamed for a truly inclusive internet would cascade into a more accessible online community. This of course, applies to all fields: cloud, web, mobile, IoT, AI, ML, VR, Blockchain, etc.
This can be accomplished through a lot of ways, one of which I can think of is through incentivizing ideathons and hackathons centered on a11ty paired with active involvement in the internet governance space. As I mentioned, I think there are more ways to go about this, but these are my thoughts regarding the topic.
The context of poor design may be explained to get the attention of the designers’ of technology platforms. Does the expression ‘poor design’ refer to lack of compliance and conformance to widely accepted international specifications and standards?
Once connected to the Internet – people will use it. Mothers can sell from their homes. Builders learning new methods via Youtube. Farmers selling directly to customers. And so on.
Once connected to the Internet.
There needs to be regulation mandating open access to Internet infrastructure. So it can’t be monopolized, and ensures competition.
To be sustainable, the government need to have + enforce a strict policy against anti-competitive behaviours.
For example, in Indonesia there have been backlashes from merchants who are fed up with the high rate of commissions from platforms; which stays high, and exactly the same between platforms.
The high rate of commissions forces them to raise their prices – which in turn causes their customers to run away to their competitors.
This in turn will destroy the gig economy itself. This anti-competitive behaviours is simply unsustainable in the long run.
The keyword is indeed “collaboration”
Governments need to ensure literacy & critical thinking in the education curriculum, create laws that targets the hoax actors & their financiers (instead of the victims / consumers) – and make sure platforms’ algorithm does not amplify hoaxes/ other kind of bad contents in the name of engagement.
Civil societies need to raise awareness in people that hoax is a serious problem. It kills. It causes people to lose money. A lot of people still does not realize that this is a problem.
Once people realize this, then the ideal scenario will happen : people themselves will counter the hoax actors.
Yes, it’s field day for bad actors because there are so much personal data, even medical data, available to harvest – due to lack of IT security and Data Protection regulations.
Many people already have their private data exposed to the public.
It’s not just a theoretical scenario anymore.
A strong IT security & Data Protection regulations is simply a must.
A good IT security regulations can avoid this situation. Lack of it will cause this.
Healthcare system vendors must be held accountable to security holes in their products. Incentivized to make it better, and deterred from making compromises in term of security.
HCW (healthcare workers) and other personnels with access to healthcare systems must be trained in the topic of digital security awareness.
Deployment and usage of 2FA tokens must be a norm.
DRC and secure, automated backup; must be a norm.
We need to have a Green Computing certification scheme, such as the well-known Energy Star: https://www.energystar.gov/about
It must be robust, covering the whole spectrum of internet & computing, including datacenters and each of its components.
There are levels of its certification, such level 1 for minimum compliance, and level 5 for complete compliance.
Therefore enabling a phased approach to the ideal condition.
We must encourage the young people from different background to engage with different multi stakeholder’s communities effectively in order to make their voice heard for the future of Internet Governance in different regions.
We must encourage the young people from different background to engage with different multi stakeholders communities effectively in order to make their voice heard for the future of Internet Governance in different regions .
so sorry the previous comment was fo parargraph no 7.
The three common types of Harassment are: Verbal, visual and physical, can we consider any of three types is crime?
Participation of youth or our next generation is essential for the sustainability of the entire Internet governance community, as well as the discussion of different Internet issues. It is always easy to say “we should encourage youth to participate”, but in reality, youth being unaware of Internet governance is not always the case. There are you in the community, but a sustainable way for meaningful participation is lacking.
A discussion in the Asia Pacific Youth IGF 2022 highlighted factors that hinder the inclusion of new voices, such as lacking support, gaps in the structure of the Internet governance ecosystem, as well as language barriers, and suggested how the youth community and other stakeholders could and should do to encourage sustainable meaningful participation from our next generation.
Youth is contributing with a limited capacity. The key is how our regional discussion and community includes their voice. For example, the youth from the Asia Pacific Youth is discussing and put together a youth statement with their outcomes on different Internet governance issues and working hard on keeping young people in our community. But is our regional discussion and community inclusive enough, in terms of structure and opportunities, to recognize their contribution, and reflect their opinions.
Community Engagement in Different Stakeholders for Data Protection for government monitoring & controlling perspective of South East Asia with comparison to western world
An important contribution of APrIGF is share free, multilingual online training programmes to marginalized communities. The network of networks would be helpful to find natural partners for translation, facilitators and more so that the end users have opportunities to learn
We need a process of accreditation for local digital literacy champions which provides a clear educational pathway for online learning
The pandemic has changed the education system dramatically. Currently, over 1.2 billion students are out of the traditional classroom, but still faced some challenges : An influx in the people who take online courses , Increased need for teachers’ advanced training , High demand for improved engagement , Increased need for personalized experiences and Continuous changes due to new trends.
Please note the work by the Green Internet Foundation with Chris Adams who spoke at the last RIPE meeting earlier this year
Prof Safaet Hossain from City University asked how to avoid people stealing educational content to the educational panel. If we are trying to connect the Unconnected we should be encouraging all educational materials to be licenced under the Creative Commons Sharealike licences and encourage folks to use the content with the proviso that they acknowledge the source.
I think if the people (he or she) has a good background to work with any ICT sector they have a right to take a job regardless of his/her situation ,and of course the priority must be for the people with special needs.
I think the GIG economy is a process for different stakeholders. Some restaurants don’t have enough capacity to digitalize. The platform helps them to have an online interface and provides drivers to deliver their products to customers. Some users don’t have credit cards or bank accounts to pay online but can pay by cash. In the opening plenary, Grab helps drivers to have a bank account to involve in economic activities.
But it still is a process. The platform collects data from drivers or customers. The drivers need to be protected by national labor force law. But when they are in the gig economy. They probably can’t have a union to defend their rights.
We must consider the labor force laws in different countries, not only competition laws, data protection regulations, or algorithms.
We need a sustainable solution to help people to close or cross the digital divide and make economic activities sustainable to prosperity the whole supply chain and society.
The Taiwan Stock Exchange, TWSE will ask enterprises to deliver and publish their ESG reports or whitepaper. So this should be an impact on SMEs in Taiwan. But it is a good beginning.
Another issue mentioned in the session. How to do a measurement to know the carbon emission in internet governance organizations? I can’t find the direct relationship between carbon emission and consumption from internet governance organizations. But maybe we can consider using renewable energy or new devices to save more energy.
About the eWaste and chips in Taiwan. I just took a look at the TSMC website. They provide their ESG book online as the link here: https://esg.tsmc.com/en/
At the end of the discussion, one remote participant wanted to know the data protection regulation in western and Asian countries.
There is GDPR in European countries and a California Consumer Privacy Act, CCPA, in the US. We probably don’t have a data protection law at the regional level, but we do have CBPR, the Cross-Border Privacy Rules system in the APEC community. As I know, Korea, Taipei, and some countries have already approved it in data economic development.
In data governance, I suggest identifying the purpose in different sectors. Not only talk about data protection. We should think about how to make data flow freely and securely in economic activities.
There were some good recommendations for inclusion – financial inclusion – in the Opening Plenary. Would be good to add some lines reflecting the discussion from there.
There was good discussion in the Day 0 session around healthy skepticism of the use of AI. Worth including some notes from that session in this section.
The COVID-19 period (2020-2021) was of one a difficult time for everyone. But for disabled students, it was quite challenging to get digital education. As in India most of the rural areas are still not having good internet connectivity due to weak signals and lots of students’ families can’t afford a smartphone and data charges as well. Apart from this, there are other issues also such as lack of direct supervision to use of the online learning platform and video conferencing applications. If students are new to these this will be a problem for them. The main problem was with the students having hearing disabilities as at that time the captioning support was limited on video conferencing apps. Moreover learning management systems were challenging for visually impaired students to use and lacked descriptions for instructive images in teaching notes.
I think Trust most of the time linked to the security , It involves the national and international legal structures and systems for providing safety, privacy and integrity of the Internet, as well as protecting the property of Internet users, particularly minors and novice users. This also includes the transparency of dealing with the huge amount of data resulting from Internet usage and the need to have an open data policy.
I think three ways to make technologies more inclusive for people with disability:
Embed inclusivity in 4IR technologies, Apply universal and accessible design in tech-enabled products , Invest in assistive technology with 4IR.
Participants shared their experiences of inadvertently allowing a checkmark to be clicked when they did not mean to, allowing their email to be subscribed to multiple newsletters seeking to sell them something. Also noted this happens in real life, not just in online world. For both, the practice may be legal, but it is not honest. It is not trustworthy. One participant recommended applying AI and ML to a browser to catch deceptive design- the question for the day is how to not just counter bad practices, but how to encourage and empower good practices? What do trusted design and trusted design guidelines look like?
More people need to be encouraged to participate in Youth IGF and fellowship programs.
Many IG-related contents have limitations in obtaining information to the general public just because it is English. In order to promote public awareness of IG, Youth IGF should also play a role in translating and delivering IG issues into each country’s language.
Plus, fellowship programs also require the participation of more diverse countries. In particular, it would be nice to bring countries that can share their know-how and skills to newcomers about Internet governance and share detailed ideas and technologies among fellows. The more good examples there are, the more countries will think about how to apply them to their countries (although it is also important that they provide ideas that newcomers can apply!)
As all know the main goals of Internet governance in different regions is to promote shared human values and rights in the “virtual” world, which should be similar to those of the “real” world , hopefully will reach that goal one day or even close.
The impact of cyber attacks on hospitals/healthcare sector/systems is profoundly human.
Establishment of not only national but also industry or sector-specific CERTs can help these critical sectors to mitigate attacks and recover from incidents.
The reason why the number of hacking cases at medical institutions has increased rapidly is that telemedicine and non-face-to-face treatment have been applied.
Through new intermediate routes such as applications and wearable devices, both patients and hospital officials can easily access hospital information, increasing the number of gaps that can penetrate security.
Unlike companies, medical institutions have information that must be protected called personal medical records, so it is important to establish a systematic security system.
Hospital managers should strengthen the security system in consideration of the importance of patient information, even at costs, and medical workers should also get training to comply with security-related rules.
What is the private sector doing specifically to do this?
One of the typical ways to deal with fake news is fact-checking. After the fake news is generated, the fact-checking process checks whether the fake news is true or not and informs. Fact-checking is a necessary process for Internet users as well as news producers and online media that deliver the news. This is because after the actual fake news is generated and spread, it spreads to many the general public before it becomes a fact check(←It’s too slow!). Therefore, when the public read news, it is necessary to have a habit of neutralizing the information that the news delivers and looking for follow-up articles or other media materials.
In addition, it is necessary to actively identify fake news so that other Internet users can identify the authenticity of the information through “interaction functions” such as comments and reporting when they encounter information that is difficult to trust.
APrIGF is by far a pretty welcoming platform for new voices. However, the sustainability of youth participation has always been a challenge. There are fellowship programs that support newcomers, but there isn’t enough support or a clear pathway for them to evolve into different roles in our community.
For example, joining the MSG and taking up roles to stay involved and contribute to the community is one of the many ways to continue their engagement. But is the existing environment inclusive enough? Not only the nature or design of how things are done in a working group or community but for example, the methods of communications. Is it effective or easy enough for new members to follow?
The existing format we adopted for communication, for instance, is using a mailing list and sending hundreds of emails back and forth to get one issue discussed or tasks completed. Newcomers might be interested to participating in all these processes and actually being capable to contribute. But a relatively unorganized way of communication might hinder or even discourage newcomers to understand, follow or even contribute to such a meaningful initiative or community.
According to a session at the Asia Pacific Youth IGF 2022, it is agreed that collaboration is the key to youth engagement and developing digital citizenship. Collaboration among youth initiatives is needed, in order to create synergies to ensure the youth’s opinions will be reflected as much as we can in different levels of discussion in the Internet governance community.
In order to develop local digital literacy, support from local organizations or collaborations is needed, as those outreach works are mostly contextual, and local languages and cultures usually have a great influence on capacity building.
The cyber-world is a rapidly changing environment. It is a fact that information can be disseminated in just one click with nearly no cost. Mitigating dis/misinformation on social media is a must, but given that social media is a privately-owned public space that is hosting a virtual community, content moderation, particularly on dis/misinformation must not be done by the platform or service provider solely. Instead, a community-based solution has to be proposed.
Certainly, we can always improve the algorithms to “filter” the information that is inaccurate or false to tackle the issues of dis/misinformation. However, the transparency of practice must be ensured with the participation of the community, as this could balance out the chances of the mechanism being abused and used for censorship.
Meanwhile, a community-based fact-checking mechanism should be developed and the empowerment of the general public in identifying the truthfulness or accuracy of information should not be neglected.
Interesting comment on human rights framework-based design, would like to see the distinction between human-centred design versus human rights framework-based design (if any)
A point highlighted was the need for stronger legal mechanisms, wondering if this means potentially adopting already present and considered “stronger” framework like EU GDPR, and if so would the contextual differences be reflected in the new mechanisms.
It is essential to make more stakeholders in the healthcare sector. The focus will be on capacity building and creating awareness to protect health data.
UNGGE, OEWG, and other initiatives have set norms in cybersecurity. Many of the norms focus on protecting internet infrastructures.
Building confidence-building measures between Asia Pacific countries or different territories is vital regarding the diplomatic measure. But it seems it only exists in UNGGE norms and is not really practical.
about IGF program theirs have some lack of content it’s not empowering the new voice at some point. The new voice could be others gender, youths, clans, or other ethics in AP. It looks like the speaker or guest talked only about their problem and hide the other important bigger point behind them. In AP should be floors for multi-gender to voice our AP region problems that relate to everyone and a floor for other problems for members to be interested or summarize session with multi-translator language that is popular in our region or a volunteer to help to translate for others people is the new voice has no English learning background to discuss Internet Governance In their country and can speak or voice to other people in our region. I think it’s time to do a bit bigger to represent our APrIGF to other regions
Existing process required to be reviewed and revised to ensure multi-stakeholder collaboration for developing local digital literacy champions.
This is spot-on – I have been using email and mailing lists since the nineties ; yet I can’t help feeling that I’m still missing some things from time to time.
We need a structured communication facility.
A forum with threading feature, such as Hacker News, might be a good idea.
We need to realize that “freedom of expression” does not mean “freedom of amplification”
Currently, controversial contents are amplified by the platforms’ algorithm – while the balancing views are denied exposure, due to its content that’s tend to use disarming words.
This is a serious issue, an unlevel playing field.
Both sides must be given equal exposure by the platforms, not just one of them.
What priorities and/or changes are needed from an Internet governance policy standpoint to accelerate progress towards a more inclusive internet for persons with disabilities?
Education is the gateway to enabling youth to gain digital literacy and which will eventually lead towards digital citizenship. Thus it is important to educate the youth on how to be responsible nitizens who are ready for this internet centric world. We should aim to include more youth in engaging conversatios and spreading more awareness of internrt governance in the APAC region and others.
Building a resilient internet encompasses many facets such as making internet accessible during natural disasters such as typhoons and earthquakes. One such initiatives are LACS and LEOs which not only help end users who face natural disasters but also those who live in rural areas with either unstable internet connection or none at all. This helps create an internet which is able to overcome any obstacles it faces.
Need some more specific points of concern topic
The Internet has been the catalyst for an information revolution of the past few decades thanks to the way the data delivery cost has been crowd-sourced among all participants in the Internet so efficiently as to be reduced to almost zero except that all participants had to pay only for the cost of maintaining physical connections with the local neighbors (“internet access fee”, “transit fee”) in proportion of the connection capacities. This way of cost sharing allowed people to communicate en masse at the scales dwarfing that of postage and telephony. A current regulation in Korea mandating ISPs to charge one another for the volume of traffic sent (the sender pay model) contrarily to the Internet way of things, has already increased the IP transit cost in Seoul to 8 to 10 times that of Paris, London, and Frankfurt, and made it prohibitive for overseas contents to be distributed within Korea, making Korea suffer from “the worst latency among OECD countries.” While Korea is about to extend the sender pay rule directly to content providers and other users of the Internet, European Commission is also considering a proposal to charge ”fair share“ of data delivery costs on the content providers again presumably with regard tothe data sent. These proposals, already once discussed and rejected back in 2011-12 by ITU, OECD, and BEREC, will bring the civilization back to the days of scarce and expensive communication through telephony as people uploading contents for a large audience will be charged each view. The Internet access (or ”being online“) has been a homogeneous product everywhere: it was the full connectivity to everyone else online. With the sender pay model, only the contents whose data delivery fees has been paid will be made available to the subscribers of only those ISPs that received those fees. The Internet as each of you see will be vary and and therefore become fragmented depending on the negotiations among your local ISPs and content providers. The Internet will lose its meaning as the platform on which all the global citizens could communicate with one another directly, freely, equally, and vigorously. We at APrIGF demand that the policy makers in Korea and Europe exercise caution and take into account the voices of the people who will be affected by these changes.
Unfortunately, our people are not even familiar with the basic concepts of digital literacy and digital citizenship. So, there is a dire need to educate and aware our public.
Including digital literacy in school and college curriculums, funding organizations that are working in this regard and hosting more initiatives and platforms to educate people are necessary to make internet a safe space for all.
Moreover, as discussed in one of the sessions, a multi stakeholder approach to regulate Internet without harming the rights of freedom of speech and expression has become a need of the hour.
Some websites share their members’ data with other businesses. They probably claim they will do this, but they use tiny or light color words on their membership page or users’ conditions page. People can’t read it clearly.
Users who subscribe to the e-newsletter probably get more e-promotion letters or SPAM emails in their email addresses. Users have to pay more costs or waste more time unsubscribing it. It not only happens online but also offline life.
Websites should use a navigation bar to help users to browse their websites. The precise navigation bar should be in web-accessibility to navigate people to use their websites easily.
Strategy or a solution of including rural areas of developing countries where connectivity is still a big question can be a great step for the accomplishment of the goal.
I believe a point of agreement between governments and private telecommunication companies is essential to connect the unconnected areas. Some fix percentage of connecting unconnected areas will be a good step towards connectivity.
Teaching children to have media literacy is very important. Let children know how to find and confirm a trustable media resource and how to do fact-checks. When a child hears about news, let them learn to ask ‘why’ and find evidence. These will help them till they grow up and in the election.
It is probably odd to talk about the situation in Taiwan. About thirty to forty years ago, children were taught not to take strangers’ booklets or brochures. If somebody spreads some articles about communism or talks the other countries or leaders that might be better than Taiwan, you need to talk to your parents or teacher.
I will not say this is the best method. But this is one experience to teach children to be aware of being careful with messages from unbelievable resources. This method probably makes people can’t trust each other, but it can be a method to help people to have awareness in their childhoo.
Awareness programs on how irresponsible use of the internet can have a huge negative impact on people’s lives is needed.
people don’t know about the multi-stakeholder approach and they are not aware of how they can play their part to shape the internet. Awareness seminars are needed for this.
The suggestions regarding the inclusion of the alumni who have worked and contributed to making IG inclusive and paced way for the intergenerational dialogue can be included in this section. Additionally the suggestions made during the launch of ORBIT and making an alumni portal to share information and learn from peers can be encouraged in this section.
One key feature to ensure inclusion and empowerment of new voices is to break the concepts and major IG issues into small and easy chunks which can be understood by beginners, overcomplicating the content can only result in confusion and will deter many of the new young community members to participate in these IG spaces.
UNICEF is currently holding one of the most important education and literacy-based conference, maybe having an inter-organizational dialogue with them could help advance the solutions to ensure that digital -education and digital-literacy grow faster and are able to reach the last mile.
The issues that were highlighted in terms of unintentional inequities that subsist in the jobs and workplaces during the session can be included in this section.
Inclusion should not be only for digitally literate people but also for those who are digitally as well as socially illiterate. Their voice need to be in digital space. Discussion should include in this topic as well.
The talk by Tobias on “An Internet for a ‘Burning World’ featured some of the key concerns raised in these sections and the propositions given by him along with the potential solutions could form a part of the follow through and the best practices to be adopted in the future.
Jaewon’s talk on Eco-Internet along with the solutions that were suggested becomes especially important. A section highlighting the ways in which the community can help resolve the environmental concerns can be added to this section. (For example: the deletion of the spam emails and the advertisement emails)
The report and the discussion by Mr. Edmond Chung needs to be highlighted and the ways in which the report can help the youth community to become more conscious and aware of their environmental impact needs to be brought to the forefront.
The encouragement is most for local youth IG in their respective region. More opportunities need to given for these youth who is represtenting the status of their local IG space not only as fellows but also as speaker, panelist, moderator, organizer. Any role they can play and make their voices reach out loud in reapective dimesion.
During the explanation and discussion by Loraine whilst explaining about Columbia’s ‘threadneedle’ session, we saw the same question being asked to the expert and the unequivocal response was ‘NO’ that businesses and concerns for human rights are not at odds with each other, instead they supplement one another to grow together. It was also highlighted that the companies do not even have to settle for lower profits. The questions raised by Gayatri and the answers by Loraine become especially important in the context of discussion in this section.
Civil society in parts of this region have been politically inclined or funded by the donor agencies in line with their interests. Terms like ” resilient” is only used to the community which are “vulnerable”. Shrinking civil space in these contexts is due to fragmented civil society, which lack the a non biased position and independent views. Keeping civil society independent is a gargantuan task in developing Asian countries.
These is an urgent need of proper “digital workers union” which will make gig economy fair. In many countries, gig workers outnumber other workers(civil services, army, police, doctors, government workers) combined. A model which is balanced between service, sharing and sustenance should be discussed.
Access to the internet is the major issue. This is a confusing topic.2.9 billion which makes 37 percent of the world population still have no access. As envisioned by SDG target 9.c clearly states in the “increase access to information and communication technologies and strive to provide universal and affordable access to the internet in least developed countries by 2020”. But many are still left behind. In not just internet technologies help achieve SDGs, but SDG ensures everyone has access first. Both work on symbiosis.
These technologies which have been deployed by the government during the pandemic have mostly been instituted, and now are thriving to be used for other purposes. This is a great danger. The Covid -19 also created a race amongst governments in Asia, to embark into digital authoritarianism.
I don’t know if “regulation” is the right term and I do not see in anyway todays social media can be regulated by a government or in this case election commission. In case of paid contents for campaigning, the start can be to label them well as political media content and clearly term them as info-advertisements. The election commissions/ election bodies should be willing to deploy “digital election observers” to monitor the content.
Librarian supports multiliteracies and assists learners become better inquirers and ethical creators of information.
With adequate funding and training, libraries are in a unique position to do support information literacy and digital literacy. I shared my story to highlight that it can be done in the Pacific.
School librarians support multiliteracies and assists learners become better inquirers and ethical creators of information.
With adequate funding and training, libraries are in a unique position to support information literacy and digital literacy. I shared my story to highlight that it can be done in the Pacific. *Why can’t digital literacy and information literacy work together? If you’re rolling out digital literacy initiatives, work with your public, community and school libraries. Better still work with the National Library to roll these initiatives out.
Past tense – the APrIGF was held….APrIGF co-located with…
nature of diverse Internet Governance issues and understand their significance at a policy level in all economies across the region…
Include Asia and Pacific region
Inclusion should enable everyone (including marginalised communities – persons with disabilities, rural and remote communities, youths and LGBTQI groups to contribute to and benefit from the digital economy and internet society. How can stakeholders work together to ensure meaningful connectivity, access and affordable internet for all. How can we ensure that no one is left behind?
It’s also importance to acknowledge the power relation between stakeholders are currently not equal, and to treat all voices equally there should be a visible effort to address it.
There’s a need to provide the knowledge in an understandable language, not only for abled people, but also for the community who might not have the same understanding or language or perception yet (eg. deaf communities) to address all sorts of things pertaining to digital livelihood.
Talking about inclusion, there’s also need to engage and include the law enforcement as often they are at the end of enforcing law but does not really have the understanding of how important it is to have human rights based approach and intervention on internet governance matter.
I agree on this. In Indonesia there’s also a11y focused community, such as Mitra Netra (for the blind/visually impaired) and Suarise-a consultant to improve a11y access for PwDs, but the focus is more on jobs access and not yet to engage them in the discussion of internet governance. We need to engage them too.
digital literacy goes hand in hand with digital citizenship. it is essential to safeguard one’s interests and others while expressing views on internet space. it is one’s responsibility to spread awarenance about digital citizenship in one’s circle as it may not only be harmful to that person but to others in the community too.
The future of work is a new generation of work is people nearly approve it like in-person work. A speaker talked about Korean platform ‘Webtoon’, this platform is famous in many countries in the Asia Pacific, and a lot of series sign contracts for making a series from webtoon comics. Unfortunately, I don’t hear a lot of voices about an online worker’s union to protect their people. A week ago, it’s news from our online creative community about a female artist, that an artist has missed a miscarriage because of a lot of work, the platform she work with didn’t take an action and the reader still asked her back to work to draw again. I hope next time we will discuss how we can protect online workers in the Asia Pacific and Islands region.
Some people these days don’t look after other issues. They concern only what issue they want to publish, that is why “Censorship” is so important because it helps people evenly, a child, a youth, an adult, an elderly including someone with health issues. As you know, disinformation, or waste thread information has become one of the biggest threats to trust on the internet, not only during the COVID-19 pandemic. It can attack everyone even if you have a good mental health condition. Moreover, most of the countries in the world have their own digital literacy and censorship related to their culture.
I have a lot of discussions about disclaimer, trigger warning, content warning and read this thread a lot in one of my communities. Even if we send our ID to check the age, they still ban the word or use moral light ( light of censor or something you use for censorship) to censor Adult content, in the way you can’t see anything but only the formal word and asterisk or star. to expand, they said some children used their parent ID. Is it OK to chase some content to an underground content? My artist friends use other openmind online legal websites to share or sell their drawing, their Artworks, their comic instread. That is the problem, we didn’t track or know which content the child sees after our back if we throw it out. If we have to concern and set the proper rate or gain the knowledge of what is the proper content with censorship, It will make online content better
Since the COVID-19 started, people have used the internet to find everything they are interested in. They have an online community, that is normal when people communicate or participate in issues with other people in the community, everything is starting. Online harassment can happen in every inch of the world and still happens in everyone’s lives. It’s not about women or gender diversity, it still happens in child, youth, and men’s lives. harassment can change to the crimes but our trustworthy, Is it the one way truth to addressing others because of the issues? harassment still happens since people alive, that is why addressing and strict law is not the way to change people’s habits. It’s late but not the last chance to educate people by using knowledge from around the world because in our Asia Pacific region, we still have a poor, uneducated area. All of us can access technology but they don’t understand the diversity of people around the world in the humanities situation. That is why harassment is a crime these days with a strict law that is not powerful or has no meaning law.
trust also calls for making change easier for people specifically the older generation who are most skeptical of new technology and need help with the transition from classical technology to the world of machine learning and AI.
As lawmakers move to clamp down on deceptive design practices, we also need to build guidelines and benchmarks for what trusted design looks like as part of a wider shift towards an environment where platforms design their services in a way that puts users in control and where trust becomes a norm. We need to create a culture where trust and long-term relationships are highly valued and where companies that lean on deceptive design practices are made to pay, as empowered customers leave and investors refocus on competitors that meet their expectations around ESG and ethical technology.
Building the principles, best practices, and regulatory guidance that can shape this environment demands input from a wide spectrum of specialists, from designers and product managers to academics and advocates, and experts already leading the way on regulation.
We need to identify who has been affected by the digitization processes, and how. For example, whose land is being used to build internet infrastructure such as data centers. And who will build those infrastructures? Who are the laborers behind the digital industry? If they are migrants, or indigenous peoples, how do we integrate them in the internet ecosystem? Could we consider them as a part of the internet ecosystem?
We also need to think about an efficient e-waste management system, and how to improve the working conditions of waste pickers who are informal workers and take the risk of prolonged exposure to toxic substances.
I think the discussion on gig economy in APrIGF this time lacked authentic voices from platform workers. We do not really know what a real challenge for them is, and what they exactly need from related stakeholders. In addition, I think this issue is challenging as their working conditions are different depending on the existing labor protection laws as well as the strength of labour unions in different countries. In the context of my country, Thailand, food delivery drivers and platform drivers, particularly old drivers, has a low digital literacy. Some of taxi drivers have unintentionally started using application to find their customers because young customers have changed their way to ask for taxi services.
To make a more fair and sustainable digital economy, voices of platform workers need to be heard, and they need to be visible in regional and global meetings such as APrIGF. We need an inclusive solution to close the digital divide and make economic activities more sustainable.
One of the speakers raised the issue about the import of surveillance technology such as Pegasus spyware by the government to monitor activists and opposition parties rather than to use for national security reason. In this regard, apart from privacy law in each country and region, the human rights due diligence framework need to be applied with tech companies as we need more transparent in purchasing and selling of surveillance technology. In addition, parliamentarians need to examine the use of state budget in purchasing of digital technology to tackle terrorism and/or protect the nation. Although some governments might argue that such technology is used for security purpose, in reality, it would be used for stealing personal data of ordinary citizens.
It is great to see more youth participating in APrIGF. But I would like to encourage this community to use intersectionality lens to think about young representatives. It is not just about age, but also their ethnicity, gender, (dis)ability, educational background and religious/belief etc. For example, how do we encourage young LGBT people from ethnic minority to join as a fellow? Is it possible for young people who are a platform worker and have a low level of education to participate in APrIGF? In this regard, I think we need to start from the local level – to empower those people to be prepared to talk about their issues in the regional and global level.
In addition, is it possible for APrIGF organizers to provide translators for participants who are not fluent in English? I have been engaging in APrIGF since 2018 and found that there are only a few fellows/youths from my country joining this event. One of the main reasons is that speaking English, particularly in the public, is not easy for them. Even some of them have public speaking skills, but not for English language.
I think what is lacking in APrIGF is the equal power relation between stakeholder groups. In particular, in each session, I did not see the diversity among speakers (at least in the sessions I attended) – many of them are from the same stakeholder groups. The sessions that talked about digital rights and disinformation, I did not hear voice from government/lawmakers. How do they work to improve digital rights? And what approach do they work to regulate the Internet? I would like to see more constructive dialogues among CSOs, private sector, tech community, and government in sessions in APrIGF. How can we make APrIGF to be a safe space for discussions for all stakeholder groups?
Need to include Youth into the discussion and policy development process, as Regional IGF and regional YIGF more.
Need to ensure more opportunities for the newcomer to be engaged in the process. Not just provide the opportunities but to ensure the information about them is spread across the community.
Why only in General Elections? We need to combat Disinformation in all aspects of human life.
And how can general user contribute as well.
Understanding the risk; the people with disabilities as the target of datafication on social protection programmes.
already held, should be changed to past tense
If possible, there should be included the number of participation in this para before mentioning theme, both online and in-person participation which will give a scope of the conference
its best to highlight prominent issues here, so readers from the very start know the kind of issues being discussed throughout the report
Under this track, following workshops explored some of the …
its better to use correct form of Covid as COVID-19 throughout the document
*to be inclusive
repetition of word “more” suggestion delete
can be rephrased as disinformation has become one of …… on the internet all over the world particularly Asia
*tool
Use full form
UNESCAP, ISOC, ITU, GSMA and A4AI has done a status of connectivity in APAC. There are some great insights captured in this document – https://www.unescap.org/kp/2021/towards-meaningful-connectivity-insights-asia-pacific-case-studies
I agree with everyone but we should also allow new voices from marginalised communities (they are usually left behind). I would also include new voices from rural and remote communities, persons with disabilities, LGBTQI communities etc.
In some countries, social media is regulated. Regulating the internet or social media violates the basic human right – everyone should have the freedom to express online or via social media but they need to do it with common sense. Because they have a sense of responsibility so you can make a point but with kindness.
Have to develop contents in accessible formats
And localizd contents
The challenges faced by students with disabilities (SWDs) worsened by COVID-19:
1. Lack of digital literacy a lack of sign language interpreters. Students with visual learning material lack of competence in using screen readers.
2. Difficulty using learning platforms and course exams or assessment. Students with visual impairments experienced a lack of descriptions for informative images in teaching notes, and difficulties in using learning management systems.
3. Difficulty communicating with support services, faculty/instructors and fellow students when SWDs live in family homes.
The latest report by UN Women and UNFPA in 2021 indicates that online misogyny has risen since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes trolling, sexual harassment, and victim blaming….
This is quite relevant as the spread of health-related misinformation and scare have been running rampant on the internet, especially on social media platforms where anyone and everyone can write anything. This adds to the stress and eventually, physician burnout of having to correct the wrong notions (and even deal with the hardheadedness) of the general public.
The session brought up many important issues related to ensuring that internet governance spaces like the APrIGF are inclusive and welcoming of new entrants:
1. For many who are interested in internet governance, spaces like the APrIGF seem daunting as they feel their lack of expertise or experience on these issues prohibits them from making a meaningful contribution. For them, programs like APSIG are very important but are not always accessible. There was a consensus on the importance of having more programs like this that build capacity of internet governance practitioners who are new to the field.
2. Diversity is critical in APrIGF and other internet governance spaces but it is not only enough to have diverse representation in the room, it is also important that the conditions for them to meaningfully participate are created. For instance, provisions for language, disabilities and creating awareness among the broader audience about being mindful and sensitive to the needs of diverse groups.
3. People need sustained opportunities to participate in spaces like APrIGF. One of the key factors is the lack of availability of resources. For instance, fellowships allow individuals only one-time opportunity to participate in IG spaces like APrIGF but it doesn’t provide opportunity for sustained engagement. There is a need to allocate more resources to allow new people to participate but also allow for sustained participation of groups.
4. Online engagement has been very important in the context of the pandemic, and it is also much more accessible for many people and groups; however, it doesn’t compare to being in these spaces in person since that is the only way to truly understand how they function, to meet people, build a network and engage meaningfully, without feeling disconnected from the process.
5. The APrIGF is a multi-stakeholder process but it doesn’t have equal representation from all stakeholders. Important stakeholders like the government and private sector are not as engaged as they ideally should be. There is a need to engage them more actively to bring them into the conversation. Similarly, there is a need to engage under-presented groups and regions within Asia. The work of the stakeholder engagement committee is very important in this regard.
6. Internet governance in Asia is not just the APrIGF. The APrIGF is not a decision-making forum but a discussion forum. A lot of important decisions around the internet get made in other spaces and at the national level. New entrants must learn about and engage more in these processes as well, especially at the national level and push for more change there.
7. The APrIGF is a space for everyone, irrespective of their background, identity or expertise. Anyone interested in this process can and should become a part of it by joining the MSG and other committees, so that newer and more diverse voices can shape its future.
The session highlighted some key points on the state of digital rights in different countries in the region post-pandemic:
1. There has been a backsliding of democracies, with increase in human rights violations, censorship and surveillance particularly through digital technologies.
2. The pandemic proved to be opportunity for many states to increase surveillance – this has been done through unfiltered collection of data from health tracking applications, laws and policies that give states greater control over people’s data and the ability to obtain such data without regard to privacy and data protection norms and the use of spyware such as pegasus on activists, journalists and other dissidents. Governments are using public funds to purchase spyware from other countries to use on their citizens without any legal oversight or accountability.
3. Civic space online is shrinking along with an increase in censorship and arrests of citizens for online expression, particularly expression criticising the state.
4. Hate speech and misinformation online, targeting particular individuals and groups, is being used as a political weapon to influence public discourse and sway elections.
5. On the other hand, there is also a growing awareness among people, especially online and through the internet, of their rights, particularly with respect to privacy and their data.
6. Increasingly, people are using online spaces to discuss, mobilise and coordinate to fight for their rights and hold states accountable.
7. There is a need for an international recognition of this problem of digital authoritarianism and its rise in Asia, particularly as it pertains to sale and purchase of surveillance technologies by private companies to states and other entities.
8. There is also a need for strong data protection frameworks in countries across the region that not only protect internet users from private companies but also the collection and use of their data by the state.
The integration of marginalized communities does not end with Internet connectivity and providing access to new digital tools, such as e-commerce. Inclusion means benefiting from digitalization in all its dimensions, not only as end users. With appropriate policies and a local-based approach focusing on marginalized communities’ needs, innovation can flourish, and digitalization can spur local entrepreneurs and startups, multiplying the economic impact in the communities.
Underserved communities face market access challenges and lack access to financial tools to support local entrepreneurship. Moreover, local nuances, language barriers, and cultural and behavioral issues make digital adoption and entrepreneurship particularly challenging and context-based. These adoption constraints can be minimized when digital solutions are developed within the community and by local entrepreneurs. People from underserved communities are talented and innovators, and they can solve the digital adoption challenges if appropriate policies and market incentives are provided.
The constraints for digital adoption are particularly expressed among indigenous people’s communities, where the lack of context-based solutions from some apps does not match with the societal cosmovision of the communities. For example, the relevance of a long-term intergenerational view to define the present, the lack of apps in local languages, or the underlying biases in new AI developments. Biases are embedded in the technologies, and they will persist unless marginalized communities are part of the entrepreneurship ecosystem.
Finally, the digital tool itself can promote inclusion. For example, apps can help women entrepreneurs in underserved communities to avoid the “middleman” market power issue by connecting them with new markets. But these cases will only be sustainable if there is a long-term commitment to expand access, spur competition, and take into account local voices.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2018 Port Vila Synthesis Document – Draft 1 (118 comments)
I’ve a comment on the last paragraph where we are using cybersecurity and cyber crime as synonyms. Need a new paraphrase.
I think, cyber policy makers are key stakeholders who make cyber policy including laws.
I think, the first sentence os a bit wrong, dependency on IPv^, DNSSEC and routigh Security only ?? Well, I’m not convinced. Need rework on the para. We can say, these are some of major issues to be addressed !
Who should take these education or awareness ?
Privecy and Data Protection are always critical issues, not only now.
Can we have APAC regional level Disaster preparedness network ? Any discussion in that line ?
There are many economies in APAC who criminalizes blockchains and similar new technologies, were there any discussion on addressing the issue? Does this recommends or urges to address the issue?
I found some Asia and Pacific participants perspective. Are we dis integrating Asia Pacific into Asia and Pacific ?
This can be rephrased as “Building a secured Internet ultimately means improving on the cybersecurity standards and the ability to trace malicious activities”
add guidelines on the first line……therefore should read, after implementation of policies, guidelines and best practices…..
Thanks for the comments Mr.Babu. This sentence can be rephrased as “The future stability and security of the Internet highly depends on the successful implementation of policies and best practices, and by addressing the increased implementation of few major issues like IPv6, DNS Security Extensions(DNSSEC) and routing security”
Emphasis to implement and conduct awareness and education to multi-stakeholders on existing national laws that have provisions of collecting and possessing data privacy
No special educators for this awareness, we need to bring about evidence based training that needs to be exchanges among the peers and shared with the community
also the key to inclusive and diversity is to promote innovative development
also the key to inclusive and diversity is to promote innovative development. (this sentence should read here and not above)
In addition to Government providing policy environment for access it should include for services as well and further financial support to drive local content and demand driven solutions
just started in the Pacific
We should also include the work espionage.
*word
I think “legality of” in the first line should be replaced with “issues of”. The reason is that it seems to be an issue of legality but if so, any illegality can be easily “cured” be passage of a law.
Suggest amending the last sentence by adding to it the words in quotation marks:
At the same time, Internet shutdowns and restrictions are detrimental to the freedom of expression and right of universal access to Internet “and so should be kept to the minimum in duration and in compliance with due process.”
Capacity building starts at the grass root and a good example of the Vanuatu IGF that were established during APRIGF. It would be good to revisit the impact of such intiative in training locals on how to safely navigate the Internet. This initiative can be driven by local government initiative such the CERT Vanuatu.
This section does not address how we can strengthen existing stakeholders such as CERTs. It does mention these initiatives but there is a need to determine how CERTs and any other domain interact with organisation such as ICANN, APNIC, and other train providers to strengthen their skills in term of responding to threats.
Enabling meaningful access to the Internet not only involves building infrastructure or connectivity, but it also means, to enable access to an Internet which is free, open, affordable, accessible, neutral, inclusive, diverse and uninterrupted among others. ( So that, we cover all aspects of Internet Access)
The document currently points out we need a disaster management plan. Why do we need was pointed out by Vint Cerf, he mentioned how concerns with respect to cable landings are increasing with increase in global warming and in order to mitigate the same we need comprehensive disaster management plan. (we can consider including the ‘why’ part to make document comprehensive)
Instead of using ‘can result in data driven discrimination’, I was wondering if we could use ‘may result in data driven discrimination’. Just sounds more grammatically sound.
Also, we can add something on the lines of what happens offline manifests online and how women are being affected by online abuse.
Change my address to C/- Poste Restante, Vanuatu Post Limited, Port Vila Republic of Vanuatu.
This has to be done at the grass roots level or community Services Organisations level for Vanuatu.
to affordable internet in the pacific region
Good points. This can be discussed in the next APrIGF or APSIG, and we will compile your opinion for the next draft.
Thanks Ang for your input. Will update accordingly.
Thanks, Dorren for your input. I would like to hear more aoug Digital Economy and other emerging technologies from the Pacific. Would you be able to make some more comments on the issues specific to the Pacific countries?
Thanks!
Cross-Border Data Flows Enable the Digital Economy | Public Policy
According to McKinsey research, international data flows have increased global GDP by 10.1 per cent over the past decade. Both ASEAN and APEC have officially recognised in their privacy frameworks the vital contribution that cross-border data flows make to trade and economic growth in their region. Although the Asia Pacific region has made good progress in developing and implementing data privacy frameworks that both protect citizens and allow data to flow across borders, the report highlights that variances in data privacy laws across countries are holding back trade and innovation.
source: https://www.gsma.com/publicpolicy/regional-privacy-frameworks-and-cross-border-data-flows?utm_content=76645995&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin
We have witnessed a spiking number of successful female CEOs who have built their businesses mostly online and then could extend these to offline. The benefits of these online businesses initiated by female CEOs are more than the economic empowerment, as those businesses are mostly for the women thus can satisfy the needs of women which might have been shunned or disrespected by those which have focused on the needs of the male customers. This is not only about the female communities but also for other marginalized communities as well. By running business online which focuses on their own needs, these traditionally marginalized groups can be empowered comparatively easily.
I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the discussions which try to treat women as a special group which needs special supports. Although this can be still true to many of the regions on the earth, I would also like to emphasize that quite a large number of female CEOs could successfully build their businesses online, and we are also seeing the even bigger number of female CEOs using SNS to leverage their businesses in Asian regions.
Here, educating the youth and the marginalized communities is essential to increase their access to the Internet. Governments can actively implement the public policies and public education systems which ensure educating these communities so that they can be equitably benefitted from the Internet and other technological developments.
“Law enforcement, network operators and IT professionals “. I think we should add civil societies…
“Law enforcement, Service providers,, IT professionals, civil societies and bankers”
The relationship between privacy and freedom of expression can be ariticated more. Because I am wondering why privacy may conflict to freedom of speech. Without the guarantee of using internet, users may tend to self-censoring their expression. That is the lack of privacy harms freedom of expression.
(In my last comment, I mean “articulated” more.)
The concept jumps from privacy to freedom of speech then lands on “hate speech” might be hard to understand. The core idea is that in order to make the internet open to everyone, to let users feel free to express their personalities as a human, we need the privacy and take serious to online abuse issues.
During the meetings for the synthesis document, it has been proposed to particularly incorporate the Pacific perspectives as APrIGF was held in Vanuatu and there was Pacific IGF going on along with APrIGF this year.
Hope this helps!
CERT should be replaced with CSIRT since CERT is registered trademark of Carnegie Mellon University.
UN IGF also uses CSIRT (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/steapp/dpl-news-publications/un-internet-governance-forum-workshop-on-csirts-and-cyber-diplomacy)
Not all new technologies would contribute positively to the economy.
We need to acknowledge that technology is not inherently good and it also has some adverse effect on society.
What does “markets” refer to in the first paragraph?
In the Pacific especially Vanuatu digital economy is in its early stages especially with e-commerce it is only popular among tourism industry due to payment systems not fully integrated into the local commercial Banks.
Digital trade and ecommerce will also promote traditional and cultural practices to produce more of local products example local handicraft when global market drives demand.
I think trace malicious activities is not enough. Can we go further more after tracing.
?
I would add practical, reasonable and fair solutions
A transparent multi-stakeholder approach to identify and address key risks is a positive way forward to addressing cybersecurity issues which within the Asia Pacific region.
This sentence is manufactured oriented Machine-User. What about User-other user side line perspective?
[It is important to protect and respect the rights of users while ensuring digital security as a whole.]
My comment above!
[The key to socio-economic progress in the developing societies is quality education]
and training
A paragraph that states clearly that APRIGF understand the need for pacific islanders equip with devices that are disaster responsive.
Great points Yeseul
Cyber security is the main biggest issue now a days
http://unctad.org/en/pages/newsdetails.aspx?OriginalVersionID=636&Sitemap_x0020_Taxonomy=UNCTAD%20Home;#1450;#Technology%20and%20Logistics;#1713;#Information%20and%20Communication%20Technologies;#1946;#ICTs%20and%20Women's%20Entrepreneurship
[Online accessibility and the availability of services online particularly for people with disabilities remain a priority. Development of content on the Internet should include accessibility as part of the agenda as such accessibility features can add to the user experience. This could be achieved with various technological developments such as voice assistants and character recognition software. More can be done to involve people actively in developing inclusive technologies and online content.]
Suggest to shorten and change above wording to:
‘Online accessibility for people with disabilities remains a priority. Inclusive design means the development of hardware and software that enhances the user experience generally and enables online content that is also accessible for people with disability. More can be done to involve people actively in developing inclusive technologies and accessible online content.’
In the phrase “be available in all languages…”, can we include scripts as well? (“be available in all languages and scripts…”)
[which]
Remove.
[Privacy by design needs to be emphasized along with informed consent]
The sentence needs to end here.
[safeguard collection and use of personal data]
“…safeguard the collection and use of personal data” ?
[beckons for reliable,]
Non-standard usage? “Calls for” may be more appropriate.
[Internet shutdowns and restrictions are detrimental to the freedom of expression and right of universal access to Internet.]
Internet shutdowns also have a significant detrimental impact on the economic/commercial use of the Internet. I wonder if this aspect should also find a place.
[have the potential to redesign our interactions ]
“redesign” is too mild for what these technologies can do…”transform” may be more appropriate.
The last sentence is not that comprehensive. When we think about securing the Internet, it usually means ensuring network security and stable operation, maintaining the integrity、confidentiality and availability of network data, effectively responding to network security incidents, and then preventing cybercrime and the ability to trace criminal activities.
Very interesting to learn new concept regarding the topic on Cyber security
I was graduate with a bachelor in Computing Systems in Auckland and interest also in Cyber security which I also have some related subjects in term of malware Analysis,System Security Botnet,Fishing etc…..I would like more if the stake holder could provide more pratical worshop on this topic of Cyber security.
For my little state Island I wish if my community need to understand more about online Privacy and data Protection to help young people to their respective environment to have what this topic is all about.
For my Island State I wish if APRIGF can deal with our local Government IT center to run awareness more on access and Empowerment of using Digital device through internet.
I wish if our Government IT center to create a digital e-commerce shopping online to satisfy every citizen living in my country(vanuatu).
i really want to see a diversity of people with different norms and values to participate and engage in Digital world.
The second sentence：
Digital trade and e-commerce have already become the key enablers of the global economic growth and has been changing the ecosystem of the traditional trade.
It is not a point that needs to be predicted, but is already happening. Right?
Many cost effective IoTs device comes with weak set of protocol which rises Security concerns so there is need to regulate the IoT manufactures and policy should be made to implement the compliance standards. only certified and compliance IoT devices should be allowed to allowed to market.
Te cross-boarder security is a challenge due to the fact that a lot of security architecture based on central trusted party to make sure the data integrity and security. The universal technological solution for protecting data integrity independent of trusted central party should also be explored to ensure the goal of cross-boarder data security for better data regulation and security.
The specific capacity building model for smooth learning of old age people should be encouraged. This will help in bridging gap between the understanding of young generation vs the mid or old age people who have less tendency to adopt and learn new technologies.
The last sentence is inaccurate and logically confused.
Good national governance and legislation do contribute to the successful economic development but they are not the prerequisites definitely. For many countries, national governance and legislation often fall behind economic development. It could only say that, good national governance policies and timely legislation will create a better environment for economy development.
Additionally，national governance，policy making and legislation are all at the national level. Supranational cooperation is at the international level. Two aspects need to be considered together.
I suggest we keep it general and just say “relevant agencies and the technical community” This is so that the judiciary (prosecutors and judges) and policy makers are also included here as well.
[ technical capabilities]
I would suggest that this be changed to read “technical and forensic capabilities”in the region. This is to capture that some of these CERT’s are intended to be the only technical forensic capability in their countries as in the case for Tonga until maybe the number of reported cases increase in the future.
A problem concerning cybersecurity is that there is no uniform set of laws for all countries, or countries within any region, which would put up a broad framework within which all digital activities need to be performed. I think we should include the legal topics in our agenda for the year 2018-2019.
I think not just the technical community, but also the private sector companies need to be duly included in the multi-stakeholder approach. This would then entrust responsibilities and rights to the conduct of the latter.
I see, the next point says end-users also be trained on security technique methodologies. This could be best achieved if the private sector is asked to train their customers/ audience base, but on an objective note.
Here we need to keep the emerging market trends in mind. Say for instance, South Asia would be increasingly getting connected with Southeast Asia with the actualization of the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Corridor, which is now officially decided to be connected with Vietnam through Cambodia.
There could be other regions within Asia that will be connected to their respective adjacent regions in near-future.
How do you actually connect marginalized communities at a cross-border level. This needs to be very well planned, and not for the heck of saying.
Educating women, especially young girl children, on matters relating to advanced digital technologies and digital securities in crucial for empowering the whole society. There needs to be special focus in this regard, and am sure this would not be gender-discrimination but gender-empowerment.
I think we, i.e. APRIGF, its MSG group members and the organizations they are affiliated with/ head, should come up with a consensual final document of this and send it across to all national and state/ provincial governments. Also, we make a follow-up inquiring how government agencies have acted upon the shared suggestions mentioned in the doc.
[Privacy and data protection are critical issues now, especially as they may come into conflict with freedom of expression]
Is this trying to say “right of privacy” as “universal human right”? If yes, then the correct reference should be Article 13 of 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The freedom of speech is in Article 19. Conflict between privacy and freedom of expression usually discuss in a context of press freedom. I would suggest to frame privacy as enabler of freedom of expression, as in Article 17-19 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The ‘free flow of data’ narrative should not be considered the default norm. Our data is not a trade commodity and it should not be treated as such. Privacy is a fundamental human right; thus it should flow alongside our data throughout the data life cycle. There should be check and balances to the free flow of data.
Our rights should flow alongside our data throughout the data life cycle.
People should be in control over their data, no matter where they are and no matter who holds it. Data ownership implies that people can sell away their fundamental rights, including privacy. Thus, we need comprehensive data protection laws and other regulatory mechanisms that are designed to safeguard people, not international businesses nor state control over their citizens. But we also need regulations that encourage healthy competition, not data monopolies.
Governments need to balance many considerations (not just free flow of data for innovation) including the need to require data to be stored locally for a number of reasons including: to investigate tax evasion (eg New Zealand), for privacy (eg Australia), to be able to do timely and effective financial regulation the way the USA couldn’t during the 2008 financial crisis because some Lehman Brothers data was stored in Hong Kong etc.
[A multi-stakeholder approach to identify and address key risks is a positive way forward to addressing cybersecurity issues which within the Asia Pacific region]
I think there may be a word missing between which and within
Suggest:
Privacy and data protection are critical issues now, especially in the digital age where forms of violations are fast evolving. as they may come into conflict with freedom of expression, and can result in data-driven discrimination.
Reason: rights don’t come in conflict with each other. They have to be seen as an exercise of harmonisation. SR on FoE has many times talked about balancing rights and not confronting
After youth and women – please include while addressing privacy.
Instead of internet community – use Societies should
Suggest rephrasing the next paragrapgs as :
Societies should take a proactive approach (contributing to the efforts of regulators and legislators to strengthen online privacy and data protection), and also collaborate with agencies and organisations which are trying to combat ‘hate speech’ directed at different sections of society, especially women and minorities.
Across the Asia Pacific region, legislation has been developed to govern various aspects of the Internet. Legislation that traditionally govern offline spaces is also used in tandem with these specialised legislation to address violations. This is applicable to privacy and data protection as well. It is pertinent to emphasise the need for these laws and regulations to meet domestic constitutional as well as international human rights standards. ICT laws and privacy related regulations by state and non-state entities must place users and individuals as their priority, be rooted in, and adapt a human rights based approach. States and private entities, especially social media platforms must carry out human rights impact assessments for their existing policies and regulations on privacy and ensure that any changes or introduction of new policies undergo such assessments. States should also collaborate and adapt good practices from each other towards ensuring human rights online and privacy protection through adapting comparable legislation in the region.
I do not agree that this is a new concept – this existed in earlier forms – but i guess the point is dealing with the challenges of the new forms of data protection challenges –
Some points missing from earlier inpiut – can be captured as
Good practices and standards evolving in other jurisdictions, especially GDPR must be analysed and adapted as feasible for the region. Privacy considerations strengthened in light of GDPR may have extraterritorial enforceability. ICANN contracted parties must particularly comply with the GDPR and contractual obligations, trumping community-led policy development processes at ICANN.
Digital rights management could be explored as a significant manner in which online privacy can be protected, to this end capacity building programmes and measures must be extended through multi-stakeholder participation to empower users. Private entities, especially social media platforms play a significant role in ensuring privacy online and refraining from compromising privacy rights of users. Platforms must adapt privacy protections by design and strive for informed consent over formal gestures. As the demand for data localisation grows, these private entities must act in accordance wtih international human rights standards and states must refrain from compromising rights of individuals.
PACIGF Notes on Cybersecurity:
The Fiji Government has recently introduced an Online Safety Bill that will see irresponsible social media users paying up to $20k in fine and face imprisonment of up to five years if investigated by the Online Safety Commission and found guilty.
This bill will impact on hateful and harmful electronic communications and the posting of intimate visual recordings that would impact women and children as victims.
I am not sure if arguing that highest level of protection is the best way – we should ask for privacy by default and the enforcement of common minimum standards – which can then be enhanced in other jurisdictions
Suggest this to replace existing paragraph
We should talk about being aware and understanding how different groups and discriminated against and have difficulty using the internet – or accessing it – example – indigenous groups and women – LGBT groups.
Perhaps we can express that the new and emerging tech should be rights respecting – also can say we hope open source alternatives for existing and new tech keep evolving ensuring that users have autonomy and choice
Should we put dispruptive in “”
More than social systems it is a question of rights – social systems is a dicey term
Please reconsider how the last line is phrased… Even if tools benefit society, or a notion of it – it comes from a place of power- who is to decide it beefits society enough to overrule personal or individual rights
Not just civil rights – it is economic cultural and social rights that are mostly impacted – overall I suggest using human rights or mention both classes through the document.
PACIGF Notes:
52% of the countries have adopted DNSSEC in the Pacific
These changes are possible only in social media platforms and internet companies, especially those that have become a part of our every day life act in a more responsible manner. Business entities must take rule of law and ensuring rights are protected in the their policies and implementation is the basis on which less intrusive regulations can be demanded from states
Sorry maybe the above comment should go under Online Privacy and Protection
Would be good to include persons of all sexual orientation – this is key
Would it be possible to suggest a rights based approach to cyber security?
Also would be great if we addressed diversity in infractructure ownership which will impact who gets access
Can we change civil rights to human rights?
Suggest putting in a line that aspires for a plural internet that allows or aids individuals to develop in a manner that they deem fit for themselves
PacIGF Notes:
It is costly for companies to implement and also maintain infrastructure because the islands in the Pacific are too spread out, also there are natural disasters occurring every year
PacIGF Notes:
Pacific Internet exchange point: Vanuatu, PNG and now Fiji
PacIGF notes:
In the Pacific there is an Australian Government program called Pacific Connect with a focus on Fiji, Samoa, PNG, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Tonga to engage digital and ICT initiatives in the areas of government digital/innovation, cyber engagement, leadership, women, and research. The program is said to be about putting the ‘right’ people in the room to connect and work on mutually beneficial issues. The two year pilot program’s theme is: Building Australia-Pacific Connections for the Digital Future
PacIGF Notes:
Digital Technology is still fairly new with a technical Startup called TraSeable Solutions implementing Seafood Provenance and OxFam (humanitarian relief cash transfers) with other projects like Fiji’s land registry on blockchain, PNG- palm oil supply chain and national identity and supply chain projects
Ensuring that the Internet does not replicate existing inequalities is something mentioned in the community networks session. For example in an area with good connectivity, men still have more access than women or the wealthy more so than the poor.
PacIGF Notes:
There is still a need for alot to be done.
Also need for a bridge between IGF communities and spaces. The need to bring multi stakeholder models to the Pacific Nations
PacIGF Notes:
A need for all to come together with your own skills for your own areas. To collaborate and work together to achieve national requirements
PacIGF concluded with the need to learn from each other and help each other also a more inclusive approach where for example the legal people highlighted that they are always the last to know and only if there is a problem but they would like to be more informed and in the loop from the beginning
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2017 Bangkok Synthesis Document – Draft 1 (107 comments)
[Therefore strategies must infrastructure-based]
A word or phrase is missing.
This sentence is clunky. It’s too wordy and this gets in the way of being comprehensible. The suggested edit follows.
As improved technologies facilitate access for the next billion Internet users, it is important that the individual and collective uniqueness, and the linguistic, geographic and cultural diversity that these new users bring to the Internet be supported, conserved and enhanced through inclusive policy measures such as the universal acceptance of internationalised domain names.
[Whether it is security, stability and resilience of the Internet infrastructure or security of network and information systems, , to issues on safety, privacy and data protection, collaboration and capacity building[22] are needed to mitigate[23] and prevent cyber security incidents[24] within and beyond the Asia Pacific region, and the setting of global encryption standards is encouraged[25].]
Suggested edit.
Collaboration and capacity building[22] are needed to mitigate[23] and prevent cyber security incidents[24] within and beyond the Asia Pacific region, and the setting of global encryption standards is encouraged[25].]
[agreed international conventions and declarations]
Delete “agreed” on redundancy.
[Respect for human rights is fundamental to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)[45].]
Recommend moving this up to the start of the paragraph.
[Human rights agreements should apply to the Internet environment in the areas of access and development, freedom of expression[39], right to assembly and privacy as well as on the right to information, education, health, culture, and to a broad range of other rights[40] as set out in the WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles[41], Tunis Agenda for the Information Society[42], and other agreed international conventions and declarations[43]. The impact of existing and emerging laws, policies, and practices on the security of network and information systems, data protection, surveillance, anonymity, intermediary liability and cyber-crime must protect human rights and meet international standards for guarantees. These issues have been the subject of intense scrutiny and debate by all stakeholders at the APrIGF meeting. The application of human rights should also consider issues of gender, disability, age and sexuality[44]. Respect for human rights is fundamental to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)[45].]
Suggested edit.
Respect for human rights is fundamental to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)[45]. Therefore, human rights agreements should apply to the Internet environment in such as set out in the WSIS Geneva Declaration of Principles[41], Tunis Agenda for the Information Society[42], and other international conventions and declarations[43]. These areas include access and development, freedom of expression[39], right to assembly and privacy as well as on the right to information, education, health, culture. Laws, policies, and practices on the security of network and information systems, data protection, surveillance, anonymity, intermediary liability and cyber-crime must protect human rights and meet international standards for guarantees. The application of human rights should also consider issues of gender, disability, age and sexuality[44]. These issues hwere the subject of intense scrutiny and debate by stakeholders at the APrIGF meeting.
[Right]
Missing article: The
Suggest this be changed to 4 part – including necessity
How do you define a reasonable period of time? If that is the case, the user must also be aware that this information is safe only until a certain period.
Not sure what data-driven discrimination is discussed here… perhaps we can simplify it by saying freedom of expression, privacy and data protection need to be balanced rather than saying they come in conflict
We should also add violence against women and children. The discrimination or affect by internet to the individual internet users have to included.
The word are too hard to understand. simple word to be used if possible.
Country like Nepal, there is no MLAT or letter of rotatory provision in our country incase of trans-border crime.
Please also include this.
Sentence starting: “Building on… APrIGFs 2015 Macao and 2016 Taipei,….” OR “APrIGF 2015 Macao and APrIGF 2016 Taipei,”
Also “two webinars each followed by public comment periods, ”
Could there be an addition? “… collaborative open document detailing the significant deliberations which took place during the APrIGF 2017 Bangkok.” (ending the introductory para with an introduction to the most recent APrIGF)
(as well as “of those within” the broader APriGF…
Nevertheless it is anticipated by “the” APrIGF…
…thoughts in the Asia Pacific region as “a” contribution…
I would delete “the” before Best Practice Forums..
Replace “to be held from” December 2017 (with) “to be held on 18-21” December 2017
I would finish the sentence at “collaboration at a regional level.”
(continue with…)
It also aims to aggregate national and local IGF discussions, and ultimately, to advance the … etc
I would suggest that we insert something in the sentence that begins “Community networks and public access to ICT [17]” and continue with…
“not only have the potential to improve digital literacy but also facilitate safe, effective, non-discriminatory access by all users, including women and children and those within marginalised and underserved communities.”
Last sentence is OK without the “And” at the beginning of the sentence. I know we all do it but its not grammatically correct :(
I like this paragraph
Exactly!
In the last sentence of this paragraph…
change”is funding as well as ensuring that… etc”
to
“is funding, however, it is also important to ensure that …etc”
Agree with Peng Hwa’s edits.. with amendment of the typo :)
I agree with the section beginning with statement about human rights being fundamental to the achievement of SDGs and also impressing on readers that human rights was a major area of “scrutiny and debate” at the APrIGF.
Great paragraph. I also think it addresses some of Ananda’s concerns from para#11.
This could perhaps be added after the last sentence , The greatest challenge ………………..skills of participants.
Another challenge is in scaling up and sustaining these initiatives.
It seems a verb is missing from “Therefore strategies must infrastructure-based that are aimed at shaping technologies”?
The concept is not clear and it does not flow with the rest of the sentence.
Change for “preserve”.
Use either internet or Internet, but use it consistently.
Paragraph is a a bit clunky… Suggested edits:
Capacity building is critical to bridge the digital divide across Asia Pacific, especially in marginalised and developing countries. By empowering diverse communities to develop, deploy and use ICTs more effectively, they stay informed, understand their digital rights and responsibilities and can therefore participate, enhancing the Internet ecosystem. Capacity building strategies al local, regional and global level that address the needs of neglected communities from underserved areas are key towards digital inclusion, and should incorporate security and privacy.
This is already happening. It should not be written in future tense, as if nothing has been done.
to ultimately advance the IG development in the AP region “and promote a progressive discourse on IG in the region”
effective and “meaningful”
Edits suggested:
The greatest challenge that exists for any capacity building initiative is funding allocated to strengthen participation, ensuring diversity of language and culture, as well as the background knowledge and skills of participants.
And updating gender blind policies
Use either cybersecurity or cyber security consistently across the document.
[neglected communities]
neglected and marginalized communities
I think it’d be good to emphasize that CP not just helps create awareness but also gives agency to the users
Agree
[rights activists]
human rights activists
Can we also include people with disabilities as well as other groups of people who have specific challenges and needs that need to be incorporated into IG?
Clunky paragraph… edit suggested:
Cybersecurity, understood as the protection of online systems from damage and disruption, is critical not just to the stability of cyberspace, but also increasingly important to the physical world such as safety, privacy and data protection with concrete technical recommendations for consideration such as setting global encryption standards [25]. Collaboration and capacity building[22] are needed to mitigate[23] and prevent cybersecurity incidents[24] within and beyond the Asia Pacific region.
[to address violations]
and in some instances to restrict freedom of expression and suppress dissent.
Agree
Sorry, missed a sentence:
Cybersecurity, understood as the protection of online systems from damage and disruption, is critical not just to the stability of cyberspace, but also increasingly important to the physical world on issues such as safety, privacy and data protection where concrete technical recommendations for consideration were discussed, such as setting global encryption standards [25]. Collaboration and capacity building[22] are needed to mitigate[23] and prevent cybersecurity incidents[24] within and beyond the Asia Pacific region.
[the protection of children and youth online]
And also indicate that capacities of children and young people should be strengthened so that the approach is not entirely protectionist and gives agency to the users as well.
Especially through the use of blanket provisions such as “in the interest of National Security”.
I think it’s fine for it to be at the bottom. The SDGs are weak in accountability mechanisms and are not centered in human rights language so it’s fine to mention it later in the para.
Can we explicitly mention ICESCR, ICCPR and CEDAW?
[The application of human rights should also consider issues of gender, disability, age and sexuality]
“crosscutting” issues
Are there concrete suggestions for this?
[important]
critical
[women]
women and girls
Women are not a homogenous group and their access to technology is affected by a number of other factors such as age, class, caste, race, ethnicity, income, culture, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, abilities, urban or rural locality, etc. Therefore, women have to overcome multiple discriminations in order to gain access. These include, but are not limited to, the high cost of devices, the high cost of connectivity, lack of infrastructure, social, cultural and religious norms and restrictions, geographical location, language barriers, etc. Even when they overcome some of those barriers, often women and girls’ increased access to the Internet is directly proportional the increase of violence against women online (http://www.genderit.org/sites/default/upload/issue_womenrights_digital.pdf)
[through a range of strategies]
Including addressing the structural causes of violence
Can we mention Universal Acceptance together with IDNs and EAI? In fact, if we are mentioning IDNs, then IDNs and Universal Acceptance may be sufficient.
Towards the end of the paragraph, I’d suggest the following sentence:
In the case of SIGs, Asia-Pacific has made major strides through multiple regional, subregional and national initiatives including APSIG, MEAC-SIG, inSIG, pkSIG and APIGA. Nevertheless, there is still more effort required in underserved areas of Asia-Pacific.
Recommend “…Disruptive innovations such as the Blockchain…”
Also, in the fourth line from the bottom, the reference to “prohibition…as well as source code disclosure” is unclear. As stated, this is anti-open source, which may be an issue with several parts of the community. Not sure if this was expressly stated in any session…if not, it’s best it’s redacted.
Finally, the sentiment against data localization (somewhat understandable in terms of possible inhibition of free flow of data) is also problematic, as local communities may prefer data in local languages and formats.
The title is too ambiguous and should be replaced with “Emerging Issues on HR on the Internet”. This section is not a overall and comprehensive narrative on HR, instead it merely addresses a few selected issues. It’s better not to use the exclusive title as present but make it more open-ended.
“Prohibition of data localization” is indeed a poor wording and should be modified. It’s a complicated legal issue and cannot be prohibited completely. There should always be contain exemptions or exceptions that enable local storage requirements.
agree
Not sure about using content in a plural form (contents) here.
Indeed, digital literacy is critical. Particularly in regions that are newly connected.
Use of words “multi stakeholder” here. Can be consistent with rest of document which spell it as “multistakeholder”.
First published in 2015, the Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) Synthesis Document aims to identify common interests and relevance around Internet governance within the Asia Pacific region. The document also reflects about the discussions which take place at the APrIGF conference[1] each year. Building on the APrIGF Synthesis Document from APrIGF 2015 Macao[2], and 2016 Taipei[3], the process for the 2017 Synthesis document now includes two webinars[4] with two public comment periods[5] to collect wider input from the Asia Pacific Internet community across all stakeholder groups to build a more comprehensive , inclusive and collaborative open document.
The Synthesis Document aims to collect the contributions and outputs of participants at the APrIGF meeting (as well as the broader APrIGF community through remote participation and dissemination on the mailing list and online platform). The document is not intended to be representative of the whole Asia Pacific region. Nevertheless, it is anticipated by APrIGF Multistakeholder Steering Group (MSG)[6] and the Drafting Committee[7] that the development of this Synthesis Document will help drive active participation from Asia Pacific organizations at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) process and to raise attention about the issues identified. The MSG and the Drafting Committee also trust the process and the document it self will demonstrate the value of the annual APrIGF meeting as a platform for voices, views and thoughts in the Asia Pacific region as contribution to relevant global, national, local and international forums on Internet governance.
The Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum (APrIGF) serves as a platform for discussion, exchange and collaboration at a regional level. It also serves, where possible, to aggregate national and local IGF discussions, to ultimately advance the Internet governance understanding across the Asia Pacific region.
Please use Internet or internet consistently through out the document
More than half of the global internet users live in the Asia Pacific region, but the true benefits of bridging the access gap can only be realized if it leads to socio-economic empowerment of the multifaceted human capital in the region[13]. Therefore strategies must be in place for the infrastructure to be able to respond to the increasing demand; to support the research and deployment of technologies and solutions; to adopt policies to bridge the digital divide; to improve network resilience to be better prepared for disasters[14]; to create a holistic approach towards eGovernance[15] and to push back against Internet shutdowns[16].
Concrete examples presented at the event include benefits such as: 1) Community networks and public access to ICT[17] improve digital literacy and facilitate effective utilization of access by marginalized and underserved communities; 2) Youth-driven initiatives[18] leverage information technology to drive social changes and empower the emerging generation of the region; 3) Technological solutions such as IPv6[19], Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs)[20] and Email Address Internationalization (EAI)[21], facilitate access for the next billion Internet users while 4) inclusive policy measures, such as Universal Acceptance of Internationalised Domain Names, pave the way to support, conserve and enhance their individual and collective uniqueness, the language, geographic and cultural diversity that these new users will bring to the Internet.
Across the Asia Pacific region, legislation[26] has been developed to cover various aspects of the Internet. Legislation that traditionally governed offline spaces is now also used in tandem with these specialised legislation for virtual spaces and online behaviours. These provisions must respect internationally recognised conventions for human rights and standards (for example, and not limited to, the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime[27]). Particularly, governments should be urged to reconsider the manner in which Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs)[28] are currently implemented. The right to privacy, access to justice and rule of law must be upheld when data of individuals are shared by states.
stakeholders (not countries)
Advances in data encryption required due consideration for an expiration date of protection measures and mechanisms, so contemplated regulations stand the test of time[30]. Similarly, the mobile and IoT industries also face challenges of time and expiration[31]. Regulatory measures should balance consumer protection with the responsibility that hardware manufacturers and software developers will take in making their devices secure for a reasonable time period.
Privacy and data protection are current issues of concern, specially as they may come into conflict with freedom of expression, and can result in data-driven discrimination[32].
Move after the next paragraph. It makes more sense for flow of the document
Move after paragraph 21 to improve document flow.
While expectation of privacy may vary between cultures, comprehensive protection mechanisms must meet internationally recognised right to privacy and be linked to the concepts of consent and agency. International minimum standards should be created, guaranteeing the highest level of protection as a default safeguard, considering the nature of cross-border data transfer for online services, differing levels of protection in relevant jurisdictions and general lack of user awareness. These protections should also take into account the rapid development of technology that may make current data encryption, data-masking and obfuscation techniques obsolete in the future.
Digital trade and e-commerce are key enablers for the development of a global digital economy[35], yet they inevitably challenge physical national borders. Disruptive innovations such as blockchain[36] have the potential to change behaviours, practices and interactions in business, political and social environments. The digital economy cannot be successful without trust[37], free flow of information and appropriate business rules for different jurisdictions.
To realise the potential growth of the digital economy, free trade agreements[38] should be reviewed in light of the growing trend of limiting free flow of information and/or requiring data localization, as well as source code disclosure unless there is a legitimate public policy reason.
Coordinated multistakeholder collaboration and thorough discussion among all other stakeholders with active government participation is indispensable to realizing the benefits of the digital economy to all.
Agree with rewording proposed by Peng Wha above.
Keep title spelling Human Rights in full.
Maybe better to move this paragraph above as part of the previous one (after the mentions to WSIS and Tunis).
Change title to “Internet shutdowns and blocking”
Above there was a comment about add necessity. If that word is added above it should be consistent on this paragraph
Excellent!
Move paragraphs 29 and 30 right after paragraph 26. Do not leave gender to be the last issue on the document
I will add here “as well as the persistent disparities in literacy and income, barriers in the form of social and cultural norms that negatively affect women’s employability, as well as online gender-based violence.”
Some repetition between paragraph 29 and 30, worth reviewing.
must be infrastructure-based
I think the question is not whether or not the document is INTENDED to be representative – I would prefer to say ‘fully representative’- but rather whether it really can be, for practical reasons, such as the difficulties in being sure we have managed to reach out to all and get back responses from all relevant people in such a diverse and wide-spread region. If you agree with that, could I suggest re-wording the paragraph as: “…..online platform). The APrIGF Multistakeholder Steering Group (MSG) [6] and the Drafting Committee [7] accept that the Synthesis Document cannot be fully representative of the very diverse Asia Pacific region. Nevertheless, they anticipate that the development of this Synthesis Document can help drive active participation ……(etc..)”
I agree with Maureen’s rewording of the IGF dates.
I agree; and I believe we should continue to capitalise it.
Would there be a need to include Mesh networks?
I agree with the addition of words about cultural diversity proposed in previous comments, I will leave it to Jen to do some complex editing there :-)
Part of the problem with this para is that it combines aims, mechanisms and outcomes in very compressed language. Trying to keep it brief also makes it a bit obscure in places. However I think we should resist the temptation to add in too much more text, because we have the references to key source documents (which include the WSIS and SDG material).
But having said that, I would propose one key addition, as follows:
After “improve digital literacy”, I suggest adding “and access to information resources which support education and life-long learning. Community networks facilitate effective access by marginalised and underserved communities.”
There is a need to establish a SIG(s) in Fiji & or in the Pacific prior to the next APrIGF, such a SIG programme should cater for none IG/ICT professionals.
This is needed in to prevent the risk of IG and IG education becoming sacerdotal.
After “underserved regions”, could we add “(including the small island developing states)”.
It is implied, but it would be good to make it explicit.
Community and Mesh Networking:
* Establishing of Mesh networks can promote greater digital literacy and can be used for communication during disasters
* Governments should tax/duty/tariff exempt equipment needed to establish mesh networks and community networks.
* Governments need a policy of encouraging ISPs to not penalise the sharing of internet subscriptions/connections for the purpose of establishing community networks.
Hi, Can I get some feedback for my following comment-
User Privacy and Terms of use:
* Privacy policy, terms and conditions with services such as within operating systems, Internet/net-centric software and Internet-related services and products need to be streamlined, (for examples; this should not be spread over various web pages and windows/screens).
* This would make it easier decision making by users.
* There is also a need to make such documents accessible to users regardless of the literacy or education level.
* There is need to highlight the use of telemetry.
* Racial and religious hate speech over the Internet and Social-media, this maybe less evident in other South Pacific compared to Fiji
Does the following apply to your respect country?
– In Fiji’s context, the use of third party software, internet/-centric application and tool/services (including cloud storage) by Government/National bodies and agencies, for example; the storing and processing of details of citizens.
I agree. Internet, and Accessibility and Disability
* Assistive Technologies; need to be promoted in the Pacific to promote great accessibility to Internet.
* There is also a need for more home-grown Internet-centric and other Assistive technologies in the Asia Pacific to cater for the linguistics diversity of the region
* Apart from with those with visual impairments, there is a need for Assistve Technologies in the Pacific for those who lack the use of limbs.
* Social-media/Internet Social Networking Companies and Technology companies and corporations (including email services) need to take measures not to exploit those who are vulnerable such as women, children and those with disabilities. Those with mental health disorders; and cognitive impairments and disorders are also vulnerable on the Internet. It is important to note that; anyone can become disable in any point in-time in her or he’s life, this can also be temporary such as a number mental disorders that affect cognitive function and judgement.
+1
* There is a need to look into Social-media for emergency management, such as capturing, tagging and verification of information of disaster affected communities & areas for better coordinating of relief activities on the ground
I feel there is a need to have a heading for Open data, Open access etc
With the recent floods on the South Asian mainland; would the following be relevant ? – With a high prevalence of floods in Fiji; there is a need for Open access to data of rainfalls and consequent flooding and the means to capture and verify information from social-media users and that could result in the subsequent crowd-sourced mapping of flood affected areas for disaster risk mitigation for future floods.
* Better education is needed for the public, media and officials to access alerts from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre via email and via there official social-media profiles, and how to interpret the information issued by them.
* Fiji and the Pacific need to invest in establishing cloud and net-centric computing infrastructure to protect the data and privacy of there citizens.
I agree with Ang Peng Hwa and others that we should emphasise the importance of agreed international instruments at the beginning of the paragaph. As one of the drafters of the WSIS Geneva “Principles”, I clearly recall the debates at the WSIS about this matter: there were attempts to water down references to the UDHR, in fact some took the view there was no need to bother mentioning Human Rights at all, and that we just needed to focus on technical ‘information’ matters… You have to wonder why… Fortunately reason prevailed, and the Geneva ‘Principles’ do make sufficient reference to the UDHR. Internet Governance, like all other policy areas, has to be developed within the framework of such agreed international instruments. We need to take an inclusive approach that allows for new and emerging issues.
Yes, good text. There are honestly-held contrary viewpoints in this area, and we will just have to wait until the international community has come closer to a common position.
How is ‘access’ measured or how do we measure ‘access’ ?
Access to Pornography on the internet, it seems, is also a measure of the access of internet in Nadi and Suva in FijiZ; on the main-island of Viti Levu in Fiji. In 2015; Google Trends released a list for the search of the word “Porn” and “Pornography” compared to a country’s total searches in which Eight of the top 10 nations listed were developing countries in Africa, with Fiji and PNG from the Pacific
Is there a need to define a criteria of how “access” and; or ” accessibility” is measure. What do you think?
Maybe you mean insert between para 25 and 26?
Would there be a need to have a heading “Disaster and the Internet”? My input – * There is a need to look into Social-media for emergency management, such as capturing, tagging and verification of information of disaster affected communities & areas for better coordinating of relief activities on the ground.
*With a high prevalence of floods in Fiji; there is a need for Open access to data of rainfalls and consequent flooding and the means to capture and verify information from social-media users and that could result in the subsequent crowd-sourced mapping of flood affected areas for disaster risk mitigation for future floods.
* Better education is needed for the public, media and officials to access alerts from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre via email and via there official social-media profiles, and how to interpret the information issued by them.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2016 Taipei Synthesis Document – Draft v1 (105 comments)
In my opinion, a lot of machines would constitute to a bigger portion of the next billion that would be joining the internet. Machine to Machine communication would be an integral part of internet expansion. Its important that security by design is considered in M2M communication.
Rural connectivity is very imporant; however I do not believe that it requires “global changes to the Internet”. I suggest to relocate this goal to Para 28 (“Continuing efforts in bringing the next billion online”).
Rural connectivity is very imporant; however I do not believe that it requires “global changes to the Internet”. I suggest to relocate this goal to Para 28 (“Continuing efforts in bringing the next billion online”).
sorry, this comment can be deleted (wrong paragraph).
While these treaties and agreement would be certainly helpful in ensuring the cross border data flow, which was one of the building block of the internet, it would be beneficial to have it done providing a level playing field to all the parties involved. Mechanism should be inbuilt in these treaties ensuring that the further development of digital economy for the developing countries are not compromised in any ways. This also include offsetting measures that data localization brings to the parties advantage.
combined efforts from multi community sake holders or internet users or internet consumers safe guarders is needed. rather than private public etc
effort necessary to support skill development , local languages local Ideas thoughts
I’m inclined to agree with KS Park that the Right to be Forgotten should not be mentioned at this time. The reason is that it is a right that comes “after” the right of privacy. Without the right of privacy, the RTBF will not be a meaningful right.
collaboration on cyber security education and preventing cyber attacks from nations which will effect people countries innocents etc.
Rural users villages un educated users.
ecological social survival economical
under global united open nations / open data flow liberty of cross border of open knowledge’s must be safe guarded with open agreement and policy/
social ,economical, native people societies , under privileged societies , middle class societies un educated job less youth etc
Note globally middle class is getting sandwiched the next billion are also form these communities or youth of world is also can be added.
Suggest to have an overall review of the structure of the document and identify the key issues and/or topics to be covered. Apart from the current list, there are “others” (such as Manila Principles on Intermediaries, Network Neutrality and Capacity Building) that are yet to be included.
After Day 1, the fruitful discussions had been made and should be reflected in the documents.
investigation prosecution open collaboration
tracing cyber crooks with out double minds / standards.
This section should be framed from a human rights perspective. This is actually a dangerous section as some repressive Asia Pacific countries use these words “cultural differences” or “cultural specificities” as excuse to not respect human rights and even violate human rights.
so I’m suggesting to delete this
Education and open privacy to cultures under universal open standards rules and regulations can over come culture where in good privacy is needed in known , others privacy is becoming others business mud throwing for survival etc,.
If culture is aspect no body in world must not watch movies tv shoes etc
Governments service providers internet companies must respect consumer rights and also quality if living liberty of internet is important.
Notice:
RTBF Meeting on Day 2 (July 28) from 9:00am in Room 405
right to destroy of digital personal data secured knowledge of people is important. good people data is not worried by criminals data must not be forgotten.
Whether/How Internet is defined as “Critical National Infrastructure” is different from country to country. In addition, the Internet is a cross-border infrastructure that is critical at least in a sense. So, I think it’s better to chage “Critical National Infrastructure” into “infrastructure based on the Internet”?
“The so-called concept of Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is gaining greater support in many countries. Should RTBF have extra-territorial application? Does it also apply to digitised newspaper archives? Where do the boundaries lie with freedom of the press, and the integrity of the historical record? RTBF is a legal device supposed to protect privacy but it delists according to others concepts like public interest, and it is dangerous because it imposes a burden of proving public interest on people searching for public truthful statements or intermediaries (such as libraries, educational institutions, archives, search engines).”
“The so-called concept of Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is gaining support in some jurisdictions. Should RTBF have extra-territorial application? Does it also apply to digitised newspaper archives? Where do the boundaries lie with freedom of the press, and the integrity of the historical record? More fundamentally, the mostly judge-made law delists according to concepts like public interest but it conflicts with public interest because it imposes a burden of proving public interest on people searching for public truthful statements or intermediaries (such as libraries, educational institutions, archives, search engines).”
“The so-called concept of Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is gaining support in some jurisdictions. Should RTBF have extra-territorial application? Does it also apply to digitised newspaper archives? Where do the boundaries lie with freedom of the press, and the integrity of the historical record? However, more fundamentally, the mostly judge-made law orders delisting according to concepts like public interest but it conflicts with free access to information and therefore public interest because it imposes a burden of proving public interest on people searching for public truthful statements or intermediaries (such as libraries, educational institutions, archives, search engines).”
“The so-called concept of Right to be Forgotten (RTBF) is gaining support in some jurisdictions. Should RTBF have extra-territorial application? Does it also apply to digitised newspaper archives? Where do the boundaries lie with freedom of the press, and the integrity of the historical record? More fundamentally, the judicial decisions under that concept conflict with public interest because it imposes a burden of proving public interest on people searching for public truthful statements or intermediaries facilitating that search such as libraries, educational institutions, archives, search engines.” – Winston, Yasuo (of IFLA); K.S., Kelly (Open Net Korea)
providing some statistics, like numbers of days open (start date, end date), numbers of comments, etc. would be very interesting and will give the reader the idea of the participation in our process :)
should also mention the arbitration mechanism that would allow foreign companies to challenge domestic regulations before international arbitration panels.
if section is to be included, it should made clear that the “right to be forgotten” (in quote) is another concept related to right to privacy, but not the same.
The information that RTBF deals with is a data that is (or should be) already the in public, and to be decided whether to keep it further public or not.
The information that the right to privacy deals with is data that shouldn’t be in the public in the first place.
In Asia Pacific, majority of the connection is via mobile phone. There is a different quality of accessing meaningfully the Internet via laptop or PC versus via mobile phone. The early adopter countries –which have access to Internet way before others– started their connection via cable and PC. The quality of accessing Internet via mobile phone, certainly has more limited quality.
It would be good to have specific intervention on how to make mobile access Internet better engaged with people.
Technology is not working in vacuum, the same with Internet. It depends on many factors and how you connect is also important.
Computer code will be more effective in practical that legal code in this Machine to Machine.
How to do the governance? As it’s not obvious to average people.
What about scope it down to only “critical information infrastructure” ?
[cyber-security]
I suggested “cyber-security” to be replaced by “security of network and information systems” which is more self-explanatory.
[new laws and policies]
to be replaced with
“existing and emerging laws, policies, and practices”
Contribution from audience at Day 1 town hall session: Place holder topics
– Intermediary Liability, Manila Principles
– Capacity Building, bringing people in to have a better access to training and education and training and participation.
Contribution from audience at Day 1 town hall session: Local language, Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) and Email Address Internationalization (EAI).
I also support the suggestion to delete this sentence. despite of cultural differnce, privacy should be regarded as universal human rights.
Contribution from audience at Day 1 town hall session:
– Participation by women
– Rights to accessibility
this is thecomment on para 37
In the context of cross-border data transfer and local people using online services provided from servers in foreign jurisdictions, this is problematic.
I proposed this title and text:
“Protection without borders
Expectation of privacy may vary by cultures, thus different protections in different jurisdictions. Considering the nature of cross-border data transfer for online services and users’ difficulties to aware of that complication, if there is a difference in the level of protection in relevant jurisdictions, the highest level of protection should be guaranteed as a default safeguard. Minimum adequate level of privacy protection should also be sought after as an international agreement and adopted by every concerned jurisdictions.”
Contribution from audience at Day 1 town hall session:
– Right to Information, proactive disclosure, internet platform for obtaining information from state agencies.
Question from audience at Day 1 town hall session: The Budapest convention is a global cybercrime convention, the Internet is truly global, would a regional convention be very useful?
Instead suggest:
Legislation and policies governing ICTs:
Across Asia several legislation have been developed to govern various aspects of the internet. Legislation that traditionally govern offline spaces are also used in tandem with these specialised legislation to address violations. These provisions must respect internationally recognised human rights and standards for restrictions. They must also draw from other regional documents on ICTs including the Budapest Convention Cyber crime.
Or
Legislation and policies governing ICTs:
Across Asia several legislation have been developed to govern various aspects of the internet. Legislation that traditionally govern offline spaces are also used in tandem with these specialised legislation to address violations. These provisions must respect internationally recognised human rights and standards for restrictions. They must also draw from other regional documents on ICTs including the Budapest Convention Cyber crime. Particularly, states should be urged to reconsider the manner in which mutual legal assistance agreements (MLATs) are currently implemented. The right to privacy, access to justice and rule of law must be upheld when data of individuals are shared by states.
To protection person in question, if there is difference in the protection of suspect/defendant in relevant jurisdictions, the MLAT should honour the highest level of protection.
This paragraph needs to be removed, or if it is to be rephrased, should be done without having ‘culture’ as the basis to mould laws and its implementation.
To protection person in question, if there is difference in the protection of suspect/defendant in relevant jurisdictions, the MLAT should honour the highest level of protection.
Regarding to this, please also refer to para 37 (“respect to cultural differences” – privacy protection in different jurisdiction).
Contribution from audience at Day 1 town hall session:
– Issues related to spectrum for connectivity
Need title.
Propose: “Protection of critical information infrastructure”
may be merged with para 30?
Contribution from audience at Day 1 town hall session:
– Net Neutrality
Or put emphasised on the new challenges that IoT will bring, like difficulties to patch large among of outdated devices, privacy violations from Big Data and linked data (made possible by large-scale data collection and smarter algorithms).
Alternatively
Universal protection of rights:
While expectations of privacy may vary across cultures, protection mechanisms must meet internationally guaranteed right to privacy.
If we can frame it for a better protection of privacy, there’s no need to remove.
Surprisingly, currently we don’t have a specific section dedicated to Privacy or Data Protection.
Suggest this:
Uninterrupted access to the internet is essential for the free exercise of rights online. Network shutdowns and blocking have serious economic consequences and impede the right to information, expression, assembly and association among other rights. Any disruptions to the access to mobile and internet services must comply with strict standards established in national legislation and must meet the threshold of legality, necessity and proportionality laid down in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Three-part test of legality, legitimacy and proportionality must be ensured to be passed for all relevant jurisdiction in the investigation or prosecution. An oversight of the process must bee required from all participating countries. Data about requests should be made available to the public, for the interest of transparency and accountability.
Agree. If we can start with Convention on Cybercrime. And try to improve the Convention if feels inadequate.
Can this part be merged with Paragraph 28? I think both have a primary purpose of putting people online.
The use of ICTs in Chennai, India in 2015/2016 during the floods for rescue efforts and for relief work
Addressing Intermediary Liability appropriately is a critical step in enhancing the use of the Internet. To that end, the Manila Principles have been drafted after extensive consultation at the RightsCon 2015. More work needs to be done to put the Manila Principles into practice.
An addition to capacity building, maybe we can also add YIGF as one of the programs that provides an avenue for the said area.
Trade agreements address many things other than intellectual property rights. This para needs to be completely rewritten to reflect the discussion here.
I believe that maintaining cultural diversity online is an important issue, but what I want to ask is that is there any active action we can take online to keep cultures from disappearing. The internet itself is a kind of powerful and new culture, which is actually putting minor culture on the edge of extiction. So I think there should be something we can do actively.
As an addition, maybe the document can be in multiple languages for the benefit of people who are not natives of the English language. :-)
We held a workshop on the protection of youth online. I know there were several workshops regarding the similar theme. Therefore, we believe that we should include several sentences on the protection of youth online specifically. In this regard, I would like to propose the following sentences.
“While the freedom of expression based on the free flow of information shall be respected, protecting children from illegal and harmful online contents is one of the most important issues. Accordingly, it is vital for all multistakeholders including governments, private sectors, schools, and child welfare institutions to cooperate and collaborate each other in order to strike a balance between the freedom of expression and the protection of youth online. In addition, comprehensive approaches based on national and international laws as well as self-regulations are indispensable, taking into account cultural, historical, and social differences of countries and regions.”
We do support the idea of having “Capacity Building” add to the document, while we have worked on toolkit about youth engagement program e.g. the yigf and hkyigf initiative we have organized, that we can put our input a bit.
As well as there is workshop on Day 3 to discuss how to move forward for the AP region next generation engagement initiative. Happy to recap our discussion outcome and add to the mentioned session.
As for the IPv6 deployment ,ICANN may encourage Governments of each country to come up with some stimulation plans such as “If you transfer to IPv6 ,tax deductibility is available! ” to urge companies to transfer from IPv4 to IPv6.
The Nepal Wireless Connectivity Project (WS#90)
Last mile issues for developing countries. For example, although Pacific Islands governments realise the value of many newly established cable connections, many have not fully factored in the ongoing costs of ensuring that infrastructure and future maintenance, governance structures and human and other capacities match the potential of the connectivity.
Internet adoption is increasing slowly in the Pacific mainly due to its lack of affordability. There are still island countries where monopoly Telecoms (and even some where there are multiple providers, e.g. Papua New Guinea) put the internet out of reach of those who need the access, but it is too expensive. Many Pacific users only have access to the internet at work, Private connections are unaffordable on their low local wages. The cost for businesses as well as for learning, information and other valuable uses is quite prohibitive.
The SDGs provide significant focus areas for development in regions such as the Pacific and ICTs and internet connectivity could be a major contributor to this development. Unfortunately there is not enough research being done to identify how appropriate technologies and internet connectivity can effectively contribute to the future-proofing of mitigation measures being introduced by local donor-funded projects.
+1
While the subthemes are well developed, there appeared to be a bit of disconnect in relating the sub-themes to the main theme of “Merging Physical Space with Cyberspace”.
Should we make “…measures to support and conserve existing diversity…” to “…measures to support, conserve and enhance existing diversity…” ?
We would appreciate if you could add the following sentences in para.30, Security:
“While recalling the freedom of expression online based on the free flow of information not only domestically but also internationally, the protection of youth from illegal and harmful online contents is one of the most important issues in the Internet governance. Hence, it is vital for all multistakeholders including, but not limited to governments, private sectors, schools, and child welfare institutions to cooperate and collaborate each other in order to strike a balance between the freedom of expression and the protection of youth online. In this regard, comprehensive approaches based on national and international laws as well as self-regulations by private sectors are indispensable, taking into account cultural, historical, and social differences of countries and regions.”
While I would like to echo what Ms. Hong Xue said, provisions on digital economy and trade are absolutely needed. In addition, there are many kinds of international agreements and policies, so we had better change the title otherwise this paragraph is bit vague and it is unclear what this paragraph wants to say.
Therefore, I propose the following sentences:
—–
¶32 (or appropriate para. number) Digital Economy and Trade
Digital economy and trade are key enablers for the development of the world economy. Now that the digital economy becomes the economy as such, and does not have any borders. The digital economy and trade cannot be successful without the free flow of information and appropriate domestic and global rules. On the other hand, there is a growing trend that some governments take protectionist approaches on trade by limiting the free flow of information and/or requiring data localization, and the trend hinders the further growth of the world economy. Therefore, constructing the further network of free trade agreements which requires member states to maintain the free flow of information and to ensure the prohibition of data localization as well as source code disclosure unless there is a legitimate public policy reason is highly recommended. In this regard, thorough discussion among not only governments, but also other multistakeholders is encouraged by referring to Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement as one of the examples.
—
Sorry for multiple comments above, which kinda reflect collective stream of consciousness of the working group. Please use the last one signed with the names of all of us (clocked at 7:07am). Also, I think Arthit’s comment is consistent with and incorporatable into our proposed text.
I think that specific reference to TPP needs to be removed. Athough the TPP is the first trade agreement for the digital age, the TPP process has, regrettably, been less than exemplary from a multistakeholder perspective.
Contribution from workshop participant: placeholder topic and text:
– Multi-stakeholder model
The use of the multistakeholder model in Internet governance receives broad support internationally. Multistakeholder model encourages coordination and planning through a consensus-making process and recognizes the need to incorporate regional and local Internet governance context and strategies. Its implementation and efficiency thus undergo continuous testing and refinement. There are ongoing efforts to explore means for greater participation in multistakeholder processes and to work towards an inclusive multistakeholder method.
Arthit has mentioned below that some statistics related to the development of the APrIGF Synthesis Document could be included into this document, perhaps as an appendix (?)
This would add to its authenticity when we present it elsewhere. The appendix could briefly explain the process, the schedule, and the names of eventual contributors and/or where they come from within the region to demonstrate the spread of contributing voices.
Because paras 3 & 4 are about process and not content, they could be deleted (and the appendix section developed).
Internet Access has hugely changed my personal life and helped me change that of other women around me. The Women’s Digital League was formed when I was fired from my teaching job because the private school I was working at would not give me maternity leave. Sitting at home with a simple dial up connection I found remote work. Earning my first $2.5 writing an article for someone in the US gave me much-needed confidence in my abilities. It was a stepping stone to becoming financially empowered and independent; being recognized as the top most impactful entrepreneur in Pakistan; and in showing women they didn’t have to accept status quo. With greater financial empowerment I ahve seen young women not settle for the first proposal that came for them as they were no longer a burden on their household; send siblings to school/college; have greater say in decisions at home; be more respected and therefore have a higher self-esteem.
+1
+1
I don’t think it should be removed since differences in cultural norms need to be acknowledged. But I agree with Gayatri’s framing, that regardless of these norms, the right to privacy must meet international standards.
I like the fact that you have explained the reason for maintaining international standards in right to privacy. Perhaps we can include a line from here on cross-border data transfer with what Gayatri has suggested?
+1
+1
Net Neutrality should be added to the heading thereby covering both the scenarios i.e complete shut down or blocking certain services. There have been cases of different services/applications being blocked in a number of countries across the APAC region. Internet service providers and telecos needs to consider the fact that net-neutrality is an emerging areas of concern and that it is the end users rights to enjoy open Internet connectivity. Governments, regulatory authorities, industry associations, the academia, and most importantly the civil society needs to highlight this issue which is considered to be a serious threat to the future of open Internet in the region.
+1. I agree with Paul on this. I think the key drivers for universality of the Internet are IPv6, Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) and as a result of IDN’s Internationalized/multilingual email addresses, and to some extent Over The Top (OTT) applications that are resulting in convergence.
Some of the fundamental issues pertaining to overcoming the digital divide include but are not limited to the Universal Services Obligations/Fund (USO/USF), Digital Dividend which is the below 1GHz spectrum that is being free as a result of the Digital Switch-over (of analogue TV), Infrastructure Sharing among service providers, and ICT education and capacity building, among others. These issues needs to be highlighted and discussed so as to aid into the efforts in over coming the digital divide.
This, I think is a multifaceted issues and can be explored in from different angles, such as the Impact of Transition on the overall Internet Governance (IG) landscape and debate on a global scale, similarly its impact on the IG landscape in certain specific countries and regions. Additionally, how is the transaction going to impact the business sector (mainly the Internet businesses). Questions like these and others in light of the future impact of IANA Transition can really lead to an interesting debate.
Security actually can be “Security of the Internet” or “Security on the Internet”. If its the former, lets change the heading to “Online Security” but if we mean the later, then “Security, Stability & Resiliency” can be a good heading, for it directly refers to the core of Internet, and is also one of the principle which the US Govt for the IANA Transition proposal to adhere to.
I think the truly global nature of Internet can not be used as an excuse to enact national and/or regional laws that will help make the Internet a safer place. Think of this, Internet is a truly global but we don’t have one Global IGF, instead several regional, national IGFs. Similarly, Internet is global yet we have 5 NICs, APNIC, RIPE NCC, AfriNIC, …….. The regional/national cyber law could be useful if in harmony with global conventions.
The deletion/removal of this paragraph, i believe will be contradictory to the Para 35 where it explicitly talk to preserving “culture” in terms of sustaining diversity. Just a thought.
It is due to this very nature, “New Security Considerations” are decisive.
With due respect I disagree. I think the term “Critical National Infrastructure” could be a good fit here. For example Smart Grid which is a good example of CNI can be connected to the Internet and hence prone to security challenge. It may not be something completely “based on Internet”. Similarly, other large scale telemetry/smart metering systems could be examples of CNI connected to internet instead of completely based on it.
While they could possibly be merged but I would suggest not to merge these. Para 30 relates to generic/traditional security aspects which this one is looking into the emerging security threats linked to disruptive technologies such as IoT which fairly has a specific and more challenging dimension to it.
Also we have to consider the security issues which may arise due to Internet of Things. The suggestion of the meeting was security issues should be addressed from the phase of designing the devices.
Collaboration to mitigate and prevent cyber security incidents within the region of AP and in a global level is a must.
Correct typo of ‘intercessional’ to ‘intersessional’
If as you suggest this section should be framed from a human rights perspective, it may be better to delete this section as privacy is already mentioned under the Human Rights section. In this way, cultural differences become less contentious in terms of privacy.
The topics below may be merged or changed but I suggest that topics be clustered together to reflect various main themes. The following suggested order does not indicate that some topics are less important than others. I have started from 28 and attempted an order from there:
28, 31, 35, 33, 34, 30, 38, 36, 39, 40, 29, 32. I have omitted 37 as it’s suggested that this be merged with 31.
This section should NOT be removed. The Internet content for AP region is mostly from US and EU. But when there is a matter about privacy they refer their privacy policies developed on their culture. Sometimes a privacy violation according to our culture, does not align with their policy and hence they do not consider and take action.
I think this paragraph is simply restating the sub themes of the conference. The other topics listed may have been discussed but they shouldnot be considered sub themes.
in WS59 a theme emerged around the importance of understanding the dynamics of diversity, in that it changes over time on different issues and as such discussion evolves through stages. That diversity is not an absolute or finite value, and that cultural diversity is highly relevant for the AP region in the global IG context, especially in the development of rough consensus (i.e. to avoid dominant cultural bias causing undue influence over results of discussions given cultures in AP’s tendency towards deference to authorities)
WS57 discussed the growing importance of investigating illegal wildlife trade online, and the effectiveness of cross jurisdictional processes are becoming increasingly critical. At the same time though, privacy and other user rights must not be compromised. Industry code of practices are important beyond legislation.
WS57 highlighted the merging physical space with cyberspace in the sense that the internet and ecommerce is having a direct impact on wildlife and the environment, (poaching supported by demand from convenience of ecommerce). At the same time ecommerce and elearning can support rural economies to discourage poaching. the SDGs and their interrelation with the Internet and Internet Governance is exemplified by supportive policies and technologies deployed for wildlife conservation (especially as it intersects with rural populations and least developed areas in the proximity of endangered species)
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2018 Port Vila Synthesis Document – Draft 0 (93 comments)
Data protection practices must comply with international principles like the OECD 1980 one
Region should look at what GDPR mean for us and how the good principles can be adapted int he region
Tension between internet governance law and extra territorial laws
Synthesis – Town Hall 1
Content moderation – to be rooted in human rights – David Kaye report – Human rights impact assessment – social media for content moderation
Enforcement of laws – cyber crimes to get better addressing
Need for greater participation and voice of youth to be heard
Need to push for enforcement of law both on and offline, particularly at national level;
To mitigate security concerns and cybercrime, there is an urgency to develop robust cybersecurity policies at organisational and national levels.
Taking a human rights based approach to technology and to root ICT laws in human rights principles and values
At the workshop today, WS89 “Whois” collected, disclosed and protected: How we care about protecting data privacy?”, there are elements about Whois that had to do with cybersecurity, specially the use of Whois for traceability and attribution. However, not only Law Enforcement Agencies use the Whois for this purpose. There are other entities, such as CERTs, that use Whois to monitor behavior regularly but, importantly, for incident response purposes. It is important that CERTs have access to Whois, as public accessibility might be restricted due to privacy considerations.
Where Internet has enabled the access to information and on-line social networking the need of Digital Rights Management has emerged as need of community for protecting the social-cultural need and to protect users online privacy and safe data use. And capacity building programs are in high demands.
There is need do the capacity building of elders and parents so as to bridge the gap of Internet access between children and parents.
Emerging technologies must utilize the benefits of community networks for connecting the last miles network for access to affordable Internet.
Need further elaboration on role of law enforcement and more guidance for them on balancing individual privacy rights while ensuring public safety.
Need language on the need for more capacity development activities to increase knowledge and capabilities of technical operators.
During workshop WS89 “Whois” collected, disclosed and protected: How we care about protecting data privacy?” we discussed how privacy considerations have been strengthened in light of the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR), an European set of privacy rules that have impacted the way Whois publishes personal information of Domain Name holders. These rules are not limited to Europe but have extraterritorial enforceability, adding new considerations to ICANN contracted parties, such as Registries and Registrars, that need to comply with both, the GDPR and their contractual agreements with ICANN. This has trumped community-led policy development processes at ICANN, requiring an expedite process for Registrar and Registrars to agree on new policies for their Whois services to comply with GDPR. It is important to improve monitoring capability of future legislation that may have impact on services such as Whois; but also prevent that multistakeholder processes be overturned by regulatory processes.
Similarity in legislation – states should cooperate to have comparable legislation and tweak it ot local context
I would like to see more emphasis on developing of ICT in education sector especially tempted areas in Asia Pacific cause this would probably promote and encourage a universal access policies of individuals users in ICT
national e-commerce frameworks need to enable economies to leverage the use ict’s to drive social and economical development
the benefits of such initiatives should be effectively advocated and communicated to local communities in order to leverage or realise the full benefit of the multi stakeholder engagement
I understand the balance between generalizing and uniqueness, and I suggest that adding one sentence to summarize APAC’s specific issue in each sub-theme. Or how about keeping the current sections, and adding several paragraphs to describe more detail/ particular topics for our region?
Capacity building should be done and different approaches need to be identified to spread the awareness about the Internet Governance within the community because first, we need to attract more people to the discussion then only we can empower our multi-stakeholder model.
To attract more stakeholders, the benefits of these type of discussions or forums must be conveyed to them and it will be helpful for people to improve interest. Clear idea about the final outcome of the multi-stakeholder discussion needs to be conveyed.
When more people are engaging it is obvious to face more challenges when coming to a conclusion but approaches need to be identified and the experience can be shared among national IGF in this regards and how they overcome these challenges.
Time is one of the greatest challenges different groups face when they need to gather and discuss, we need to identify different communication platforms especially online platforms that can be used effectively for these kinds of conversations. If face to face meetings are difficult at least it is worth meeting online rather than doing nothing.
In WS105 panel on digital trade and development, concerns were expressed about the implications of the trade rules which have been agreed in recent free trade agreements and proposed at the World Trade Organization such as: cross-border data flows, e-signatures, restrictions on access to source code and algorithms, for: privacy, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, algorithmic bias/discrimination, financial regulation, tax collection, health, environment, competition law etc. It was explained that data should not be treated as a commodity and our rights should flow with the data. There was consensus among the panelists that the trade rules are already out of date compared to the fast-moving technology and would not solve the access, connectivity and affordability challenges in the region.
Therefore we think it is important to build bridges with the trade negotiators and increase their understanding of the technology and the far-reaching implications of these rules. Users and the technical community have not been sufficiently involved in this trade rule-making process on these issues, their voice should be heard (for example via effective stakeholder consultations) and their concerns taken into account. Better engagement of these underrepresented communities is needed in these processes.
Just a suggestion, this comment might be better captured under Access and Empowerment section
Perhaps could be good, in an introductory paragraph, a mention to the presentation by Vint and Chengetai about the recent launch, by the UN Secretary General, of the High Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. The APrIGF community may acknowledge the Panel and appreciate the efforts by Chengetai and Vint to reach out to this community and the mapping of different issues. Perhaps we can also set some expectations about the level of openness, inclusiveness and transparency in which the panel will be working; and also perhaps recommend that the voice of the HLP is very much welcomed, but not necessarily representative of the multistakeholder community.
Network shutdowns – need to capture – in relation to disaster management and response
At the “Know Your Net – Enabling A-Z competences with Net Tech in the Pacific” workshop there was an excellent discussion about three critical challenges that the Internet is facing in terms of its future stability and security. These are: IPv6, DNSSEC and routing security. The future of the Internet highly depends on the successful implementation of policies and best practices and the increased implementation of these three critical measures.
Privacy be design needs to be emphasized along with informed consent standards
by design*
Actually, on second thoughts, this mention to the HLP can more appropriately be placed in the section on Multistakeholder Participation in Internet Governance (???).
The inclusion should also shape the technology in a way that is easily acceptable in diverse social culture.
The implementations strategy must also take in account the age factors. The young womens today have more capacity and capability and access to absorb the Internet then mid aged women. So there is need to capacity development of women specific program to educate them about safe use pf technology.
Abuse and online harassment missing
Suggestion for addition after “resources and support that help to empower access need to be considered”: , crafting a policy framework based on best practices for accessibility as a norm for developers to follow.
The standard should be prepared for IoT security and protecting users privacy. These standard must be regulated while allowing the IoT in any country this can help in mitigating security concern of IoT adoption .
If government want regulated some internet new services, government should also invite technical group inside, to take the advice from technical groups or communities. Or, to build the process in the multistakholder model to include more diversity and broader opinions.
We need to make the balance in development, innovation, economy and human rights.
It also relates with company governance with ethics issue.
Instead of “better and effective policies”, suggestion to specify what the goals of such policies are.
Suggested text: The Internet is a global open platform, and policies should effectively pursue this;
Nowadays, it cannot be denied that many countries have the access gap in AP region, but we believe that the situation is getting better because the governments have recognized this issue and they’re working hard to improve this situation. However, there is one thing that few people concern, that is，balance is needed between over-access and lack of access in a country especially the access to education information. Resources are limited，children in the areas with high level of accessibility may face the problem of Internet addiction or over-reliance, while those in the areas lack of Internet access cannot benefit from Internet. Empowerment should be lead the Internet to a more benefit way, it needs balance and reasonable guidance to the access issue for different areas of AP region countries. Aged people also need special capacity building.
After attending across border lesson, i want to add if IGF and its sponsors could contribute in building Law Enforcement capacity in future. Currently Pacific LEA are in major needs in strenghtening our capabilities in the global fight against crime.
There are different development levels in each Asia Pacific region and country. East Asia, South Asia, Southern-Ease Asia, Oceanic countries, etc. Some countries are doing their economy in technology development well, but some countries are just beginning.
Developed countries can share or transfer their e-commerce or other on-line services experience to developing countries to prevent the harming again.
Free Trade Agreement make different barriers in the physical world, besides, we also need to consider about Non-tariff barriers to trade to protect their local business.
The eGovernment workshop involved getting ideas from the participants of what they would like to have in their eGovernment website if they were asked for input. As most of them in this group were from Vanuatu, and I know that Vanuatu is currently setting up their infrastructure for an eGovernment website, I will include these inputs into my report on the workshop and send a copy to the Vanuatu Government’s Office of Information and Communication. Hopefully the APRIGF can contribute some input into the development of their country’s new eGov system.
Law enforcement agencies and the technical community need more communications and collaboration together. Make LEA have more technical guidance and info on the practical security issues, and make the two sides understand each other’s concerns comprehensively. All the stakeholders need to contribute.
I am not sure law enforcement should get such a prominent role in safeguarding that the internet is a safe place. Sure, LE needs to enforce the law but I think responsibility to safety on, and security of the Net rests with users, ISPs, industry and the like. Furthermore LE across the globe never will have the ability to live up to such a responsibility.
If these questions should reflect the discussion during APrIGF; I feel the focus was much more on capacity development, awareness raising, and another interesting view, different interpretations of security across the region. The threat perception in the Pacific being different from Asia and Aus/NZ.
It’s not opposite between data localization and cross-border data flow. Data localization and legislation should develop together with the national regulation on cross-border data-flow, need more integration and balance.
In the panel on Privacy in the Digital Age & the Rule of Law, a concern was expressed that there must be some balance in the issue of privacy: the balance between individuals and states, individuals and businesses, individuals and individuals. There is an initial consensus that it’s necessary to pursue the balance on privacy issues from the perspective of pragmatism. Law enforcement need specific data to some extent to solve the crime problems as well as safeguard public security.
A solid and detailed guideline for the enforcement body is essential. We cannot guarantee that the enforcement body would not perform any acts that go beyond the line and infringes ones’ privacy, even when its intention is to promote national security. In that connection, there must also be ways to stop those enforcement bodies from continuously infringing individual privacy.
In relation to the balance, it is also suggested that the guidelines should incline more to the protection of individual privacy, which is believed fundamental in human rights.
A more solid and detailed guideline is essential for enforcement bodies. We cannot guarantee that the enforcement bodies would not go beyond the line that excessively infringes ones’ privacy. In that connection, there have to be ways or directives to prevent those enforcement bodies from continuously infringing ones’ individual privacy, even when its intention is to protect national security.
In relation to the balance, it is suggested that the guideline should incline more on the side of individual privacy, as this is fundamental in human rights.
Internet shutdown will be a big impact to the economy, people can’t use internet service by the internet, they have to waste a lot of time stay in the queue and waiting.
Aside from internet governance, internet itself is not generally known by the public in some pacific islands. As reflected by the local youth in yIGF, many of them said that the fact that they do not understand what internet is has hindered the progress of internet access.
In this connection, I think different stakeholders should also educate more on the basic concepts of internet in some pacific islands, which is also an important capacity building section. So with more knowledge on internet, internet access may be promoted, and so as internet governance eventually.
Internet shutdowns are a huge disruption to a nation’s economy and society regardless of the length of the shutdown and whatever the motivations . National and local authorities need to be informed that such shutdowns are ineffective in addressing public unrest or other issues, and large economic costs are unnecessarily incurred.
Alongside the goal of inclusion, consideration needs to be given for safeguards to ensure the well-being of vulnerable groups, such as children, in their usage of the Internet. These safeguards should be crafted with the interests of vulnerable groups in mind, to ensure that they are protected from Internet-related dangers and inappropriate content.
As an alternative to data localisation and data protectionist policies, procedures to define provisions for data access should be discussed and developed via a multistakeholder approach.
Digital literacy should extend beyond learning how to use email and basic tools to safety online and to develop critical thinking to ensure that people understand what is reputable online information. Critical thinking is a key to online empowerment.
Outreach and capacity-building efforts for Internet governance, whether local or regional, should also follow a multistakeholder and collaborative approach towards a shared goal of bolstering the community.
Accessibility for people with disability is a cross-cutting issue that is exemplified by the number of APrIGF sessions ie topics that were relevant. For example, apart from the specific disability session, accessibility was discussed in preparing for natural disasters, e-government services and digital literacy and taking Internet governance to the masses.
Emerging technologies such as IoT can be life-changing for people with physical disability but needs to be designed to be interoperable with various devices including assistive technologies.
Technologies should be designed to take into account the needs of the whole community including people with disability. This is done through existing international guidelines.
I will repeat something that I said at the mic. :-)
This is a reminder about the purpose of this document, which is to report the discussions and agreements of the APrIGF 2018.
So, this document isn’t a place to add new points or positions which were not actually raised or discussed on the floor, in the workshops of the meeting.
Also, it is very useful when posting comments here, to state the actual WS or session which they relate to. That will help the drafting team to add the right footnotes and references in the final document.
Digital skills programs and initiatives should respond to local contexts which includes local languages, socio- cultural considerations, technology accessibility and challenges unique to disadvantaged groups.
Our messages have tendency to be too complex that an ordinary individual who have less exposure to technical contents and scholarly concepts. Transforming our message into understandable language for all can be of help. This can encourage more participation. It is a common knowledge that some segments of the local community are not confident to speak up. Creating ways to encourage them to speak up and tell their stories is a good start.
I totally agree Gunela. Developing meta cognitive skills is always an important component. Teaching them how to think and to understand the concepts rather than just giving them activities where they have a tendency to do rote memorization is really important. Those who are not comfortable with technology use are inclined to memorize. It defeats the purpose to innovate.
I have observed that the discussion and ICT development focuses on psychosocial disabilities? I suggest that the next forum with also tackle this issue. What are the assistive technologies to support this group?
A true Internet access shall not be limited to certain platforms or information only.
The concept of universal design was discussed in WS 44.
IoT and disability was raised in WS44
This issue was raised in WS 83
The current situation in the Pacific especially in Vanuatu is the lack of digital information contents, digital access, skills and information availability for various purposes that suits Vanuatu’s social and economical population. While there are now some implementation to spread access coverage, tailored information/contents for Vanuatu.
In addition, creating user/business avenues and demand-driven access to motivate more use of Internet apart from just social media, email access and sms, etc. which could encourage local, regional and international access and connections are ideal to increase access and empowerment in the pacific.
I fully agree with Kenn Yee on the multi-stakeholder and collaborative approach outreach and capacity-building efforts for internet governance.
The Pacific should get more involved in this approach as I think it will be the most suitable and working model to fit the geographical and diverse cultural existing in the pacific. And with the rapid pace and technological shift involving cloud technologies and services, the pacific needs to step up, evolve and utilise the Internet for their benefits and greater wider Asia Pacific region.
Online Privacy and Protection (or data protection) is a new concept for people in the pacific especially in Vanuatu. People in the rural areas of Vanuatu who daily use Social Media for communication generally do not know what is online privacy, data privacy/protection and even the concept of protecting personal data/information. The “value” of personal data online does not raise a concerning alarm to most end-users in the pacific. And with the unregulated nature of social media platforms, users do not take a step back to self-evaluate them on what/how their daily online presence are like.
There are several points/inputs with Cybersecurity and APrIGF:
1. I think the opening sentence/statement is very good and states well what cybersecurity in the Asia Pacific region. Highlighting the words: “…growing concern, developing economies, security measures, online economies and emerging technologies…” really expresses the need to address cybersecurity gaps with multi-stakeholders security collaboration and partnership approaches with capacity building and promoting cybersecurity especially in the Pacific.
2. This is a proposal to add to the APrIGFG 2019 sessions: more dialogue and discussion around addressing cybersecurity gaps with (1) more emphasis on security research inputs from industry research centers, academic research centers and governmental research centers, (2) innovation technologies within Cybersecurity domain, (3) law enforcement approaches, and (4) introduction of security techniques and methodologies which could help protect end-users help themselves over the internet, (5) Cyber Security standards such as ISO 27000 security Series standards, etc.
Elaborating on how law enforcement play effective role in ensuring a safe Internet environment for users, existing collaborations with law enforcement research centers and agencies have indicated working relationships with security companies, academic institutions and financial institutions. Such working partnership are indicating positive way forward to addressing cybersecurity issues which the Asia Pacific region. Hence, encouraging the Pacific region to establishing partnership with law enforcement would be a bonus to their capacity building strategies.
3. Encryption Standards and regulations. This input is more of a general input, where I am hoping to include discussion and inputs for the Asia Pacific region.
4. I am supporting other speakers and people who commented on inviting more technical people to attend and create more session. I am not sure how much relevance this would be to the whole Internet governance forum (especially around management, logistics, etc.), but including technical work shop sessions such as Security tool training, and mini cyber security challenges especially for YIGF and pacific attendees would be a capacity building suggestion.
5. Finally, my observation for the Pacific on a way forward with cyber security is to encourage effective partnership with security firms, institutions, academic institutions, law enforcement, ISPs, regulators. Finally learn from developed nations who are implementing effective cyber security strategies.
I agree with you Joyce.
CERTs will play a key role in monitoring behavior of activities and providing advisories and they need to mentioned.
The Prime Minister mentioned about money laundering and especially people with such intentions are using the Pacific as their safe havens to carry out such an act. As such, we need to look at security developments in terms of internet technologies that will 1) prevent such acts from being committed and 2) if they are committed, tracing of such activities including powers to enforce full force of the law across borders.
Cross-border data flow should increase to facilitate for efficient trade between countries. Laws of the land should be given priority over introduce or foreign laws.
How do we know that applications that are developed satisfy the needs of all users of the app? If we do not have that access at the very beginning, then we would not have known the answer now. But it is more important that we build that into the very core of our education system so that youths are empowered knowledge and information as they walk out of college. It would be a little bit of a challenge for those that never made it to the elementary schools. But the vocational training centres should be able to bridge the gap.
I believe its worth mentioning the National SIGs. IGA, IGF initiatives and how these forums facilitating the multi-stakeholder participation at a local level and their contribution to the regional/global IGF.
Also a little about APASA initiative by the I* partners objectives for supporting the NRIs.
Definitely agree with your statement Joyce
Basic elements of Internet Governance should be introduced in schools together with other computer-related curricula, particularly in the Pacific. Many young people don’t understand what the Internet actually is let alone how its governance is managed. Teaching young people how the Internet actually came about and how it continues to be run today should be a precursor to teaching them how to use a computer and access the Internet.
Agree, John Jack! Perhaps it deserves a mention in the report that there has been a most positive development, in the recent 2-3 years, as new CERTs are being established in the Pacific. Tonga, PNG and Vanuatu are three great examples on inclusive CERT developments that bring great cybersecurity benefits to the community.
One of the key points highlighted during the workshop is the need for education and awareness.
1. Technical solutions and competencies are the technical deterrence to secure systems, to try and reduce or prevent technical vulnerabilities.
2. Legislation and laws are an approach to try and deter a behavioral motive but not necessarily prevent deter technical attacks. The bad guys do not care about laws.
3. Education and awareness is a user preventive measure from exposure to security vulnerability due to illiteracy and ignorance.
Therefore Education and awareness is an equally important measure to cyber security
I agree with Andrew and Mariko’s opinion although I also think we should bear in mind what Paul has said here.
So what about adding one or two sentences focusing on the specific conditions that APAC regions face (or even may pacific regions face) in the beginning of the synthesis document so that it can be widely known to the world community? As Pacific IGF was also held during the APrIGF this year, this will not go against what Paul suggested above – to report the discussions and agreements of the APrIGF 2018.
Internet Restrictions and shutdowns affect Digital Economy at large. Internet restriction and shutdowns may cause serious problem when it comes to Emerging Technology usages.
Same time most of the emerging technologies need to be used to uplift the standards of people. Privacy is a major concern we all have to think of.
Given the volume of IOT devices, it is difficult for regulators to validate the security of each device. Would be similar to testing every brand and variation of items in a grocery market shelves. Self regulation by identifying who does comply with IOT security standards and other guidelines is necessary. While ISOC is taking an initiative to provide such checklists; possibly the National CERTs could be the ones responsible for providing tools and guidelines for the consumers.
Community Networks are proven and are becoming a trend. Perhaps some discussion is necessary. While community networks were a session in 2018 APrIGF it was also a session in 2017; specifically supporting ICT resilience and emergency communication. Community networks were also identified as means for solutions for landlocked and small developing islands. The backhaul for such networks would come from big players like Facebook, Google.
Internet Governance is still a topic of few. Real meaning of the Engagement still missing mainly within the developing nations. As countries we doesn’t need to make fake multistakeholderism within IG process just to make world know. When time passes real multistakeholderism will come in to ithe process.
School on Internet governance will be a key to educate people. Here we in Sri Lanka try to create academic syllabus to IG with the aim to promote in to University level model.
Incorrect paragraph selected. on above comment
As discussed in WS 83, Public Libraries are ideal places for Internet access where users can be guided in a secure, inclusive, impartial, free and non-threatening environment. In New Zealand, for example, free Digital Literacy/Skills sessions are commonly held in Public Libraries on specific topics or for marginalised groups. Communities in small developing nations can be empowered through provision of Internet and information access in Libraries.
During the Digital Literacy session, I raised the huge reluctance by holders of traditional knowledge about healing medicines made from natural plants, to digitise information that has been gained by the use of generations of healers. They believe that by secularising this information would take away their “mana” – the God-given gift of healers. So how do we access and retain valuable information about the healing properties of our natural biodiversity, so that it doesn’t get lost over time and so that modern science can make use of the information to benefit others?
Compromised IoT devices, such as webcams or even lightbulbs, can be used to form “botnets”, networks of Internet-connected externally controlled devices. These devices, referred to in this context as “bots”, are often infected with malicious software and used for disruptive or criminal purposes. Understanding the growing impact that IoT security has on the Internet and its users is critical for safeguarding the future of the Internet. IoT manufacturers, IoT service providers, users, standards developing organizations (SDOs), policymakers, and regulators will all need to take action to protect against threats to Internet infrastructure.
One of the key obstacles to improving internet penetration in rural and remote areas is last mile connectivity. The lack of commercial viability, as well as huge network roll-out costs worry operators who are reluctant to make the necessary investments. Community Networks are considered as an excellent supplement solution to address last mile connectivity. They do require a strong support from policy makers and some of the steps that could be taken in this regards are:
1. Streamline or eliminate related regulatory requirements, especially those that are not applicable to small, community-based networks.
2. Expand universal service and other public funding opportunities, and publicize / include community networks as eligible for funding through universal service fund.
3. Introduce approaches to provide spectrum access and innovative licensing for community network operators.
4. Encourage community initiatives to build networks aiming to reduce digital divide.
It is also important to consider that not one solution can work / can apply everywhere and the most critical aspect behind success of a community network is ‘sustainability’ that usually comes with a supporting business model.
Vanuatu is ranked as one of the top (potential) sufferers in
WorldRiskIndex. Countries/territories in Asia/Pacific region
are among the tops as well.
Disasters are unavoidable. Internet accessibility during after
disasters is essential for the human lives. Preparation for
Natural Disasters was a well-attended session.
The above should be touched in the synthesis paper as it is
one of the very important issues in AP region.
Cybersecurity is focused on best efforts to make things more secure, without ever achieving 100% security. The goal of a truly secure Internet is an aspirational target. There needs to be increased effort on developing, implementing and revising minimum standards and good practices that address identified key risks for end users, organisations, critical infrastructure, nations and regions. This will require a multi stakeholder approach to identify and address key risks, it’s not just a problem for the network operators and IT professionals. Capacity building efforts need to consider: cybersecurity strategy and policy; cybersecurity culture and society; cybersecurity education, training and skills; legal and regulatory frameworks; and standards, organisations and technologies.
National level leadership and dedicated, ongoing funding will be required for measurable and sustainable capacity building to deliver a more secure Internet, strengthening every link in the global cyber security chain.
Open input period for the 2019 APrIGF Vladivostok Synthesis Document (92 comments)
We should highlight hate speech
A strong law enforcement and regulation framework is needed to substitute the failure of the state in restoring peace and justifying their need to use Internet shutdowns as a mechanism.
1. Network shutdowns have a series of negatie impact on human rights including the right to access, information, education, health, expression and assembly and association
2. NS are not efficient or effective solutions – they are a part of the problem.
3. Asia is the leading region on network shutdowns
4. The UN has repeatedly held that NS are not desirable – we need a call to the end for the practice on NS
Half the participants were women
We need a rights based approach to technology and regulation of technology. We hae to acknowledge that tech is not neutral and that it can harm disadvantaged communities. We thus need to have a rights based approach where we recognise the impact of different technologies including codes on people. Encourage greater multi disciplinary discussions and look at the impacts
When NS happens it means in addition to harmful content we are also shutting down essential information and content – especially for safety
There are different roles that government, industry (both small and large actors) and other stakeholder groups can play in promoting the adoption of standards. It’s also important to be very clear about the arguments for such adoption and how they are targeted for most effect.
On the impact of the GDPR on the APAC region. Many APAC countries are implementing privacy & data protection laws directly informed by the GDPR (see Indonesia’s proposed law and Australia’s upcoming amendments to the Privacy Act). Very welcome to see this GDPR influence as the digital economy grows faster in APAC than any other region in the world!
Particularly on the note of underserved and rural regions, who currently don’t have full access to the digital economy; what happens once the economies of scale which power the non-digital economy cease? What happens when the balance tips in favour of digital transactions, supply chain management and inventory control? Will the non-digital solutions cease and leave the underserved communities behind?
It’s the job of the internet community to make sure that these communities are not left behind on the march to innovation.
WS10
Child-Led research by 22 amazing guangzhou young delegate (upper primary school age). They research over 8 chinese cities of children perspective. Comprising of quantitative and qualitative data.
3 key takeaways.
1. Mental health component in Internet Governance IG issues are intertwined with social issues. Safer internet, cybersecurity & regulation. Qualitative case example cited by young delegate, child commit suicide as parent confiscate their phone. Mental wellness need to be address via education and also Multistakeholder approach.
2. Need for evidence-based practice, this child-led research is an example whereby such research can be utilize for professionals whether from internet governance or relevant field that works with children such as social worker.
3. Child perspective must be balance with adult perspective that promotes the welfare and wellness of the child in Safer internet, cybersecurity & regulation.
🇸🇬
1. Need to define what is “traditional business”?Some business just don’t want to change their transaction with internet or they would like to choose cash and decline the credit card or other cashless payment.
2. E-commerce is a way to purchase commodities or services on the internet. If some business don’t have the capacity to do business in electronic way, should we push them to e-commerce?
3. If the “traditional business” means industries, we need to define which industry should do digital transformation? Manufacturing? Publish? Medias? Retail? Each industry has to face different digitalization issues. So, please make more clear with industry or commerce. If we only talk about online retailing, please use specific words.
ICT may contribute to SDGs in their way. Emerging technology may make everything change rapidly. People need to learn more skills and compete with algorithms, robotics.
Government has the power and should provide social welfare policy to take care of the minority groups, lower income people, make every sector can participate economic activities.
Big tech companies may take their responsibility to make feedback to the society. But government may provide some incentives to encourage big tech companies or startups to hire some disable people or provide job opportunities to women, minority groups.
That is the concept of social safety net. Social safety net is provided by government or institution or other communities. When people lost their job, the social safety net may provide some basic welfare to help them, e.g, training new skills or re-training to build more ability. That may help those unemployed people to re-build their confident and back to the economy activities.
Social safety net also to help to make a stable society, decrease the criminal event.
This is not a responsibility for ICTs or government, this is for all sectors. Rapid development technology may instead of human being in the future. There will be some more unknown jobs (for now) for the future society.
If we need a social welfare policy, how to have a social welfare policy with multistakeholder model?
Network shutdown is still happening in the Asia Pacific and when that’s done , general public is completely ok with the government’s decision thinking it must be for them. The general public isn’t aware of their access rights..so a strong awareness with regard to ones access rights is required in the Asia Pacific and in countries like Bhutan where Sig has not been retained yet.
Internet Governance normally related with the “subject and rules”, it is necessary to sort out who will be get involved in the issue and what rules will be applicable. And more ,it usually expressed by different stakeholders of the internet governance which will related with technology and public policy. Indeed the solution also will be solved by the combination of technologies and policies. In particularly, the technology is the foundation of the internet or cyberspace, and the activities of main parties、 the foundation of the policies also based on the technologies. In addition, the internet governance get the different stakeholders get involved and became globalized which is necessary to consider the factors time and pay attention to the changes in the internet governance system.
– Broaden the ethics education (more to algorithm ethic) to engineer/ IT students to government because the universities or schools are officially recognized or by ministry of education in their own countries. Recommendation: The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (“the Code”) expresses the conscience of the profession.
– Broaden/ categorize ethical issues , because this is not only computing that included. For example such as Product design, coding/programing, operational handling content because the data is from all background
We 51 protection of child online: importance of child safely complaints tools
1) takes about different child abuses like cyber bullying, emotional abuse, sexting, sexual abuse, sexual exploitations, child
pornography and so on..
2) talked about iwf(internet watch foundation) which allows people all over the world to report online child abuse.
3) talked about what solutions can be provided which mostly stated that awareness is the key and the parents, teachers, government and the operators should come together to tackle the issue..
hello, I am mokabberi from Iran, advisor of cyber policy research institute.
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
hello, I am mokabberi from Iran, advisor of cyber policy research institute.
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
We 51 protection of child online: importance of child safely complaints tools
I would further like to state that cyber security classes should be mandated in all schools by the governments of each nation and more awareness should be made for parents,teachers and also to children on this regard..
My comments:
how can we promote inclusive norm making process reqarding these below consideration:
1. shaping Fair, democratic, global and ethical internet governance mechanism is key precondition for cyber security norm making process can overcome mistrusts.
2. we should also work on norms of responsible behavior of tech company
3. ITU can play role in cyber security standardization to secure ICTs products supply chain security
4.we should also consider smart lethal weapons and fake attributions
l thinks this process will lead to more militarization of cyberspace and cyber weapean race and establishing AIEA for cyberspace and let some country for unilateral coercive measure in cyberspace like digital countermeasure
This process like applying IHLs in digital realm and turn it into conflict zone is against the vision of peaceful and development-oriented internet for human goods
One suggestion:
A percent of (for example about 5 percent) of taxes of global tech companies and digital platforms that payed to governments can allocated for IGF budget for the implementation of IGF strategic plan and research and development Fund in the field of internet governance in national and international level . By this initiative funding problems of NRIS will be solved.
hello,
this suggestion can be enclouded in aprigf massage :
One suggestion for increase of financial Strengths of IGF
A percent of (for example about 5 percent) of taxes of global tech companies and digital platforms that paid to governments can allocated by them for IGF budget for the implementation of IGF strategic plan and research and development Fund in the field of internet governance in national and international level . By this initiative funding problems of NRIS will be solved.
“Currencies” being set up by Technology corporations is a concern. Eg it is starting of with Faceboook
This year, there is high and active youth participation in APrIGF, which reveals that the youth community in Asia-Pacific is growing robustly. Young people in this age are digital natives, therefore, it is essential for the community to include their voice in the policy-making process, and their opinions are actually beneficial for policy-making.
WS 6 is basically a workshop initiated by youth, moderated by youth and for youth. Workshop like this not only helps open a door to Internet Governance for youth, but also helps get their voice heard. In order to help widening their horizon and exposure in Internet Governance, and to include more of their opinons, it is suggested to include at least one youth speaker on every workshop, so that the youth perspectives on every topics or issues can be considered.
Under some countries which reach relative gender equality but the application of the IG related events are male/female dominating, it may not be appropriate to try to balance the amount of male/female. Since the real problem is in the awareness of the IG or other reasons, we should raise the awareness of the people instead of creating the the illusion of the gender diversity.
Social media has an increasing influence on Internet users nowadays, where we highly rely on it to receive different kinds of information, from international news to life updates of your friends. However, there are no strict rules on these social media platform, which means the reliability of this information is questionable. Corporations try to establish the community committees to review reports received regarding fraud, fake news, bullying case, etc. However, due to various factors, including gaps in capacity and knowledge, culture differences, languages, personal judgement, value, and emotion. bias is generated and the core issues in these problems are usually not addressed. Therefore, it will be appreciated if these social media platforms can adopt emerging technologies such as AI as part of this report reviewing process, which can help eliminate bias generated by humans during the decision-making process. With an auditing process in the algorithm, it is believed that it can help improve the effectiveness in resolving issues related to social media and help eliminated bias generated by AI too.
using of AIs regulating Digital Economies
Does Blockchain collect too much personal information?
Encryption is the foundation of human right online that every Internet users deserve to have. Without encryption, we have no privacy. We have the right to express freely both physical and on the Internet, which our opinions should not be intervened or censored by any authorities or being manipulated or interpreted in a way that is beyond our initial thoughts. Therefore, it is important to ensure encryption is universally applied on the Internet, in order to protect the universal value and standards towards human rights, where the Internet can always serve as a space for us to fight for our rights even if we are experiencing unfairness in certain situations in the reality.
WS50:
– There are some countries which started to give regulation about crypto assets and some are not. We may need structured model for govern crypto assets because if we don’t have the model it will be difficult to define. But it’s also already provided by internet draft IETF before.
– For crypto assets governance, The Important point is the communication among business and engineers, It is not easy to solve but it’s important to start communicate each other.
– If there will be new crypto currency platform released, we should concern about the users and security, for example Libra from Facebook including WhatsApp, Instagram, and Messenger, targeted to be able to transact with Libra starting in early 2020. However, it is not yet clear whether the availability is simultaneous worldwide or gradually in several countries first. But the main point is where almost all Facebook and those social media users is in the youth categories, so It’s important for giving awareness and education and comprehensive information about cryptocurrency in our communities
WS30
– There are a lot of methods of AI, IoT and IT Technologies. The importance is what is the real definition of ethics, and what are ethics for coders and we have to concern that if ethic definition always changing
– Innovation is important, as well as innovation of permission while maintaining algorithm accountability
– Building communities that can help the programmer/ future developers and engineers after graduation maintain of algorithm ethics of the behind computing machine
I represent as one of the voices of the youth. Based on the Townhall Session held on July 18, 2019, me and my fellow youth participants from YIGF 2019 suggested implementing a “youth section” for the synthesis document from hereon. Knowing that the youth comprises of the majority of internet users online, especially on social media platforms, we would like to extend our help and participate more in these synthesis documents beyond what is expected of us. A large portion of the youth has broad access to the latest trends with the internet, so giving them the opportunity to voice out their opinions into a dedicated section where their thoughts will be focused upon. The youth playing a bigger role in both the multi-stakeholder model and the synthesis document is crucial when highlighting their important perspectives regarding the numerous issues with internet governance.
We represent the voice of the youth. As we all know, the youth composes most of the internet users in this generation and that we are also the future of the internet, we hold a substantial responsibility in shaping the platform in the present for the betterment of tomorrow. And so we believe that a representative from the youth participants should be given the opportunity to partake a place in the workshop panels, and to voice out the youth perspectives regarding the themes and sub-themes that will be discussed in the forums.
The Internet has become a place for people to make a living. One of the platforms for this is video sharing. Popular sites such as YouTube has served as the platform for content creators to generate their own income by means of their own videos, typically funded by ad revenue. What creates issue with this is that there are content creators who rely on the content of other people, adhering to “fair use” as their legal protection. Despite such protection, this does not stop creators to file lawsuits citing copyright infringement. Theft of intellectual property is also an issue that reaps the same consequences. This legal conflict is a threat to the thriving entertainment industry, as well as economic prospects for individuals. Therefore, a clear and detailed criteria on what constitutes as theft of intellectual property should be imposed.
hello, from mokabberi from iran.
my comments
we have seen some organized disinformation and fake news in social media with geopolitical purpose ,for example we clearly see that some networks of fake accounts and bots are producing fake news against shia muslims in the name of sounni muslims and at the same time, they are spreading disinformation and hate speech against sunni muslims in the name of shia muslims. We all know who benefits from conflict between muslims and Who benefits from conflict between russia and europe.
what should be done with this organized disinfo at global level that want to make hostilities among nations and religious groups in the world to gain iligimate economical and political interest?
Regulation? Digital ethics? Awareness and digital litracy?
Declaration by stakeholders?
The encryption technology is thus a controversial point which needs to further discuss. To what extent should this encryption apply to our communication? How can we fight against the hate speech, fake news, child pornography etc if these are circulating in the encryption personal message? If there is cybercrime in the encryption message, can government intervene in and get the encryption key? If the cybercrime is cross-countries, how do governments battle against it and sustain the freedom of speech online?
Human Rights online should just not limit what we can do in the internet, but it should not be ignored as well. I think the Human Rights online should be its own thing, it should be redefined, privacy offline is not necessarily what is online, free speech offline is not necessarily what it should be online. There is a difference and as such defined differently. It is an interesting topic, it should be highlighted but its definition should be clarified. Human Rights was not defined in a day. The existing one may not at all apply online.
With the internet being this ever-evolving entity, human rights on the internet should be ever-evolving as well. We should move forward and see the internet as it is and as it will be with rights ever changing and not as something set in stone.
Emerging technologies were amongst the hot topics and interestingly we discussed them from the ethics perspective too. One of the key terms that came along was a “rights based Internet” to help reinforce the open and accessible invariants of the Internet. But with ethics the challenge is where does it come in? At the programmer level, or early education? As ethics is a morality, it is also the major onus of all humans themselves in their own capacities. A good practice may be to focus on developing inter disciplinary curricula and ICT education to sound the unethical challenges that may spring from emerging tech.
Rising awareness among developing countries nation’s most important then introducing policy framework. In many cases have seen for example in Bangladesh they didn’t know using social media they’re doing crime. Policy and regulations will be much more effective only when everyone have good understanding of right or wrong on the internet.
With the trend of Digital ecosystem facilities us doing e-commerce, online shopping,mobile money transfer…etc. on the other hand consumers are not have adequate knowledge of rights, there’s products received found not satisfy quality thts has been assured by the e-commerce platform and most of the case they didn’t mentioned penalty or they have tendency to overlook it as result consumers are loosing better service.
Though have rising digital economy through digital services or platform but have huge lack of digital governance for which end user can be beneficial for the developing countries.
WS30
Computing machines or machine learning algorithm should be free from biased. However considering diversity of data in algorithm can provide machine to take right decisions. Inclusion of ethics and norms programmer or Innovator can direct a machine from wrong to right.however besides those, need good human centric principles and morality to address awareness behind computing machines.
We may think in 1) Development in cyber norms 2) How to implement cyber norms.
Norms and law are different. But norms and law are similar and overlaping. Norms are collection from expertise. Develop the norms, self-regulation with the norms. Norms should be developed from bottom-up in multistakeholder model. UNGGE cyber norms is from government view of point.
If norms have power, it is dangerous. It becomes to be regulations or laws. We need to careful about the cyber norms more.
With DNSSEC topic:
1. Europe and Asia Pacific are both big regions. Each country has different development process and some countries will think to upgrade their Internet Infrastructure first , then maybe security.
2. Small Medium Enterprises may not afford the cost of deploying DNSSEC. They have to face these issues, upgrade the server, higher cost and latency issue. They need to satisfy their customer and also think about secure. They choose to satisfy their customer first, then think about security.
3. Big Tech company should take the responsibility to help the DNSSEC deployment. For example, some e-commerce websites have never heard about SSL or https. But one day, Google ask them if not use SSL to encrypt the data transmission, they will take down the search engine optimize ranking. Then those websites will deploy the SSL. Maybe it can be worked in DNSSEC deployment.
Your statement looks like in accessibility and internet infrastructure to close the digital divide or inclusion in rural area. Perhaps can definite clear about this section more clear, for example: digital transformation in rural area / region will be better in talk digital economy development in rural region.
Without internet infrastructure, digital transformation and basic internet / telecommunication infrastructure, it will be very difficult to talk about next step in e-business or e-commerce.
1. Thinking for a e-portal for Pacific islands countries. What’s the purpose for the e-portal? Who will be the audience to this websites?
2. e-Government can provide a transparent way to encourage people to participate the government activities and know their government. e-Government also present a government may their services online. Then people can understand the government services from the website and interact with their government. The structure are not hierarchy anymore. It becomes more horizontal.
3. e-Government or e-Portal may help foreign users know your country well. They may know any incentives to the business, any policies encourage foreign enterprises to invest in local. Also government may ask to foreign to upgrade the infrastructure and training / education local people. Some countries encourage foreign companies to set a branch there with taxation reduction or tax relief, but they have to provide more job opportunities, training and re-training to local people.
4. To foreign immigration or expats, they may want to know more information with any welfare or public equipment, e.g. raising children, child education, those policies from e-gov website.
Network shutdown is common phenomenon in the Asia Pacific specially in developing countries where nation’s are really not aware of there right, it seems government is all in all to dominate people’s freedom of speech over online.
They don’t bother to shut whole internet though have high impact of digital economy . To overcome this barrier combined voice and collaborative effort like isp, Telco,human rights, end users should raise voice to stop this bad practices. Internet governance should regulate participating all stakeholders, not only by government however criticism of those practice may reduce shut down issues.
Stackholder concern may focus on accountability could lead to a top-down rather than bottom-up framing for a partnership. Also need to focus on realities on the ground and to build space for listening and dialogue. However multilateralism it is seen as an attractive alternative. particularly in the corporate world,
multistakeholder governance as offering a more direct hand and poten-tially a legitimate role in national and global governance. Most important to identify dentifies gaps and limitations in governance and questions the illusion of democracy and participation.
Use of e-governance can make public administration fast and effective, provide better services, and respond to the demands of transparency and accountability.
E-governance stimulates economic growth and promotes social inclusion of disabled and vulnerable sections of society.
E-governance can provide benefits in the form of new employment, better health, better education, knowledge sharing, skills developments and capacity building for sustainable development.
Overall Quick and fast e-services eliminate middlemen and save both time and money.
From our end in the Pacific, yes totally agreed in raising awareness so that everyone using internet will understand the threats, challenges and business opportunities that comes with the internet and at the same time aware of some proper and respectful way of using the internet platform within their respective roles.
As for me being both involved in the Government and community so its best to use both connection to make the multitakesholder approach at national level a success. Can put together Government resources and community participation to build guidelines for a safer internet for everyone in the community.
I want to raise the dilemma that I as a consumer face on a daily basis. While I would like to use local, smaller vendors for their online services so that the bigger corporate giants do not form a monopoly, I am also aware that these small vendors might not be able to keep my data as secure as the bigger companies could. This is a conflict, and I would love for the community to come up with a way to resolve this issue.
Regulation: Russia and Iran’s internet isolation is of serious issue since it will also affect IXPs and impose their authorities on the routing pf global internet traffic in and out of their respective borders.
Apart from including the youth, I think it is also important for us to include the elderly in the discussion. With the advancement and spread of smart gadgets, more and more middle-aged people and elderly are now using these smartphones for online activities and to connect with their family and friends. However, for quite a number of them are not as alert as young people, who are digital natives, when it comes to issues like cybersecurity and privacy protection. Some of them have only little understandings on these dangers, which means that they are probably more prone to cyber crimes, privacy breach and so on. It is essential to include them in the discussion of internet governance so that we can understand better about their difficulties and better address them.
Especially in Asia Pacific the level of information in terms of disinformation is very less. Social media has been used as a tool of communication and has been bombarded with information both relevant and irrelevant. In both the case there is a threat of the vulnerable group. Trust Factor in internet was always limited as there was limited participation and recognition of inclusion. The Trust is growing with the mutlistakeholder approach where inclusion and diversity play a crucial role in the adaptation and mitigation process
Before adding the new stakeholder in the discussion of Internet governance, we should consider its uniqueness and the urgency to include them. Different subthemes under the Internet governance may show the different level of uniqueness and urgency to include them in the discussion. For example, in the access and universality session, the urgency to include the different social status people may outweigh the urgency to include the elderly. As the technology is evolving, there should also be consecutive research focusing on which potential stakeholders are lagging behind. In different issues, there would be different stakeholders we need to focus on more. How to build up a more flexible multistakeholder participation and give the most needed but ignored stakeholders the priority to participate is our next thing.
UA is a foundational requirement for multilingual Internet, in which users around the world can navigate via DNS entirely in local languages. UA needs coordination efforts by the private sector, technical & academic communities, civil society, and governments to ensures that all domain names and email address internationalization (EAI) can be used by all Internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems.
There is an importance need to make everyone from the stakeholders aware of the UA and its tight connection with the IDNs and what advantages it can provides to the general public. Awareness is not enough but creating the drive or motives to demand all stakeholders of serious efforts towards the inclusiveness of the IDNs and EAI.
There are few research and development experiments in APAC region on IDNs and EAI, but more resources is needed to work on standardization.
Creating a consistent environment of enabling the access of local content with local domain name and send and receive emails using the local email address.
[ Internet Governance & Multi-Stakeholder Participation ]
No one denies the importance to make the voice of underrepresented communities be heard at APrIGF or any other IGFs. But at the end of the day, it will discussions that “could” be heard by the decision making bodies but there might not be any follow up.
What would be a good approach is to develop the connection between APrIGF Community (like MSG, or other subject matter experts to join ITU Government delegates for consultancy during the development of ITU resolutions.
[WS6. Analyzing Perspectives on Youth Participation in the Multi-stakeholder Landscape: A Contextual Follow-Through Session on Motivations to Sustainability Efforts]
APrIGF has to be proud of having youth organizing a session and sharing experiences. Attended the meeting thinking that there will be discussions on how the Youth fit into the overall scene in the IGFs, but the focus of the workshop was on the different youth initiatives. What was shared of the youth engagement in the Philippines would give an example of how youth are contributors to policy development in their own country.
Norms should be developed from bottom-up in multistakeholder model.
Great research, this bottom-up of putting Norms when talking about children stopped me.
The digital norms are taking the net citizen to a completely different path of norms that was practiced before the Internet. Hence, the MS model that you are mentioning that need to be developed on an equal footing. To bring the experience and wisdom of the past with the practices of today.
So far cybersecurity laws have failed to protect the freedom of speech.
The problem that most states are putting regulations without wider public consultation. It depends on parliament members to comment or endorse new laws.
Would be possible to do some changes in the jurisdiction model to bring balanced views?
[WS48. A roadmap for studying ICT laws and building a database for Asia]
I didn’t attend this session, however, the organizer of this workshop could benefit of the pilot project that was done by iGmena to: Internet Legislation Atlas
“The ILA aims to pinpoint opportunities for improvements and contribute to raising the awareness of concerned stakeholders, and empowering civil society to participate in the Internet policy dialogue in the regional and global level and influence the decision-making process in the local level. This is done through:
Mapping the legal landscape in each country as it relates to the Internet and civil society.
Outlining gaps and ambiguities among existing laws and regulations in relation to international human rights standards.
Highlighting opportunities for advocacy regarding Internet-related law and policy in each country drawing on international human rights standards and best practices.
Connecting civil society to resources that will help them navigate the legal environment.”
[WS12. Coping with misinformation in an era of information deluge: Who is Responsible?]
Who is responsible: basically, every single person of us who share information either verbally, by email or through social media networks without authenticating it.
The challenge that we all face that the misinformation are getting smarter and hard to even an intelligent person to identify it. For example, the AI deep fake application which is available to anyone easy to use. This application can give anyone the tool to take a photo and use audio to make a video. This application has a double edge sword as artist and ad producer could be creative to do very creative videos but on the other hand, those who produce disinformation could use it as well to mislead the general public.
As disinformation are using AI, Many issues must be considered.
-Increase evidence-based policy research as there is a lack of evidence on the impact or influence of the use of technology or AI for disinformation campaigns.
-Clickbait and targeted advertising business models that are based on the promotion of sensationalist news as a means of competing in the market for individuals’ attention. Big companies employ algorithms that exploit user data. Hence, there is a need to have serious discussions on how to protect users data.
Hence Data protection
If the illegal collection and access to users’ data is stopped, micro-targeted disinformation campaigns would lose much of their effectiveness and threat potential. As is already clear, weak data protection rules and enforcement not only impact user privacy and choice, but also lead to constant monitoring, profiling, and “nudging” towards political and economic decisions.
[WS35. Language Diversity in Asia-Pacific: Challenges towards Digital Dividends]
According to UNESCO, there are more than 6000 languages worldwide.
To have a practical approach to digital language diversity and local content is to adopt policies that encourage local content producers. Countries in APAC region adopted the official languages, hence all content hast to depend on those languages and reduce the dependency on content produced from the developed countries.
This approach might put some communities into a disadvantage. But empowering minorities to produce their content and in their own languages will help to preserve it.
On another aspect, algorithm bias in search engines does create a divide based on the language the users are searching with.
The challenging of implementing good eGovernment services in developing economies is the infrastructure and reaching to the last mile.
Hence along with the development of the portal, the Government has to develop the right strategies to the grantee that their e-services do reach out to every single citizen. It might be done by allocating certain stations in the remote areas.
Thanks for all the comments.
My question here is, how many people are aware of existing organizations working on the same issues? For example, Nadira mentioned IGmena working on collecting domestic laws from each difrerent region and it’s important to work toward more collaborative law makings regarding the internet. However, there are already existing organizations present worldwide which have been working on the same topic – Internet & Jurisdiction based in Paris, for example. Gayatri and het peers are also working on archiving the laws from Asian countries regarding the Internet. IGmena’s work should also be part of this broader institutional and organizational effort. And there will be other groups – probably government officials and lawyers from each region – who have done the same job.
My question is, how can we break this silo-ed works from each different organizations with the same aim and purpose? I think the next step for the Internet Governance should be bridging the existing organizations which are ultimately doing the same works without knowing what others are doing
And how can we increase the power of law enforcement worldwide esepcially when there are some states or soverign nations which resist to follow the rulings of the international court, etc?
The advance of technology has undoubtedly brings convenience and benefits to society. However, according to PwC’s Global State of Information Security Survey dated 2015, the cybercrime market worth $114 billion, which is bigger than the cocaine market ($85 billion, quote from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, World Drug Report 2011). Therefore, I believe it is necessary to evaluate the Cyber Maturity Framework of organizations which provide new technologies prior launching /on a regular basis. The Cyber Maturity Framework consists of four capability areas: Respond, Identify, Detect and Protect).
Respond:
Assesses the organisation’s ability to respond and recover from external and internal attacks against its systems and data.
Identify:
Assesses the organisation’s ability to understanding the threats and appropriately manage the associated security risk to systems, assets, data and capabilities.
Detect :
Assesses the organisation’s ability to detect external and internal attacks of varying sophistication against its systems and data.
Protect:
Assesses the organisations ability to implement security controls to reduce the risk of threats being realised (e.g. loss of data or system outage).
I believe partnerships and collaborations between different companies and regulators may help the underserve communities and regions to catch up with the pace of digital boom.
For instance, Ant Financial (Alibaba Group’s mobile payment affiliate) decided to partner with Touch N’ Go to develop their e-wallet rather than break in with Alipay in Maylasia. This can ensure healthy business synergy in both companies. Also, the regulators may consult the fintech companies when building new regulations to ensure the law is down to earth and can be implemented while balancing the business development and cybersecurity.
In my view Governments are the victim of the social media contents on the internet. Have been working for the government of Samoa for 20 years and have seen abuses nowadays with the introduction of social media up their game to a another level. With freedom of expression and human rights people are not afraid to put anything on the internet despite some violent contents and misleading information as they can create their own fake news that suits their agenda. There is no control on verification of any information before uploading it.
Hate speech, abusive language and misinformation is very disturbing when using these platforms. Some people tend to pour hate and fake news to stir up peace in Economies and will lead to disputes and lost of Trust to leadership. Some of the abuse have actually go beyond the limit, where it started with politics but now aims at families and children of the victims which is my BIG question is where does freedom of speech and human Rights DRAW THE LINE…Thus the RIGHTS support the Abuser who is free to make fake/hate news and disturb the peace within the community or the poor VICTIM..
There were times our Govt was tempted to block social media especially Facebook but we have recognized its important role for genuine family connection around the Globe. We can’t underestimate how the social media platform have make life easier in bringing communication and accessibility to our home and roofs and many other benefits to our daily life but we have to understand that we need to use it with respect and its not something to bring shame and hurt to other human beings.
We have moved to review our legislation’s and the government have reintroduced our criminal libel law to protect the victims from such disrespectful acts by some. The only challenge about the Act we can’t prosecute actions done from overseas but only contents that were uploaded locally.We have now in the pipeline of establishing a new Digital Transformation Authority that will oversees important changes in technology, as well as monitoring Government ICT services to meet the standard and security required. It will also through this Authority to make sure that Government critical information is protected and secure safely.
[WS17. The Future of Digital Identity and Human Rights] Many of the governments are into digital identities. In the case of the Philippines, a National ID the law was just recently signed by the president. In a way, this is beneficial to the citizens in improving ease of transactions with among government agencies. But the question is, how resilient is our government in protecting our date. A data breach already happened in the Philippines which put 70M Filipinos’ personal data at risk. In the case of the National ID Law, we have to make sure that the Data Privacy Act will be reinforced to the government as the data controller and processor. Aside from that, a protocol has to be established to make sure that these data wont be compromised for whatever misuse.
[WS23. Big tech everywhere: Is this the future of the Internet? ] During the panel discussion there was a concern about Big Fall of Big Tech. It becomes a trend that big tech companies are acquiring small tech companies to expand their products and services, leaving people with still limited options on online products and services. However, we may not be able to stop these big companies from doing that, that is our business, certainly. But what we can do is start and keep supporting tech startups in out locality, help build the startup ecosystem, and create more options, even gradually. Let’s promote permissionless innovation, support our local tech startups, and raise awareness about internet governance to this community.
Paragraph #2 is quite negative to the Internet. While consideration of risks and threats is important, it is best to address the Internet evolution in a positive light and find opportunities in every threat. Possible rephrase:
One of the main themes discussed at the APrIGF in Vladivostok, was peaceful collaboration towards a safer Internet. This included questions such as (paragraphs 2 and 3):
====
How can the Internet community participate more actively in the international cybersecurity discussions and encourage more co- operative measures? What shall the digital ethics be for businesses? How shall we take into account the concept of public goods and the commons vs. data ownership and privatization of knowledge? How can we keep the positive elements of “localized” Internet while being aware of its downsides? To enhance trust and security, how can we enhance the capacity building effort and how do we bridge the gap between technical and non-technical understanding of securing the Internet?
While there are growing concerns on issues such as misinformation, fake news, hate speech and harassment, online violence and terrorism, organized cybercrimes, market concentration in cloud services, data breaches resulting in a decrease of trust as well as a wave of state regulations to mitigate the cybersecurity risks. To maintain cyber hygiene, what kind of policies and governance model shall be adopted to tackle these issues and achieve a safer Internet? What should be the key considerations for states when creating these regulations? How shall we maintain legal interoperability of laws and extraterritorial data protection on the Internet? Should the Internet be regulated by the states solely and what is the impact of these existing regulations on the Internet? How should the balance be drawn between state interference on Internet infrastructure and a free and open Internet?
=====
In the YIGF session, participants discussed about the fact checking system in social media. Youth expressed the concern about the rampant fake news in South-east Asia country like Philippine. All of us agree on the implementation of clear and appropriate regulation, which needs the collaboration of all stakeholders. However, to uphold the freedom of speech, we propose to suspend the account instead of removing the account as social media companies do when violating the community standard. We should also rely on AI to inspect the content while we investigate the manpower behind in the fact checking mechanism and study the controversial content. With the advent of AI checking the content and generating the news, the traditional journalism can fully engage in the mechanism with its role to give the people to right to know the truth to alleviate the threat of losing job.
As about half of the world’s population is now connected to the Internet, the other half is still offline. People in the unconnected communities generally reside in remote, rural and other hard to reach areas. Due to the low rate of return, the private sector does not find it profitable to connect such communities. At the same time, governments do not always have the funds to build the necessary infrastructure. There is, however, a help-yourself model, where communities themselves can take steps to get connected – Community Networks (CNs). Community Networks are of the people, by the people, for the people.
Community Networks and other community-based connectivity initiatives could be a viable alternative to traditional large scale commercial networks in providing access to unconnected communities. Slowing growth in voice and internet connectivity has prompted renewed interest in alternative approaches to addressing the needs of the billions of people in developing countries who still suffer from ineffective communications services due to affordability and coverage limitations. Community Networks, aside from helping to meet worldwide aspirations for universal access, as encapsulated in the Sustainable Development Goals, also provide other advantages including more local control over how the network is used, greater potential for attention to the needs of women and other marginalized groups, retention of more funds within the community and increased potential to foster a sense of agency and empowerment within the community. These networks provide the trainings for the local residents on safe use of the internet. Raising capacity is one of the key aspects of such initiatives.
Communities tackle the infrastructures that are embedded in and affect deploying and adopting telecoms. These infrastructures include all sorts of social, technical, political, legal, administrative, methodological and institutional structures and processes. We must continue identifying policy and regulatory changes needed at the national level, as well as financial and technical support that CNs in the region require so they are on the same playing field as telecoms and further highlight issues such as the need for increased access to spectrum/telecom data which will contribute to breaking down structural inequalities when it comes to access. CNs relate very well to the over-all theme of “Enabling a safe, secure and universal internet for all”. Community Network are run by the communities and for the communities, making internet affordable and accessible for otherwise unconnected people.
* [WS55. Community Networks – Connecting the Hardest Half]
The above comment is in relation to this section
With Facebook, users can opt to close their account and choose to permanently have their data deleted but what about Facebook’s facial recognition AI, will it “unlearn” to recognise faces of deleted users even though this may not be evident to other users.
Users who are not part of or members of organisations need to be encouraged and included in the Multi-stakeholder participation, (since they make up the largest number), through fellowships and similarly for youths. Regional SIGs should cater for non IG professionals and youths. Fellowships should also be encouraged for senior citizens.
I agree
Dear one and all
This is kanumuri s Raju from India. In order to make internet safe , make every internet user rights needs in place we must act on these
1) educate all internet users how to use it , safe gaurdimg their privacy face cyber attacks as most of them are uneducated.
2 ) no junk data in internet web sites
,3) eastablish skill centers .
4)! No fake news based on
False inputs.
) Act on people missing .
6} collobiration open partner ships
7)saving eco system / electronics recycling
8) make governece important
9) qos important. Localization imp.
WS37. Is e-Government an effective mechanism for developing economies
– People need simple, fluent, integrates e-government services or we could state that importance of basic info needs first to support life capabilities. The thing to need attention while constructing E-government is there must be right people or who understand the functions of social institutions and society. Besides, we have to see what must be caught such as emerging trends and issues. For example, in the Pacific, the most important thing is to have a connection. Even though there are connections but still limited and few. and it should be noted that there are still few people working on the ICT. E-government is capable of work with ICT companies in their respective regions to achieve effective e-governance and digital economic growth. If it has already been implemented, the most important thing is to increase securities in the system / app in e-government because using a real name system, we can conclude ideally is the resilience of and sustainable system.
– Fiji 5 Years transformation online. Digital transformation program to bring government services online, such as online record of birth, death and marriage, business and company registration, etc.
– In Indonesia, for example of government applications in education sector are government library app which we could rent e-book from this app, public school enrollment can be done online for junior and senior high school level. In health sector, there is Online Self registration in the public hospitals to make an appointment with doctor, etc.
– For those who have just started an e-government website, for example, several countries in the Pacific island can be made with recommendations from several websites from other countries and analyze what features which must to have, good to have or not particularly, Examples for must to have are main news page, weather forecast, focus on tourism (by occupation) simplify the website topics, sign up and log in, Message us, Contact, FAQ, Health topics, search engine. For good to have are Education sites, Every Drop Counts, Text to speech for disability people, Social Media, E-services of government information.
• WS9. Parallel Workshop: Build Concept on AI and Society for good Global
The concept from academic aspect is the curriculum that could influence learning process of building concept on AI, maybe only some countries in Asia Pacific have implemented it, but not at all and now starting to be implemented.
The awareness methods could be formal and informal training. For examples of formal training are such as open online class and supplement lesson. For informal training from tutorials or videos on internet that we can access by our self and make group of club to give this knowledge.
AI is not the new things for programmer, therefore to deepen practices on developing AI products, they should more explore and take the initiatives to be professionals and not only depend to the lessons in the universities. the result that can be achieved for example such as competition that could maximize their knowledge which they already receive at class and school, and the integral projects which can give the best solutions towards Sustainable Development Goals and some kind of issues such as poverty and disaster recovery and others.
As we know AI helps economic and industry sectors more convenience in advertising and analyzing the data. It could be said that machine learning and open data will help global system development. This world is AI lace but not all countries pay attention about inclusion problem, we need to focus on AI economies and we have to improve security and privacy protection.
I was hoping if all countries that are now registered under the Global Internet Governance Forum can formalized a convention to safe guard the internet use. I know there is a Budapest convention for cyber crime by the Council of Europe (185). It now serves as the binding International instrument to fight against cyber crime.
It provides guidelines for any country developing comprehensive national legislation against Cybercrime and as a framework for international cooperation between State Parties to this treaty.
In saying this, we now have Non-European countries like USA, Japan and Australia as well as our neighbors Tonga who have signed and ratified the convention. I believe its a good platform for better collaboration and investigation if the perpetrator resides within these Countries or Regions.
WS22. IoT Security – A Differentiator for Consumers
– Based on some reports and news, there are some IoT Technologies which are not implement strong security. that are compromised by hackers even as homes and businesses continue to add these and other connected devices to their networks and it was realized that most challenges were of privacy/confidentiality and data integrity. Based on those issues, the companies should improve from layer security, framework and platform devices.
– There is the fact that innovation of IoT products could help people with disability but we also have to concern about the security and who will be responsible for facilitate this concern
– The raising awareness about security in IoT. At least consumers understanding about what data will they give, term and agreements with the IoT services and strengthen transparency accountability of IoT manufacturers about information of their IoT Products and integrity .
– There is no real regulation about differentiator for customer on IoT, bringing companies to participate/ involve or maybe it would be better if they had a common framework. The movement that we can do is work together
Universal Acceptance is a part of a bigger issue of making sure that the Internet’s Critical Infrastructure protocols evolve over time in an open standards manner. For the synthesis document, I would suggest that we add text suggesting that: Universal Acceptance of Internationalized Domain Names (IDN) and Email Address Internationalization (EAI) for systems online is a matter of priority not only for ensuring that Asia Pacific users can utilize their native language to navigate the Internet, but also as an imperative for the continued evolution of the core Internet infrastructure protocols, including the enhancement of scalability (e.g. IPv6), security (e.g. DNSSEC) and multilingual capability (e.g. IDN) of such protocols.
Growing misinformation, disinformation, hate speech and harassment is definitely a growing issue. However, there can be no binary solution to this issue.
Fake news has always been there in our society, the only concern is with the use of technology the reach and impact has dramatically increased.
Apart from regulations, or companies introducing measures within their products or services to reduce such incidents, capacity building and educating the community on digital etiquette is important. The civil society can play a critical role in this. Also, there is a need for more academic research on these issues – including what motivates some communities to react or spread/ share news while not others, etc.
It is an issue of the whole community and can only be addressed when the whole multistakeholder community works on it together. Blocking, shutting or restricting the internet will not help.
Having said that various initiatives are being taken by online companies in tackling these issues. While few have helped, there is more that needs to be done.
Cyber Security is still a fully undiscovered area and participation by the internet community to focus on capacity building effort will alone is not suffice and there should be some capacity building that are technically designed to handle insecured situations on the Internet. The community can also aim to come out with a Security Framework that can act as a platform for future enhancements.
One of the issues discussed during the week was routing security. Every year, thousands of routing incidents occur, each with the potential to harm user trust and handicap the Internet’s potential.
Spoofed Internet traffic is a persistent threat, and often the root cause of reflection Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks.All stakeholders including policymakers, must take steps to strengthen the security of the global routing system.
Best practices, like the Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security, provide a clear path for network operators to take towards addressing these routing threats.
While we action on cybersecurity threats on the Internet application layer, we cannot fail to Protect the Core (technical layer)
Agree on this point. Not only the youth, but the elderly are also important to have good knowledge and awareness about cybersecurity, cyberbullying, fake news, hate speeches, etc. and all the things that can be dangerous via the internet.
For instance, a gullible person may be both a youth or middle-aged and even an elderly who is used to believe the occurrences on the internet and spread the news about it which can harm someone direct or indirect way by emotionally, financially, socially, and reputationally.
Therefore, the elderly should be added too in the discussion of Internet Governance so they become familiar with both the advantages and disadvantages of the internet and how to protect themselves. And we are able to realize their perceptive of using the internet and lessons learned in order to have the idea how we should better promote the awareness of Internet Governance for all age level.
Agree on this point. Not only the youth, but the elderly are also important to have good knowledge and awareness about cybersecurity, cyberbullying, fake news, hate speeches, etc. and all the things that can be dangerous via the internet.
For instance, a gullible person may be both a youth or middle-aged and even an elderly who is used to believe the occurrences on the internet and spread the news about it which can harm someone direct or indirect way by emotionally, financially, socially, and reputationally.
Therefore, the elderly should be added too in the discussion of Internet Governance so they become familiar with both the advantages and disadvantages of the internet and how to protect themselves. And we are able to realize their perceptive of using the internet and lessons learned in order to have the idea how we should better promote the awareness of Internet Governance for all age level.
[WS55.Community Networks] One of the key obstacles to improving internet penetration in rural and remote areas is last mile connectivity. The lack of commercial viability, as well as huge network roll-out costs worry operators who are reluctant to make the necessary investments
Policy makers and Regulators can facilitate initiatives like Community Networks to bridge last mile connectivity gaps by:
– Streamlining or eliminating regulatory requirements, especially those that are not applicable to small, community-based networks.
– Provide tax, customs, regulatory, and licensing fee exemptions.
– Provide clear, public guidance on the specific policies and regulatory requirements (and exemptions) for community networks.
– Expand universal service and other public funding opportunities to community networks.
– Introduce innovative approaches for licensing and spectrum access
The United Nations estimates that one in six people live with disability – that is a total of 650 million women, men and children in the Asia-Pacific region.
People with Disability (PWDs) face various challenges in accessing the Internet based on their impairment. For example, persons with visual impairments can face compatibility challenges when screen reader software is used to access visual displays that are not labelled or hyperlinks that do not make sense when read out of context.
If designers of digital technologies and content keep accessibility at the heart of design activities, people with disability can be empowered to do more themselves, without having to rely on others. In contrast, if designers miss out on accessibility, they continue to develop products and content that increases barriers for people with disability when using digital technologies and content.
Although, there are known and easy to implement guidelines to address the barriers, many developers of web content, mobile applications and related digital technologies usually do not consider people with disability while designing or updating their products. With such a large number of the population with disabilities, businesses are potentially losing out if accessibility issues are not considered, and the universal design concept is not understood and adopted. Universal design means that businesses improving consumer products such as hardware, software, websites and applications to make them usable for a broader section of the community including people with disability, in turn, gain reach to a much larger consumer base in more situations.
It is very important to recognize PWDs as one of the stakeholders in the development of policies and technologies, and to educate the community (especially content developers) about the importance of equal access for PWDs. Promoting digital accessibility contributes to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and ensure that the rights of PWDs are met.
Diminishing trust is a challenge for the Internet – all of the creativity and innovation we see on the Internet is based on users trust. Internet of Things (IoTs) will play a crucial role in maintaining this trust.
Poorly secured IoT devices and services can serve as entry points for cyber attacks, compromising sensitive data and threatening the safety of individual users. Understanding the growing impact that IoT security has on the Internet and its users is critical for safeguarding the future of the Internet.
Many organizations are working hard on IoT security and privacy issues, but there is a need for all stakeholders, including policymakers, manufacturers, and consumers, to make good choices about the future of IoT and security.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2021 Synthesis Document – Draft 0 (92 comments)
“economic dimensions”
Awareness
Green Greetings from DAV College Amritsar, Punjab, India !
We at DAV College Amritsar, believe in equality , inclusiveness and value driven Internet framework for next billion internet user in Asia Pacific. We strongly believe ICT based deliberation and ideation help sustain Human Rights in digital era. We also believe trust can be achieved by incorporating balance between Basic Human Right and Security and privacy on Internet ecosystem . We never advocate hate speech and fake news in order to have more responsible behavior for end user.
One World One Internet !
Agreed- Social Economic status is also a major barrier to inclusion especially in developing nations
There are some definitions of harmful content by communities or government regulations, conventions. But should internet intermediary services take the responsibility to follow the government regulation to surveillance their users’ content? That may break the trust between users and the (internet) service providers. Some governments ask to crack the encrypted channel to prevent cybercrime.
The transparency reports from the internet service providers may be a way to build trust. The report should reveal how often and how many times in a year the government department asks for user data and what kind of data.
For me, we should be able to resolve access first because too many people still do not have access to the internet – the rural poor, PWDs who are not provided for with appropriate assistive devices, and many others like students and ordinary workers. For example, in the education sector alone, where because of the pandemic, schools are still closed, and learning is limited to poor internet limited sessions, and printed modules left to the responsibility of the parents and students to fulfill. Inclusion is the major issue, until we resolve that, the rest remain to be the issue of the privileged and connected. But that is not to say that we should not address sustainability and trust. just that we focus more on inclusion. This is also to reduce the digital divide.
It is important to note that those who are already marginalized become further disadvantaged during pandemics and it gets worse when they are not included in necessary digital spaces
In the ICT or internet area, the first step is helping people to have qualified, affordable internet. People can educate themselves, upgrade their skills to get jobs,s and improve their economy better.
The next step is to help people to have their ability to keep connecting to the internet or have their ability to invent affordable technology to empower themselves. Then we can close the digital divide with time and economic factors. Skilled human capitals and advanced technology are two important economic factors to help economic growth. Then we may think about the sustainability of the internet with environmental protection issue.
Anyone with a gadget can access the whole world for collecting information and providing the same. Mainly in this pandemic situation it is the only possible platform for all the above. Even it is a virtual space still exists gender discrimination and attack against women. Then how they can be involve fearlessly in the cyber space? Question of equality is not solved yet. These are to be very seriously taken into consideration.
The community-based network systems are still controversial among stakeholders but on the other hand, having those kinds of network systems can provide more Internet coverage areas. The huge digital divide among developed and developing countries is needed to reduce by collaborating and working together. Also, when the users have the right to connect online, Internet connectivity should be a human right. Multi-stakeholder have to be seriously considered for any kinds of human rights violations such as Internet shutdowns forwarding to the inclusion.
Climate Change is related to every nation. There is no Planet B according to the UN. So, both developing and developed countries need to collaborate for a green economy by means of looking forward to our future.
Internet education should be part of the life skills training since we also need to teach young people to protect themselves from harm in the internet, and not just its beneficial use.
It would be good to create Green ICT policies to help organizations and individuals contribute to ICT sustainability
After the COVID-19 pandemic, many face-to-face meetings change to an online model. The virtual meeting may mitigate the travel expanse from personal or company, also help to decrease flight and the percentage of spreading the COVID-19 virus. Less flight also mitigates the carbon footprint.
People persuade to have online brochures or online catalogs since we have the internet. To convince people to use an online catalog instead of participating in the exhibition in person.
On the other side, fewer flights may decrease the tourist income, especially to some countries’ economies, and also affect to build the relationship.
But honestly, virtual meetings also increase the demand for electric, electronic devices, internet connection. I don’t see any measurement for this.
Everyone has the right to express themselves. A word or a sentence may have different impacts on different stakeholders and different perspectives. Should we set a limitation or obviously definition about harmful content, hate speech, or freedom of expression?
There is a grey area in what and how to define them. There are different cultures in the countries.
Actually it’s not just the weaponization of surveillance but even of one policy fits all approach to the pandemic. The high handed approach have shown how government officials, particularly in the frontline – police, community officials – could go beyond their mandate in implementing what they thought were right. Some minors suffered corporal punishments for violating curfew, while other people were charged with cyber libel for questioning the local officials’ response to the pandemic. Luckily most of them were thrown out by prosecutors or the courts, but not after the hassle of being arrested, published on social media, and detained for a time. Worst, government-paid trolls extol these kind of actions as necessary for discipline and compliance to pandemic control.
The heavy use of digital space contributes to carbon footprints; online conferences inevitably contribute to this.
Solution: Maybe we can start thinking about offsetting the carbon footprints caused in conferences by measuring/estimating carbon footprints and compensating with greener alternatives
Do we have indicators or measurements about the maturity of AI technology? Does the AI technology have enough maturity to identify the semantic of a post or sentence or do fact checks for every internet user?
People will talk about using the multistakeholder mechanism to clarify identification conditions. Still, hopefully, we need to have a more specific definition of the multistakeholder, not only the groups or communities mentioned in the Tunis agenda(2005). Nowadays, people always misunderstand the multistakeholder to stakeholders.
“AI learns (machine learning from human behavior), but Human also learn themselves”.
This means that if we use a moderating mechanism from AI (automated approach) to tackle online harm, it should regard as a tool to help moderate hate speech against others and should collaborate a human-centric approach because humans are also learners.
They learn the community guidelines, they learn from mistakes. They can identify hate speech, the community can counter hate speech and machine-based moderation biases.
So making use of these two approaches together is important to create better online communication exchange and fair and harmonious engagement of online media users.
There are specific conditions, scopes, and levels in which AI-based automation could and necessary to be implemented, and there are levels that human moderators play a role to moderate the conversations.
For example, to address challenges to distinguish between hate speech, offensive language (which is different things), and freedom of opinion/expression. Let us let People learn digital ethics together and creating their own norms and rules but in mitigation for possible future action that could harm vulnerable targets on the Internet, we should try (also) AI.
The encryption debate must be set against the wider context of the region’s efforts to make the Internet more accessible, secure and trustworthy.
As IG stakeholders, we must ensure that policies that impact the Internet do so positively, and contribute to its growth as an enabler and a force for good for APAC societies and economies.
The policies that have been enacted in APAC (TOLA and Revised IL Rules), undermine a core technology, encryption, that underpin the Internet’s security, and the security of everyone on the Internet.
These policies create opportunities for wider surveillance and data collection, more potent cyberattacks, and greater online abuse.
They impair businesses’ ability to compete regionally and in the global market, as recent studies show [https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2021/the-economic-impact-of-laws-that-weaken-encryption/]
These come at a time of APAC’s ever growing reliance on the Internet to run governments and businesses, respond to citizens’ needs, and to be an overall lifeline in a world increasingly shaped by the ongoing pandemic.
The challenges that spur these policies are important, but these are broad and long-standing societal problems predating the Internet, and cannot be solved by weakening security for everyone.
Sincere appreciation to the APrIGF secretariat -DotAsia-, the MSG, PC and the local hosts that made the event possible. The 3 themes selected for this year, continue to acquire additional meaning as the challenges to have meaningful access to the Internet are still front and center to the work many of us do.
It proved to be a good decision to do that change, as the program shaped in a way that showed wider dimensions of the themes.
Please change from paste tense to present progressive tense.
It would be great to mention inclusion in the context of accessibility for everyone. It’s not just about digital skills but also about making sure that everyone has the same opportunities to participate in IG regardless of their gender, age, ability or location or disability. And we need to ensure that marginalized and minority groups are included in the IG discussions (especially LGBTQIA+ groups and women and girls, disability community). Is it possible to change ‘for all to ‘for everyone’ ?
to ensure that no-one is left behind and to support access to meaningful connectivity and affordable access…
ranging from ….can we also add small island states e.g Tuvalu or Vanuatu?
Agree with Swaran.
This is a great point.
Is there a sector on other emerging technologies and the fourth industrial revolution?
I would change from best practices to good practices. Covid-19 has shown that the internet is not a luxury but a lifeline especially in land-locked and mountainous communities, and this is why meaningful internet connectivity and affordable access to devices is imperative especially during a pandemic. This topic addresses the need to close the digital gap. Organisations and individuals in Central Asia are helping children and youths living in remote and rural communities deal with challenges in education posed by covid pandemic. It talks about their experience during the pandemic and the opportunities they are providing to the children to ensure that they remain connected and have access to affordable devices and content during a pandemic.
COVID-19 pandemic has pushed more communities online at a faster rate, accelerated the adoption of e-commerce, and facilitated the rapid dissemination of new digital skilling tools, e-health services, and remote work applications. But it has also introduced new risks that are experienced by users online such as online scams, phishing attacks, identify thefts and online bullying.
Doesn’t it have legal dimensions as well?
To clarify, diversity is often enforced through the law.
There are formidable challenges that newcomers face in joining global, regional, and national Internet Governance processes. Schools on Internet Governance (SIGs) provide one of the most effective means of onboarding new talent and making them participate effectively in Internet Governance.
The COVID-19 pandemic has hit most SIGs adversely, whereas a few have taken on the challenge of continuing to operate as earlier although this option was more expensive. Other schools have decided to go virtual, leading to compressed schedules and reduced interactions among participants (which is an important consideration in creating a community of alumni). Some schools have adopted innovations to overcome some of these challenges, including “Meet-and-greet” sessions for Fellows, and inter-sessional lectures for covering specific topics in depth. The pandemic has also seen the creation of a fully virtual SIG targeted at global audiences.
Some SIGs that used extensively interactive methodologies (such as simulating multistakeholder processes) have been forced to adopt different methodologies including closer integration with actual IG events.
The COVID-19 pandemic has made the Internet indispensable for the day-to-day lives of people. The breadth and depth of the use of the Internet call for greater participation by all stakeholders in the governance of the Internet. The role of SIGs are therefore even more important in the post-COVID-19 world.
I think building information literacy skills is related to the interpretation of the local languages. When we are trying to empower people for building their trust and well-being through digital information literacy skills, using the local language cracked version learning and development materials are the most effective way to enhance these skills. On the other hand, the costly translation and interpretation are the challenges for it.
Awareness is the first step to advocate for people before implementing policy and regulations regarding the impacts of digitalization on climate change. When people are starting aware of it and understand its impacts, they will get involved in the implementation of the policy and regulations process for reducing the carbon footprints, especially, young people.
+1
The DC agreed to add this paragraph in this tense as the event had not yet completed at that time. It will be revised. Which line needs to be changed?
Good point, either of mine
Diversity and inclusion through law can have a range of unintended consequences, hence a mechanism where the organisations are incentivised to promote diversity on their own will work more efficiently.
The balance between the fundamental freedom of speech and expression has to be balanced in view of the violence and harms caused due to the actions of people through intermediaries. Stringent enforcement of laws relating to classification and elimination of fake news will go a long way in ensuring that the safety of citizens are protected while also maintaining the intermediary liability of the major online spaces.
There is a serious lack of awareness among the law makers as well as the citizenry about the importance of an Encrypted internet. Hence the APAC lens needs to focus on encryption literacy to provide knowledge to make informed decisions regarding encryption. Simplifying the encryption debate to make it non- technical and easier for the common person to understand will go a long way in protecting the E2E in the APAC region.
For those of us with access to the Internet, it is a technology that plays an increasingly central role in our daily lives, letting us work, study, and connect with friends and family from around the world.
But the Internet – including infrastructure and devices, applications and services, and the relevant policies and regulations – is in a constant state of flux. Governments and businesses are increasingly making decisions that could impact the Internet. If we fail to recognize, protect, and support what makes the Internet valuable, we risk a series of irreversible and accelerating changes that chip away and ultimately break the foundation underpinning this incredible resource for us all.
That is why as the Internet evolves it is key for all Internet stakeholders to understand any change that can threaten the fundamentals of the Internet. We should be able to tell if a proposal could harm what makes the Internet work for everyone.
Inclusion means to leave no one behind, everybody have a say everybody have the accessibility, no matter of which region they belong and which geographical place as there can be no boundaries when it comes to inclusivity
In this world where by almost everyone even the kids make utilisation of internet for education or entertainment purpose, and especially in case of pandemic where by people spend most of the time with smart phones and internet, it become very important to teach kids that what is important and what is unnecessarily things available in the internet to protect them and their mind from the things present in the internet which should be out of reach of children. For this purpose training must be given to the parents or the guardians that how they can teach their wards and in school curriculum also this subject must be added
Partnership, collaboration and knowledge sharing in digital media and information literacy literacy between libraries and other organisations from public, private and people sectors are essential to widen the reach and deepen the understanding of the ever changing information landscape.
Inclusion is not only about connectivity and devices or even awareness and skills, but also about content. Connectivity, devices, skills are there to give us all access to information in the broad sense. However, for some people, e.g. persons with disabilities and older persons, technologies often make digital divide bigger rather than bridge it. This is in many cases because the formats of the information provided in websites, applications, tools are not accessible for somebody who can’t see or hear, experience other physical or mental difficulties. Something created for such extreme scenarios is always more convenient for moderate scenarios, which any of us can experience.
In addition to the problems with connecting remote areas and providing accessible devices, we have heard from participants about the case when the resistance came from teachers. Which means that we need to work not only with students, but also with teachers, to raise awareness, to build their skills, to empower them.
Also, we have been discussing the question of accessible technologies, which usually comes as an afterthought instead of being the priority topic along with the privacy and security. This also requires awareness raising, in particular, among education authorities.
With consistent, standardized, interoperability internet, people can access the internet easily. Users can bring their data to any service without barriers, which brings an opportunity to small, medium-sized enterprises.
People use the internet to reach information, upgrade their job skills, and stimulate technological innovation. It probably is a real knowledge-based economy by the development of the internet.
In my view right to fundamental speech needs to review in the context of freedom of expression. We do need comprehensive framework to address theses issues.
To get all inclusive environment, we must need to deal with every stakeholders in each countries. Since there is a lot of differences between between not only rural and urban areas but also between Developing countries and Developed countries. To affordable internet, government need to deal with ISPs to get the access cheap and affordable for all and great connection. To fullfil the digital knowledge, events like APrIGF and yIGF and the others more need to support the local and Regional events.
There are still violations of rights in Asia Pacific regions not only from online but also at the ground situations. To protect our rights, we need to express our feelings, our thoughts via using social media to give awareness. And by the rule of laws, although we can cover with it, but the rules must need to protect the freedom of expressions and rights, not to violate it.
As World is struggling to develop an education system completely dependent on internet. we, as students, are being inculcated with a sense that internet is our new strength; as our future depends on it. However, we are and never in past were taught about internet ethics & ground rules. Educating about ground rules can not only solve hate speech but also encourage better use of social media platforms.
Utilising user’s data for business purpose might be economically beneficial but it is greatly putting people’s trust at risk. They feel monitored by technology. There is a common feeling among people that internet sells their personal data for the sake of economic benefits.
Till the date, in the remote areas of my country if a woman owns an electronic gadget its considered a taboo. People question their character just on the basis of owning it. Many girls were made to completely disconnect from education when pandemic started and education shifted to online grounds completely. Not just the girls, old people and even old teachers in school feel hesitated to teach on the internet and are made fun of for trying. They were thrown in the digital space without adequate assistance when pandemic started. Awaring people that Internet is not just a source of entertainment, but it is also a vast boundless medium for education sounds like the solution. But the question is how can internet educate people who don’t have access to it in the first place.
The 3 main tracks are very relevant to the situation the whole world is facing currently due to Covid-19 pandemic. More than anytime before today we have issues with not enough inclusion, trust and sustainable nature of Internet and its applications.
All of us had stories to share with our own experience. This is a great and timely change.
Building digital literacy skills both among youth and elderly population is vital . The issues most young students facing like cyberbullying , misleading information and getting connected with unsafe Internet environments and finally end up with life losses could have been avoided , if parents are literate enough to provide safe Internet environment for their children
It’s also necessary to bring into the conversation sectors/people who may be the most affected if encryption is undermined e.g., financial/banking, journalists, etc.
By the looks of it, all 3 lines in the para need to be tweaked.
It is not only the digital literacy , the main issues for most is no devices at all or no enough devices( in rural communities , usually if there are more than 2 children in the family , parents can not afford separate devices for them to avoid conflicts in digital education )
One best practice is collaborating private IT companies in the country who can have direct involve to solve this issue. Most of the companies have a upgrade to new devices in every 5 years, we can utilize that to reduce the gap in rural communities.
Simple capacity building programs, know how to do sessions for both parents and kids will help a lot.
And especially better if price policy is available for “data”. ISPs are charging whatever amount they want.
It may be worthwhile to consider changing this to something along the lines of:
“The issue of (digital?) inclusion is multi-dimensional in nature, and includes social, economic, technological, and human rights issues, amongst others.
The easiest solution many have chosen is virtual schools or online education. But what about the emotional portion we are missing when working online. Emotions are highly affective for teaching and learning. What kind of solutions we can suggest to make Emotion-Aware Internet applications.
Or “frontier technologies”?
There is a need to look beyond the basic (device-oriented) view of the impact of digital technologies, and look at the digital ecosystem as a whole. Specifically, the impact (and resource use) of delivering certain types of content across the whole chain. By way of example, one would expect streaming of a standard HD video to have less of an environmental impact than a 4k video. The question is, is it necessary to watch a dog chase it’s tail, or a cat play with a tennis ball, in 4k?
One of the concerns is that the “temporary” privacy intrusive apps, services, laws will become permanent.
As well, increasingly, there are issues around vaccine digital certificates and people wanting to view, have a copy in order to provide a service e.g. a gym wanting a copy of vaccine certificate on file before allowing you to work out. There are a number of issues such as these that don’t appear to have been thought through by authorities and businesses are required to enforce compliance by threat of fines if they allow unvaccinated customers.
Fundamentally, “digitally-led, inclusive growth” will be limited by availability and affordability of last mile/middle mile infrastructure + suitable devices + subscription plan (and data caps) + digital literacy + core Internet infrastructure such as IXPs, CDNs, etc. The absence, or reduced availability of these, will have a significant impact on what digital inclusion (and growth) can be achieved.
There is a need for policymakers (and this spans developed and developing countries) to urgently prioritise availabilty and affordability, in particular for rural areas, minority communities, PWDs and the underprivileged.
During the session, Gaya educated enough about violence on the internet. She mentioned a suitable approach on solving hate speech. As it is obvious that education is the biggest answer for solving hate speech on the internet so simply blocking one’s access from a particular social media platform for voilating the “terms and condition” isn’t enough. One needs to talk and educate that person and let them know how their words not just stay confined to solid grounds of technology but also reach a human just like them.
Lack of high speed internet in Kashmir has deprived many students of their basic right (education). Due to strict lockdown imposed on them way before the pandemic and the hampered internet connection before and even during the pandemic till date has affected their progress rate on the internet.
The most important thing about regulation is that they have to be rights respecting. The recent emergency ordinance on Fake news in Malaysia and Social media rules in India are cause for serious concern. Users are unable to understand what amounts to a violation and this reduces their ability to have a trusted internet and a predictable one.
The issue of diversity and accessibility (under the Inclusion track) intersect within the context of the “digital language divide” as language affects users’ experience of the Internet – it guides who can access and meaningfully participate in online spaces, what content/information we access (and thus, which knowledge we reproduce), whom we speak to, and how we behave in online communities. Inequality in representation in different languages online also shapes how we understand our place in the world. To support greater linguistic diversity on the Internet, tech organizations (profit and nonprofit) running search engines and online encyclopedias need to amplify their translation initiatives/solutions and governments need to develop policies and programs that support and facilitate online linguistic diversity and multilingualism.
I suggest the expansion of the notion of diversity and accessibility here to include the issue of linguistic representation online.
Today, the Internet plays an essential role in the majority of societies around the world. From banking to education, health to logistics, just about every sector relies on Internet-based applications and services to function.
Our increased dependence on digital technologies brings with it growing concerns around Internet security. While there are many dimensions to Internet security, securing the key building blocks of the Internet’s infrastructure is critical.
The Internet’s routing system enables data to flow from one point to another. Ensuring that this data flows correctly, and to its intended recipient, is the foundation of Internet security.
Thousands of Internet routing incidents occur every year, leading to economic and social harm by making key services unreachable, disrupting e-commerce, allowing malicious actors to spy on users and with it, the potential to compromise systems.
While existing security measures can help address many of these routing incidents, the solutions they provide are often limited. The interconnected nature of networks means that many solutions only work when other networks make the same improvements. We need collective action to make a real change.
In support of the larger Internet security agenda, policymakers should work with network and infrastructure operators, critical infrastructure protection agencies and standards bodies, among others, to improve global routing security while also preserving vital aspects of the system that have allowed the Internet to be open and universal.
Nepal – Laws around online gender-based violence and freedom of expression are often protectionist and based on the idea of “lurking” and ambiguous threats, not focused on respecting and upholding human rights. Those in power decide they are the protectors and also decide who/what needs protecting and what society needs protection from. We need to further examine the importance we put on legal responses and our perspective of them as “unbiased”.
Malaysia – We need to question the logic of algorithms that propel social media spaces and demand transparency. We need to demand for human rights compliance within the design of tech companies, systems and business model itself, not just for piecemeal approaches.
Taiwan – Our governments often regard the online space as a tangible space with potential perpetrators and victims, with the government as a third party, as enforcers and protectors. The reality of the digital space however means that very few countries have governments that can implement full authoritative power over social media spaces and companies. These platforms are maintained by private entities and the power of governments over them vary in different contexts. It is often not clear the ways governments and platform companies work together to censor what we do online.
Sri Lanka – Content moderation is the online version of our laws – they really don’t do anything to stop the problem but targets individuals. Social media intermediaries and platforms will censort female nipples, nudity, “I hate men” but there is very little moderation or urgency about transphobia, usage of sensational content for clickbait, misogynist speech, hate speech. None of that is registered as “obscene”, those propagating this “obscene” content are not seen as being in the wrong. There’s a need for people and especially the platforms, to reevaluate what we think of as violence and what moderation of dangerous speech would entail.
Way forward – We need to review what justice can actually mean on a space as complicated as the internet.
Appreciate the good work done by the organising team in selecting the theme, speakers and conducting without any issue. The three themes are very relevant and challenges discussed are very eye opening. The discussions were very good. The buddy group and mentor was very supportive.
AI is a broad terminology used. Machine learning techniques are improving day by day. New algorithms are showing improvements over the previous ones. The efficiency of the system depends on how well we train the data. Technology alone cannot solve the problem of hate speech, but can help tackle it to a large extent.
The earlier issues of economic divide, digital divide and gender divide all play a role here. Empowering the parents through constant sessions are needed. Along with the usage training, “ethical usage” should also be introduced to kids and parents.
Internet evolved as technology for non technologist. WWW is one technology which can be attributed for this sucess.
Awareness campaigns though all media specially social media is very much needed .
The pandemic COVID 19 increased the pace of digitization in developing economies. There was an overnight shift. This helped in continuing the life without any break. The other side of the issue is the digital literacy and cyber security awareness.
The The warmth of the meet and greet is very much missing . Listening continuously in online media is giving Zoom fatigue.
This was a good session. Particularly due to the dialogue between Private Sector, academia and civil society on Covid-19 apps being rolled out by governments. The role of the private sector and governments under different jurisdictions to ensure privacy rights as well as the long-term implications of such apps on privacy rights were discussed.
Many radical ideas were shared in this session. Particularly:
1. The need to have conversations on what happens before digital violence.
2. How laws and legal systems primarily police the human body instead of policing the crime. Also the very important question on the consent and the category of victim on the internet.
3. Challenging the notion that laws are unbiased responses to oppression. Another important point on how caste oppression gets copy-pasted online and with digital violence.
4. Lack of algorithmic accountability and how the social media we use breaks down our behaviors, even our bodies into categories and the biases they propagate.
5. The inadequacy of the very imagination of the government regarding digital spaces and rejected the traditional mindset that applies to policymaking in digital spaces.
Data has become an important resource for digital economy and data-driven technology&application (AI, big data, cloud computing, etc.) innovation, and we’ve witnessed plenty of data or privacy leakage incidents in recent years, which has increased people’s distrust on ICT. People’s awareness of their rights on personal information/data & privacy are increasing. To maintain people’s trust and the sustainable development of digital economy and ICT innovation, all the stakeholders should find solutions to achieve balance as soon as possible.
Although a lot of concerns/problems and measures should be improved, the positive role of ICT in prevention and control the pandemic should be recognized.
The Internet addiction problem attracted the participants attention during this session. When building people’s digital information literacy skills, they should be taught to treat the Internet and its applications/services rationally. There are examples of people, especially the young who’re lack of self-control and independent thinking, are addicted to the Internet. More and more people are realizing this problem.
Hate speech intersects with disinformation and misinformation when the content of hate speech is based on non-factual information – which is often the case in the APAC region. Amid gaps in hate speech legislation in the region, bottom-up, human-centered approach to counter online hate speech, such as using human experts to conduct fact-checking could address issues with automated content moderation which most online platforms rely on. These issues include the difficulty in identifying hate speech content across multiple languages and differing social and cultural contexts (the context-dependent nature of hate speech) and biases in machine moderation.
While fact-checking that relies on human experts is a more reliable approach, the volume and speed with which online hate speech is produced and disseminated make the effort seem unsustainable. Another issue is the reach of fact-checking output – Is the public aware of such an initiative? Who visits factchecking sites? Which intermediaries disseminate the fact-checking output?
To address the second issue, it is important that fact-checking organizations form partnerships with online networking platforms, the local media organizations – national and regional, and other relevant intermediaries to scale the fact-checking effort. Further, more research needs to be done to best bring together manual and automated approaches to fact-checking and content moderation toward human-in-the-loop system/method.
These bottom-up approaches need to be accompanied by advocacy efforts targeting regulatory changes at the national and regional levels. The recommendations of the 2020 Asia-Pacific Regional Forum on Hate Speech, Social Media, and Minorities could serve as a basis that clarifies the role and responsibility of different stakeholders in countering hate speech and provide examples of relevant multistakeholder frameworks for monitoring hate speech.
Recommendations of the 2020 Asia-Pacific Regional Forum on Hate Speech, Social Media, and Minorities:
https://tom-lantos-institue.events.idloom.com/files/events/13149/files/recs-asia-pacific-regional-forum-final.pdf
The selected sessions did not have enough and pronounced coverage of gender or sexuality as a topic that intersects with Internet governance issues, digital rights etc. The UN IGF has a Gender BPF (Best Practices Forum). The APrIGF could possibly consider a gender thematic track or BPF.
Several human rights were derogated and continue to be derogated by governments in different countries across the world in order to control the Covid-19 pandemic and ensure the fundamental right to health and life. The derogated rights include but are not limited to the right to peaceful assembly, the right to peaceful protest, the right to privacy, freedom of movement and residence, the right to work, and the right to education. These rights were affected by lockdowns, travel restrictions, restrictions on movement, quarantine requirements, the closure of workplaces, schools and sites of economic activity, among other things.
In many cases, governments contracted/ collaborated with or relied on private companies to develop, operate, or repurpose technological interventions that were expected to help contain the spread of the disease. Many of these interventions were existing technological products meant for mass surveillance, the prevention or control of crime and the enforcement of security. Some businesses adopted technological measures internally in their workplaces and sites in order to contain the disease and ensure smooth operations.
Businesses are required to respect human rights. Thus, they should be mindful of the human rights that are affected by the interventions, services and products that they design, produce, implement or operate.
In Vietnam, under Covid-19 circumstances, the second semester has been entire in form of online studying. It is estimated that there is about 1.5 million children not having enough digital devices and telecommunication services to access to online education.
Given many government spendings amid Covid-19, these problems need the participation of entire society. Our Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh has been launching a program to provide disadvantaged children with computer. An incredible result was recorded at the first day of calling for support when over 1 million computers worth over 109.6 million USD and over 131.5 million USD) to provide Internet services were donated to the program by indiviudals and organizations nationwide.
From case study of my country above, it suggests the possible approach for developing countries to help all children access to online studying. That is the joint hand of government agencies and non-government sectors.
There is a need for digital information literacy skills development native and indigenous languages.
Each community has its own conditions/ reasons preventing them from the digital-driven world. For the business community, specifically, the problems largely lie upon the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises, which espcially account for the dominant part in developing countries. Keeping pace with the digital world is the challenge for them because of lack in digital mindset, financial resources, digital literacy and insights on market and customers
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2016 Taipei Synthesis Document – Draft v2 (39 comments)
Comment: Minor tweaks, mostly for grammar and clarity. Also, I think replaced the word “balance” because the solution to arriving at a balance is a compromise, which may not be appropriate here. And in keeping with the tenor of competing, I have used that in place of “conflict”.
The right to be forgotten as a principle must be approached with caution. Significant and competing issues relating to its extraterritorial application, digitised media archives and the integrity of historical records, the rights of individuals and media freedoms must be weighed carefully.
Moreover, emerging jurisprudence suggests competing public interest as it imposes a burden of proving public interest on people searching for information or intermediaries facilitating that search such as libraries, educational institutions, archives and search engines.
Really minor: hyphenate “gender-based”
There should be a way that promote and motivate more
An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that community-owned, non-profit ISP’s and IXP’s.
As a general principle it is important that this document should primarily reflect the proceedings of the APrIGF 2016. Ideally this would be demonstrated by referencing every paragraph here to a specific APrIGF session (or sessions) in which the comment or contribution was made. I wonder if we can make an effort to add these references? IMHO this would increase the value and credibility of this document immensely.
A smaller point:
Capitalisation of “Internet” and “Internet governance” should be consistent.
My proposal is to capitalise “the Internet” because in this community we strive for the preservation of a single Internet as opposed to “many internets”. The proper noun (capitalised) is therefore correct.
[to document the input from participants]
to document the contributions and conclusions of participants
[participation in the movement]
participation in the IGF process
[Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum]
The Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum
[internet governance]
Internet governance
[observations and recommendations]
contributions and suggestions
– “contributions” is consistent with paragraph 4.
– “suggestions” is better than “recommendations”, because it avoids the implication of formality
[This document also intends to form an input to the ]
This document will be submitted as an input to the
[Given the wide spectrum of social, economic, political and geographic diversity in the region,]
Given the social, economic, political and geographic diversity in the region
– “wide spectrum of” is redundant here.
[they skew wealth further ]
they skew benefits further
– benefits of the Internet are not only financial.
– I don’t think this paragraph says anything substantial. Therefore I suggest to delete it completely, unless someone is able to clarify what is being said here (eg re the type of “global changes”, and their implications).
[protection of information systems]
protection of online systems
[must meet internationally guaranteed right to privacy]
must meet internationally recognised rights to privacy
[Considering the nature of cross-border data transfer for online services, users’ difficulties in being aware of these complications and differing levels of protection in relevant jurisdictions, the highest level of protection should be guaranteed as a default safeguard.
]
Considering the nature of cross-border data transfer for online services, differing levels of protection in relevant jurisdictions and general lack of user awareness, the highest level of protection should be guaranteed as a default safeguard.
[Across Asia legislation]
Across the Asia Pacific region, legislation
Perhaps a new paragraph here about diversity of participation in Internet governance processes, and the proposed “report card” on diversity of IGF events?
Should we include a summary of APrIGF 2016 participation in this document, eg as an appendix?
[The use of the multistakeholder model in Internet governance was approved by the United Nations and receives broad support internationally.]
The multistakeholder model of Internet governance has been recognised and endorsed by the United Nations, and receives broad support internationally.
[Digital economy and trade are key enablers for the development of the world economy. Now that the digital economy has becomes the economy as such, it does not have any borders. ]
Digital economy and trade are key enablers for the development of the world economy, yet they severely challenge traditional national borders.
– It is not clear what this paragraph is referring to. The specific process underway within ICANN, which has resulted from the IANA transition process, is the CCWG on ICANN Accountability. Its “work stream 2” will continue to produce improvements in ICANN structure and processes, but it’s not clear that this is what Para 31 is referring to.
– This seems to repeat the content of Para 34, so I suggest that this one (#35) can be deleted).
[for publication]
for publication, and submission to the IGF 2016 Community Intersessional Program
It’s not clear where this input have come from, or why they are provided here within Appendix 2. I think this needs to be better explained. Maybe also the input needs to be provided in the main text and not within this appendix where it may be lost.
Same comment goes for 42/45/59 below.
See para 40.
See para 40 above.
See 40 above.
[The use of the multistakeholder model in Internet governance was approved by the United Nations and receives broad support internationally. ]
The use of the multistakeholder model in Internet governance was supported by governments, private sector, civil society, the technical community and the international organizations, among others.
Reason to change;
Multistakeholder model is not approved only by the United Nations.
[Its implementation and efficiency thus undergo continuous testing and refinement.]
Multistakeholder models should be continuously prioritalized in policy making process.
Reason to change;
Multistakeholder models has supported the Internet resources and contributed to the development of the Internet.
[through a consensus-making process ]
in policy making process
Reason to change;
We change this phrase in order to fit to the next sentence.(Please see our next comment.)
Why “the setting of global encryption standards is encourage” relate to the security stability and resiliency of the internet infrastructure”
VI. Digital Economy and Trade
VI. Digital Economy and Trade Agreement
“challenge traditional national borders”
Is that challenge the jurisdiction .\
Please add ‘disability’ in the last sentence to read: “The application of human rights should also consider issues of gender, disability, age and sexuality.” Article 9 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities discusses the right to accessible and affordable ICT for people with disability.
Since internet has become global, each and every citizen must have equal right to govern it and hence the share in internet governance must be proportionate to the concentration of global population.
In view of above para 28 requires changes
“suggests competing public interest” sounds too weak in pointing out the problem. how about “Moreover, emerging jurisprudence is problematice because it imposes a burden. . . .”?
We would like to propose the following paragraph to be provided after para. 16 “II. Security”.
[Proposed Text]
17. It is paramount to foster Internet freedom and ensure a safer Internet environment for all. Particular attention should be paid to address rapidly increasing challenges to protect youth online. The enhancement of ICT literacy of youth is important, but the protection of youth from illegal and harmful online contents is also indispensable not only for the Asia-Pacific region. All stakeholders including, but not limited to governments, private sector, civil society, the technical community, and international organizations should cooperate and collaborate each other in adopting regulatory, self-regulatory, and other effective policies and frameworks to protect children and young people from abuse and exploitation through ICTs, while upholding the freedom of expression online guaranteed by the free flow of information.
Thank you so much, Paul and Wanawit. I would like to propose to replace with the following (but with brackets):
Digital economy and trade are key enablers for the development of the world economy, yet they severely challenge traditional national [borders][jurisdictions]. Now that the digital economy has becomes the economy as such, it does not have any borders. The digital economy and trade cannot be successful without the free flow of information and appropriate domestic and global rules. On the other hand, there is a growing trend that some governments take protectionist approaches on trade by limiting the free flow of information and/or requiring data localization, and the trend hinders the further growth of the world economy. Therefore, constructing the further network of free trade agreements which requires member states to maintain the free flow of information and to ensure the prohibition of data localization as well as source code disclosure unless there is a legitimate public policy reason is recommended. In this regard, close collaboration and thorough discussion among governments, private sector, civil society, the technical community, and international organizations are indispensable.
Taking into account all the above proposals, I would like to propose the following text:
28. V. Multistakeholder Approach
The multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, which includes full and active participation by all stakeholders including, but not limited to governments, private sector, civil society, the technical community, and international organizations, has been continuously and widely supported by all the stakeholders. This approach should be the basis of domestic and international policy making processes and initiatives which are inclusive, transparent and accountable to all the stakeholders in the world. All the stakeholders should be equal to get involved in the discussion of the Internet governance.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2023 Brisbane Synthesis Document – Draft 1 (38 comments)
I would recommend starting this section by recognising the responsibility of companies and financial actors who provide capital to the companies to respect human rights as provided under the UN Guiding principles on business and human rights.
It will be important that VNRs look at the overall role of the Internet in achieving the SDGs and not just at those few SDGs that directly mention ICTs, Internet and connectivity.
libraries have a key role not only in providing direct access to the Internet in remote areas, but also in providing support skills for those attempting to use it (eg in suubmission to central government).
cf previous comment on the role of libraries
Internet for the Pacific is a vital service to bring together distant islands in national conversations, and to strengthen the Pacific voice in the face of climate change. Threats to this risk diminishing and disrupting the Pacific voice just when it needs to be heard in the region and worldwide.
In line 2, I suggest “unintended consequences” would be better.
“and different stakeholders” should read: “among different stakeholders”. Note: this will require strong input from governments in particular – can we add that comment, at this late stage?
ATDO needs a reference in the footnotes. Use:
http://www.atdo.jp
In line 3, the second “to” is redundant.
in the phrase “overcoming digital divide”, insert “the”
I’m not sure if it is correct to say “governments could also provide funding to the private sector….” – should it not be the reverse?!
Suggestion: maybe we should write: “governments could also work closely with the private sector to fund the provision of similar technologies” — ?
Twenty years ago, not thirty, I think!
I think the conclusion needs to be made stronger. Could I suggest we add these points:
– the members of the APrIGF hope that the record of their discussions, and this Synthesis Document, have highlighted regional concerns, and can thus make a useful contribution to the work of the international community,
– in particular, APrIGF hopes to have responded to issues and themes raised within the context of the Global Digital Compact, WSIS+20 and IGF+20 processes.
Thank Winston for your comment. While smartphone may have become more common in usage in the early 2000s, the first smartphone was actually developed in early 1990s. Therefore, writing “thirty years” here is appropriate. You may refer to the following resources:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/smartphone
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/03/remembering-first-smartphone-simon-ibm/
“…all-encompassing approach COMPARED TO the APrIGF 2021 program.” –> suggested change.
“class, or any other factors.” –> add one more comma after “class”, for grammar.
“…empiritcally [measure, track, assess, and evaluate] the benefits from…” –> suggested edit in square brackets.
“Progress on both aspects facilitates IDNs adoption, [which are vital to accelerate further local language content online that will create virtuous cycles of available content that then drives demand for more content and services online.] –> suggested change in square brackets.
Suggest “schools and libraries” rather than only focusing on libraries.
suggest “avoid breaking [encryption and similar] security [measures]” –> suggested update in square brackets.
Spelling – “impact of machines on LABOUR” –> missing letters.
Suggest to add, “It is noted that ASEAN is developing a guardrail governance code document for guiding AI, with a planned 2024 release.” (see https://www.reuters.com/technology/southeast-asia-set-guardrails-ai-with-new-governance-code-sources-2023-06-16/)
This paragraph will align with the idea of a detailed conclusion as mentioned by Robert in the comment below.
A potential source for this example would be https://www.defindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/DGP-Pilot-Report.pdf
In order to link this with the text in “Sustaining efforts to overcome digital divides through Community Initiatives and practices” I would say “Community Radios and Community Networks” serve as … ” I would remove (CRs) as its an acronym is not used elsewhere in the text
Is it truly necessary to display these economies directly?
I want to respond to the paragraph 10.
Is it truly necessary to display these economies directly? Showing the AI governance progress in each country is one thing, but pointing a country to a developing level is another thing.
[The imbalance of deployment of technology in the Pacific Islands compared to other developed regions has led to a rise in cyber incidents. ] This is not necessarily true. You coukd say that there is an imbalance but it has not led to the imbalance. It is more accurate to say there is an imbalance and there is a rise and that these gaps in technology etc need to be addressed. everything else sounds fine.
Since there’s different approach on AI and Data regulations among different jurisdictions. Namely, some on National Security Approach and Personal Security/Privacy Protection approach in major countries.
To simplify for a standard approach that every countries may follow to implement same standards in their jurisdictions, suggest focus on :
Country is responsible to setup AI & Data Governance framework within reasonable timeline, to give a directive on AI & Data Governance towards a “Transparent” & “Fair” approach, that empower individual rights well protected on Safety, Security and Privacy that match with the guildline and standards laid by United Nations framework. Responsible use of all kind of technologies related activities, including AI, data analytics, digital information collection and generation, should comply with reference to EU GDPR standard, and UN SDG17 principal. In order to establish univarsal standards of good practice.
in the list of Emerging Technologies
add
“Blockchain”
“BioTech”
“Synthetic biology”
“quantum computer”
“suggested to rephrase”
During APrIGF 2023, a parliamentary track occurred from August 31 to September 1. This track brought together government officials from the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region to deliberate on various Internet and digital-related topics. These discussions included active participation from other stakeholders, including the technical community, academia, people with disabilities, and youth. Additionally, the APrIGF 2023 in Brisbane, Australia, coincided with the 2023 Asia Pacific Youth Internet Forum, the 2023 Pacific Internet Governance Forum, and the 2023 NetThing events.
adoption and awareness of “community internet “is other way to improve internet access
To establish a trusted technology company or original equipment manufacturer (OEM) with the mission of ensuring affordable access to cutting-edge technology at the grassroots level.”
Stories from the Pacific – the human side of cyber incidents
The successes of digital transformation in the Pacific and increased internet connectivity of Pacific Islands is unfortunately accompanied with greater vulnerability of local IT systems. The recent spike in high profile, publically reported cyber incidents from the Pacific has seen a much welcomed boost in awareness and focus on bolstering technical, organisational, and policy approaches to help increase nations’ cyber resilience.
Technology is being employed as an enabler to build and strengthen services. In Tonga, the Digital Strategic framework from 2019-2024, the strategy sets the use for the governments informtion and communication technology with the ultimate intention to improve government decision making, business process and work flow efficiency. Improving the quality of services timeliness for the people of Tonga while reducing the complexity and cost of government services.
Security (physical infrastructure), protection of personal and privacy of information, protection of national critical data are fundamental to the Tongan governments digital strategic goals. The digital government security requirements flow several security principles including protection of confdential information, ienuring the integrity of data and information and ensuring accessibility of information to those with a valid need to know and proper security authentication and authrosation. With the kingdom of Tonga population is importnt to measure the amount of threats, cybersecurity processes that impact the population. Due to isolation, limited resources, there is a need to build resilience towards these impacts.
Tonga’s computer emergency response team (CERT)was established and effective via a cabinet decision on July 15, 2016. CERT Tonga operates under the Ministry of Meteorology, Energy, Information, Disaster Management, Environment, Climate Change and Communications (MEIDECC). It currently has 3 established staff members, 2 males and 1 female. This 3 staff look after the cybersecurity issue and all cybersecurity related matters for the Kingdom of Tonga. In the area of workforce development, young Tongan tertiarty students are encouraged to consider internship at the CERT if they wish to develop their cybersecurity skills. CERT Tonga also has a cybersecuirty workforce development programme in partnership with the Ministry of Innovations and Trade, New Zealand which will allow them to recruit 3 additional staff. CERT Tong works towards a vision of safe and secure digital environment for the Kingdom of Tonga. Its mission to to coordinationand collaborate amongst stakeholders through awareness to detect and manage cyber threats in the Kingdom of Tonga
How did CERT Tonga respond to the ransomware attack in Tonga:
All incidents should be reported to CERT Tonga but most incidents don’t get reported because the organisation wants to handle it internally by their IT staff. In February 2023, the Medusa ransomware hit one of Tonga’s critical ISP. This was reported to the CERT within 3days as the deadline from the attacker to the victim. Due to limited resources, capacity and technical capability, this was the first time for the CERT o experience such an incident. The CERT reached out to other CERTs in the region for assistance, CERT NZ. The advise was for the victim not to pay the ransomware. For the affected party, their services were not fully compromised and the Tongan government requested emergency response assistance from the Australian government. CERT Tonga was directed to lead the coordination and collaoration of the first cybersecurity incidense response teams to tonga from Australia and New Zealand and Tonga. Cyber CX and teams from Australia were responsible for the investigation, recovery and restoration of services of the affected party and CERT NZ for conducting training for ICT staff, government ministries and public enterprise and private sector as well as the affected parties staff including assistance and advise on communication
(Archive) Outcomes Document - Pre-Meeting Draft (37 comments)
This is my comment on the whole page. Just for demo purposes.
For easier discussion, this part should be better break up into one paragraph per one discussion topic.
May be not only recommendations, but documented concerns, agreements, and disagreements.
The basic method of Internet connectivity is now Wi-Fi.
Some Asia-Pacific countries prohibit private companies from operating Wi-Fi hotspots, restricting this activity to incumbent telecommunications operators.
Bridging the Digital Divide depends on free and open access for all people and companies to the radio spectrum that Wi-Fi relies on.
Redefined Youth Participation – Refine and rediscover a new model to youth participation beyond current practices for better integration rIGF and related youth IGF. Models like small-scale group discussion are effective in closing the gap between youth delegates and rIGF delegates. At the same time, it is important to recognize the language barriers and to encourage the production of related conference material in local languages (if possible).
How about using “summarize” instead of “represent” in the first sentence? Just to avoid possible misunderstanding.
3. Preventing Data-based Discrimination — more and more data, including personal data and public data, are collected and available for processing, this can leads to better services, new products, improved efficiency in different kinds of operations, which all could lead to better life of people in the society. At the same time, this could lead to discrimination to a person or a community based on collected data or analysed output. We should ensure that this will be prevented from the design of the network.
“Suggestions” instead of “Recommendations” if there is strong opposition, but otherwise, “Recommendations” is fine. This is Not a political or diplomatic document.
2. “Universal Acceptance” I do believe that the term were specific to ICANN Initiative Ramp up at ICANN 52 and under The primary drivers for Universal Acceptance stem from the 4 elements. In this APrIGF we focus on 2 elements which refer in Universal Acceptance as
“Non-Latin based TLDs: TLDs with names written in scripts other than ASCII, such as Hindi, Japanese and Greek.”
which in this placeholder we call Internationalized Domain Name (IDN)
and
“International Email: The introduction of non-ASCII names in email. While IDNs solved part of the ability to have non-ASCII names for servers, it doesn’t solve the ability to have non-ASCII names for mailboxes.”
which in this place holder we call Email Address Internationalization (EAI)
I fully understand that the term specify in the place holder item 2. is more generic term and better term that what use in the Universal Acceptance Initiative Background section.
If the term EAI is came from IETF and IDN is the ICANN term but not refer in the background of Universal Acceptant. We should make it clear that which should be the based of our definition
I support the term already use in this document is more generic and understandable.
+1 @IZUMI
Reference to : IGF 2014 Chair’s Summary :Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance• 2-5 September 2014, Istanbul, Turkey •
“Summary and way forward” and
“Ways Forward/Recommendations”
were use in the document.
Reference to : IGF 2014 Chair’s Summary :Connecting Continents for Enhanced Multistakeholder Internet Governance• 2-5 September 2014, Istanbul, Turkey •
Section 1.1 page 7
“A revitalisation of the format and content of the Chair’s Summary to suggest intersessional work modalities for the IGF and to make the IGF outcomes and outputs more portable and visible, so that they can be taken forward, as appropriate and on voluntary basis, by relevant Internet governance bodies, institutions and organisations.”
That might be also give the idea of the spirit of why APrIGF would like to have the outcome document. But in IGF they call Chair’s Summary.
“Chair’s Summary” is interesting, as it clearly signify where’s the Summary comes from.
My suggestion is that, APrIGF could adopted a different or a same name, no need to be exactly the same as the global IGF, as long as it clearly signify where’s the document comes from.
Whether this document will be a Summary, a Recommendation, a Statement, etc. is left to be discussed — some people already did this at http://comment.rigf.asia/table-of-contents/aprigf-asia-2015/aprigf-macao-2015-outcomes-document/#psR
Some countries allow wifi hotspots without licenses, although their cybercrime law put (criminal) liabilities to intermediaries like wifi — so less people eager to share their wifi. Community wifi also got affected, as the operator of the network will face legal risks.
Example: Article 15 of Thailand’s 2007 Computer-related Crime Act.
Support more integration of regional Youth IGF and regional IGF. — The arrangement of timetable should allow Youth participants to join any session as they wish. May be by have a separated, preparatory process, of Youth IGF one day before IGF.
Encourage workshop proposal to include youth as a panelist. Although, during the workshop process, youth should be treat as equal to other participants — there will be no special treatment.
Find ways to support national Youth IGF to happen.
+1 @Izumi
These priority issues are sorted by? .. Alphabetical order?
This is a stage we can appreciate and manage the internet and its resources for a better use.
There are alot of diversities with the internet but all works for our advantage if we know just how and when to use it.
We cannot forget the stone age, centuries ago where thinking level was just sifficient for that era and in this age we need something very admirable and that can make us discover the future. The internet is its name and it has its starting point.
Evolution is caused by thinking change that will effect the human race. The internet has totally brought change that has affected the way we dress, behave and think; what of the way we learn? it is drastically changing. Notwithstanding we need a way of curbing its consequencies to work for our good at all times.
The ineternet has provided a platform to commit subtle crime, more secretive more conscious, yet it has not changed our uniqueness as humanbeigns.
I really appreciate the topic for the 2015 and hope it serves even a better purpose to grass root local communities around the continent and the world to be a tool that gives sound information and not to create a decadence in moral statndard.
Best practices or ways forward
Using “Chair’s Summary” might be problematic – as in the process of IGF Improvement, more than Chair’s Summary, some kind of more tangible outcome document has been proposed.
Having said that, using “summary” may not a bad idea.
Building Trust on the Internet ( Surveillance state in AP)- In my view, it is very important that all the stakeholder have optimum trust in the platform. To achieve the same all the stakeholders have to shoulder responsibilities.
End user are to be made aware of their privacy needs.
Content provider and Collaboration tools ( Read Twitter, Facebook) that form important part of the ecosystem have to derive and develop plans to incorporate trust; Segregating private and public space for the end user.
Government and regulator have to be made responsible for respecting and building trust.
With respect to Universal Acceptance…
The Internet DNS has already provided support for IDNs and they have been in production since 2009. What needs to happen now, both in respect to IDNs and all new TLDs, is that the developers of computer programmes and systems need to catch up so that they take advantage of these new facilities.
Readers, including businesses, governments and civil society participants, should make sure that their own systems are UA Ready – that is that they can accept, validate, store, process and display all domain names equally. This is an issue not just at the top level, but at second and subsequent levels as well.
They should also encourage their suppliers and the providers of services they use to become UA Ready.
[NB: This editing application is an example of one that does NOT accept IDN e-mail addresses]
agree with tying in with Global IGF
More importantly, the idea is to integrate the YIGF participants as much as possible to the main session. They might not be able to participate confidently in the APrIGF, but they would bring their observations back to their small-scale group discussion. It plants a seed and a path for gradual progress.
Or probably “Data-driven discrimination”.
Replacing “recommendations” with an agreed term in the Sub-heading.
Can we call this “Privacy-by-design”?
Internet Governance participants could consider Core Internet values as a set of values that the Internet ought not to slip away from. The architectural values – Internet as dumb technology, end to end architecture, inter-operability and openness – values arising out of the Internet’s design by the intent of the early inventors and the natural evolution of the Internet beyond their intent- could be deemed as unalterable core values. The underlying technical values result in larger sociological benefits. For instance the technical value of interoperability results in the sociological benefit of a Global Network of networks. The architectural values of openness and interoperability make the Internet as a Network of networks that require little architectural changes when a new network joins the Internet, or even when there are unforeseen technological developments such as Mobile Networks or unforeseen trends such as IPv6 or the proliferation of the Internet of Things. There are threats to the border-less Internet arising out of geographical borders raised by Governments as well as artificial borders raised by walled gardens and zero rating services. The IGF in its discussion on the horizontal theme of “Policy Options for connecting the next billion” could debate and emphasize that the stakeholders around the world formulate Internet Policy without hurting the core Internet Values.
If go one step further, can also incorporate encouragement of youth to participate in panels to add extra points to the workshop. This mechanism would encourage workshop organisers to add a youth perspective to their workshop.
Agree on that they should be treated equally as other participants during the conference
Also wanted to establish a sustainable initiative and common ground to exchange and to come up with consensus, for example the establishment of an Asia Pacific regional research network focused on child online safety.
Human rights are by universal. The phrasing “especially the different balance required at different stages of development” should be deleted, as it seems to suggest that the importance attached to human rights varies depending on the stage of development and it is acceptable to trade off cybersecurity against human rights.
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-SG
ZH-CN
X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:SimSun;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}
I suggest that under priorities we add this:
A Civilised, Safe And Healthy Internet: That access is accompanied by awareness, education and actions by all parties from governments to service providers, content providers, NGOs and individual users, including parents, to develop and maintain an internet that is civilised, safe and healthy, in particular engendering the development of such an Internet by media literacy from an early age.
Sorry, my comment earlier was wonky.
I suggest that under priorities we add this:
A Civilised, Safe And Healthy Internet: That access is accompanied by awareness, education and actions by all parties from governments to service providers, content providers, NGOs and individual users, including parents, to develop and maintain an internet that is civilised, safe and healthy, in particular engendering the development of such an Internet by media literacy from an early age.
Ya, maybe “Synthesis or Summary” document is a nice idea
Key issues in the Asia Pacific Region
Key issues in the AP region
this is my comment to para 5. not sure why this appeared here.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2024 Taipei Synthesis Document – Draft 1 (36 comments)
Paragraph 82 may combine with Paragraph 81 to know which government.
Or, using the Taiwan government at the beginning of paragraph 82 may make it clearer.
Please add the following: “The law is driven by government agencies established by law, including the Thai government, which is actively pushing for it.”
I would like to add the following: “In addition, cooperation from both the public and private sectors is also required.”
Please amend as follows: “Name of the main responsible agency: สำนักงานคณะกรรมการการรักษาความมั่นคงปลอดภัยไซเบอร์แห่งชาติ (สกมช.) National Cyber Security Agency (NCSA) http://www.ncsa.or.th , Reference document file https://www.mdes.go.th/law/detail/3572-Cybersecurity-Act-B-E-2562–2019-“
Note: ICANN not, IAN
APrIGF is one of the key regional initiatives on Internet Governance. APrIGF 2024 was held under the theme “Evolving Ecosystems, Enduring Principles: Shaping Responsible Internet Governance”.
The Asia Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum 2024 (yIGF) also held along with APrIGF and concluded on August 20, 2024. It was made possible with support of the local host of the APrIGF 2024, TWNIC, the APrIGF Secretariat, and other supporting organizations: NetMission.Asia and DotAsia Organisation.
International governance of AI and other technologies has been a critical. There is no unified global governance model for AI, which results in a fragmented regulatory landscape. While international organizations like UN and OECD promote AI governance, there is debate for central body to enforce universal standards.
It yielded key takeaways from different sessions organized during the event such as panel discussions, meetup with industry experts, APAC youth leaders dialogue, and IGF youth track.
It might be good to clarify whether the PDPA2023 listed here is an example of how data can be governed. The current sequence doesn’t seem to flow well from previous sentence describing the need for broader discussion on wide data use.
For the final sentence, propose to be clearer on what need to be improved and implemented in more than just one country in APAC.
Seems duplicative as paragraph 8, proposing to merge.
Potentially overlapping with key messaging in paragraph 7, proposing to merge if possible.
Would it be in a better flow to have Taiwan’s PDPA2023 (from paragraph 6) integrated in this paragraph?
Proposing for first 2 sentences to integrate to earlier subsection on “Multistakeholder governance and policy reform”. And for final sentence to integrate to earlier paragraph 11 (or cybersecurity section in the earlier part of this document).
Would it be more appropriate to use “However”, instead of “Moreover” for the starting of this paragraph?
Seems similar to paragraph 45, would it be good to integrate both paragraphs’ content?
Would it have a better flow to integrate this paragraph focusing on social media platform in the sub-section above on “Harmonizing Regional Approaches for Social Media Accountability”?
Confirming if we intended to indicate “In many regions”, or “In many countries”.
i think mention about yIGF is not necessary at that point
Same comment/question, in the first sentence, do we mean “these countries”, or “this region” perhaps?
Seems like some of these guiding questions were retained since Draft 0 and might not have been intended for?
This seems to be an extension from paragraph 76. Proposing to move up after paragraph 76 or integrate within 76.
Paragraphs 82 and 83 seem to be more suited under header “Resiliency and Sustainability”.
First sentence might not be needed in this case?
Might be good to specify what discussions; or remove “The discussion revealed…”. This could have been included as part of initial draft when responding to guiding questions for a specific session.
Parts on Samoa seem duplicative as paragraph 79.
DSA part seems duplicative as paragraph 77
Proposing to have clarity on what monopolies mean here. The current sentence might be implied as the monopolies are “the Internet, the dotcom boom, or modern social media generation”.
Perhaps it might be good to have AI parts in paragraph 100 move to this section instead.
Perhaps this can be the starting paragraph for AI section, with header “Public perception and AI accountability”; and move paragraph 103 after this paragraph, with “Bias and fairness in AI systems” as a sub topic under the broader AI topic.
Proposing to move 2nd half of this paragraph starting “Thus, a regional approach is necessary…” to after paragraph 115. That might flow better in terms of discussing multistakeholder regional collaboration.
This seems to be related to paragraph 104 on elections, might be worth to have content shifted along paragraph 104, or integrate content.
See comments in paragraph 112, as it relates to 115. Both parts from 112 and 115 might fit better under this subheader.
Seems like only paragraph 131 mentions private sector. But all paragraphs after under this main header did not explicitly mention about private sector’s role. Proposing perhaps to update overall header for paragrahs 131-146
Might be good to spell out GDPR (seems like it wasn’t mentioned before in earlier paragraphs).
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2020 Synthesis Document – Draft 0 (30 comments)
Digital divide, gender disparity are amongst some of the major barriers of inclusion. However, it may need intervention at many different levels as it is a problem with multiple facts. It needs in-depth research to find out the factors leading to the digital divide. There could be more than what meets the eye. The issues of the South Pacific Islands may be different than those of the rest of the regions int the world.
Will be good to mention the need to apply business and human rights standards to tech companies – recognising the impact these companies have on the rights and lives of individuals
Can remove what is in brackets -worried that ethics is too vague – may be we can split that sentence up
Some issues raised at Townhall:
– Digital citizenship and importance of digital literacy
– Accountability and transparency of (big) platforms, governments, and stakeholders
– Role of governments and private sector (such as media) in the spread of misinformation and erosion of online trust
– Collaboration and cooperation in cybersecurity “all hands on deck”
We can’t leave anyone behind. We must think and work together, articulating the academy with the state, communities and private companies, to truly democratize access to ICT, including the empowerment of people in the safe, productive and meaningful use of technology.
Transparency is important to different stakeholders. Users know how service providers use our data. People know how government use the data and participate in policy making procedures.
For example, we talked about smart city development yesterday. But some people don’t know the schedule and worry about the surveillance with CCTV everywhere and harm to privacy.
We all need to close the digital development gap between rural and urban. Welcome and give opportunities talents to participate local development by affordable and reliable (internet or other) infrastructures.
Also good to comtemplate- what do we perceive as the ideal ecosystem for internet, is there a model country/region to benchmark with?
Some of the pressing concerns for the Pacific in terms of 5g-
– Do we have as much internet penetration in the South Pacific Countries, Do we have enough phones/PCs, – Are our people IT/Digital literate, Can our ISP’s provide such amounts of bandwidth,
With the increased usage of ICT, there will be a growing concern for human-centric designs. additionally, ethical issues need to be explored and addressed. It may help to advocate for “digital rights”, and have it advocated to every citizen, especially since we are moving towards deploying citizen-centric
e-services
Once IT/Digital literacy becomes recognized as a “right”, then a framework can be developed for the Pacific,on how to achieve such literacy
With new, emerging technologies, and the state of current geopolitics, the risk of Internet fragmentation is increasing. Fragmentation will disrupts people’s ability to access the Internet in a seamless way. It will also lead to a loss in innovation – one of the benefits of the global, interoperable Internet.
Geopolitics really affects the internet development. The content on the internet is cross border, some government govern the internet with their own perspective. Government may prohibit some internet services, content, do censorship to social network platform.
It may also relate to the tax. Users consume the services in one country but the pay in the other country, the services or goods were delivered in another country. That relates the tariff or consumer tax in different countries.
The Internet’s Environmental Impact: an action-oriented dialogue- It would be helpful to have a tool developed to help gauge or measure the amount of ïmpact on the environment a technological device has. When the impact is measured, then thresholds can get decided, which creates a clearer picture for an end-user or technology user to fix the issues proactively
Internet being ubiquitous how much online privacy does an individual have? Do we have any latest tools or security techniques that enhances the safety of online transactions and that improves our privacy on the cyber space?
When filling the digital gap and making Internet available to all regardless of socio-economic status, gender and age. Pointing out on the age factor is digital inclusion applicable for all ages? will this not have a greater impact on the children, kindly suggest more on this.
What are the roles of all stakeholders in access provision and inclusion, and the provision of education and training for information literacy and digital literacy, including the responsible exercise of these skills with respect for other people? 3 recommendations that should be implemented by Internews to help the community especially.
First of all is to go back to basics. We might have the understanding that we are going to go into communities with the power and privilege we have compared to the community that we are going to serve. However, we should view anything that we are going to do with the community as a learning process for both parties. Listen first to their information and the knowledge they know so far. Assessment within the community to adapt on what they want and what they need. Only then education and awareness take place to disseminate the knowledge.
Secondly, we should hold on to the principle of do no harm in a more practical way. When talking about information it can be accessed online and offline. For the online platform, the way we engage with the community should be based on their understanding and we do not want to open can of worms where we educate them on how to get the information but not how to control themselves to impart the knowledge properly. Either urban or rural communities, they are all prone to the danger of the internet and false news. This is where we should be careful on what we go through with them as at the end we could not just leave them without properly briefing them on the online danger too.
Thirdly, no one is left behind. We tend to assume that rural communities have a lack of access for information. However, there are reports of those educated and also professionals that fell into scams and did not know properly on how to differentiate the quality and originality of the information. This could cause more harm in the society and community. The outreach of the programme should comprise the rural, urban poor and community organizers that will help the community in exercising their knowledge and rights and in a way enhance their literacy.
ADD question:
How the Internet (the Internet sector, but more importantly, the Internet community) can have the most positive impact in the Environment?
Some issues to help frame global IGF Environmental Theme:
a) incentives for sharing data by public and private sectors as digital public goods
b) environmental data governance
c) collaborative environmental analytics (citizen science and open datasets)
d) AI-algorithm transparency for data integration and analytics for digital public goods
e) dealing with misinformation and fake news about the environment
f) e-waste and product lifecycle
g) early warning systems, disaster recovery and emergency response, specially in the Pacific
To be able to address issues of inclusion it is important to have correct data which will help in formulating appropriate strategies so the suitable methodology can approach can be adopted at all levels: building infrastructure, connecting people, addressing social barriers, capacity building. There is also a need for more cooperation between different stakeholders, countries to share data, best practices and have more dialogues. This will help to address many issues.
We know the pandemic forces some enterprises to do digital transformation. People have to work from home and some people lost their job. Hope the ICT technology may help the people to get chance to have new job.
The other thing is Google and Apple collaborate together to provide the social distance map to warning. Hope that can protect the privacy to everyone.
With the possibility of the splinternet there should be a call for island nations (governments) to invest in submarine cable infrastructure and not just leave it to the private sector. To a certain extent this improves the backhaul and the bandwidth capacity and significantly contributes to inclusion to less developeed island (provinces) but also enables redundancies to other adjacent nations making bilateral, multilateral nations better.
Could there be some sort of a neutral fact-checking website that is focused on APAC that is wikipedia-like that is led by APrIGF participants where multistakeholders can equally comment on it and yet their identities would be traceable for accountability. The results will show a spectrum of results from various perspectives not just a binary view on truth so people can be more informed. Also the results can be shareable to popular websites with understandable graphics for easy interpretation.
Fake news is a big concern during COVID-19, it is understandable for some social media platform to establish some mechanism to filter out “inaccurate” information with some fact-checking system. With the “831 Incident in Hong Kong” example raised during the Townhall session on 30 September 2020, I believe our community should pay more attention on how such enterprises are reviewing their content and how they are influenced by the government bodies of different countries. As it is another form of violation of Human Rights to filter out factually accurate content with inaccurate conclusions. This is definitely a potential risk behind the entire fact-checking mechanism, as people may abuse the system by spreading false information online on purpose to limit the dissemination of true and accurate information in any channels with a similar mechanism for whatever reason.
To make IG ecosystem more impactful we need collaboration more especially the youth IG groups collaboration like youth4IG, YCIG etc. I believe that youth has the power to have a good impact on IG. Besides it is important to be aware of IG issues from the early stage of their life.
Building trust is not a easy process. Building online trust is much harder since many people are not still familiar with the digital technology.
Transparency could be one of the solution. Government and private sectors companies should provide them how they are using the data for what purpose. The role of media is also very important in building online trust because people are usually convinced by a lot of media. Once the media mislead some information, it will spread throughout many communities. Therefore, misinformation and disinformation should be strongly restricted by the government by digital laws and regulation.
Encryption technic help to protection privacy to every internet users. Government has the responsibility to take care of safety to every people. Citizens and commercial services can to something to limit the government behavior, ask to the underline to government behavior.
Transparency Report help enterprise to protect commercial services themselves. Companies may record the requests from government and make those numbers public.
The link is an example from Google’s transparency report.
In addition to providing access to the internet to more people, we also need to make sure that the internet provides a safe space for minority groups and vulnerable communities. There are at least two issues when it comes to the internet: the monolingualism of it and the lack of content that provides affirmations for minorities and marginalized communities. Therefore, I believe it is important to also think of how we can empower minorities and marginalized communities to populate the internet with native contents by and for the community and to build a safe space so they can not only use, but also thrive on the internet.
The 1st policy question is too broad and theoretical. It would be better to make comparative approach between de facto and de jure of the national laws to assess its own interpretation in accordance with its provisions. On the other hand, there is a possibility that national law is influenced by conventions or international agreement which subsequently established universally-applied principles. If I were to suggest, the terms “regulations” could be replaced with principles we internationally adopt as a matter of comparison.
The 3rd policy question should be narrowed down a little bit as it may create confusion such as the role of government in the protection of human rights online based on what? the regulations? Please point out a context you want to refer to, since I believe that there are various cases that involve the governments with different measures. For example, there is a legitimacy of surveillance under certain conditions (proportionality, necessity, etc).
(Archive) APrIGF Macao 2015 - Synthesis Document - Draft 1 (29 comments)
“Open Access and Spectrum for Wifi for Development” sounds a bit confusing….can it be changed to “Open Access to Frequency and Spectrum for Development” as mentioned in the text ?
Should we not expand EAI (Email Address Internationalization) somewhere, either in the bullet or in the text?
Since it is the script that is internationalized (and not necessarily the language), should the last part be “…so people can connect using their own script”?
“…and how these can help provide a trusted environment for the adoption and use of the Internet” in the first line. What does “these” refer to?
Not sure what transpired during discussions, but this item appears to be somewhat unusual in the context of Internet Governance. It would be valid to retain this if any of the participating countries (especially the bigger ones) did make a demand for a second currency.
Second sentence: “broadband consultations” or “broad-based consultations” ?
I wonder whether you want to add “including open Wi-Fi” to indicate the value of allowing open networks without a login or registration requirement? I did talk about this in the Core Internet Values workshop.
I’m also a little confused and concerned about what this might mean.
Overall comment: the synthesis document is rather light on content and heavy on generalities. But this is not necessarily a fatal criticism. I acknowledge that there is some value in beginning with a very high-level, general document while we are kicking the tires of this process.
Frequency and spectrum are interchangeable terms. I suggest the sentence read either:
“Open access to WiFi frequencies is increasingly important”
or
“Open access to WiFi spectrum is increasingly important”
I think it will be better to change the word experiment for something else that captures the comment Jeremy made at the title. My suggestion for this paragraph will be something like this…
The APrIGF Synthesis Document concept was first raised and discussed at the APrIGF New Delhi 2014 Multi-Stakeholder Steering Group (MSG) meetings, and further refined over the course of MSG deliberations throughout the year. The Synthesis Document aims to identify items of common interest and relevance to Internet governance within the Asia Pacific region. The MSG decided to implement this experimental approach for the first time for the APrIGF Macao 2015, to grow and develop with input from the Asia Pacific Internet community into a more comprehensive and in-depth document in the future.
Request instead of solicit
“frequency and spectrum” is a repetition. Better to use one of the words. I think it will be better to link it to development at the end of the sentence as well. My suggestion will be:
Wi-Fi has become a vital method for achieving internet connectivity, due to its use for ad-hoc local networking, and its easy accessibility from mobile devices. Open access to the spectrum is increasingly important to support the ongoing demand to access content, services and applications that serve development needs.
Also, please check for consistency to use either internet or Internet throughout the whole document. At the moment there are a few differences
A couple of precisions. Is not the language that is internationalized but the script, better to clarify, and not to use the word spectrum here to avoid misunderstandings. My suggestion:
The linguistic diversity of Asia Pacific region underlines the necessity for faster realization of universal acceptance of the internationalization of core internet identity technologies (DNS and email) so people can connect using their own script.
So glad to see this comment about Human Rights here! Well done, fully endorse!
I don’t think there is potential for collaboration with the IG space on any issue, as it is not a established body to begin with.
Emerging technologies for virtual currency might have the potential to power the economy of the next billion. It is important to deepen the understanding of the issues around virtual currency, through dialogue and collaboration in the Asia Pacific region.
The role of civil society in access issues is critical to be included. This includes research, assessments, monitoring, capacity building, impact evaluation, and creating and providing alternative infrastructure amongst many other things.
Let’s please be consistent with calling this document as Synthesis Document.
Combined efforts from public, private and community sectors is needed to create sustainable initiatives to solve issues of affordable accessibility and digital literacy for all. Effort is also necessary to support local languages in all facets. Developments are also necessary is safe and affordable electronic payment facilities to allow everyone to facilitate sustainable activities.
A call to action here would be beneficial, calling on Spectrum Managers within each community to de-licence WiFi spectrum.
Satish, either will be fine, in my view.
“Trust” is a challenging term because it’s so broad. When I first read this, I thought how can we ensure that justice is served when our trust is broken by naughty people? Communities adopting similar legal frameworks for addressing scams and allowing cross border enforcement would be a way of building Trust. If you order a book from me, and I don’t deliver, then you should be able to easily pursue remedies.
But there’s also the Trust of accuracy of information. And the Trust that the information that I transmit is secure between me and its intended recipient.
Nuances of the concept of the “digital divide” need to be brought in – it’s no longer simply a matter of access, but also affordability. With new technologies, new digital divides have emerged, which have been observed (eg smart phone haves and have nots) but not dealt with.
Wi-Fi is a very specific technology and standard; do we mean spectrum for wireless connectivity?
This looks rather broad; categorization of people and aggregating data is a way of making sense of the world.
More facetiously, if we prevent data driven discrimination, does that mean we simply allow discrimination to be non-data driven; i.e. baseless? :)
Not all states make explicit the right to freedom of expression.
I agree with Don that for underserved communities in our region affordability is a real barrier to access. Content in local languages should also be valued and encouraged.
Because legislation is the domain of governments should there not be some inclusion here of the importance of government decision makers being involved in these consultations regarding approaches to NN legislation?
Providing a forum at all these larger events for the youth to express their views is vital if the internet and its governance is to develop to meet their future needs. Kudos to APrIGF for the initiatives they have established for Asia Pacific youth.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2021 Synthesis Document – Draft 1 (20 comments)
The global pandemic of COVID-19 highlights the essential need of e-education for both educators and students. Virtual classrooms, online distribution of teaching materials, provision of necessary software and tools and other adaptive or innovative measures require for an enabling and supporting legal environment. Those copyright rules impair e-education and other public information services should be reformed.
You raise an important point Hong with regards to the need for attention to copyright rules and a supporting legal environment to protect intellectual property in the rush for the development of online courses.
Home schooling during the pandemic imposed pressures on parents of students of all ages juggling their new teaching role, sometimes for several levels, with other family and paid work responsibilities. Many schools in the Pacific that were already challenged with regards to scarce teaching resources and inadequately skilled staff, failed to provide an appropriate online learning environment for their students. Many students received no education during the lockdowns brought about by the pandemic.
Capacity building and training for educators…. ARE needed to provide.. etc
Proper accress to Internet is still a dream. Hardly 10% residents have proper access to Internet in Asia. In India it is 50% still. I found no discussion and solution over the issue here in draft. Exclusive inclusion of all the stakeholders is required to solve the issues. We are in need of some sophisticated technology at most affordable rates to increase the access of Internet to the bottom of pyramid.
Solar energy farms on isolated small islands have not only enhanced the quality of the air on these island environments, without the use of hazardous fossil fuels to power old generators, but the new power source has enabled 24×7 use of green technologies for health and education, with cleaner and less expensive power generation which supports a further reduction in any climate change impacts.
APRIGF can create others stakeholders group and assignment monitoring commission after each Forum and finally produce draft agreement adopt and on others subject debate who constitute input to APRIGF following.
Well I think this is a good synthesis document. I believe Internet cost is affordable to all, in a situation of inclusivity. The Internet continue to a major tool for employment, education, socio-economic development, political, health development, etc and should be widely developed to meet the needs of mankind. Discussions on IGF should continue to improved upon to benefit the community and the society at large. We must also continue to develop good strategies to eliminate or drastically reduce the activities of cyber-criminals in our societies since it is a social cancer or menace.
I’d add the importance of an overarching policy framework for supporting digital inclusion.
See section 4 of this document published during APrIGF, where we propose guidelines for policy response:
• a collaborative policy framework focused on an enabling digital environment
• investing in digital infrastructure to expand internet access and affordability
• promoting digital skills at all levels to close inequality gaps
• raising awareness of online risks to take full advantage of connectivity
• supporting adoption and innovation policies to take full advantage of digitalization
https://asiafoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Six-Stories-of-Resilience_Digital-Technologies-as-Drivers-of-Development-in-the-Covid-19-Era_9-30-21.pdf
Finding(s):
Wrong spelling of “Foot notes”.
Recommendation:
Replace “Foot notes:” with “Footnotes:”
Propose for the last sentence “Strategic public-private partnerships can provide potential solutions to bridge the digital divide in terms of Internet connectivity, provision of devices and skills training.” to be incorporated into or combined with paragraph 9, as connectivity, devices and digital literacy are key elements and equally important in fostering and achieving digital inclusion.
In discussing about the freedom of speech and expression, we must also look into the importance or sort of rights for the users or public-at-large to obtain a correct and reliable information.
We definitely do not want to see the Internet flooded with mischievous and irresponsible speeches or expressions that would not just eliminate trust but also creating an unhealthy environment and ecosystem.
It is worth mentioning that Internet usage also comes with adverse effects when it is been abused or overused. Having the capability to address the risks aspect on individual digital wellbeing should be part of user literacy for maintaining the trust of the Internet.
include “gender equality”
Each APrIGF event that we run is planned taking into account the lessons from the previous events: that applies to the thematic content just as much as the practical matters of organisation.
[sorry, repeating this reply as I accidentally deleted it]
I agree with your comment, and integrated policy at national level is something I had in mind when planning Session s8. In which session did you speak about your document?
I would suggest we insert a new paragraph between 8 and 9, to refer to “the importance of an overarching policy framework for supporting digital inclusion.”
Report on
APrIGF 2021 – Hyderabad Local Hub
The Hyderabad Local Hub of Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum, APRIGF 2021, Asia was conducted in Hybrid mode at Surana Auditorium, Federation of Telangana Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FTCCI).
In the first part of the program, Opening Plenary was witnessed online from the Auditorium by participants and in online mode. After the introductory remarks by MSG Chair, YIGF representative and UN IGF Programme and Technology manager, Secretary MCIST, Nepal inaugurated the APRIGF. In his address he highlighted the various initiatives of Government of Nepal for Internet access including the Digital literacy program. He urged on the need of interaction among various stakeholders to work on development of Internet Governance.
The first panel session –Covid-19: Internet as a Lifeline highlighted the various issues related to Internet Governance during COVID-19. Some of the key points discussed during the Panel discussion were: In addition to the physical connectivity, the services accessibility, usability and privacy are the important issues. Though the use of internet has exponentially increased during Covid-19 including tele-consultations, online education, online transactions etc but it has also created new challenges w.r.t breaching of personal information, increase of frauds etc. The panelist urged the Governments should initiate IT & Technology education at school level, address the privacy issues and provide connectivity support to all citizens.
Inauguration of APrIGF- Hyderabad Local Hub Launching:
The IGF-Hyderabad Local Hub was inaugurated during the event. Dr. N J Rajaram in his initial remarks stated that we need sustainable, inclusive and trusted internet which has the features namely affordability, accessibility, realism and relevance. MS Khyati Naravane, CEO, FTCCI in her opening remarks congratulated on the inauguration of Hyderabad Local Hub and highlighted the activities of FTCCI.
The IGF Hyderabad Local Hub was inaugurated by Mr.Jayesh Ranjan, Principal Secretary, IT and industries, Govt of Telangana. In his address, he highlighted about the disruptions that happened due to COVID and urged the readiness towards more and more digitization. He also raised the concerns about dealing with Digital Divide in a better way. Further he discussed the need to deal with online frauds and internet crimes as they were increased during these tough times. Giving his best wishes to the Hyderabad local hub he reiterated that the Government of Telangana would like to partner and participate in the activities of Internet Governance to address the issues highlighted. Mr. K . Bhaskar Reddy in his Presidential address complemented ISOC India, Hyderabad chapter for taking initiatives towards Internet Governance. He urged the need of constant interaction between the Government and stakeholders to address the issues of Internet.
Mr. K Mohan Raidu, President Internet Society India, Hyderabad Chapter listed various working groups that works towards addressing risk and challenges of Internet. In his address, he highlighted various initiatives of the chapter towards dealing with the challenges faced. He discussed about the Community project to reach to rural areas. He said that ISOC Hyderabad will initiate the activities of collecting mobile devices that are unused by the people so as to help the needy. He also highlighted the initiatives of Universal Acceptance (UA) for multilingual internet.
Mr. Bala Prasad Peddigari, Secretary, ISOC Hyderabad Proposed vote of thanks.
After the inauguration of local hub, the participants connected to the Round table discussion on “Impact of Digitization on Climate Change” where the speakers highlighted few of the important issues like better utilization of internet traffic based on various internet traffic patterns and addressing the issue of reducing the power consumption of various devices using the internet even in the idle state. The key take away of the round table discussion was “rather than only thinking about how many bits are transferred there is also a need to estimate the equivalent power consumption”. The next session on “Transnational conversations on reclaiming freedom of expression online” discussed on issues pertaining to gender and other types of discrimination on internet. The panel was of the opinion that freedom of expression cannot be violated in the name of censoring the content. The discussion ended with a note that “There is a need to get the law makers and all stake holders to reduce the discrimination on internet”.
In the valedictory function, Dr. Salman Abdul Moiz, Vice President ISOC Hyderabad summarized the deliberations happened during the day and urged the participants to come forward in realizing various initiatives of ISOC. The session ended with words of thanks and networking over the lunch. The event was supported by FTCCI and Aurora Technological Research Institute.
Along with copy right rules, the need of e – education must be extended in an affordable price to children and youth in remote and rural communities.
Awareness and training on Capacity building and Internet Governance processes is required for educators.
Insert at the beginning of para. 9:
To enable effective digital inclusion, an overarching and collaborative policy framework for planning is needed.
The link quoted by R Balbontin can be given as a footnote.
Open input period for the 2020 APrIGF Synthesis Document (17 comments)
Instead of question, it can be in the summary format
[ as a public good] can be rephrased as for societal welfare
Generally according to my view all questions can be given in summary format stating the outcomes of the main theme
Thank you for your comment. These are questions for APrIGF attendees to let us know what they hope to see discussed at the APrIGF workshops. The event is still ahead so we are not concluding anything at the moment.
I would remove and before national laws. Most of our struggle has been with national laws diluting HR guarantees. What international law provides is the bare minimum that needs to be guaranteed.
In the second line on – essential for ensuring accountability – would rephrase as placing the interest of individuals and societies at the centre of how the internet is regulated and for ensuring that our rights are secure.
The progression of cyber security among the human interactions is an inevitable outcome but the barrier to which people being bullied with terms and data gathering is due to the system created by the people themselves. It’s a perfect world where every individual feeling safe online but the very platform is built by a human which means there’s always a back door flaw for intervention and manipulation. Perhaps the only alternative is a platform to be created, generated and regulated fully by a computer from scratch to development which in this sense requires years of human trust in technology to even start taking its shape in the first place.
The word ‘legitimate’ can mean something that ‘conforms to the law’. In many countries (such as India), several consensual and harmless acts online are classified as ‘obscene’, ‘seditious’ etc., and so, ‘illegitimate’ under the law. Can ‘legitimate’ be replaced with ‘ethical’?
Here, too, can ‘legitimate’ be replaced with ‘ethical’ because various ethical uses of the internet are wrongfully and unconstitutionally classified as illegitimate under the law in countries like India – such as, laws on obscenity, sedition, unlawful activities etc.
The applicability of international human rights instruments and conventions has been in conflict with the traditional idea of sovereignty. It would definitely give a stronger clarity if we could clearly state the usage of “human rights” and “ethics” so the conflict and confusion can be avoided in the future.
The express use of ‘Privacy by design’ can go a long way in giving a proper direction to the SMEs and Start-ups in relation to their technological innovations. Especially since the SME’s are predominant in the Global South and Privacy and Protection are not given due importance in the design process as compared to the Global North.
The idea of ‘barefoot engineering’ has been gaining popularity in current times. Under this the ICT companies use their Corporate Social Responsibility funds to train youth; consequently, absorbing them in company activities and creating new employment opportunities. This creates a positive cycle of digital literacy and employment which can be used to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.
I suggest wording this as: “…cause harm to human rights, democratic processes and economic activity.”
To drafting committee:
I suggest we include a sub-heading for “The role of the media”. We will surely receive a lot of input in Townhall sessions that could fit under that heading.
Maybe it will be more comprehensive to add “age” as a variable factor like gender? For example, I think social media platforms Twitter and Facebook and online political events provide more opportunities for the youth to express their opinions and participate in such events. Not only in terms of politics, but also influences the youth culture, making youth subculture attracts more people. Especially in China, we can see a rapid growth of youth subculture texts. Typical examples are meme and idol culture.
Some theories of philosophers indicate that the logics of technology heavily influence our traditional logic, preparing us human for digital logic. So, maybe be we can talk about some changes in the definition of our humans, like the studies of “embody” in media and technology.
One must consider whether the right to receive and impart information should be qualified at all either with legitimate or any other. In any case, anything that is not permissible under existing laws will have its own consequences.
Open input period for the 2017 APrIGF Bangkok Synthesis Document (17 comments)
This theme of this workshop will also inspire informal meetings at LACIGF2017 and has also been addressed in the Dynamic Coalition on Publicness in the IGF2017.
Libraries in some Asia Pacific economies face regulatory hurdles when providing community Internet Access. These can include a:
1.) a telecommunications license, or dispensation from a licensing regime.
2.) a requirement to filter Internet content provided through the network
3.) a requirement to provide interception capabilities for police / government
agencies
4.) a requirement to block Voice over IP technologies including Skype in economies where voice services can only be provided by licensed carriers
An Asia-Pacific strategy for Community networks and public access to ICT should acknowledge these regulatory hurdles and promote their harmonisation or elimination as a step towards ensuring Universal Access.
Telecommunications licensing requirements are a major barrier to connecting the unconnected in developing Asia. Activities such as setting up a community Wi-Fi network are prohibited or made difficult in many economies by regulation, process, and corruption.
True progress in this area cannot be made until telecommunications regulations in developing nations are relaxed to allow communities and their technical partners to innovate.
This group would do well to produce a document summarising regulatory barriers to community networks on a country-by-country basis to highlight the problem and pursue it at a regional level.
If you omit to the next track in a playlist, Google Play
Music will slide in with the new track info before receding in to the track record.
If someone message or calls you, their contact picture and name will arrive until you answer.
As I’ve been interested in this topic( and partly inspired by Izumi’s workshop since last year IGF), I’ve written a short paper on the deployment of IPv6 and social, political factors affecting the deployment level. Anyone can find the paper at my blog(borisu0815.github.io), and hope this can help facilitate the discussions.
Right to be Forgotten is not very welcomed in Asia for a reason. There are many former colonies and dictatorships which until recently have not resolved the past injustices or oppressions that still stand as structural roadblocks in the paths to equality and democracy. In addressing those structures, we need to see the whole truth, not partial truth. Not truth just about public figures, not truth only about high level officials who collaborate with dictatorships or colonial administrations. Not just truth ordained by some offical history books issued by the governments. Not just truths approved through majoritarian decisionmaking as suitable for public discussion. Truth can only be approached only when having all voices heard including subjective ones.
Proponents of Right to be Forgotten offer that it does not apply to public figure, but sometimes you need more information to decide whether someone is public figure or not. If the information is delisted, you really cannot make that determination properly.
Moreover, people who in the past were not public personas, may become public figures in the future. Then their past may matter.
People have collective right to know the wrongs of not just others, or even themselves. Collective right to observe, evaluate, and retain what they see in one another. So that they do stand as responsible colleagues to one another and keep themselves from repeating the wrongs. This is how the ethics of a society are done: by learning from the past. Publicness is exactly the space for collective learning.
There are already many laws in Asian countries that interfere with such communal learning by suppressing even truthful information. For instance, in Korea, we have a truth defamation law where even information not proven to be false can subject to criminal prosecution merely for lowering another person’s reputation. We cannot have another principle such as RTBF that undermine our publicness.
RTBF, currently framed, also constitutes administrative censorship. Non-judicial administrative body, namely data protection agencies, are empowered to order search engines to manipulate search results. Administrative censorship has been abused deeply and widely in Asia for blinding people from truths inconvenient to the authorities, as you could see in recent internet shutdowns in South Asia. The danger of administrative censorship is that lawful information can be taken down due to progovernment bias can dilute those decisions. Also, the subject of orders are likely to challenge the decision even if there is a judicial review process because the government can always retaliate even just for challenging it.
Some people like to believe that data protection authorities are different from other organizations that have conducted censorship but I do not see it that way. I already see the evidence that in Peru, other Latin American countries where DPA is really playing the role of censorship. And in Korea, the dangers are also being played out. Internet censorship is not taking down unlawful content, but taking down unethical content and what is ethical is decided by these nine Korean males in their 50s and 60s and nobody can really get a consistent principle out of that. This only goes to show the dangers of DPA authorized to take down truthful public information for the pretext of RTBF.
Joint Statement of the Dynamic Coalition on Publicness Concerning the Right to Be Forgotten
The public realm is losing ground. New regulation and jurisprudence are being conceived to address conflicts concerning the digital dimension of the public space and our ability, as Internet users, to reflect on ourselves. One of them is the so-called “right to be forgotten” (RTBF). The version originally formulated and popularized by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is now being adopted in other regions and with slightly different manifestations including both the right to delist and the right to delete content.
The underlying motive behind the idea of the RTBF is people’s fear of being discriminated against for their past conduct. If this is the case, we need to recognize that blinding ourselves from one another’s wrongs (or supposed wrongs) is not an effective way of addressing and combating unreasonable discrimination. Under current rulings, the supposed wrongdoers can censor search results about themselves just because they think that certain past conduct is currently irrelevant to the moral evaluation of their character by others. Such self-centered censorship will prohibit people from confronting the real forces that are fanning such discrimination. Discrimination can only be addressed when the problems and its causes are known to society.
Furthermore, blinding ourselves to information about others’ conduct is not a proportionate way of combating discrimination. Information that the supposed wrongdoers would like to bury deep within the Internet may be vital for the safety of the people who have pending encounters with the individual in question. Suppressing certain truthful information may be necessary to guard against a high likelihood of immediate discrimination, as in the case of former sex workers or sex abuse victims in certain cultures, but such likelihood must be measured against objective criteria not simply against subjective reputational wishes of the supposed wrongdoers. A viable legal provision against discrimination is possible and in many legislations already existent: either in ex ante forms, such as amnesties or expungement provisions, or in ex post forms protecting other personal rights, such as defamation. RTBF goes beyond that by restricting people trying to protect themselves from sharing vital information. A more effective and proportionate remedy against discrimination is allowing more information to be made available about people so that others’ perceptions of them can be properly contextualized.
Simply put, information is not the reason for discrimination, but prejudice. Prejudice is not based on information, but on the moral decision to do harm by misusing information. We should combat discrimination, not information.
RTBF depends on the temporal relevance of data, as in the phrase “no longer relevant;”thus, it is fundamentally incompatible with freedom of speech and freedom of information. Data does not become irrelevant with the passage of time because data, while becoming irrelevant in one respect or according to a particular perspective, may become or remain relevant from other angles or for other reasons – e.g., for historians, journalists, social scientists, policy-makers, or cultural studies. In fact, the value of data does not reside in the data in itself but in the eyes of the beholder. People may find relevance in old data that other people do not see. Freedom of speech and freedom of information recognizes that pluralistic ideal and grants people of all remote idiosyncrasies the right to impart or receive information as long as such action does not present a high risk of immediate and substantial harm. Freedom of speech does not judge on the relevance of speech.
The popular defense of RTBF – that it does not apply to public figures or information of public significance – misses this point. Public interest is in constant flux. Suppression of seemingly insignificant data may suppress the possibility of public discourse because revelation of important public facts is often made possible by assembling a mosaic of facts that seem irrelevant to the majority of the people at given times. This is why RTBF is extremely problematic in many transitioning countries where full information is urgently needed to address impunities from colonial and dictatorial periods. Particularly in those countries, distinguishing between public and private figures is often impossible without the full availability of information.
Finally, RTBF does not condemn the so-called “no longer relevant information” itself, but rather focuses on making that lawful information available online. In the future, this may mean that, those, especially the impoverished, who are limited to using censored search results will not have access to the information that the rich will be able to uncover by hiring people to conduct brute investigations. RTBF is therefore directly opposed to the Internet’s potential as the equalizer and liberator in terms of facilitating people’s access to information.
We believe that the RTBF results from a misconception of the public realm in the digital age. There is a need for research to first understand the scope and dynamics of the public space after digitization. An increase in the amount and availability of information online affects our thinking about privacy, and it challenges our understanding of the public and the private. The RTBF as articulated by the ECJ, however, does not even attempt to do that, but rather tries to apply the norm regardless of whether it is public or private.
For these reasons, we believe that RTBF jurisprudence should be withdrawn and should not be expanded in any way.
Please sign here. https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSftuxOmHMYdPVWQY3UOoZYnVd_eyWwUMi06nAh3LeVa7E-G4g/viewform?c=0&w=1
Building networks in geographically remote areas is one of the most important challenges that we need to meet. Internet has thrived because the networks and the content on them were built by private actors voluntarily who try to meet the demands of the users, and because of the shared control among different stakeholders, the multi-stakeholder model is important. To further increase access in geographically remote areas, we must incentivize private actors into building networks, and the private actors who are most efficient in monetizing access are global portals and therefore they are most incentivized in building networks. That is why you see Facebook developing solar panels, Google developing Loony Project, etc. These platforms’ entry into network building create various competition issues, i.e., verticial integration. Also, we can easily think of these content providers building networks or activating networks just for access to their contents, the case on point, Free Basics in India. Through the multi-stakeholder model, we should discuss how and whether to embrace these initiatives.
Can capacity building be part of this section?
Same with the PWD accessibility – can this be included here?
a. Providing information intended for the general public to persons with disabilities in accessible formats and technologies appropriate to different kinds of disabilities in a timely manner and without additional cost;
b. Accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and for&mats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions;
c. Urging private entities that provide services to the general public, including through the Internet, to provide information and services in accessible and usable formats for persons with disabilities;
d. Encouraging the mass media, including providers of information through the Internet, to make their services accessible to persons with disabilities;
e. Promote the design, development, production and distribution of accessible information and communications technologies and systems at an early stage, so that these technologies and systems become accessible at minimum cost.
f. Promote other appropriate forms of assistance and support to persons with disabilities to ensure their access to information;
g. Promote access for persons with disabilities to new information and communications technologies and systems, including the Internet;
h. purchase of ICT software and hardware by government for public office, education institution and work place need to be usable with the help of assistive technology for example, all software to be usable with the help of screen reading software.
i. . concept on Accessible ICT development must include promotion of “universal design” and “assistive technologies”. Government must address the crucial importance of “ICT accessibility standards/guidelines development”.
the name of the program is mislead
the discussion is interesting but it does not touch the point about what is the hack
actually, I understand about we will show about idea or prototype of “hacking” government or surveillance. but we just talk about platform for collect violent data.
This was need to be discuss in a manner how we could use our best practices in the scenario.
Duplication of roleplay within countries with problems related to their countries is better.
0989529447
I don’t
Can E-learning or E-Education be discussed here?
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2020 Synthesis Document – Draft 1 (14 comments)
“In the case of 5G, network slicing may likely fragment the Internet.”
Network slicing is the concept of running multiple logical networks on a common radio access infrastructure. It’s main purpose is to allow 5G infrastructure to be shared between Internet access, industrial control functions, SCADA for utilities, telemetry for self-driving vehicles, IoT sensor networks, and other critical infrastructure applications that do not belong on Internet-connected networks. GSMA provides a complete definition here: https://www.gsma.com/futurenetworks/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GSMA-An-Introduction-to-Network-Slicing.pdf
There are few if any valid concerns about network slicing fragmenting the Internet.
“Universal Acceptance (UA) is a fundamental requirement for a truly multilingual and digitally inclusive Internet” – however this very website and feedback form does not accept my email address at the domain tō.nz as being valid.
This is an improved version which I support.
Perhaps move purpose of synthesis document BEFORE the Introduction?
Not sure the right term is “transnational”. Question can be rephrased as: Does this needs to be regulated by International Law?
A closing paragraph is needed, also to reflect how the Synthesis Document can help to connect APrIGF with the global IGF, also to include statistics of how many people registered and participated at the APrIGF and general statements about the success of the event and the vibrancy of the community.
Please add ‘disability’ after ‘age’ in the third sentence. There are over one billion people globally.
Please add ‘persons with disabilities’ in first sentence after ‘gender and religious minorities’.
There is cyberviolence against women with disabilities.
Please add ‘disability’ in third sentence after ‘gender’.
It may be helpful for readers to provide links to the surveys that “are showing a large decline in trust in the Internet”.
Another type of fragmentation to consider is an institutional fragmentation, i.e. fragmentation approaches to the regulation of cyberspace and Internet space.
Are developing countries only should be given support? Many economically developed countries have not developed their legislation to ensure lawful access to encrypted materials, and therefore, a dialogue to assist both developing and developed countries seems important.
It would be helpful to clearly state that there are different types of attribution (political, legal, and technical), and each type of attribution has its own challenges and requires different approaches/discussions.
Technology is neither”the panacea” nor the primary reason for the crisis of trust. Technology, which should remain neutral by default, is not what causes many risks in cyberspace, but the malicious use of technology.
APrIGF 2016 Taipei Synthesis Document – Pre-meeting Draft 0 (13 comments)
I’d suggest the following additional theme:
– Sustaining Diversity
In the movement towards including the Next Billion, it is important to provide for explicit measures to support and conserve existing diversity: linguistic (spoken languages & scripts); cultural; ethnic; and even biological/ecological)
Following topics are also suggested
– Investigation and prosecution
There are mutual legal assistance agreements ( MLATs) signed between countries which helps to investigate and prosecute cyber crimes. But the process is very cumbersome. What is the possibility of having a cyber crime convention at least for the AP region, with less complex procedures?
– Respect to cultural differences
Privacy levels may depend on cultures. In the AP region culture is different than EU and USA. It is very difficult to deal with privacy violations of AP citizens, with the privacy policies of EU and USA based organizations.
Cyber Connectivity sounds not clear to me. Also “Merghing Physical Spcae with …” and “bring next billion online” well addressed the importance of connectivity.
What is new in this paragraph?
[Q] Is this about what we used to call “universal access”?
would it be fair to mention a certain bill of certain country in this document?
How about adding connectivity to rural users also to this section
Include the discussion of Armed conflict in case of a Cyber attack.
The design challenges of IOT and what policy considerations needs to be adopted.
New Security Considerations when IOT is merging with Industrial Control systems. Is it creating challenges for Critical National Infrastructure?
Add text in support of encryption – encourage setting encryption standards as per global standards- without any maximum limit.
Where referring to private sectors to come up with connectivity initiatives/solution, add text “support innovative business models”.
Can there be another section specifically on internet blocks? Suggested text: “Shutdown, throttling, and other disruptions of the internet or of a subset of websites, apps, and services are deeply concerning as they have tremendous, negative economic and social consequences. Governments must adhere to their international human rights commitments and ensure that any restrictions on freedom of expression—including disruptions of internet service—meet the thresholds of legality, necessity, and proportionality set out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.
Universal access is different.. but I would include it as part of this universality section. I think UA is definitely important.
Open input period for the 2018 APrIGF Port Vila Synthesis Document (8 comments)
How are we going to face the future challenges in cyber threats?
when talking about other elements the resources and support that helps to empower access needs to be considered
Developing programmes for digital literacy in all languages at the same time it becomes necessary to take steps and measures on involving people actively to participate in such initiatives. For Example: Inclusion of Women into Internet Governance from the Asia Pacific Region exclusively from India demands more compromises with family members, in such situations what steps can we initiate to make the digital literacy to reach the whole mass.
Apart from promoting digital literacy there is a need to improve gender rights online too. To improve inclusion especially of women and protect their rights online, a study called “Views & Perspectives on Gender Rights Online, For the Global South” (http://www.ccaoi.in/UI/links/fwresearch/Report of Study on the Views and Perspectives on Gender Rights Online for the Global South Final.pdf), suggests implementation of better and effective policies; encouraging ICT skills and Science Technology Engineering and Math (STEM) studies amongst women and encouraging digital literacy; policy reforms for ensuring gender inclusive access to the internet; building trust online, including better legislation and enforcement of laws against online harassment; economic incentives to encourage diversity in the workforce; encouraging more engagement amongst women networks and promoting content in local language.
First sentence sounds a bit stretch, digital is one of many enabler for the global economy. We should not forget other enablers such as infrastructure, education, science and technology.
I think we should distinguish between ” free flow of information” and “free flow of data”. So the sentence can be rephrased as: how do we ensure a successful economy with trust, free flow of data, and appropriate domestic and global rules well balancing privacy, security and other regulatory concerns including financial and tax regulations.
First sentence sounds a bit stretch, digital is one of many enabler for the global economy. We should not forget other enablers such as infrastructure, education, science and technology.
I think we should distinguish between ” free flow of information” and “free flow of data”. So the sentence can be rephrased as: how do we ensure a successful economy with trust, free flow of data, and appropriate domestic and global rules well balancing privacy, security and other regulatory concerns including financial and tax regulations.
Sorry this should paragraph 10 not 6. Please ignore this comment
Given the current ecommerce proposals being negotiated at the World Trade Organization (WTO), it makes more sense to replace ‘How can they be harmoniously combined with the existing global trade regimes’? with ‘What are the implications of the international trade rules currently being negotiated in the name of ‘ecommerce’ on the ability to regulate these technologies and development more broadly?’
APrIGF Macao 2015 Synthesis Document (8 comments)
How about substituting the phrase:
“The Outcomes Document aims to document” with “The Outcomes Document aims to identify” to avoid duplication of using “document”.
The background part looks good，especially the 3rd paragraph.
What’s not clear to me is the purpose of this OD? What are we going to do with it? Who will be the audience or recipients? Are we going to “released” or “submit” OD to the other international arenas? How would be the relevance of OD to the future rIGF?
The 3rd paragraph shows the unbinding nature of the OD but it did not clarify the purpose.
As we are renaming the document from “Outcomes document” to something else. Would be good to keep it consistent. How about “APrIGF Synthesis Document”? More accurate?
Again, an update of the process would be needed:
– 1st rough draft based on workshop submissions
– 2nd iteration from comments through the online platform & public dissemination of the link etc (from dates)
– 3rd iteration from comments (platform) & (dates)
– Final version through rough consensus
Something like this? Or based on the secretariat’s excellent summation so far already in the mailing list
from participants at the APrIGF (as well as the broader APrIGF community through remote participation and dissemination at the mailing list)
instead of project, why not “express voices, views and thoughts…”
+1 jac
or APrIGF Multistakeholder Synthesis (without the word “Document”)
I agree that the APrIGF conference needs an outcomes document, to demonstrate that so much effort has been productive. This is important for the organisations which sponsor workshops and for the agencies which fund the participation of regional experts.
Asia Pacific Regional Internet Governance Forum 2022 Singapore Synthesis Document – Draft 1 (1 comment)
Greetings to the Drafting Committee of the APrIGF,
I request you to kindly consider providing references (as footnotes) for the two statistical claims made in this paragraph.
Similarly, references can be provided for statistical/factual claims made elsewhere in the document.
Overall, the synthesis document reads good to me. Congratulations to the Drafting Committee (and the entire APrIGF community) for their efforts in compiling this wonderful document.
Regards,
Lokendra Sharma
Member, MSG, APrIGF.