APrIGF Document Platform

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.

Past tense – the APrIGF was held….APrIGF co-located with…

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Need to include Youth into the discussion and policy development process, as Regional IGF and regional YIGF more.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why only in General Elections? We need to combat Disinformation in all aspects of human life.

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.

And how can general user contribute as well.

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.

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.

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.

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….

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.