IGF 2023 - Day 0 - Event #49 Advancing digital inclusion and human-rights:ROAM-X approach - RAW

>> Hello, everyone, I hope can you hear me and you can see me.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Hello, everyone. Hello again. Thank you very much for being here. Those who are  --

Hello, thank you so very much for being with us in the room today and thank you for the participants who joined us online, to the participants and speakers. I am very happy to welcome you all, on behalf of UNESCO to this session, which is dedicated to UNESCO internet universality ROAM-X indicators. Based on the principles which we will be talking about and I will have a presentation on that. We are excited to be here and we have distinguished speakers here as well as online. Without further ado, I would like to give the floor to UNESCO director of the division for digital inclusion and policies and digital transformation and the secretary of the information for programme, Ms. Marielza Oliveira. The floor is yours.

>> MARIELZA OLIVEIRA: Thank you. It's great to see you and glad UNESCO can start interventions, we thank the internet neutrality indicators zero session. Welcome, everyone. I wish I could be with you today, but we had an overlap of dates of IGF and UNESCO's governing body.

This year there's much change going on, both for internet governance and neutrality indicators. Since 2018 they have served as unique and comprehensive tool to help countries assess their landscape based on guiding principles we all work towards.

We advocate together for an internet that are human rights based, open to all, accessible by all, and nurtured by stakeholder participation. And also address the cross cutting issues such as gender and safety.

More importantly, the ROAM-X assessment leads to the design of policies that support an inclusive open safe internet for all users. This is one of the ways in which UNESCO supports policies that nurture this human-centered internet. The internet we all want.

In the five years since UNESCO Member States endorsed the ROAM-X indicators we have made enormous strides together. Over 40 countries from all regions of the world have completed or are on the way with a national ROAM-X assessment. Several countries are adding their unique ideas to the approach.

A great example is Kenya which piloted a follow-up assessment to measure impact of the ROAM-X approach on their national internet ecosystem after they started implementing the policies. This is ground breaking and really exciting.

But the internet has also changed significantly in the five years. We have seen over one billion new users join. We have seen acceleration of the global digital transformation process. Especially in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We have e-commerce, e-government, e-learning, e-everything. We have seen the rise of artificial intelligence, augmented reality and blockchain and others. We have realized the many ways which the internet can harm. From fragmentation to misinformation and hate speech.

We have seen internet governance evolving to address these issues with the creation in UN system of  --  now artificial intelligence. It's change for a change for the IUI's as well.

UNESCO is currently in the process of revising the ROAM-X framework. So make sure we continue having relevance of those indicators and that they adapt to this new digital environment.

The Internet Governance Forum is the place we come together to shape this and these sessions will shape the IUI's as well. We will learn from experiences of implementing the framework in different context and leverage our collective expertise to draw lessons that benefit our digital community.

And I'm really grateful to the ROAM-X community. We have grown together as we support each other. You guys are such a generous community who is making the digital world better.

So today we will hear from resources and stakeholders from different regions of the world who will share their insights and perspectives on ROAM-X implementation.

Let me ask all speakers and participants to share both the good and the bad. What opportunities the ROAM-X framework has opened in your country for advancing internet development. But also point out some of the challenges we have yet to address. This would be immensely helpful to us. Because your insights on the discussions to be held today will contribute to the revision of the internet neutrality indicators. This will be informed by your rich experience and expertise. I have no doubt in the past years how these discussions have proved like the past years proved super productive, the strengthening of our collective efforts towards Internet universality.

Keep in mind the internet is a shared global resource touching every aspect of our lives.

It's our collective responsibility to ensure it upholds human rights and the values of open ps and inclusivity as it evolves. So let me thank you all again for the contributions you have made to the ROAM framework in the past. For joining us here today and for being so generous with your experience sharing, that will shape our framework in the future.

I really can't wait to hear your insights and wish you a fabulous session. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Marielza. Thank you for your strategic guidance over the years and for your strong support for this project. And for your contribution and welcoming remarks.

So I will proceed with my presentation. Just to elaborate, Marielza gave an excellent overview but for me to elaborate a bit more on the internet universality framework and the progress across the world.

Great, so we can see my slides now.

I hope the online participants can also see. I'm Tatevik Grigoriev, associate programme speshist at UNESCO. I'm coordinating the INI. Also to go back to the start of the IUI ROAM-X indicators. So at the 38th general conference of UNESCO which is the governing body of UNESCO back in 2018, the general conference and the Member States endorsed the concept of internet universality and the principles, ROAM principles meaning internet should be universal and based on human rights, be open and accessible to all, nurtured by multistakeholder participation. And cross-cutting issues were also introduced into this framework to address issues such as gender equal, environment, safety and security and Sustainable Development. And what is ROAM-X framework? ROAM-X framework is a set of indicators, 303 indicators and 109 of which is core indicators that measure the development of the internet at the national level of the country. Using the internet universality indicator principles. The idea is to develop a clear understanding of the internet environment. And map the overall situation and identify any gaps that are out there and assess the possibilities, the opportunities and challenges and formulate actionable policy recommendations for all stakeholders concerned to address any gaps that were addressed during the assessment.

And where does it come from? So just to make the link between the UNESCO's mandates, one of the mandates which is free flow of ideas, which is addressed by UNESCO's communication and information sector, which works on a number of issues including digital transformation and ensuring universal internet access and human rights based approach and also making link between strategies and frameworks out there and including the Sustainable Development Goals addressing a number of them and overall addressing those. And making a link with global digital compact. And it is really, these assessments can really help nurture this compact, for example, in the core, it's to address, for example, digital divides and human rights online.

And I want to highlight a couple of ideas related to the framework.

So the idea of this assessment is really to have it at the national level and to help the countries who have the understanding and move forward with their digital agendas and contribute with evidence-based information. So it is not to create any ranking among the countries. Although countries which could look at each other's example but there's no idea to have a ranking of any sort. But really to help the countries.

It's really, this evidence-based approach which addresses a number of themes, legal policy, regulatory frameworks, measuring human rights, whether it's measuring multistakeholder approach. So there's a focus on digital inclusion dimensions, as I mentioned which we have cross-cutting issues such as gender youth, people with disabilities or minority groups such as language minorities. So what we also highlight as a very important aspect is the process and I will be speaking a bit more about the process. We focus a lot on the methodology and the process of establishing this multistakeholder approach to make sure that every stakeholder concerned is involved and their voices heard. And of course I would like to highlight we have this solid evidence-based approach, which fits the assessment.

So as I mentioned we have 303 indicators in total. So the number may be a bit scary but in fact, so the reason why there are so many indicators is that we really want to capture the cultural environment and make sure that it's adapted to a country context.

So we recommend that 109 indicators which are the basis are employed and tested and assessed in the country. And then we strongly recommend the country to look at which of these additional indicators are relevant for your context, country context so they complement the 109 indicators and capture the actual holistic situation.

So we have these five categories that I mentioned which form the ROAM-X abbreviation. We have seen six themes and a number of questions. And just to give you an overlook.

We have themes under each category. Which we note and as pointed by the experts as well. There are for example, themes which are across each theme for example, policy legal and regulatory framework are across each theme, for example.

If we take the rights theme and for example, specifically rights to privacy, then for each theme we will have a specific question, which is displayed here. And this question that helps  --  so the question, is the protection of personal data guaranteed in low and enforced in practice with respect to government businesses and other organisations, including rights of access to information and held to, sorry, held to redress, sorry. This question helps to address the indicator of existence and power of an independent data protection authority or similar entity.

So it's really the framework really facilitates the work, while experts will talk a bit more about that. To really capture the overall situation. And for example, recommendation that a rose out of, while assessing this indicator was to create an independent national personal data protection authority and national Council for the protection of personal data making the normative framework enforce consistent with enhancement, enactment of the personal data protection law.

This is just to give an idea. So as Marielza mentioned we have a number of countries across the five continents that have published the report. And currently we have 34 countries where the assessment is ongoing. These are countries that just launched or finalized or approaching the finalization of the reports. So out of these 34 ongoing countries 13 are in Africa, 12 Asia Pacific, twin Arab states, Latin America and Caribbean six countries and three countries in Europe.

So we have representation here of researchers from almost all continents. So they will elaborate more on the process in their countries. And actually, we have six published reports at the moment. Since we started the publication since 2019. And Brazil was one of the first and Kenya as well and lead researchers will talk about that.

I would invite you all. I have the link, I would really invite you to  --  which reminds me I also have some copies here I will distribute afterwards. I invite you to go to our website to have a look at the publications to have a better understanding. And of course to see the recommendations for example, and the process.

Yes, as I speak about the process, I want to highlight eight steps, which we have while the assessments are carried out.

So as I mentioned, it's a voluntary assessment, meaning that the national stakeholders initiate the assessments themselves. And there's a very strong local ownership. And UNESCO's role is to facilitate the process and provide technical assistance and support to the researchers, to the multistakeholder advisory board to help them carry out the process. So as I mentioned, multistakeholder approach. So the assessment starts with establishing a multistakeholder advisory board, relative ministries academia, civil society organisations and all the relevant stakeholders, also based on the context of the country. These are the people, this is the group which will be consulted since the beginning, for example, from where to collect data. How to collect data, to the validation process, where all the stakeholders representing different stakeholder groups then really validate the report and agree that this is the situation that really reflects the content  --  the situation in the country.

And then of course, I won't go through all the steps but I would also mention the research group establishing a research group is also an important step. So we have lead researchers who are here, but also given that it's a diverse and it's a very comprehensive framework and it requires diverse expertise. People with all this expertise gather together to form the group and ensure each topic and each theme is really covered with an expert approach.

And then there is the data gathering, where we can see also challenges. But I won't elaborate as researchers can talk about that.

I would also highlight the face of impact assessment and monitoring.

The assessment doesn't end when the validation is there and validation is completed. But also there are mechanisms, we are improving the mechanisms for follow-up and monitoring. And then actually then further assessment or further actions are taken to see what has changed since the report was published. And we have an excellent example of Kenya who will speak about that. So here are just a few examples of, for example, impact that IUI made on national policies. I would really like to highlight that this IUI assessments are really essential for countries which developed countries, developing countries. So it doesn't really depend on the development status of the digital ecosystem. Because there is always room for improvement. And we have for example, Germany has carried out the assessment and we have distinguished colleague online who will talk about it. For example, our recommendations in Germany were proposed to the parliament and topics raised by IUI were a reflected in the coalition treaty in 2021-2026. Implementation of the 2025 digital strategy for the country and of the high speed national plan.

So these are just two examples on the screen, a few examples but we have seen excellent examples how these assessments have made an impact.

Okay, I will leave this here. But just to also mention that, so we do understand that we are dealing with the internet and digital ecosystem and the topic and environment and area which is evolving very, very rapidly.

So the idea, since we had this IUI framework, the idea was to ensure its ongoing relevance and to do that we plan to, we gave ourselves this five-year period. With the idea to review the framework every five years and to, of course this could be reviewed. But the plan is to review it and see the technological developments and to make sure that the framework remains relevant addressing the current technological advancements.

So we are reaching this five-year mark in 2024. So back in the last year's IGF in Ethiopia, we started consultations and discussions with lead researchers, with experts, to really assess and understand whether it's really the good moment to update the IUI framework. And we did reach this conclusion and we have actually started taking concrete actions towards this revision of the IUI's. And we are working with CETIC, UNESCO category and Fabio will present more about the centre.

We have Fabio here andal   --  Alessandro in the audience driving this work forward. I will give the floor now to Fabio to present a bit more about the IUI revision process. But before that, I would invite people to check our website. To check the assessments and the framework and see how you can get engaged.

We have a Dynamic Coalition, on internet universality indicators and I invite you all to be part of this coalition and really keep in touch for any possible cooperation or any inquiries you have. We have the Dynamic Coalition session on Wednesday. And I will be announcing the details. But in the meantime I'm giving the cable to Fabio to connect now. Is it good? So I will give the floor to Fabio and ask him to introduce himself. Thank you so much.

>> FABIO SENNE: Thank you, Tatevik. Thank you, I would like to thank UNESCO for the invitation and also putting together such an international and interesting group of people to discuss those issues.

My presentation today will focus as Tatevik mentions, in the process of, and what we learn from these five years of internet universality indicators assessments. And what are the possible future developments of the framework. I'm ICT project coordinator. CETIC, stakeholder model for internet governance in Brazil. CETIC service runs 2005 and by 2011 we were recognised as UNESCO category 2 centre especially focused on Latin America, Portugal speaking countries.

Why Brazil is involved in this process, first of all CETIC participants in the process of the IUI's. Back in 2015 when UNESCO approved the concept of ROAM in the general conference and then started the process of consultation to build the IUI framework, CETIC helped. By 2018 we participate in a pilot application of the indicators when they were not approved yet.

And in Brazil, what was also the first launch of the assessment back in 2019.

And since then because of our regional role in Latin America and because of this partnership with UNESCO, we supported lots of countries that were implementing those types of assessments. So we did peer reviews and also other types of support to countries. And this year in 2023 we started to help with this five-year revision process.

I will tell you a little about it. As Tatevik mentioned, the process of revision was mentioned in the back in 2019 when the document was published.

So UNESCO understood that in five years, there is a demand for updating the indicators to see if the indicators are still relevant according to the context. So we decided to support and in 2023 we help, we provided UNESCO a report, a background report. Based on that research, based on looking into each one of the country's assessment and interviews and meeting with partners.

And then in July we started a consultation process that we interviewed lead researchers from different encounters that understood difficulties and possible ideas for the framework. And finally in August we started to develop a draft proposal that is still ongoing on how to update the indicators.

I think it's important to mention that based on all of those consultations and interviews that we made with lead researchers in the process, we understood a few recognised benefits from having this type of assessment.

First of all, the holistic perspective. So we are not talking about understanding just one part, just one part of the situation. Just access but what we are doing with access or just rights but have no access. Having a holistic perspective is well recognised.

Some other things is IUI is a roadmap for action. Not just because we have recommendations but also because in each area by looking at the indicators you can see what is not going on in your country compared to other countries and everything, so you have a checklist of things to do.

The idea you have not just evidence on legal provisions, so what is provided by the law, but what is happening in practice in the policies in practice, this is something important.

Also the flexibility of the approach of the frameworks. Each country can adopt the number of indicators to their reality. And also identify what are the data gaps in your country? What data you don't have and you need to produce because you met two of the indicators.

So we decided to go into three different discussions. Is there any revision necessary to the process itself? Because we know  this is a multistakeholder process. You need to consult the other areas. Start by a multistakeholder advisory board. How can you improve participation within the framework.

If there are any methodological issues to improve. If there are different aspects or substantive dimensions that are not covered and should be covered in the framework.

So we went through all the assessments, the one that's were published but also the ones that were ongoing. And we saw something that is very important, the prevalence of developing countries and countries in Africa in using the framework we just think is very interesting to understand. And also there is some complexity in implementing the whole indicators part.

And also, something that we discussed that I think we will come out today is the idea that we do need to have more tools for following up when we have an assessment. I think Kenya will talk about this because they have the second assessment. But we also can have different types of follow-up based on the process so how do you follow-up on the main gaps? Or identify the main gaps in a particular country. How can you add more level of some part that you don't cover in the first assessment? The follow-up on recommendations, which recommendations were or not implemented. And what are the relations of the IUI with other upcoming agendas? The global digital compact and so on.

And also the idea that something we might come out before this discussion on revisions is creating more iterative and interesting tools for visualizing the data and the results. There's something that several experts suggest. Such as creating heat maps or other types of visualization to add to their results.

Just to say, to tell a little bit about the consultation. Some of you in this room participating in this consultation. So we interviewed in a qualitative approach more around 15 countries. In a quantitative approach to online forum we reach 27 responses from 23 countries. So we have a very large consul taig with those that implemented the IUI. And although most of the countries do think that the process is very comprehensive and very interesting for mapping these situation, they see the complexity of implementing this. So we need to balance the capability of being holistic but at the same time being easy to implement.

The availability of data is something that lots of confirmation. So this, I think is creative. When you don't have data in particular areas or disaggregated data, it's difficult to comply with the indicators. This is something happening lots of countries, not just the developed countries but also in other countries.

And of course, we have the COVID-19 pandemic during most of this implementation. So most of the implementations have strong difficulties in meeting is because of the pandemic.

I won't go through the details of the result, so the percentage of encounters and mention each one of the difficulties. But just to finish with a few questions for the future.

First of all, there's an intention of defining new indicators in this past five years. So what are the group of indicators that can complement this IUI framework that is already being implemented.

Is there a connection with agendas. What are the connections between the IUI's and the SDGs we need to understand? If there are any review of the wording of the indicators that can make more understandable and easy to apply. Sometimes we need to improve the organisation of the framework itself. So having additional tools for countries.

And we are also validating and proposing a reduction in the number for the overall indicators. This was considered desirable but by most of the countries. But maintaining the balance among integrities in a holistic perspective. How to keep this balancing in place.

We also are suggesting to have a more deeper relation with the SDGs. We are classifying all the IUI indicators. In relation to the SDGs. So not just those SDGs that really mention in the targets and indicators that really mention the ICTs. But those that have any connection with SDGs. So how for instance the idea of Sustainable Development can be in the IUI framework. Something we are working with.

I won't discuss this in detail, but in this consultation process, a few areas of new dimensions appeared a lot in the interviews. The first one was artificial intelligence. The present is just one indicator of the 303, because it was five years ago. But now we know artificial intelligence is impacting the internet environment. How do we deal with this. Platform regulation. How UNESCO is doing this. And connecting meaningful activity in the IUI. In the accessibility part, we need to change something to connect with the idea of meaningful connectivity.

Updated with general comment #25 related to childrens rights. Is there any updates that we do need to also implement in the IUI. The idea of Sustainable Development that I already mentioned. In other aspects such as mental health and elderly. Do not mean we will cover all these issues in the revision but just to say there are a few dimensions that came out. This is where we are and IGF a very good opportunity of having a deeper understanding what should we do to interact more in this process. So thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Fabio. Thank you, to CETIC for your excellent work regarding the implementation of IUI in Brazil and also throughout the past year, contributing to the revision process.

So as Fabio mentioned, I would like to thank IGF, excellent opportunities for us to bring together a diverse stakeholders and really discuss the process as it's an open consultative process. We do want to hear from everybody who can contribute to the revision process.

In this spirit, we have a number of speakers who have been engaged in the implementation of the IUI in their respective countries. We would like to invite them to contribute to the discussion around the IUI revision by drawing also on their personal expertise and experience of implementing  these indicators in their countries and construct the discussion around the themes of the IUI.

While also making sure we address a number of questions, which I won't be reading out. But questions around how to improve, for example, multistakeholder advisory group process or how to address the data gap challenges. Or what strategies to establish to improve the follow-up process and overall the process and also of course addressing the topics of new themes to be included.

We will start the discussion around category rights. I have four speakers who will specifically talk about the topic, and of course drawing on their personal experience. I first invite Claire Popineau from France to address.

>> CLAIRE POPINEAU: Thank you. I'm very glad to be here. Arigato. Today I will present you two points arising from the experience of France regarding the IUI.

First the indicators which will lead me to the second point on (?) rights. The version of the draft allow me to speak about the relevance to include the context indicators.

There are social elements of understanding perspective and comparison for all our indicators.

I will take just a few examples of what I say. For example, the founding as gross national income, connective iterate indicator don't have the same meaning, it's clear. Examples, it leads to necessary questioning of accessibility of elderly people, as well as birthright with need for education of young people.

Another example where we see indicators are  --  there's new existence of obligation adding school from age of 3. For example, recommendation of child of three year was at 1990 and 2021 France. 100% of boys and a bit less for girls. It's very important to understand the big picture in a country to analyze the other indicators. And maybe a last example of what I say is the literacy rate. Illiteracy is a very important matter in France. (?) is very good.

It is criteria which is not only with internet but the a major accessibility issue with some people.

Like many subjects, internet is not a separate subject but social, political and economic issues and it is very important to mention the indicator at the beginning of the study and even during the study to stay very close of the issue.

Context indicators lead to target  --  social issue  --  a lot of S in my  --

In France, for example, the question of electricity access is not an issue in France. But the interpretation cannot be the same between the two countries regarding the indicator. That's why you said the not a purpose of comparison, but to enlighten maybe as a way to address the issue.

And another question of rights. Looking at a series of more specific indicators, we get to the number of the scope and multistakeholder work group. Discussions are still going strong. Because objective element exist indicators. In the final evaluation of the indicator, remains under discussion. I will explain maybe a bit clearly that I say. For example, the internet on child order, stakeholder  --  to some extent. During a working session  --  in the digital space, organisers by Isacc (?) there was a question regarding the rule of law. And some critics regarding the tendency to create (?) to resolve disputes. Particularly regarding online content, pornography, harassment. Spef uk and new procedures can give the impression that the indicator is very good because there is (?) but in reality the question of effectiveness in the state of duty and balance of rights are questioned here.

So it's not easy with the same laws, the same rules to say yes, the indicator is well rated, finally, there's another issue in the law. Liberty of (?) for example. And finally, I wish to make a focus to illustrate stop and need of constant updating which is another issue with the indicators. Because just know since May 2023, there is a new lobby which aims to regulate the American space.

[ Speaking French ]

Hate speech through some new technical measure. But they are also controversial. So we have the impression to look at everything in the state of law, a new bill of law. So it's very complicated to write a final draft to communicate because it's very (?)

In this bill of law, there is some measure for internet providers, (?) pornography within 24 hours, otherwise. But there is some (?) and again, if you just look at the law, you can say yes, there is law to protect child. But again, there is law, but what are consequences indicator is not so (?)

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you. Pisal Chanty will address the question about rights. We don't read out the question. He will build it around this theme. Please, Pisal.

>> PISAL CHANTY: Thank you, UNESCO for inviting me to participate in this forum. You hear me, right?

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Yes, we do.

>> PISAL CHANTY: Thank you. First I will give assessment of the IUI assessment in Cambodia. Ministry responsible for digital technology and telecommunication. In partnership with UNESCO and Cambodia to initiate projects. We kick start projects in 2022. However there were delays. Before I start about the problem we are having in the conducting the application of IUI assessment in Cambodia especially the regulatory, just to briefly provide you background, based on the finding, Cambodia institution enshrined the fundamental human right in the constitution and have regional and international human right agreement. Committed to uphold human rights offline and online. There's no expression of legal regulation in Cambodia that define online and offline activity of basic human right. Another issue is the interpretation of this commitment in practical shown inconsistency.

Another issue is on the legal gap in liability and (?). While cyber protection law and cybercrime is being crafted (?) in 2009 317 and 320. Crime of infringement of telecommunication, information technology.

Legal framework for lawful deception of the law. Claimed by the human right special report. And there's a new introduction of the national internet remain interest of government of Cambodia and CSO in the country. And implementation hasn't been possible without specific data.

Recently the government of Cambodia release regulatory framework, commitment of the government to transform the digital government policy in early 2022.

For transparent government that foster inclusive digital society. Emphasis on e-participation. E-government survey customer on e-consultation and e-decision making.

So what is the, in short, the recommendation for this human rights under the right aspect is we are focusing on three aspects. The first one is that the different stakeholder, especially the government would focus on legal adoption. And capacity building. And last encouragement on multistakeholder participation of CSO development panel and the government.

This is a brief summary of the finding on the rights. So what is the lessoned learned and issue of the IUI assessment in Cambodia? Selected to choose on the right method. It doesn't mean that other category is not a problem. But a good lesson learned from us. So the issue is issue of human rights in Cambodia is contested with the government and CSO. Without going into the digital landscape, human rights has been a contested issue already. CSO in this industry therefore it's been subjected to a lot of discussion and need to be careful.

Based on the multistakeholder establishment of multistakeholder advisory board, we are trying to create a map. However, we need to be careful on the arrangement of the map. The second thing is the text itself. Despite the finding we need to ensure that all of the wives of the CSO of the government need to be included or they would not agree. We are planning to do the arrangement. We need to prepare properly to ensure everyone take ownership of it.

It is a multistakeholder. So not only the government accept it but also the CSO and development partner but also the user of the internet.

So what we have so far. I think it's important for the revise of the IUI assessment as well, UNESCO in Cambodia has played a good moderator in this part. Because from the government side, they have the firm position on the right aspects. While from the CSO they have a firm stand on certain aspects of the rights aspects as well.

So what UNESCO is doing, based on their knowledge, based on their moderation, they try to moderate the text but also moderate, ensure that okay, this is the text going to be accepted by the government, but also the CSO.

So what is the strategy to be undertaken by UNESCO. UNESCO in respective country need to play a role. But a role as a moderator. A role that the government accepted but also the CSO. And the second thing is that the responsible ministry for example in Cambodia is for positive communication. Ministry of positive communication take part to make sure the recommendations recommended to the government is being addressed. And also entrusted to follow-up the recommendation have been done so far to ensure that all the recommendations have been in application by the stakeholder.

So in short the multistakeholder approach is crucial in the right aspect. And UNESCO in respective countries also play a role. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Pisal. I will next give the floor to Mariia Fernanda Martinez. We are running a bit behind so ask the speakers to stay within five minutes, please.

>> MARIIA FERNANDA MARTINEZ: Thank you. CETYS is a place for research, communication of policy and development of additional processes in the public sphere. There are many things to discuss so I will share Argentina's most national findings related to rights and also give our opinion regarding what strategies to incorporate modern strategies.

First our report, we have the traffic light diagnosis. For each topic of each axis and according to the maturity level of the institutional path taken by Argentina, a colour was identified. Red, yellow and green. We think it's been a good practice since it allows to have a quick approximation for x axis. Regarding to policy and regulatory framework, Argentina will have a general legal framework in keeping with international human rights standards. However, we are concerned about expansion of the use of technology and social media.

Besides we have a framework of freedom of expression. In terms of liability of intermediaries there's no specific regulation. Civil and criminal liability apply. Tend not to apply objective liability in online context.

The right to access to information is recognised and the agenda to reach some state policy statutes are in accordance with the regulation. Transparency action is not identified in different contexts in a lot of the state. Regarding freedom of association and right to participate in management of public affairs, legal framework that freedoms freedom of association online. However, that right may be affected by youth for ability and access inequality.

Related to the right to privacy. Here we have an outdated legal framework for data protection. Sub national level, growing use of bio metric data for security related activity were norm. We observe violations. What strategy can UNESCO undertake? First of all, we would need to explain outline and schedule that includes monitoring. For example, report, participation or reports on meeting  --  for implementation of the recommendation, we think that institution characteristics are very important. We know UNESCO take this into account but it is necessary to reinforce its importance because it is fundamental that the organisation that carry out their research has a history and links with all actors in the ecosystem. It's also fundamental to have a balanced proposition in terms of sector and gender.

They have consensus recommendation. In our case each axis we established that were agreed with members of the map. This guaranties relevance and also its viability. Identify those recommendation where's they can have the greatest impact. It's important to recognize which are those which are new to the characteristics of the team, institution and contextual needs, greater impact can be achieved. And then generate space for dialogue and action to advance the implementation of the recommendations. In our case, for example, we have identified the issue of protection of personal data as crucial. So we organise several meetings with relevant actors to discuss modification to the current bill that culminate whole specific conference on the draft law on protection of personal data.

Another important issue is reports. We are aware there are many internal and necessary validation instance and we also know UNESCO is trying to accelerate them and we appreciate it. Since the delay in publications make it lose relevance. With regard to this point, we think one of the researchers could be assigned  --

>> MODERATOR LANDA: Sorry, you have one minute to wrap up, please.

>> It's my last word. Regarding this point, we think at the time of appointing the team one of the researchers could be designated to continue working with UNESCO through the period between the delivery of the final document and it's publication. Thank you very much and before closing I want to name all the team, Lex and (?). (?). Thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Mariia and for your suggestions. Next in my list is Grace Githaiga from Kenya. The floor is yours. Five minutes, please.

>> GRACE GITHAIGA: I think I want to be very brief. When we looked at the rights and this is our first review because we did the fast report and released it in 2022, then we reviewed after two years, the result is that in terms of rights, Kenya has a comprehensive policy, legal institutional framework for human rights, which adopts international human rights standards among others freedom of expression, freedom of access, freedom of association, the right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, the right to privacy and socio and economic and cultural rights. And while these non-legislation blocking internet access there are legal restrictions on human rights and challenges in the enforcement and practical implementation of the laws.

And for example, we held a general election in August 2022 and then the COVID-19 pandemic. These two exposed gaps in internet freedom, such as threats of incidents of abuse, of repressive laws and cases of disinformation while on the increase.

These also limited focus by key actors to systematic monitor the state of human rights. Particularly with respect to the digital environment. Also awareness across key sectors of digital rights and private sector, on the U.N. lack of awareness of sectors of digital rights and of private sector on the U.N. guiding principles, for example, business and human rights, which remains a key concern. And I want to end there.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Grace, for sharing your experience and Kenya is a great example for us, both being one of the countries to implement the framework. And also to implement the first follow-up. I will give the floor to an online participant. First speaker, first Santosh. I invite Swaran to take the floor, Swaran Ravindra based in Fiji but conducting in three islands in the Pacific. Please, Swaran?

>> SWARAN RAVINDRA: Thank you. I have been commissioned by UNESCO as a lead researcher for the ROAM-X project, which is under my responsibility comes Fiji Tuole  --  and Solomon islands.

My category was openness. We were going to some of the strategies that we have come up with, I just wanted to let the audience know that for us, this is still a work in progress. The project is one month old or one month young so far. We are still navigating through various aspects of the project. So everything that the other participants or other researchers are talking about, it heavily resonates with our work in the Pacific at the moment. I also have some people in the room today in Kyoto couldn't be there, we have chat noia, happy to have interventions at the end. The question is what strategies can be used to overcome data unavailability and obtain high-quality and updated data. We have been information-rich and knowledge poor in some cases. At the same time we have seen serious data gaps both in government institutions and also in many different areas where we need to exercise  --

Some strategies my team came up with is to regularly update information for citizen-centric services. We need support from global organisations. Just give me one moment.

We noted the important to have global organisation support. Some resonate with us in the Pacific.

One I want to share with you, the last two years I have been involved in the right to information project. I've realized many things asked in the openness, if we already have project deployed in those economies it makes it easier to answer the questions under the indicators. Of course there are still lots of gaps, but the fact that the project was deployed prior to ROAM-X project it helped in getting some of the information. Also reports from ITU and UN scholarly articles, I found the information more helpful.

We also spoke about the need for having a research team or a special consultants that could form a national body to work in ethical standards in terms of data collection. This is something that could be embedded within bureau of statistics in Fiji. There was another research project it was difficult to get information and that information came much, much later. So there would be a special body of researchers who could support the data collection processes. It's also quite evident that many people who are doing research may not necessarily be citizen-centric people but they are there at ground level and there to help and have access to the most vulnerable communities we need to get data from. The need for support of the government is really important. Especially in the lesser developed economies. Also the need for benchmarking. As the other speakers were talking about, so we can see what participate we can adapt in the Pacific. Of course winners, recently an informal meeting, it hasn't been formalized yet. We have been in the process of talking to different stakeholders. Because in the Pacific we have a very different style of working. Casual conversation. Where we build relationships in the community. It is one of the most important, could be formal and casual but one of the best sources of information in terms of creating partnership with stakeholders. We have the support of the permanent secretaries. We have also Pacific disability forum.

If we had information on the website, then it would have been much, much more helpful.

Many things that come into openness.  --

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Could you start wrapping up, please?

>> Okay, so we have some predicaments for example  --

If I were to just make one broad statement about the need for multistakeholderism, that is very, very important.

There's one more thing I want to say, we have prior assessment I think that would be helpful addressing the openness. You are most welcome to contact me on LinkedIn and I would be happy to work with you and learn more from each other.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Swaran for driving the work forward in all of these countries and for sharing the experience. And I would like now to give the floor to Santos Sigdel from Nepal.

>> SANTOS SIGDEL: Thank you. The question how could we improve the process of validation of the finding with multistakeholder advisory board. So my presentation will be limited on that. I have only five minutes so I will be very, very quick.

Multistakeholder advisory board, said earlier by Fabio, this is not mandatory within the UNESCO framework. The strongly recommended but not mandatory. And the member of this group includes private sector, civil society and others. We implemented the process in Nepal. In the context of Nepal it was largely dominated by the government and regulator, including UNESCO. And we were inviting as an observer, while we did the research. So it is very important, based on our experience, it is very important that we make the stakeholderism but while framing the multistakeholder advisory board, it seems that we have the concept of multistakeholderism. That's very important otherwise it's important to bring the stakeholders in the process. About the rule of the multistakeholder advisory board, they have an advisory role. Based on the experience of Nepal, in Nepal, they identified the geographic location of the stakeholder group and everything.

However, we see as a take-away, there is a kind of balance we need to make, if the government is not involved in the process, it's not easy to get the data. This report is based on the availability of the data. If the process is dominated by the government and regulator, there's a possibility of white washing and presenting a rosy picture. And the report will be kind of tool for the time being to give a picture of the internet situation in the country. So there is a kind of balance we need to ensure. And in that process, from the experience of Nepal we see that, at one point may be organized minister meeting, inviting them and their representatives in the draft report. We see that as an important aspect. Tomorrow, the importance of report is on its implementation. If it's only the report for the second publication, it's not important. But if we want to implement the report tomorrow, it's important to have the buy-in from all the important government agencies because tomorrow minister will implement the report. If they are in the process it's important that they are in the not in the last point validation Quay walker up but they are engaged in from the beginning of the report, so that is very important. And discussion on disaggregated data in, across-the-board. But it is more important in the least developed countries like Nepal. And while talking about the multistakeholder, extending the multistakeholder the map process, in our opinion it is also important to include the national census if any. If they are collecting they will know the critical indicator, and might improve the indicators while collecting the census and tomorrow we have the relevant data while reporting it. Thank you for the time and if there are any questions or comments I will be here throughout the session. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Santosh. Before we break for coffee, where we would have more time to speak with the speakers I would like to give the floor to Anna from Namibia. Please, the floor is yours.

>> ANNA AMOOMO-DAVID: Thank you. I will present about openness, as well. I just want to state here that throughout, all know Namibia is still in progress with the assessment, one of the pivotal roles that the multistakeholder advisory board have done for us to be able to carry this out was primarily because they would then help us to address the various indicators, as they come in that would be relevant to not only a particular category, but at the same time, a particular indicator or guiding question within that particular indicator.

Now when it comes to openness in Namibia, one of the things we initially looked for were things such as open source and open source softwares and also realizing that there was no direct legal framework pertaining to the internet that enabled consumer protection, in terms of the open data as well that would come with the open internet.

Additionally, we looked at things like the different licensing softwares and how government would then prioritize considering the national priority for cybersecurity. For example, how the openness parts, the various indicators would come in. And then what we are busy establishing right now is that in terms of licensing, the openness of the internet is actually broken down further into sector-specific regulation.

So as much as there is these indicators, they are however potentially limiting to that particular sector in terms of relevance, as well as encouraging a broader innovation promotion.

So part of these indicators also prompted that within the openness category, there were some indication that the regulation would ensure that everybody would then, not only establish themselves as an entrepreneur for example, coming up with a web business or digital e-commerce platform, would then have to go through a sector-specific guideline, opposed to an internet standard for example, ISO 2001.

This became relevant to say that the openness of the internet coincided with the current access to information bill that was enacted in parliament just last year, which allows for the proactive disclosure of information. And this plays a role because at the end of the day, when these openness to a particular institution, when it comes to digital or internet accessibility, it also means that their platforms would be proactively put online. But then it also calls for this data to be put in a language or in a form that is accessible to an individual which further takes it away from the human rights aspects. Because there are certain disabilities that cannot be catered for within the online space.

And within Namibian space there's no direct potential for people with disabilities to be included. So that openness aspect is also a little bit hampered.

And then one of the major stakeholders that we actually look working with is the Office of The prime minister, which is the custodian of our ICT sector. In terms of regulation, as well as policy. So in collaboration with the ministry of ICT of course and the ministry of higher education, which is responsible for training and capacity building for the various individuals of age, this then comes to a point where the openness aspects are further enriched. Although we are building capacity towards them.

Yes, I will still be around and thank you for the opportunity.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Anna. I would like to thank all the speakers online and here in the room. Thank you so much for your excellent contributions. And for sharing not only your input as we move forward with the revision but also reflecting on the national context, which is really valuable.

We would now go for a very short coffee break. I know that in the schedule, based on the scenario we have Q&A, but given that the participants in the room would hopefully stay for the second part of the session as well, I invite you all to speak with our experts with the panelists around the coffee. And I apologize to all nine participants, but we will take your questions after the break. We will be back just in ten minutes. If we can be here at 5:45 local time, in ten minutes, please. Thank you very much.

[ Break ]

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much. So we will now resume the session.

So just to check if online speakers are back, Ariunzul, Sadaf?

>> Ariunzul: Yes, I'm here.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you, Sadaf and Matthias and Anna and Iglika.

Are there any online questions or comments to be addressed? Karen?

>> MODERATOR LANDA: There was a few elements that were talked about in the comments. Y7

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Yes, can you please read them out to ensure we have participation from the online participants as well?

>> MODERATOR LANDA: Yes. Sosa daf was saying as a researcher based in Civil Society institution, it's interesting for me to see that government organisation doing the research have also struggled with finding the sweet spot where the CSOs and government can agree.

There also one where she talks about digital authorization in her country. And the pressure to reflect the government perspective and position which has been intense in her experience.

There is also talking about the multistakeholder validation process that should involve the government but that has been challenging on her part. So there is that. With Sadaf is representing Pakistan. So this is her perspective on such issues.

There is also Swaran who was talking about the white washing in the research and sees it as a difficulty and challenge to overcome. And also she says there's purpose that needs to be understood between the stakeholders and government. So this is something we can discuss in a few.

And Sergio Martinez who was participating online said, he had a question, in countries like Namibia seeking to develop regulations to support specific segments such as e-commerce, digital business and people with disabilities, which sources guidelines or standards offer a starting point to account for country's specific needs when there are gaps in their underlying global frameworks.

So this is kind of the only question we have in the chat for now. So if you have any input we could discuss it now, or discuss it in the next Q&A segment.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Karen. Karen, my colleague working with us on ROAM-X project.

Anna, would you like to take the question on Namibia? Karen, can you please repeat the last question from Namibia?

>> MODERATOR LANDA: So the question is which sources, guidelines or standards offer a starting point to account for country's specific needs when there are gaps in their underlying global frameworks?

>> ANNA AMOOMO-DAVID: Okay, I think we are faced in Namibia, prior to us being able to carry out the ROAM-X we have done a couple of research of our own. Basic research engaged in a number of projects. And then also what we have done is with the government, because the Internet Society is the one conducting the research, we had established ourselves to be a partner and have a foot in the door with the various ministries such as ministry of ICT, as well as other institutions. And then this paved the way for us to be able to actually engage directly with them, particularly when it came to the ROAM-X exercise. In addition to that, I believe that initially when we started, we started off with a multistakeholder advisory board where we had invited a lot of the different ministries, government agencies, as well as offices, we felt that our key stakeholders. And should we then reach out to them a second or third time whenever we had an intervention this made it possible.

The only thing is that the global standards do not necessarily set the tone for the Namibian standards. Because with the Namibian standards, there are no standards, first of all. We use the ISO27001. And the office responsible for maintaining the standards at this point simply adopts them. So what we engage, how we engage, we put measures in place, we examine the standards ourselves. If they are not relevant we would rather advise they are not relevant to us because of various reasons pertaining to whether the indicator speaks to us or not. I hope that answered the question.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Anna. So if there are no other questions from the previous part of the discussion, I will now pass to the second part of the discussion, which will be focusing on accessibility category and multistakeholder participation, as well as cross-cutting category of the framework.

As I mentioned previously, we have a set of questions which we asked the speakers to focus on, but of course not limiting the discussion, but make sure all the topics are covered. And with this, I would like to now give the floor to online participants, Ariunzul Ochir from Mongolia, followed by Sadaf Khan from Pakistan.

>> ARIUNZUL OCHIR: Thank you. I'm happy to be part of the IUI across the world. I'm living in Mongolia, I just want to clarify the views presented today are based on my professional insights driven from the Mongolian assessment conducted last year. Before I sum prize the key  summarize the key points it's accessible for general public. It's not accessible for persons with disability gsz language minorities or old people as well. I believe that disability is precondition of inclusion. I would like to propose a revision or reorganisation, the current question, 86.1 which asks like existence of legal and regulatory provisions to promote access and use of internet by persons with disabilities in Mongolia.

For example, in Mongolia we have a website standard known as MNS62852017. Our planning requirements for government websites. However this standard falls short addressing the barriers faced by persons with disabilities. Because there are no requirements to ensure the use of assistive technology and software and devices by persons with disabilities, no requirements to adjust for colour blindness or websites for photo sensitive seizures and so on.

And when using web content accessible by the worldwide consortium in 2008 none in Mongolia fully complied with these guidelines. I felt the question may lure intentional  --  to ensure is accessible for persons with disability but also language and older people  and people who are permanently injured.

Every country has a standard to ensure web accessibility, but some are not fully addressing barriers faced by persons with disability. So I meant to inquire something similar because the web content accessibility guideline there weren't widely recognised use which plays rue shall roles in many countries including the U.S.

I know in U.S. they are following the web content accessibility guideline. Under the Section 508 they have specific web accessibility guidelines, 3N54159. I see that IU has benefits to our country, firstly having governments encouraging the environment and educating stakeholders what to do in order to ensure the human rights. Since security, the best practices which is web content accessibility, why don't we include in guideline in existing questions. So that's the one insight I want to share with you today. And thank you. Over to you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you, Ariunzul. Thank you for presenting the case. And actually Mongolia has successfully finalized their report and validated and we look forward to its publication which is now under way, the process is under way in UNESCO.

So the next on my list is Sadaf who is leading the research in Pakistan. Please, Sadaf, the floor is yours. And just a reminder that I'm not giving a presentation of the speaker, so if you want to present yourself, please go ahead. Thank you, Sadaf.

>> SADAF KHAN: Thank you, in the interest of time I will keep my intervention to three short points.

I'm lead researcher in Pakistan, in the process of review for publication at the moment.

So for the three categories, multistakeholder accessibility, et cetera, I am making three cross cutting points that I felt have potential to be reviewed as UNESCO undergos the process of the universality indicators framework.

The first thing is the challenge that's are linked to contextual analysis. And speakers before me have also pointed out some challenges they had faced. I think it's okay,  on the on set the going to be challenging to apply to a framework that is global.

I think one of the things that came to me again and again, as I was going through the process of assess ment, I think these challenges present an opportunity to start looking at the framework in a way that allows UNESCO and other global players to basically review how they are reviewing and assessing some of the things. There's a question in the charter. This document links to that. I will give you a specific example, one core element evident of gender gap and a part of accessibility framework is the mobile and cell phone ownership. Pakistan has one of the largest, highest mobile gender gaps in the whole wide world. But we know cell phone ownership isn't an indicator to usage. Bio metric validation. We are society where safety for women generally is a challenge. So what happens when bio metric is linked to validation, various women including those actually using the internet who live in urban centres and are seen, generally from progressive communities et cetera, they, even they do not prefer to own their own SIM, they will send the men in the family to get the bio metric verification done. It doesn't mean they are using it. It's to ensure gender doesn't become the reason to start messaging and harassing you.

So again, because ownership is seeing the framework, the ROAM-X indicators is an important part, I think this gives an opportunity to start looking at how we are assessing and making sure the assessment framework, it also reflects the realities of global south, reality of countries where there is tribalism, conservatism.

The methodology framework informs how they frame their recommendations. Think it will be interesting to explore the possibility to include an annex where the research team can actually document how these intersections took place. Which of the indicators came out to or appeared to be indicators that had a white Washing or very universal approach and that allows later to also have more in depth, not only part of the framework but annex that allows structured documentary how the ROAM framework.

The second point I want to make is about the interpretation within the framework. There are obvious interpretations that are highlighted and when indicators will appear in different categories you will see them listed. But then there are others highlighted only when you are analyzing the findings. And there are obviously intersections, specifically let's say you are talking about subscription data, disaggregated data. Then the cross-cutting indicators. Now the category x is cross cutting and we know from its framing it's cross cutting. However, after the come   --  completion of the research, if I look how cross cutting the analysis was, I think there are obvious gap that's coming into play. Gender for example, something not just Pakistan but other researchers, gender informs analysis in a specific way. But children apart of the cross cutting category, they don't appear anywhere else. So my recommendation again because this is a comprehensive framework perhaps to explore if there's a possible way to redraft the elements in category x as an integral framework rather than separate category. Rather than separate category of the assessment, it becomes a cross cutting lens for analysis that allow those elements to be reflected more comprehensively within the framework.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you, Sadaf. Thank you very much, Sadaf for your suggestions and your input.

I will now give the floor to Eduardo Carrillo who is the lead researcher from Paraguay. The floor is yours. Five minutes, please.

>> EDUARDO CARRILLO: I will try to be as brief as possible, thank you very much.

And perhaps keep it a bit shorter to give other panelists more time to speak also.

We were asked to do a presentation how the findings in a specific territory went. I will be quick on the accessibility part. Though we can affirm, or the resource we did for the ROAM-X for the 2018 and 2022 period gave us the information that we had an 11% growth of internet users in Paraguay, we still have scenarios that show a lot of challenges. Around high connection speeds and plans that still exist and offer an uneven free access to certain social media platforms, internet access in general. And also similarly to what some of my colleagues have been presenting so far, we still need to improve gender equality and approach of gender equality in internet access, specifically when we are doing the research, we had a lot of problem finding gender disaggregated data on internet access. This should be mainstream in national p service.

Connecting this to the issue of service, I would also say that we encounter a number of differences in the actual connectivity percentages in the country, because the two agencies, the ICT agencies and the national statistic agency that are in charge of developing this kind of instruments have different methodologies in a way show different numbers how connected the country is and this is a problem. These agencies should speak to present a more unified number, if that's the case.

And lastly, but not least, we are a country that is quite unique in the world. We have two official languages. The Spanish language and Indigenous language. That means the state is bound to ensure that both languages are available in websites and in general services, general public services in general. But this doesn't happen both in the offline and also in the online world. Although we now have regulation that obliges the states to have their websites in both languages this is not the case and needs revision.

In terms of the question that we had to answer online was about how we can overcome the unavailability and obtain high quality and updated data within the ROAM-X process of data collection and then fitting that data collection in the indicators. What is the understanding of that availability. Specifically in the Paraguayan context, we partner with  from the get go with the government. Ensuring private meetings with public officials that were able to give us information that was needed. So that definitely is an interesting strategy I know a lot of my colleagues have done in the past or also adopted to access the necessary information. There are a lot of indicators even the short one is 106. You need a lot of information to fill those indicators. In our case the help of certain map members was crucial to access information perhaps if they were in there would be more difficult to map in the data collection state.

And this said, I will quote Fabio he was mentioning before. I think in the context of Paraguay, regardless of all the strategies you can adopt, there's a general lack of data availability. The government doesn't have the capacity to produce data in an evidence-based way or structured  methodological way.

We had children connectivity issues that were inconsistent to allow us to confirm it could reflect the reality of the country in the years we were looking at. But in a context of lack of data availability, any information we found, even if we did the research in 2018 and the data that we found was from 2015 or 2013 or so we think that should be accepted. At least for the first edition of ROAM-X for countries that will hopefully continue conducting this research. In the end the ROAM-X report should be centralized place where all information regarding ICT is locked. We can see if it's worth putting the same information in those cases perhaps it's more easy to affirm that there isn't any data on a specific topic, and that information should be produced. So I am seeing I am 40 seconds past my time. But those would be my two cents on this.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Eduardo. And thank you for the timing as well.

I know Simon would have something to say about the data. It was data availability that many speakers touched upon. I will leave it to Simon. But now I would like to give the floor to Matthias Ketteman, sorry if I am mispronouncing your name from Germany. Followed by Asrat Mulatu from Ethiopia.

>> Sorry I can't do video. I'm happy to talk about our experiences in Germany. Now let me focus on the importance of multistakeholderism.

At the very outset we made sure to include all relevant stakeholders in the process of developing our assessment under the IUIs.

What we did from the outset include as many stakeholders as possible. We included them in our sounding board, our advisory board. But also in addition to that talked with as many people we could from scholars to scientists to administrators to legislators to make sure that the concerns they had were reflected in our studies and in the assessment we were developing.

Now I realise the importance of multistakeholderism, it's broadly accepted. But the reality, a lot of multistakeholder exercises don't actually work so well, because you only select a token number of people, or you lack in diversity. So you have to be really keenly aware of the importance of making multistakeholderism work, in light of the goals you have in mind. So what we did at the very outset is separate the categories of indicators we wanted to work on. And selected a person as a sort of a consultant to advise us which stakeholders to talk to in order to make sure that all representative groups were in fact represented in the process of developing the indicators.

Then after we had written our pieces, after we had collected the data, we then went into a multistakeholder review phase. What we did then was to share the parts of the study we were already comfortable studying with a very large number of societal stakeholders. I asked them for their input, I asked whether it covered the impression with the topic and studied all the necessary data. I felt we had missed something big. And based on that, we find our report and then in the last step a big meet with all the representatives in our sounding board, we ask for each topic. We ask a member of the board to act as a devil's advocate. We weren't able to defend or include revisions into our papers.

Globally multistakeholderism is on the rise. An example how it would work in practice. We are very happen   --  happy with the outcome. Happy to be here for questions either written or now. Unusual form of presenting, thank you and see you soon.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you, Matthias for presenting the case in Germany. We realise this is a Sunday session and we do appreciate that all of you here and also back online at your homes took the time to share your thoughts, we appreciate that very much. So next one in my agenda is As r*r r rr ar Torr   --  Asrat but I was told he is not connected. Not there.

>> MODERATOR LANDA: No, he is not connected.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: We will move to the next speaker. We will move to the next speaker and if he joins later on. Iglika Ivanova, please?

>> IGLIKA IVANOVA: Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this insightful informative discussion.

As you can see, just a second to gain back control to my slides. It's ongoing national evaluation, among three European countries with ongoing ROAM-X indicator assessment. We focused on this presentation on the cooperation we have with UNESCO and advisors on multistakeholder participation. Just a very quick overview of what we are doing in internet governance and representing now and the department, we focus on the policy of digital transformation in digital technology, focus on digital democracy and policies for internet governance and domains.

If I'm mentioning if you have the slides later is this idea of how we identify the neighboring fields and intersections with other frameworks and instruments as global digital impact in this case, part of the European Union, now the focus of our work in this governmental two-years programme. And here are some of the important findings, I would say you would for yourself get the conclusion how these two are connected.

Here are some recommendations for Bulgaria. There is scope to improve its performance in the digital transition. And infrastructure in rural areas requires further attention. In particular, we need to minimize the administrative burden placed on companies and significant efforts should be made in the promotion of digital skills.

Here is how we are implementing the project. You could see the framework, 2022-2024. It is part, among the four measures implemented by the ministry of governance in national action plan, part of open government partnership initiative. Thematic area is transparency and access to information. You could see how it resonates with the philosophy and the goals of the ROAM-X. It is again about all we do about multistakeholder approach, not only in this assessment but other work we have in horizontal policies. Digital transformation. Here is a quick presentation of our advisory Council, advisory boards. Interested parties participate. Considering the remarks of Matthias, I would say indeed the involvement of institutions and leading role of institutions is very, very important. So we are trying to support to ensure transparency. Because you could see the timeline here, we are at phase 4 now.

And here our research aims you are very well aware with them, because I guess we are all doing this same exercise for the same reasons.

And here with two slides I'm finishing because I don't want to take too much time, the national assessment. It is led by multistakeholder advisory board. We have the diverse backgrounds of members of the board providing different perspectives. Assistance with developing the research methodology finding and choosing the most relevant situation, which is challenging we notice difficulty with data gathering.

I would like now to answer one of the questions that we choose to focus on. How could the processes of establishment including the presence of different sectors and groups, consultation and validation of the results with the MAB be improved? The involvement of the board, that do not have interest in the project should be avoided. The Board Members should be introduced to all documents in advance to lieu them to provide sufficient and relevant feedback. The assessment process and level of involvement of the experts raises their awareness. Would improve follow-up strategies, such as enforcement of the recommendations and updating the indicators. And more frequent multistakeholder stakeholder meetings should be planned. The sis semester nation of the   --  dissemination of the information later, we had events we presented the project and progress. Thank you very much for our presentation, looking very much on the discussion. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Iglika. Thank you for sharing the experience. Bulgaria is one of the  excellent examples, we are happy to follow and support the process. And thank you also for your input.

The next person I would give the floor to is Alain Kiyindou.

Universite Bordeaux Montaigne, Benin.

>> ALAIN KIYINDOU: Thank you. It's important to highlight indicator for women given (?) exists access to internet in skills in occupying positions of responsibility.

There are laws in place to promote gender equality for womans access to technological education. But pinpointing the effectiveness of these laws.

As for us, progress is being met with instruction to digital literacy. However, research suggests cyber bullying exists and children's use of internet use is limited. International frameworks need to be strengthened to meet the specific need of children online.

(?) Sustainable Development Goals but challenges exist, particularly in data collection, the wealth management and access, especially in less connected areas. Much of the country failed to meet their goals. Internet neutrality should put (?) on this issue.

Online (?) and internet services have been (?) with the public. Not only because they give them access to local services, tailored to their needs and to estimate, but also they give them time to develop online business.

There's another area that deserves attention to be put in place. Legal and ethical framework aims to stop hate speech online. (?) online trust. However, care must be taken to ensure that the fight against hate speech does not become a pretext for curbing freedom of expression.

I would like to say that highlight data that was not well known to the general public and sometimes put political players. I think that UNESCO should reinforce (?) at the local level. Organise forums on the accessibility of the internet. So that people living in the same context can reflect together on these concerns. Universality  --  we need to take a macro approach and pull skills and resources that can play an important role in peace.

UNESCO website, it should be pointed out that the reports are not visible. And few people are aware of their existence.

We therefore a need to adopt an approach, explore different possibilities, implement a strategy around analytical summaries and conclusions and make the most of the launches and validation. We can also organise country events under various category. We need to carry out cross cutting studies, create communities, involve ministers and their cabinet more closely on air pollution  --  (?) from the evaluation. We need to show the concrete benefits of the study. Thank you very much.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Alain for sharing your experience in leading the research in five countries.

And for your input and suggestions, especially on the last point, which gives me an opportunity to make a link, as you mentioned. Maybe not as many people read the reports as we would have wanted to, or aim to.

I would like now to give the floor to the person who reads all of our reports. Simon, who has been acting as a technical advisor for a number of countries, a number of countries supporting and guiding the MAB. He is also involved, he has been involved more closely and tied to a report, please, Simon. The floor is yours.

>> SIMON ELLIS: Okay, thank you, Tatevik. I used to work for UNESCO for 2001-2012 and then I stopped but since then I'm still working for UNESCO. But now I do what I want and I can also say nasty things about UNESCO if I need to because I'm not directly employed by them. I was told to talk about the M and X categories. So I will do that. But there is categories to tackle in many ways because they bring out a whole aspect of IUI.

People have talked recently in the past few minutes have been talking about the multistakeholderism, as applied to running the IUI project. Actually the M indicators are about the multistakeholderism put in place by internet governance. In many ways they both apply and both mean the same thing. But I want to be provocative especially since we are kind of thinking of revising the commentor. My comment about m, sometimes it feels very superficial. The easy for neighbours to say yes, we Volf all the different participants. But when it comes down to it, the save ill society feels it is involves. Many reports out there Bach about how the country has a good e-governance structure. Most of the policy document thez are a developing are on the web to allow people to look at it. And even a link to allow people to send back their comments. They never know if their comments have been read or taken into account.

I think for example, in this meeting in the next couple days CETIC will work with ITU on meaningful activity. One thing that is nice is to see that IUI indicators. I think that's really a way to put it another way about the quality of participation.

What kind of things about touching the on, what does that consultation look like in more depth and should they be respecting. I used to be a town planner. Town planner, publish. Not that you necessarily need to do that for everything. But should be feedback, a list of who has participated. As well as the development of the manual itself.

Any other points?

Balance and make we should also think about how the MAB is structured. Matthias in Bulgaria and talking about Namibia, talking about the two formal MAB meetings we have, beginning and end. They should perhaps be about structuring consultations in between. I like what we were talking about, Namibia, talking to particular ministries and structuring in a conversation. The more we have those kind of conversations, the more we get buy-in from all the people contributing to this. That's important foreseeing results. I guess a sense of ownership from the government and from civil society, as Pisal was saying about Cambodia. It's structuring that guidance to get to do thatment I think that's what I want to say about M, and then I will move onto X. X is the best category to talk about. You can say anything, it's all in x. It's cross cutting and this is the, the problem with X it's the last one in the manual. I always find the X is the shortest one of all the chapters. For various reasons. X repeats indicators that were used very important r Moore and that leads to two things, one as Sadaf was finding out it's huge importance. A debate, do you have gender mainstreaming or a separate gender section. It swings in roundabouts. If, as in IUI, it comes in a substantive section at the end, it's often kind of like an appendix.

Whereas mainstreaming through ensures you pick up gender in every single one of you. And then putting it in, you lose that sense of concentrating a final summary, if you would like, is now gender is. I'm sorry, I'm not giving a suggested answer to that one. It's a perennial debate. I don't know upper what the answer is. My feeling is it is a debate and I'm not sure about whether that's the right one.

And that then links in what was said about children as well. Not being a section for children.

There isn't a section for old people like me, that also relates to age and he look forward to, I think new indicators. One of my favourite was waste, there's only one indicator but it's a critical indicator particularly in Asia. I know Cambodia and Thailand, e-waste is dumped by western countries and left to refugees to pull apart. I think now that is no land to put it in. Where there's no water table.  --

That points to that and wider importance there. The internet has affected meetings the last few years from COVID, through Zoom and online meetings. There's a question about the positive and negative. To bring out a point links technology, important to show IUI has the technical aspect as well as human rights and social aspects. For the Pacific satellites of the way. You cannot cable up islands or put mass between islands with the thousands of miles apart. The only way to get one person, if we had a reliable and one company through satellite technology are the new internet platform going up in thousands almost every minute it would seem. I don't think that again is reflected.

Exit covers everything, Alain made a good case for cybersecurity. And clearly, I like what he says about that, being strengthened in 'way that a voixesable to the

public. And then finally about data availability. I have a clear strategy on gaps. Over five or six priorities. The first one is you want data, preferly statistics. And on rights, that's not what you have. But the second one, of course then is  --  and then with the Civil Society publications or comments on that. That could go down to results of case law. So documentation through written sources, or if you don't have that, the next one is a focus group. And the message there is focus group should be planned as early as possible because they may need money and because you need to get names in people's diaries.

A key interview, a key person even if it's only one, documented. Hopefully use their name, get the date there and put that down. Again, if it's a suitable authority, the most common one, in fact has been spokes people for the disabled. Almost every country has come up with a disabled society and the head of that society to speak on their behalf as a clear authority in that way.

And then finally, the last one is the gap. If all that there is still a gap, you turn it into a recommendation to fill it. And that's it. I think with that strategy, it covers most of the gaps. There will always be gaps in data. It costs $20 or more to add a survey. I think that's all I have to say. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Simon, for your work with UNESCO on the assessments and also for the individual countries more closely. And thank you very much for your input and ideas.

I would now like to ask, give the floor to actually online participants, if there are any questions. Also I would like to ask the online moderator if there are questions online from participants. I see comments from the panelists but the panelists will be given a final floor. So if there are comments from the participants, please let me know. Otherwise if there are questions which you would like to speak and ask, please.

>> MODERATOR LANDA: There isn't any questions from participants. There's a lot of comments from our speakers.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Sorry, the speakers we will give them the floor. So no questions from the participants?

>> MODERATOR LANDA: No questions.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: If anyone would like to take the floor now and ask a question, please feel free.

I'm checking if online participants have any questions. If not, please introduce yourself and if the question is addressed to a specific speaker.

>> Hi, I'm  --  from Association of (?) are we talking about multistakeholderism and design of reports in general made me think that, an issue that we come across is often when you frame consultations or frame governments questions as being about digital you often actually reduce the number of of people who want to get involved. Because they assume it's not what they are looking at. If it's quite specific, something we come across in Europe. There were big discussions on A.I. and whatever else, but these have huge impacts on research, education and other issues. But they don't come forward because of the way its framed. I'm zooming out. To some extent Internet Governance Forum we aren't just focusing on the technical but universality aspect and how is the Internet working for different communities and how are the communities getting involved. I hope that was vaguely coherent as a point.

Another question I will ask, who is paying me to be here, my employer, to what extent is there reflection to the degree we could use libraries as a stakeholder but also libraries as a venue for bringing communities together, given they are the first point of contact for those people, it is that space where people can think, they go online but also encounter the problems, they encounter all of the difficulties, so they are used to thinking how they go online at the library. Is it possible to get people to address through meeting in that context. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much. Are there any other questions?

From the audience?

No?

Did you want to take the question?

>> Firstly to say it hasn't come out today, the IUI, there's certainly a sense of different sectors and how the internet functions for them, health, employment, culture are mentioned. Second thing, I have written down on my paper, which I didn't bring up, is information  --  one of two questions there. I mean, for me personally, I'm a key believer in libraries and facilities to help people get what they want throughout the world. As you know, it's core to the information for all programme, in which I always see, but everybody has a right to find the information they need to solve their work problems, look for jobs, skills for training and solving health issues themselves and their families.

And I can see that the core element information and I would like that to be a core SDG of some form, instead of 1610 access to publication.

So it's there. I guess for IUI at the moment, part of the problem, it's more about the internet itself does and how it does it.

And it's more about that and less about institutions where you do it type of thing.

The usual question about use of libraries, internet cafes and et cetera. But I mean, as we know even with internet cafes now, as many friends have come around, that's kind of fallen out of the picture somewhat. But I think it would be good to one way or the other, libraries have to be in here, I think. I mean, it's the only thing you find in pretty much every village, even if it's a passing camel or horse, or whatever.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Simon. And thank you for the question. I would just like to add to this that not Simon already addressed the idea around the IUI in libraries. I would like to add to the idea that through the point that we cooperate very well with UNESCO, with IFLA and we do believe they are core, as he mentioned in disseminating as a knowledge dissemination and also knowledge carrier. So we do a lot of work with libraries, especially on media and information literacy.

And we do a lot of work around that. But not so far on IUI.

So, are there any questions offline or online?

If not, I would like to invite the panelists to say, to add anything that they would like to add, giving them one minute. Please, I know there's a discussion among the speakers in the chat. So I would invite people to speak one minute each in the speaking order, as we started. Pisal, would you like to start, followed by Maria Fernanda.

>> PISAL CHANTY: Thank you. Does IUI need to be revised yes. But also the way we apply it, we could do a peer review to keep the progress. The second thing, I think the term meaningful connectivity, meaningful participation is the most important part. So it's crucial that meaningful connectivity including digital skills as well. Not just the activity of the technology itself. And multistakeholder participation is crucial and ownership of the report is crucial, so everyone will take the recommendation and implement it, thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much. Maria Fernanda?

Followed by Grace.

>> MODERATOR LANDA: I don't think she is here any more.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Okay. Victor, would you like to add a sentence?

>> I would like to point out, UNESCO has resources. UNESCO needs to come up with a budget for implementation. UNESCO also has that good relationship with governments. UNESCO needs to spearhead the implementation of the recommendations.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much. By the time the microphone reaches to Victor I should remind this is a voluntary assessment. Carried out by the governments and UNESCO is always there to support, technically and where possible also financially. And I should highlight this again and again, the voluntary nature of the assessment, which also ensures the local ownership. Thank you very much for the  --

>> I must respond to that. Because we can't forever be volunteers. We need resources to conduct some of  --

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Voluntary means voluntary by the government. The initiative comes by the government, it's not enforced or it's not enforced by UNESCO. We are there to support the initiative comes from the  --

>> We are giving you good feedback.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: I appreciate the good feedback.

>> Well, I think I would echo the comments and just to add that I think, thank you very much, UNESCO for coming up with the ROAM-X and I think we need to encourage more countries and researchers to undertake similar researches because it helps and hopefully providing useful baseline information that other actors and people who are involved in this sector can take up and implement. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Victor. Swaran? Followed by Santosh.

>> SWARAN: Thank you. The role is important strengthening the existing legislation and community at large really need to believe in the power of usage. Many things we have seen are elements of the indicators embedded into certain aspects of different legislation, but the deployment is an issue. For example, some of the south Pacific islands we have the information act and the right to information is embedded within it. And then in some of the Pacific islands we see the information there but there's no privacy act. It sort of contradicts with each other as well. If we involve the civil society, I think it could really make a huge difference. But then again, we do have issues about being too territorial which it comes to governments in less developed economies. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Swaran. Santosh?

>> Santosh: Thank you. All the interventions were very important. As a parting point, I just want to reiterate that both the content and processes in IUI assessment. We have to update the content also because it's been five years and there's been a lot of development in between. The process we have to also invest on that. Talking about that it shouldn't be an end. From the local perspective, from the UNESCO perspective, that is the beginning of the kind of working in that particular country on advancing the internet ecosystem and universality or access or anything. So that should not be an end. But that should be the kind of driving tools for the coming days. In talking about this process, sometimes we just get lost in between. I will give you one example. We started the process in Nepal, there was discussing on IT bill and now we have the cybersecurity policy and the assessment doesn't talk about it. It was just a draft. We invested so much time into that, the policy is there but there is nothing about the policy in the assessment. So if it takes a long time, the value is somehow we lose the value of the document. So we have to have the timeline also very in tact, I believe, thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much. Yes you can give back the microphone, please. Anna?

>> ANNAAMOOMO-DAVID: I think I should encourage more countries to take up this assessment. Though it's a government voluntary assessment, I think the model in Namibia was approached differently because it was Civil Society who pushed for the assessment to be done and the government managed to agree with us because we have that relationship. If Civil Society isn't driving the agenda it won't go as good.

They do go a long way and they set the tone for the carrying out of the assessment. In a simplified manner. That's one aspect not mentioned in terms of the review. Of course each country would have it differently but with the baseline indicators I think they were quite straight forward and simple to understand where we don't have the resources or data it's something else, other than it's a matter of taking what you are given and making it yours.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Anna. And actually, on your point I should correct myself, if I said voluntary assessment by the government. It's an assessment by a national stakeholder. So it can be initiated by an academia, or by Civil Society, it could initiated by a ministry. So we have cases of 40 countries and 40 countries are all different. We have cases of basically many stakeholders, diverse stakeholders who initiated the process. And we --receive endorsement from the relevant ministry. I apologize if I say voluntary by the government, it's voluntary by the stakeholders. Next Ariunzul would you like to comment?

>> MODERATOR LANDA: She has left. She had to go.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Okay, Sadaf?

One minute, please.

>> I put it in the chat, as you go onto revise the framework. I'm wondering if there's a possibility to explore two-tiered assessment framework where the governments are voluntary ask, I know there's no mandate but the governments can be asked to submit their own assessment. And a shadow report as we have seen in the UPR. To kind of do away with a lot of duality on a lot of contradiction that comes through when both are trying to validate the assessment on the similar set of indicators. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you, Sadaf. I'm notified our time is up. Three more minutes please, I want to hear from everybody very briefly.

>> EDUARDO CARRILLO: I'm going to repeat all the thing that's have been said already. Perhaps in the update of the indicators and what are the other things that should be looked at, I think that a more careful approach to the digital economy and its intersection with workers could be something interesting to look at. It's something that is going to grow even more and perhaps in the A.I. revision could be something included. And then also perhaps this new narrative of public infrastructure could be framed with the new universality indicatorses how states are thinking. Not only e-government as the result but the process also. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you, Eduardo. Matthias, do you have a final thought to adjust for a minute?

Okay. I think he might have left as well. Iglika. Iglika left as well? Okay, Alain would you like to add one more last word?

>> ALAIN: Yes, I think if only it is very important to think carefully about the follow-up to (?)

And I think that we need also to communicate more about the benefits of assessment, the actions taken and the progress made back to the evaluation. Thank you.

>> MODERATOR GRIGORYAN: Thank you very much, Alain and one final word, Simon, you don't have to. Okay. So before I close, I would like to thank you all, to the speakers, so very much for all the work. And excellent cooperation that we had over the years. And thanks so much to CETIC, Alexandra and Fabio here, I brought Brazil report, the first report, I have only one copy but we are digital so you can see them online.

And also to all the speakers and experts online and to all the participants online. This discussion really will feed into the revision process. We have excellent input and recommendations from speakers which we will look at carefully while revising the document and we will be having another session of Dynamic Coalition, there's IGF Dynamic Coalition on universality indicators. The session will be on the 10th of  --  okay, sorry. On the 10th, I'm notified there's another question, but I'm really sorry, the time is up. The participant as well come to join on the session on Wednesday. It's at 2:40 local time. And it is in Room 11 or Room J. But we will be able to address the question, if you leave us, the participant can leave us their email address we will be happy to answer the question by sending an email. So thank you so much. All I know, it's been a very long session. But before we close, I invite all the speakers to have a family photo. And I would like to ask the online participants to please turn on your videos and finally, I should give thanks to the IUI team at UNESCO. And my colleagues have been working online, Karen Landa and Camila Gonzalez. Thank you very much for your moderation and hard work. I would like people to see your faces. I know it's a Sunday morning, early morning in Paris. But thank you so very much. Yes. And please, let's have a photo. Yes, you can get in up close, if you want.

[ Applause ]

Thank you very much.

Have the online participants as well.