FINISHED FILE

APRIGF

BRISBANE 2023

PARLIAMENTARY SESSION:  DAY 2
1 SEPTEMBER 2023
9:45
WELCOME REMARKS

Services provided by:
Caption First, Inc.
P.O. Box 3066
Monument, CO  80132
719‑941‑9557
www.captionfirst.com

This text, document, or file is based on live transcription.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.

>> ANJA GENGO: Well, good morning, everyone.  I hope you can hear me.  I am going to kindly ask you to take your seats, please, here on‑site in Brisbane.  And certainly I would like to welcome everyone who has joined us online.  I see a number of members of parliament present online coming from different regions, not just Asia Pacific.  And I especially would like to thank them because I do understand that the time zone is very challenging for those connecting from especially Europe and Africa.  
And with that, we will start just now.  First of all, this is the second day of the Parliamentary track that we are organizing in cooperation with the Asia Pacific IGF with the Government of Australia, also with support from auDA.  And I once again would like to thank all those partners for helping us to make this vision a reality.  
The past couple of days we've heard very interesting discussions, and I hope that today that trend will continue.  We are certainly continuing on a very interesting topic with very interesting lineup of speakers.  
And without further ado, I just would like to announce that our focus today really will be on building trust in digital environment, something that seems to be very fragile.  But the good thing is that it seems that this community is very much aware of the importance of that concept and works hard to understand where the issues are and, more importantly, what could be the ways forward to remedy that.  
In preparing for the 18th annual IGF in Kyoto, which is coming very soon, in just a little bit more than a month from 8 to 12 October, we will be setting the scene here, building a foundation at the Asia Pacific Regional IGF to understand what's the role of parliamentarians in Internet Governance.  And then you may know that we will continue this journey also through the African IGF, engaging with parliamentarians from around the world, but at the African IGF in Nigeria, which comes very soon in September.  
With that, I would like to invite the speakers of today's panel to join me on this stage.  First of all, Excellency, Mr. Brendan Dowling, Australia's Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Chris Cal Technology.  
We will also have Ms. Lefaoali'i Unutoa Auelua‑Fonoti, Chief Executive Officer, Ministry of communication & information technology of Samoa.  
And Ms. Joyce Chen, Senior Advisor, Strategic Engagement, with APNIC.  I hope you can join me here on the stage, and I want to thank you on behalf of the secretariat that all the partners organizing this track were accepting to open today's series of discussions.  
While the speakers are joining me, as I said, we are preparing for the IGF in Japan.  I think we are entering a finishing phase of the very intensive preparations.  And the parliamentary track will have quite a robust structure also in Kyoto.  And on that note, I think it would be nice ‑‑ and important ‑‑ that we start this session with a message coming directly from Japan, and I am going to ask our colleagues in the back, and certainly thank you for all the support so far, to prepare a pre‑recorded statement from Ms. Kunimitsu Ayano, Parliamentary Vice Minister for internal affairs & communication Japan, also a member of the Japanese Parliament.  If you could play the message, please.  Thank you.  
>> KUNIMITSU AYANO: Honorable Parliament members, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kunimitsu Ayano, Parliamentary Vice Minister for Internal Affairs and Communications in Japan.  It is a great pleasure and an honor to me to say a few words on behalf of Japanese government.  
First, I would like to extend congratulations to the members of the Asia Pacific Regional IGF and the host for your successful meeting.  We are pleased to be host country of Global IGF this October, which will give us an opportunity to promote an open, free Internet with multi‑stakeholder approach.  This year the key theme will be the role of parliamentarians in shaping digital.  We are planning to explore three areas which are important for global society, and they are, first, data governance; second, artificial intelligence, AI; and third, disinformation.  
These topics were also discussed at the G7 Ministers' Meeting Japan hosted this year.  The discussion covered how to ensure connectivity and how to achieve Internet parity among Internet Governance based on shared democratic barriers.  In particular, on AI, G7 leaders tasked the Ministers to establish Hiroshima AI Process to report on AI.  I am confident that IGF 2023 will be a valuable opportunity for this process to listen to your opinions from a wider range of stakeholders.  
We are planning to hold special sessions to promote Hiroshima AI process and would be happy if you are involved.  I recorded for you this discussion for these important topics with you in Kyoto ‑‑ I look forward to discussion on these important topics with you in Kyoto.  Thank you very much.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much to Vice Minister Ayano for this important message.  I think we can now move to this room.  
I would like to ask our panelists to help us set the stage, and then I am especially going to ask you to prepare yourself for engaging with the panelists and also among ourselves with questions and comments on this very important topic.  
Primarily I would like us to focus on what is the current situation in the Asia Pacific region specifically, but certainly globally as well, as we witness the increasing lack of public trust around concept of privacy, security, consumer protection, but also human rights.  What are the main challenges that policymakers face to help shape a trustworthy digital space in the region?  And then especially how can members of parliaments, as legislators, benefit from the mechanisms such as the regional IGF or the global IGF, the national IGFs especially, and it would be wonderful to hear also what is the perspective that we also have in terms of the expectations of us from members of parliaments, but also of parliaments speaking from the side of ‑‑ I would maybe like to ask Mr. Dowling to open the session with a couple opening remarks.  
>> BRENDAN DOWLING: I think I'll stay sitting.  Seems a bit more relaxed, particularly as we hope to have a bit of a discussion and hear questions or comments from those in the room or online.  
So I am Brendan Dowling.  I am Australia's Ambassador for Cyber Affairs and Critical Technology, and part of the reason why Australia established an ambassadorial role with the focus on digital technologies, technology security, cybersecurity, back in 2016 is to recognize that it's crucial that governments have a voice in how technology is being developed and deployed and how it's being designed so that it meets the expectations of our consumers for being able to use digital technologies in a safe and secure way.  
So it's really important that we have these types of gatherings, that we have the types of people we have in the room and online, who have a role in shaping what regulation looks like in the digital era, but who also engage with a really strong and vibrant multi‑stakeholder community to ensure that policies and regulations are designed with many voices having had the opportunity to input and shape it.  
The theme of this morning's discussion is really about trust in the digital age, and I think that's the pivotal concept that it's worth us spending a bit of time talking about.  
When we talk about trust, we are talking about how people feel engaging online in a myriad of ways, whether it's in their professional lives, in their social lives, in their cultural lives, in a way that they can feel confident that they are doing so in a safe environment, where their privacy is respected, where their information is secure, and where that they can feel that they have control and agency about how they participate and how their information is accessed, utilized, bought, sold in a way that's consistent with their rights, their privacy, and their expectations.  
That conversation about trust flows across the future of the Internet and Internet Governance.  It flows across online safety issues.  And it flows across cybersecurity.  
It's really clear to me in this region that a really preeminent concern that people have is activities like scams online, cybersecurity, malware, ransomware, disinformation and how they can trust the information they access online, and online safety issues.  We've seen things like the prevalence of cyber bullying, about content that is harmful being easily accessed and propagated online.  
I think it's worth talking about the experience in Australia last year around the incidents that affected Optus, second biggest telecommunications firm, and Medibank, our largest private health insurance provider, because both those incidents really went to the question of trust.  So within the space of a few weeks, more than 10 million Australians had their information compromised online through one or both of those incidents.  People saw in the Optus incident that their passport information, their driver's license, their bank details were all potentially available to malicious actors.  In the Medibank incident, it is even more alarming.  Not only was there that type of personally identifying information, but there was very sensitive health and medical information that had been accessed by a cyber criminal who the Australian government has identified as operating out of Russia.  And my experience working on those incidents at the time is that every morning I would wake up at around 6:00 a.m., and I would grab my phone while I was still in bed to check on what had been released by the cyber criminal overnight.  And for a series of mornings, what we saw was that he was releasing packages of information that held the most sensitive information about these Australian citizens and others who were concerned.  This was information relating to people who were seeking health treatment, sometimes for very sensitive conditions, sometimes very private conditions, sometimes for things that they might not have shared with their family members.  There were prominent people ‑‑ politicians and celebrities ‑‑ caught up in this.  And every morning there was that sense of dread and terror about what might be released as part of the disclosure of that information.  
Now, for me, I was coming at it from a government coordination perspective, how do we protect people who were affected by this breach.  I wasn't personally a Medibank customer, so there wasn't a personal risk involved for me, but many of my colleagues were.  So while we are working this incident, while we are looking at the impacts across Australian society, there are also many people within government who knew that their information had been caught up in either of these two incidents and had that sense of alarm about how they might personally be affected.  
For the Australian community, I think you cannot underestimate how important these incidents were for trust in the online environment.  You suddenly had cybersecurity, malware, ransomware being discussed around the kitchen table, in social settings, at bars and pubs, at church groups.  Everyone was talking about these incidents because so many people were affected.  And there was a lot of direct implications in terms of that information being compromised.  But the longer and more important implication was the undermining of trust in the digital environment.  People were asking, hold on a second.  I have shared my information.  I have trusted that these companies were able to secure it.  And that trust has been breached.  How else can it be breached?  How else ‑‑ what other companies or what other government agencies can be compromised in this way?  Should I be sharing my information online?  Should I be accessing these services online?  
And the massive risk for us through those incidents were that people would disengage.  And as we pursue a digital economy agenda, where more and more businesses are taking advantage of the opportunities that the digital domain represents, the commercial opportunities it represents, the better customer service that it represents, as more and more government agencies are moving their services online ‑‑ because that's what people expect, they expect to be able to access government services online in a quick and easy way ‑‑ if we saw that undermining of trust, then people would be less willing to engage in that way.  So the real cost is in that we don't have people confident to engage online.  
That's an example that we are seeing played out across this region, and in many ways it's being played out through things like scam activity, where people are increasingly conscious that their banking information, that the messaging they receive on their phone through WhatsApp might be compromised, might be coming from a malicious actor.  And all that goes to undermine the trust in the digital environment.  
Rightfully, we are now looking at how we can develop ways to preserve and build that trust.  And this means governments, like Australia's and governments throughout the region, are looking for ways that we can give our citizens the confidence that engaging online is a safe and secure place to be.  You've seen the Australian government enact a range of measures over the last few years, including increasing cybersecurity obligations on critical infrastructure, including measures to hold social media platforms accountable for the content that they have online, particularly when it comes to child abuse material or when it comes to terrorist content online.  And now the Australian government is looking at how we can more effectively deal with the issue of disinformation online, which threatens no less than to undermine the democratic integrity of the way our country operates.  
So it is right that parliaments and governments the region over are looking for ways to ensure that safety and security online is prioritized.  I think the important thing for me is that we do that in a way that's balanced.  If we do it the wrong way, if we overcorrect, we do risk setting up walled gardens around the world that undermine the interoperability of the digital domain.  
We talked a lot about Internet Governance.  The fragmentation of the Internet, I think, is a real prospect if governments overreach and go too far in saying we will have effectively sovereign borders around the Internet.  Now, that's not to say that governments shouldn't be trying to find ways to improve the safety and security of their citizens participating online.  It's not only important that we do that, but it's also a democratic responsibility.  If that's what the community is expecting, the governments need to find ways to respond.  However, that needs to be done in a way that's careful and that's balanced.  Otherwise we do risk undermining the very interoperability of the Internet, particularly if we get into the game of interfering with how data is transferred and transmitted globally.  If we look at the very architecture of how people access the Internet, we look at things like Internet shutdowns in locations or around certain timing, those sort of things can undermine the way that the Internet operates globally.  
So for me, this is an agenda which policymakers are wrestling with all over the region and all over the globe.  And we are looking at ways that we can find, that we can improve that safety and security online.  We are looking at ways to hold digital platforms and technology companies accountable.  And I think there's a lot to be done there.  I think you've seen Australia, as I said, enact legislation that introduces greater accountability, particularly on social media platforms.  As we develop our new cybersecurity strategy to be released in coming months, you will see the Australian government talk about expecting and requiring security by design in digital services and hardware, which is to say that companies should prioritize the cybersecurity, the safety of their devices, of their software before they come to market so that there's less onus on the end user to figure out that there is a malicious scam coming through or the domain name they are accessing has malicious content or coding on it.  So we are trying to find ways to increase the obligations of industry and companies in the digital domain, from software companies to hardware companies to telecommunication services, to find ways to help us build that confidence that people can participate safely online.  
But at the same time, the critical thing is doing that in a way that is balanced, that's transparent, that's subject to the rule of law and legislation that comes through parliaments with the accountability and the review that that brings, and that it's co‑designed with industry.  Many of the things that Australia has done in recent years have effectively been saying to industry:  Here's the objective that we want you to meet.  Now you figure out how to do it.  We are not going to prescribe to you exactly how you do it because you know your technology better than us.  You know your platforms better than us.  And so we want to give you the flexibility and the scope to design things that work in ways that are consistent with the great innovation, the great products that you have brought to market.  And we will not get in the game of being overly prescriptive about how these things should work.  
The concepts of safety by design or security by design are really critical here.  What both those concepts say is not that we are going to tell you how to design safe and secure products, but that we are going to say you must prioritize safety and security in the design of your products from the outset; that this is not an optional add‑on, that this is not something you bolt on after the fact, that this is not something that's just a sort of additional extra that you might think about later on in the piece while you prioritize functionality and speed to market; that you should be thinking about those concepts in the design of all your technologies.  
So to me, that's a crucial point as parliaments and policymakers look at this.  We need to be careful that we don't overcorrect, that we don't come down too hard in a way that has consequences for how our people can access technology or that has consequences for the very interoperability of our technology and of the Internet.  And the best way to do that is by engaging in transparent, multi‑stakeholder conversations that have civil society, that have academics, that have industry as part of the design process so that we can ensure that we don't hit any of those unintended consequences or that we don't overreach or that we don't do so in a way that plays into the types of agenda we are seeing authoritarian states running.  That's the strength of the way that he with approach these issues.  That's the strength of democracy, that we have open, participatory conversations around this.  And I think my message from our experience is that as any parliaments or policymakers look at this, it's important to not have these conversations in closed rooms.  It's important to not have these conversations only within government.  Invite a range of stakeholders into the conversation.  Let them help design this in a way that you can reap the benefits of digital connectivity without having so many of the costs that we are seeing rife at the moment.  
So I'll leave it there.  Thank you, Anja.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much, Ambassador.  Those are really important inputs.  I think I know you were speaking from the perspective of the region, but I am sure you would agree with me that this is very much reflective of the global nature of the issues we have.  
This is a very interesting region, Asian Pacific.  It's huge by range and population.  And it's diversified.  It's important we can speak from stable, developed economies, which we heard, fighting issues, which may be also fought by developing part of this region.  Small island developing states are fighting specific challenges when it comes to Internet Governance.  Things are more expensive, harder to reach.  And I am very glad that we have one representative of the day sitting on my right side, so I would like to stay in the region, stay with the governmental public sector, and hear specifically from Lefaoali'i about the perspectives coming from Samoa and SIDS speaking about the issues you specifically have in the Asia Pacific region.  
>> LEFOALI'I UNUTOA AUELUA FONOTI: Thank you, Anja.  
Your excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.  It is indeed an honor for me to speak at this great forum, where I believe it will be many to come and how it will shape the future of our region from a political perspective.  
Thank you for those who make it happen, and thank you for the invitation to be part of this, and thank you for taking the lead.  
Now, let me get straight into it by answering of the questions that we need to ask ourselves, as Anja has mentioned before.  And I think the current situation in the region includes a complex lack of public trust regarding privacy, security, consumer and human rights protection.  Some common concerns we observe include, you know, privacy concerns where there is a growing concern among the public about how their personal data is being collected, used, and shared by various digital platforms and services.  High‑profile data breaches and scandals have eroded public trust in organizations' ability to protect their sensitive information.  In the Pacific Island market, this is a huge concern, not only to us, Samoa, but across the border.  We have seen complaints about the different platforms ‑‑ TikTok, Facebook, social media, and all that ‑‑ and that's the biggest issue we have.  There is no collective one solution.  And it's because it's a huge issue that we need to work together as partners to come up with a solution.  Not only that, but we also have cybersecurity challenges.  The increasing frequency and sophistication of cyber attacks have highlighted vulnerabilities in digital systems and infrastructure.  Critical infrastructure, I should say.  These attacks not only compromise individual privacy but also disrupt critical services and erode public confidence in the overall security of digital spaces.  Cybersecurity is a pretty new issue in the Pacific, and although it was there for so long, it's a challenge for us in the Pacific region to work on these kind of cyber attacks.  And that's why we are very thankful for forums like this to acknowledge the help of our partners.  I would like to acknowledge in particular the Ambassador of Cybersecurity for Australia, Brendan.  He came all the way to Samoa to talk to us, not only to Samoa, but the other Pacific Islands, to talk to us about the challenges we are facing, what we need them to help us on.  And it was very rewarding.  When we arrived here on Sunday and I received an email that Brendan wants to have a meeting with us again on the first week of this forum.  And we sat down and we spoke about the many issues that we spoke about in Samoa.  And with him to come up with great news for us that they will be helping us in trying to solve these issues, especially we are having a Heads of Commonwealth Countries meeting that will be held in Samoa next year in October.  So that's part of the whole cybersecurity threat that we are facing at the moment, not only for us, but for the whole world that will be coming to Samoa, and that's why we are very thankful, we are very grateful for Brendan and the Australian government for their help, not only for Australian government, but we also get help from the New Zealand government.  And that's why during the Pacific IGF, I did highlight the importance of being partners, of helping each other to combat these issues, these problems.  
And also, one of the concerns, one of the challenges that we are facing in the Pacific and the current situation is of the misinformation and disinformation, as Brendan has already said.  The spread of fake news, misinformation, disinformation has undermined trust in digital information sources.  This has significant implications for public discourse and decision‑making.  In Samoa itself, just after the election three years ago, where the government was changed by the majority of voters, after 40 years in power, it was hard for the government to leave the offices.  It was very hard.  So people turned into fake pages, to create fake pages and use it as medium to personally attack other people.  And you know, it was ‑‑ families were divided.  Societies were divided.  The whole country was divided.  And we were reaching out at the time.  We were reaching out for help.  And I have to admit that I recognize that it's not unique to Samoa.  Every country has this problem.  And so we are working with our partners to work on it, to make sure that the correct information is given to our people.  
I would like to talk about the challenges that, you know, us policymakers face to help shape a trustworthy digital space in the region.  The main challenges that policymakers face is in shaping this region, first of all, the regulatory frameworks.  Developing and implementing effective legislations and regulations that balance innovation, economic growth, and user rights is a delicate task.  Striking the right balance requires a deep understanding of evolving technologies and their society impacts.  The absence of solution‑based provisions in most legislation is a worry.  I am specifically talking about the case of Samoa.  The legislature ‑‑ most of the legislature in Samoa are very old.  And our own Telecommunications Act 205, in my view, it's been long overdue.  But the problem is this has to be ‑‑ this has to be initiated by the Office of the Attorney General.  But I do also recognize that they also have a lot of other legislations to look at.  So it's important that we have, you know, establish frameworks that not only enable us to move forward but enable us to review them when we need to review them.  
The other thing, the other challenge is the international cooperation.  Many digital challenges are transnational in nature, such as cross‑border data flows and cyber crime.  Policymakers need to collaborate more internationally to address these challenges effectively.  
One other challenge is the technical understanding.  Digital technologies are complex, and policymakers often lack the technical expertise to create well‑informed regulation and policies.  Therefore, involving IT experts in the development of policies and legislations is vital to ensure that security and privacy factors are correctly addressed in regulations for both the private and public sectors in order to comply.  
The need for having a pool of experts in one country is a must and one of many priorities.  I spoke to the beautiful lady there on the understanding that she asked me what could be a major challenge in your country in terms of, you know, Internet Governance and many other things?  I said to her:  The lack of human resources.  It's a huge concern to us because it's not that we don't have people to do it.  We do have people.  We send them overseas for scholarships.  We pay for it.  Government pays for it.  They came back to Samoa and recognized that, you know, they can do much better in terms of salary in other countries than in Samoa.  So that's a challenge that we are trying to convince our lawmakers about to, you know, look at that because that's the root of all these problems that we are facing.  And government has to prioritize that.  
Also, we need to have more public engagement.  We need to get the trust of the people, the very people that we are serving, the very people that we come here to meet and get the ideas of how we are going to serve them.  So it's important that we get the involvement of the public in the decision‑making, especially in processes and policies.  I believe that effectively engaging citizens is essential to ensure that policies align with their expectations and needs.  
And I think that's all for now, and we'll elaborate more later.  Thank you, Anja.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you.  Thank you very much for also expanding the narrative around we are setting today our discussion.  
I am very glad that the infrastructure as a term was mentioned by both of our speakers coming from the public sector.  And Joyce, you have been working in that domain primarily for years, since I have known you.  So I would like you to ask just to maybe complement what we've heard so far from the perspective of the Asia Pacific, and especially from the technical community perspective, what do you see as the biggest issues in the region around building trust in the digital environment?  
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thanks very much, Anja, and Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, good morning.  I want to also thank Anja from the Secretariat for inviting me to this session and also a warm welcome especially to parliamentarians as well.  
So I come from Singapore, which I was explaining to Lefaoali'i earlier, is an island that doesn't embrace island life, ironically.  And I am now based in Brisbane, where the APNIC office is, and that's the Asia Pacific National Center.  I wear multiple hats.  For this session, I might need to put a different one on for various points in time.  I mentioned APNIC.  It's a regional Internet registry.  We allocate and manage the IP addresses and Autonomous System Numbers in the Asia Pacific region.  I am also on the IGF MAG, which is really primarily where I am sitting in this session today, representing the technical community.  And of course, I am in the organizing committees of the Asia Pacific regional IGF and also local IGFs.  
So I will be very happy to engage with you wearing any one or even all of my hats.  But for today, I want to frame my remarks around the fact that, as Anja mentioned, I think, in her first remarks, that the Asia Pacific is incredibly diverse, as you may expect.  When it comes to hot issues and Internet Governance, there are bound to be competing interests.  So for this session, I want to focus on common themes that are more universal and cross‑cutting for the region.  
And we saw at the APrIGF that took place this week that there were many vibrant and passionate discussions.  I believe there were about 250 participants on‑site, which is great, and also quite a number joining us remotely.  We were very, very happy to have had the opportunity to also welcome NetThing, which is the local Australian IGF, and Pacific IGF, to be held in conjunction with us.  
So APNIC is a very strong supporter of each of these Internet Governance processes since the very beginning.  So at the IGF ‑‑ I'll come back to it ‑‑ we are really trying to make sense of universal rights.  Right?  And where they might relate to Internet Governance.  There are lots of issues that you've heard from the speakers before me to do with access, connectivity, inclusion.  I want to add on gender and diversity.  We also heard about security and privacy, emerging and new technologies, and even content moderation and regulation.  And these are topics that come out a lot as well at the IGF, and at the respective national and regional initiatives.  
So I will try to give a brief overview of those issues that are closer to the heart in this very diverse region.  So for this region, I see that access and inclusion are intricately linked.  It's quite difficult to talk about one in isolation without the other.  We have 12 countries in the Asia Pacific that are least developed countries according to the UN, and three of which are from the Pacific.  There are many countries in this region that also have large rural populations and communities, so there are strong and practical concerns around basic connectivity and bridging the digital divide.  And of course, we also have to talk about affordability.  This is something that people care very much about in this region.  
So the Pacific IGF held two days of discussions this week, and they were very much focused as well on these issues and trying to find practical solutions and ways to cooperate better.  For this region, Internet shutdowns is another issue that, you know, whether it's due to technical issues or otherwise, is also very prevalent.  I won't go into specific examples today, but it is something that I wanted to highlight, and I think that Ambassador Dowling also did mention in his speech.  
So I've mentioned that Asia Pacific is very diverse, and in the IGF, this is also reflected.  We celebrate and uphold diversity, gender equality, and safety of access affect everybody ‑‑ everybody.  The APNIC Foundation has a fantastic program called Switch!  It empowers women and the LGBTQIA+ community to take ownership of their career development in ICT and also provide opportunities to grow.  
Now, unfortunately for this region, and especially we hear every year at the APrIGF, there's always discussion about gender violence online.  It's still very much present, and I hope that we can find better solutions to this and try and bring things forward.  
Ambassador Dowling spoke very eloquently about the issues of cybersecurity and trust.  At the IGF, of course, we also have these discussions about how to build trust and confidence amongst citizens to use technologies and applications online.  And I want to highlight as well the role of cyber norms to inform best practices so they don't work in isolation.  Again, they are very much linked.  
What I will add is that in recent years, it's permeated our consciousness, I have observed in our conversations that security has to be balanced with privacy.  SO the EU GDPR, which is the general data protection regulation, sort of sparked off a lot of thinking and discussion in that area.  And consequently, what we see for this region is a flurry of data protection laws and cybersecurity laws, and very much strengthening in these areas.  What I hope to see is cyber security and data protection work together and for each other rather than in isolation, so communities in both these areas can really benefit from the intersection of topics.  
   In Asia Pacific, there are many innovations and early adopters of emerging and new technologies; however, we still see barriers to entry, you know, the availability of such technologies in certain countries.  And I was privileged to participate in some of the sessions of the Asia Pacific Youth IGF ‑‑ so there's the APrIGF, but there is also a youth component to the IGF ‑‑ and I was very struck by the conversations around the impact of emerging and new technologies on the future of work and employment.  So people are curious, you know, about new technologies, and as humans, it's built into our DNA to be curious.  But because they are new, inevitably, we are going to talk about the ethical use of these technologies, you know, discrimination and bias, and of course, whether there is trust and accountability.  
So I think around the world, not just in this region, we are seeing a trend towards more regulation, not only on emerging technologies, of course, but also content moderation.  Understandably, there has been great concern over misinformation, disinformation.  Lefaoali'i also spoke about that at length earlier.  And I expect that even new technology, such as ChatGPT, deep fakes, they are going to make the issue a lot worse.  They will exacerbate this issue.  
But coming from the technical community, however, I do want to sort of say that our focus is mainly on ensuring the seamless connectivity of the Internet.  This is where I am also sort of addressing Anja and your question earlier about the technical communities take on these things, is that we are tasked to ensure that the Internet remains open, stable, and secure.  And that means having an open and safe environment for people to connect and build their communities.  So in a way, it is my gentle way of saying that, you know, we also need to be moderate about content moderation.  
So by introducing these topics and their focus in this region, I hope I haven't given the impression that they should be dealt with in a pigeonhole manner.  These topics are very much interconnected.  But also to draw your attention that the Internet underpins all these issues; right?  And really allows these areas of discussion to flourish.  
So the IGF 2023 is an opportunity for this region to gather and find ways to cooperate.  I think it's been many years since we have had the opportunity to host an IGF in this region, and it's something that we really want to grasp that opportunity.  And I want to echo Lefaoali'i, what she said about the importance of partners and helping each other.  I think that's something that needs to be very much present in our discussions at the IGF.  It's also going to be an exercise for us to discuss difficult issues and trying to find where the common ground is on many of these issues.  
It is both a blessing and a curse, I think, that the IGF is not action oriented, as we have heard a lot in the past week.  You know, should the IGF be more action oriented?  What are the outcomes of the IGF beyond the key messages that the IGF produces every year?  But I'd really like to say that the IGF, as it is now, does enable that freedom to think, you know, to discuss, and to allow the community to choose the actions that might best fit their purpose.  Right?  Rather than to try and find a one‑size‑fits‑all solution.  So that different governance problems and, obviously, there should be and should require different solutions.  
And finally, in closing, I want to now put on my APNIC hat, and if you allow me to exploit the opportunity here at this session to mention the APNIC conference that will be taking place in Kyoto in about two weeks, and where we will be celebrating our 30th birthday.  We hope to celebrate it with all of you.  You can join us in person, and if not, online.  Thank you.  
(Applause) 
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much, Joyce.  This is separate from the IGF in Kyoto.  We are going to go to Kyoto, come back, and then go again.  
>> JOYCE CHEN: Yes, absolutely.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Good.  Thank you very much for setting the theme on very rich content on a complex and certainly broad topic.  I have a feeling many of you will make it maybe even more complicated if you challenge some ideas or add, maybe, your experiences.  So I do open the floor now, and I invite comments and questions.  Questions can come to the panelists, can come to the whole room, but I would like us to make a friendly, warm dialogue on something that affects us all, as we just heard from our panelists.  
While you are preparing your interventions, I already have one request for intervention, and I especially would like to thank member of Parliament coming from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Ayobangira Safari Nshuti, MP, from Congo Kinshasa.  Thank you for connecting with us.  You have the floor.  We would like to hear from you perspectives coming from the African region as well.  How do they reflect on what we have heard so far from our panelists? 
>> AYOBANGIRA SAFARI: Can you hear me?  
>> ANJA GENGO: I see you are speaking, but we cannot hear you.  Give it a couple of seconds to see if we have some audio issue that can be quickly resolved.  
We can hear you now, yes.  
>> AYOBANGIRA SAFARI: I am Ayobangira Safari from Congo in DRC, and I am very glad to be part of the meeting.  Just the issue of the time zone, we are not on same time zone, so here we are almost 2:00 a.m.  Actually, I am not in Kishasa.  I am in Eastern of DRC.  
Being in Africa, especially DRC, is it's not very easy for us to put on the table of the institution topics like Internet Governance.  Regarding the other issues we are facing, like the security issue we have.  We have a problem of the security, so the government are more concerned on things like security and those things.  So putting on the table of the government or the other departments topics like Internet Governance is not easy.  And myself, I had to come on the discussion of Internet Governance through a friend, a young friend from the civil society who added me in the loop, so I was able to take part to the IGF in Berlin in 2019.  And from there, I noticed that us, Africa in general and DRC, we have to make effort to join the others and contribute on the debate.  Because Internet is a powerful tool that can help us, our country, to recover from the time we are behind in terms of development, but Internet is a powerful tool that can enable our country to jump and join the developed countries in terms of development of progress.  And we cannot just use a tool that we don't know how it is managed, how it works, and how the governments of that tool the Internet is done.  That's why I think besides dealing with those big issues like war, peace, we have also to be in Parliament involved in this debate of Internet Governance.  I think it's a good strategy from the IGF to make it a multi ‑‑ what do I say?  I am not very strong in English.  I normally speak more French.  I try to speak English.  But to make that the discussion, the forum, the IGF involved.  Different persons from different ‑‑ from the government, from the society, from NGO, from tech, and from my side, it was more easy for me to join because, first of all, I am healthy, yes, and I am used to those tools.  But I also have myself a background in IT, so it was more easy for me to understand the Internet itself.  Now as an MP also to see the issue of governance, how we can make sure that we, through the law, through other things, through the institutions, we can build trust, we can build trust on Internet.  And for us, the major concern is to see how we can recover the gap.  Because you are still behind.  We are still behind, and we have ‑‑ we don't have that kind of strong administration that can follow up, like this debate which has taken many years, which has started since 2006, I think.  But you know, in our country, when a government changes, not only the President.  Even if only the ministers change, all the projects, you have to start by zero.  There's no any kind of continuity.  So it's very useful when there is a forum like IGF where even if someone came and joined after us, they will be able to recover and to continue with you.  
But I am very happy to be with Parliament from Asia and Pacific region.  In next two weeks, we have also to organize our own for Africa region, and it will be a very good occasion for us to exchange, first of all, between us in Africa, and now to join you in Kyoto with other colleagues from other regions and see how we can also get some brainstorming and get some good practice from other parliaments how they are working together with their government, with the NGOs to build that trust, the trust on Internet, the trust on data.  Like there's another issue ‑‑ there's an issue, I was working on a policy group in a talk on AI, like the trust, how can you trust that something is really real or it was not made by AI?  Like pictures, video, even some voices.  We should think about that one.  
And us as a country, we are still behind on that level of discussion because we have those issues, as I say, war and security which are more critical for us.  But we still need also to give our input, to make sure that the Internet that is being built, we are also part of it.  We are not only the user of Internet, but we are also the contributor of the Internet, and the Internet that will be there will be an Internet that will also be matching our interests, interests of our people, even if they are not really aware about all those discussions because of data issues, but at least we make sure that we try to get as much as possible input from our country and to put it on the table so we can make sure that really the Internet is ‑‑ we have one Internet for everyone.  Thank you very much.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much, Ayobangira, first of all, for joining at that hour, but also for your very valuable inputs and for bringing up the concepts of pressing digital divide.  Unfortunately, that's a reality for our world, as well as lack of awareness with our current decision‑making mechanisms to make or resolve the issues that we see.  
I just want to see, I do see a couple of comments, very interesting comments, in the Chat, so I would like to see if somebody would like to take the floor from Zoom or here from the room.  I don't want to put anyone on the spot, but I think it will be good also to hear perspectives coming particularly from the civil society, as the largest stakeholder group in IGF and the one that in democratic society stands as a corrective tool to others.  
I don't see any currently raised hands.  I think we have one hand.  Yeah, please.  Please, yes, take the floor, yes, then we'll go to Phyo in Zoom.  
(Microphone not on) 

>> Thank you.  The public is starting to get distant and, at the same time, more disengaged.  That was the impression I got.  
So I want to speak to that.  I have worked in the capacity of a contractor, freelancer, in various organizations.  And my role has never directly had to do with governance.  These are areas of interest for me, so I have been a specialist or technical person.  And at the same time, in the community, I also organize community meetings and facilitate workshops as well, so that's me today, more technical community.  I speak with a lot of people as well, and I confirm what you are saying as trends the last few years.  I see that people are more aware of their doorbell when it's connected to Wi‑Fi, or for the media at home, they come to our workshops.  I see general public coming, and they want to see there is an open‑source thing that they can put in their computer where they are sharing media.  
So I want to add a perspective to that in my professional experience.  In 2014, I signed up with iiNet for my rental, and in the very first few days in my interaction as a customer, I sensed, like, that there was something wrong in the way the technical details were handled as a customer.  A few days later, user password was leaked, a lot of information was leaked.  So I am referring to the concept of weak signals in systems.  In that case, it would be really hard for iiNet to be able to keep up in the sense I had and utilize it.  But I think there is a possibility for bigger corporations and government entities to tap into these weak signals from people who come and watch in the organizations.  And I have personally had the experience of raising a contract in an organization I worked with, and it was not taken, and in some incidents, months later issues happened.  And I am sure I am not the only person who experienced it.  But maybe where we can start is by ‑‑ from your perspective, being more proactive in facilitating the flow of information where it's not necessarily ‑‑ it's not my job to point out security issues.  It's difficult for me to follow that through.  I can only make a comment and move on.  So maybe if the organizations are more proactive about identifying those and trying to facilitate that information to be amplified it can find its way.  
So this is more of an observation and comment, but I would also like to hear if there is something happening in that regard, if there's a framework or an organization that when next time someone comes to me and raises that there is a complaint or suggestion, I can point them at that organization, or it might be a process.  Thank you.  
>> BRENDAN DOWLING: I think that that's really interesting observations and great comments in terms of how we actually make those processes work in a way that's not just talking about having open engagement between government and the technical community or other stakeholders, but actually making it happen.  
I think my observation after many, many years working in government is Internet Governance is, in many ways, unique in terms of policy area for government.  When you look at other elements of infrastructure that government has involvement with, there's often a much smaller group of industry stakeholders and government stakeholders that are working to manage how infrastructure is delivered, how it's governed, how it's sort of regulated.  
The Internet is a really unique thing in the sense that there's such a broad community of people who make it work.  I think we haven't been very good within government about appreciating how many stakeholders, how wide a community, how many varied perspectives there are in the community that need to be part of that Internet Governance conversation and need to be part of that security and safety in the digital domain conversation.  Because it's just not the way we are sort of geared up around normal policy and regulatory issues.  Particularly with stakeholders not necessarily being inside our borders.  So pinning down here is a community of people we need to be engaging with, knowing that they are spread across the globe, that they come from many different perspectives is really, I think, a challenging thing for all of us to get right.  So I still think we are on that journey, but I think we are getting better at it.  We are getting better at that multi‑stakeholder approach to actually formulating policy, to actually responding to the types of concerns that you have raised, and doing so in a much more open and transparent way.  
So that's all to say I think you are right.  We need to kind of structuring and embed those avenues for engagement, and we need to be less afraid from within government about having those types of channels that are open for anyone and everyone to engage with us.  I think, you know, in terms of how we actually make that happen, you've got people like me where my role is to be out there talking to people like you and to get engaged in these conversations.  You'll have my details after this, there is an open door.  You've got people like Richard and Ayn, this is what they do, get out and talk to individuals about Internet Governance and what Australia's position is.  You've got organizations like our eSafety Commission, which looks heavily at online safety issues.  Our Cybersecurity Center which engages around cybersecurity issues.  So there's a range of ways that you can interact and be in contact with the Australian government, which I am happy after this to talk to you further about.  But I think it is really crucial, and I think we do have a much better understanding of the need for that open lines of communication.  But it is something that is not necessarily in the DNA of how government operates and has required a bit of a shift in how we engage with the community.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much.  Joyce, you will remember, as a MAG member, when the IGF was subject for intensive consultations to reformat, to an extent, by proposal from the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation.  We spoke about the concept of help desks.  Your question reminded me, if something goes wrong, who do you call?  It seems like while we at the global level are still trying to understand how that idea could become, maybe, some sort of a reality, it seems that the shift goes back to the local levels, to the national levels, and there are already some good practices there.  
So I want to maybe give the floor to Joyce.  I know you will comment also on this question, as it's very close to the work of the IGF, but also to your work with APNIC.  
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thank you very much, and also wanted to follow up on Ambassador's remarks that I appreciate that you used the term "multi‑stakeholder approach."  A lot of people in this space use "multi‑stakeholder model" as if it is just the one thing, without realizing there can be many, many different models in that approach.  And I think that's the beauty of sort of the system and the processes, is that it's very flexible.  And one of the most concrete examples would be the NRIs in the IGF.  Right?  The national regional initiatives.  They all work autonomously.  They do report back activities to the IGF.  But it's not a top‑down thing.  The IGF doesn't define for the NRIs how their work should be done, what they should talk about.  It's very much bottom up.  It's very much decided by the communities that are formed.  And how they are formed, the rules of engagement are also very different across the different communities as well.  So when we talk about the multi‑stakeholder approach, there isn't a one way of doing things.  There are multiple ways of doing it.  And even in the Internet organizations ourselves, we have different ‑‑ slightly different multi‑stakeholder models from one another.  Although you will find that perhaps when you speak to someone from ICANN or from APNIC, we will say we have the best model, of course.  So yes, I like the approach we have talked about, which is the multi‑stakeholder approach.  It's really up to you and your community to define your rules of engagement and how you are going to come together to come to consensus and make decision.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you.  Thank you very much, Joyce.  
We have one question in Zoom, then I will come back to you, if you don't mind.  So Phyo, please, you have the floor, then we are coming back to the room.  
>> PHYO TRL:  Thank you, Anja, for giving me the floor.  And thank you, all speakers, for sharing your insights.  
This is Phyo from the YCIG, and also representing (audio fading in and out) 
The first question will be how the government in countries like Australia are cooperating with the governments from the ‑‑ for addressing related to the Internet issue and also empowering them to get in the Internet Governance community.  Because I ‑‑ based on my limited knowledge and based on my limited observation, I don't see many government from the least developed countries and the doling countries, especially from the Asia Pacific regions, are not very much engaging in the Internet Governance community.  So ‑‑ but maybe I don't know, so I am here to ask about it.  And know question would be is there any GDP project, such as Internet project, that are supporting these nations in order to help them or support them for (?) like the center for cyber security.  That question will be is there any approach from the IGF MAG, any strategic approach from the IGF MAG to reach out to these governments to more get in the Internet Governance community by raising their voices and also engaging with the different multi‑stakeholders in these communities?  
Thank you very much. 
>> JOYCE CHEN: Thanks very much, Phyo, for the questions.  I will put on my Internet Hat to say as an Internet registry, while our work is on IP addresses and Internet resources, our core mission is actually really on Internet development in the region.  So we do a lot of capacity building in this area, and I won't belabor the point, but I do want to call back, I think it was Lefaoali'i who said ‑‑ talked about how to develop professionals in the Pacific especially, and you know, keeping all that knowledge and expertise in the Pacific region, for example.  And so APNIC doesn't just go out and do training.  We also have train‑the‑trainer program.  We do have a community trainer that is based in the Pacific, for example.  I think he spreads his time between Samoa and Fiji and does help us with training in the region.  And so we think of capacity building in more of a holistic manner.  It's not just about going in and, you know, providing that knowledge and then we leave.  We really are very, very entrenched into, you know, developing that expertise within that region for the region according to their needs.  So that's what I would like to say about that.  
On the IGF MAG, the question, was it also around capacity building?  I kind of lost my train of thought.  So what do we provide ‑‑ cooperation with governments.  Exactly.  
So again, several layers.  The MAG members themselves ‑‑ so perhaps one thing I want to bring up is that we, on the MAG, do not represent our organizations or where we come from.  We actually function as individuals.  So if anything is ‑‑ for example, myself, I am just representing the technical community when that makes sense.  For example, in discussing the program.  But that doesn't stop us from bringing IGF the key messages, the processes to talk to our own governments or the governments that we may have contact with.  So that's one layer.  
But there's actually another layer, which is the IGF Leadership Panel that was just newly established ‑‑ well, not very new now by this time.  But one of their roles is to do outreach to governments, to have high‑level representation, to be able to do outreach on behalf of the IGF.  That is part of their core mandate is to do that.  So yes, there is effort to do a lot of outreach work in this area, to answer your question.  I would say not so much in terms of actual practical cooperation, if that's what you are thinking about, in terms of real activities, but I do know for individual MAG members, for example, we do a lot of local work and work in the region, if that helps.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Phyo, I think we will also address your question in the closing comments.  I am waiting.  I would like to go back to the room.  You said you would like to ask a question, please.  
>> Hey, Anja.  Good morning to you.  My name is (?) a think tank based in Canberra.  And over the many years, we have been working in our region talking about, let's say, some security issues, but also the different means of governance.  And just kind of reflecting on the topic of this session, and I think one of your opening lines, which is kind of where does kind of a regional perspective sit into kind of the board of IGF, and where do we indeed see a lack of public trust around privacy, consumer, and human rights, I think you said at the very beginning.  
And I wonder, so I am trying to package a few observations into a sort of question.  Whether our region kind of stands out, let's say, in contrast to, let's say, Europe or Africa or Latin America in a way where generally we are fairly comfortable and confident with a level of government intervention kind of in the technology and digital, Internet space.  Whether that's for, I think as our friend from Samoa mentioned, protecting communities from online harms.  Whether it's, for instance, in Australia, where I think the Ambassador mentioned the Medibank and Optus Bank, where there was great comfort in governments stepping up and going after the criminals, if that, let's say, frightened quite a few even like‑minded partners in other parts of the world, saying where is Australia going with this?  But it didn't spark a debate inside Australia, let alone inside Parliament House.  
Or if you look at Southeast Asia, where there is also great comfort in government taking a relatively strong role in Internet Governance or even controlling the Internet.  
So I wonder whether the proposition that there is an increasing lack of public trust is actually true and whether it's kind of this community, let's say the technical community, which is experiencing that discomfort with an increasing public trust in government intervention and with governments also stepping up, let's say, that some of their intervention methods, whether that's through probably irresponsible means or responsible means, let's say, through ‑‑ let's say legislation and regulation, which can be defendable.  So that's one thing I wanted to share.  
The other thing ‑‑ and when you look, I think, about the role of parliaments or kind of civilian oversight, I think we also are in a situation, in contrast to many other parts of the world, where our parliaments and parliamentarians are largely, I think, followers of the debate and of the agenda rather than shaping the debate or the narrative and the agenda.  
Just as an example, I think in a couple of weeks or maybe one or two months we will be publishing a report which is is survey of knowledge and understanding on cybersecurity and technology issues amongst the members of Parliament, both House of Representatives and Senate.  I think only 5% of members responded.  But if you look at their responses, it's almost one and one the same kind of narrative and same line that's been set by government.  So I think we also have an issue of, let's say, parliamentarians being confident and comfortable in kind of shaping the narrative that they want for their constituents, for their public, rather than kind of following the line of governments in a way.  
So those were some of the observations in terms of whether the framing of the debate here is actually correct and whether it is mostly kind of the discomfort sits with us, this community, which is that the role of government, the role of parliament in the technology and Internet Governance debate is becoming very much a reflection of kind of what's been happening kind of in the offline world and what's the state of the offline world when it comes to, let's say, the level the democracy, the level of civil space, the level of freedom of expression, et cetera.  
>> ANJU MANGAL: Thank you.  Thank you very much for those comments, and I think the perspective you put now on the table means that we would need one additional session to discuss the concept.  It's very valuable, and thank you very much.  
But unfortunately, we are running out of time, and blame it on me, please, that we are reducing the break, but I think there's a great value to stay a couple more minutes in this room just to hear concluding remarks from our panelists.  
And on that note, certainly I would like you to reflect on everything that's been heard so far.  I think we had very good interventions coming from the floor.  But I would like you to also focus a little bit on the concept of cooperation because all three of you mentioned that in your introductory remarks.  And I ‑‑ maybe to start ‑‑ maybe I'll start in reverse order now.  Maybe we can start from Joyce.  Joyce, you spoke about the need for working together between data protection lawmakers and cybersecurity lawmakers.  What's the role of other stakeholder groups when it comes about the work of legislators?  
>> JOYCE CHEN: I am also going to try and build some comments into what Bart had asked and commented on as well.  
I think the IGF especially is that gathering space for people with very different stakeholder group backgrounds to converse about issues; right?  And I think that is something that parliamentarians can best leverage when they are there, is to have that meeting of minds and to be able to meet exactly the subject matter experts that you would need that knowledge from in many different things.  So you know, Anja, you are asking me about cybersecurity and data protection, and who else needs to be in the room?  Well, really, everybody because the laws would affect everyone, all the citizens that are involved.  So we are talking not just, you know, civil society.  There's also contributions that can be made from the committees that develop the technologies for which those laws will have an impact on.  We are also talking about users themselves who would have to think about their way of using those technologies and their role in things and understanding what their requirements are.  And so I think that when we talk about, you know, multi‑stakeholderism and the IGF, that is where a lot of these conversations can take place because everybody is going to be there.  So I will close here by saying, you know, the IGF is a very welcoming, very friendly place.  And I do hear sometimes governments coming up to me to say, well, you know, are we going to talk about very controversial things?  Is it going to be uncomfortable?  And I try to tell them yes, we have individuals who are vocal and passionate, you know, and passionately vocal about the things that they care about.  But we want to have people who care about things at the IGF.  That's the good thing.  
The other thing is that we always try and be a respectful place.  We try and respect people's opinions on issues.  Right?  And we also hold the tenet that every voice is equal or, rather, every person has the equal access to have a voice or an opinion on something.  And that's something that we feel very strongly about as well.  
And so regard the IGF as a safe space to really air out some of these issues that you otherwise would not be able to in other sort of more formal settings.  Right?  And you have all these conversations in the corridors.  You can have all these informal conversations with other experts.  I think that's the beauty of the IGF is that gathering.  So I will close it there and hope that that encourages those of you who might still be on the fence, you know, should I be in Kyoto for the IGF, to really think about that.  You know, maybe you'd want to come and meet some of us.  Yeah.  And we'd love to meet you.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you.  Thank you very much, Joyce.  
Lefaoali'i, in your introductory remarks, you spoke about a really interesting word that I like.  You used the term "partners."  In the way you interacted with different stakeholders here at the APrIGF.  You also spoke about the cooperation that exists between the Government of  Australia and the Government of  Samoa in supporting the additional capacity‑development building.  And I want to ask you now about the value that you see of the coming to the IGF and how that can help maybe the country, especially in the context of digital capacity development?  
>> LEFOALI'I UNUTOA AUELUA FONOTI: Thank you very much.  That's a very important question.  And I would like to answer the question from the parliamentarian IGF relationship and partnership.  I see this as a very important forum.  And you know, parliamentarians need to be informed of the technological issues that shaped our environment, that shaped how we grew up, that shaped how, you know, our personalities, that shape how our kids or children grow up differently from when we grew up ourselves.  
But it's important for me for the fact that this is a knowledge‑sharing platform, that for me it's very important.  Because the IGF provides a platform for parliamentarians to learn about the latest developments, the challenges and best practices in the digital space.  From all of you experts, policymakers, civil society representatives.  They are the most important stakeholders of all these things that we are trying to discuss.  And also the networking that this platform provides for the parliamentarians.  They can connect to their colleagues from other regions.  And I would like to see more of the members of parliaments' presence or, you know, as Joyce has mentioned, maybe a little bit more of formal interaction of member of parliaments, you know, share their experiences and collaborate and common challenges.  And it's very important for these to learn from each other and request help from each other when it's needed.  
Also, the policy insights.  The participating of parliamentarians in IGF sessions allow them to gain insights into innovative policy approaches that can inform ‑‑ you know, that inform them to make legislative efforts effectively for different countries.  This is very much needed for their own capacity and development.  
And also, the advocacy for, you know, for the interests, for the interests of the people, for the interests of their country, the success stories and, you know, challenges, and you know, for them to highlight pressing issues that are facing different countries.  Let's look at the Pacific for example.  Climate change.  I haven't seen a ‑‑ much impact of discussion or Internet Governance on climate change.  Surely there are, you know, aspects of it that, you know, that we need to discuss and pay attention to.  
So in terms of expectation from IGF, I think parliamentarians will very much be able to identify solutions that will take back with them to their countries, and the spirit of collaboration.  You know, this is very important to me because I grew up in a country that, you know, I can't do anything by myself.  The Ministry of Communication can't work unless I am working with the Office of the Regulator.  But you know, there's a conflict there because the Office of the Regulator has to be the monitoring enforcement side of the ICT sector.  And the Ministry is the policy arm.  So there is a conflict there.  But I have no choice but to work with them, you know, in the spirit of partnership, in the spirit of working together.  
And of course, the enhancement of accountability on the part of the parliamentarians.  You know, they will be able to show their commitment to being accountable and transparent in shaping the digital future for one's country.  So that's very important.  
So overall, I think the regional IGF serves as a vital platform for parliamentarians to engage in global digital discussions.  That partnership is very important.  We can learn from each other's experiences and contribute to building a trustworthy digital environment in their respective regions.  Thank you.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much, and I now would like to give the floor to the Ambassador.  You are most welcome to reflect on the discussion so far, concepts of trust, comments that came from the floor.  I especially would like you to reflect on the words that you have used when you spoke in the opening saying that you are co‑designing with industry, laws, like the new cybersecurity strategy, and you used the words "you know better than us," so we need each other in terms of this cooperation.  So what's the value also with the IGF with that level of awareness on your side?  
>> BRENDAN DOWLING: I didn't realize I said you know better than us.  Maybe I regret that.  
(Laughter) 
I think ‑‑ and I think, Bart, your observations are really quite powerful in, I think, the tension of policy‑making around the Internet and what the future of Internet Governance looks like.  
I think the challenge for all of us is that the Internet, as we know and love it, was built and run by a technical community operating outside of government kind of structures and institutions, and that's what's made it into the amazing piece of technology and infrastructure that we have today.  And I think what we can't do is just hang on to the past of how it's worked and hang on and hope that we can preserve the early sort of decades of the Internet's operation and the preeminent role of the technical community to the exclusion of other stakeholders like government.  I think those times have passed because the Internet has become, arguably, the single most important piece of infrastructure that the globe has.  
It also has become the means by which many transnational crimes are being committed every day in every country on this globe.  So whether, I think, it's desirable, whether it's something that people are comfortable with, the fact is that governments are going to take a more activist and interventionist role in the governance of the Internet for the future.  
I think the art of what we have to achieve as a community is how to do that in the right way that doesn't lead to the end of the things that have been great about how the Internet operates.  
One of the challenges for an Australian ‑‑ for a government like Australia is that we are trying to carefully, sensibly, in a consultative way address some of the harms that we have seen being perpetrated using infrastructure that is part of the Internet.  And we run the risk that the sort of arguments we mount about how important it is for there to be safety and security online can be co‑opted, can be hijacked, can be repurposed by authoritarian governments to say, yes, of course, we agree with Australia and governments should take more control of the Internet.  And the end result of that, I think, is the end of the Internet, the globally interoperable Internet, as we know it.  I think what we see in some of the multilateral conversations, including at the UN, is some of the language that authoritarian governments use to exercise greater control of access to the Internet, to exercise greater control of interoperability and the flow of data over the Internet are finding their way into multilateral conversations, are finding their way into language around exercises like the Global Digital Compact.  And we have to be extremely careful that we don't get ourselves dragged down a path that, for the right reasons and for responding to the community concerns, which it is a job of government to do, that we actually end up playing into some of these agendas, which would see the global Internet fragmented into state‑run, state‑orchestrated, state‑controlled, splintered Internets the world over.  And I think there is a real danger of that.  
I think for us coming from the government community, it's really important that we are careful about Lou we tackle that, and it's really important that we focus on preserving what makes the Internet work in the way that we love today, which is the technical interoperability, it is a multi‑stakeholder approach, and it is a consensus‑based approach.  And as you said, Anja, on many of these things, there is many people in the technical community who have been working around these issues for decades, and it is true, you do know better than us, and we do need to be involved in deep conversations and do this in a measured, careful, considered way, which doesn't takes us down the path of trying to hang on to the past in a way that is not possible, but also doesn't play into the gender of authoritarian governments globally that are looking for state‑run, nationally run mini‑Internets the world over.  There is no black‑and‑white sort of way to handle that.  I think it's something that gets calibrated over time and can only be done effectively with forums like the IGF, with forums like regional gatherings like this with what's coming up in Kyoto as well globally, but being open to we have a shared interest here, and there is a way we can all win, but there is a bad scenario which is by no means played out.  To emphasize these interactions, back and forth are what's really crucial here.  
>> ANJA GENGO: Thank you very much to Ambassador, our dear panelists, thank you very much for questions coming from the floor, through Zoom.  We have had a rich discussion.  I think Bart mentioned over 35% responded to the survey you have done.  I contribute also inputs from the secretariat to say that it's very challenging to engage members of parliament from all the countries into the parliamentary track, which probably altogether calls for all of us to invest even more in this parliamentary track.  And I sincerely would like to thank you for supporting the parliamentary track, and I look forward to continuing these discussions in Kyoto in October.  
Mini break, then we are going into the second panel.  Carlos, apologies, but this was very important to continue.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.  
(Applause) 

APrIGF 

Brisbane 2023 

Parliamentary Session:  Day 2 
1 September 2023 
   11:30  
Governing Data in the Asia‑Pacific 

>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Thank you.  Welcome, everyone.  I hope those that are finishing their coffee can come in so we can continue with the proceedings.  
So yeah, good morning and welcome to this second session of the day.  My name is Carlos Rey Moreno.  I am the Program Manager at the Association for Progressive Communication, and I am going to be the moderator of this session today.  
APC is a membership‑based organization of activist and civil society organizations founded in the '90s to empower communities through ICTs to contribute to equitable human development and justice participatory policy processes.  Since our inception, we have been very active members of the civil society stakeholder group and Internet Governance multi‑stakeholder approaches, and we participate regularly, and so do our members, at national, regional, and global IGFs.  
In this session, we are going to discuss governing data in Asia Pacific, and we aim to outline key components of data governance, such as data stewardship and data security and privacy.  We will explore how we can best contribute to trustworthy processes through policies that are put in place to ensure the availability, integrity, privacy and security of data assets.  This session will also facilitate the exchange of best practices among the region and beyond by exploring the following questions:  How can countries strengthen data governance in the region, ensuring data protection and privacy?  What challenges are policymakers facing in the region?  And how can policymakers enhance trust and establish data policies for managing data through its lifecycle from creation and acquisition to storage, usage, and disposal?  
To do so, we have here with us Ms. Maiko Meguro, who is the Director for International Data Strategy and International Affairs at the Digital Agency of Japan, where she regularly leads the data free flow of trust of Government of Japan.  Ms. Meguro is joining us online.  Welcome.  
We have also Fitri Bintang, Southeast Asia Visiting Research Fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies and a Research Consultant at the Center for Strategic and International studies.  Tri's areas of research covers radicalist groups and foreign policy, as well as women, peace, and security agenda.  Fitri is also joining us online.  
Here with me I have Ms. Anju Mangal, who is the outgoing chair of the Asia Pacific IGF.  She is her in her personal capacity but is working for the U.S. digital connectivity and cybersecurity project.  She is passionate about supporting the Asia and the Pacific region by contributing to bridging the digital divide and supporting women, youth, and communities.  
So to unpack this topic, the session will start by a panel discussion, where Ms. Maiko will share her expertise on data governance as the lead of the data free flow with trust.  And then Ms. Fitri will present the Association of Southeast Asian Nations best practices on Internet Governance.  And then finally, Ms. Anju will share her expertise on Internet Governance.  Because we started the session a little bit late, I will ask the speakers to keep their presentations a bit shorter so we can have some open‑floor exchange at the end of the presentations.  
Yeah, thank you very much, and with that, if we can open for online participation, Ms. Meguro.  Thank you.  
>> MAIKO MEGURO: Thank you.  Thank you very much.  Good morning, honorable members of national Parliaments from participating nations, and it is very much a pleasure to meet you and present recent updates on trust developed international cooperation on trustworthy, interoperable data governance in the light of information and data accessed internationally.  So I am Maiko Meguro.  I was kindly introduced, Director in charge of leading International Data Strategy and advancing DFFT at the Digital Agency at the Government of Japan.  
So I think I am using slides, so do you think you can put up the slide that I have sent you?  
If not, I am happy to also put my own slide here.  Yes, I will do my own slide.  It says that I can't actually share my own thing here.  Ah, actually, the Secretariat has started sharing my slide, I think.  
Okay.  Thank you.  
So the title is Advancing Data Free Flow with Trust.  Yes, thank you very much.  
So in this slide, data free flow with trust, DFFT, is basically the concept for those who doesn't know about this concept, it is a cross‑border free flow of data should be enhanced through the promotion of trust, namely the enhancing protection of privacy, security, intellectual properties, and any other legitimate interests so that citizens and federal governments can support the increasing flow of data produced and stored in respective jurisdictions without threat or critical interests.  The concept was introduced first at the G20 OSAKA Summit in 2019 and will be endorsed by G7 and G20 every year, and this year, G7 Hiroshima endorsed the establishment of the Institutional Arrangement for Partnership, IAP, which is the international mechanism to facilitate intergovernmental and multi‑stakeholder cooperation and facilitate cross‑border flow of data.  This mechanism has been endorsed by G7, but membership is actually much wider, so this is quite open global organization.  
So the importance of DFFT, data free flow with trust, this is actually without need of explanation.  Now that the data economy is booming, and of course, in order to develop the data economy, high‑quality data access is critical in order to solve social issues ranging from aging society to climate change or even healthcare issues, and of course, driving economic growth.  It is essential to develop interoperability through the coordinating international data transfer roles among major countries, advance technological solutions, standards, et cetera, et cetera.  Which means we really have to find any different approaches, like anything that can enhance interoperability, we better work on that.  So that is the point of this slide.  
   	Next slide, please.
	Yes, thank you.  As I said, the concept of DFFT has been endorsed by the G20 in 2019.  Since then, G7, G20 has discussed how to advance this concept, and what is more, how to materialize and operationalize these concepts by developing in areas of priorities and also expanding the topic scope from the global market issue to the sustainable development, which was quite a critical advancement in 2022 by the Indonesian presidency on the Digital Ministers Meeting.  
   	Next slide, please.
	Thank you.  So only materialization of the DFFT since 2019, I think we have seen vastly two approaches.  One approach is to develop the relevant trading rules on DFFT free flow and identifying practices.  This type of working track has been materialized also in 2019 at what is called Osaka track in the G7 Summit in 2019.  But with the other, emphasis of today's presentation is this other approach, is to seek interoperable solutions across different regimes, national demands on private security, without evaluating whether certain national regulations would be good or bad.  In this regard, it is more important to develop a forum where we could discuss the actual gaps or we share the best practices or we share the needs for capacity building, as no one actually has good views on how the data globally flows or how the value chains are constructed or what are the business and technological practices on the cross‑border transfer of data, and yes, I will come back to this point on the next slide, but we definitely see the new tracks, in addition to the trade rule track, about more pragmatic, more focus on technology and regulatory organizations, based on evidence, what is actually happening rather than speaking about what is good or what is bad.  
In terms of the scope of DFFT, which is thanks to the great effort by the Indonesian presidency of G20, we have seen the new track working on the data free flow trust which significantly contributes to our sustainable development goal.  So this line of discussion has been very well covered by the G20, and kudos to our colleague from Indonesia.  
So to reduce, for example, data inequality, this is a really important topic when it comes to our new agenda on the DFFT because, like I wrote here, many people are still excluded from the new world of data economy because of the, perhaps, like language, or perhaps, like, technological infrastructure, lack of education, remoteness, or many other issues.  A wide range of actions needed, including building capacity, especially for least developed countries or developing countries or small island developing countries.  So under the banner of DFFT, we can certainly see importance of working on the international cooperation in these sort of issues.  And of course, like healthcare, tracking climate change, tackling climate change, and realizing energy‑efficient economy globally require policy coordination as well as benefit of technological advancement, including tracking data on the common footprint across supply chain, have better sight of our energy use globally, or of course, tackling public health emergency, such as COVID‑19 pandemic, in such cases, interoperability between national and subnational health data monitoring system becomes increasingly important to curb the spread of infection globally.  
So see, we have started to see ‑‑ the concept started from the trade view.  It's now slowly expanding its scope and also the usefulness or types of functions that can play in terms of enhancing the cross‑world transfer of data.  
   	Next slide, please.
	Like I said, importance is nowadays we are now in the phase of discussing what would be the data free flows? We have to operationalize it.  In terms of operationalizing it, we see very important key things as I presented here.  
First, the discussion on the operationalization or advancement of DFFT have to be evidence based and solution oriented.  Since many of what we call barriers of the cross‑border transfer of data are coming from the difference of regulations, a different way to pin down on the legitimate interests, often it is very difficult to point the finger at other's privacy regulation and say it's disguised as trade barrier, et cetera, et cetera.  This is really inpragmatic.  So be pragmatic.  Let's say we all respect for the different regulatory needs and concerns based on different national circumstances, but always we have to start from the actual issues lying there.  If we don't have the solution to throw the data here and there, we are not going to have the future that we envisage, which can only be realized by having enough access to data globally.  But we also have to respect different regulatory needs.  We don't have to criticize each other.  
So first, we just capture what is happening based on evidence and think about the solution rather than talking about the norms.  That is a very important attitude towards talking about cross‑border transfer of data topic.  
Second, the need for tangible progress in advancing DFFT because we can continue talking, talking, talking, talking forever at G7/G20, but we definitely have to work on advancing, which means that we need actual place, a forum, where we gather the relevant actors and continue working on the project where we can actually produce solutions.  But the problem here is that we don't have the actual forum that we can talk about cross‑border, cross‑sectoral topic of data.  Like trade, have the WTO.  Finance have the Finance, but data we don't have a place.  That's the issue.  Here is the second point, we need a new mechanism to bring governments and stakeholders together to cooperate on facilitating cross‑border flows of personal and non‑personal data under the banner of DFFT.  
   	Next slide, please.
	So this is something that Japanese government and also the OECD has been working together to develop the solution for the DFFT.  And this proposal has also been discussed by the G7, so the proposal for institutional arrangement for partnership is we need a flexible, multi‑stakeholder, evidence‑based, and solution‑driven forum to bring together the relevant people and work on the agenda, produce a solution to operationalize DFFT.  So those institutions should have at least three elements:  First, a governmental body with relevant expertise and competence to discuss and actually work on the topic of DFFT.  And second, we need to have a stakeholder organ to communicate with government and work together to produce solutions.  And third, most importantly, we need a permanent secretariat to manage the meetings, projects, and other administrative issues because often those multi‑stakeholders, the forum is ad hoc.  But ad hoc forum cannot produce the continuous project because often the project takes three or four years.  So we set the agenda, we start project, we review the project, and we bring it through towards solutions.  That takes time.  That is why we need a permanent secretariat in order to move forward with DFFT.  
So this is just a concept, but we kind of are thinking into developing the mechanism, what is called institutional arrangement for partnership, to work on the question of cross‑border transfer of data in general.  And this should have the vision from the Asia Pacific, where innovation, digitalization is happening rapidly.  I would say the most innovative area of the world should lead this sort of project and should have be the global solution setting in the field of cross‑border transfer of data based on the advanced practices and also the diversity that this region will hold.  
So I think I am running out of time, so I am closing my speech.  But this is the up‑to‑date development in the track of the facilitating cross‑border transfer of data and data free flow trust where we set up the forum, bring together multi‑stakeholder, continuously discuss and work on the common project to tackle on our common issues, common agenda on developing the digitalized Web and wealth, and of course, the trust which is brought by those common projects.  
   	Next slide, please. 
Okay.  So this is just an advertisement.  This is just the DFFT brochure to provide up‑to‑date information on progress about data free flow with trust.  This is always up‑to‑date, so please access this QR code, and you have all the information you need to understand this topic.  
Thank you very much for your listening.  Thank you.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Thank you.  Thank you very much, Maiko, for giving us the background on the DFFT and the issues and the challenges, as well as the benefits that it will bring together with the need for that forum to exchange ideas and how that proposal that you are putting forward could address those elements and foster data exchange of information in between the government and the stakeholders.  Thank you very much.  
With that, can we open the participation for Fitriani, please, for her presentation?  She is online.  Welcome.  
>> FITRIANI BINTANG: Thank you for the opportunity.  Thank you for having me.  I saw that my slides have been shared.  
Esteemed and distinguished members of parliament of the Asia Pacific, as an academic, I would be, I think, much more candid to see what happened in the region, what works, and what hasn't worked in regard to a collection of countries in the ten Southeast Asian countries, and perhaps the wider region in terms of how we can go forward in regard of data governance.  Especially when there's ‑‑ there are countries that are not as mature digitally compared to others.  
Now, if I can move on to the next slide on the issues that I will cover.  First, I will look at how countries have been strengthening data governance, and I will focus my presentation on data protection and privacy, as that issue has been a concern for the region I am in.  
The second is what are the challenges for policymakers facing in the region in regard to DOT governance?  And how can policymakers enhance trust and establish data policies?  As we know, such action can be limited and challenging.  And last point, I will share the situation in the region that I work in.  
   	Next slide, please.
	I want to share the concern of how data cycle from data creation, storage, sharing, archival, and deletion afterwards have been managed, with the concern of how ‑‑ there is a primary use and a secondary use of data and how it is utilized.  And it can be recycled by those that have the ability to storage of data.  And we all know that not all the regions and countries have the abilities to manage its data as, therefore, impacted to the challenges of mistreatment and non‑equal treatment, the issue of discrimination, as well as access to fundamental democracy rights.  And this is something that can be concerning with regard to data.  
If I can go to the next slide, I will show what, in the Southeast Asia region has been doing in the regional level to provide countries that are small and developing in terms of digital side, countries such as Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar, and perhaps Philippines don't see cyber security as an issue, and therefore, perhaps there is a benefit for the regional organization to set up a framework on digital data governance as a benchmarking and a standardization setting for those countries that still need a reference guide in terms of how to do data management.  For example, having data classification framework, having cross‑border data flow mechanism, as well as innovation forum and digital protection and privacy forum.  
And this is in a way not to actually dictate smaller countries that are still developing its data management, in a way that it wants to provide lessons learned and how the countries have done things and can be done in the constraint of sovereignty and limited resources.  And if the concern is on how to establish law, the parliamentarians present here understand so well how it takes time to produce legislation.  And although we have all this regional framework, if we can go to the next slide, only five of the countries in the region have, actually, law that governs data, specific on data protection and privacy.  Because the process takes so long.  For example, Indonesia, where my country is, it takes almost a decade to have personal data protection law.  Although we learned from other countries in the region that have similar data ten years before, such as Singapore.  And the discussion has been ongoing.  And perhaps countries in the region that have closer proximity in terms of culture as well as developing governmental model, perhaps, understand the importance of data governance.  It is still a challenge internally to create law, especially when there's a multisector and multi‑stakeholder interest in terms of, for example, taking example for Indonesia again, challenge from the private sector, for example, that would want in the process of creating a legislation would argue more regulation in protection and data privacy would entail increasing cost of data confidence or regulation confidence.  And as a country, we want to have prosperous economy to increase the welfare, but of course, we want to protect the privacy data and privacy as well.  So there is a challenge that would need to be balanced by lawmakers.  
We learn from outside Southeast Asia, in the next slide, we learn best practices in other countries and their interests as well.  And it is actually dominated by or driven ‑‑ dominated is a bad word, apologies ‑‑ but driven by countries that already have its capital and commodities and advantage when it comes to managing data, for example, for cross‑border e‑commerce flow, for enabling cross‑border digital delivery products, as well as protecting source code for commercial product from forced disclosure to national authorities.  So that cooperation in a trans‑Pacific partnership, for example, have been agreed and put forward by advanced countries and adopted by other countries as well.  So in the trans‑Pacific partnership, countries like the U.S., Australia, Japan, Malaysia to an extent, and Singapore probably would then bring their learning best practices to countries such as Brunei as well as Vietnam in terms of data regulation.  The U.S.‑Mexico agreement, actually, we learned about how cross‑border privacy rule system would bring in the APAC region, the U.S.‑Japan Digital Trade Agreement as well has been a good learning point for data governance, as well as Singapore‑Australia Digital Economy Agreement.  
If we can continue to the next slide, we know what the main issues with regards to regulating what Michael in the previous presentation mentioned on data free flow with trust.  There is an issue of data localization when a country wants its data to be protected and not shared, for example, on election data.  There's issue of regulation cooperation, who controls what, and sometimes in a country, there is a different sector that wants to control the data as well, and sometimes those discussions are not going well.  There is the issue of the government wanting to do taxing, and how does, in terms of data flow, the data will be taxed and who will pay a tax and whether a certain country will get the data used by other countries to do trade.  But then not benefit from that.  And how this data sharing approach will be done from, for example, private sector and public sector, in regards to in sector that is benefitting for all, as mentioned, like healthcare, education, transport, energy, and in regard for security that we witness has been challenging.  
So the progress has been discussed in the economic sector and grouping, like the G20 and the G7.  But the question, again, what will the policymaker bring home and how they actually discuss nationally?  
So if I can go to the next slide.  Keying in on the three issues that are being brought.  What's the benefit for the country?  Have they been unevenly distributed?  How the population remains offline.  And developing countries, as they are a provider of raw data, they don't have the ability to actually generate, advance more, and being used as the consumer of tech from other countries without actually having the benefit to be having the incentive for that has been a concern.  
And if we can go to the next approach, we also ‑‑ next slide, we also see how the different ‑‑ the issues of different data governance landscapes between one country and another, and the second is the fragmentation of approach in the global data governance.  For example, how in the U.S. the data is controlled by the private sector, even the government has difficulty of access to it; while in China, for example, the government controls the data; while the European Union focuses on its individual approach.  And this fragmentation hampers the collaboration among jurisdictions, and this is something that needs to be discussed and included in the government policy‑making.  
If we can go to the next slide, I know my time is over ‑‑ almost over.  I mentioned about how the challenges in the region to produce, for example, law on digital protection, let alone data governance in general.  We need to learn how to, in the next slide, to build trust and establish data policies and managing data throughout its lifecycle, in the creation, acquisition to storage, usage, and disposal of data.  Whether our laws have been strong enough in regard to this and whether the policymakers and the people at large know about the issue.  
And next, perhaps we can consider the usage and flow of data, whether we understand this, and how we would manage this data governance and facilitate the data access and exchange among public bodies and then, therefore, internationally.  And then from this we can learn the lesson learned of what needs to be there ‑‑ in the next slide, please, as I close.  In concluding, what countries' parliamentarians and policymakers, perhaps, would need to embark on the four points?  In the next slide, I would say first on creating the legal basis of data governance, what are the value points needs to be protected.  If we can go to the next slide.  In terms of, for example, what is important to be regulated in a country, whether it's human rights, privacy rights, or is it government security and public trust‑building, for example?  So parliamentarians need to focus on that when creating legislation on data governance.  But legal basis needs to be done before the whole governance can move because otherwise it will be considered illegal.  And legislation will provide time and funding for this.  And also, in providing technical guidance.  So technical guidance we can get from internal and regional best practices, as well as having the awareness of data management and utilization.  
The last point, perhaps, in this forum I would want to push for the collaboration of all relevant stakeholders, both nationally and internationally, as a way to a successful data governance management.  And by that, I conclude my presentation.  Thank you so much for your attention.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Thank you.  Thank you very much, Fitriani, for giving us your perspective on the region and the challenges that policymakers face as well as the lessons learned through the different activities and initiatives that have taken place.  
I want to ‑‑ there has been some ‑‑ sorry, I didn't recognize the participants online before, and thank you for engaging already in the Chat, and please pose your questions there.  And I will bring them to the speakers in the Q&A session, in the open ‑‑ on the open floor.  But we have one last intervention before we go to the exchange, and this is from Anju.  Anju, the floor is yours.  
>> ANJU MANGAL: Thanks, Carlos.  I promise to make a very short intervention because we are already running out of time, and I think I am going to want to hear from you in terms of what you are doing on data management or data storage, usage, et cetera.  
I do want to acknowledge the team working ‑‑ sorry, the participants joining online.  Thank you so much.  I also see a comment from Cheryl in terms of, you know, collaboration and how do we engage, and you know, in terms of the regional multi‑stakeholder or even the countries when it comes to continuity or even projects when we look at sustainability.  I think that's a really, really good point.  
So I am here on a personal capacity, but I do work on USAID digital connectivity and cybersecurity, and we work with 12 member countries.  But here I am also ‑‑ I have left the APrIGF chair, and I am now APNIC's chair.  I am not going to into further discussion because our two colleagues from Asia have clearly defined what does it really mean when we talk about data management and data governance; right?  It's everything you do to ensure data is secure, private, it's accurate, available, and usable.  And by usable, I mean that when you think about data, you do not just think about yourself as a user but think about people who are going to use the data and for what reasons in terms of, like, the key sectors, the disability community, and you know, the youths, gender, et cetera, the women, basically.  Because we are actually collecting data about them.  So being very mindful about how you collect data and when you collect data in a country, or even in a region, I think it's important to always say that what you are doing with that data.  It is very important to tell the people exactly what you are planning to do with the data.  And that's one of the things that I think I see a lot in terms of, like, the countries also struggling.  
And the other point is you should be able to differentiate there's open data, but there's also the confidential, private data.  Open data is open, and there is a data governance structure and framework to it, but in terms of confidential, private data, I think we really need to be careful because that also ties to data sovereignty issues in those countries.  
I will give you two examples of projects that we've done.  So years ago when I was working for a regional organization, we developed the regional data portal, so it's called the Pacific Data Hub.  You can also Google it if you want.  It houses data from 1940s, 1930s.  And all those data also has metadata.  It describes each of those data that was collected by so many people years ago.  So that data is already available online.  
Lefaoli'i, you mentioned something about climate change earlier, and I know Internet Governance, when you talk about climate change, that data itself, you could actually use that data to understand the reality of climate change, even in terms of, you know, just thinking what the projection would be or what the reality would be, and I think that to your point in terms of data governance ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ Internet Governance, I think that's one of the things that the portal has; right?  That data belongs to the countries.  That was collected by so many people in terms of regional organizations.  It was collected by organizations, environmental organizations.  It was collected by various consultants coming into the Pacific, and also, you know, uploaded to that portal.  
Now, the data houses climate change ‑‑ sorry.  The portal houses climate change data, fisheries, agriculture.  You also have gender statistics, et cetera.  You look at it like what are the reality in terms of the youths, et cetera.  So it also has APIs, which means it creates that link between one portal to another.  Right?  I am going to keep it very simple.  I am not going to go into technical terms.  But that API was very useful to create because you could actually align to the different organizations that are collecting the same data.  So making sure that you don't have repetition and duplicating of efforts.  
But one of the things that we discussed during that time when we were creating that data portal was data governance framework and also data governance, right, itself.  And it was important that there was buy‑in from the governments or from the countries that we were, you know, uploading the data from.  So that was discussed at a higher level, but at the ‑‑ you know, when you look at a multi‑stakeholder level, it did not trickle down to the grass‑roots or people who are actually collecting that data.  So that was one of the issues that we faced.  But going forward, I think one of the good things is that they have started structuring and ensuring that there is proper data management framework for that.  
The other project ‑‑ and I am glad Ania is sitting here through UN DESA on data management frameworks in Cambodia, Laos, and Bangladesh.  I know there was reference to developing countries.  When you look at those communities, there's people actually collecting, disseminating, and sharing this data.  There are people that are actually analyzing this data.  A lot of that, the reality is for some of these small island states or even developing countries, they don't have sufficient resources to actually help with data management.  So I wanted to make that emphasis because this was a struggle when we were working with those three countries ‑‑ Cambodia, Laos, and Bangladesh.  Honestly, these countries, they have amazing people.  They are brilliant.  They did hard work.  And they put together a multi‑stakeholder approach.  They put together an agenda inviting people from other sectors to be part of that multi‑stakeholder approach in terms of understanding how we can ensure data management in the governments.  Number and the other aspect was to bring in other ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ other sectors like the Bureau of Statistics, understanding how they actually collect data, understanding the naming conventions, what sort of classification, data classification approach they use to actually collect data.  So that multi‑stakeholder model then became, you know, it was such a good model that they are still continuing that discussion.  They are still discussing, they are still working behind the scenes.  And now they have gone ahead to create a Steering Committee for each of those countries.  And these committees and members are reaching out to all the sectors to make sure they are talking about data management, but also doing ‑‑ creating data privacy, data protection and laws.  And this is still being supported by  UN DESA, which is great. I was also part of that plan years ago.  
Looking forward, we are looking at engaging with governments, training, and baseline study in where the countries are in relation to data management.  It will be a demand‑driven approach.  We are not going to say yes, you know, we are coming to you.  No.  It's going to be the countries telling us what they want, how they want it, and what do they understand by the whole data management.  We have been talking to, for example, a team in Samoa.  We have been talking to Vanuatu, Fiji.  And these are the people, these are the champions doing so much work.  But in terms of just understanding what the regional framework is and how they are going to learn from each other is what we are going to convene from October onwards.  But again, it's going to be these champions at the table telling us and talking about the situation and not being told by some donors or partners or other, you know, regional organizations that's how it should be done.  But the way we want to do it is ensure that we are very intentional with our approach and not just do it for the sake of doing it because it's something to tick the box.  So no, that's not the approach that we are using.  And I think it's important to remind people because when we talk about multi‑stakeholder, right, sometimes we are just focusing on one particular sector.  But you are forgetting that there are so many other people that have been collecting data, using data, they also want to understand what are some of the policies, some of the data protection laws in those countries?  There are some countries that are already working on good ‑‑ sorry ‑‑ what was it?  Cloud infrastructure policies, which is great.  And this is also going to be part of the discussion that we have in October.  
The ‑‑ you know, the ‑‑ the speakers have already mentioned quite a lot of stuff in terms of coordination, collaboration.  I think those are very key, but one of the things that I want to emphasize is fostering ownership.  This data belongs to the countries.  This data belongs to the people.  And making sure that there is accountability, not only from a country perspective, but also from a regional and development partner perspective in terms of how do we support them.  And I think my final one is that we are trying very hard to kind of reduce or maybe get rid of data silos.  It's happening a lot.  And it continues to happen.  When there is new funding or a new project coming in, they don't see what's happened previously in these organizations in terms of data collection, et cetera.  They go and repeat the same thing.  So that's one thing that we are trying to avoid is to make sure that everybody understands what has already been collected, what has already been done before we start something new or a new project that's working on data management or frameworks.  
Sorry, I was a bit more ‑‑ 
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: No, it's fine.  You have a lot of experience, and I am glad you shared all those practical experience with collecting, analyzing, and engaging with different stakeholders and what does it mean to use data for the benefit of the different ‑‑ of the people in every country; right?  
So thank you very much to the three speakers.  I think it's ‑‑ at least I have learned a lot.  And I hope the rest of the audience online and on‑site have learned too.  
Any ‑‑ now I would like to open the floor to any reflections, any questions that you may have, anybody feedback that you would like to do, that you would like to express in relation to this rather broad topic and challenging that has ‑‑ and it will have very important implications going forward.  
Let me look at the online Chat in case someone else.  Okay.  So online participants are also welcome to write on the Chat, and I will read the question out for the speakers.  
No?  Everyone ‑‑ no comments, no questions, no feedback?  
>> I think everybody is well versed with data management now.  It would be interesting to hear your perspective on what it is you are doing in countries in terms of data management ‑‑ sorry, data governance and data frameworks ‑‑ data management frameworks.  
We are here to learn.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: No hands online, no one on‑site.  So I think with that, let me ‑‑ sorry if I cut you short.  Maybe there are some last comments or last reflections?  Ah, there is ‑‑ yes, I was going to pass the floor to you, Maiko, and to Fitriani, as well as to Anju for some remarks, experience that may come from having to listen to the other participants.  So Maiko, the floor is yours.  
>> MAIKO MEGURO: Thank you so much.  So I was very much intrigued by Anja's presentation particularly on the part you mentioned of the issue of accountability and ownership.  You are definitely right.  That aspect has been quite neglected when we talk about the question of international data governances.  But then at the same time, kind of wondering, for example, I was in charge of the data free trust and establishing where we can discuss what is accountability, what are the projects that can help?  Perhaps we can have data to actually handle.  Let's see if we can have better way, et cetera.  So I am kind of leading the place where we can work on those projects.  But then I am kind of wondering, in terms of your proposal in terms of accountability, what would be the most important issues or if you have any idea how we can actually work on this topic together, I would like to really hear about this from you.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Maybe can you repeat the question, please, for Anju on accountability?  Do you mind repeating the question?  
>> MAIKO MEGURO: So my question was ‑‑ do you hear me?  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Yes, we do.  
>> MAIKO MEGURO: Good.  So my question was in terms of your proposal on more focus on fostering ownership and accountability, which is the point, you know, where the data belongs to people, countries, but then reflecting, I was wondering what would be your concrete idea about how to actually enhance accountability, and particularly in terms when we are talking about two different societies but with data going between each other.  
>> ANJU MANGAL: Sorry, I am having trouble hearing you.  Maybe is it just me?  Do you mean accountability government or two organizations?  Or sorry, it's not very clear.  Maybe ‑‑ can you read the transcription?  
>> MAIKO MEGURO: I have just said ‑‑ you just said you are talking about we need to enhance accountability on the side of people, countries who own the data; right?  But then question is when we are talking about the (?) we face two different societies to have two ideas of ownership, et cetera, since this topic a hasn't been discussed across states and societies, how would you solve this problem?  Because I am a policymaker, I am thinking about actual policy which can help on the topic of accountability.  So I was wondering what would your demand for policymakers, for example, in terms of enhancing accountability?  
>> ANJU MANGAL: Thanks.  I hope I understand the question.  But in terms of accountability, when I spoke about accountability and ownership, first, accountability to me is being accountable to the people, especially the ones that you are collecting data from.  Because unfortunately, what's happening right now in a lot of the other countries and when we were doing the work in the regional organization is when we go, we collect data, we come, we analyze it, we upload it, but we don't do follow‑ups.  And I am not saying that I am specifically talking about one particular organization, et cetera, but it's just happening a lot.  And being accountable not just to your organization, but also to the people outside of the organization.  Because that's their data.  It belongs to them.  So I know there are quite a lot of challenges.  
One of the things in terms of accountability, one of the things that we saw was that like I said earlier, there are lots of people coming in, there's lots of consultants, there's a lot of organizations, there's a lot of projects happening, and they collect a lot of this data.  Where does that data go is one question.  How is that data used?  Is the second question.  Who is going to use that data?  And how is that data going to make an impact on the ground?  Because you are actually doing those data collection for the people that you are working for or the stakeholders that you are working for.  And I don't see that a lot.  I don't see that happening in a lot of the big organizations that we work in.  But again, it's about we need to show that respect to the countries.  We need to be able to say that these countries are doing incredible work.  Many don't have the capacity, but that's where we, you know, some people come in to support it.  But at the same time, I think it's important that when you are doing projects, particularly for countries, it's not just ticking the box.  It's being intentional when it comes to accountability, being intentional to the people that you are actually involving in the project.  That's probably one thing that I probably forgot to mention.  
Lefaoli'i wants to speak.  
>> I want to add on to a very important point you raised about the importance of having data that we address the actual service that is happening in the country.  Obviously, I made a point on Monday or Tuesday on the fact that some data was presented that says the penetration of the fixed Internet, it's absolutely zero percentage, when it's not the case in my country.  So it's really frustrating to see that, but it's important for us to work together on that issue.  Honestly, the Government of Samoa would be very disappointed to see that because it's not a true reflection of the market at the moment.  But from my point of view as an officer of government, I would like to see where the gaps are so I can improve on it, I can work on it, I can talk to people that can be able to help us verify this data because it needs to be done.  This is kind of misinformation that we are putting online which we'll discuss every day, and yet we are the very people creating this misinformation.  So it's important that we work together on this, and I would like to see any solution on this, how can we fix it?  What's the problem?  Who is going to do it?  I mean from the government perspective, we would like to work with different organizations.  I mean, honestly, United Nations has a lot of different agencies.  ITU has their own data.  UNDP has their own data.  UNESCO has their own data.  FAO has their own data.  And they need to work together.  We all have to work together.  That's just not right.  Something has to be done.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Yeah, thank you very much for that reflection.  Also, the different stakeholders and the different entry points that they have to this debate; right?  Like maybe Fitriani, going back to your comments around the different resources, the different actors in the region have to actually take part in this, in the management of data and the like.  I don't know if there is any, you know, kind of closing remarks from yourself in relation to this discussion, and then I will pass it to Maiko and then to Anju to finalize.  
>> FITRIANI BINTANG: Thank you for raising that.  I think the different resources that country has as well as a different knowledge, awareness, as well as priorities often makes it difficult for us to collaborate.  But I think it's something that we need to bridge.  I am keen to hear more about Maiko Meguro mentioned about her initiative of creating a global institution to regulate the data free flow and how we can probably work on what free and how would it flow and whether we can benefit from all because the concern of it, sometimes it's free for those that can benefit from it, but the countries that produce the data and perhaps portray the data inaccurately needs to, you know, have, you know, access and a way to voice as well and set things right and benefit from the international data arrangement.  That's for me.  Thank you so much.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Thank you.  Thank you very much, and you know, great that this panel somehow has created that link in between you two so you can potentially take online that collaboration and take this somewhere.  
Maiko, any concluding remarks from you?  
>> MAIKO MEGURO: Thank you very much for the great panel.  Hearing from the completely different aspects and also different layers of this topic was quite a learning.  And I really am impressed by the question which has just been set by Fitriani about how we could work on the question of free flow of data when we have the reality of different resources, different national circumstances which have different degree of the benefit that they can get from actual free flow.  So yeah, it's great fruitful conversation, and thanks so much for discussing this further.  I believe having a forum to talk about free flow of data, and cutting through the free flow of traffic and focus on the pragmatic side, we can work on SDGs, cooperation, I think that type of forum is very much helpful.  Thank you very much for the opportunity.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: Thank you very much, Maiko.  
Anju, any concluding remarks?  
>> ANJU MANGAL: I guess in terms of just looking for ‑‑ I mean, going forward, having a forward‑looking approach and what Lefaoali'i said in terms of coordination and multi‑stakeholder ‑‑ when we use the word "multi‑stakeholder," sometimes we just use it for the sake of saying it, but are we really involving those stakeholders when we go back to the countries?  Are we bringing those champions here in these events to actually talk about some of these issues that are happening in their countries?  
So I just want to say that anything to do with data or anything to do with Internet Governance ‑‑ data governance, sorry ‑‑ or the work that we are doing, we have to keep reminding ourselves that there are people out there who are just doing amazing work, and these are the champions collecting the data, managing the data, analyzing the data, and just making sure that there is a voice for them to be part of these forums.  It would be great.  And also involving them in every step of your work.  Because I have seen a lot, like I said, projects come and go.  There's no continuity.  And to the point that Cheryl made along with the continuity, I think, is key, and that's something that we are struggling with a lot.  But keep reminding the regional organizations, the international organizations that are doing a lot of this work behind the scenes, it's incredible work, but I think it's ‑‑ you have to be very pragmatic and realistic when you are working in small ‑‑ you know, small countries or developing countries that already have issues with resources, with man power, and with funding to continue some of this work in terms of data or even Internet Governance.  Thanks.  
>> CARLOS REY MORENO: No, thank you.  Thank you, Fitriani.  Thank you, Maiko.  Thank you very much, everyone.  I hope it's been, you know, a good conversation for you in relation to all the complexities around the role of the different stakeholders, the different stages of that data goes from production all the way to usage and benefits, the benefit that it can have to society and the impact it can have in society.  But also the need of doing it, taking into consideration the interest of all the parties that are involved.  
So yeah, thank you very much, and with that, we can break for lunch.  

This text, document, or file is based on live transcription.  Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), captioning, and/or live transcription are provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings.  This text, document, or file is not to be distributed or used in any way that may violate copyright law.