V. The Panel’s Engagement
V. THE PANEL’S ENGAGEMENT
As per its terms of reference, the Panel engaged widely with governments, private sector, academia, the technical community, civil society, and inter-governmental organisations across the world. The aims of its engagement strategy were to provide stakeholders with an opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the reflection process of the Panel; catalyse multi-stakeholder and interdisciplinary cooperation on digital issues; and co-create the report’s recommendations with stakeholders, with a view to building buy-in for their implementation.
The engagement strategy was guided by three main tenets:
- Breadth and inclusivity: The Panel aimed to consult as broadly as possible across regions, demographics, topics, sectors and disciplines. The process strove to be as inclusive as possible of diverse groupings.
- Depth: The Panel worked with experts and conducted ‘deep dives’ on specific focus areas through virtual or in-person consultations as well as bilateral interviews.
- Interdisciplinarity: Many digital challenges are currently addressed in policy or agency silos; to promote more holistic approaches, the Panel’s activities invited interdisciplinary and multisectoral perspectives to the table.
The Panel was conscious of the importance of avoiding duplication of efforts and ‘consultation fatigue’ amongst digital stakeholders. Building on existing networks and policy forums, engagement activities took place as close as possible to stakeholders on the ground. The Panel also consciously assumed the learnings of previous commissions and existing working groups while also harnessing opportunities to connect the issues in new ways.
ACTIVITIES
Conducting a global consultation in the span of few months would not have been possible without the immense support of dozens of organisations and governments worldwide who lent their resources and networks to the Panel.
Engagement proceeded in two phases: in the ‘listening’ phase, in the autumn of 2018, the Panel actively collected stakeholders’ concerns and ideas on digital cooperation. Feedback from stakeholders was fed into the Panel’s scoping of its work and formed the basis of the nine “enablers of digital cooperation” articulated mid-way through the Panel process. In the spring of 2019, the focus shifted to ‘road-testing’ the Panel’s emerging recommendations. Stakeholders from across sectors were invited to comment on and critique the draft recommendations with a view to improving them.
Overall, the Panel and its Secretariat carried out 125 engagement activities; these included participating in 44 digital policy events and organising 10 thematic workshops (on subjects such as values and principles, digital trust and security, data, digital health), 28 briefings to various stakeholder communities, 11 visits to digital hubs and capitals, 22 virtual meetings with subject-matter experts, and 10 townhall meetings open to the public. In addition, the Panel held a large number of bilateral meetings with a variety of stakeholders.
A virtual window for consultation was opened via the Panel’s website. In October 2018, an open Call for Contributions was launched; by January 2019, when the call closed, 167 stakeholders had sent written submissions. Additionally, an informal public opinion survey was set up to capture the views of stakeholders on the digital issues of greatest concern.
In total, the Panel and its Secretariat engaged with over 4,000 individuals representing 104 states, 80 international organisations, 203 private sector companies, 125 civil society organisations, 33 technical organisations, and 188 think tanks and academic institutions.
Our analysis of approximately 1200 core participants in our engagement process finds that 40% were women; 3% were aged under 30; and the regional breakdown was 20% North America, 19% Europe, 13% Sub-Saharan Africa, 8% Latin America and the Caribbean, 7% South and Central Asia, 7% Southeast and East Asia, and 4% Middle East (the rest had a global remit).
These results show that we did not wholly avoid a skew towards male and Western voices, though they compare favourably with many such exercises in the technology sector. They indicate the continuing need for digital cooperation mechanisms to make specific efforts to ensure inclusivity, and highlight in particular the challenge of bringing the “digital native” youth generation into digital policymaking.
PARTNERS
The Panel would like to thank the following partners for their generous assistance and support to its engagement process:
- Access Now
- African Union Commission
- Alibaba Group
- APEC China Business Council (ACBC)
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Worship of Argentina
- Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC)
- Association for Progressive Communication (APC)
- Government of Benin
- Botnar Foundation
- Business Council for the United Nations
- Consulate General of Canada in San Francisco
- CERN
- China Chamber of International Commerce (CCOIC)
- Data2x
- Digital Empowerment Foundation
- Digital Impact Alliance (DIAL)
- Diplo Foundation
- Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations and Other International Organisations in Geneva
- Direction interministérielle du numérique et du système d’information et de communication de l’Etat, France
- Freedom Online Coalition
- Gateway House
- Geneva Internet Platform
- Global Commission on Stability of Cyberspace
- Global Partners Digital
- Global Partnership on Sustainable Development Data
- Global Tech Panel
- GSM Association (GSMA)
- Hangzhou Normal University
- Impact Hub Basel
- Infosys
- International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
- International Telecommunications Union (ITU)
- Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
- iSPIRT
- JD.com
- JSC National ICT Holding Zerde
- Government of Kazakhstan
- King’s College London
- Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy
- New America Foundation
- Nokia
- Observer Research Foundation
- Office of Denmark’s Technology Ambassador
- Omidyar Foundation
- Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
- Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (OIF)
- Schwarzman Scholars, Tsinghua University
- Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Singapore
- Stanford University
- Tata Consultancy Services, Mumbai
- United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)
- United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
- United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
- United Nations Global Pulse
- United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR)
- United Nations Office at Geneva
- United Nations University
- University of California, Berkeley
- University of Geneva
- Verizon Wireless
- Web Summit
- Western Balkans Digital Summit
- Wonder Ventures
- World Bank
- World Economic Forum
- World Economic Forum Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution, San Francisco
- World Government Summit, Dubai
- World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
- World Internet Conference
- World Summit AI
Recent Comments on this Site
3rd July 2024 at 2:48 pm
The ideas discussed in this session were much broader. I propose to ionclude the following:
Citizens’ expectations from governments are increasing, and effective use of digital technologies can help meet these demands. Beyond technology development, it’s essential to cultivate digital skills and a forward-thinking mindset in the public sector. The main challenge is changing work habits and focusing on problem-solving before technology implementation. Digital services must be citizen-centric, secure, and user-friendly.
Open policy-making and innovative thinking are crucial, along with safe experimentation spaces like GovTech Labs. These labs test new policies and technologies, fostering innovation through skill development and co-creation. Design thinking and user experience should prioritize simplicity and functionality.
Success in digital services depends on organizational maturity and a clear vision supported by citizens and legislation. Challenges include digital skill gaps, data analysis capabilities, and regulatory barriers, requiring a shift towards enabling innovation.
Future challenges include digital identification, AI regulations, and ensuring technology accessibility for all, including senior citizens. Practical strategies and public co-creation are necessary for meaningful change.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 12:27 pm
Like David, I don’t think cybersecurity and ‘crypto-technologists’ should be considered non-technical.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 12:26 pm
I think Torsten’s suggestion for the last sentence of para.3 is a good one. Ross Anderson’s “chat control” paper made a convincing case that domestic violence and sexual abuse are closely linked, and that preventive measures which ignore one in favour of the other are less likely to be effective.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 12:14 pm
Thanks Torsten – I think the changes made result in a more balanced statement without sacrificing relevant detail. I remain concerned at the use of the word “exponential” without reference to substantiating evidence, for the reasons I set out in my previous comment.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 11:04 am
[Watermarking and certification of origin should be a more reliable means to authenticate content and should be supported by regulation.]
I would add here: Watermarking and certification of origin should be a more reliable means to authenticate content and should be supported by regulation, keeping in mind that also these methods can be circumvented.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 11:01 am
The session organizers and participants modified this message to better reflect the discussion at the workshop as follows:
The interplay of privacy and safety: The participants of Workshop 1a of EuroDIG believe privacy and child safety are intertwined and inseparable, advocating that legal solutions to combat child sexual abuse online must strive to optimise both. These measures should be centred on children’s rights and their best interests, as a way forward to achieve this balance.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 11:00 am
The session organizers and participants modified this message to better reflect the discussion at the workshop as follows: CSA is currently increasing exponentially and has serious consequences for the rights and development of children. For this reason, recognising such depictions and preventing child sexual abuse should go hand in hand. Participants are concerned about the safety of users, including with regard to the potential use of CSAM detection technology. Breaches of confidential communication or anonymity are seen critically. At the same time, advantages are recognised in the regulations, e.g. with regard to problem awareness or safety by design approaches. Age verification procedures are perceived as both a risk and an advantage, with a caution on risks to anonymity and participation.
See in context
3rd July 2024 at 10:58 am
After a meeting among the workshop organizers, this message was changed as follows: Advancements in legal and regulatory measures on Child Sexual Abuse (CSA): Workshop 1a discussed three recent measures on the protection of children from online Child Sexual Abuse (CSA): the proposed EU CSA Regulation (CSAR), the new UK Online Safety Act, and the positive results from the Lithuanian Law on the Protection of Minors against detrimental effects of public information. An agreement was found on the need for better regulation in this field, emphasising the accountability of online service providers for monitoring illegal and harmful material and safeguarding minors.
See in context
2nd July 2024 at 1:02 pm
From my perspective, the comments on technology take up too much space in this message. This topic was explored in more depth in another workshop. It also leaves too little room for other aspects that played a role in the exchange. Therefore, here is a suggestion to change the message:
CSA is currently increasing exponentially and has serious consequences for the rights and development of children. For this reason, recognising such depictions and preventing sexual violence should go hand in hand. Participants are concerned about the safety of users, including with regard to the potential use of technology. Breaches of confidential communication or anonymity are seen critically. At the same time, advantages are recognised in the regulations, e.g. with regard to problem awareness or safety by design approaches. Age verification procedures are perceived as both a risk and an advantage. It can improve the protection of children on the internet, limit the spread of CSA material and empower children. However, this should not be at the expense of anonymity and participation.
See in context
1st July 2024 at 5:53 pm
New technology-open proposal for the first sentence of the paragraph, as there was no explicit request in the workshop to exclude CCS:
To detect CSAM online, only techniques that can protect privacy by not learning anything about the content of a message other than whether an image matches known illegal content should be used.
See in context