The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> ALLIE FUNK: Hi, everyone. I guess it is the evening right now. 5:45. Counts in my mind. I will give it another minute or so. I know some other sessions are letting out. Then we'll get started. Thanks for joining us.
Okay. Let's ‑‑ this is off again. All right, let's go ahead and get started. Thanks everyone for joining us my name is Allie Funk. I'm the Freedom House Director for technology and democracy. We will talk with folks that have taught me a lot about this field. What I will do is give a quick overview of Freedom on the Net and explain what that report even is. Then we'll dive into an interesting conversation with those folks up here about Internet freedom and how it is changed and where it is going. We'll open it up to you all. We're a small group, hopefully we can get nitty‑gritty in the issue area. I will have you introduce yourself. Olga, we'll start with you.
>> Olga Kyryliuk: I'm Olga Kyryliuk. (Distorted) I work as a technical advisor with digital rights on Internews.
(Mic is distorting voices.)
>> EMILE PRADICHIT: Hi, I'm Emilie Pradichit, Executive Director, Manushya Foundation. We are a feminist human rights organization based in Thailand, working mainly in Lao in Thailand. (Distorted) work on digital rights and access for all communities.
>> Guuz van Zwoll: Good afternoon. I'm Guuz van Zwoll. I work with the Dutch Ministries of Foreign Affairs on digital human rights.
>> ALLIE FUNK: Thanks, gang. So what is Freedom on the Net? It is the annual assessment of Internet freedom in 70 countries around the world. We look at how easily can folks access the Internet. What does the Internet look like in their countries? Are their rights protected or violated by the state, non‑State actors, companies? Just last week we launched the 2023 edition of the report, the 13th version of it. And going to give you some of the top findings. If you want to read the full report, which I urge you to do, we have fun graphics, country reports written by the great folks up here. At Freedom House.org. But some quick key findings I think will ground our conversation today about where we are in the Internet freedom space. 2023, 13th consecutive year of decline for Internet freedom. Hopefully next year I have the first year of improvement of Internet freedom. Doesn't seem like it, but a girl can hope. Tax on free expression grew more common around the world. Like I said we have done it for 13 years and each year another record high of Governments assaulting the fundamental right to free Executive Session. At least 55 of the countries covered, people were arrested for expressing themselves. Record high of 41 Governments in which regulators blocked websites hosting speech. What we zoomed in on is advances of artificial intelligence are deepening the crisis for Internet freedom. We looked at three different ways that is happening. It is AI driving intrusive surveillance, empowering censorship and giving into disinformation campaigns.
The two specific deep dives is about affordability and accessibility of generative AI technology is lowering the barrier of entry for the disinformation market. We found that generative AI tech was used in 16 different countries to distort information on political or social issues, like during times of crisis, elections, protests and other conflict areas and looked at how the automated systems are creating more precise subtle censorship. 22 companies, they're requiring speech ‑‑ international human rights standards. (?)
We kind of, some of the call to action that will drive our conversation today is because of the way that AI is augmenting digital repression, we call for the urgent need to regulate it. We think the lessons learned over the past decade or 15 years of Internet Governance has provided a Roadmap on how to regulate AI.
First, not overly rely on companies. We at the beginning of the Internet Freedom Project had a big hope of the Internet will be this liberating technology, going to protect democracy. Don't need to regulate it. Boy, were we proven wrong. We should be careful and not leave it all up the Private Sector. Second, we learned a lot about what good Governance looks like from the Government. So centering human rights standard increasing trends over the design and use of the systems. And the lesson learned that hasn't been learned enough that Civil Society around the world needed to be involved in the process. Right now in the race to regulate AI Civil Society is being left out, particularly those from the Global majority.
We close our report. We think if AI is designed and deployed safely and fairly it can be used to bolster Internet freedom. There is a lot of different efforts around the world, AI helping people evade Government censorship, used to detect disinformation and document human rights abuses.
We note that as we pay attention more to AI, we have to be careful not to lose momentum on Internet freedoms more broadly. Reversing decline requires regulating AI but not forgetting about longstanding threats.
Top line key findings. I will stop talking for a minute. Go to Freedom House.org and read the rest.
Olga I want to start with a question for you. You have been working on the issues for a long time and wearing a couple different hats. What have you learned about Internet freedom over the past decade? What shifted in this space? Where are we today and where are we going?
>> Olga Kyryliuk: I think probably everything has changed during this last 10 years, when I was thinking and looking back (distorted) I was studying to write the PHD thesis and I came to the law department and topic I was suggesting was cybersecurity and they said this is something not important. Choose something that is common sense for everyone. (Distorted) I had to drop that and look more into what is the multistakeholder and how it is developing and what are all the (distorted) international law. I think what has changed is that we had a lot of fascination back then, years ago, which changed a lot of frustration by now. We were hoping (distorted) that the multistakeholder model and having everyone around the same table would solve issues for us. That it would be pretty easy for us to reach a consensus and find a way to regulate technology. We were hoping at some point, probably the legal regulation would be also catching up with the way technology is being developed. But still, it is 10 years past and we don't see that this catch up is happened. But also, having many things evolving in a good perspective. I think what you have definitely observed is that the public venues of Internet freedom has raised. And this is also this is a fair argument to make for every stakeholder for Government, Private Sector and for end users and Civil Society. I think everyone now understands the importance of Internet freedom and digital rights. Because probably 10 years ago (distorted) didn't make much sense for some people. It is still difficult (distorted) to explain what is Internet freedom and (?) how it should stand for this. At the same time, this is growing. This is important because somehow reached the point when we understand that this is the (distorted)
At the same time, same as positively the technology is developing there is a lot of innovation, AI is developing, blockchain is developing. New opportunities, also bringing a lot of risks and challenges for example, (distorted) to the security, safety and always where you find ‑‑ how do you divide essentially the freedom and security, because many cases the Governments tend to go too much into the security. And then limit the Internet freedom. That is why on the negative side we see that there is a (distorted) of digital authoritarianism, with the authoritarian companies and see it some shape and form implemented also by democracies across the world. Say 10 years ago, probably we still didn't see that the large scale shutdowns and that much happening across the world. We didn't see that much of content moderation and censorship as it is now. We probably couldn't imagine that we have so many problems with the regulating the private companies and tech giants and it would be so difficult to find the common ground and agree on the regulation. Because as I said, it was so much hope that (distorted)
We also have also seen that the system (?) the countries providing tools and technology. And countries that are simply using it without ‑‑ sometimes even properly understanding what are the consequences and how the technology can violate human rights (distorted) and then this leads to situations when you don't have the guarantees in law that you can properly protect your rights.
Also from the positive side, I think it is still good that we still continue collaborating and continue talking to each other. We somehow see that probably some (distorted) I would say we are quite slow to accept this adjustment to the multistakeholder convenience.
Because again, we see that many people are not happy. Many people want action. Not simply discussion. Some complete partnerships or initiatives from the conversations. Which is not happening. I don't think this is a fair point to say, okay, this was created as a Forum for discussion. If everything around us is evolving, technology is evolving (distorted) I can say we want to keep discussing this if we (?) can make a difference and make a change.
So many things have changed. Probably could go into long conversation about this. But essentially I think the world is becoming more complicated than it used to be 10 years ago. Probably not what we expected. But that is where we are.
>> ALLIE FUNK: We'll pull on the multistakeholder thread in a little bit in what meaningful stakeholder engagement looks like. I didn't know that was your dissertation focus. Interesting. First I want to touch on the regulatory points you made. I think you are exactly right. It has been I think that is something in the field that I'm probably most intrigued about. I think the tradeoffs around regulation are complex.
Guuz, I want you to be pulled in here. If folks didn't know. The EU has served as a leader on the Internet thinking about the third way for Internet regulation. In between the Chinese model and the U.S. laissez‑faire traditional approach. So we saw with the GDPR general data protection regulation how it served as a Global model for data protection after it was authenticated in 2018 and we now have the Digital Services Act for folks that don't know an ambitious piece of legislation governing online content. And a host of other things. And we're also in the negotiation process at the EU AI Act. I'm curious, it is talked about as The Brussels Effect. How do you think it is particularly the good parts of the regulation are implemented elsewhere with the sort of challenge that, you know, the same law in a country with really strong standards being implemented in a country with poorer rule of law standards is vastly different human rights impact. How do you think about that? What are you working on?
>> Guuz van Zwoll: We want to keep the good things.
That is basically the answer. It is difficult. I mean, it is like tightrope that we have to walk. Also listening here the last day at the IGF, it is two things. Fight censorship and fight disinformation. It is difficult to do both at the same time. You have to find the balance between the two.
We are proud to have the EU laws. We would not be able to regulate big tech on ourselves. We are happy to do it with other European countries. We're proud it comes out of a long multistakeholder engagement process where there have been rounds of input from Civil Society, from companies, hearings, draft texts, yadah, yadah, yadah. Now you have a solid text, we're happening about and looking forward to full implementation early next year.
It has started and we're building up towards it. So I mean, there are two ways in how you can see The Brussels Effect. When it was implemented in the European Union, some said we will implement is for everyone and it will be easier to roll it out over all countries.
The other ways that countries copied the text basically to align themselves into our system and it will be easier for them to protect privacy in their systems.
And folks on the Netherlands. We state we will propagate the principles upon of the DSA. DAI and DMA to strengthen this Brussels effect because we think that these regulatory frameworks provide balance between providing strong regulatory framework while at the same time providing room for transparency and protecting human rights. That is the basis. We have argued long and hard and negotiated to get it also into the DSA. It is there. References to the Global principles on business human rights are there. There are strong transparency clauses on ways when your comments on Facebook or other platform are being removed or downgraded you are able to go into appeal. There will be a whole process for that.
And I think those ‑‑ that is all in the text. So when the text is copied, hopefully those parts will also already ingrained into the system that ‑‑ and then that way we try to promote the way of thinking on the issues. To other countries.
But also, I mean when we're going to have bilateral discussions as Netherlands with other countries or as EU with other countries, we urge third countries to partly adapt the regulations and implement the human rights and democratic clauses we find so important on this. This is something our Government is very committed to. And will be focusing on for the next few year.
I would like to thank you and congratulate you with a great report.
>> ALLIE FUNK: Thank you. That was really helpful. Emilie, I will come to you. I think ‑‑ hold on. Oh, it is still on. Okay cool. Your organization minutia, you will run the hashtag dictatorship Coalition, which is working to ‑‑ I mean stop digital dictatorship in Southeast Asia. And the frameworks and from the Region is exemplary of how really problematic laws can undermine human rights. What are you thinking about the regulatory provisions are the most helpful or harmful? How does it relate to AI, if I fit the buzzword in. Tell me what's on your mind on this.
>> Emilie Pradichit: If I tell people from Southeast Asia especially Thailand, people are like what! They believe it is an amazing holiday destination. I want to (audio skipping) (distorted) if you read the report, you realize among the countries (distorted) in the report, many of us are not free. Thailand is not free. Vietnam is not free (distorted) partially free. Why? It is because our Governments are weaponizing laws. There is a proliferation of cyber laws that are targeting the dissenting voices in the name of national security. In terms of regulation seen growing in south East Asia, those that are meant to protect national security and anyone attacking the Government or criticizing the Government is a threat to national security. So we have a lot of cases (distorted) in Thailand and Lao that are put in jail for sharing the truth in the Facebook. (Distorted)
Facing 14 charges and who will face up to 210 years in jail. Just because he's calling for (distorted)
I think there is a real need to look at what are the harmful regulations. (Distorted) are regulating tech companies. So for example, in December 2022 in Thailand, the Government passed a decree (distorted) to remove content that is against national security. But again, there is no clear definition of what is national security. Everything can become a threat to national security.
For us, what we want when it comes to good regulation (distortion) or regulations that are protecting our online (distorted) with the human rights law. Protecting our privacy. It is not used against us. In Thailand and Indonesia, we're facing the (distorted) activists, journalists and politicians. It is important to be human centered. Generative AI can be powerful and improve our lives but we heard it has a lot of risks. In Southeast Asia (distorted) when it comes to assurance and bias. It is especially in terms of language. So if you are from a Southeast Asian country, our language structure in some of are you removing content that is in the standards. How can AI machine distinguish a word that has in one sound or one word five different meanings?
We talk about the need to regulate tech companies. It is very important for us that we move the discussion from if I go back saying I went to IGF and I heard about Hiroshima, new guidelines and voluntary measures, where will it take us. We need the regulations and revisions. It is not enough for Meta and other tech companies to tell us they're conducting human rights impact assessment that are voluntary and what they're barely doing is identifying the salient human rights issues. Then engaging in the stakeholder engagement and presenting to us the most (distorted) as if we didn't know them. The OECD guidelines. They should be able to identify and address prevent and address the impact. But also provide remediation. Tech company is saying the appeal mechanism reaching out is the best remedy offered today, it is not enough. There is a real need to (distorted) into law and decision that is meaningful. So meaningful stakeholder engagement not the box exercise. A lot of us in (distorted) and we give our input and there is nothing in terms of follow‑up.
This is groups that are directly impacted by misuse of platform by Governments, (distorted) facing proliferation of cyber armies from Myanmar, Lao, Thailand. We're so small compared to them. One or two people working in human rights organization it is not enough to fight against the cyber army. How do we do? We turn to tech companies for support nothing they can do. Not being regulated. It is time for tech companies to be regulated through meaningful (distorted) and we need the decisions to come from countries where the tech companies are operating because they will be in the company to make sure that throughout the supply chain in the country offices the U.N. (distorted) but we want responsibility. And remedy. We want civil reliability for the companies as well for what happened in Myanmar and the way the platform has been misused by the Government and other groups to promote hate speech against Rohingya. The fact that nobody is being held in account is not normal and nobody is being held to account is not normal. (Distorted) to include impact human rights assessment for AI. And would include meaningful stakeholder engagement and criminal civil liability of the company.
>> ALLIE FUNK: This next year with DSA implementation will be interesting to see how it will play out. If you haven't seen the recent I don't know what day it came out. A new database, thanks to the DSA, where a lot of companies are reporting content removal or actions in the terms of service you can go through, which will take a long time because there is a lot in there. Let's go to this question on multistakeholder engagement you brought up. This is something we think about. We hear about. What is actually like what is multistakeholder engagement mean? How do you make that meaningful? I will come back to you Guuz. You mention the international cyber strategy.
In the document it talks about incorporating more emerging countries and the multistakeholder model of Internet Governance. How does the Netherlands plan to promote the objectives particularly as it relates to inclusivity in Civil Society? And also in the Global majority on front lines of digital repression?
>> Guuz van Zwoll: Difficult question and interesting one. We try to enter into our strategy. We ... so basically we try to do the following thing. We try to connect in our cyber strategy the work. Try to connect the work on the traditional cyber diplomacy and digital development work and human rights work. Overarching team is the Internet Governance there. This is something that we tried to ‑‑ yeah. That is something that we try to do in those three ways. We see it as we mentioned, always try to see that either as a three‑legged stool and milking stool to have three legs for balance. You need utilization to be digitally connected. As a country to digital security in order to keep that structure safe. But at the same time, you need principles and good Governance to also Governor that structure, otherwise, you are just implementing censorship and surveillance apparatus.
So what we do as the Government is really trying to implement all the work. We try to the development cooperation, and work with the colleagues from freedom online and work on principles for digitalization and donors in the digitalization in order to improve all the digital ‑‑ go out and connect the last third of the world that is unconnected. We do try to get the other principles in place through the EU global gateway. We try to make sure we not only look at getting one connected but making sure that the digital security and also principles and good Governance are part of the equations and make sure that we ‑‑ that ‑‑ that through the processes there are multistakeholder approach and get voices from Civil Society to be part of that discussion locally. But it is still something that is a building block. This is something that we need to work on.
But it is a clear a.m. that we're set out in our strategy and we have to roll it out for the next few years. That is not the only thing we do. We work with local Civil Society and human rights Programme and strong Programme called voices, safety for voices where we try to support human rights defenders and Civil Society organizations. On security. Both physically and most as a strong digital component. All of the Programmes that we run out that are supporting Civil Society and human rights defenders have all this digital component to it. We try to mainstream it in those settings. We do that ‑‑ I mean, that is done from the Hague and all the same principles apply to the working on our own.
Yeah, I think that's where we're at.
>> ALLIE FUNK: I will ask one more for Olga and Emilie. Time has snuck up on me. Olga for you. You teased that destination. So I'm going to press on that a little bit. I should add that the Netherlands is taking Chair of the freedom online Coalition. U.S. Government is Chair now. The freedom online Coalition multilateral body of 27 Governments. How many ‑‑ 38? Where did I get 27? I'm behind. Bad advisory network member. Tried working to protect Internet freedom around the world. A two‑pronged question, I will ask both of you for your input. How can Governments themselves, what is meaningful multistakeholderism look like to you? How can they make sure to listen to the different Sectors? Also, what is the role of the FOC, multilateral body of democratic Governments that are really committed to protecting Internet freedom, how can they reverse this decline? Do you have Best Practices they can adopt? You can take any of that. That is like seven questions in one. I'll let you take it.
>> Olga Kyryliuk: This is also what I want to know, maybe also with the opportunity Guuz can clarify how essentially Civil Society can get better engaged in advocacy especially because this is also part of the job portfolio. I need to identify the connection point. My team is running the largest Internet freedom project. We're working with five Regions and 120 implementing partners from Civil Society. We have a tool of talent in Civil Society and defenders, we want to see the entry point, how to better coordinate and engage them in your space. Whether you see the value from these people, how to meaningfully contribute to what you are doing. You had this freedom online conference, which has not been held for the last few years. Which I think was one of the opportunities to get together for different stakeholders to discuss different issues, which are important and making trends.
But this is not happening anymore. I know there is advisor network, again, this is election based process which is also happening in some periods. So I would say if there is any opportunity to organize some kind of periodic consultations with the Civil Society, to choose the issue so it is not about everything and nothing at the same time. To make it very specific whether you want to focus on some regulatory issue. Whether it is something related AI. I think we would be only happy to support with that. And essentially we have huge variety of expertise. I love how F of C and U.S. Chairmanship. I was leading the consultation on human rights and digital age. It was nice to have everyone in the same room and everyone having essentially having the opportunity to express their opinion. And we also have the result of the discussion. So I think this is something which is very tangible with practical result. This is something which is missing and which we could do more.
>> Emilie Pradichit: I'm looking at forms of democracy. Working with Member States and the potential that you have to support us in countries with there is not democracy. Since the Netherlands are sharing (distorted) I urge you to help us, online democracy are under attack. It is not going to change tomorrow. 2024 is an important year because of a lot of elections throughout the world. There will be a lot of demand on the efficacy. Honestly the FOC is not accessible and not known for the majority of people from the Global majority. I think that is the FOC is accessible for these groups. Online freedom and digital rights groups based in Washington, D.C. For us, in Southeast Asia or the African context we don't know about the FOC. Better promote your work so we can better understand how the FOC can support us and support us in need of true democracy.
We need statements from FOC members that are targeting the Governments. We are trying our best. We have the Asian (distorted) and decision to target tech companies. But we are just a handful of people. We actually need your support. There is a real need for the FOC to look at Global majority and engage with us. When you do the engagement don't only do in D.C. There is a need for you to come to us. We need your input and recommendations to target our Governments. And the Private Sector in our countries. So there is a need to you to come to us. Why? Because for most of the people from the Global majority traveling to the Europe or U.S. is not easy. There are Visa restrictions. Always the same people you meet. Always the people that can travel and people who have access to you. There is a need for the FOC is talk to the French organization and other human rights field. The digital space is more important. We all know what happening offline is happening online. There is a need for human rights groups to understand and engage with the FOC.
Really looking at inclusivity is important and bringing that to the countries is important not everybody can travel to you. Invest in Civil Society being able to engage with you. Financial reporting of groups that were working with the Governments online. It is also very important. Most of the time, not everybody can category and everybody can work. Also the need to understand the work we do is putting us at threat. And it lot of us cannot speak politically or engage. A lot have to remain anonymous. Freedom of the net report has a lot of anonymous authors. There is a need for a need to look at Global majority and come and financially support us. We need to be able to fight (distorted) against digital dictatorship.
>> Olga Kyryliuk: What Emilie Pradichit was saying, you have access to Governmental people. That is what is missing a lot, not at the Global IGF probably. But at the regional discussions. We also have regional IGF. It is a struggle to Government Governmental representatives to be present in the room. (Distorted) focus on working with those countries which are members of the FOC, to encourage and build connections between them and the local regional communities. They could be part of the conversations. They could get into specific partnerships and work on issues together. From my Region of southeast Europe, we have members of FOC. At that level, those few countries and I know I'm also part of IGF Eastern European States. I know how challenging it is to get in touch with Governmental people. That is also practical help to help get connected with the people and have them in the room.
>> ALLIE FUNK: Anything to say before Q&A about FOC.
>> Guuz van Zwoll: Concrete and thoughtful points. We are writing this as we see. These are great points we're happy to digest and we'll bring them further.
It is interesting to see the freedom online conference is ‑‑ that is being missed, it is nice to hear. We ‑‑ I think COVID was the first reason notice the to organize it. There are already so many. IGF, and others. It will be good to discuss maybe later to see how we can make best use of the space and time and footprints to make sure we can make use of that.
The other points on a think many of myself and many of the colleagues within the FOC are open always to have discussions with human rights defenders and digital defenders. It is great to see if we can promote that work and have direct contact outside. And we can have long work of representation. That's these are valid points that we will take forward.
One last thing, on the security side, the FOC did create the digital partnership focusing on holistic reports for those at risk. That is specifically for groups that are facing threats online. This is a group that we are continuing to support as the FOC. We try to keep an eye on it and great to have concrete suggestions on how to improve these things.
>> ALLIE FUNK: If Rights Com is not happening until 2025, there is space on the calendars for the FOC conference.
>> GUUZ VAN ZWOLL: I will see if I can invite everyone to the Netherlands.
>> ALLIE FUNK: All right. Everybody, we're going to the Netherlands. They're going to kill me. We have 15 minutes. I want to open it up to y'all. Who has a question? Anybody? Hi, Lisa! Oh, yes?
>> ATTENDEE: (Off mic)
Thanks everyone for the fabulous discussion. I learned a lot. In thinking about how to make meaningful impact since we're at a U.N. conference, curious to hear what they think of the Global Digital Compact, pros, cons.
>> ALLIE FUNK: Step right in if anyone wants to take the tiny question. We have questions we can get them all.
Oliver? Go for it.
>> ATTENDEE: For the gentleman. I mentioned that you can support ‑‑ provide support for people who are under some sort of threat for their online activism. I was wondering if you can explain what type of mechanisms you have available in terms of what, lawyers, if they're in prison or something like that? I'm curious what do you mean bearing in mind geographically and different jurisdictional systems, what is not crime in given legislation.
>> ALLIE FUNK: We will do Oliver and Lisa and then we should answer because I will forget the question.
>> ATTENDEE: This is Oliver, I won't give my organization name because of security reasons. It is important for FOC to be a bit more clear with the outside world about what they're doing in regards to the UNESCO guidelines which the Global CSAs and Global South are concerned about the direction of the guidelines and how they encourage authoritarian States to crackdown on the digital space. We haven't seen much from FOC, not that we would see it. It would be useful to know that behind the scenes, there is push back on something that looks like it is driven by authoritarian state members of UNESCO. Thanks.
>> ATTENDEE: Hi, I'm Lisa from U.S. Aid. I have done a lot of stakeholder consultations this year in different countries where we're doing work or trying to scope out potential for new work. One thing that keeps coming up when we talk about international human rights frameworks and GDPR and DSA, DMA, EU AI Act and all of the frameworks. Other countries in the Global majority so the risk.
Based European model and the laissez‑faire American model and other models and don't want any of those plopped into their space. It is like where is the third way. It is the third ware rhetoric. Third space, how do we figure out a regional or national approach.
I think one of the key concerns is that when you plop the GDPR into Serbia or Indonesia or Kenya or wherever, there are certain aspects of the regulation that are extremely onerous for countries that are at a different income level than a lot of European Union countries that are challenging to implement when you don't have the oversight capacity and there's perhaps lack of political will and politicalization of oversight bodies. That is also a concern. I have a sense that there is a real frustration among a lot of actors in Civil Society and local tech and different countries. With this sort of very what people have expressed is a heavy handed like the international human rights framework is the thing to implement everywhere. So what are your thoughts? It can be very anyone on the panel. About how to navigate that. So you still have the overall protections and safeguards that are transferred to the extent that they're going to be useful in those context for human rights defenders and activists and the like. But you're not imposing aspects of that regulation or imposing at all really. There is a space for a conversation about what the human rights protections and safeguards look like in different contexts.
>> ALLIE FUNK: (Off mic) anything else before we dive on in?
Okay. All right. Who wants to start? My esteemed panelists? Olga? Here you go. I can repeat the questions if need be to make sure we answer them all.
>> Olga Kyryliuk: On Global Digital Compact, I think this is the same for me as freedom online Coalition. I would want to see more clarity about what is happening, where it is going, especially for Civil Society how to be part of that. The result (distorted) for how to engage. We were trying to see how to support the partners in this process and we don't see a clear way how this can happen. For regulations, for the question, I think the problem is everything that is coming from the EU is just to solve all the problems.
This is the standard we all should use, which has you mentioned has its own challenges once we start to implement and go to enforcement. I think that there are always the framework of principles and standards which are basic and can be replicated in every single country, but then you also should be aware that if you go into detailed regulations, they should be also conscious of the context where they are thrown to. It requires a dialogue in the conversation to withstand the national legislative battle. Probably some capacity building for them to understand okay because what countries are doing, they (distorted) and when it comes to implementation, we have to face challenges. And what you can do? The law is there.
It has to be done ‑‑ at the earlier stage when just the law some specific legal act is incorporated into the national legal system.
>> Emilie Pradichit: The question related to protection of human rights. There is a need to understand the local context and most of the phenomena we will talk about (?) is that we have the act and the Government said we have GDPR and we follow the EU example. There's no real oversight. No independent oversight, it is Government led. There is no remedy. There is an exemption into the law that allows the Government to violate our data under the consideration of national security. Governments are good to not replicate what is being done. We want them to engage and Civil Society saying I take the German example or the EU example. I'm developing this law. It is Government led, from the executive and not legislative. Allows the Government not engage with Civil Society. That is a real frustration.
Then going to the diplomatic discussion with diplomats and say we're following Global standards because we're in line with the EU. Diplomats will believe it. Understand that they're congratulating Thailand for having the act because that act is in Thai unless it is translated we want Governments to respect the law. We want to make sure that when there is exchange between Global North and Global majority countries, that is taken into consideration our context, when the Thai or Lao Government go to look at administration. We are looking at AI Committee (audio skipping) and it is just to appear as a good student or to appear as a good Member States at the U.N. In reality they are fooling the world.
They are helping to develop the laws, that is the Government, where is Civil Society? Where is the dialogue with Parliamentarians? The lack of dialogue and lack of understanding of the context and how easily other groups can be fooled by our Governments. Thank you.
>> Guuz van Zwoll: Good points. I think for us, although some developed it, the rollout or effect of TDR came as a surprise. We started claiming Brussels Effect. We didn't really plan on it. Well, I was not there in the room. I don't know.
I would expect that we're diplomats human beings and we're from 9:00 to 5:00. I don't, but the point being we have to learn by doing on this. Your feedback is extremely helpful. And each time we'll get Bart at it. We need your honest and open criticism on these to learn from it and implement it. The next time we have discussions on how are we with sharing the approach to AI or what is the shared approach on the DSA? That is something I urge everyone to keep doing and reach out to the embassy and try to find the FOC Focal Points. Those are the ones probably more resonating to the arguments than someone who is covering 27 issues because we're two people in the embassy. That is challenging. I would try to do that.
As on the UNESCO guidelines, I think that is indeed ‑‑ we have been following that progress with interest. We have tried to approach it. We have the advisory network wrote terrific comments that we took to heart when talking to UNESCO and participating in the Internet trust conference.
This is not completely FOC, but I want to launch the information integrity that was signed by some countries and more are signing on.
It is very important that we are going to fight disinformation and promote information integrity, we need guardrails like the UNESCO process and the code of conduct being run by the Secretary‑General Fleming to make sure that the human rights language is something during the processes. This is something we're pressing. It is like Brazil and Argentina, Chile signed up. We are promoting in that way.
About GDC, it is also very difficult for us. As diplomats to ‑‑ for me to follow it. I mean, the process, I mean, there have been stakeholder rounds. We attended those. Open to watch online. You know as much as I do.
It is ‑‑ yeah, we're open following it, tried to make best of it. We think that it is great in the chapters or sections that are there, (?) it is really there.
We have hope for it. We have to see how it will develop. It is a question on is it something else set out publicly. In this tragedy say, well, we have to strike a good balance between GDC and WSIS. Both important and find a good way to protect human rights online and capture multistakeholderism in the processes and also make sure the processes are really transparent. Everyone can engage. Noble majority have a seat at the table. That is something that remains a challenge. That is always a tough thing to do. Challenge the issues. Yeah.
On supporters, support for human rights at risk. The Netherlands funds tons of NGOs and initiatives to protect human rights defenders at risk locally. So we for example, fund defenders that has 12 Regional Coordinators all over the world speaking. Southeast Asia is difficult with tons of languages. In Latin America they speak local languages, there for Southeast Asia and trying to provide practical holistic support for at‑risk human rights defenders for legal way in digital protection and security, psychological well‑being, et cetera, et cetera. We don't ‑‑ we report and protect defenders with a conglomerate consortium of 13 organizations doing this worldwide. I mean, I think there are tons of organizations that are going to provide direct practical support for human rights defenders. Some of them are even here. I mean, there is a booth, a help line helping to work with front line. If you want to know more I am happy to speak for hours about the topic because I'm passionate.
>> ATTENDEE: (Off mic)
>> ALLIE FUNK: These microphones are tricky. Thank you all. We're at time. I think we could go on for a long time. There is so many initiatives. I'm so tired. I'm sure everybody else is. We have a seven‑person team and make tough decisions on how to engage and when not to. I'm grateful we're in partnership with the fantastic panelists, people in this room, doing the work together. I won't hold you back from dinner more. I know we're all hungry as well. Thank you for joining us. A pitch again, read the latest freedom on the net report Freedom House.org. Let us know what you think. Looking forward to a great week. Thanks all.