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.
***
(Music playing) ¶
>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Welcome, everyone, to the Workshop 5 of the Dynamic Coalition Session. Capacity Building as a Fundamental Human Right and Requirement.
Without capacity building, there would be no digital economy. This is the core of what we do. I'm honored to have a distinguished panel.
Dr. Muhammad Shabbir, Ayden Fédeline, Janice Richardson, Jutta Croll, Avri Doria, and Eleni Boursinou.
We will have people joining us online.
I'm going to set the context of why this is important. Seek the views of the esteemed panellists who are joining us. And we want the audience in the room to ask us questions as we go forward.
In any my view, capacity building is as multidimensional as is digital economy. It's not just about the technical skills but also about mindset. It's about governance. It's about multidisciplinary collaboration.
So there's no better forum than Internet Governance Forum to discuss it.
As I see the capacity‑building initiative needs across the continuum. One of the things that comes to mind is at the highest level of policy, the workforce capacity building, institutional capacity building. So you will see many times that we have technical maturity for anything that you need. We do not have the organisational maturity to waste time. So that's a huge divide as well.
And then you have community and users and people with special needs, and then you have media.
So we'll go across the expert panel and ask them about the topic, and then we'll deep dive into the topic.
In 30 minutes, I have a hard stop because I have to move to another panel, so my colleague, Janice Richardson, will be moderating the rest. I'm sure it's in able hands.
Let me start with the question of capacity building and what are the views around it.
So to my right,
>> When we consider the human rights to nonconsideration, freedom of speech, the right to privacy and right to peaceful assembly, these are all in the space. We encourage everyone to participate in the digital age.
My experience goes back to when one‑third had never heard about the Internet or access to digital services. When the term "digital divide" was joined, it was then. Nowadays, we are going to further the digital divide. I would call that the digital literacy divide. We need to remember that things will be outdated. We need to keep things updated.
I was just attending a session on AI literacy ‑‑
>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: This brings me to Avri, who represents Schools of Internet Governance. Avri, how are you going to address this issue going forward.
>> AVRI DORIA: Thank you. I think it's an interesting question on human rights.
Even before we had good conceptions of there being human rights, innumerable human rights. We knew that children had to be educated. We knew that people had to have schools. So while I think there are many dimensions to the notion of capacity building, both in the creation of knowledge and the disbursing of knowledge. There's other capabilities that we teach, without them, the schools would be useless.
Even if there's new people getting involved in it, there's always a need to organise the knowledge and organise the teaching of it.
Now, often, the teachers and schools don't assume they're doing it within something that is a human right, and I am here to fulfill the human right of the students.
When I looked at Internet governance and data governance and all those things, yes, everyone could go and be autodidactic and teach themselves, and that could work. But it doesn't happen.
Therefore, you really do need people who have experience in the subjects to actually work with the newer folk, whether they're young and new or even old and new, to figure out how the teach them about the subject area, how to bring it, how to make it.
But it goes even further in the schools for Internet governance, for instance, doing an IGF or a multistakeholder process, participating in a multistakeholder process is something that's important before we step into an environment.
Schools need to teach what I call the practicum of how do you do it. When I was working on a degree in counseling, I had to do practicum counseling under supervision so I would know how to do it.
So when we're talk about capacity building, we're talk about the knowledge but the capability to actually do. I will stop for now.
>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Few, Avri, for bringing that. It's not just about knowledge. It's about capability and capacity.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: I am representing ISC3, and I think standards are important because they do also translate to ethics.
I listen to my colleague, but I think there's one important element that we have not discussed so far. It's not just capacity building to do things but capacity building to understand the impact that technology is having on our life, how it's changing the way we think. We've seen this in elections all over the world. If people really understood the impact of technology on the decisions that they're making, if we understood thousand algorithms are giving me information from one side but not from the other, I think then we can really start talking about people being capable of using technology effectively.
I wouldn't talk about a digital divide. I think it's more of a social divide. I think it's the technology that pushed us toward the divide, those who can really rise above what they see online, analyse it, and take a distance from it, and those who are pushed around by technology.
I think that's a very big difference. And we do need to talk about this from the very earliest stage where we're putting kids in front of screens and changing the capacity of their brain. So capacity building has to take a broader approach and really understand what is happening to society.
And I will stop there.
>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Thank you, Janice. You made this important point. It's a social divide.
This brings me back to connecting the dots about what you just said, what Avri just said, and what you finally alluded to, this is a world where we have to take everyone along so we avoid not bringing people along.
This brings me to Dr. Muhammad Shabbir. How do you see us addressing this, given the work we do.
>> MUHAMMAD SHABBIR: Thank you very much to my colleagues who have been spoken before me. I thank them for making my job a little bit more easier.
I take a little bit of a different view, from the perspective of DCAD, in terms of capacity building.
Persons with disabilities are considered to be the largest minority on earth. Unfortunately, when it comes to their participation in IG discussions, their number can be counted on fingers, and we still have something that's left, if we start doing that.
What does this mean? This means that in 20 years of IGF discussions, though you would find that every IGF has had sessions and discussions on persons with disabilities about persons with disabilities.
I, myself, have participated in five ‑‑ this is my fifth IGF out of 20.
So 25% I have participated in, but there are very few who participate. This is the question. Are we building the capacities in the right manner? Do we need to do something else?
Is it the question of just capacity, or is there something else which is required?
In my understanding, capacity building is not just acquired from the user side or the participants side to enable them to participate in the IGF discussions, but it is also required, on the organiser's side as well as one of my earlier colleagues talked about knowledge creation.
So on the side of the person who is creating and producing the knowledge in a way where it is made accessible for people who access the knowledge in a different manner. So the question that those knowledge producers need to ask themselves is whether that knowledge would be accessible the those persons with disabilities are not.
And, lastly, the point I want to make in my initial intervention is disability is a variety. It can catch anyone and everyone at a time when we least expect it. It's not by choice. It's by design.
So everyone working in the places of decision‑making, be it knowledge production, be it capacity building or website production or whatever else, they need to think whether or not I can make this accessible. If not, sometimes you, yourself, might need it and may find it inaccessible for yourself.
I will stop there.
Thank you.
>> RAJENDRA PRATAP GUPTA: Thank you, Dr. Shabbir. You made this point about whether knowledge is accessible or not.
We're talking about capacity building, and we're living in a digital era. So finance, health, education, everything has moved digital.
This brings me to ‑‑ given the fact that the financial market, the financial world is also moving digital, currencies is moving digital. Are we really touching on financial inclusion? Where do we stand and what are we doing, and what are we doing going forward?
Sorry for the longest question.
>> ELENI BOURSINOU: I welcome back. And thank you, as well, to my colleagues on stage for your earlier conclusions today.
There was thought leadership to map whether financial rights even were human rights. And that was one of the conversations we've had to have ourselves to really understand because there is not, per se, a human right to finance.
From what human rights do financial rights derive? For us, it became clear that financial rights derive from enabled rights, including a right to adequate standard of living, the right to social protection, the right to work and economic participation, and, in digital context, the right to non‑discrimination, to direction, and privacy though privacy is not always a human right.
To link your question around capacity building, we've been able to see that to access these rights, individuals need to access and use financial systems, especially as these systems become digitised.
Even if the individual themselves is not digitally participating in systems, these are impacting people whether they use them in an electronic form or not.
Even if someone was using analog financial services is in some way being impacted by digital financial services because the likelihood is the provider is using electronic systems.
In that way, digital financial inclusion is not just a technical or developmental issue, but it is clearly a fundamental right.
When we speak about competencies that are required for our digital future, we think we need to begin by recognising that digital participation is not only optional. It's foundational to realising human rights. It was happening to you whether you opt to participate or not. And we think that is one of the most overlooked yet essential components of participation, the ability to access, to use, to control financial services.
When we're talking about the ability of individuals to access and make meaningful choices in an increasing digitised society, that does include the ability to transact, to save, to borrow, to participate in economic life. Without these, the right to education, the right to health, the right to have services as an individual who requires services and even political.
So, to answer at a high level, yes, we do need capacity building because we need agency to be able the ensure that more and more people are able to participate in today's digital society, but these issues are very much cross‑cutting, and we cannot merely address it alone. We have to work in tandem with everyone on this stage to try to bring a better path forward.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. I believe we have Eleni online. Can we hear your views on this, please, Eleni?
>> ELENI BOURSINOU: Can you hear me, everyone. Thank you for giving me the floor. I'm very pleased to share some reflections from the Dynamic Coalition and how more inclusive societies can be built.
Equity, inclusion, and exhibit are placed at the heart of the vision because it's not only tools for access but tools for participation, empowerment, and realisation.
As Jutta said, in her contribution, she talks about the need for the critical need of digital literacy and playing a huge role to ensure everyone has the right to learn and knowledge creation.
(Audio is distorted)
>> Eleni Boursinou: These competencies are foundational for inclusive digital development as applied in the Global Digital Compact.
Lack of digital capacity is a form of discrimination. Area three calls for inclusive, well‑resourced capacity building so that all stakeholders, especially those in vulnerable situations, can participate meaningfully.
We work with member states and teachers and schools but also in the decision‑making level and the policy development level, and we hope we are creating impact because we need agile and inclusive ‑‑ equities ‑‑ ‑‑ (audio is distorted) ‑‑ I will finish with that for now.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you, Eleni. We've discussed many of what I would say gaps in our capacity building. We've gone from rights with you, Jutta, the importance of schools and teaching, from Dr. Shabbir, the importance of integrating, of adapting, of making sure that equality exists for the many people in the world who need that little bit of extra help.
From Ayden, we talked about finance and, finally, from Eleni ‑‑ sorry. I've broken that down very much. I would say capacity and understanding agency in the economic world.
And, of course, the importance of open educational resources from Eleni.
Now I'm going to open the floor to questions, and I don't quite know how it works. No one told me.
I believe there's a microphone there.
Yes, would you mind lining up, if you have a question, at the microphone so that we can hear what your questions are. We really want this to be a very interactive debate.
Do we have any proposals of what is missing and what we should be thinking about when we're talking about capacity building? Then we'll come back to the panel shortly.
Could you introduce yourself first, please.
>> FLOOR: Hello. My name is Gunela Astbrink. I'm with the ‑‑ there's quite an extensive clause on capacity building. It includes accessible interfaces for persons with disabilities. So it's of great interest to us.
Trying to drill it down, are there any processes that can suggest? I know there are a lot of discussions ongoing, but I'm interested in your comments.
Thank you.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: And thank you very much for this very interesting question. Is there anybody who would like to take this question?
Yes, please, Avri.
>> AVRI DORIA: I will start. There are two things in your question. One is we can't just count on governments to do it. So the notion of how do we get governments to do it, yes, it's important. The government should probably do it, but that's sort of ‑‑ might happen, might not happen. It depends on politics, government priorities.
But how do you get it done in any case with any of those with the potentials to do it.
It requires one of the things that is almost always missing, other than the will, and that's the funding.
Educating people never, ever, ever comes for free. Not only do you have to pay teachers, but you have to have materials, time developing methods, if you need assistive technology, that costs. There's almost no education other than the old Socratic sitting under a tree and giving a lecture that can be done for free. And, even then, you have the feed poor Socrates.
So it's very interesting about capacity building. It's not only the GDC, but every single one of the documents from the time of the Tunis agenda and the plan and all that has cried out for capacity building, capacity building in development areas, capacity building in skills that are needed, capacity building in allowing those that have problems, have issues, have trouble learning, have trouble reading. Every one of those needs to be done, and, yet, never, ever have they said we're going to dedicate a certain amount of resource to building the skills, educating the teachers, and then putting in plans.
And so I guess it's a long way of saying I don't have the faintest idea unless they figure out they are going to put themselves behind funding it because without funding, there are no teachers. There is no assistant. There are no schools.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. And I think that's sort of the crux of the matter. What, who, how do we build this capacity.
Jutta has asked for the floor.
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. I wanted to refer to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and on the rights of children and what we did four years ago with children's rights in the digital environment, the children's rights to education and the rights of children with disabilities need to be adopted to the digital environment. So we need to understand that there are already rights that need further interpretation how to do that.
But going to your question with regard to the government, all those governments who have ratified the conventions are obliged to adhere to what they have ratified.
So it's kind of ‑‑ we need to take them accountable, to hold them accountable, saying, yes, you have ratified. So now we need the action. You need to do something because you have ratified the convention and especially because it's my head on children's rights advocate. I would say we have kind of a rulebook that the government can be held accountable.
Thank you.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you, Jutta, but I do have one little, further question. How do you hold them accountable? I mean, what can you do to actually force them to take this into consideration, to do something about it?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. Strategies usually ‑‑ of course, we are talking to the government, and they have to have these reports on a regular basis where they have to report back what they have done for the implementation of the convention and also for the implementation of general comments, but, on the other hand, we're going, form, to the schools, to the educational areas, saying if you don't feel comfortable, what you're going to do, in regard to certain types of education, of capacity building, have a look and then go to the government. Yes, we need to get the money because you have ratified this convention.
We have to put a little pressure, but we can hold them accountable based on the convention and the comments.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. And I think that's really something we should follow up on.
Dr. Shabbir, you asked for the floor.
>> MUHAMMAD SHABBIR: From your question, I take two key points. One is education and the second is accessibility of the platforms.
With regards to capacity building of persons with disabilities and what is written in the GDC and other instruments, we have discussed this. The only example I would give here ‑‑ and I would relate that with the implementation of GDC and my earlier comments ‑‑ is the CRPD that Jutta just mentioned, United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
I don't know the exact number, but what I'm sure of is out of 120, 93 UN member states, over 180 have signed and ratified this convention.
But in some states, its implementation is wonderful while others lack in its implementation.
There are strong commitments. Once you commit to something, you have to accomplish it.
People with disabilities came forward and had their governments implement the CRPD.
Similarly, coming to the GDC and accessibility of the platforms and capacity building, perhaps we can start by bringing more people with disabilities into IGF discussions.
DCAD is doing both things, building capacity and bringing persons with disabilities, but it is working at the global level. We need people coming from the grass roots levels, which would be national and regional Internet Governance Forums and schools on Internet governances and perhaps our fellow DC could contribute in that aspect.
There are a couple. I can give examples, but, for the fear of taking more time, I would just illustrate that DCAD, since 2023 has been able to bring at least a couple of fellows to these discussions and have them participate in the IGF at the global level.
But having two or three persons with disabilities where thousands, at least 6,000 participants are participating in person or online ‑‑ it's even less than that.
As someone said, we need more finances if we want more voices of persons with disabilities.
With regards to accessibility of platforms, this is the second theme. It can come with locals as well. There I would have to say, unfortunately, we also need ‑‑ as I said in the beginning ‑‑ the capacity building of the institution and organisations. In 20 years of IGF's existence, still we find certain inaccessibilities with the IGF platforms and the websites.
So it does not just mean that there's a lack of capacity amongst those who do not know about accessibility, but there is something else which I don't want to name the lack of willingness because that's a strong word, but I don't have any other expression to use for that.
And I stop there.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you very much. I think you really put the ball in our court.
Ayden, can I ask what you think about this question?
>> AYDEN FÉDELINE: Thank you for the opportunity to respond. If we think about what mechanisms ‑‑ other mechanisms might exist in order to see the good causes of the Global Digital Compact materialise in ways we can see and benefit people. Political will, where does it come from collaboration and pressure that's put on from different actors who work together and form coalitions to put that pressure onto governments.
So one instrument that we have is to name and shame. Civil society, for example, could have a scorecard that's evaluating how the national translation of the GDC into national law is weighing up. If it's not measuring up, then that's good to know.
So we can leverage, peer pressure, soft power, enforcement by reputation can drive reform when disability is at stake.
You can also ‑‑ I can't remember. I believe Jutta might have mentioned this, but tie in funding as well. It can be funding from private philanthropy, from donors, from development banks. They can become forces by conditionality. We can advocate that digital public infrastructure, for example, must adhere to certain norms in the GDC, whether it's human rights impact assessments, inclusive rights. I'm not an expert on the Global Digital Compact. I'm sure there are other great pieces we could draw upon to tie into the different private funding that is made available, but we can also build parallel infrastructure that upholds the best parts of Global Digital Compact as well.
Suddenly, something within the ‑‑ that we have been working toward, when there are prevention of better infrastructure that materialises, we can build better. Question use decentralised or Federated architecture. We can pilot different models that can scale and unless policy from the bottom up.
Just putting other ideas on the table that innovation can also be a form of enforcement. We can demonstrate what is possible. We can shame what is not possible, and we can bring in other actors to make the case for why the good parts of the Global Digital Compact ‑‑ you have a responsibility to take it forward as well. It's not enough to expect states to be enforcing the Global Digital Compact. They should but it is also reasonable to make the argument to other actors, including in the private sector and philanthropy, that maybe somebody else was carrying extra weight in the past. It's your turn to step up.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: We have a lot of great ideas. When can these coalitions work together to bring those in.
I'm turning to Eleni.
Eleni, did you have a response? There's one other person waiting to ask a question.
>> ELENI BOURSINOU: I echo what my colleague said, and I also want to say it's not only about funding. At least about OER, can I say from our experience ‑‑ I mean, it needs to be ‑‑ in order to have inclusive ecosystems, we need to have backup by institution on frameworks, funding, and standards. Open standards ensures that OER is integrated into lifelong learning and accessible tools.
Also, what my colleague said is very, very important, that in order to have inclusive digital public infrastructure, it's not just a right. It's both a right and shared responsibility.
(Audio is distorted)
>> ELENI BOURSINOU: And we have these responsibilities, as the coalitions, to do more and advocate more because that's what we do. Thank you.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. We have a new question. Would you like to ask your question, please?
>> FLOOR: Thank you, Janice. I'm going to take it out for a while. My name is ‑‑ and I represent the DC on Internet Standards Security and Safety. I notice it's very hard to get the tension and funding to continue the research work that has been done and translate that into some sort of capacity building.
So I have the idea that some of the people sitting here have a good experience with the capacity building. What is your experience that you could share with other DCs, but the second is the IGF structured in such a way that we can easily translate the work that all the DCs ‑‑ 32 of them ‑‑ do. Should the IGF be organised in a different way from 2026 onwards to make it easier to share the messages coming out of your DCs and the others?
Thank you.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: How do we put in action what we're talking about. Is this a talk shop, or can we lean forward and take action? Is there someone in the audience would look to respond? Where does the money come from that's necessary if we're going to customise the capacity building for the different population sectors and challenges?
Yes, Jutta.
>> JUTTA CROLL: I can tell where the money comes from, but I don't think it's just a question of funding. It's the question of whether we are quick enough. The whole landscape that we need these capacities for is rapidly evolving due to the technical developments and innovations.
So we are always a little bit ‑‑ maybe a big step behind these developments.
So when we are going for funding, that takes time. Then we get the funding. We do the research. What we want to research is maybe just a step ahead.
So we really need to have kind of a quicker strategies to address these issues, to not be lagging behind with our educational strategies, with our curricula, for example. We need to adapt that to the technology.
My idea would be that somehow Dr. Shabbir has already addressed those who are developing services, who are developing technologies. They should also consider from the beginning what capacities, what skills, what competencies do people need when they use these services.
So we're stepping behind that and developing a curriculum for technology that was there for a time or having in‑between research and addressing the trainings and the schools, it needs to go in parallel because, otherwise, we are just not quick enough in these innovative times.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: I think there you've really put the finger on the problem we suffer a lot from in Europe. The European Commission provides budgets with programmes such as Horizons, but you have to put in your proposal a year before, and by the time you've got the money, the issue has past, and something new is on the scene.
I believe Avri wanted to say something. Am I right? No?
I'm going to turn back to Dr. Shabbir who would like to ask a question of his own to the audience.
>> ANRIETTE ESTERHUYSEN: We have another online question.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: We'll have an online question when we've heard the question from Dr. Shabbir.
>> MUHAMMAD SHABBIR: I can hold back my questions. I have spoken enough. I will turn it to the online questions.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: One of our Uganda online fellows asks about reporting on the Convention ‑‑ I guess he's talk about the CRPD. He says sometimes they don't reflect what is actually the reality. He was wondering whether multilateral agencies conduct MMEs on the cases they've looked at, especially statistics. Does it match the impact of what they expect to see on the ground?
And so does anyone have an answer to his question?
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Does anyone have an answer? Is there anyone in the public that has an answer? Reporting, so it's important. We can report, but does it always match the reality?
Is there anyone with a response on that one?
I think he's raised a very difficult question that we all need to think about.
Is there anyone in the public who would like to respond to this question?
Anyone here?
>> JUTTA CROLL: I can give an answer from the convention where we have state‑based reports done by the government. Usually, it takes a lot of time before they have compiled all the information that has to go into the report to give the state of the art of the implementation of the convention. There is also the alternative report ‑‑ the shadow report. It's usually done by civil society organisations. Due to the fact that I don't have these administrative hurdles, this can be quicker and give something closer to the reality situation, the state‑of‑the‑art report.
It's good to have these shadow reports. I don't know if it's related to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, but ‑‑
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Yes. I think we have a response. Larry?
>> Larry: I can't hear myself. I assume you can hear me.
I can't remember the exact article of the UN ‑‑ rights to child that provides access to media. It is routinely violated by many, many countries, including European countries. The United States has not signed it, but all of these laws that are banning social media for people under 16 or restricting social media or putting many surveillance, all of which violate that Article. I would say that's a great aspiration but largely ignored by many of the member states.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. We got an answer, but ‑‑
>> JUTTA CROLL: Larry, we are going to put that in the shadow report, definitely. We don't think the social media ban is in line with Article 17. Thank you.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Dr. Shabbir, over to you.
>> MUHAMMAD SHABBIR: Thank you very much. The question I have from my fellow DC representatives is while we can discuss this tomorrow, certainly this comes in the way of capacity building as well. This is a very important year with all the WSIS+20 review and all the things with IGF.
So have we had the capacity building to prepare ourselves for what is coming next?
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Is there anyone on the panel? Maybe I will turn to Avri. Maybe you have an idea on this.
>> AVRI DORIA: You saw me shake my head.
I feel I'm being negative in this. Philanthropy NGOs that do it. It's the being companies that decide they're going to fund.
By in large, I'm not sure we're ready for what we have. While we're still at the point of figuring out what is to come, it's not like there is ever a parallel process of we are inventing X. How do we put X into the either, the open zone, in a safe manner.
We need to invent our capacity for dealing with something as we are inventing the something.
But we can't even get people to test things for safety. We can't get people to do design in that sort of stuff, as things are going on.
Again, my pessimism says what a great idea, but I'm not part of the producing laws because we always get around laws, and then we create more law enforcement and cleverer ways to get around them.
So how do we do it? By convincing people. That comes back to capacity. How do I build your capacity to build something in a moral way, in a safe way. But we're not even thinking about that, but perhaps that's where we should start, is raising the capacity of the inventors and the engineers, of the others, to think of it in terms of how it will be used, how it will be safe, et cetera. But I really don't know.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Yes. Thank you. You put it out there.
Does anyone else want to respond to this? Ayden, did you have anything you wanted to say, or you're fine?
>> AYDEN FÉDELINE: I am fine. I don't have a good response to that. What I really think about, when it comes to capacity building, is who trains the trainer. Those kind of questions ‑‑ as our dynamic coalition put together this. Some of these are very contextual and hard to respond to.
When I think about any evolving process, be it WSIS+20 or the Global Digital Compact, I mean, we don't know what we don't know just yet. So it's difficult to think through what a structured capacity building programme would look like.
There's an earlier question about how should the IGF's structure be reformed to be more fit for purpose. I would love to be able to respond to say we could create a dedicated track for exploring financial inclusion and financial rights, and we could have workshops and toolkits on building rights‑based payments and payments in the digital age and digital literacy is a right and implementation guidance, but the reality is we just have 10 pages of questions for people to help us answer. We're seeking input.
But we've consulted subject‑matter expert, and the problem is if some of these problems could be solved more simply, they would have been solved a long time ago.
So when I think about capacity building, I agree it's important. I agree we should do it. I think we need to give capacity building a very structured home in all of our processes, but I also fear it's not so easy to operationalise.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. And would Eleni like to come in on this?
>> Eleni Boursinou: I don't have any comments on this.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Is there anyone, any questions online?
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: No.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: No.
Dr. Gupta asked me a specific question. He would like to know: How do we change mindsets?
According to him, and I think many of us agree, it's the mindset. People don't understand the importance of capacity building, which may be why it's not sufficiently funded.
So I'm going to ask you all this question. How do we change the mindset so that people really understand the importance of capacity building, and, therefore, we can fund our research. We can fund. We can structure.
How do we change mindsets.
Audience, please go to the microphone.
Yes, Jutta.
>> JUTTA CROLL: First, we need to understand. I don't think we all have the same mindset. We have cultural differences in regard to the mindset of capacity building. We have differences across the globe, what the mindset is toward capacity building.
We have different educational infrastructures. We have different situations in regard of train the trainer, what Ayden has brought up.
I don't think we can have the strategy to change the mindsets that works everywhere around the globe.
What brought to my mind was the reference to the trainers. We need to discuss whether we have quality standards for training the trainers. Maybe we've come a step further with defining what skills, what competences we are talking about, but we have not been talking about what quality standards we would have for these trainings. If the trainers don't have the same quality standards, then people would not have got the same quality of education:
What we see is so many platforms where consent is provided, online training courses are provided. No one has oversight whether these are really of quality and train the right skills that people need for a certain service.
So I think we do need to put more retention in this regard to make sure that we have quality standards in place so I don't just take a course. It's not worth having invested the time.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: And do you think ‑‑ I mean, where is the big problem with the mindset? Is it with the policymakers or institutions or simply with the ‑‑ who is responsible for having the mindset?
>> AYDEN FÉDELINE: I think it has to do with who we're offering the capacity training to versus who should be the recipient of the training.
Some of our members are financial institutions who probably already appreciate, in some circumstances, that capacity building is a risk‑mitigation strategy. So they would understand that for people in certain roles, with poorly trained compliance officers, you're going to have some pretty significant failures and regulatory risks.
So capacity gaps could be understood.
It could be around does someone understand the financial services they've signed up to. Do they have choice? Are they protected from discriminatory algorithms? Do they have the confidence that's needed to use a financial service or product?
So there's two different things here. There is implications for the end user, the historically excluded communities and those who have the most to lose, potentially, from lack obvious capacity building.
And then there's the capacity building that can be offered as an argument that it's risk‑mitigation strategy.
So who is it that is receiving the training? Who should receive the training?
Because then the argument around who is responsible is different. The training is different
For some cases, the economic case can be made very powerfully. For others, well, maybe we need to quantify the gap and benchmark progress in order to understand why certain individuals are being harmed and why we may have obligation for other actors to step up and offer some assistance.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: If I understand, from Ayden, there are many mindsets, and the approach must be different for each.
Can I call on you now, please, Dr. Shabbir?
>> MUHAMMAD SHABBIR: Yes. So I would just echo the statement that my colleagues made. I would stub substantiate that we do not set any limitations on the fellowship. Of course, we cannot provide ‑‑ if they are required, but within reasonable limits, we try to meet each individual's needs.
Each has their own needs. We can apply the study. There's those with needs. And the needs have to be met when you want to make the policy or platform accessible.
Same is the case of the capacity building. You cannot have set checkboxes. Or if you want to make a list, it would be a long one that would give you some indicators, who, when, and where to target.
For instance, there are a number of capacity building online courses that train people be regards to different aspects of the Internet governance.
Many of the organisations run those courses. If you do an accessibility audit of those only courses, from the perspective of people with disabilities, there are very few ‑‑ and I am using the word "very" because I don't have any other word to use there ‑‑ where you find no accessibility issues. It would mean that those online courses, capacity building, which could have been easier, less costly, and less cumbersome for people with disabilities to follow and to learn from right from their places of convenience. You made it inaccessible for them.
So Internet Society, disability leadership in Internet governance is one example. Data organisation is trying to meet the needs and make the course accessible for people with disabilities.
The next question comes. How do you market that product? There's this course available that people with disabilities need to take, and it's not just that you have the capacity building and if you do not have the right learners learning that course, doing capacity building, who would you build that capacity for?
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: So, if I understand what you're saying, Dr. Shabbir, we first need to change the mindset of disabilities and then move forward.
Eleni, do you have anything to add here? What mindset are we going to change.
(Overlapping speakers)
>> Eleni Boursinou: My experience from the OER Coalition, we need to start from the decision‑making and policymaking level to help them understand why it's important and give some institutional framework that will provide incentives to the trainers so that they will do it, and it will be part of their professional development, and they will have reasons to be implicated in the process and then the knowledge‑creation process.
Also, what I wanted to say is another challenge that is coming up in the AI era, the quality assurance mechanism, and how do we make sure that what we find online, the course, that it's a quality course or not?
The challenges are great. We are working on it. We are doing research on it. We still don't have very concrete solutions.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. Avri, the mindset in education is extremely important. It's very difficult to move along. What have you got to tell us on this point?
>> AVRI DORIA: Okay. I think when I look at the problem on the large scale is when I find myself getting pessimistic because we have to change the mindset. You asked who's mindset. It's society's. It's not a particular group.
I tend to find that capacity building is done piecemeal by the devoted. In other words, you plunk down a school. You start a programme. You write something and then find out about the standards you need to meet.
Each one of those is an individual or a small group of people that decide into something. Those things work, those things multiply, and those things become an example to others.
So whenever I sit at these and look out, from a large scale and look out, it seems like a large problem.
When you start looking at the small steps, what step can we take, what step can your group take, then it starts to be tractable. I have to drink some water so I can speak.
But, basically, that strikes me as kind of the only way forward, is sort of to keep selling it, keep reaching it, keep talking about it, et cetera. One person decides to go out and start a school. One person decides to take their website and make it accessible. One person rights a story about something that appeals to others. That seems possible, the movement from the individual on out, the bottom‑up on out. But whenever I look for a large‑scale solution, that's when despair starts to descend on me.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: So what we need to do is find a way to scale‑up these grass roots projects to make them more visible.
>> AVRI DORIA: Or at least get more of them to happen.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: That also.
Is there anyone in the public that wants to talk about what needs to change and how do we go about this change so we all believe that capacity building is important and can change society?
We have no takers from the audience? No questions?
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: No.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Is there anyone online?
>> We have eight minutes left.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Certainly. What I'm going to ask you to do now is give us some final words, but something really impactful that will start leading us toward something new, towards the progress that we're looking for between our Dynamic Coalitions perhaps together and perhaps individually.
Who would like the start? Just one or two minutes about your final thoughts on this session.
We can also start with Eleni, if you wish.
>> Eleni Boursinou: Yes. Thank you. Yes. We are working on capacity building. We really hope that we will continue bringing OER in the inclusive ecosystems. We are very much motivated to work with all the Dynamic Coalitions, bringing together all the elements that will make SDGs a reality.
Thank you for giving me the floor and the opportunity to be with you online today.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you. And thank you, as, for mentioning the SDGs, which we haven't really mentioned, but I think that it underpins everything we're talking about with capacity building.
Ayden, can I turn to you first, please?
>> AYDEN FÉDELINE: Absolutely. Thank you for giving me the floor. In human rights law, states have obligations to not only refrain from violating human rights but to actively create the conditions in which rights can be realised.
Throughout the dynamic coalition, we've been saying that the same now has to apply to digital financial inclusion. Interoperable, open digital payment systems are infrastructure for human development. And we advocate for a shift in mindset. We think we shouldn't see financial inclusion as charity or development aid or corporate social responsibility. It can be all those things, but it can be the right to participate in economic participation.
I welcome you to take a look at our policy blueprint and to offer us feedback on it to help improve it. We believe that financial inclusion is ‑‑ whether it is cybersecurity or gender‑related issues or digital identity ‑‑ I'm just going to throw it out there. We're very open to forming a cross‑dynamic coalition. But you're welcome to participate in our coalition.
If we want something that is empowering and just, we need to build competencies that are rooted in rights, and we need to design systems that measure up. We have think this is a lifeline. We want to integrate digital financial inclusion to agendas in the workplan so other works and have a productive and long tenure here at the IGF.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you.
Dr. Shabbir, your thoughts?
>> MUHAMMAD SHABBIR: I would just say that the Dynamic Coalition on accessibility is trying to build capacity of people with disabilities and not just people with disabilities but the IGF system to make those systems accessible and inclusive for all so that people with disabilities can also contribute in the system meaningfully.
Now, changing the mindset is one thing, but we start from the low‑hanging fruit where we try to bring people with disabilities through the discussions to our capacity building training programme.
We don't just throw them in the pond the swim by themselves. We provide them with a mentor along with an online training programme first.
We also have, for the system guidelines that were updated ‑‑ to make the meetings accessible for people with disabilities.
The IGF secretariat benefits. The guidelines are there to make the event accessible so it should not be pick and choose what is convenient. If it has to be there and if there are financial constraints on implementing all of those guidelines, then there should be a discussion about what to prioritise in the case of making the event accessible for people with disabilities without asking them first making the decision is not the approach.
Lastly, you would say that yesterday, we had a session on the beyond tokenism. That was something where we talked about having persons with disabilities in the future leadership spaces. This is where the takeaways of that session comes in. People with disabilities should not just be participating, but they should be making the decisions because nothing about us without us.
Thank you.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you.
Jutta, some last words?
>> JUTTA CROLL: Yes. I'm convinced capacity building is a ‑‑ to benefit from the digital environment.
Nonetheless, having said that, my key takeaway from this session is let's try ‑‑ no. Sorry. Let's not try to adapt people to the service by training them to cope with the insufficiently designed services, which are not designed for their needs but adapt the service to the people. This counts, and I've already also learned in this session, it counts for all users. For children, as well as for people with disabilities, we have services that are just not adapted to the needs of children.
Now we are trying to bend them from these services instead of designing the services age appropriately.
Thank you.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you.
I think we've got some very sharp words here.
Avri?
>> AVRI DORIA: Just briefly and then I think I'm going to back to where I was. If you have the ability to do something about capacity building, do it. If you have the ability to pay for somebody to do it, start paying.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Well, very good final words. So thank you very much for participating in this session. I hope you really got something out of it. I do hope I gave you the possibility to have your say also. And let's try and work much more closely together as dynamic coalitions, and let's do it.
>> Yeah, let's do it.
>> JANICE RICHARDSON: Thank you.
(Applause)