WS #43 States and Digital Sovereignty: Infrastructural Challenges

Summary

This workshop focused on digital sovereignty and infrastructure challenges in the context of global digital transformation. Speakers from various countries and organizations discussed different perspectives on digital sovereignty, ranging from state-centric approaches to more inclusive, multi-stakeholder models. The discussion highlighted the importance of digital public infrastructure (DPI) in enabling countries to exercise greater control over their digital assets and services.

Key topics included the development of sovereign digital infrastructures, the role of open-source technologies, and the importance of data localization and protection. Speakers emphasized the need for countries to balance autonomy with international cooperation, particularly in regions facing infrastructure limitations. The Brazilian AI plan was presented as an example of national efforts to boost technological capabilities and reduce dependencies.

Challenges such as meaningful connectivity, especially in Global South countries, were identified as crucial factors affecting the success of digital sovereignty initiatives. The debate also touched on the role of private sector involvement in DPI development and the need for regulatory frameworks to ensure accountability and ethical use of technologies.

Participants discussed the potential for regional cooperation in building digital infrastructures, while also addressing concerns about how digital sovereignty might be used as a geopolitical tool. The importance of interoperability and cross-border collaboration was stressed, particularly in the context of emerging technologies like AI.

Overall, the workshop underscored the complex nature of digital sovereignty, highlighting the need for nuanced approaches that consider diverse national contexts while fostering international cooperation and inclusive development in the digital realm.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Different conceptions and layers of digital sovereignty, from state-level to personal and common sovereignty

– The role of digital public infrastructure (DPI) in enabling digital sovereignty for countries

– Challenges around connectivity, data localization, and infrastructure development, especially for Global South countries

– Balancing national sovereignty with regional/international cooperation and interoperability

– The importance of open source technologies and multistakeholder governance models

The overall purpose of the discussion was to explore how different countries and regions are approaching digital sovereignty and digital public infrastructure development, examining both the challenges and opportunities. The speakers aimed to share perspectives from different parts of the world on these issues.

The tone of the discussion was largely analytical and informative, with speakers presenting research and case studies from their areas of expertise. There was a sense of urgency around addressing digital divides and asymmetries between countries, but also optimism about the potential for DPI and regional cooperation to enable greater digital sovereignty. The Q&A portion introduced some more critical perspectives, particularly around connectivity challenges, but the overall tone remained constructive.

Speakers

– Rodolfo Avelino: Counselor of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, moderator of the session

– Min Jiang: Professor of Journalism Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, CyberBRICS fellow

– Ekaterine Imedadze: Commissioner of the Georgia National Communication Commission

– Korstiaan Wapenaar: Principal at the center of digital excellence in Johannesburg, develops digital economy strategies for Africa

– Ritul Gaur: Policy Advisor at the Digital Impact Alliance, worked on DPI negotiations at G20

– Renata Mielli:

Additional speakers:

– Luca Belli: Professor at UW Law School

– Jose Renato: Researcher at the University of Bonn Sustainable AI Lab, co-founder of LAPIN

Digital Sovereignty and Infrastructure Challenges in Global Digital Transformation

This workshop explored the complex landscape of digital sovereignty and infrastructure challenges in the context of global digital transformation. Speakers from various countries and organisations shared diverse perspectives on digital sovereignty, ranging from state-centric approaches to more inclusive, multi-stakeholder models.

Conceptualising Digital Sovereignty and Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)

Digital sovereignty was presented as a multifaceted concept extending beyond nation-states. Min Jiang, Professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, emphasized supranational, corporate, personal, and common digital sovereignty. This broader view complements the multistakeholder model by addressing underlying power issues.

Ritul Gaur, Policy Advisor at the Digital Impact Alliance, focused on how digital sovereignty enables countries to exercise more control over critical digital assets. Gaur explained that DPI governance can vary from state-controlled to private sector-driven, highlighting the flexibility in approaches. He described DPI as “laying out the most common drill, but then allowing others to build a market economy around it,” positioning it as a foundation for broader digital development.

Renata Mielli stressed the importance of viewing digital sovereignty as complementary to cooperation between countries, arguing that cooperation is fundamental to achieving sovereignty given the different realities each country faces in digital areas.

Infrastructure and Connectivity Challenges

The workshop highlighted significant challenges in developing digital infrastructure and ensuring meaningful connectivity, especially for countries in the Global South. Ekaterine Imedadze, Commissioner of the Georgia National Communication Commission, discussed Georgia’s challenges in developing data centres and connectivity infrastructure. Imedadze also mentioned Georgia’s green energy production potential, which could support data center development.

Korstiaan Wapenaar, Principal at the center of digital excellence in Johannesburg, noted that African countries struggle with fiscal and capacity constraints for digital infrastructure. He explained that DPI enables governments to deliver services at scale and reach people in need.

Luca Belli, Professor at UW Law School, raised a critical point about the lack of meaningful connectivity in Brazil, defining it as stable, fast enough internet access on an appropriate device with enough data. Belli stated that only 22% of the Brazilian population has meaningful connectivity, challenging the effectiveness of current digital sovereignty efforts.

In response, Renata Mielli outlined Brazil’s plans to address connectivity challenges through the PAC (Growth Facilitation Program), which aims to invest 23 billion reais (around $4 billion) over the next four years in digital infrastructure and AI development. Mielli emphasized that these efforts must be guided by reducing inequalities from the outset.

AI Development and Data Sovereignty

The discussion highlighted the importance of AI development and data sovereignty. Mielli stressed that data sovereignty is central to AI development and self-determination. She also mentioned ongoing G20 discussions on AI and the digital economy.

Min Jiang emphasized the importance of open source technologies and free software for AI sovereignty in developing countries, while Ritul Gaur advocated for DPI to be designed for cross-border interoperability.

Balancing Sovereignty and Cooperation

A key theme throughout the discussion was the need to balance national digital sovereignty efforts with regional and international cooperation. Min Jiang pointed out that small countries need to cooperate and build alliances to achieve digital sovereignty. In response to a question about regime types, Jiang noted that while democracies might be more inclined to collaborate, authoritarian regimes also engage in digital cooperation when it serves their interests.

The discussion also touched on international infrastructure projects, such as the Peace Cable that Meta is investing in, highlighting the complex interplay between corporate interests and national digital sovereignty efforts.

Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

The workshop underscored several unresolved issues and areas for future consideration:

1. Balancing national digital sovereignty with cross-border interoperability

2. Addressing lack of meaningful connectivity while investing in advanced technologies

3. Defining the scope and governance models of Digital Public Infrastructure

4. Ensuring stability and productive management of regional digital infrastructure projects

5. Preventing the use of digital sovereignty on infrastructure with regional impact as a weapon against other countries

Conclusion

The workshop highlighted the complex nature of digital sovereignty, emphasizing the need for nuanced approaches that consider diverse national contexts while fostering international cooperation. The discussion evolved from theoretical concepts to practical challenges and potential solutions, underscoring the importance of context-specific strategies that balance national autonomy with international cooperation and equitable access. There was a general consensus on the critical role of DPI in enhancing digital sovereignty, the importance of open technologies and interoperability, and the need for both national efforts and international cooperation in achieving digital sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected world.

Rodolfo Avelino: Aloha. Aloha, aloha, okay, okay. We have a test. Hello. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Hello. One, two, three. One, two, three. Hello. One, two, three. Yes. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. Well come. everyone to the Workshop States and the Digital Sovereign Infrastructural Challenges. I am Rodolfo Avelino, Counselor of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, and I will be moderating these sessions. We also have here Juliana Ons as Online Mediator and Ramon Costa as Rapporteur. Both are technical advisors for CGI.br. First, I would like to thank the IGF organization and everyone that is present today. A special thanks to our speakers that will contribute to our debate. The developments of the Internet are marketed by the consolidations of large digital platforms, notifications, and the growing use of artificial intelligence. This caused significant changes not only in social process, but also in sessions public services such as health, education, communications, and the state’s capacities in general. Despite technologies advances, problems of the opacity, national security, surveillance, and autonomy to implement digital policies arise. These issues can be framed under the conceptions of the digital sovereignty, a notion that can have multiples. meanings and purposes, raises themes such as the security of digital infrastructures, the security of the strategies data, innovation and the status capacity to guarantee fundamentals rights. This sessions aims at discussions, policies, initiatives to implement digital infrastructures in different regions and countries in light of different approaches to digital sovereignty. I hope we have a great conversations and that which experience may serve as inspirations for others. Now, I would like to give the floor to our speakers. Our first presentations will be delivered by Dr. Min Young, a professor of Journalism Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and also a CyberBRICS fellow. She will start our conversations by presenting the different conceptions of the digital sovereignty. Dr. Young, you have the floor for 80 minutes, please.

Min Jiang: Thank you. Thank you colleagues at CGI Brazil for convening the session and for inviting me to join. Can you hear me all right? Just double checking. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And greetings also to participants from around the world. My contribution to the panel is based largely on a book I co-edited with Dr. Luca Belli of FGV Law School. And can I have the slides up, please? Thank you. Can you move to the next slide, please? Hello. Can we move to the next slide, please? Yes. Thank you so much. So the book is titled Digital Sovereignty in the BRICS Countries, How the Global South and Emerging Power Alliances are Reshaping Digital Governance, coming out in two weeks through Cambridge University Press. I will develop my remarks today in two parts. First, I will trace the development of digital sovereignty and explain why digital sovereignty is gaining currency. Second, I will offer a broad framework for conceptualizing digital sovereignty beyond a traditional normative definition of sovereignty centered around nation states. In fact, I would argue digital sovereignty is not something that belongs to the states owning. Instead, digital sovereignty as broadly conceptualized complements the multistakeholder model by foregrounding the underlying power issues that have prevented multistakeholderism to be more widely adopted. So to start…next slide, please. Given the IGF…sorry, one slide back. To start, given the IGF is a global forum under the auspice of the UN, it’s appropriate to recognize that the UN is a post-World War II creation based on national independence and sovereignty. The idea of sovereignty, which can be traced back to the French philosopher Jean Baudin in the 16th century, as well as the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, is foundational to the modern system of nation states. As such, states are thought to enjoy territorial integrity, legal equality, and non-interference in international affairs. However, all of us also recognize that such normative and very idealistic notions of sovereignty are often good on paper, but not so good in practice. Sovereignty is frequently a function of power. Strong states, for example, can invade. Other states think Iraq War and the current war in Ukraine. Weaker states often lack power to exert influence. Next slide, please. The problem of power imbalance is especially evident in the digital era, where much of the world’s digital infrastructure, data, services, and increasingly AI depends on a handful of Silicon Valley firms. Snowden’s revelation of NSA’s global surveillance program in 2013 made it clear that the U.S. government cannot be trusted. Facebook, Cambridge Analytica scandal and the general failure of U.S. Big Tech in the 2016 U.S. presidential election also made it clear that U.S. Big Tech cannot be trusted. While internet sovereignty was once thought to be an authoritarian product shipped out of China, post-Snowden, it’s not surprising why more and more countries, including EU, as a coalition of post-nations, are picking up the banner of digital sovereignty. And in fact, EU means by digital sovereignty self-determination to voice their dissatisfaction. It’s also not surprising why ICANN was pressured to move out of the U.S. Commerce Department in 2014. Whether the effort came from individual states, group of states, or multi-stakeholder fora, they share one thing in common as the global consensus of U.S. centered. global digital order is breaking down, national and international actors are in search of alternative to build a new digital order. Next slide, please. The moment we’re in is not unlike the new world information and communication order new wickle debate in the 1970s. Next slide, please. Hello, next slide, please.

Rodolfo Avelino: One minute, one minute, please.

Min Jiang: Thank you. The new wickle debate in the 1970s culminated in the McBride report published by UNESCO in 1980. At the time information sovereignty and cultural sovereignty these were the exact phrases from the report were of concern to global South countries which were critical of the free flow of information agenda championed by the US and UK seen as an instrument for information colonization and cultural imperialism. In the end, the US and UK pulled out of the new wickle debate arguing global South countries used information sovereignty and cultural sovereignty as a pretext for censorship and control at home. Next slide, please. The power is symmetry then mirrors the power symmetry today while state centric perspective remains essential to understand digital sovereignty. Many researchers, including myself also recognize digital sovereignty is a signifier is a term with many different meanings used by different actors to express their aspirations and also to assert control and power. Thus in the book volume we adopted a more generative definition of digital sovereignty as the exercise of agency power and control in shaping. infrastructure, data, services, and protocols. The book project’s bottom-up efforts also led us to develop a broader framework of digital sovereignty, mapping the following seven perspectives. Next slide, please. In the state digital sovereignty perspective, nation-states exert control over digital architecture, data, protocols, and services. It can be both positive and negative. While Brazil, for example, built the PICS digital payment system during the pandemic, and India built the UPI digital payment system as digital financial infrastructure to increase independence and inclusion, Russia, on the other hand, built the RUNET for digital isolation. In the supranational digital sovereignty perspective, regional alliances like the EU develop unified digital policies as well as legal and digital infrastructure. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in fact, gave a speech at the 2019 IGF defining EU’s digital sovereignty as a form of self-determination. So for EU countries, being sovereign doesn’t mean working alone, but working together. Network digital sovereignty, something ICANN as an organization might endorse, it emphasizes decentralized control, network interoperability, freedom from nation-states, and global coalition. Corporate digital sovereignty, on the other hand, tends to endorse the freedom of tech giants in driving digital economies and shaping digital norms, something scholars have critiqued to be a form of surveillance capitalism or data colonialism. Personal digital sovereignty, on the other hand, emphasizes empowerment of individuals to control their digital identities and personhood. Post-colonial digital sovereignty highlights efforts by former colonized nations to reclaim autonomy, access, ownership, and control in the digital space. Finally, common digital sovereignty emphasizes community driven governance of shared digital resources and production of public digital goods. This is embodied in the open source free software movement, as well as international digital solidarity and labor movements. So for us, digital sovereignty is not something that belongs to the nation states owning. Broadly conceptualized, digital sovereignty does not replace the model stakeholder model. On the country, it complements it by placing it in a wider discursive field and foregrounding the underlying power issues. Global digital sovereignty shouldn’t and cannot be determined by national governments alone, but needs a global coalition to address pressing issues of global divide in digital infrastructure, entrenched challenges of digital surveillance and censorship, as well as structural monopoly and digital inequality. Thank you for allowing me to share my perspective. Look forward to further exchanges and discussions.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Young. Now introduce it Ekaterine has been a commissioner of the Georgia National Communication Commission since in 2021. The commissioner has 15 years of professional experience in the telecommunications field. Mrs. Ekaterine, could you comment on how the Georgian government adapts to undergoing digital transformations and how these projects relate to broader European context?

Ekaterine Imedadze: Thank you very much. I think my presentation will be put on now and first of all, I want to thank hosts of this very interesting panel. Thank you very much. Thank you. interesting, very important, very, very, very much relevant topic of workshop. This is Information and Coordination Center of Brazil. Also, I think everybody will join me thanking the host country, Saudi Arabia, Riyadh, for this amazing venue for the IGF. And it’s a great pleasure to share a perspective from another part of the world about how the state can see very small, tiny state in the South Caucasus can see the challenges and can overcome the challenges related to digital sovereignty. And the previous presenter very in a best manner outlined what are the layers of the digital sovereignty and how it has evolved. And I will be speaking about the very specifically telecom layer, the most upstream perspective of the infrastructure and challenges related to my country, Georgia. And it is also related to the region itself, the South Caucasus. So my perspective as representative of the telecom regulator and state representative will be specifically as I said, to the very upstream layer of the infrastructural challenges. I’m trying to now move on. Thank you. So my friend from South Caucasus is helping me as we do usually. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. So, we all know that most part of the data, as we speak about digital, most part of the data traffic goes through the submarine cables, you know that, and how important submarine cable resilience levels are. We see that this information was kindly provided by one of our important partners, which is World Bank, so I’m allowed to show this information, but actually this first slide is available information you can find on telegeography, and it’s updated on a daily basis almost, and you see this is the most upstream layer of the Internet, and this is a value chain, and this is a growing market, and this is the very, how to say, the basis of our connectivity, that enables us to exchange data, to protect data, and this many cables are also created to ensure that the data exchange is resilient, so the sovereignty information on the infrastructure level is pertained. If we can go to the next slide. It’s a bit of a challenge. Thank you. So, now let’s speak about the very tiny segment of this big map of worldwide connectivity, which is South Caucasus, where my country Georgia is located, and you can see the map, you can see the geography, from these almost 500 infrastructure connectivity routes, only one route is connecting Georgia and South Caucasus with Europe. And this connection is very important, direct connection. You understand how important it is if we speak about the infrastructure level, resilience and sovereignty of data based on that. And there are the aspects of resilience, which is providing direct international access, not through some other jurisdictions, but through the sea. This is what makes the subsea cables so important nowadays. And development of more inter-regional networks is obvious. The necessity of development of more inter-regional networks is an absolute necessity for our region. So this is the challenge we are facing now. And fortunately we have partners who are supporting us with making this connectivity and resilience really work. I will speak later on that. What else is happening in our region is that there is a project of trans-Caspian cables under discussion, which will connect us further to East Asia or Central Asia. We know that digital is interconnected, so we need to be part of global resilient connectivity paths. And with this, not only the infrastructure level, resilience and direct connectivity corridors come to our mind, but also the layers that were also… So, what else comes to mind after seeing that there is definite need of expanding the infrastructure level independence of the region? It comes also the layer of services, software and data protection. Data-related resilience layer, we will speak about the digital hub concept, which is also crucial for our region, which is on… Hello? Hello? Check? Some kind of check. Next slide, please. Thank you. Maybe we need some kind of inter-regional digital hub. If we speak about the concept of protecting our data, we see that concerning the geopolitical situation around South Caucasus, you can see how on the map, how important it is to have the connectivity, some kind of inter-regional connectivity hub that will enable us having the transparent data protection frameworks, which is aligned with the EU GDPRs, EU-related data protection legislation, and that will allow us to have some kind of protected sovereign data transfers throughout the region. Another important aspect why we need to have data hubs in region is that upcoming technological demands related with AI definitely requires that information should be brought closer to the customers. So this is another challenge and this is another important precondition to building the inter-regional connectivity hubs, which will involve regional countries, but which will create some kind of alternative to overcome choke points like you see in the Red Sea region. And when we see about the challenges, challenges bring usually the opportunity. So my presentation here was brought to show you that we’re trying to turn these challenges into the opportunities for our region. And as I’ve mentioned in the beginning, if we can… and move to the next slide. Thank you, Nini. So there are some kind of articles about what are the challenges, how the big techs and geopolitics are reshaping the internet plumbing now and what is going on around the world. It’s very much relevant to our region. And as I’ve mentioned, this concept of South Caucasus Digital Hub to make our data more resilient is kind of the answer to the question how we can build more robust digital service, so digital layers, starting from the upstream infrastructure up to the software and data protection layers. And you can see this Baltic Highway project, which is supported by European Union. And we also are supported by World Bank and by European Union to build similar regional connectivity corridors that will enable countries in the region to be connected safely with other worlds and to bring the data closer to our subscriber and to ensure that policies and regulations that are adopted amongst the European Union to be kind of transposed to the regional data hubs. This is how we see, answering to the challenge you would have. I’ve seen, of course, this is now in projection stage. The projection stage means that we have some concept how this data center regional hub concept should work. And we really hope that it will be continued and it will turn because the adoption of AI and growing demand on the machine learning or bringing the more like content into the digital space gives us understanding that this project should be elaborated as soon as possible. So this was what I wanted to share with you and I’m happy to answer later the questions. Thank you.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you. And now introduce it. And Korstiaan is a principal at the center of digital excellence in Johannesburg. He develops digital economy strategies to address Africa’s developmental challenges. Korstiaan will comment on the capacity limitations in Africa, different dependence on local, private and the international players connecting to the trade offs of sovereignty. You have the floor.

Korstiaan Wapenaar: Thank you very much, colleagues for having me. Thank you. in and for the opportunity to participate. Can I ask? Okay, great. Thank you very much. There have been a couple of version changes this morning, so there might be a couple of edits that might not have come through, but we can run with it. So, I think the point of departure to start is that digital transformation of the public sector is a prerequisite for socioeconomic development in Africa. African states have struggled to deliver services to people and organizations at scale, and subsequently these technologies allow them to reach people in need at scale when they need. Unfortunately, despite this prerequisite, let’s call it, African countries have largely struggled to deliver on the opportunities of digital transformation. The e-Government Development Index is a useful proxy for that, and we see that there are only four African countries that have managed to achieve above the global average. And so, there are some critical underlying drivers of this underperformance. In particular, one is acknowledging that many African countries have significant fiscal constraints and significant capacity constraints in terms of their expertise, and that subsequently this has impacted the rollout of the quality of both hard infrastructure, if we think about data centers and the like, as well as soft infrastructure being the services that, the technologies that are used to deliver services through this hard infrastructure. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. If we look at data centers as a proxy for the availability of infrastructure across the continent, we see that there is a rapidly growing demand for more physical infrastructure. This estimate on screen, and apologies that there’s no access on the on this graphic, is that African countries will need to more than double their data center hosting capacity by 2030. At present, the number of these countries are underdeveloped, there’s not a lot of digital activity, and so localization requirements are hard to meet through a local data sector because it’s economically infeasible to host a center domestically just to meet those local requirements. Subsequently, we’ve seen that a number of markets across the country, governments have started or have experimented with deploying their own data centers to manage their own data and operate their own technologies and infrastructures. In many cases, though, due to the capacity limitations, these are poorly managed, they’re underutilized, and they have become what is termed economic drains, maybe one might call it a white elephant or the like. And so it leaves a little bit of a quandary for African countries that are trying to achieve localization requirements independently and autonomously. Next slide please. And so subsequently, what this means is that there is an inherent dependency in Africa on, maybe inherent is a bit of a strong term, but there is a mutual benefit between the state and the private sector in delivering this hard infrastructure, where in many cases, private sector players such as your hyperscalers are supporting governments in the operation of their own technologies. Next slide please. And so subsequently, as the value of digital public infrastructure is better understood, and is gathering steam across the globe, we likewise see increasing adoption in Africa, as we saw before with the e-government digital. or EGDI and the like, that there is, this adoption is slow or slower across the continent. So these principles, Dr. Min was talking about FOSS, open source and the like, these principles are arguably key mechanisms that will allow service delivery at scale by allowing governments to adopt these technologies, lead with their own interests and operate them independently and autonomously. Next slide, please. If we break away from, we’ll start to unpack the debates within the DPI realm around what is public, we see that there is room to explore the role of the private sector in supporting the design, delivery and operation of services through technology and government. And so we see in Africa that the private sector has a key role to play in many of these, in many countries in service delivery, creating a question around that P in DPI and whether or not P needs to be big P or small P for those that are participants in the debate. So we know that financial services players, telecoms, retailers, vendors and community are all supporting or bolstering government in its delivery of services. So arguably, if we think about sovereignty, and this is maybe bending the definition a little bit, there’s sovereignty in terms of government’s ability to deliver services independently or its requirements to engage the support of the private sector. And we see that in Africa, participation in the private sector may be a requirement but is not detrimental inherently. And so this might be a necessity given current limitations. Next slide, please. Likewise, when we look towards the emerging DPI. ecosystem, we see that there are a wide variety of non-government players that are offering technology and support. A couple of them are on screen there. So these entities will help governments identify what technologies to use. They will help them roll their technology out and optimize it for their local environment. Again, this is contrary to a hard line view of an independent autonomous state by drawing in the participation of these entities in their support. So these role players, arguably, as non-government role players, are critical to catalyzing digital transformation across Africa. Likewise, equivalent to the requirement of private sector players. Thank you very much.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you, Korstiaan. Now, Ritul Gaur is a Policy Advisor at the Digital Impact Alliance. His area of work includes research and advocacy around the digital public infrastructure. In his previous role at the Minister of Electronics and IT, GOI, he worked on DPI negotiations at G20, tackling questions of the why, what, how of DPI. Ritul, given your experience in this field, who do you share with us your thoughts on the connections between digital

Ritul Gaur: sovereignty and DPI? Hi, thank you so much. a big thank you to the organizers and everyone else for attending. I wish I was there in person, but you’ll see two gentlemen in the room. There’s Ibrahim and there’s Talha, who are my colleagues from the digital backlines. So if I say anything which is controversial, they are my lawyers. So I want to start, and I also have a great, great job to explain something which I spend a lot of time theorizing and et cetera, which is digital public infrastructure. Think about digital public infrastructure. Think of society in the digital age. Now, what is it that is absolutely required? It is an identity system which is secure, which can be authenticated against something which can truly prove that you are you and in a unique way. So an identity is an important component of it. A fast payment systems, which allows you to transact both P2P and person to business, person to person, et cetera. And then data, which allows you to both store and share your data across both public and private services in order to access different services. Now, it’s not restricted to this because DPI is still an evolving concept and there are already new DPIs in climate, in commerce, et cetera, such as ONDC, et cetera. But broadly think about why are we referring to this as infrastructure is because it lays down just the common minimum rails as in the 19th and the 20th century roads rails did. And then it’s for others to come in and innovate and build on top of it for developing so many other services. Now, you could ask me a question that this is how digitization happens. What makes it new or why are we saying this? Why are we calling this as an approach? A simple answer to that is think of DPI from three common aspects, which is tech governance and community. Now, when you think of technology, it is an amalgamation of open source technologies using using open standards and open specs to build the tech that’s required. So essentially for your critical national digital infrastructure, you are not going for big vendor contract, but you are actually building something from scrap. You’re using a lot of open source tools. You’re using open standards. You’re using you’re not going for proprietary standards. You’re not going for big vendors. You’re using a lot of open technologies. The governance of DPI. So first is the tech. Second is the governance. The governance of DPI is multilayered. There is a governance embedded in the protocol itself, which is safety by design, security by design. And there’s a governance of specific aspect of DPI. Let’s say if it’s an ID, then there’ll be an ID regulation, an ID legislation. And of course, your broader umbrella data protection, GDPR kind of regulation, which also applies. So so that is the tech. Then there’s the governance. And then the most important part, DPI is nothing without its community. So to borrow, borrow a phrase from a professor, David Eves calls it that DPI allows you to have shared means to many ends because essentially it’s laying out the most common drill, but then allowing others to build a market economy around it, allowing others to use that ID to do a KYC to then provide services, allowing others to build that payment service app to then offer other things. So that’s the, that’s the amalgamation of these three things. And as Kristen referred, the two most important things of digital public infrastructure is it has to be open for all to access and it needs to be interoperable. It needs to be interoperable across different systems in the country, etc. Now, the element of sovereignty as to what what is the role of DPI and sovereignty is linked, I believe DPI does empower governments and countries to exercise more sovereign control over their critical national digital assets. And we’ve seen this in the case of India. India gradually moved away from Visa MasterCard. Now, 80% of our financial transaction goes through our national payment infrastructure called UPI. 80% of our digital financial transactions are not going through Visa MasterCard, but are this thing. Our national ID data, which includes our biometric, et cetera, everything is coded, homegrown, and it’s out of the data sets out of India. So I think in a lot of sense, both India, Brazil, Singapore, Togo, we’ve seen that how DPI has been a critical enabler of sovereignty. But now I think a lot. So I think at this stage that we need to take a step back and actually analyze what is digital sovereignty and what does it mean in this context? I’m going to break it down into three aspects, one being the data part of it, the other being the hardware part of it, and third being the software part of it. The software is the most easiest part. How does DPI enable sovereignty? A lot of DPIs are built on open source softwares. So essentially, you’re just taking something from GitHub, contextualizing it, making it in a way that it’s feasible for your population, it’s contextualized for your population. Essentially, it becomes your own source code with the moderation, with the modulation that is required. We’ve seen this in the case of MOSFET, which is an ID provider, OpenG2P, which is a government-to-citizen, government-to-person payment service provider, Engie, which is a wallet, Mojaloop, again, a fast payment system, OpenCRVS for civil registry, et cetera. So a lot of these software, which are out there and open as open digital assets, are adapted by the country to then contextualize in their own economy, and then the software is housed and hosted within the premise of that country, and it’s owned by that country. So, software is one aspect of DPI sovereignty. The second is the hardware. Now a lot of DPI-related stuff requires you to have biometric scanners, cameras, card printers, etc. I think in this case, the sovereignty is a bit malleable because you still require domestic and international vendors to procure, there are still very few companies that still make these kind of standardized hardwares, etc., which are required to enroll large swathes of population. So I think then, and of course, there are a lot of ingenious solutions that are required based on your contextualized population. In India’s case, we have something called voice box, which pops every time you make a payment. So essentially, it’s building trust, etc. So a lot of vendor management procurement happens in the hardware part of it, which could be both domestic but international. And then finally, the data aspect of it. So data is something which happens in both ways in terms of DPI. It also stays with country if you have data localization norms, if you have data housed within the premise of the particular ministries, etc. But also a lot of countries also go for cloud-based data because it’s cheaper, it’s easily intractable, you can also switch clouds, etc. So I think how can, and to sort of summarize this and say, how can DPI enable sovereignty is, of course, use open technologies, I think that’s the most important thing. But through regulation, use data localization norms, get better deals with vendor, make sure that for poorer countries, particularly, that a vendor does not come and harass you. So if you are going for a vendor, make sure that there is a high degree of vendor interoperability in your case, that if you want to move your data from Google Cloud to AWS or to Oracle, you can do it. Choices. I think at the very stage of conceptualization, design choices matter a lot. Go open by design, use open source, open standards, pick domestic vendor as much as possible. as you can. Don’t rely for the big vendors because they have a lot to service and you will be on the last tier list to be serviced. And I think the final and most important thing is the funding. Try to get neutral donors who do not try to push you a certain kind of technologies. Try to find partners who are invested in the longevity of the system and not the constituency back home that wants to sell you a certain kind of software which then the servicing of it will be super expensive. So I think with that I will conclude my statements. There is a big link and we’ve seen in countries like India, South Africa, Brazil etc where DPI is enabling high degree of sovereignty but there are multiple facets to that sovereignty that still needs to be figured out, it still needs to be tweaked, it still needs to be better managed. Thank you.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you. So ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce first Dr. Mouamad Alsour, the founder and president of Sustainability Professionals of Saudi Arabia, whose groundbreaking work and initiatives in sustainability and sustainable designs and green certifications have set benchmarks in the region and beyond. Renata, how do you comment on how the Brazilian plans for artificial intelligence relate to today’s challenges around the digital server? Thanks Rodolfo,

Renata Mielli: thanks Jeff for this workshop. I think Dr. Ming, Catherine for standing root to bring a very broad perspective about sovereignty, infrastructure. Dr. Ming brings some concepts, Catherine brings the aspects of connectivity and Korsten brings another aspect he told us about DPI. I will answer your question, but as I’m the last one to speak, I’m going to bring some summarized aspects about how Brazil and Brazilian government are seeing this broader challenging regarding sovereignty in infrastructure. Well, I started pointing something that’s very obviously, but nowadays we need to tell the obvious, that we live in a world in transition where every day all human activities, socioeconomic and cultural relations are mediated by information and communication technologies, by a broad digital ecosystem. The mastery of these new technologies reshapes the international geopolitical board and redefines groups of countries that are producers and consumers of the digital technologies, and this is our main concern these days. And we bring this debate during our G20 presidency under the AI priority we led on the digital economy working group this year. Besides AI, we had another three other priorities issues, meaningful connectivity, DPI and information integrity, all starting from this perspective about how we can move and address the challenge of these asymmetries we have in terms of technology and emergence new technologies. Well, these issues relate to these asymmetries between and within countries exist in many areas and have been present for a long time. This scenario has deepened significantly with the emergence of large digital platforms which, in a way, determine the current economic model of society and set new forms of capital accumulation. A few large companies, the big techs, operate in various areas of the economy but have platforms at the core of their operation that mediated commercial authorizations, the flow of information, the provision of services, and in this very moment all the infrastructure and knowledge about the development and the employment of AI in the world. So, regarding AI and other emerging technologies, what we have now, we are facing a scenario that, at least till this moment, we are facing a deepening divide and inequalities, particularly in the Global South. In the sense, the debate about the digital sort of sovereignty is increasing. This term refers, as Dr. Ming said, among other things, to a national strategy autonomy or its capacity to develop digital tools and artificial intelligence using its own infrastructure, data sets, workforce and businesses. Furthermore, it involves the ability to independently regulate and decide on its own digital and AI path in a quest to ensure inclusive growth and sustainable development. The digital sort of sovereignty refers to the ability of states to control their own infrastructure, emphasizing the position of each country in controlling ICTs, that is, a greater or lesser degree of autonomy to make choices and decisions in the field of technology. And, of course, in the field of cooperation with other countries, this is very important also. So, for us in Brazil, we have some key perspectives. The role of the states. So, emphasizing the importance of government action through public policies that support the development of technological infrastructure, science and technology initiatives and industrial policies to foster innovation and reduce dependency. This includes encouraging and promoting the use of national technologies and regulating the use of foreign technological tools. I’m going to say next about precisely about AI plan, but we have another public policies regarding industrial economic development and other initiatives that compose a very large umbrella of public policies regarding investments and in technology. The second point is sovereign digital infrastructures development, maintaining independent digital infrastructures that ensure national control and security. Meaningful connectivity. We also face profound challenges in the field of meaningful connectivity and access. This is how to reduce the prices of equipment, for example, cell phones and computers for the population. We cannot see only the access aspect. We need to see more broader aspects when we’re talking about meaningful connectivity. After all, if we are talking about leaving no one behind, we need to develop the capabilities locally to offer better services to society. For this, there must be meaningful connectivity and we need to strategically think about how to build a permanent digital training process for the entire population, from young people to the elderly, for people living both urban and rural areas. In addition to connectivity, we need to think about the availability of equipment, especially cell phones, which is the most used device to assess services that have the quality and minimal capacity to run applications and tools that use AI. Governance and regulation. And now in Brazil, we are discussing a bill regarding regulation on AI. And for us, it’s crucial to create frameworks for data governance and platform regulations also, that ensure accountability, transparency and ethical use of technology. In this scenario, we need to think about how to create a framework for where the digital system is available in the country, platforms and AI tools are mostly international, it’s necessary to discuss regulatory mechanisms that establish rules for the operation of these companies in the country with transparency obligations about their systems, granular information about aspects that have economic, social and political impacts, conduct adjustments mechanisms, among many other regulatory aspects related to social and human rights. Security and privacy and also develop sovereignty in security and privacy technologies. So for AI to have a positive impact in catalyzing innovation aimed to reducing inequalities and other social issues, its development must be guided by this proposal from the outset. This includes its conception, production, programming, the use of training data set structures to enable AI to achieve its goals with accuracy, linguistic, cultural and geographical diversity. Otherwise, AI could become yet another driver of inequality. This is why data sovereignty is central to the development, implementation and use of AI by countries that aspire to any degree of self-determination. Those was the main focus that Brazil brought to Digital and Digital Economic Working Group this year. We produced as Brazilian presidency contribution a toolkit for AI readiness assessment in partnership with UNESCO that was our knowledge partner with insights to leverage the potential of enabling a holistic and inclusive approach to the ethical and responsible development, deployment and use of AI technologies. And also a mapping AI adoption for enhanced public service with insights into systematic monitoring and relevant opportunities and challenge supporting ethical AI applications within and by governments. Consider that DPI is, as Rutul said, a very strong and potent tool to inclusive and sovereignty digital for countries. In terms of public policies, the perspective I bring to this debate are reflecting our Brazilian AI plan, as Rodolfo said, leaded by Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation this year. A plan that forecast is an investment of 23 billion reais, around $4 billion in the next year. next four years for Brazil is a very huge amount of money. In terms of infrastructure and sovereignty, I highlight some investments from the Brazilian artificial intelligence plan such as national infrastructure program for AI around 105 million dollars, sustainability and renewable energies program from AI around 83 million dollars, data and software ecosystem and structuring program for AI 165 million dollars, research and development program in AI 873 million dollars, no 144 million dollars, and the perspective to achieve an AI supercomputer that puts Brazil on the top of five supercomputers in the world. This is just some highlights on our AI plan that has five axes regarding governance, private sector investments, re-skilling and capacities from workforce and also infrastructure investments. That’s it for now. Thank you very much.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you. Thanks a lot for the very relevant points. Now we are going to open the floor to questions of the audience inside and online. First we can start inside.

Luca Belli: Hello, good afternoon. So Luca Belli, professor at UW Law School, very happy to hear that the the research I have been conducting with Professor Min Zhang has been presented here. And sorry if I was late. I was in another session. I was very happy also to see that a lot of the points that we raise in the research are now well-integrated. But maybe some of them are not so well-integrated. Let me give you a very good example, because we have been doing a lot of research on AI sovereignty over the past couple of years. And of course, connectivity is one of the points that we stress is essential to achieve AI sovereignty. And let me give you a very concrete example that also speaks to the debate on DPI that was brought here. Most global south countries, including Brazil, do not have meaningful connectivity. We have most of the population connected to zero rating plans, so to basically a very small selection of apps, including mainly the meta family of apps. So to give you concrete details that friends from SETIC here can confirm, thanks to a very good study that they have done on meaningful connectivity this year, 78% of the population in Brazil does not have meaningful connectivity. It means that only 22% are meaningfully connected. What does it mean concretely? I think the Brazilian government is putting a lot of money. Actually, we are analyzing this primarily in software and data with the AI plan. But even if we have the best possible language models trained with Brazilian data, if all Brazilians only access meta AI through WhatsApp that is zero rated, whereas no one else will be able to access the new fantastic domestic models created thanks to the plan, that is not the very best way of directing the public investment. And this is due to the fact that the access is an incredibly relevant variable in this context. As you were saying, as we have been demonstrating with research, the fact that 78% of the population simply access Meta AI and will never access Brazilian technology because they will keep on having not having money to pay for full internet connectivity and only being directed to Meta, Facebook, Whatsapp. That is an enormous impediment from national innovation and so frustrates a lot the logic very good logic of putting public money to improving national research and development but at the end of the day the consumers will not use it and will keep on not only using another non-Brazilian technology but also train it so for free of course. So I think this the entire logic here is a little bit frustrated and let me give you a very good example of an institution in Brazil that has understood this logic very well. The Brazilian Central Bank when they introduced PIX, our UPI, our Brazilian digital public infrastructure for payment, Whatsapp wanted to launch Whatsapp payments but they blocked it and they suspended it and the rationale was precisely because if it had been launched before PIX everyone in Brazil would have used only Whatsapp payment and no one today we would not be here praising PIX as an example of success story if the Brazilian Central Bank hadn’t blocked Whatsapp payment and hadn’t not suspended it until the entry in force of PIX because otherwise everyone in Brazil here would be using only Whatsapp payment and PIX nobody wouldn’t even know what it is. So I think that these are points that if not considered I know that very well that the Brazilian AI plan does not consider connectivity but I think it’s a mistake and I think that this as you were saying is an essential point and should be brought into the picture otherwise we risk putting a lot of public money for nothing. Thank you very much.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you for the question, Luca. Now let’s go to the online questions. Okay, okay. Okay, thank you very much.

Jose Renato: My name is Jose Renato. I am a researcher at the University of Bonn Sustainable AI Lab and also co-founder of LAPIN, non-profit organization in Brazil. Well, thank you so much. Amazing insights. I was actually wanting to ask the presenter and speaker from Georgia. I’m sorry, I didn’t get your name. I really apologize for that.

Ekaterine Imedadze: No worries, it’s Eka. You can call me Eka.

Jose Renato: Okay, nice to meet you. I was actually wondering if you could talk a little bit more about the data center related initiatives in Georgia. And also if you could also share how are you thinking on embedding this within like energy infrastructure, water infrastructure as this has been a very wide and hot topic in the last few months, I would say. So if you could share some thoughts about that and also the Brazilian government’s thinking about this kind of thing. So I think it will be interesting to hear. Thank you very much indeed.

Ekaterine Imedadze: Thank you so much for amazing question. Thank you. Actually, you pointed out in the question, the topics that I’ve actually missed and wanted to share about. So the data center topic, what we have now under discussion is like, first of all, as a regulator and as a state representative, we are working a lot about enabling access to the existing internet infrastructure, opening market, building the IXP and neutral exchange point. This is the first step we are seeing to be, it’s ongoing process. It’s somehow already almost done. And this is the first step to enable them the real data center. Another topic is resilience of infrastructure and finding out that we’re quite small country, but still find the geography where the data center is best to be located from the, also the energy point of view. The good side of the story is that we have, Georgia is the greener energy producing country. So we can ensure that the energy produced locally will be the green energy, which is a very important, how to say, a component of building the right data center and bringing the investors to be interested in this kind of the projects. And also related to this, one thing is producing green energy. Another point is having the geographic location where the energy efficiency will be the best with it’s actually with support of, actually Amazon did some kind of research that in Georgia, this energy efficient locations are present. And this is, so this is kind of projected level, but there is a lot of stuff still ongoing to be done. Security aspect, physical security aspects are very important that still needs to be resolved. And another part is also energy prices. We’re quite competitive electricity prices. So this is, those are the different, how to say different components of the projects we need to solve and put together. Yes, and most importantly to understand financing model, which will work best for this, to make not only the local like Georgia specific project, but regional projects. So investment options are there on table, whether their state should be part of it or it should be totally public or it should be public private partnership, et cetera. Those are kind of points to be resolved still. Thank you so much.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you. Let’s do a round of the two more questions and the speakers will answer.

Oms Juliana: Yes, I’ll just make the online. questions, and I think I have one more from the audience here. And then we make a round of the speakers answering, OK? From the Zoom questions, we have Azeem asking, he likes to learn about Peace Cable that Meta is investing. So maybe again to Eka about platforms investing in cable. Another question from Van, he asks, digital public infrastructure, if translated to other languages, can be translated as a state infrastructure. And this would be controlled or owned by then. Is there a line and widely accepted understanding of what the PI is? And finally, a question to Dr. Ming, examining digital sovereignty as a supranational issue, how does regime type influence collaboration? Are democratic regimes more likely to cooperate than authoritarian ones, or this is an outdated assessment? I think maybe we can do another. One more here? OK, I think this is the last one because of time.

Audience: No, it was the same. So I had two questions there. We have discussed, it was my question that you have said. Yes, it is. One, do you hear me? OK, so I have here two questions. So we have discussed several activities for infrastructure development, but they all are almost all were for original connectivity. So the question is that, how can the digital sovereignty on digital infrastructure that has a regional impact be used as a weapon against other countries? And if yes, how? How it can be eliminated? And a small comment that maybe many regional projects require several states to get engaged. So how can we ensure proper stability and productive management on the infrastructure, taking into account the challenges that we have discussed today about digital sovereignty and digital public infrastructures? And also that question.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you for the question. And now when answering the question, please give me your closing lines and the final comments. And can we start by the same order with Dr. Min?

Min Jiang: Sure. Thank you for the great question, Nada. And I think it’s a tricky question. I will make two points in relation to your question. First of all, traditional notions or definitions of sovereignty are usually predicated on nation states having a form of autonomy or self-determination, but do not take into account, in reality, the very notion of power. Small nations and small states know this very well, especially in the digital age. Big tech have power and financial power that can easily eclipse those of small nation states. In fact, if one examines the telegeography map that our previous speaker referred to early on about global undersea cables, companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook all have their own dedicated infrastructure at that level. So small countries, not only in the global South, but also, for example, EU, they recognize that in order to be sovereign, they must also cooperate and build alliances. important point to recognize. Also in a previous speaker, Ritu’s account of public digital infrastructure, he makes the case that nation states did digital development, especially those in the global south, have to draw upon open source and free software, which are very, very important notions to common digital sovereignty. So I think we need to disrupt how we think about sovereignty to begin with. And second, the question is about regime types. That’s a very, very important notion for sure. But we also need to recognize the regime types are labels that we attach to nations, but nations also change and evolve. The political system, as we have seen in the United States, in my own country, has evolved a lot. We just elected Donald Trump for a second term, right? So how do we label countries and what type of regime they are is becoming more and more challenging. And the United States is a country with great power, and with great power comes great responsibility. And what NSA, for example, implemented for a long time, and what the big tech are doing, perhaps challenge this very notion of what it means to be democratic. And I think we’re at an age where the older conceptualization and infrastructure and legal regimes to think about democratic is somewhat breaking down. And that’s why we’re seeing this resurgence of claim to digital sovereignty and different actors national or international are hoping to gain more independence, autonomy, and self-determination. So yes, I’m happy to carry on the conversation through some other means, but I will restrict my comments to the BoF for now. Thank you.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you very much, Min. Catherine?

Ekaterine Imedadze: Yes, sir. Very challenging questions, let me put it this way. And exactly, echoing what are the underlying challenges with sovereignty, starting from infrastructure level up to the service and data protection level. And what I wanted to outline. that yes, on the one hand side, the sovereignty can be used as some kind of weapon, some kind of strength from the one country having the totally sovereign kind of infrastructure, not giving the access, and kind of isolating from one hand side, conceptually isolating the country. On the other hand side, it requires a lot of effort when we speak about the regional perspective, putting the regional concept of sovereignty, so countries with very different political views should sit together and agree on the major terms. But I think that this debate of digital sovereignty, why it is an open debate and why it is an evolving debate, countries still are trying to understand what are these basic and minimal concepts of, on the one hand side, independence of infrastructure and data, and at the same time, the shared framework of data independence or protection of data. Without this kind of touch points among countries, between countries with very different political views or geopolitical locations, it’s impossible to let this very interconnected world work. We will need more and more interconnected data centers, otherwise it will not work at all. But at the same time, countries and regions are required to protect themselves by owning some kind of the infrastructure. So I think that this is the thin line where we need to all agree and we need to introduce some kind of frameworks. For Georgia, what I can answer is… is that the EU framework we decided to go with, existing EU framework of this sovereignty concept on data level GDPR that is provided by EU framework, legal framework for data protection is the one that is acceptable for us. And we think that this is the best model we can introduce and it should work for our region as well for the current situation. This is my answer.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you. Korstiaan, please.

Korstiaan Wapenaar: I’ll make my closing remarks very short. Maybe firstly, just to say thank you to everyone, to the organizers for the participation and to my fellow panelists for the interesting discussion. Without stepping ahead of the questions, pass to yourself maybe just a couple of thought provokers on the regional considerations for sovereignty, maybe just to propose the question around how one manages the aspirations of the AU to develop a continental identity system and how that would be governed and managed and the extent to which that is a risk or how to prevent exclusion across different markets. And then curious to hear from my fellow participant following me, their view on multiple definitions of DPI and what that big and small P looks like as we think about our colleague, Mr. Yves. Thank you very much, everyone.

Ritul Gaur: Thanks, thanks, Christian. I think to answer the first question, which I’m going to take away that, how do we ensure stability and management of DPI? I’m not going to do a regional, I don’t have an answer to that, but. But I can say like, just in terms of a geographical context, what we need to do is ensure that you have the highest grade data centers, therefore great data centers, you have security assessments, you have regular regular audits. And you could do similar things in cross-border context. If you have an ID payment or data sharing, which is in a regional context, we don’t have it in India’s case. But as we build, I think these are the three tech metrics that will follow. But then there will also be some non-tech, which is the governance side of it, which will also follow. Now, answering the perplexing puzzle of the DPI, which is what is the P about? Should DPIs be controlled or owned by state? I think A, to start off with, there’s no clear definition of DPI. I think it’s at a very evolving stage. The G20 definition is as confusing, as clarifying as it is. And I take some blame for it. But if you think about it, it has to be understood from a different grade perspective. Something like an identity is a very sovereign function. To say, you are you, can be trusted by a sovereign state more than any other entity. So in India’s case, ID sits out of the Ministry of Electronics and IT. It’s a statutory organization backed by a constitutional law. And the entity is posted with civil servants, et cetera. So it’s a very, very state-driven function. On the contrary, payment system is rather fluid. It is a non-profit structure. It’s a Section 8 company, which is a non-profit in India’s case. It is a conglomeration of different banks and the central bank coming together and just building the protocol. The rest of it is actually controlled by different banks who come and participate on top of it. But the role of the state in that case is the regulator. The state is only the regulators in India’s payment scenario. And similarly, the document, the data sharing wallet as well, the state, again, a Section 8 company has created it, which the state only regulates in terms of how you can share your… credentials, etc. So I think it will differ on a country to country basis. I remember some time back, I was in Ghana, and I was talking to the bureaucrat there, and he said, in our country, everything is a very private sector driven phenomenon. So how do we do it? So I think it will be a very country to country phenomenon. But in my limited experience, most ID systems, and I think Kristen would agree to it, we met last week in Bangalore, most ID systems are part of either the home ministry or the IT ministries, etc. So you will see a lot of identity function, which is so central to any targeted beneficiary delivery. It is essentially establishing your relationship with the state is done by the state. But other DPI functions can be performed by different partners. In fact, SingPass, PayNow, PromptPay, etc. These are some payment systems and other systems which are created by the private sector in conglomeration with the state. But the state’s role is at least in this case, to be a regulator, to be an observer that nobody creates disproportionate amount of monopolies, that nobody is playing, not playing by the rules. So to set the broad rules of the game, and then let the players come and come and build on the basis of what purpose does itself. So if it’s something which requires high degree of trust, authenticity, etc, state is the best entity to do it. If it’s something which can be created by different market players coming together, state can be an observer or regulator. So that’s my view. Finally, on DPI and sovereignty, I think it’s a very important link to be made there. My only concern is that as most countries go in the quest to build their DPIs, we should not lose sight of cross-border interoperability or interoperability of those different DPIs. So as we all go towards making our own payment systems, as we go towards making our ID systems, etc, we also need to be cognizant. isn’t enough, that we are also thinking of regional blocks. We are also thinking of cross-border interoperability, et cetera. So do not lose that. Otherwise, I think in a broader scheme of things, DPI is a big time enabler of sovereignty. Thank you.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you very much, Ritul. Renata, your final answer.

Renata Mielli: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much for this interesting panel. I will start saying that we need to see digital sovereignty as complementary with cooperation. It’s not just different things. Since each country faces different realities in these areas, in digital areas, cooperation will be fundamental. Without cooperation, we are not going to achieve sovereignty. Establishing mechanisms for regional cooperation that create complementarity strategies based on each country’s capabilities may be a more effective and faster path toward reducing inequalities and achieving greater autonomy for nations. I think we have to keep this in mind. Regarding the question that Luca made about connectivity in Brazil, he knows I’m profoundly and deeply critical of zero rating. But it’s important to say that in Brazil, we have a huge public policy in terms of strategic investment of government that calls PAC. How can I say PAC? Growth Facilitation Program. And the connectivity policies are in the PAC. And with 28 billion reals, something around $5 billion to invest in building connectivity in technologies, 5G, 4G, building back halls, backbones, school connectivity, health system connectivity. So there is a public policy that are being made inside the communication ministry, Ministry of Communications. And as I see and as the government see, as my minister of science, technology, innovation see, we cannot wait to solve the problems regarding connectivity. And I completely agree with you. Brazil doesn’t have meaningful connectivity for all population. But we need to start to build expertise and investments in infrastructure and in all the economic chain of the AI, because we need to start from some point. So these are two policies that needs to be put in movement with each other. Communications are dealing with connectivity, doing the investments. And we, as Minister of Science, Innovation, and other governments, and other ministers, are focus on how to build capabilities in terms of re-skilling, in terms of infrastructure, and building applications, AI applications. So that’s my point. We need to do the both thing together. So if you want to achieve some autonomy, sovereignty in Brazil regarding technology, digital technology and AI. So thank you very much for the opportunity. And that’s it.

Rodolfo Avelino: Thank you to our speakers for their great contributions and to everyone in the audience. This has been a very good workshop. We appreciate the IGF organizations for facilitating this valuable discussion. Thank you all.

Agreement Points

Digital sovereignty is multifaceted and goes beyond nation-states

Min Jiang

Ritul Gaur

Renata Mielli

Digital sovereignty has multiple meanings and perspectives beyond just nation-states

The governance of DPI can vary from state-controlled to private sector-driven

Digital sovereignty should be seen as complementary to cooperation between countries

Speakers agree that digital sovereignty is a complex concept that involves various actors and perspectives, not just nation-states. It can include different governance models and requires cooperation between countries.

Importance of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) for sovereignty and development

Korstiaan Wapenaar

Ritul Gaur

Renata Mielli

DPI enables governments to deliver services at scale and reach people in need

DPI components like digital ID and payment systems can enhance sovereignty

Brazil is investing significantly in AI development and infrastructure

Speakers emphasize the crucial role of Digital Public Infrastructure in enhancing digital sovereignty and enabling governments to deliver services effectively, particularly in developing countries.

Similar Viewpoints

Developing countries and smaller nations face significant challenges in achieving digital sovereignty and building digital infrastructure, often requiring cooperation and support.

Min Jiang

Ekaterine Imedadze

Korstiaan Wapenaar

Small countries need to cooperate and build alliances to achieve digital sovereignty

Georgia faces challenges in developing data centers and connectivity infrastructure

African countries struggle with fiscal and capacity constraints for digital infrastructure

Unexpected Consensus

Importance of open technologies and interoperability

Min Jiang

Ritul Gaur

Open source technologies are important for AI sovereignty in developing countries

DPI should be designed for cross-border interoperability

Despite coming from different perspectives, both speakers emphasize the importance of open technologies and interoperability in achieving digital sovereignty, which is somewhat unexpected given the potential tension between sovereignty and openness.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The speakers generally agree on the multifaceted nature of digital sovereignty, the importance of Digital Public Infrastructure, and the need for cooperation and open technologies in achieving sovereignty. They also recognize the challenges faced by developing countries in building digital infrastructure.

Consensus level

There is a moderate to high level of consensus among the speakers on the main themes. This suggests a growing understanding of the complexities of digital sovereignty and the need for nuanced approaches that balance national interests with international cooperation and open technologies. The implications of this consensus could lead to more collaborative efforts in developing digital infrastructure and policies that support both sovereignty and global interoperability.

Different Viewpoints

Role of state in digital sovereignty

Min Jiang

Ritul Gaur

Digital sovereignty has multiple meanings and perspectives beyond just nation-states

The governance of DPI can vary from state-controlled to private sector-driven

Min Jiang emphasizes a broader conceptualization of digital sovereignty beyond nation-states, while Ritul Gaur focuses more on the varying degrees of state control in DPI governance.

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

The main areas of disagreement revolve around the role of the state in digital sovereignty, the balance between national autonomy and international cooperation, and the effectiveness of current connectivity initiatives in developing countries.

difference_level

The level of disagreement among speakers is moderate. While there are some differing perspectives on specific aspects of digital sovereignty and infrastructure development, there is a general consensus on the importance of these issues for national development and the need for some form of cooperation. These differences highlight the complexity of implementing digital sovereignty in practice, especially for developing countries balancing national interests with global technological trends.

Partial Agreements

Both speakers acknowledge the importance of connectivity for AI development in Brazil, but disagree on the effectiveness of current approaches. Mielli emphasizes ongoing investments, while Belli argues that these efforts are insufficient to address the lack of meaningful connectivity.

Renata Mielli

Luca Belli

Brazil is investing in connectivity infrastructure alongside AI development

Lack of meaningful connectivity in Brazil limits access to domestic AI technologies

Similar Viewpoints

Developing countries and smaller nations face significant challenges in achieving digital sovereignty and building digital infrastructure, often requiring cooperation and support.

Min Jiang

Ekaterine Imedadze

Korstiaan Wapenaar

Small countries need to cooperate and build alliances to achieve digital sovereignty

Georgia faces challenges in developing data centers and connectivity infrastructure

African countries struggle with fiscal and capacity constraints for digital infrastructure

Key Takeaways

Digital sovereignty has multiple meanings and perspectives beyond just nation-states, including supranational, corporate, personal, and common digital sovereignty.

Digital infrastructure and meaningful connectivity remain major challenges for many countries, especially in the Global South.

Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is seen as an important tool for enhancing digital sovereignty and delivering services at scale.

AI development and data sovereignty are increasingly important for countries seeking technological autonomy.

Cooperation between countries and open technologies are crucial for achieving digital sovereignty, especially for smaller nations.

Resolutions and Action Items

Brazil plans to invest 23 billion reais (around $4 billion) in AI development over the next four years

Georgia is working on enabling access to existing internet infrastructure and building neutral exchange points as steps towards data center development

Unresolved Issues

How to balance national digital sovereignty efforts with the need for cross-border interoperability

How to address the lack of meaningful connectivity in many countries while simultaneously investing in advanced technologies like AI

The exact definition and scope of Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) and its governance models

How to ensure proper stability and productive management of regional digital infrastructure projects

Suggested Compromises

Adopting a broader framework of digital sovereignty that includes multiple perspectives beyond just nation-states

Using open source technologies and open standards to build critical national digital infrastructure

Balancing state control and private sector involvement in DPI development based on the specific function and country context

Pursuing digital sovereignty efforts alongside regional cooperation and alliance-building

Digital sovereignty as broadly conceptualized complements the multistakeholder model by foregrounding the underlying power issues that have prevented multistakeholderism to be more widely adopted.

speaker

Min Jiang

reason

This comment reframes digital sovereignty not as opposed to multistakeholderism, but as complementary to it. It suggests that digital sovereignty can address power imbalances that have limited multistakeholder approaches.

impact

This set the tone for considering digital sovereignty as a nuanced concept that goes beyond just state control, influencing subsequent speakers to discuss various dimensions and stakeholders involved in digital sovereignty.

DPI allows you to have shared means to many ends because essentially it’s laying out the most common drill, but then allowing others to build a market economy around it, allowing others to use that ID to do a KYC to then provide services, allowing others to build that payment service app to then offer other things.

speaker

Ritul Gaur

reason

This comment provides a clear explanation of how Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) can enable both public and private sector innovation, highlighting its role in fostering a digital ecosystem.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards considering DPI as a foundation for broader digital development, rather than just a government-controlled system. This influenced later comments on the role of private sector and community in DPI.

78% of the population in Brazil does not have meaningful connectivity. It means that only 22% are meaningfully connected. What does it mean concretely? I think the Brazilian government is putting a lot of money. Actually, we are analyzing this primarily in software and data with the AI plan. But even if we have the best possible language models trained with Brazilian data, if all Brazilians only access meta AI through WhatsApp that is zero rated, whereas no one else will be able to access the new fantastic domestic models created thanks to the plan, that is not the very best way of directing the public investment.

speaker

Luca Belli

reason

This comment highlights a critical gap between infrastructure development and actual access, challenging the effectiveness of current digital sovereignty efforts.

impact

It prompted a response from the Brazilian representative about ongoing connectivity efforts and sparked a discussion about the need to address both infrastructure and access simultaneously in digital sovereignty initiatives.

We need to see digital sovereignty as complementary with cooperation. It’s not just different things. Since each country faces different realities in these areas, in digital areas, cooperation will be fundamental. Without cooperation, we are not going to achieve sovereignty.

speaker

Renata Mielli

reason

This comment synthesizes the discussion by emphasizing that sovereignty and cooperation are not mutually exclusive, but rather interdependent in the digital realm.

impact

It provided a concluding perspective that tied together various threads of the discussion, emphasizing the need for both national efforts and international cooperation in achieving digital sovereignty.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by expanding the concept of digital sovereignty beyond state control to include multistakeholder approaches, the role of digital public infrastructure, the importance of meaningful connectivity, and the need for international cooperation. They challenged simplistic notions of sovereignty and highlighted the complex interplay between national interests, private sector involvement, and global collaboration in the digital realm. The discussion evolved from theoretical concepts to practical challenges and potential solutions, emphasizing the need for nuanced, context-specific approaches to digital sovereignty that balance national autonomy with international cooperation and equitable access.

How can meaningful connectivity be improved to ensure wider access to national AI technologies?

speaker

Luca Belli

explanation

This is important because without meaningful connectivity, investments in national AI technologies may not reach the majority of the population, who may only have access to foreign technologies through zero-rating plans.

How are data center initiatives in Georgia being integrated with energy and water infrastructure?

speaker

Jose Renato

explanation

This is important for understanding the holistic approach to infrastructure development and its environmental impact.

What are the details of the Peace Cable that Meta is investing in?

speaker

Azeem

explanation

This information is relevant to understanding private sector investments in digital infrastructure.

Is there a widely accepted understanding of what Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) is?

speaker

Van

explanation

A clear definition is important for consistent policy-making and implementation across different countries.

How does regime type influence collaboration on digital sovereignty issues?

speaker

Unnamed participant

explanation

Understanding this could provide insights into international cooperation patterns in digital governance.

How can digital sovereignty on infrastructure with regional impact be used as a weapon against other countries, and how can this be prevented?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is important for understanding potential geopolitical implications of digital infrastructure development.

How can proper stability and productive management of regional digital infrastructure projects be ensured, given the challenges of digital sovereignty?

speaker

Audience member

explanation

This is crucial for successful implementation of cross-border digital infrastructure initiatives.