Session

Summary

This discussion focused on predictions for digital governance and technology trends in 2025, led by Jovan Kurbalija. He began by analyzing potential impacts of a hypothetical Trump presidency in 2025, suggesting continuity in US tech policy with some changes in areas like content regulation and cryptocurrency. Kurbalija then outlined broader predictions for 2025, including the “grounding” of AI after a hype phase, potential economic risks from AI investment bubbles, and ongoing geopolitical tensions between the US and China in tech development.

The discussion highlighted expected developments in AI governance, emphasizing a shift towards regulating AI uses and applications rather than algorithms. Kurbalija predicted continued diplomatic efforts in cybersecurity and human rights related to technology. He noted potential challenges in digital trade negotiations and antitrust cases against tech giants. The role of the Global Digital Compact and its relationship with existing internet governance processes was explored.

Participants raised questions about AI’s impact on employment, strategies for small states in AI governance, and the future of multistakeholder approaches in tech policy. Kurbalija stressed the importance of focusing on concrete issues affecting people rather than getting caught in ideological debates. He emphasized the need for inclusion of diverse perspectives in global tech governance processes. The discussion concluded with reflections on the role of religious communities in addressing ethical issues in digital spaces and the importance of substantive, practical approaches to tech policy challenges in 2025.

Keypoints

Major discussion points:

– Predictions for Trump’s potential presidency in 2025, including impacts on tech policy, content regulation, and digital taxes

– Developments in AI in 2024-2025, including risks of an AI bubble burst and shifts in focus from extinction risks to existing risks

– Geopolitical dynamics around AI and digital technologies, especially between the US and China

– Digital governance issues like the Global Digital Compact and challenges for small/developing countries

– Impacts of AI on jobs, society, and the need for regulation of AI uses rather than algorithms

Overall purpose:

The discussion aimed to provide predictions and analysis of key digital policy and AI governance issues for 2024-2025, based on current trends and developments. The speaker sought to offer insights to help participants prepare for and shape upcoming policy debates.

Tone:

The tone was primarily analytical and forward-looking, with the speaker presenting evidence-based predictions while acknowledging uncertainties. There was an underlying tone of caution about hype cycles and overreaction to new technologies. The Q&A portion became more interactive and conversational, with the speaker engaging directly with participants’ specific concerns and interests.

Speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija: Expert in digital governance and diplomacy, Director of DiploFoundation

– Su Sonia: Colleague of Jovan Kurbalija at DiploFoundation

Additional speakers:

– Mina: Colleague at DiploFoundation, responsible for sharing links and documents

– Bernard: Participant asking questions

– Irena: Participant asking questions

– Váles Csenk: Participant asking questions

– Dustin: Participant asking questions

– Osei: Participant from Ghana

– Mark Carvel: Participant asking questions about UN offices and Global Digital Compact

– Rajesh Pandey: Participant asking questions

– Nick: Participant discussing AI governance and UNGA

– Fahim: Participant asking questions

– Benson: Participant mentioned

– Athan: Participant asking questions

– Stephanie: Participant mentioning civil society organizations

– Michael: Participant asking questions

– Jan Garden: Participant providing information on brain-computing standards

– Seb: Participant thanking Jovan

Digital Governance and Technology Trends in 2025: A Comprehensive Discussion

This detailed summary covers a discussion led by Jovan Kurbalija, an expert in digital governance and diplomacy from DiploFoundation, focusing on predictions for digital governance and technology trends in 2025. The discussion encompassed a wide range of topics, including developments in artificial intelligence (AI), global digital governance challenges, geopolitical dynamics, and digital inclusion.

1. AI Developments and Governance in 2025

The discussion highlighted several key predictions for AI:

– A shift from the current hype phase to more grounded applications

– Potential economic risks from an AI investment bubble burst, with specific mention of the DeepSeek development

– A move in focus from long-term extinction risks to existing, immediate risks of AI

– The need to regulate AI uses rather than algorithms

– Challenges in preserving local knowledge in developing countries alongside AI adoption

Kurbalija emphasised the importance of addressing concrete issues affecting people rather than getting caught in ideological debates about AI. He noted an interesting legal shift from focusing on data to knowledge, citing examples such as the New York Times court case and Tennessee law protecting singers’ voices from impersonation.

2. Digital Governance and Diplomacy

Several key points were raised regarding digital governance:

– The need for convergence between the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) follow-up process and the Global Digital Compact

– The importance of the Global Digital Compact in addressing current digital challenges and its potential to shape future governance frameworks

– Opportunities for small states to use AI tools to enhance their participation in governance

– The potential counterproductivity of the multistakeholder vs multilateral debate

– The need for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to provide more concrete outputs to remain relevant

Kurbalija stressed the importance of careful implementation of inclusive governance processes, moving beyond ideological debates to focus on practical considerations for effective governance. He also highlighted successful diplomatic negotiations on cybercrime and other digital issues as examples of progress in digital governance.

3. Geopolitical Dynamics and Digital Technologies

The discussion touched upon ongoing geopolitical tensions, particularly between the US and China, in tech development. Kurbalija highlighted:

– The potential global implications of actions against companies like TikTok

– The possibility of other countries requesting ‘domestication’ of services like Instagram and YouTube

– The need for careful consideration of how these dynamics affect global digital governance

A brief mention was made of potential changes in US tech policy under different administrations, noting that while there might be some variations, overall policy has remained largely consistent over time.

4. Content Regulation and Platforms

The discussion touched upon content moderation challenges:

– Meta following a more hands-off approach to content moderation, similar to Elon Musk’s strategy

– Growing pressure from governments worldwide on content governance

5. Digital Inclusion and Participation

Kurbalija highlighted ongoing challenges in digital inclusion:

– The risk of reduced inclusion in digital governance processes

– The need for inclusion of diverse views, not just representation

– The importance of balancing the push for more AI resources in developing countries with efforts to preserve and leverage local knowledge

– Strategies for small states and developing countries to participate effectively in AI governance and digital diplomacy

6. Economic Aspects of AI and Digital Technologies

The discussion covered several economic considerations:

– The potential for an AI investment bubble burst and its implications

– The role of cryptocurrency and blockchain in future digital economies

– The impact of AI on employment, particularly in developing countries

7. Standardization and Ethical Considerations

The summary highlighted efforts in standardization across various digital areas, including:

– Human rights in digital spaces

– Brain-computer interfaces

– The importance of involving religious and spiritual leaders in addressing ethical issues related to digital technologies

Throughout the discussion, participants raised various questions and concerns, which were addressed within the context of each topic. These included the impact of AI on democracy in Africa, the potential of AI in achieving universal health coverage, and strategies for bridging the digital gap in countries with low tech literacy.

In conclusion, the discussion provided a comprehensive overview of the complex landscape of digital governance and technology trends expected in 2025. It emphasised the need for practical, inclusive approaches to governance that can keep pace with rapid technological advancements while addressing immediate societal impacts and preserving diverse perspectives.

Kurbalija mentioned that an AI chatbot is available to answer questions about Diplo’s knowledge and his personal opinions, encouraging further engagement with the topics discussed.

Jovan Kurbalija: Next to me is Jovan Kurbalija, and every year during the first week of January, I try to do this forecasting exercise, which is both risky and exciting. FUTURE is always tolerant to us, and we can always argue that we just guessed what will be happening. While we are one year older, as it’s getting more difficult to me, not to our younger colleagues that much, and hopefully we are wiser about tech, digital and other developments. Let me just give you a context for today’s exercise. We have been doing it for the last 10 years, and we do it in the following way. We do predictions now, verbal prediction, followed by the text, more detailed analysis of the prediction. We follow the development of data. forecast of predictions throughout the year and at the end of the year we have summary what’s happened in the meantime. And I will share with you in a minute slide which explains this whole overall process. Today I will give you the outline what I think will happen this year with some arguments why I think so not just taking things out of the thin air and then we will open the floor for discussion for your your suggestion, your comments, contradicting points and everything else. My colleague Su Sonia will follow the discussion I will also follow the chat and then she will bring your comments and we will try to discuss them and to see to sharpen our thinking about quite a challenging year ahead of us. Let me just share the screen. I will just usually do this question if you can see the screen. Yes, I guess. Yes. Good. Thank you. This prediction will have two aspects. Well, not 2024-2025 but we will basically try to see what will happen on the day when the President Trump takes over US presidency. It is really important moment because of the overall importance of the United States as a home of the Internet, as a home for the most powerful companies currently. Therefore what is happening in the US is basically going to impact the rest of the world. Then we will have that part and focus on that and also focus on the rest of the year and what we can expect ahead of us. Here is the format of the prediction which you will see how it goes. prediction 2025 will be ready tomorrow and you have for each of 12 topics prediction and reflection what’s happened in the meantime always comparing to what in this case in 2024 I did in January. What was my thinking in January and how the things developed and how the in this case 2024 ended. Mina will be sharing, my colleague Mina will be sharing the links to the all documents that I will be mentioning. Let’s see now quickly about this prediction for 20th of January. First point why I’m I referred in my text that Trump attack more of the same but with a twist. We are obviously overwhelmed by this historical development from different angles and we always tend to not to see wider historical context and if we consult the history we can see that US tech policy has not changed substantively since let’s say 1875 and the ITU St. Petersburg conference where United States for the first time actively participated in the ITU deliberation. Then we have exactly 150 years the only exception from the continuing US policy which argued for the private-led approach to technological governance and innovation or business-led approach the only exception was titanic moment. Titanic moment where basically a United States pushed governance-led regulation of the 1912 just a few months after the Titanic catastrophe. Those radio regulations are still in force and this is the only exception in 150 years. 50 years long history of the US participation in the, for example, ITU but I would say generally global tech governance from the rule that tech governance, telecommunication governance, internet governance, call it whatever prefix you put, should be business driven and government should have a limited role. This is not going to change with the Trump presidency, on the contrary, coming from the business driven approach he is going to continue this approach, I would say to push it even further than the previous administration had when it comes to the international organization. The second point why we’ll have more of the same is that current regime works quite well for the US tech industry, which is obviously priority for the President Trump and why to fix something which is not broken for them. Obviously the things have changed and there will be other interests where other countries will be asking for more regulation as we’ll be seeing in a few points. The few, therefore this is continuity, history something which works well for the US tech industry. What are those twists and possible changes? Let’s go through them quickly. One is content regulation. You know that Meta agreed to follow Musk’s approach to very limited regulation, to dismantle fact checking network in the United States. At the beginning we’ll see how it will be extended to the rest of the world and it was expected because it is something which is a burden for them and they have to pay the fact checkers and Mark Zuckerberg was very happy to announce two days ago that he is dismantling it and going to the community notice. That’s going to be a quite important development because the problem of the impact of the social media platforms will stay. Community notice are not as bad, we can discuss that, but they won’t solve all problems of the reliability of the information of the social media platforms as public spaces. One possibility, slight possibility, although I’m not completely optimistic that it will happen, is to revisit section 230 of the Communication Decency Act from the 1996, which is basically founding article of the Silicon Valley and tech platforms, which argues that, in brief, companies and platforms are not liable legally for the content that they host. There is a bipartisan agreement that something has to be done with this section 230, both by Democrats and Republicans, for different reasons, and we will see if Trump is going to push that and revisit that, make possibly tech platforms more legally liable for the content, with all complex consequences. This is one thing that we should observe. But the problem, second problem, is much more serious. The question of content governance has been picking up momentum globally. In countries worldwide, governments are nervous about misuse of social media platforms, for whatever reason, when it comes to elections, internal conflicts, justified, non-justified. And here, again, we forget something. When we discuss a reaction of the European Union, we forget that the first digital and internet governance case was the case in the German court on the CompuServe. A few colleagues who are of my age can recall the CompuServe, which was the space for exchanges even before internet. and that it moved to the Internet, but it was very, very early days in the 90s. Germany has very strict content governance policies, and they reacted to that. Therefore, I would be very careful to frame this discussion as Musk versus EU, or US versus EU, or Germany, and these things. There are deeper roots and reasons why some countries are extremely nervous about misuse of the platforms. Therefore, that will be going to be a very tough exchange, especially if companies start dismantling aggressively fact-checking networks beyond the United States. The third point that we should focus on is the question of the TikTok. Obviously, most of you are aware of what Trump, during his first presidency, started the case on TikTok. Biden and the Congress followed, they introduced the law, which is basically requesting TikTok, interestingly enough, to either pass to the US owner or to be banned by 19th of January, just one day before the inauguration of President Trump. We will follow at Diplo and Digital Watch closely what’s going to happen that day. But you see how history is basically condensating in a short time span. But this is important for another reason, for our focus on digital governance. If there is this push for domestication of TikTok, other countries can follow the same approach with Instagram, with YouTube and other services, requesting domestication of these services, legally, financially, practically, under their jurisdiction. We should watch that carefully. When it comes to the artificial intelligence, and my bet is that the first… bunch, you know, there will be many executive orders on 20th of January, my bet that one of the first executive order will be order or scrapping Biden executive order on artificial intelligence. Now, again, we can argue that it is just the new president disagreeing with previous president, but we have to be careful here. For one reason, and here I will just go back to the revision of AI, to the other documents. This is evolution of the risks in artificial intelligence. You can still record that in 2023 in May, we were overwhelmed with the letters signed by leading scientists that basically AI will destroy us. This is this extinction risk. These three circles here are extinction risk, exclusion risk and existing risks. We then followed that the bubble of extinction risk started shrinking in January 2024. One of the key proponent of extinction risk, Sam Altman, in Davos was much more calmer about the risk that AI will destroy us. And existing risks for jobs, for education, for media starting increasing. We also follow this development at the end of the year, and we have currently main focus on existing risk, much smaller focus on extinction risk and exclusion risk. Exclusion risk means basically monopolizing information and knowledge in the hands of a few companies and excluding communities worldwide. We do this analysis by following the media with our AI system, with a media mentioning of different risks and also analysis of the policy documents. Therefore, that is going to be an important development. to follow, and Trump’s new executive order will most likely focus on three priorities like his previous executive order on AI, innovation, skilling, and global competitiveness. Now why this is in sync with the rest of the world? If you follow the line of Bletchley conference, which started in UK, moved to Korea, and now is coming in Paris in February, you will see exactly that there is this change in the focus. Bletchley conference was mainly on extinction risk, it shrinked a bit in Korea, and Paris, if you go through the program of the Paris AI Summit, it will be on the question of the AI commons, development, and including open source, the coverage of our initial agenda from the Bletchley is shrinking. In this context, Trump’s executive order will basically codify what’s going on outside in the world. I will reflect later on in the broader 2040 developments, although I’m already trying to make parallels here. Then we have focus on China, on geo-strategy and cyber security. There is nothing new here. The only question that we have to monitor carefully is what space third players will have in this increasingly dual or bipolar digital geopolitics. What will be the role of EU? What will be the role of Brazil, India, Indonesia, Africa, and other actors? Then one issue which is completely underestimated in the current analysis of Trump’s presidency is the question of digital taxes. As you know, in June this year, OECD announced that they will have a new digital tax system. failed to agree about the Pillar 1. Pillar 1 is in the most simplistic way. The redistribution of taxes according to the number of Internet users. For example, Facebook is based in Ireland, it pays taxes over there. Pillar 1 requested that, for example, Facebook has to pay taxes also in Germany, in France, in UK, in Indonesia, in India, according to the complex formula, but in its basis, it’s basically number of Internet users. OECD failed to agree about it. Now, many countries, including Germany, France, UK and Canada, basically posed their digital taxation, internal digital taxation, waiting for the outcome of OECD negotiation, which failed. The Trump presidency has to deal with that, of increasing number of digital taxes, which will be introduced of the countries worldwide. His first reaction on the French introduction of digital tax on the Apple during his presidency was very aggressive and he, I think, even did direct intervention with President Macron of trying basically to dismantle that taxes. That’s an interesting issue to follow, especially in the relation between you and the United States. Cryptocurrency is new now. As you know, they called Trump crypto president and there will be three proposed executive orders that we are waiting if they are going to be introduced. Creation of a crypto stockpile, some sort of strategic reserves, ensuring access of crypto industry to banking service, which was very difficult during the Biden administration, and the establishment on some sort of crypto council. My bet is that they will go, probably will only one executive order, which is on crypto council, because the other two involve some even macro-financial intervention. interventions into the U.S. economic system. Therefore, in brief, quite a bit of continuity with some twists and changes. I would advise that we carefully follow what will happen with taxation, because that is something that can shaken many bilateral relations between the United States and other countries, including European Union. Now, let me just pause here before I zoom out on 2024 and see what we can expect beyond 20th of January, with obvious impact on 20th of January and see what is the situation with your question and comments. And maybe I will go quickly. Hello, sir. Hello, Nick. Hello, Mocktar. Hello, Stef, Viona. Happy New Year. Happy New Year. That’s definitely. Thanks, Stef, Sita, read Jovan’s blog. Thank you, Mina. Mina, Mina. Not that many questions. Dustin, thank you, Jovan and Diplo. This is super. Thank you for many thank yous. And once more, all the best in 2025. Now, since… So, Sonia, is there any other question before I take a sip of water and move into the rest of the developments ahead of us?

Su Sonia: Hi, Jovan. No, we don’t have any new questions. Happy New Year.

Jovan Kurbalija: Thank you. Happy New Year. Good. Let’s go back to the other developments. Therefore, what you will be getting is the list of those predictions 2025. Some of you may got the video where I argued that 2024 brought us grounding of AI. After the hype phase, AI is becoming much more controllable. That will continue in 2025 with a few following the main developments. One is the risk of the bubble. a bust or bubble explosion, and it was hinted by the Bank of International Settlements, which is the key, let’s say, banking coordination system based in Basel. And the reason is the following, there is a huge discrepancy between market capitalization of AI-related projects, investment in AI companies on one side, and basically business viability of these companies making money. The way it is becoming macroeconomic risks because of the scale of investment. Now this discussion was a bit economic, abstract, I follow carefully because you can see this, anyone who is deeply in AI, and I’m since 1992 in this field, I realized that the hype was enormous. And obviously that next to the hype is basically risk of the bubble and bubble burst with economic consequences of the whole economy and society. The reason why it became more realistic is the release of the DeepSeek. DeepSeek is the platform from Hangzhou, from China, which basically developed an AI model which is now beating, I think, of all of the 10 parameters, except one, mathematical, all other models, including everything produced by open AI. Now that’s probably nothing new because, as you know, somebody said that you have new language models developed in China and the rest of the world almost daily. But this model is interesting for two reasons. One is that the fund for the training of the model was 5 million US dollars. Comparing for this trillions, billions of dollars. millions of dollars invested in OpenAI and other companies. This is the first point. Second point, it was trained on the previous generation of NVIDIA cards, 800, currently is 1000, which is still possible to import in China. I use it intensively, I read the evaluation, I use it intensively during holidays and it’s a very powerful AI model. Why is this important for the previous discussion of the hype and the potential bubble burst? There will be a question, is such investment, huge investment in NVIDIA and hardware any more justifiable? And how to ensure reasonable business successes with much less funding and much less investment? Therefore, I would say that is, for me at least, the critical development which marked the end of the last year. We discussed these three bubbles that will be shaping the space. And I will also draw your attention to another visualization of AI governance. AI can be approached on basically four levels, hardware, NVIDIA, microprocessors, electrical energy, all of these things that you are hearing, that AI takes more time, more energy than Denmark, Netherlands, how are titles in the newspaper these days. The second level is extremely interesting, data and knowledge. You can notice that I added knowledge. In all lingo, currently people speak only about data. For those of you who participated in the World Summit on Information Society 20 years ago, you can recall that knowledge was very much present together with information. And what we are discussing today is knowledge. AI creates knowledge, AI simulates knowledge, insights, reflections, human reflections. Yes, it is based on data, but not only data. If AI processes my blog post or my text, it’s my knowledge. There will be a very interesting shift with enormous legal and policy aspects by extending data to knowledge. It’s already happening with the New York Times court case, in Vaipur, in other places, in one of the most interesting developments, Tennessee law of protecting voices and impersonation of the singers. It’s obviously not surprising. Tennessee is the home of Nashville. People are, the AI discussion is much more grounded in protecting our knowledge, protecting our data. This is the second layer which I think there will be a lot of dynamism. Third layer is algorithms, flops, power of the machines, power of processing. I’m not, and this is now personal opinion, I’m not very convinced that this is the good way to invest governance energy. DeepSeek is the best case. They’re not as powerful as open AI, but they have fantastic inference model getting from the AI system and focusing on a complexity of algorithm for me is not a good way to govern AI. I can substantiate that. I know this is a very controversial view because there is a big industry around checking algorithms, AI safety and other things. The top is application and uses of AI. Now another biosphere, I’m coming from internet governance community and internet is one of the best historical examples of the way how, when you regulate technology on the right level and in right way you get really almost miraculous developments. What does it mean? You regulate uses, and you are very light in using regulating standards like TCPIP, like domain names, and there are many controversies in this. Therefore, I always argue that when we try to regulate something, we start from the uses. Again, it is the old principles, as old as humanity, as old as Hammurabi’s law. Those who own activity, whether it is AI activity, or local shop, or whatever, should be responsible for the gains and for the risks. Therefore, we have to get a bit to simplicity of AI discussion. Therefore, this pyramid is going to be quite important in the coming months, in 2025, with, in my view, more and more thinking issues moving on data and knowledge layer and application on uses layer. Fast forward, geopolitics. This is the chart of the number of large language modelers at the end of the last year, with basically US leading, China following, and other countries having few large language model development. As we discussed with the introduction about prediction for 20th of January, basically, you will have development between China and US on different levels, on the level of AI, on the level of submarine cables, on the level of data, on the content. And you will have attempt of other countries, European Union, African continent, Middle East, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, trying to find the third way, trying to negotiate and engage with both actors in not symmetrical, necessarily symmetrical, but maybe asymmetrical way, and define the third way of developing AI, content, access to submarine cables. satellite technologies and other aspects of the geopolitics. Then we go to the governance. Governance is what we’ll be doing with Global Digital Compact. I’m sure and I believe to your question there will be a lot of questions and the major question of synchronization between Global Digital Compact and the World Summit on Information Society follow-up. I will be guided by your questions but that’s going to be on the high on the agenda of many people involved in the traditional internet digital AI governance. I’m very skeptical about interchangeable use of prefixes but let’s call it governance. One issue where and I will be guided by your questions on that one issue that I would be very very careful is that we try to create shorter impactful documents. Here I did a survey of the main legal and policy documents throughout the history including Code of Hammurabi, Bill of Rights, Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act and others and you can see that they were relatively short and to the point. I think our documents are becoming too long for the coverage of issues. Then we come to diplomacy. Diplomacy did relatively well in 2024. Diplomats negotiated Cybercrime Convention, Pact of the Future and GDPR. We’ll see later on open-ended working group. Now we can go into discussion how good outcome is. Is it least common denominator but diplomacy continued moving in very geopolitically divided world and agreeing on some steps on digital governance. Security. The major points, definitely UN Cybercrime Convention, an open-ended working group, advancement on cybersecurity ahead of 2025, this is important to keep in mind, two events, Cybercrime Convention official inauguration in Hanoi, it will be called Hanoi Convention, and it is also signaling a growing importance of Vietnam in the digital policy, I call it digital bamboo diplomacy, therefore just put it on the radar, growing relevance of Vietnam, which is also hosting more and more of the semiconductor industry which is moving outside China because of the sanctions and export control. And the second point will be a conclusion of the open-ended working group plan and introducing some cybersecurity mechanism after 2025. There are different views, different positions, but some sort of partnership framework is going to emerge during most likely February session, at least start being negotiated. On the question of human rights, we’ll have basically a few aspects, we’ll have Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI, which is gaining a new relevance given the shift from AI safety, therefore suddenly this Council of Europe interplay between AI and human rights is gaining a lot of relevance. It’s important to put on your radar that Switzerland is going to chair the president of UN Human Rights Council, and there will be an interesting interplay between digital AI and human rights. I’ll just move quickly to the economy. In the digital trade, we don’t know what’s going to happen with the e-commerce negotiation. You know that United States withdrew. from the negotiation. Countries advanced in June with some sort of vague agreement about this new e-commerce negotiation. I’ve been trying to, I’m based in Geneva, to ask what will happen and frankly speaking even people who are deep into the process were giving me contradicting views. There will be some sort of closure because it would be major failure for WTO and the promoter, especially I would say few countries were leading if there is no outcome after five years of negotiations. Most likely outcome will be watered down. In addition to initial India and South Africa who were, and most of African countries who were reluctant about this negotiation, you have now Turkey, Brazil, Indonesia raising their voices and concern about it. Negotiation is, to put it mildly, into the complex phase here at WTO. We discussed already digital taxation, growing importance of the trade agreements, bilateral regional agreements in the time ahead, antitrust cases all over the world, in particular increase of the antitrust cases in AI, probably slowing down of antitrust cases in the United States because of Trump’s administration. Still, towards the future of Google, will Google remain the same company? And that’s basically one of the main battles, obviously digital currencies, cryptocurrency in the US and digital currencies all over the world. Let me just pause here and see what are the comments, questions that we are getting here. Mina, Mina, Mina, Su Sonia, thank you, Jovan, thank you, Markavel, very interesting survey. Thank you, Mark, great to see you. Bernard, could you talk about the link between AI and capitalism, knowing that open AI model now scores 88 in… and implicated for human work force. Bernard, yes, this is this discussion about impact of AI on jobs, on education, on information, health sector, immediate impact. Now, so far, AI has not been replacing jobs. And there is even optimistic view by employees, not by employers. Employers are more skeptical about the impact of AI on society. It is going to come. And our society is not prepared for it. It’s not starting with diplomacy, where AI is going to automate quite a few tasks. Therefore, the question is, to what extent we are going to, basically, how we are going to conduct this AI transformation. For me, it is a critical issue for all societies worldwide, communities, United Nations, diplomacies, name it and have it. And we are not yet there. Those of you who were following my previous prediction, I was very concerned about us discussing what may happen in 40 years time with AI, when this extinction risk was very high, and forgetting that something may happen in the next few years. That would be my answer. But, Bernhard, I’m going to provide more detailed analysis and references in the follow-up summary. Irena, I’m sorry. What are your thoughts on the normalization regulation of dual use of AI and emergent technology, use of adoption of commercial drones for military-military tractor-racers’ co-operation with Meta-AI Glaser? Do you anticipate regional difference in the regulation? And the lag thereof between different regions? Irena, you packed quite a few things. My general approach is… To regulate uses, if you can go back to the top of the pyramid, yes, drones can be used to deliver services, but they can be used for military purposes. For military purposes, we have the Hague Conventions, we have Geneva Convention on Humanitarian Protection. Use of AI, use of drones is important. Now, one can argue that we should regulate algorithms, I’m very skeptical about it. But if military forces of Ruritania or Ruristan use drones equipped by AI, again Ruristan in the conflict, they should be responsible, according to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Conventions. Now, one can argue that it’s easy simply to say than to implement, that’s true. But how far we are with implementation of pre-AI rules? The same applies to the glasses, the same applies to the other access. Personally, I’m not very happy that what Google decided not to do seven or eight years ago to produce glasses, they had glasses, that’s very simple technology. It’s now becoming commodity, it’s going to be the major problem for society. But that’s basically my personal view. But I would say, focus on uses, focus on that, and we will bring some clarity. Váles Csenk, Happy New Year, dear team. Two questions. What would be the implication of digital governance if Trump successfully acquired Canada? I hope I won’t annoy anyone with this answer, but when it comes to digital cooperation, I don’t think there will be any, or digital governance, any changes. Canadian and US views are very aligned when it comes to ITU, to digital governance, human rights. Obviously, it’s a broader issue, it’s a geopolitical issue of statehood and are the things that is open. Second question, any possible treaty on AI governance to prevent the readiness use such as hate speech, information protection with indigenous knowledge or probability of using AI in military conflict? Okay, well, here is one exercise that I do with my students when they raise their hand. I ask them, okay, draft me this treaty on one page. And this is good exercise because in current discussion, we have a lot of mentioning why we don’t regulate this. I said, okay, draft me article one, article two, article three, article four, article five. What is the purpose of this exercise? Is to see, is it possible to do it? How it’s possible to do it? I would be here careful not to focus on AI, but focus on, in your question, indigenous knowledge, focus on the hate speech, focus on defamation. Do we have regulation on that? We don’t have it. And that would be my just sort of conceptual approach that we focus on the issue itself. So Sonia, Dustin, Bruce, interest of justice to everyone. How fast do you think that quantum supercomputer is using AI and emerging technology will be available to the public use? Will cell phone computer be using holographic during video conferencing that are mass scale? How will this be regulated? How interesting tech is developing quickly? How will people regulate at such a fast pace so tech are not harmful to human psychologically and physically? Okay, I would be, I’m generally careful, Dustin, with my experience of long time being around since early days of the internet, of being too excited about the latest technology. And including quantum. Let’s see it’s potentially powerful technology, but it will take some time before it affects society. Yes, like with AI, we should think about extinction risk. Why not? Like we discuss climate or we discuss other risks. But we cannot be completely obsessed with that. And this is the risk with the hype. Now if the new hype is quantum, we’ll discuss just quantum and life will move on all other issues in other ways. Have you heard recently any serious discussion on blockchain here and there in the small community? It was the top topic like AI today. I would be just careful about that, not undermining power of quantum of relevance, but putting it in the context. I’m Osei from Ghana. I’m curious about the prediction of AI in Africa, also the strategic focus on investment in Africa. How is it shaping democracy in Africa, accelerating a lot of the AI divide? That’s it, Osei, it was great to see you in Riyadh. I would, that’s a very tricky issue. Now the dominant narrative, Africa is behind, we’ll have a new divide. Africa doesn’t have a power, doesn’t have big computing centers. That’s all true. But I would be careful in the sense that African diplomacies and countries keep pushing for that, to access, but don’t consider that as a sort of magic formula. Africa has to preserve its own knowledge, to identify, to strengthen universities, to preserve oral knowledge, Ubuntu philosophy, other local philosophies, and to consider it as its common heritage. As we here in Europe have Kant, Hegel, Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, Africa has a lot to offer in codified, non-codified languages. I’m a bit worried. That obsession is, oh, we have needed NVIDIA more cards and more this, is basically not missing the key point, which can be done without a lot of technology. Therefore, that would be my advice. Keep pushing for the more resources, but also think what can be done locally to strengthen the system. Mark Carver, what is Diplo’s view on the impact of the new United office with a strengthened mandate arising from the Global Digital Compact implementation? Mark, first, there is no Diplo view. We don’t take a stance on the policy issues. I take a stand personally, but Diplo has a view that you cannot be preacher and teacher and we are teachers. I can present my view and my view is the following. Global Digital Compact introduced a new adrenaline into this bit-sleeping digital governance space. I’m part of WSIS community and IGF community. I’m one of the designers at the Working Group on Internet Governance and WSIS and WGIG have done a really fantastic job in basically helping the growth of the Internet. At last, let’s say five to ten years, there was a bit of lack of engagement with the new processes, new dynamism, new spaces, new actors. And I think the UN Secretary General, at least based on my experience when I was on high-level group on digital governance cooperation, was he needed to do something and I think it was correct. And he put a new adrenaline among policy makers, among diplomats to do something about digital governance, AI governance, you name it and you have it. And if I have to summarize, we have very successful marathon of the WSIS. to experience expertise, but a sprint with a high level panel and now digital global compact, which was needed. Now in 2025, we have to see how to converge too. I think it is not good if we have parallel systems, this again my personal opinion, but I think in the versus consultation process, there is a possibility to converge two processes and make it simpler and easier, especially for small and developing countries, but not only for them to basically follow what’s going on. Jovan’s view, not a diplos, Rajesh Pandey, it seems to the white colors work would be moving to AI and blue colors work would be moving to robots. How would purchasing power will be distributed? Well, Rajesh, you know, discussion, universal income and other issues, but it will take some time before this movement happens. And Bologna, thank you. What specific strategy can small states adopt to mitigate the risk of AI amplifying power asymmetries and ensure that retaining meaningful agency in multilateral decision making? Many things, but first, see what are the priorities of these countries. Not be all over the place, be informed what’s going on, push for AI driven reporting from the meetings. We have, Meena will share it, we have deployed a small organization, very small organization, reports from international meetings. And you can have a small mission based in Geneva of three diplomats with the help of AI following what’s going on, comparable to mission with hundred diplomats. Therefore, there are simple things apart from the big narratives where the small and developing countries should keep saying two messages. We want to be part of the process. We want to protect our interests. And two, we won’t wait for you. We will do things ourselves to strengthen our capacities in AI. Sometimes. and I’m speaking as a person who spent my life helping small and developing countries, sometimes just the narrative of not access to technology could be also excuse for not doing something that we can do ourselves. Those will be two-pronged approach. Let’s help ourselves and let’s be present, use AI tools, push UN to make smart AI tools that can help us small and developing countries. Great question on the XTLIA and dual use this info. Nick, on AI governance, maybe you have some thoughts on UNGA of the two new global AI bodies where many states want them to be intergovernant, not multi-stakeholder and big fight is expected. Yes, Nick, you are the first great to ECU. There are two developments on UNGA. One good development is that China and US tabled two resolutions last year. One, US was sustainable development, Chinese was on the capacity building and they supported each other. Therefore, there is a convergence. This is why I said there was a successful year for the tech digital diplomacy. When it comes to generally inclusion and participation, there is the following thing. Any participation, multi-stakeholder participation, which makes sense, especially in the issues like AI, I mean, you need expertise, should be supported with full transparency, with capacity building of people that can really relate to their interests and with a clear, honest, transparent communication towards developing countries. Many developing countries with whom I interact in Geneva. Geneva, met them in Riyadh and other places, they basically say, listen, we don’t care about your multistakeholder, multilateral. For us, it’s a simple question of necessity. We need a space where we can go. It’s fine to be in Riyadh with 5,000 people, but in Riyadh, that’s what I’m quoting it. One diplomat from a small country told me, I’m one of the 4,000. In Geneva, in New York, I’m one of 193. What is my point? If you want to make reasonable, what makes a lot of sense, inclusion into intergovernmental processes, multistakeholder processes, it has to be done with utmost care. Just promoting and stating it, multistakeholder versus multilateral, I think it’s not going to do any good to all of those who are genuinely interested to have good AI governance or internet governance and digital governance. And I’ll reflect, Nick, more on that. On data governance, the working group on data at CSD is a really important development. I think it could set the direction of travel for further UNGA action. Agree? That’s good. Also, the versus referral is going to be very difficult, and it’s clear that Russia and Riyadh are going to push very hard to unpick key compromises, including on multistakeholder governance. Your thoughts on this would be welcome. Nick, I don’t currently have insights. That’s probably going to be one of the division lines, which will happen in the reinterpretation of the versus. But essentially, what I see personally is the key, is to read carefully versus document. It is an unbelievable good document for some reason, especially Tunis agenda and Tunis commitments. Also Geneva, written in a simple style, not that long, written before this hype language. down to earth and quite substantive. But in any discussion, everything boils down to few points. And here will be article 72 of the Tunis agenda and basically future role of IGF. And I think Paradi or Paragi, I cannot recall, if IGF is going to provide some outputs including recommendations. That’s going to be make or break for many small and developing countries. Countries who are for multilateral or multistakeholder, they have their position, they’re clear and you outline some of them. But you have that group of countries which is not ideologically concerned about multilateral, multistakeholder. They want simple, clear access to the governance processes and place where they can voice their concerns. That would be my sort of suggestion how to make it more constructive. Fahim, how can the significant gap between governance regulatory and the rapid pace of innovation by enterprises feels like in very concrete way, specific, concrete issue. Happy New Year, two questions, what would be? Okay, you ask it already. I’m moving a bit fast. Afternoon, Benson, great to see you. How will I get universal health coverage? I don’t know. Get your copy, Mina. Athan, hi, Owen, it’s always great pleasure to hear your thoughts. I would like to have your thoughts on how can ad-driven initiatives can help bridge the digital gap in countries like Afghanistan. Tech literacy remain a significant challenge. Yes, can AI help it with Afghan language? Can AI help it with local communities? Not AI for the sake of AI, but uses of AI. What is the view of Mark Carville? I’m seeing the same question. How can it be more engaging, helping shape regulation? So there is a. public regulation, how can civil society? Dustin, yes, civil society, academia, can bring the expertise, can put the governments accountable, and they can play a very important role. My personal advice is to move to more concrete issues that concern people, and be very careful about this ideological dichotomy, multi-stakeholder versus multilateral, which in my view is a fake, and it’s dangerous for the real multi-stakeholder approach, because many countries, if they’re forced to choose between two, especially from developing countries, they will choose what they know, which is multilateral. Therefore, it would be very to the point, practical, useful, and relevant. Bottom-up, Stephanie on civil society organization, the CADE project, thank you for bringing it important. Since in New York, multi-stakeholder government will be under sustained attack this year. Russia demanded a vote at the beginning of the adoption of the pact. They lost heavily, but they knew they would put everyone on notice, I think. If I have any ideas of this macro-stakeholder situation, that would be a great macro-stakeholder association. I didn’t follow, I know about the vote, and I know it was usually surprising, because diplomacy, especially experienced diplomacy, they don’t put things on the vote if they know that they will lose. Therefore, there was some other purpose of putting it on the vote. And I don’t know, yes, New York has more multilateral atmosphere than, let’s say, Geneva. I don’t know about Vienna and other places. That’s true. There is also a question of professional atmosphere in the city, in the space, because the culture of the… policy culture also enters through windows, if you can open the windows these days. Metaphorically, you have a space, and I think there is a difference definitely between Geneva and New York in that. Mark, thank you for your welcome. How can the IGF in Norway in June help to promote convergence of the GDC process, secure permanent IGF mandate on its proven record of success? It’s up to governments to see. It’s up to IGF to communicate it. It’s up to making proposals beyond statements. One thing that people are increasingly tired of is just the proclamation. People need concrete actions. During my time at the high-level panel, I proposed that IGF hosts multi-stakeholder help desk, where countries can come and voice their opinion, their question. I need a child safety regulation. I need to deal with AI. I need to do this. I know that. Where to go? There is a proverbial question, when you want to call Europe, whom to call? You call one place. And then in multi-stakeholder way, you provide assistance. That was completely diluted, moved into some bureaucratic help desks, and I think the idea is killed by basically that. But that for me would be something which countries will say, hey, IGF is helping me. I like it. And they would support it. Are you bullish during that? Thank you. Are you bullish? I’m not bullish. I don’t have any opinion in it. Basically, if Bitcoin is regulated, well, why not? It’s basically useful technology. Well, very busy dynamics. We have a few minutes more. Let me go quickly through the other points from our discussion and summarize that. There was on diplomacy, on security, human rights, economy. we went through the standards. Big issue, the question of the standardization of human rights, standardization of the parts of geopolitics, question of standards around the digital public infrastructure, which India initiated during G20 presidency, which a bit slowed down now, but it is still moving on. It’s an important aspect. Mobile standards, China was actively involved in the process with 6G, brain-computer interface again. China initiated standardization process on brain-computer interface and that we can expect more of it next year. Question of encryption, a big issue, especially in the EU, protection and access to the encryption tool, network and information security directive. I won’t be going in details because we don’t have a lot of time. I will share it in the updated text. Question of identity, again, a big issue. India’s Aadhaar process, European digital identity wallet and overall session, question of the digital identity is growing in importance. We discuss content. I won’t go here on the content we discuss in the context of the 20th of January. Obviously, the latest move by Facebook Meta to follow the Musk’s approach to the content, that I think will have far-reaching consequences. And inclusion, I’m afraid that inclusion will reduce and this is what we have to be very careful, that we fight on inclusion on all sort of level, marginalized group, small and developing countries, professional communities, youth. Inclusion not only of having the people sitting at the IGF panels from, let’s say, each community, but inclusion of the views, inclusion of different approaches, that still is missing, I would say, in overall global process. Therefore, personally, I would spend a lot of time focusing on basically checking if inclusion is advancing or if it is deteriorating in the overall process. Now let me just give you one thing. If you want to discuss with Diplo at our chatbot, you can ask some of your questions. What should be the future of Versys and GDC? I think Nick and Mark asked these questions. You can consult the whole Diplo’s knowledge and you can find on our Diplo AI trained model what is the position and what we insist on. All findings, we always indicate sources to the level of the paragraph. Therefore, please consult it, discuss and see whatever I didn’t manage to answer today. You can do it here or you can also access if you want my personal opinion. There is a model which was developed on all my writing Zoom calls and it is on my page and you can ask the same question. What is your view on Versys Mina? You will send the links and that’s basically, I guess, all we have. One minute more. Let me go back to the questions. And here we have Nick. I answered it. Okay. Here is my view on this. And of course, you have all these sources on which sources our AI model basically generated this question. Therefore, you can continue. If you see a lot of hallucination, just let me know and I’m happy to train my model further. Michael, thank you for quite interesting exchange. How do you see the future of Versys? see the role of spiritual and religious leader in safeguarding the life and dignity of the human being in the digital space. Thank you, Michelle, for that. This is critical. And those of you who know me, I spend quite a bit of time with the religious communities, trying to see how they can contribute to discussion about spirituality, about the free will, about the question of what defines us as humans in the sense of our dignity. And I think that religious communities should play a much more prominent role. And we will follow up with a few initiatives where we may bring a different religious community to discuss these issues. Jan Garden just brain-computing, as it was mentioned, a lot of work happening on the International Standard on Debt. Great, great link. Seb, great to see you. Thank you very much for excellent work, Jovan. Thank you, Seb, for joining us. Thank you, Su Sonia, consult page, and then thank you, thank you, thank you. Many thanks, Viona. Thank you, Merdita, and then Irena. Many, many thanks. And I would like to thank you for a very substantive discussion. You put me on the… I had to put a lot of efforts, drink a lot of water, because your questions were excellent to the point. And stay tuned and next, tomorrow, you will get my substantiated prediction for the 2025. And good luck in this complex year. I wish you personal happiness, good health, and the realization of your dreams. All the best. Thank you.

Agreement Points

Continuity in US tech policy with some changes under potential Trump presidency

speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija

arguments

Continuity in US tech policy with some changes

summary

Kurbalija predicts that a potential Trump presidency in 2025 would largely maintain existing US tech policies, with some minor changes or ‘twists’ in certain areas.

Shift in AI risk focus from extinction to existing risks

speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija

arguments

Shift in focus from extinction risk to existing risks of AI

summary

Kurbalija observes a shift in the AI risk discourse from potential extinction risks to more immediate, existing risks such as impacts on jobs, education, and media.

Need for convergence between WSIS process and Global Digital Compact

speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija

arguments

Convergence needed between WSIS process and Global Digital Compact

summary

Kurbalija suggests that there needs to be a convergence between the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) process and the Global Digital Compact to avoid parallel systems, especially for small and developing countries.

Similar Viewpoints

There is a need for more practical, concrete approaches to digital governance that enable smaller states and developing countries to participate effectively.

speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija
– Implied consensus from various countries

arguments

Small states can use AI tools to enhance participation in governance

IGF needs to provide more concrete outputs to remain relevant

Unexpected Consensus

Bipartisan agreement on revisiting Section 230

speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija
– Implied consensus from US political parties

arguments

Potential revisiting of Section 230 of Communications Decency Act

explanation

Kurbalija notes an unexpected bipartisan agreement in the US on the need to revisit Section 230, albeit for different reasons among Democrats and Republicans. This consensus is significant given the usually polarized nature of US politics.

Overall Assessment

Summary

The main areas of agreement revolve around the need for practical approaches to digital governance, the shift in focus of AI risks, and the continuity of US tech policies with some changes. There is also an implicit consensus on the challenges faced by smaller states and developing countries in digital governance.

Consensus level

The level of consensus is moderate, primarily based on Jovan Kurbalija’s predictions and observations. The implications suggest a growing recognition of the need for more inclusive and practical approaches to digital governance, as well as a shift in focus towards addressing immediate AI-related challenges rather than long-term existential risks.

Different Viewpoints

Unexpected Differences

Overall Assessment

summary

Jovan Kurbalija presented predictions and analyses on various aspects of digital governance, AI development, and geopolitical implications for 2025. Key topics included potential changes in US tech policy under a hypothetical Trump presidency, AI governance challenges, digital taxation, and the need for inclusive digital governance processes.

difference_level

As there was only one speaker, there were no disagreements to assess. The presentation covered a wide range of interconnected topics in digital governance, highlighting the complexity and multifaceted nature of the issues at hand.

Partial Agreements

Similar Viewpoints

There is a need for more practical, concrete approaches to digital governance that enable smaller states and developing countries to participate effectively.

speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija
– Implied consensus from various countries

arguments

Small states can use AI tools to enhance participation in governance

IGF needs to provide more concrete outputs to remain relevant

Key Takeaways

Trump’s potential 2025 presidency would likely maintain continuity in US tech policy with some changes, particularly around content regulation and digital taxes

AI development is shifting from hype to more grounded applications, with focus moving from extinction risks to existing risks and impacts

There is a need to converge the WSIS process and Global Digital Compact for more effective digital governance

Small states can leverage AI tools to enhance their participation in global digital governance processes

Content regulation on social media platforms remains a major issue, with Meta following a more hands-off approach

Digital inclusion and diverse participation in governance processes remains a challenge that needs addressing

Resolutions and Action Items

Diplo will provide a more detailed written prediction for 2025 developments

Participants encouraged to use Diplo’s AI chatbot to further explore topics discussed

Unresolved Issues

Specific strategies for bridging the digital divide in developing countries

How to balance multistakeholder and multilateral approaches in digital governance

The future role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)

How to effectively regulate AI uses across different sectors

The impact of AI on employment and income distribution

Suggested Compromises

Focus on regulating AI uses rather than algorithms to find middle ground between innovation and governance

Combine sprint-like initiatives (e.g. Global Digital Compact) with marathon-like processes (e.g. WSIS) in digital governance

Balance push for more AI resources in developing countries with efforts to preserve and leverage local knowledge

US tech policy has not changed substantively since let’s say 1875 and the ITU St. Petersburg conference where United States for the first time actively participated in the ITU deliberation. Then we have exactly 150 years the only exception from the continuing US policy which argued for the private-led approach to technological governance and innovation or business-led approach the only exception was titanic moment.

speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

reason

This comment provides important historical context for understanding current US tech policy, challenging the notion that recent developments represent a major shift.

impact

It set the stage for a more nuanced discussion of potential changes under a new administration, framing them as variations within a long-standing policy approach rather than radical departures.

If there is this push for domestication of TikTok, other countries can follow the same approach with Instagram, with YouTube and other services, requesting domestication of these services, legally, financially, practically, under their jurisdiction.

speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

reason

This insight highlights potential far-reaching consequences of actions against TikTok, extending beyond just one company or US-China relations.

impact

It broadened the discussion to consider global implications and potential responses from other countries, adding complexity to the analysis of tech policy and governance.

There will be a very interesting shift with enormous legal and policy aspects by extending data to knowledge. It’s already happening with the New York Times court case, in Vaipur, in other places, in one of the most interesting developments, Tennessee law of protecting voices and impersonation of the singers.

speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

reason

This comment identifies an important emerging trend in how data and knowledge are conceptualized legally, with significant implications for AI governance.

impact

It shifted the discussion towards more nuanced considerations of AI’s impact, moving beyond just data to include knowledge and intellectual property concerns.

Keep pushing for the more resources, but also think what can be done locally to strengthen the system.

speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

reason

This advice to African countries provides a balanced perspective on addressing AI development challenges, emphasizing both external support and internal capacity building.

impact

It reframed the discussion on AI in Africa from a purely resource-focused narrative to one that also considers local knowledge and capabilities.

If you want to make reasonable, what makes a lot of sense, inclusion into intergovernmental processes, multistakeholder processes, it has to be done with utmost care. Just promoting and stating it, multistakeholder versus multilateral, I think it’s not going to do any good to all of those who are genuinely interested to have good AI governance or internet governance and digital governance.

speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

reason

This comment cuts through ideological debates to focus on practical considerations for effective governance, emphasizing careful implementation over theoretical models.

impact

It encouraged a more pragmatic approach to discussions of governance models, moving away from binary debates towards considering how to make inclusion work effectively in practice.

Overall Assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by consistently pushing it towards more nuanced, historically-informed, and globally-aware considerations of digital governance issues. They challenged simplistic narratives about technological change and governance models, instead emphasizing long-term continuities, complex global dynamics, and the need for careful, practical approaches to inclusion and regulation. This resulted in a rich dialogue that explored the multifaceted implications of current tech policy debates and governance challenges.

What are the implications of digital governance if Trump successfully acquired Canada?

speaker

Váles Csenk

explanation

This question explores potential geopolitical shifts and their impact on digital governance.

How fast will quantum supercomputers using AI and emerging technologies be available for public use?

speaker

Dustin

explanation

This explores the timeline for advanced technologies becoming accessible to the general public.

How will cell phone computers using holographic technology during video conferencing be regulated on a mass scale?

speaker

Dustin

explanation

This addresses potential regulatory challenges for emerging communication technologies.

How will people regulate technology at such a fast pace to ensure it’s not harmful to humans psychologically and physically?

speaker

Dustin

explanation

This question concerns the challenges of regulating rapidly evolving technologies to protect human well-being.

What are the predictions for AI in Africa and the strategic focus on investment in Africa?

speaker

Osei from Ghana

explanation

This explores the future of AI development and investment in the African continent.

How is AI shaping democracy in Africa and potentially accelerating the AI divide?

speaker

Osei from Ghana

explanation

This addresses the impact of AI on African democratic processes and potential technological disparities.

How can the significant gap between governance/regulatory processes and the rapid pace of innovation by enterprises be addressed in a concrete way?

speaker

Fahim

explanation

This question seeks practical solutions to align governance with technological innovation.

How will AI contribute to achieving universal health coverage?

speaker

Benson

explanation

This explores the potential applications of AI in improving global healthcare access.

How can AI-driven initiatives help bridge the digital gap in countries like Afghanistan where tech literacy remains a significant challenge?

speaker

Athan

explanation

This addresses using AI to improve digital access and literacy in developing countries.

How can the IGF in Norway in June help to promote convergence of the GDC process and secure a permanent IGF mandate based on its proven record of success?

speaker

Mark

explanation

This question concerns the future role and effectiveness of the Internet Governance Forum.

What should be the future of WSIS and GDC?

speaker

Nick and Mark

explanation

This explores the future direction of major digital governance initiatives.

How do you see the role of spiritual and religious leaders in safeguarding the life and dignity of the human being in the digital space?

speaker

Michelle

explanation

This addresses the potential contributions of religious perspectives to digital ethics and human dignity.