Pre 9: Discussion on the outcomes of the Global Multistakeholder High Level Conference on Governance of Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds

Summary

This discussion focused on the outcomes of the Global Multisectoral High-Level Conference on Governance and Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds, held in Brussels on March 31st and April 1st, 2025, organized by the European Commission and the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The conference brought together over 400 participants from 70 countries to discuss governance principles and recommendations for emerging internet technologies.

Anna Podgórska-Buompane from the Polish Presidency emphasized that Web 4.0 and virtual worlds represent critical technologies that could either enhance or threaten current internet infrastructure, making governance discussions essential. She highlighted Poland’s commitment to internet governance, having previously hosted the UN Internet Governance Forum. Ruta Gabalina from PPMI presented the comprehensive stakeholder consultation process that preceded the conference, involving online consultations, interviews, and workshops that informed the development of governance principles.

The conference produced an outcome document containing twelve principles—six policy-focused and six technical—addressing human rights, multi-stakeholder governance, security, privacy, accessibility, and sustainability. Key policy principles included upholding human rights universally, ensuring transparent multi-stakeholder approaches, and prioritizing security and privacy. Technical principles emphasized maintaining open internet architecture, developing inclusive standards, and integrating sustainability by design. The document also provided four main recommendations focusing on developing ethical guidance, involving diverse stakeholders in standards development, assessing risks proactively, and facilitating policy coordination.

Esteve Sanz from the European Commission outlined how the EU plans to incorporate these outcomes into the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, focusing on three key areas: digital inclusion and emerging divides, human rights and emerging technologies, and multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes. The concept of governance sandboxes emerged as a significant innovation—distinct from regulatory sandboxes—designed to create controlled environments for testing governance approaches within existing multi-stakeholder institutions. Participants raised important questions about preventing power centralization by dominant tech actors, ensuring meaningful participation of civil society and youth, and addressing data preservation concerns.

The discussion emphasized that this conference represents the beginning of an ongoing conversation about governing emerging technologies while maintaining the open, interoperable nature of the global internet. All speakers stressed the critical importance of inclusive participation, particularly from underserved regions and youth, to prevent new digital divides as these powerful technologies reshape the digital landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Web 4.0 Conference Outcomes and Multi-stakeholder Governance**: The session focused on reviewing the results of a major conference on Web 4.0 and virtual worlds held in Brussels, which brought together over 400 participants to develop governance principles and recommendations for emerging internet technologies through a multi-stakeholder approach.

– **EU Position on WSIS Plus 20 Negotiations**: The European Commission outlined three key priorities for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process: addressing digital inclusion and emerging divides, protecting human rights in the context of emerging technologies, and establishing multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes for innovation.

– **Governance Principles for Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds**: Detailed presentation of 12 principles (6 policy, 6 technical) developed through stakeholder consultations, covering areas like human rights protection, multi-stakeholder governance, security, privacy, accessibility, and maintaining an open, interoperable internet architecture.

– **Multi-stakeholder Governance Sandboxes**: Extensive discussion about a new concept of creating controlled environments within existing internet governance institutions to test and develop governance approaches for emerging technologies, distinct from traditional regulatory sandboxes.

– **Inclusion and Participation Challenges**: Concerns raised about ensuring meaningful participation of civil society, youth, and Global South stakeholders in shaping Web 4.0 governance, with emphasis on capacity building and preventing further digital divides as these powerful technologies develop rapidly.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present and analyze the outcomes of a high-level conference on Web 4.0 governance, explain how these findings will influence EU positions in international negotiations (particularly WSIS Plus 20), and engage stakeholders in continuing the conversation about governing emerging internet technologies while maintaining the open, interoperable nature of the global internet.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative tone throughout, characterized by technical expertise and diplomatic language appropriate for an international governance forum. The speakers demonstrated cautious optimism about emerging technologies’ potential while acknowledging serious risks. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, with participants emphasizing that this was the beginning of an ongoing conversation rather than a conclusion. Questions from the audience were thoughtful and technical, maintaining the serious, policy-focused atmosphere while showing genuine engagement with the complex governance challenges presented.

Speakers

– **Francesco Vecchi**: Moderator, part of the organizing team of YouthDIG

– **Anna Podgórska Buompane**: Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Society Chair of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, regular cyber and digital attaché at the Polish Permanent Representation, Chair for the External Relations in the Telecommunication Working Party and Information Society, Vice-Chair for Cyber Issues dealing with cyber diplomacy, representative of Digital Affairs Ministry from Poland in Brussels

– **Ruta Gabalina**: Research manager at PPMI, Web4Hub project responsible for the governance of Web4.0 consultations

– **Esteve Sanz**: Head of the Sector of Internet Governance and DigiConnect, European Commission

– **Moderator**: Remote moderator for the session

– **Audience**: Various participants asking questions during the Q&A session

**Additional speakers:**

– **David Frouchi**: From Internet Society

– **Giorgio**: From Civil Society Organization

– **Dimitri Gugunov**: From Georgia

– **Tatiana Tropina**: From Internet Society

– **Fitin Lin**: From Myanmar (participated online)

# Comprehensive Report: Discussion on Global Multisectoral High-Level Conference on Governance and Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds – Outcomes and Implications

## Executive Summary

This report presents a detailed analysis of a discussion about the outcomes of the Global Multisectoral High-Level Conference on Governance and Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds, held in Brussels on 31st March and 1st April 2025. The conference, organised by the European Commission and the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, brought together over 400 participants from 70 countries to address governance challenges posed by emerging internet technologies. The discussion session, moderated by Francesco Vecchi from the YouthDIG organizing team, featured key stakeholders including Anna Podgórska-Buompane (Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Society Chair of the Polish Presidency and cyber and digital attaché at the Polish Permanent Representation), Ruta Gabalina from PPMI research organisation, and Esteve Sanz from the European Commission.

The session revealed consensus on fundamental governance principles whilst highlighting implementation challenges and emerging concerns about digital divides, power concentration, and meaningful stakeholder participation. The outcomes will influence European Union positions in the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 negotiations, though EU lines are still under approval process.

## Conference Background and Context

### Organisational Framework

Anna Podgórska-Buompane emphasized Poland’s commitment to internet governance, noting that “internet governance is very close to our hearts” and highlighting that Poland had previously hosted the UN Internet Governance Forum in Katowice in 2021 and online in 2020. She explained that Web 4.0 and virtual worlds represent technologies that could either enhance or threaten current internet infrastructure, making governance discussions essential.

The conference successfully attracted over 400 participants despite a general strike in Brussels, demonstrating high international interest in Web 4.0 governance issues. The conference featured 8 parallel sessions addressing different aspects of Web 4.0 governance challenges.

Anna also mentioned the broader context of Polish Presidency activities, including work on CSAM (Children Sexual Exploitation Online) files and collaboration within the TRIO Presidency (Poland, Denmark, Cyprus). She noted the Digital Diplomacy Network meeting and HLIG group collaboration, as well as an upcoming joint communication on digital external relations from the Commission and EEAS.

### Stakeholder Consultation Process

Ruta Gabalina from PPMI presented the comprehensive stakeholder consultation process that preceded the conference. This extensive engagement involved multiple phases including online consultations, targeted interviews, and specialized workshops that informed the development of governance principles. The consultation process was designed to ensure broad representation across different stakeholder groups, geographical regions, and technical expertise areas.

Importantly, Ruta clarified that the outcome document represents “rough consensus” rather than unanimous agreement, noting that “rough consensus doesn’t mean that everyone agrees on everything, but there is a general agreement on the direction and the principles.”

## Core Governance Principles and Framework

### The Twelve Principles Structure

The conference produced a comprehensive outcome document containing twelve principles, divided equally between policy-focused and technical considerations. Ruta Gabalina presented these systematically as six policy principles and six technical principles.

### Policy Principles

The six policy principles address fundamental governance concerns:

**Human Rights Protection**: Upholding human rights universally across Web 4.0 and virtual world environments, ensuring that emerging technologies enhance rather than undermine fundamental freedoms.

**Multi-stakeholder Governance**: Transparent multi-stakeholder approaches building on established internet governance traditions whilst adapting to new technological realities.

**Security and Privacy**: Prioritizing security and privacy protection, recognizing the enhanced surveillance and manipulation potential of immersive technologies.

**Accessibility and Digital Inclusion**: Addressing accessibility requirements and preventing new digital divides, acknowledging that Web 4.0 technologies could either democratize or further exclude access to digital opportunities.

**Transparency and User Trust**: Emphasizing transparency in governance processes and the importance of maintaining user trust in emerging digital environments.

**International Law Application**: Stressing the continued relevance of international law and human rights law in cyberspace, ensuring legal continuity across technological evolution.

### Technical Principles

The six technical principles focus on maintaining internet architecture integrity whilst supporting innovation:

**Open Internet Architecture**: Maintaining open, global, and distributed internet architecture as fundamental to supporting innovation and accessibility.

**Protocol Evolution**: Emphasizing the continued preeminence of TCP/IP protocols as the basis for building Web 4.0, ensuring unified internet infrastructure.

**Global Standards Development**: Fostering inclusive global standards development processes that prevent fragmentation and ensure interoperability.

**Accountability by Design**: Integrating accountability mechanisms directly into technical architectures rather than treating them as add-on considerations.

**Sustainability Integration**: Integrating sustainability by design across the entire ICT technology stack, reflecting environmental concerns about digital infrastructure.

**Interoperability Maintenance**: Preventing the creation of walled gardens and ensuring continued interoperability across different platforms and services.

## Web 4.0 Definition and Scope

The EU’s 2023 definition of Web 4.0 focuses on “blurring between digital and physical spaces” and “natural human-like interaction with the web.” The discussion encompassed various emerging technologies including AI, virtual worlds, extended reality, and quantum computing.

Francesco Vecchi noted that conference discussions included debates about whether Web 4.0 represents genuinely new internet development or existing internet enhanced with new technologies, indicating this definitional question remains contested among stakeholders.

## European Union Strategic Positioning

### WSIS Plus 20 Priorities

Esteve Sanz from the European Commission outlined how the EU plans to incorporate conference outcomes into the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, focusing on three key strategic areas:

**Digital Inclusion and Emerging Divides**: The EU recognizes that emerging technologies risk creating new digital divides. Sanz used the metaphor of a “cliff” to illustrate how Web 4.0 technologies could create sharp inequalities, suggesting that the window for inclusive development may be narrow.

**Human Rights and Emerging Technologies**: The EU will emphasize both the potential of emerging technologies to enhance human rights and democratic participation alongside significant risks for surveillance and manipulation. Sanz noted that “the extreme surveillance potential of new technologies may require very specific rules beyond general principles.”

**Multi-stakeholder Governance Sandboxes**: The EU approach involves promoting the creation of governance sandboxes within existing internet governance institutions. These would be distinct from regulatory sandboxes, designed to create controlled environments for testing governance approaches whilst maintaining multi-stakeholder openness.

### Implementation Strategy

Anna Podgórska-Buompane confirmed that EU lines for WSIS Plus 20 are “still under approval process” and noted the importance of TRIO Presidency cooperation. She also mentioned that mission letters of new commissioners reference establishing a Youth Council, indicating institutional commitment to youth participation.

Esteve emphasized that the outcome document is NOT a European Commission document but comes from multi-stakeholder consultations, stressing the collaborative nature of the governance framework development.

## Multi-stakeholder Governance Sandboxes: Innovation and Questions

### Conceptual Framework

The concept of multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes emerged as a significant innovation during the discussion. Esteve Sanz explained that these would be fundamentally different from regulatory sandboxes, serving as open dialogue spaces within existing internet governance institutions where “the real discussion about the future of the internet can be settled, because now it’s being settled in other spaces, and that’s very dangerous.”

The sandboxes are envisioned as mechanisms to address the challenge that current governance structures may be inadequate for emerging technologies whilst maintaining the inclusivity and openness that characterizes successful internet governance.

### Implementation Questions

However, the concept generated significant questions from participants. Tatiana Tropina from the Internet Society raised a fundamental question: “How do you marry the concept of sandbox as a controlled environment with the concept of open multi-stakeholder governance?” She also asked about ensuring “diverse and appropriate stakeholders” participate in these sandboxes.

David Frouchi from the Internet Society sought concrete examples of previous implementations and expected outcomes, asking whether there were precedents for such governance mechanisms.

Francesco Vecchi noted that YouthDIG will present Youth Messages later, with one specifically addressing sandboxes, indicating ongoing youth engagement with this concept.

## Digital Divides and Inclusion Challenges

### Global South Participation

Fitin Lin, participating online from Myanmar, specifically asked how underserved youth from the Global South could have their voices meaningfully heard in global Web 4.0 governance processes.

Ruta Gabalina acknowledged that “capacity building is more urgent due to the rapid pace of technology development,” requiring investment in digital infrastructure, inclusive design, and specialized digital literacy for underserved regions.

### Youth Participation Mechanisms

Giorgio from a Civil Society Organisation raised a pointed question about youth participation: “How can we ensure that civil society, especially youth and grassroots voices, has a meaningful seat at the table in shaping the rules and the values of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, not just as observers, right now we are, but as real decision makers?”

This question challenged fundamental power dynamics in internet governance, moving beyond consultation to questioning decision-making authority. Anna Podgórska-Buompane responded by emphasizing that youth participation is crucial as young people will be future policymakers and the internet is being created for their well-being.

## Power Concentration and Market Dynamics

### Dominant Actor Concerns

Giorgio specifically asked what mechanisms would prevent power centralization by dominant tech actors in virtual worlds. Ruta Gabalina noted that “advancement of immersive environments and AI presents opportunities for further power concentration through hyper-targeted advertising and addictive platform design.”

### Interoperability Solutions

The response emphasized interoperability principles and preventing walled gardens as essential mechanisms to address power concentration concerns. The level playing field principle was identified as crucial for ensuring fair competition and equitable access to opportunities offered by new technologies.

However, the discussion revealed that while there was agreement on the importance of preventing power concentration, specific regulatory mechanisms and enforcement approaches remained largely undefined.

## Human Rights and Emerging Technology Risks

### Surveillance and Manipulation Concerns

Esteve Sanz acknowledged that technologies have potential to enhance human rights and democratic participation but also create significant risks of surveillance and manipulation. He emphasized that a human-centric governance framework based on transparency, accountability, and user autonomy must be at the core of Web 4.0 governance.

### Cultural Heritage and Data Preservation

An important gap in the governance framework was identified by Dimitri Gugunov from Georgia, who asked whether principles covered long-term preservation of data for historical and cultural heritage purposes. This question revealed that while the conference extensively covered privacy and security aspects of data governance, it had not adequately addressed the equally important issue of long-term data preservation for cultural and historical purposes.

## Internet Architecture and Fragmentation Concerns

### Global Internet Preservation

Esteve Sanz framed the governance challenge in terms of preserving internet unity: “What’s really at stake here is the global Internet, the interoperability of the global Internet, because all these technologies are extremely powerful… If we don’t get our act together as the global multi-stakeholder community, what’s at risk really is that we’ll lose the Internet of the future, and we have a lot of mushroomed Internets globally.”

### Technical Architecture Continuity

The discussion emphasized that maintaining the preeminence of TCP/IP protocol as the basis for building Web 4.0 is important for preserving unified internet infrastructure. Speakers agreed on the importance of maintaining fundamental internet architecture while adapting to support new technologies.

## Areas of Consensus and Ongoing Challenges

### Strong Agreement Areas

Despite implementation disagreements, all speakers demonstrated commitment to multi-stakeholder governance approaches. There was unanimous agreement that human rights principles must be foundational to Web 4.0 governance frameworks, and all speakers recognized that emerging technologies pose risks of exacerbating digital divides.

### Unresolved Implementation Issues

The discussion left numerous questions unanswered about how multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes would function in practice. Concrete mechanisms for ensuring meaningful youth and Global South participation in rapid technology development cycles remain undefined. Specific approaches for preventing power concentration by dominant tech actors require further development.

## Next Steps and Future Directions

### Immediate Actions

The conference outcomes and materials are available on the conference webpage. The EU will work to incorporate outcomes into WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, though specific EU positions are still under approval process.

### Ongoing Dialogue

Francesco Vecchi emphasized that this represents “the beginning of a conversation” rather than a conclusion. The challenge of maintaining pace between governance discussions and rapid technology development emerged as a critical concern requiring innovative approaches to accelerated consensus-building.

Anna noted the importance of continued coordination within the TRIO Presidency and broader EU institutional processes, while Esteve emphasized the need for sustained multi-stakeholder engagement to address implementation challenges.

## Conclusion

The discussion of Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds Conference outcomes revealed both significant progress in developing governance frameworks and substantial challenges in implementation. The consensus on fundamental principles – multi-stakeholder governance, human rights protection, digital inclusion, and internet architecture preservation – provides a foundation for future development.

However, the complexity of implementation challenges, from governance sandbox operation to meaningful stakeholder participation, indicates that substantial additional work is required to translate principles into effective governance mechanisms. The conference outcomes will influence EU positions in WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, potentially establishing precedents for Web 4.0 governance approaches.

The success of this governance framework will depend on the ability to maintain multi-stakeholder inclusivity while addressing concerns about power concentration, digital divides, and technological risks. As speakers emphasized, this represents the beginning of an ongoing conversation about how to govern emerging technologies while preserving the open, interoperable character of the global internet.

Francesco Vecchi: and the International Cooperation Forum on Governance, which is a global forum on governance and the web. The forum is organized by the International Cooperation Forum on Governance, which is a global forum on governance and the web. Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure to have you all here at this session on the discussion of the outcomes of the Global Multisecular High-Level Conference on Governance and Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds that took place in Brussels at the premises of the European Commission on the 31st of March and the 1st of April 2025. Before starting the panel, I would leave the floor to our remote moderators to share the rules of the session. They will also be copied and pasted in the chat for those who are attending online so that anyone knows how to participate. Please, the floor is yours. Hello, everyone, and welcome to our session. Right now, I will read the session rules so everyone knows them. First rule is please enter your full name.

Moderator: This is specifically for the participants who are online, and for you, please state your name. Second rule is if you want to ask a question, you have to raise your hand here in the public or on the Zoom call. You can raise it by clicking the Raise Hand. You will be unmuted when the floor is given to you. Other rule is when speaking, switch to the video, state your name and affiliation. And last rule is do not share links to the Zoom meetings,

Francesco Vecchi: not even with your colleagues. Thank you. Thank you very much. Let me also complete the information I delivered at the beginning. The conference was hosted both by the European Commission and the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, who is represented in this panel. Anyway, Web 4.0… The future worlds, of course, unlock extremely interesting potential new solutions for the Internet, but they also cause potential threats to the infrastructure as we know it nowadays. This is basically the starting point for the conference and for all discussions that took place in Brussels at the very beginning of April, and it is my pleasure to welcome our respective speakers here on the panel. Before leaving them the floor, let me just tell you a bit how the presentation will be structured. We will have 45 minutes for presentations by speakers, and then we will open the floor to the interventions of the public for 30 minutes. Since we started five minutes late for some technical hiccups, we will give five more minutes at the end of the session, so we think that we will finish by 2.20 p.m. That said, I am extremely happy to leave the floor to Anna Podgorska-Buompane. She is Working Party on Telecommunication and Information Society Chair of the Polish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, and she will deliver a presentation to introduce the whole audience to multi-stakeholder high-level governance, a web for the zero and virtual worlds, quite a long title, and a lot of topics to be touched. Please, Anna, the floor is yours. Thank you very much. You can hear me well.

Anna Podgórska Buompane: Good afternoon, everyone. Indeed, my name is Anna Podgorska-Buompane. I am a regular cyber and digital attache at the Polish Permanent Representation, but during the Polish Presidency, I am the Chair for the External Relations in the Telecommunication Working Party and Information Society, so this is also a long title for this group, and also Vice-Chair for… for Cyber Issues, where I deal with cyber diplomacy. And I’m a representative of Digital Affairs Ministry from Poland in Brussels. Before I jump into overview of the conference, I thought maybe it would be also useful for everyone to share our Polish Presidency Digital Priorities. We started the Presidency on the 1st of January and as the Digital Unit at the Polish Permanent Representation we are covering cyber, telecom, both internal and external, and also data protection and there is also one file which we are also covering and taking care of. It’s a CSAM, so Children Sexual Exploitation Online, which I believe many of you are aware of and the discussions on that file are still ongoing, so they are on our site now. We have diagnosed, let’s say, the Polish Presidency Priorities. I will speak about the external relations, because this is the Internet Governance which falls under the external relations. Of course, the Internet Governance is very high on our agenda and we are concentrating also on EU external digital relations with like-minded partners, countries which we are having digital partnerships with, TTC agreements, and this is all. goes under discussion within the Telecom Working Party. Of course, we are also acting and working within the TRIO Presidency, so the next Presidency will be the Danish Presidency and Cyprus, so we are also cooperating with this country on our priorities. As Polish Presidents, we understand that if we speak about the Internet governance, we speak about the whole governance of the digital space, and needless to say that the Internet governance is very close to our hearts, since Poland has organized UN IGF in Poland, in Katowice, back in 2021, and also online in 2020, and of course, we are very actively promoting Internet governance in Poland, during the yearly Polish editions of the Internet Governance Forum. I would like to also say that the Internet governance, we also, as I said at the beginning, that we place also within the broader international relation context, so just to draw your attention to the fact that we are awaiting a joint communication on digital external relations, both from the Commission and the European External Action Services. This was requested by the European Council back in 2024, and a couple of days ago, the Commission has published the call for expression of interest on what should be included in this communication. on the webpage, so I would like to encourage you also to give your feedback and take part in this consultation. Since the virtual worlds, in general they are covering the critical technologies per se in it, so connected with AI, quantum computing, cyber security also, we as the presidents, we thought that getting involved in the conference on virtual worlds together with the commission would be a very good opportunity also to raise the voice and address the crucial issues, so indeed this conference has been organized on the 31st of March, 1st of April together with the European Commission, we mostly concentrated on high-level panel, despite the strike, the general strike in Brussels on that day, we managed to gather over 400 participants in the room, so this was really exceptional, it showed a really big interest in this subject topic, and on the margins of this conference we have organized also the Digital Diplomacy Network meeting together with the HLIG group, which is covered by and run by the European Commission, and the colleagues both from diplomats and expert side, they were exchanging on WISE’s plus 20 review process, this discussion was very much interesting, and just a couple of words about the high-level panel discussion, which gathered the multi-stakeholder representatives from different We had a discussion, we had the representatives of the ITU, ICANN, Academia, IGF leadership panel. There was also the Polish Vice-Minister who came and opened this discussion. And very briefly, because I know that you will have the detailed overview on the conference, the participants of the high-level panel, they were discussing WISES plus 20 review processes, multi-stakeholder approach, true secure interoperable internet, lessons learned from WISES back 20 years ago. They discussed what do we need to pay special attention to, and of course, always with references to very impactful technologies, which can challenge the IG ecosystem and its principles. So, this is from my side, the panelists addressed all these challenges. In very much bullet points, the outcomes were that we need global and inclusive standards, human rights and centering an ethical web for zero, priority must be given to privacy and data protection, and security of course, where the cyber security was mentioned many times, and application of international law in cyberspace, and also human law in cyberspace. It’s very important, and of course, transparency and user trust is a must. And concluding. During my intervention, I would like to say that from perspective of the Polish Presidency and also from Poland, which I can speak on behalf of the Internet governance, it’s very, very much important. We had discussed in the Telecommunication Working Party also among 27 EU Member States lines to take on the YSYS plus 20 review. They are still under the approval process, but I’m really happy as the Chair that this also shows how much important this topic is among 27 Member States and maybe a little bit more on the YSYS lines to take. Esteve can also say because they were also prepared with the big help and together with the European Commission. So, from my side, thank you very much. I hope I was not that much boring, but I would much welcome also your interventions maybe later in the question and answer session and your views and comments on these all processes, which I can go and take back home and to the Council in Brussels. Thank you. Thank you very much for giving us an overview,

Francesco Vecchi: mostly from, let’s say, the political point of view of the conference and you have been impressively on time, so it has been highly appreciated. I actually do remember there were discussions also about what does Web 4.0 really mean? Is it really Web 4.0 or is it just the Internet in need of supporting new technologies? And this is just to give you a hint of how wide the discussions during the conference were. But going back to the discussions, I would rather leave the floor to Ruta Gabalina. I hope I have not mispronounced your name, but you know Italians are renowned for mispronouncing names in conferences. Ruta is a research manager. PPMI, Web4Hub and also Web4Hub project responsible of the governance of Web4.0 consultations and as the slide says, she will focus on the conference outcomes, especially on principles and recommendations.

Ruta Gabalina: Please, Ruta, the floor is yours. Thank you for that introduction and a very good pronunciation. My surname is usually a big trouble for everyone. And thank you everyone for attending the session. So indeed, the focus of my speech will be more so on the process of coming to the conference, what we did in the run-up to it, and then also how the conference looked like and what were the outcomes. It’s a lot to cover, so I may have to speed through some of the sections, but a key takeaway is also that all of this is available on the conference webpage. So if you are interested in the outcome documents, the background document or any other aspects from the conference, you can access those there. So moving on in terms of what our role was, so as already mentioned, I represent PPMI and also was part of the Web4Hub project. We were contracted by the European Commission to support them in exploring key developments in internet technologies relevant to Web4.0 and virtual worlds, and also to support the debate around this conference and during it. And the aim of that debate and the conference was to come up with a set of governance principles and recommendations for the future governance of Web4.0 and virtual worlds. So kind of jumping into the process itself, so work began even before the conference started. So in autumn last year until the very beginning of this year, we were running a stakeholder consultation to try to hash out what are the kind of draft principles and recommendations that we could discuss during the conference. In this process, you can see several numbers on the screen, but we received a lot of contributions from the community in different formats, which included an online consultation, stakeholder interviews, as well as three workshops. And we put all of this together in a background document and an input document for the conference, and the input document specifically provided the draft principles and also, to some extent, the format of the conference itself, because it very much fed into the types of sessions that we, or the topics of the sessions that we chose to hold during the conference itself. So it’s all very much a stakeholder-driven process that we did to try to come up with the outcome document eventually. So, yeah, I will not repeat. Again, there are several inputs that were provided for the conference. Again, you can see those on the conference website. Then the conference itself and its setup. So, as already mentioned, there were more than 400 participants, despite the strike, taking part in the conference, representing 70 countries. This conference also included eight parallel sessions based around the different principles, draft principles at that time that we had developed, and covering both the policy and the technical side. And then, in addition to that, so taking on board the conversations during the conference sessions, as well as the written interventions or inputs from the participants, we integrated everything into a conference outcome document. And what’s important to note is this outcome document presents what we call a rough consensus. So while it kind of describes the general prevailing sentiment that took place in the conference, we do not want to imply that every single word and every single statement within that outcome document is something that everyone unanimously agreed to. So the idea was to really summarize where the debate was at, what were the different opinions in cases where consensus was not there, and to provide also some background to the principles. So moving on to the outcome document content-wise. So this document has three main parts. One is the policy principles. These are very much what we want to achieve. The foundational values, rights, and approaches that should be shaping the governance of future Internet, as well as Web 4.0. Also technical principles as the second big part, which are very interlinked with the policy principles, and you will see some of the same keywords appearing in both. But they are very much about the design, operational, and technological features that are essential to achieve the values and the principles outlined in the policy part. And then finally, we also put forth several recommendations that mainly focus on the governance process itself. Again, kind of in the context of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, but you will see that some of these recommendations are also more generally applicable overall. So kind of going into the principles, I will warn you there are 12 of them in total, so six policy and six technical ones. So I am not able to cover each of them in detail in this session, but of course happy to elaborate during the discussion part. And again, these are very much elaborated on also in the outcome document. With respect to policy principles, you will see the first policy principle focuses on upholding human rights universally while adopting specific measures for ensuring ethical and safe Web 4.0 and virtual worlds. The second principle is very much focused around the governance. So it is written as ensuring a forward-looking, transparent, inclusive, and collaborative multi-stakeholder approach. and a key element here is building on established governance mechanisms. I would say that many of the stakeholders were very adamant that we do not imply and that we definitely do not want to splinter the governance process when we talk about Internet governance and especially not do that while using these new technologies as an excuse for doing it. Rather, we are looking at the existing legitimate institutions and processes that are there that are based on multi-stakeholder principles and how do we strengthen and uphold those in the future. Policy principle number three focuses on prioritizing security in Web 4.0 and virtual worlds and this specifically is in the context of cyber and hybrid risks. Number four, without much surprise, I’m sure, is about prioritizing privacy and data protection. Number five focuses on accessibility and digital divides. And then finally, number six, it’s a very long one. We like to sometimes refer to it as the level playing field principle. So this one focuses on ensuring a good environment for innovation and fair competition when it comes to virtual worlds and Web 4.0. And also thinking about everyone having equitable access to the opportunities offered by these technologies. Moving on to the technical principles. So first technical principle is maintaining an open, global and distributed Internet architecture to support innovation, diversity, human centricity and accessibility as well as interoperability across diverse infrastructures. Overall, I think there was a consensus that we really need to protect the same principles that have made the Internet successful to date. And again, to not use Web 4.0 and virtual worlds as an excuse to splinter or try to create different technological… Technical Principle No. 2 is ensuring the evolution and deployment of core Internet protocols to support enhanced speed, scalability, and security while maintaining interoperability of the Internet and backward compatibility. Technical Principle No. 3 focuses on fostering and developing global and inclusive standards, again with the emphasis among legitimate multi-stakeholder organizations, while also mitigating duplications and fragmentation. Technical Principle No. 4 focuses on integrating accountability, transparency, user protection, and well-being by design, again a lot of keywords, but with the focus on ensuring trustworthiness of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds for both users and society. And then we have Technical Principle No. 5, again this is talking about security and privacy. And finally, last but definitely not least, and very much a part of the discussion also during the conference, we have the Technical Principle No. 6, which focuses on integrating sustainability by design across the ICT technology stack. So this is a lot of keywords, a lot of principles, but I tried to run through them very quickly. Moving on to the recommendations themselves, so what were the participants of the stakeholder consultation and the conference suggesting. On the screen you have a summary, but I will try to quickly go through them one by one. So the first recommendation was to develop guidance documents to ensure human rights-based, ethical, and coherent global Internet governance as Web 4.0 and virtual worlds emerge. This specifically focused on ethical guidelines, as well as the responsibility of companies developing virtual worlds on Web 4.0 and them. creating and implementing ethical codes of conduct. Finally, this recommendation also suggests to engage in awareness raising different stakeholders on different topics related to things like human rights, data collection, misinformation, et cetera. The second recommendation was to involve diverse stakeholders from different regions in the development of standards. And here, we first of all said, and I think this is not surprising for anyone in the internet governance space or not unique to Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, but to support the active participation of all stakeholders in this process. I think especially with emerging technologies, things like capacity building and additional support is especially critical. Then of course, to integrate human rights considerations in the development of the standards, foster communication and collaboration between standard development organizations. And finally, take action to facilitate the adoption and implementation of standards, i.e. not just that we are developing those standards, but they’re actually being implemented. Then, this one has a lot of texts. Recommendation four focuses on proactively assessing the risks and related governance needs. So here, there are several suggestions. So firstly, incorporate work streams, again, within the existing multi-stakeholder process that focus on the implications for the future of the internet that come from Web 4.0 and virtual worlds. Secondly, to adopt multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes. This explicitly came out as a discussion during the conference itself within these existing governance institutions to innovate and test approaches. Thirdly, conduct impact assessments to determine the impact of new policies, initiatives, and regulatory measures on the operation of. and finally conduct risk assessments to ensure that Internet governance frameworks can proactively address challenges. Finally, the fourth recommendation is about facilitating policy coordination between governments, of course also with the inclusion of multi-stakeholder institutions in this process. And here there are two action lines or items. Firstly, to foster a global policy coordination dialogue with regard to these technologies and secondly, to ensure the inclusion of diverse and underrepresented groups within this discussion, especially with relation to tackling digital divides and also preventing the regulatory and policy discussions having a bias and to address those. So that was a very long rundown of these recommendations. That is a summary of the outcomes of the conference, but with that I think the discussion definitely is not complete and that was also the reflection of many of the stakeholders present in the conference, that this is very much was a beginning of a discussion. So both today and in further processes and events like these, we invite to continue discussing these recommendations and principles and to not see this as a completely final and done document or idea, but something that we can continue implementing and thinking about. Thank you very much. Thank you, because you as well have been impressively on time, even though you had to deliver quite much content.

Francesco Vecchi: Personally, I see that the key word of Sandbox is emerging, especially in a context like the European one, when striking a balance between regulation and innovation has always been one of the hardest topics to touch upon. And again, there has been quite an interesting discussion during the conference as well. As you might have seen, the conference was not just about content, but it was also about the process itself of co-creation. And on the one hand, I wonder how much you were inspired by EuroDIG in this sense. On the other hand, I do think that even the process and how to integrate even more stakeholders could be a point of discussion later on during the session today. But before going there, let me leave the floor to our last speaker, Esteve Sanz, Head of the Sector of Internet Governance and DigiConnect, the European Commission, therefore one of the best interlocutors for this kind of discussion, and also representing the other organiser of the conference itself. Esteve, the floor is yours. I know that you had to present the EU perspective on the outcomes and especially how they will be directed towards Visys Plus 20. The floor is yours. Thank you so much, Francesco.

Esteve Sanz: And thank you so much, Jana and Ruta, for your presentations. I think you’ve said a lot about the conference, about the relevance of the conference for the EU. Spoiler alert, we did organise the conference, bearing in mind IGF multi-stakeholder processes, including EuroLeague, of course. For example, the core workshops of the conference where all these principles were discussed was actually a bottom-up exercise that emerged from the consultations that Ruta and the team excellently conducted before the conference. So the agenda was actually set by the multi-stakeholder community. There were many of the things and the knowledge base of multi-stakeholder participations that we tried to reproduce there. It was a conference that was based in the EU, but the aim was to have a global discussion. We had a lot of global partners. Japan was extremely present in the discussion because they are very interested in Web4 and virtual worlds, but also stakeholders from many other parts. So in that sense, I think that we can conclude that it was a very successful conference, very well attended, and with a very structured outcome. It’s not as Ruta was suggesting. It’s the beginning of a conversation, but it’s a very important conversation. It should be very structured. We should really be knowledgeable about what we’re talking about, put the ideas very transparently on the table, and then continue this conversation, which we think is absolutely crucial. This was repeated many times in the conference, but we think that what’s really at stake here is the global Internet, the interoperability of the global Internet, because all these technologies are extremely powerful. They are already having huge impacts in the digital ecosystems. They’re going to have an impact on the Internet architecture for sure. If we don’t get our act together as the global multi-stakeholder community, what’s at risk really is that we’ll lose the Internet of the future, and we have a lot of mushroomed Internets globally. You’ve heard a lot about the general principles. We thought it would be interesting for you to get almost a premiere of how the EU is processing this input, because this is multi-stakeholder input. It’s not the EU, but of course the EU has taken note and will continue taking note of those principles. We are in the middle of the discussions on the WSIS negotiation position of the EU. This is extremely important, of course. The EU, like it or not, is going to be the leader of those negotiations or one of the key leaders of those negotiations. We thought that even though this is pending a final process, I would tell you already what are the three key aspects that the EU considers very important in the context of WSIS, of the conclusions of the conference. This doesn’t mean that the other aspects are not important. It’s just that they are possibly less relevant for the WSIS context. For example, the preeminence of the TCPIP protocol as the basis to build Web 4.0. This is extremely important. It does not pertain to WSIS discussions. elements that were discussed in the conference that are not exactly appropriate for the WSIS discussion, but extremely relevant for other processes in ITU and standardization organizations. But yes, just let me tell you three aspects that the EU is considering pushing for in the WSIS process. You know that the WSIS plus 20 process, the bottom line is a UN resolution. There will be an outcome document, relatively short, right? At least this is the aim of the EU. We don’t aim at big changes in the Tunis agenda or in the action lines or any of that. We aim at a review that resembles what happened in 2015, where you have a resolution that covers critical topics that are of relevance. The messages that this resolution sends, though, are extremely important. Even if general, they are very important. They set the scene for the evolution of the information society. So very important topics. So just before I delve into these three elements that we discussed, there was a common principle, starting point of the conference, which was the definition that the Commission put forward of Web4 in a communication that we did in 2023, 24? 23, I think. 23 already. So it’s a bit old, but it was very future-looking. And basically, it had essentially two elements, that definition. One is that we would consider Web4 as the blurring between digital and physical spaces, a process that is ongoing, but in the Web4 context, it’s supposed to accelerate up to an extent where the distinction for policy and sometimes for even personal and human terms becomes very blurred. And then the second aspect was really this much more natural human-like interaction with the web. This is what we see today in AI growing, right? We will see the AI agents coming into our houses very soon, but we already see that the web is evolving towards these conversions of these two very relevant trajectories, so that’s what’s Web 4 for us. It links with Web 3 as a process of decentralization that hasn’t finished, but the Commission decided that it was a good idea to put forward already that definition that would frame a bit our policy thinking for the future in a way that we could anticipate those changes so that we bring them to the public, to the public good and to the public interest. In this context, associated to these two general trends, there are a series of technologies that are extremely powerful. It’s AI, it’s virtual worlds, it’s extended reality technologies, it’s quantum computing. There are many of sets of technologies that converge into these processes. It’s important to understand that the conference looked at the generality, at the impact on the web and on the Internet of those technologies, so it’s how AI, how quantum, how all these technologies affect the global digital governance and the global Internet governance. It’s not about AI governance, that’s a different thing that focuses on one specific technology, but it’s about the overall impact of those technologies in the digital and the Internet ecosystem. So what three aspects do we take into account from a point of view of the EU and the WSIS negotiations? This means essentially that the EU is going to argue with stakeholders, with states, etc., negotiating the resolution that these three aspects should be part of the resolution. So the first one is digital inclusion and emerging divides. The second one is human rights and emerging technologies. And the third one is multi-stakeholder governance and innovation sandboxes, which was a very clear consensus line during the conference. So on the first one. So the EU recognizes and once wishes to recognize very clearly that these emerging technologies impacting the overall ecosystem will drive significant social and economic growth globally with huge impacts in education, in health, in the economy and companies. So it’s really a positive outlook. There is a lot of potential for these technologies. If not being equalizers, having a great contribution on the SDGs. We’ve had several discussions this morning on that topic. The EU recognizes that potential and we want it to be recognized by WSIS and the UN community. At the same time, these technologies also have a huge potential of creating new digital divides precisely because it’s their power, their impactful element. So the WSIS review should explicitly address these emerging divides, emphasizing the need for both global cooperation and also investment. We must enhance digital infrastructure, prioritize inclusive design and foster specialized digital literacy and skills, especially in underserved regions and vulnerable communities. This is extremely relevant. The network has always had this inclusive-exclusive dynamic. It’s very binary. Here, what is really at stake is to get entire regions, countries, populations engaged into what will be the new phase of the global economy. It’s kind of a cliff. If we don’t manage to connect those countries to this new digital development, then rather than benefiting from them, they will be further excluded. They will be out of the map. So it’s kind of dramatic. If we believe that this technology is as powerful as they seem, then the risk of exacerbating these exclusionary dynamics is also huge. So the international community, via the UN, we have the wisest opportunity, needs to acknowledge that and, of course, take action to palliate that problem. And the second element that we will push for in the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations are human rights and emerging technologies. It’s a similar dynamic than the previous one. You have these technologies that have an incredible potential to actually enhance human rights, enhance self-expression, democratic participation for diverse marginalized groups, interaction with bureaucracies. AI makes it easier. An internet-powered AI would make it easier for us to relate to complex bureaucratic processes, hold governments and powerful entities into account. At the same time, of course, there are huge risks that we already see being developed in digital authoritarian countries. So hyper-targeted manipulation, intensified surveillance, biometric and behavioral discrimination, and, of course, increased online and offline harms, especially for children. And this was a very clear message that we got from the conferences, as Ruta was saying. So we take note of that. We will push very clearly for this to be acknowledged again in the WSIS resolution. We will push for the human-centric governance framework based on transparency, accountability, and user autonomy to be at the core of the WSIS process. And I would say one of the things that was also very clear in the consultation was that the potential impacts, for example, in terms of surveillance of these technologies are so extreme that we might need to go several steps deeper when actually framing true human rights and digital rights frameworks for those technologies. We need to understand those technologies, but we might need very specific rules and ideas that go beyond the principles that get much more concrete so that we keep them under control. And then the third element, it will be about the multi-stakeholder governance institutions, so rapid advancements in emerging technologies demand proactive, very clear evolution in internet governance, precisely to prevent fragmentation and maintain global interoperability. So what we see working in the commission with member state, with the stakeholders is that these technologies, of course, have risen a lot of interest in many parts of the world, in many states, in many companies. And we do see a lot of initiatives on a standardization on particular forums, et cetera, that take a rather exclusionary or limited approach into how this governance of these technologies can take. So this is really a call for internet governance institutions to take account of these developments and create spaces so that the future internet, the impact of these future technologies can be transparently and in a multi-stakeholder way be addressed. And this is the idea of multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes. Of course, there are many things already part of the internet governance system that ring a bell when this comes to mind. So it’s digital coalitions, for example, there are many that would cover, what would be involved eventually in one of. of those sandboxes, but nonetheless having a space that really concentrates focus and attracts expertise, extremely important in internet governance. We need technical expertise, technical experts to help us understand these processes. So this would be a great contribution for the process. So, you know, that’s all I wanted to say for the moment. Tibor Kleiner, my director in DigiConnect, will be speaking tomorrow a bit broadly about WSIS plus 20 and the EU perspective, bearing in mind that this is, you know, still a work in progress and there are several elements that need to be still procedurally achieved, but I think we are almost there, no? Next week will be the end of the process. So please, I encourage you to attend also those interested in the EU perspective on WSIS to attend the discussion tomorrow. Thank you very much.

Francesco Vecchi: Thank you very much, especially for sharing, let’s say some news on what is the European Commission approach to the consultation of the conference. Just a couple of very quick remark. You were mentioning human rights approach to regulation and needs to be translated. Of course, since we are hosted by the Council of Europe, I cannot but remind you that there is a framework on AI that was published by the Council of Europe and its specific focus is exactly on human rights and the rule of law, and I guess that not only Esteve, but everyone in the Commission is fully aware that these documents are proposed and probably they’re already trying to create some synergies between any legal action taken by the Commission and other proposals. Speaking of sandboxes, actually, as every moderator does, I forgot to introduce myself at the beginning. I am Francesco Vecchi and I’m part of the organizing team of YouthTIC this year. Later today, you will see the presentation of Youth Big Messages. By the way, the remote moderator and the session host are part of this year’s cohort. And one of the messages will be exactly a proposition for sandboxes for innovation. Just to mention that it’s really a concept that is starting to become part of the discussions in Internet Governance, and not only there. Now, we have, let’s say, 25 minutes, a maximum of 30, for the interventions from the public. I do think that quite much has already been addressed, as agreed with the focal points and the key speakers. I will gather three, four questions, maybe, and then we’ll open the panel to reply to them.

Audience: Please, David. Thank you, Francesco. I’m David Frouchi from Internet Society. I’m interested in knowing if Esteve can develop this issue of the sandboxes. We’ve heard many times about regulatory sandboxes, but this angle of governance of boxes is quite new. Perhaps he has examples of previous places where this has been implemented. I’m a bit lost on this, and I would like to know, what are the previous experiences? What is the expected outcome of this exercise? How would it be implemented, and why, in the context of which this is something that can be relevant and positive for the whole process of the mechanism of governance? Other questions? Yes, please. Actually, I have two questions. I’m Giorgio from Civil Society Organization. I would like to know what mechanisms will take place to prevent power centralization in virtual world, especially dominant tech actors, and second, how can we ensure that civil society, especially youth and grassroots voices, has a meaningful seat at the table in shaping the rules and the values of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, not just as observers, right now we are, but as real decision makers.

Francesco Vecchi: Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other questions? Yes? Thank you for the presentations. I’m Dimitri Gugunov from Georgia.

Audience: My question is to Ms. Ruta Gabalina. Thank you for presenting all these details about the consultations. Maybe I missed, but my question is about one topic that was, for the last years, very much emphasized in the digital governance strategies of many countries. And as far as, since our civilization, let’s say, is creating more and more data online, the topic of long-time preservation of this data is becoming more and more crucial. It has some perspective, it has some issues concerning personal data protection, for sure, but foremost, it’s very important in terms of preserving the history, preserving the cultural heritage, and so on, and also the political history, and many more. So, I couldn’t really find any principles concerning neither on the non-technical nor on technical principles. supporting this long-term preservation topic. Is there any principle that’s covering this issue or or not? Thank you. Thank you very much for the question. Maybe

Francesco Vecchi: another one before we address the questions gathered to the panel. I don’t see any hand raised so far, so I think that the first couple of questions are mostly addressed to Esteve, and maybe the third one is mostly to Ruta, but I invite all speakers sitting on the table to intervene and to share your thoughts if you would like to contribute to the conversation. If you have other questions, clear, I can leave the floor to you, Esteve. I mean, I think the second question maybe Anna can handle.

Esteve Sanz: So on sandboxes, thank you, David, for the good question. So, of course, the Commission is an avid user of regulatory sandboxes. We have them in relation to blockchain. Normally, sandboxes are places where technological innovations can be tested. David, that at the global level, regulation is not something that the EU favors, and not only at the level of global regulation, but also the regulation of core technical aspects of the internet architecture. Nonetheless, regulation is a form of governance. So, you know, conceptually speaking, there are a lot of things that can be tested. You know, conceptually speaking, the concept of multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes is realizing the fact that some form of governance needs to be applied to the process triggered by these very powerful new technologies so that the public interest can prevail in those processes, but without the for presuming the traditional regulatory approach of sandboxes. Let me clarify that the concept is not the Commission concept or even the EU concept. It comes from the discussions in the conference, where in the plenary, in several sessions, the notion of sandbox applied at that level was brought up. Let me also clarify that, as I was saying at the beginning, the WSIS plus 20 resolution is going to be a succinct, relatively short resolution. There is no space to elaborate on concrete elements, not the intention. I don’t think that this would be the intention of the EU to push for a very concrete definition of what this means. It’s just encouraging internet governance institutions to set up these spaces where the real discussion about the future of the internet can be settled, because now it’s being settled in other spaces, and that’s very dangerous. We need constructive, proactive, clear involvement of internet governance institutions and key actors to really embrace these technologies and see what impact they will have. Otherwise, I think that the fragmentation of the internet is a given. Thanks. And if Anna wants to take the second question

Francesco Vecchi: about civil society inclusion and youth inclusion in these processes. So, if I may share experience, Polish experience,

Anna Podgórska Buompane: on how, and from the government perspective, how important is the voice of youth indeed. From the very beginning, when we were starting the cooperation with young people, especially it explored during the UN IGF in 2022, where we have… created a very, let’s say, not powerful, but involved group of young people who were also involved in the IGF. And, of course, this group is so important because young people, they will be future policy makers and the Internet, basically, is being created for their well-being and use. So, I would suggest also the good idea is to get involved via regional youth groups which are active on the side of the IGF. So, this is very important. Our group, for example, is still active, being also active on different forums and during the different exchanges. As far as I remember from the mission letters of the new commissioners, there will be the Youth Council. I don’t remember the exact name, but there is an idea to create some kind of the Youth Advisory Council to the commissioners, so they can, of course, address a lot of issues starting from the environment, health and agriculture, but also on the digital. So, I would also advise to follow these initiatives because I understand that it will be soon, we can expect soon the first outcomes of these mission letters. And, of course, the civil society is of the utmost importance, but, of course, as the academia, technical organizations. because this is the multi-stakeholder, bottom-up approach. So, and of course, the best would be also to contact your governments in your respective countries because I’m sure that this exchange on this level also would be well heard and appreciated, yeah. Thank you very much.

Francesco Vecchi: I will take the freedom to just build up a bit on the latest interventions to mention first of all, correct me if I’m wrong, but as far as I know, the commission is already employing sandboxes at least in the framework of the AI Act and Interoperable Europe Act. So there are already some experimentations in this field. And for what concerns youth and civil society, for what concerns youth, of course, here I’m representing YouthDIG organizing team. This is one of the, probably one of the most interesting examples on how youth can be integrated in the process of EuroDIG and through capacity building and other say, yeah, capacity building activities, being trained to participate actively in a conference and not just being tokenized, but really sit close to experts and contribute with their voices. But for what concerns the inclusion of civil society youth in general, not only for example, the Council of Europe has a strong relationship with youth councils all over Europe and not only, but for instance, civil society can always be involved in participatory democracy processes, can also foster them. And there are some countries, for example, I come from Italy where it was basically civil society that led the government to deploy a digital platform for signing petitions online or something like this. And of course there are some places where you can influence policymaking through civil society. It really depends on the governance level and what are the rules employed, but there are places for doing that. And now I’ll leave the floor. or to Ruta, who will have to tackle the complex issue of sustainability of data gathering in the coming years, please.

Ruta Gabalina: I also wanted to quickly address the previous question about power concentration that was mentioned. This was very much emphasised, I think, throughout the stakeholder consultations, that the advancement of immersive environments where a lot of data can be collected together with the advancement of AI really presents a lot of opportunities for further power concentration. And this manifests in various ways that are quite concerning, right? So hyper-personalised, hyper-targeted advertising and content, more addictive platform design, more opportunities to really entrench people into using a specific platform and so on. So this was very prominent, I would say, in the conference and also in the output as a concern. In terms of what to do about it, of course, there were several suggestions on having very specific principles around interoperability, around ensuring that these platforms cannot create walled gardens. And of course, yeah, that’s a bit of a start of the discussion. There was also, of course, always the discussion surrounding what do we do from the policymaking perspective. But the outcome document is not very prescriptive in this realm. We are not saying what governments specifically should do from a regulatory standpoint, but rather that they should be coordinating and considering these risks, as well with the involvement of the multi-stakeholder community within their respective countries and regions. Then with regard to data preservation with respect to history, cultural heritage and so on. I have to admit, I think we do not explicitly cover this in the outcome document, so it’s a very good point to bring up in addition to what was discussed in the conference. I think most of the discussion surrounding data was really about the privacy and manipulation implications with regard to how much data can be collected in immersive environments, its impact on, again, power concentration, and also the concerns or the inequity of data ownership. So those were some of the highlights of the discussion about that. Maybe, yeah, I don’t know if other panelists also have something to add here, but it’s a good new point to consider. Thank you very much. I think we still have time for another round of questions, if there are any.

Francesco Vecchi: Yes, please. I would still like to…

Audience: Sorry, Tatiana Tropina, Internet Society. I would still like to follow up with a question about the concept of sandboxes. Esteve, thank you very much for elaborating on this and providing us with the definition or your understanding of the concept of sandboxes. And as you rightly say, it doesn’t come out of nowhere. The concept of sandbox is not new. And it is my understanding from reading the definitions of the European Commission Energy Bodies and AI Act, that this is a closed, time-limited, controlled environment for experimentation in the regulatory context. But when I look at the Area 3 recommendation, it refers to existing Internet governance institutions like ICANN, IETF, Standards Development Organization. And then when I look at the definition of the sandbox, governance sandbox, which seems to be very different from regulatory sandbox, because we are talking about multi-stakeholder governance that is ongoing. So, in the footnote 44 of your outcome document, we see the reference to consultation of diverse and appropriate stakeholders. And I would like to know the notion of diverse and appropriate stakeholders if we look at the concept of sandbox, which looks like a closed control environment. And then the word diverse and appropriate raises some concerns, because we are talking about open multi-stakeholder governance. Could you please elaborate yet again, how do you marry the concept of sandbox as a controlled environment with the concept of open multi-stakeholder governance in the context of Recommendation 3? We would very much appreciate this. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Before asking another question from the room, there is actually a question from the online chat. Would you please read it? Thank you.

Moderator: So, the question… I apologize in advance if I read the name incorrectly. The question is from Fitin Lin from Myanmar. This is Fitin Lin from Myanmar. How can we ensure that underserved youth, especially from the global south, have their voices meaningfully heard and included in global processes?

Francesco Vecchi: We still have much to learn, but we also deserve to be part of shaping these discussions as global citizens. Thank you. Thank you very much. Maybe one last question from the room, and then I’ll address them to the panel. I don’t see any questions, so probably the first one to reply needs to be Esteve. And then, again, I will let all of you step in if you want.

Esteve Sanz: So, thank you so much for the follow-up questions. So, the first thing – sorry, I need to repeat it. So, the document is not a European Commission document, the outcome document. It’s a document coming from… multiple consultations, stakeholders, the conference, so there was this richness of discussion around the sandboxes. And some of the questions that you have addressed were addressed by the proponents of this idea, which was not the European Commission. So, is there anything? So, the outcome, this is, it might be a confusion here. The outcome document that Ruta presented is the outcome document of the multi-stakeholder conference plus the consultations before, right? Is this understood? Okay, and then it’s the adaptation or appropriation that the EU is making of some of the recommendations that we consider important there. So, one thing is what the Commission does with sandboxes, the AI Act, the blockchain, et cetera. They have what is called regulatory sandboxes because they are directly linked, attached to a regulation. What is proposed in the document is something that relates to different forms of governance that are not regulatory. Yes, so it’s a different concept. It will not be specified in WSIS. It’s just a call for these institutions to create a space of open dialogue, if you want, for them to be able to address all the challenges that come from these new technologies. I hope this is clear. I appreciate your reference, but it’s important to differentiate between the regulatory sandboxes that the Commission does and what’s proposed in this document that we see with interest. I have to say that this is one of the most concrete recommendations that emerged from the conference. So, it’s very specific. It’s a concept that it’s growing and it’s emerging strong, and it’s a concept that also pushes a bit internet governance institutions to evolve. and be less defensive and embrace those technologies in a way that, in the end, they will allow to take ownership of the changes that will come with them.

Francesco Vecchi: Thank you for the specification. I think it was due and probably beneficial for anyone, especially when these keywords start to appear almost everywhere and to better define what does that specific expression really mean, for what concerns diverse and appropriate stakeholders. Maybe also Ruta can step in because she was attending the conference, as far as I recollect, but correct me if I’m wrong, this came out of quite a lively discussion about what stakeholders to involve and how and also referring to previous agreements like the Tunis Convention, probably also something else in the past, but I’ll leave you the floor for this.

Ruta Gabalina: Yeah, thank you. Maybe just to add one little statement on the sandboxes still. So I think when we talk about sandboxes as restricted environments in some way in this context, we’re not talking about restricting the stakeholders who are participating in them. We’re talking about maybe having them focus on a specific issue or topic, right? So I think still the message we will try to include in that definition in the footnote is one that this is still a multi-stakeholder space with diverse stakeholders being present. With respect to youth inclusion and the inclusion of Global South in a meaningful way, I think we had a lot of discussions surrounding this also in the specific session that I moderated on accessibility and digital divides. There is a huge risk that these technologies, we in the developed world run away with them and manage to gain massively from them economically and socially, while many other parts of the world are not granted the same opportunities to benefit from them. So it’s very critical that this inclusion happens urgently and the investment in the necessary connectivity, infrastructure, capacity building and so on also happens urgently. Again, I am someone who, you know, listened to the different stakeholder perspectives, but I’m not in a position to make a decision, you know, where should we invest or not. But it was very much a clear message that especially youth, as the early adopters of these technologies, have to be part of this discussion, and especially also Global South, who are at risk of being left behind as these technologies develop, need to be included. With how rapid the pace of the development of these technologies is, this becomes even more challenging, of course, because the speed of consultations, the speed at which we need to address these discussions becomes even more rapid, right? So that means something like capacity building becomes even more urgent, more challenging, because that also takes time. So, yeah, that’s some of the risks and reflections that I heard from the stakeholders. Again, of course, if other panelists or you, for instance, have a reflection on this topic, please.

Francesco Vecchi: Thank you very much. Actually, now I’ll leave the floor to Anna to comment on both questions, I guess. And then it will be up to you to have some final remarks on the overall inputs that you received during today’s panel, so that if there is anything you would like to comment on that can be addressed in that specific moment. Please, Anna.

Anna Podgórska Buompane: Thank you very much, Francesco. I have just one short comment. Since we, indeed, from the perspective of the country who has organized UNIGF and we really cared about the proper youth representation from a different part of the world. Indeed, I completely agree with what Ruf just said. This is a very difficult question. Everyone has to be treated on an equal basis. has the same access and right of voice to say. But I believe this is not only the question to us as the panelists, it’s a question for a bigger debate. So every stakeholder in this process actually should have the right to say, including especially youth, how they see their voice and what would be the right means for them to be heard more vocally. So from the government perspective, we are only open to listen and to implement. Thank you.

Esteve Sanz: On the youth and stakeholder participation, I mean, it has been more or less said, but the WSIS process is supposed to be very participatory. There was an initial modality resolution that set the general terms into which the stakeholders could participate during the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations. And now this needs to be settled into concrete mechanisms and ideas. We are working very hard to really make sure that the responsible agencies in the UN, the co-facilitators of the WSIS process, etc., take this very seriously and have very structured participatory mechanisms during the WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, which are going to be very difficult, of course. But it should be a mechanism that is very open and that it will be put in place very soon, because now we have appointed co-facilitators that will have to work on that as a priority. I just wanted to finish with that, because these negotiations are supposed to provide really a landmark in stakeholder participation in UN negotiations, and certainly the EU is working very intensively to achieve that. Yes, maybe to summarize from my perspective, it’s been a great pleasure to work on the

Ruta Gabalina: inputs for this conference and to participate in it and also work on the outputs. What is fantastic is to see this discussion continuing with VICES, with the conversations here today and everyone. This outcome document and the whole topic as such is eliciting a lot of diverse and interesting opinions and I feel like a lot of the different communities and stakeholders can come together and all have a key perspective that needs to be part of this discussion. So with that in mind, I just hope that this keeps going and the discussion doesn’t stop

Francesco Vecchi: here. Okay, so I think actually we are done and we are very much in time. Before leaving you the possibility to get out of the room, I’ll give the floor again to our moderators to just close the session and tell us what is going to be next. I think that it is just the plenary and then we cycle, but correct me if I’m wrong. Thank you everyone for taking part in this session. Thank you for your insightful questions. I think it was a nice discussion that happened. Next is a 30-minute break and after that there will be the opening ceremony of EuroDIG in the hemicycle and also the keynotes. So we welcome you there. If you need any other insight on the program, you can find it at the link that you have. Thank you. Thank you very much and I thank our speakers for participating to the panel. And of course also everyone who asked questions from the audience. Sorry for forgetting about you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach is essential for Web 4.0 governance

Speakers

– Anna Podgórska Buompane
– Esteve Sanz
– Ruta Gabalina
– Francesco Vecchi

Arguments

Internet governance is very close to our hearts, since Poland has organized UN IGF in Poland, in Katowice, back in 2021, and also online in 2020, and of course, we are very actively promoting Internet governance in Poland, during the yearly Polish editions of the Internet Governance Forum

Conference was beginning of structured conversation about global Internet governance in context of emerging technologies

Internet governance requires multi-stakeholder approach building on established governance mechanisms rather than splintering existing processes

Conference process was inspired by EuroDIG multi-stakeholder processes with bottom-up agenda setting

Summary

All speakers agreed that multi-stakeholder governance is fundamental to addressing Web 4.0 challenges, emphasizing the need to build on existing institutions rather than creating fragmented new systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Youth inclusion is crucial for future governance processes

Speakers

– Anna Podgórska Buompane
– Audience
– Ruta Gabalina

Arguments

Youth participation is crucial as young people will be future policymakers and Internet is being created for their well-being

Civil society and youth need meaningful seats at decision-making tables, not just as observers

Global South and underserved youth need meaningful inclusion in governance processes as global citizens

Summary

There was strong consensus that youth must be meaningfully included in governance processes as future decision-makers and primary beneficiaries of internet development

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Risk of digital divides and power concentration requires urgent attention

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Ruta Gabalina
– Audience

Arguments

Emerging technologies risk creating new digital divides and excluding entire regions from new digital economy

Advancement of immersive environments and AI presents opportunities for further power concentration through hyper-targeted advertising and addictive platform design

Need for mechanisms to prevent power centralization by dominant tech actors in virtual worlds

Summary

All speakers recognized that emerging technologies pose significant risks of exacerbating digital divides and enabling power concentration by dominant tech actors

Topics

Development | Economic | Human rights

Human rights must be central to Web 4.0 governance

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Ruta Gabalina
– Anna Podgórska Buompane

Arguments

Human-centric governance framework based on transparency, accountability, and user autonomy must be at core of governance

Six policy principles include upholding human rights, ensuring transparent governance, prioritizing security and privacy, addressing accessibility and digital divides

Application of international law in cyberspace, and also human law in cyberspace. It’s very important, and of course, transparency and user trust is a must

Summary

There was unanimous agreement that human rights principles must be foundational to Web 4.0 governance frameworks, with emphasis on transparency, accountability, and user protection

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Need to preserve Internet architecture while adapting to new technologies

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Ruta Gabalina

Arguments

Preeminence of TCP/IP protocol as basis for building Web 4.0 is extremely important for maintaining unified Internet

Open, global and distributed Internet architecture must be maintained to support innovation and accessibility

Summary

Both speakers agreed on the critical importance of maintaining the fundamental Internet architecture that has made it successful while adapting to support new technologies

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical risk of Internet fragmentation if governance coordination fails, stressing the need to strengthen existing multi-stakeholder institutions rather than creating new fragmented systems

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Ruta Gabalina

Arguments

Global Internet interoperability is at stake if multi-stakeholder community doesn’t coordinate governance of powerful new technologies

Internet governance requires multi-stakeholder approach building on established governance mechanisms rather than splintering existing processes

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers viewed the conference as a highly successful and important starting point for ongoing governance discussions, emphasizing its structured approach and strong international participation

Speakers

– Anna Podgórska Buompane
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Conference hosted by European Commission and Polish Presidency gathered over 400 participants despite Brussels strike

Conference was beginning of structured conversation about global Internet governance in context of emerging technologies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognized the dual nature of emerging technologies – their potential for positive impact alongside significant risks for surveillance, manipulation, and power concentration

Speakers

– Ruta Gabalina
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Technologies have potential to enhance human rights and democratic participation but also create risks of surveillance and manipulation

Advancement of immersive environments and AI presents opportunities for further power concentration through hyper-targeted advertising and addictive platform design

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Governance sandboxes as innovation mechanism

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Francesco Vecchi
– Ruta Gabalina

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes should be created within existing institutions to test approaches and address emerging technology challenges

Speaking of sandboxes, actually, as every moderator does, I forgot to introduce myself at the beginning. I am Francesco Vecchi and I’m part of the organizing team of YouthTIC this year. Later today, you will see the presentation of Youth Big Messages. By the way, the remote moderator and the session host are part of this year’s cohort. And one of the messages will be exactly a proposition for sandboxes for innovation

Conference aimed to develop governance principles and recommendations for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds through multi-stakeholder approach

Explanation

The concept of governance sandboxes emerged as an unexpected area of strong consensus, with speakers from different backgrounds (EU Commission, youth organizations, and research) all supporting this innovative approach to testing governance mechanisms within existing institutions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Sustainability as core design principle

Speakers

– Ruta Gabalina
– Anna Podgórska Buompane

Arguments

Sustainability by design must be integrated across ICT technology stack

Priority must be given to privacy and data protection, and security of course, where the cyber security was mentioned many times, and application of international law in cyberspace

Explanation

While not extensively discussed, there was unexpected consensus on integrating sustainability as a fundamental design principle for Web 4.0 technologies, showing environmental concerns are becoming mainstream in governance discussions

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on fundamental governance principles including multi-stakeholder approaches, youth inclusion, human rights centrality, and the need to address digital divides and power concentration. There was also agreement on preserving Internet architecture while adapting to new technologies.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with constructive discussion on implementation mechanisms. The agreement spans across different stakeholder groups (government, EU institutions, civil society, academia) suggesting robust foundation for future governance development. The consensus implies that Web 4.0 governance can build on established internet governance principles while addressing new challenges through innovative mechanisms like governance sandboxes.

Different viewpoints

Definition and scope of Web 4.0

Speakers

– Francesco Vecchi
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Conference discussions were wide-ranging, including debates about whether Web 4.0 is truly new or just Internet supporting new technologies

EU definition of Web4 as blurring between digital and physical spaces and more natural human-like interaction with the web

Summary

There was fundamental disagreement about whether Web 4.0 represents a genuinely new phase of internet development or simply existing internet enhanced with new technologies. The EU Commission provided a specific definition while others questioned if it’s truly distinct from current internet capabilities.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Governance sandbox implementation approach

Speakers

– Audience
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Question about how to marry the concept of sandbox as a controlled environment with open multi-stakeholder governance

Multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes should be created within existing institutions as open dialogue spaces, different from regulatory sandboxes

Summary

There was confusion and disagreement about how governance sandboxes would work in practice. The audience questioned how a ‘controlled environment’ concept could be reconciled with open multi-stakeholder governance principles, while Esteve clarified these would be different from regulatory sandboxes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected differences

Data preservation and cultural heritage governance gap

Speakers

– Audience
– Ruta Gabalina

Arguments

Data preservation for cultural heritage and political history was not explicitly covered in conference principles

Conference focused on privacy and manipulation implications rather than preservation

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed a significant gap in the conference outcomes. While the conference extensively covered privacy and security aspects of data governance, it failed to address the equally important issue of long-term data preservation for cultural and historical purposes, which the audience member identified as a critical oversight.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most conflicts arising around implementation details rather than core principles. Main areas of disagreement included the definition of Web 4.0, specific governance mechanisms like sandboxes, and the adequacy of current inclusion mechanisms for youth and civil society.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals around multi-stakeholder governance, youth inclusion, and preventing internet fragmentation, but differed on specific implementation approaches. The disagreements suggest a need for more detailed technical discussions and clearer definitions of new governance concepts before moving forward with implementation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical risk of Internet fragmentation if governance coordination fails, stressing the need to strengthen existing multi-stakeholder institutions rather than creating new fragmented systems

Speakers

– Esteve Sanz
– Ruta Gabalina

Arguments

Global Internet interoperability is at stake if multi-stakeholder community doesn’t coordinate governance of powerful new technologies

Internet governance requires multi-stakeholder approach building on established governance mechanisms rather than splintering existing processes

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers viewed the conference as a highly successful and important starting point for ongoing governance discussions, emphasizing its structured approach and strong international participation

Speakers

– Anna Podgórska Buompane
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Conference hosted by European Commission and Polish Presidency gathered over 400 participants despite Brussels strike

Conference was beginning of structured conversation about global Internet governance in context of emerging technologies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognized the dual nature of emerging technologies – their potential for positive impact alongside significant risks for surveillance, manipulation, and power concentration

Speakers

– Ruta Gabalina
– Esteve Sanz

Arguments

Technologies have potential to enhance human rights and democratic participation but also create risks of surveillance and manipulation

Advancement of immersive environments and AI presents opportunities for further power concentration through hyper-targeted advertising and addictive platform design

Topics

Human rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The Web 4.0 and Virtual Worlds Conference successfully established a multi-stakeholder governance framework with 12 principles (6 policy, 6 technical) for governing emerging technologies

The EU will focus on three key areas in WSIS Plus 20 negotiations: digital inclusion and emerging divides, human rights and emerging technologies, and multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes

Multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes should be created within existing Internet governance institutions to address emerging technology challenges without fragmenting current processes

Emerging technologies pose significant risks of creating new digital divides and excluding entire regions from the new digital economy if not properly managed

The global Internet’s interoperability is at stake without coordinated multi-stakeholder governance of powerful new technologies like AI, quantum computing, and virtual worlds

Youth and Global South participation must be meaningfully integrated into governance processes as decision-makers, not just observers

Power concentration by dominant tech actors in virtual worlds requires specific measures including interoperability principles and prevention of walled gardens

Resolutions and action items

EU to push for inclusion of three key aspects (digital inclusion, human rights, multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes) in WSIS Plus 20 UN resolution

Internet governance institutions should create multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes to test approaches for emerging technology governance

Development of guidance documents to ensure human rights-based, ethical, and coherent global Internet governance

Involvement of diverse stakeholders from different regions in standards development with capacity building support

Proactive risk assessments and governance needs evaluation for Web 4.0 and virtual worlds

Facilitation of policy coordination between governments with inclusion of multi-stakeholder institutions

Continue structured conversation about Web 4.0 governance principles beyond the conference

Unresolved issues

Specific implementation mechanisms for multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes remain undefined

How to balance ‘diverse and appropriate stakeholders’ concept with open multi-stakeholder governance principles

Concrete mechanisms for meaningful youth and Global South participation in rapid technology development cycles

Data preservation for cultural heritage and political history not explicitly addressed in governance principles

Specific regulatory approaches to prevent power concentration by dominant tech actors

How to maintain pace of governance discussions with rapid technology development speed

Detailed funding and investment strategies for digital infrastructure in underserved regions

Suggested compromises

Building on established governance mechanisms rather than creating entirely new institutions for Web 4.0 governance

Using existing Internet governance institutions as foundation for sandboxes rather than separate regulatory frameworks

Focusing WSIS Plus 20 resolution on general principles rather than detailed technical specifications

Balancing innovation promotion with human rights protection through transparency and accountability frameworks

Addressing both opportunities and risks of emerging technologies rather than taking purely positive or negative stance

Combining global coordination with regional and national capacity building approaches

What’s really at stake here is the global Internet, the interoperability of the global Internet, because all these technologies are extremely powerful… If we don’t get our act together as the global multi-stakeholder community, what’s at risk really is that we’ll lose the Internet of the future, and we have a lot of mushroomed Internets globally.

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion from technical innovation to existential threat, introducing urgency and stakes that go beyond policy preferences to fundamental internet architecture preservation. It shifts from ‘how do we govern new technologies’ to ‘how do we prevent internet fragmentation.’

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion’s urgency and provided a unifying framework for understanding why Web 4.0 governance matters. It connected technical principles to geopolitical concerns and helped justify the need for proactive multi-stakeholder engagement rather than reactive regulation.

The concept of multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes… encouraging internet governance institutions to set up these spaces where the real discussion about the future of the internet can be settled, because now it’s being settled in other spaces, and that’s very dangerous.

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Reason

This introduces a novel governance mechanism that bridges regulatory sandboxes with open multi-stakeholder processes. It acknowledges that current governance structures may be inadequate for emerging technologies while proposing a concrete solution that maintains inclusivity.

Impact

This concept became a focal point for multiple follow-up questions and clarifications, demonstrating its complexity and potential significance. It sparked detailed discussions about the difference between regulatory and governance sandboxes, and how to maintain openness while creating focused spaces for technical governance discussions.

How can we ensure that civil society, especially youth and grassroots voices, has a meaningful seat at the table in shaping the rules and the values of Web 4.0 and virtual worlds, not just as observers, right now we are, but as real decision makers?

Speaker

Giorgio (Civil Society Organization)

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental power dynamics in internet governance, moving beyond tokenistic participation to questioning decision-making authority. It highlights the gap between consultation and actual influence in shaping technological futures.

Impact

This question prompted responses from multiple panelists and shifted the discussion toward practical mechanisms for inclusion. It revealed tensions between multi-stakeholder ideals and implementation realities, leading to concrete suggestions about youth councils, capacity building, and participatory democracy processes.

These technologies also have a huge potential of creating new digital divides precisely because it’s their power, their impactful element… It’s kind of a cliff. If we don’t manage to connect those countries to this new digital development, then rather than benefiting from them, they will be further excluded.

Speaker

Esteve Sanz

Reason

This metaphor of a ‘cliff’ powerfully illustrates how Web 4.0 technologies could create irreversible inequalities rather than gradual digital divides. It suggests that the window for inclusive development may be narrow and closing rapidly.

Impact

This framing influenced how subsequent speakers discussed inclusion and capacity building, emphasizing urgency in addressing global south participation. It connected technical development timelines to social justice concerns and reinforced the need for immediate international cooperation.

When I look at the definition of the sandbox, governance sandbox, which seems to be very different from regulatory sandbox, because we are talking about multi-stakeholder governance that is ongoing… Could you please elaborate yet again, how do you marry the concept of sandbox as a controlled environment with the concept of open multi-stakeholder governance?

Speaker

Tatiana Tropina (Internet Society)

Reason

This question exposes a fundamental conceptual tension in the proposed governance mechanism, challenging speakers to clarify how controlled experimentation can coexist with open participation. It demonstrates sophisticated understanding of governance theory and practical implementation challenges.

Impact

This question forced important clarifications about the nature of governance sandboxes versus regulatory sandboxes, leading to more precise definitions and helping the audience understand the practical implications of the proposed mechanisms. It elevated the technical sophistication of the discussion.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a routine policy presentation into a dynamic exploration of fundamental governance challenges. Esteve Sanz’s framing of internet fragmentation as an existential threat created urgency that permeated the entire discussion, while his introduction of governance sandboxes provided a concrete but complex solution that required extensive clarification. Giorgio’s challenge about meaningful participation versus tokenism forced speakers to move beyond platitudes to discuss specific mechanisms for inclusion. The technical questions from experienced practitioners like Tatiana Tropina elevated the discussion’s sophistication and forced more precise thinking about proposed solutions. Together, these interventions created a conversation that balanced high-level strategic concerns with practical implementation challenges, while maintaining focus on fundamental questions of power, inclusion, and technological governance.

How much were the conference organizers inspired by EuroDIG in designing the co-creation process?

Speaker

Francesco Vecchi

Explanation

This question explores the methodological influences behind the conference design and could inform future multi-stakeholder processes

How can the process be improved to integrate even more stakeholders in future discussions?

Speaker

Francesco Vecchi

Explanation

This addresses the ongoing challenge of ensuring comprehensive stakeholder participation in internet governance processes

What are concrete examples of previous implementations of multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes?

Speaker

David Frouchi (Internet Society)

Explanation

Understanding precedents would help clarify how these governance mechanisms could work in practice

What are the expected outcomes and implementation methods for multi-stakeholder governance sandboxes?

Speaker

David Frouchi (Internet Society)

Explanation

This seeks practical details about how these proposed governance mechanisms would function and what they would achieve

What mechanisms will prevent power centralization by dominant tech actors in virtual worlds?

Speaker

Giorgio (Civil Society Organization)

Explanation

This addresses a critical concern about maintaining competitive balance and preventing monopolistic control in emerging digital spaces

How can civil society, especially youth and grassroots voices, have meaningful decision-making roles rather than just observer status in Web 4.0 governance?

Speaker

Giorgio (Civil Society Organization)

Explanation

This highlights the need for genuine participation rather than tokenistic inclusion in governance processes

Are there principles covering long-term preservation of data for historical and cultural heritage purposes in the context of Web 4.0?

Speaker

Dimitri Gugunov (Georgia)

Explanation

This identifies a potential gap in the governance framework regarding data preservation for societal and cultural purposes

How can the concept of ‘diverse and appropriate stakeholders’ be reconciled with open multi-stakeholder governance in the context of governance sandboxes?

Speaker

Tatiana Tropina (Internet Society)

Explanation

This addresses a potential contradiction between the controlled nature of sandboxes and the openness principle of multi-stakeholder governance

How can underserved youth from the Global South have their voices meaningfully heard in global Web 4.0 governance processes?

Speaker

Fitin Lin (Myanmar)

Explanation

This highlights the critical need for inclusive participation from underrepresented regions and demographics in shaping global digital governance

How can synergies be created between European Commission actions and the Council of Europe’s AI framework focused on human rights and rule of law?

Speaker

Francesco Vecchi (implied)

Explanation

This explores potential coordination between different European institutions working on AI governance to avoid duplication and ensure coherence