WS #453 Leveraging Tech Science Diplomacy for Digital Cooperation

Summary

This roundtable discussion explored the role of science and technology diplomacy in fostering global cooperation, with particular focus on how non-traditional actors can contribute to digital governance initiatives. Moderated by Sofie Schönborn from the Technical University of Munich, the session brought together experts from government, academia, civil society, and technical communities to examine collaborative approaches beyond traditional diplomatic channels.

The discussion was framed around three dimensions of science diplomacy: science in diplomacy (using scientific knowledge to inform policy), diplomacy for science (using diplomatic tools to support scientific cooperation), and science for diplomacy (using science as soft power for international relations). Speakers emphasized that in today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape, even traditional diplomats are becoming “non-traditional” actors as they navigate new roles in technology governance.

Key themes emerged around the importance of anticipatory governance, evidence-based policymaking, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. The Global Network of Internet and Society Centers was highlighted as an example of how academic networks can serve as policy bridges, connecting experts across regions and providing evidence to inform decision-making processes. Speakers shared concrete examples of successful science diplomacy, including Colombia’s AI expert mission that brought together international academics, government officials, and development banks to create actionable AI policy frameworks.

The discussion emphasized the critical role of collaboration in addressing global challenges, with Wikipedia cited as an example of peak digital collaboration through its open-source, peer-review model. Participants stressed the need to reduce information asymmetries about emerging technologies and ensure policymakers understand the technologies they seek to regulate. The session concluded with calls to action focusing on co-creation across borders, defending trust in science, and maintaining multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance as essential tools for navigating complex geopolitical times while building sustainable technological futures.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Defining Science and Technology Diplomacy**: The discussion explored the three dimensions of science diplomacy outlined by the Royal Society: science in diplomacy (using scientific knowledge to inform policy), diplomacy for science (using diplomatic tools to support scientific cooperation), and science for diplomacy (using science as soft power to build international relations and bridges).

– **Role of Non-Traditional Actors**: A central focus was examining how actors beyond traditional diplomats – including academic networks, civil society organizations, technical communities, and research institutions – can contribute to global digital governance and international cooperation in an era of geopolitical tensions.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Networks**: Speakers emphasized the importance of collaborative platforms like the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers (NOC), highlighting how academic networks can serve as “policy bridges” connecting experts across regions and providing evidence-based input to policymakers.

– **Practical Implementation and Real-World Examples**: The discussion featured concrete case studies, particularly Colombia’s AI expert mission (2018-2022) which demonstrated successful science diplomacy in action, involving academics, government, industry, and development banks to create actionable AI policy and infrastructure.

– **Challenges and Future Directions**: Speakers addressed current threats to open internet governance, the need for anticipatory governance in rapidly evolving technology landscapes, and the importance of reducing information asymmetries between technical developments and policymaking processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The roundtable aimed to explore how science and technology diplomacy can enhance global cooperation, specifically focusing on the contributions of non-traditional diplomatic actors (academia, civil society, technical communities) to digital governance initiatives. The session sought to identify practical approaches and tools for fostering international collaboration in technology policy during times of geopolitical tension.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently constructive and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers were optimistic about the potential for meaningful cooperation despite acknowledging current geopolitical challenges and fragmentation. The tone was professional yet accessible, with participants building on each other’s points and emphasizing shared goals. There was a notable sense of urgency about the need for action, but this was balanced with practical optimism about available tools and successful examples. The conversation concluded on an empowering note, with clear calls to action that reinforced the theme that meaningful change is both necessary and achievable through collaborative effort.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sofie Schonborn** – Researcher at the Technical University of Munich and at the Technical University of Munich’s Think Tank, TUM Think Tank; Moderator of the roundtable

– **Nele Leosk** – Former ambassador-at-large for digital affairs of Estonia, now team lead at Knowledge Hub Digital for the European Commission

– **Maricela Munoz** – Director for External Affairs at Gesta, the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator

– **Armando Guio** – Executive Director of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers (NOC)

– **Isobel Acquah** – Africa Director of CERTA Foundation, Pan-African Legal Think Tank based in Rwanda

– **Víctor Munoz** – Engineer, Entrepreneur and former Director General of the Administration of the Presidency in Colombia

– **Jan Gerlach** – Director of Public Policy at Wikimedia Foundation

– **Lucien M. CASTEX** – Policy Representative and Advisor to the CEO of AFNIC, the French Network Information Center

**Additional speakers:**

None identified – all speakers who participated in the discussion were included in the provided speakers names list.

# Science and Technology Diplomacy: The Role of Non-Traditional Actors in Global Digital Governance

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive 60-minute roundtable discussion at IGF 2025 in Oslo, moderated by Sofie Schönborn from the Technical University of Munich Think Tank and the Global Network of Internet and Society Centres, brought together eight international experts to explore the evolving landscape of science and technology diplomacy. The session featured representatives from government, academia, civil society, and technical communities, creating a diverse multi-stakeholder dialogue that exemplified the collaborative approaches being discussed.

The conversation was initially structured around the Royal Society’s three-dimensional framework for science diplomacy: science in diplomacy, diplomacy for science, and science for diplomacy. However, the discussion quickly evolved beyond these traditional categories as speakers challenged fundamental assumptions about who constitutes “traditional” versus “non-traditional” actors in the rapidly changing technological landscape.

A central theme emerged around the recognition that even traditional diplomatic actors are becoming “non-traditional” as they navigate unfamiliar roles in technology governance, while private sector and individual players increasingly wield more power than conventional government actors. This paradigm shift set the tone for a nuanced exploration of collaborative approaches that transcend traditional diplomatic channels.

The discussion maintained a consistently constructive tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s contributions to create a comprehensive picture of current challenges and future opportunities. Participants shared concrete examples of successful science diplomacy initiatives, from Colombia’s AI expert mission to Wikipedia’s global collaboration model, while addressing pressing concerns about geopolitical fragmentation and threats to open internet governance.

## Key Themes and Major Discussion Points

### Redefining Traditional and Non-Traditional Actors

The conversation began with an immediate challenge to its foundational premise. Nele Leosk, former Estonian ambassador-at-large for digital affairs, fundamentally questioned the binary distinction between traditional and non-traditional actors, arguing that “governments are already traditional actors in technology diplomacy, because the role of technology is still quite new to traditional diplomacy.” She noted that “many diplomats actually find themselves in a rather new role in these current times, when private sector, and I would say even individual players, have so much power that often we see that they have more power than actually these traditional actors as governments.”

This reframing proved pivotal, shifting the entire discussion away from a simple traditional versus non-traditional dichotomy towards a more nuanced understanding of evolving roles and power dynamics in the digital age.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration as Essential Infrastructure

All speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to digital governance. Maricela Muñoz, Director for External Affairs at GESTA (Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator), emphasized that “science diplomacy has existed for centuries through collaborative platforms,” citing the Internet Governance Forum as “a perfect example of multi-stakeholder collaboration.”

Jan Gerlach from the Wikimedia Foundation described Wikipedia as representing “peak collaboration on the internet through open source peer review system across 300 languages,” noting that Wikipedia has crossed “65 million articles across roughly 300 languages” and “will celebrate its 25th anniversary next year.” Lucien M. Castex from AFNIC emphasized that the “multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes.”

### Academic Networks as Policy Bridges

Armando Guío, Executive Director of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers, introduced the compelling concept of academic networks functioning as “policy bridges.” He explained how the network, which has grown to “140 centers” globally, enables situations where “colleagues in Oslo are contributing to colleagues in Colombia and to policymakers in Colombia, or colleagues in Singapore are helping other colleagues in Africa.”

This bridge metaphor resonated throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers providing examples of how academic institutions can connect technical expertise with policy needs across geographical and institutional boundaries while building local capacity for digital governance.

### Anticipatory Governance and Accelerated Change

Maricela Muñoz introduced the crucial concept of anticipatory governance, arguing that “we’re living in an era of accelerated change and we need to be able to anticipate what’s coming next.” She highlighted the Open Quantum Institute, which is “incubated at GESTA and is now embedded at CERN,” as an example of anticipatory science diplomacy working to accelerate dialogue around quantum technology development before widespread deployment creates governance challenges.

### Practical Implementation: Colombia’s AI Expert Mission

Víctor Muñoz provided a detailed case study of Colombia’s AI expert mission (2018-2022), which was co-sponsored by CAF (development bank in Latin America) and the Inter-American Development Bank. The mission was led by Sandra Cortesi from Harvard Berkman Klein Center and Professor Gasser from TUM University Munich, bringing together international academics, government officials, development banks, and industry representatives.

Muñoz emphasized that “science diplomacy doesn’t remain confined to policy papers. It creates concrete tools, infrastructure, and institutional capacity.” The mission’s success is evidenced by Colombia now having “two centers for AI excellence, one in Bogota and one in Medellín,” demonstrating how science diplomacy can create lasting institutional capacity.

### Regional Perspectives and Global Challenges

Isobel Acquah, Africa Director of CERTA Foundation, provided crucial perspective on how science and technology diplomacy can address global inequalities while leveraging regional strengths. She reframed Africa’s technological challenges not as problems requiring aid, but as global opportunities requiring collaboration, noting that “when you think about the fact that the global population will be one in four African, it becomes an international obligation.”

Nele Leosk provided the perspective of smaller nations, explaining how “small countries need to collaborate closely with non-traditional actors due to complexity of following global digital processes.” She highlighted the Nordic Institute of Interoperability Solutions as a specific example of successful cross-border collaboration.

## Concrete Tools and Actionable Outcomes

### The Wikipedia Test

Jan Gerlach introduced the practical “Wikipedia test” as a decision-making framework, encouraging policymakers to “consider the impact of any actions, of policies, of regulations on Wikipedia before making decisions,” arguing that “if policies and actions are bad for Wikipedia, they harm the open internet and many digital public goods.”

### Development Banks as Science Diplomacy Actors

Víctor Muñoz uniquely positioned development banks as key science diplomacy actors, describing how they moved beyond traditional infrastructure to support AI policy development by “connecting countries with global experts beyond traditional government channels.”

### Cross-Sector Collaboration Models

Multiple speakers provided examples of successful collaboration mechanisms:

– AFNIC’s collaboration with the Centre of Internet and Society in France

– The post-quantum report collaboration between AFNIC and I3C

– The São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines from NET Mundial plus 10

– Multi-stakeholder meetings bringing together “big tech, startups, policymakers, and regulators”

## Challenges and Future Directions

### Geopolitical Fragmentation

Multiple speakers expressed concern about threats to open internet governance from increasing geopolitical tensions. Jan Gerlach warned that “geopolitical tensions threaten open internet, making digital cooperation crucial for keeping everyone connected,” while Armando Guío noted that the world is “moving toward fragmentation and localisation.”

### Capacity Building and Representation

Isobel Acquah highlighted ongoing challenges in ensuring adequate representation and capacity building for underrepresented regions, emphasizing the need for “peer learning approaches” rather than “hierarchical knowledge transfer systems” to ensure more equitable collaboration.

### Maintaining Trust in Science

Both Maricela Muñoz and Víctor Muñoz emphasized the challenge of maintaining trust in science and evidence-based policymaking during times of polarization, which threatens the foundation of science diplomacy.

## Calls to Action

The discussion concluded with several specific calls to action:

– **Co-Creation Across Borders**: Nele Leosk’s call for “co-creation across sectors and borders” emphasizes collaborative approaches that recognize shared challenges and solutions

– **Reducing Information Asymmetries**: Armando Guío’s emphasis on “reducing information asymmetries about new technologies by bringing policymakers closer to actual technological developments”

– **Defending Trust in Science**: Maricela Muñoz’s call to “defend trust in science and democratise access to knowledge for evidence-based policymaking”

– **Working with Local Communities**: Jan Gerlach’s emphasis on “working with local volunteer communities who collect and build knowledge, including researchers and experts”

## Areas of Disagreement

Despite high consensus, some tensions emerged around definitional challenges regarding traditional versus non-traditional actors, different approaches to collaboration mechanisms, and varying perspectives on which institutions should play leading roles in science and technology diplomacy.

## Conclusion

This roundtable discussion demonstrated both the potential and challenges of science and technology diplomacy in addressing contemporary global challenges. The remarkable consensus among diverse stakeholders on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, evidence-based policymaking, and cross-border cooperation provides a strong foundation for advancing collaborative approaches to digital governance.

The discussion’s evolution from questioning basic assumptions about traditional versus non-traditional actors to providing concrete tools and implementation strategies reflects a maturing field moving beyond theoretical frameworks towards practical application. The emphasis on anticipatory governance, academic networks as policy bridges, and practical tools like the Wikipedia test all suggest promising directions for future development.

However, significant challenges remain, particularly around maintaining collaborative approaches in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment and ensuring equitable participation across different regions and communities. The success of science and technology diplomacy will depend on the ability of diverse stakeholders to implement the collaborative approaches discussed while adapting to changing technological and geopolitical conditions.

Sofie Schonborn: Welcome everyone. Welcome to our roundtable on leveraging science and tech diplomacy for global cooperation. My name is Sofie Schönborn. I’m a researcher at the Technical University of Munich and at the Technical University of Munich’s Think Tank, TUM Think Tank. TUM Think Tank is a part of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centres, NOC, which is bringing all of us here together today. I’m happy to moderate today’s roundtable and kick us off into today’s session. Science and tech diplomacy have become some kind of increasingly talked about buzzwords in the past 15 to 20 years. They’re ideas that link science and tech to the world of diplomacy, international relations and global governance. But as with so many other things, of course, there are no universally agreed upon definitions for either of the two. Or even related terms. What have emerged are a couple of common concepts and I just briefly want to introduce one classification of those to frame the following discussion. The Royal Society has outlined three dimensions for science diplomacy in 2010, which are oftentimes referred to. These cover the three terms science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy and diplomacy for science. What does that mean? Science in diplomacy typically refers to activities that use scientific knowledge to inform foreign policy and policy more broadly. They could be through individual science attaches, individual scientists or technologists, but also institutions or networks of institutions. Then when we look at diplomacy for science, we recognize it’s not just a one way street. We can also use diplomatic tools and channels to support scientific and technological cooperation. Thirdly, science for diplomacy, so not in, but for, see science and technology more as soft power elements for promoting international policy goals, for promoting foreign policy. foreign policy agendas, for example by promoting open values or evidence-based decision making, but also to build bridges to improve international relations in times where diplomatic channels may erode or temporarily not function for those goals. These dimensions of course are super broad, not mutually exclusive, but I think what they show is that there can really be a range of actors involved in science and tech diplomacy, and also that this really covers a range of activities that we can engage in. Now 2025, IGF, we live in times of geopolitical tensions, we’re searching for trusted partnerships, new alliances, and of course there’s ongoing technological developments and efforts for global digital governance, be it through the IGF, WSIS 20 and so on, and we may be looking, especially with the ideas of multi-stakeholderism, for what actually the roles of different stakeholder groups are and how we individually can contribute to those. So against the spectrum, we’re coming together today to explore with our esteemed speakers, but also with the audience, what the role of non-traditional diplomatic actors or actors can be in science and technology diplomacy. Non-traditional in the sense that we’re not looking at diplomats at foreign federal agencies, but really at actors from science, civil society, and the technical communities and how they can contribute. No easy questions, and multiple at that, but that’s why I’m really happy to have with me such experts from really a range of stakeholder groups and backgrounds. I’m briefly introducing by the order of appearance with their inputs. First of all, online. I hope we can see our speakers online. Nele Liosk is joining us, former ambassador-at-large for digital affairs of Estonia, now a team lead at Knowledge Hub Digital. for the European Commission and joining us online. We’re seeing someone else then up there. I’m really sorry for that. I’ll continue with the introductions and then I hope we see also the speakers up there. Maricela Muñoz is joining us, Director for External Affairs at Gesta, the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator. Armando Guío Espanyol, the Executive Director of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers, NOC, also joining us online. I hope you’ll see a picture of him soon. Here in person with us, Isobel Acquah, the Africa Director of CERTA Foundation, Pan-African Legal Think Tank based in Rwanda. Víctor Muñoz, Engineer, Entrepreneur and former Director General of the Administration of the Presidency in Colombia, long affiliation, Jan Gerlach, Director of Public Policy at Wikimedia Foundation and Lucien Castex, Policy Representative and Advisor to the CEO of AFNIC, the French Network Information Center. Thank you all for being with us here today. Before we get started, some very quick notes on housekeeping. We will hear brief interventions, max five minutes from each of our roundtable speakers. So please, in the audience, collect your questions. We will have time for discussion briefly at the end of the session, as this is only 60 minutes. I have to stay close to the schedule. We have an online moderator for the audience online. Please just put your questions in the chat and we will hear them here in person. So without further ado, let me start by turning to Nele Liosk online and after that Maricela Muñoz to hear from your experience, how science and tech diplomacy can contribute to digital governance initiatives and what role, well, non-traditional actors actually play and what they may look to in the future. Nele. The floor is yours.

Nele Leosk: Hello everybody, and hello from Tallinn, quite close but still remote, but happy to be here. Sofie, if you may, you actually refer to governments as traditional actors in tech diplomacy, and having been Estonia’s G20 ambassador, I’m actually wondering whether governments are already traditional actors in technology diplomacy, because the role of technology is still quite new, I would say, to traditional diplomacy, and actually quite a lot has happened in a very short time, but still a short time, and I would say that many diplomats actually find themselves in a rather new role in these current times, when private sector, and I would say even individual players, have so much power that often we see that they have more power than actually these traditional actors as governments. So I think diplomats also have quite a bit still to do to get used to this new environment, and also realise that technology is actually shaping our world, and will shape it more by every day. But maybe just to come back to your question about what is the role of diplomacy and the different actors in this, I think it depends on our starting point, so what we actually need to do. So I served as Estonia’s digital ambassador, and that means I come from a very small country, that is tech savvy, is known to be a digital leader in deploying technology, but of course is not the technology hub in terms of technological innovation per se. Technological developments still take place mainly in other countries, and I would say increasingly in very few countries and also in very few companies. So, for us, the starting point, I would say, was maybe twofold. First, of course, we have been working and will work for what we call, let’s say, the democratic development of digitalization. We want to have the virtual world be open and secure and all these nice things we are fighting for here at the IGF also. But I would say increasingly important really becomes an understanding and the work we need to do in order to make sure that everybody in our society, so everybody in Estonia, actually has these necessary skills and knowledge to continue to be able to use technology, and including for our benefit. So, when I look back perhaps my almost five years in Estonia’s government, and I put the Europe aside for today, I will focus perhaps on Estonia, then what other means that a small country really has. Of course, as you also mentioned, one line of work is really the technology governance, so how we are supposed to use technologies. We know what we do in our country. We have in Europe, we have the European Union that plays a big role in shaping, let’s say, the virtual space, and I think EU is quite known for its regulatory activity, but not only. And now we have these global developments, and I do have to admit that when I look at, for example, the process of global digital compacts, which is plus 20, and the other processes that we all know, We are all part of governments. For private sector it is actually quite complex to follow these, especially when I look, for example, at the private sector players or even academia in Estonia. So here definitely, let’s say, that traditional actors need to collaborate closely with non-traditional actors as you categorized them. So what we had said in Estonia, we had, I would say, a rather loose network of private sector players, but we also had some more institutionalized ways to share information with each other. We had a Digital Diplomacy Coordination Council also that included all the main players outside governments, that the way we would share what’s happening and they would also reflect back on their needs. But the second component, as I started, and I know that I have only four minutes, so I will close it here, it’s just an introductory remark, is really building these partnerships that support our partners. Are they in academia, in private sector, are they in NGOs? And here I would say that looking from the government perspective or let’s say the tech diplomat perspective, it’s not, of course, just a matter of just the diplomat. So I think what here was really crucial, not only for Estonia, but also for the European Union, was to take, let’s say, this holistic approach to tech diplomacy, where we would understand that technology is not just a matter of tech diplomats or science diplomats or innovation diplomats or cyber diplomats, there are so many of them, but it’s also a matter of trade and trade negotiations, it’s a matter of development cooperation, it’s a matter of security, democracy and human rights. It’s everything that we as diplomats… to and I would say that all these partnerships would need to feed into all these mechanisms that are in place or maybe that need to be still introduced within all these different policy areas and and there’s a role as a of a tech diplomat here is I would say bring this all together have this umbrella and support all these different areas but I will end from my side here and I’m happy to stay of course listen to my good colleagues and and have the discussion later

Sofie Schonborn: thank you so thank you Nele thank you Nele that turns us over to Maricela Muñoz really well you look at the future of science and diplomacy how how would you add to this

Maricela Munoz: thank you so much Sofie so I’m struggling looking at the timer there because the topic is so rich that is difficult to only talk for four or five minutes so bear with me I’ll do my best but I think that Nele was able to do a very great job of framing the the conversation so first I think that sometimes when we talk about science and diplomacy and you refer to to those incredible you know insights that were shared by the Royal Society and others a few years back we forget that science and diplomacy has been a player you know since centuries ago because we have worked in collaborative platforms as humanity for for centuries as well and I think that the IGF is the perfect example of this sort of collaboration is is not trivial that is a multi-stakeholder endeavor and that we also have the voice of underrepresented regions so as we establish that I think that my insights would like to contribute in the in the line of what is missing or what how can we may strengthen that collaborative platform and I think that anticipation is is that ingredient because we’re living in an era of accelerated Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Nele Leosk, Lucien Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller materialize as a way to prove that science diplomacy is also action, it’s not only discussions. And this example is the Open Quantum Institute that was incubated at JASTA and is now embedded at CERN with the collaboration also of the private sector, where we’re basically accelerating the dialogue to develop.

Sofie Schonborn: Isobel Acquah, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller

Armando Guio: Thank you. Thank you very much, Sofie. And it’s great, of course, to see you all and to share this panel with such a great group of esteemed colleagues. I’m here in Boston, but very happy to almost feel in there in Oslo. And of course, as you mentioned, I would like to share a little bit more about the global network of Internet and society centers, the work we do, and of course, how it relates with this big question about a tech diplomacy and science diplomacy. So, the Global Network of Centers, also known as NOC, it’s a network of 130, now we are 140 centers from around the world, academic centers that are working together towards perhaps bringing ideas and trying to accelerate conversations that we need to have all over the world about the use of the Internet, about new technologies, about AI, of course, quantum computing, the metaverse, and many other emerging technologies that we have in the world, and that basically have also a global impact. And that’s perhaps one of the biggest issues that we have right now. The world is taking us towards a state of fragmentation, where it’s taking us to a state of thinking for ourselves of more national than international projects and to localize some of these ideas, and also the use of some of these infrastructure. In the Global Network of Centers, we believe that we need to continue this kind of engagement with different centers and colleagues around the world, as we believe that this is going to be essential for many of the future conversations that we should have, and of course, of the projects and ideas that should come in the next years, especially when we are talking about the impact of technologies that are not considering borders, frontiers, that are actually moving in many different ways beyond that. So in that regard, I think that the Network of Centers and the work we’re doing, and many of the colleagues here are part of this network, perhaps on the point of scientific diplomacy and science diplomacy, we have three points that I would like to highlight. The first one is that academic networks can work as policy bridges. This idea of a policy bridge in which basically we are a bridge between some academic experts and policymakers. And the interesting thing is that we have been able to connect experts with countries and with policymakers in many different countries in which sometimes they don’t even consider to be working with or to have an impact on. So it’s interesting to see, for example, how colleagues in Oslo are contributing to colleagues in Colombia and to policymakers in Colombia, such as Víctor Muñoz, that we’ll of course explain later, a little bit more of his experience, or colleagues in Singapore are helping other colleagues in Africa to perhaps think about their next steps on AI governance. And examples like this is what we have at the Network of Centres, basically these kind of collaborations, inter-regional collaborations that are so important right now. And that’s what we try to do, to become these policy bridges. At the same time, we try to become policy bridges with the evidence and basically to bring evidence to policymaking and to policy conversations. And I think that’s also something very important to consider from the science diplomacy side, how important it is to become an ambassador not only of ideas, but at the same time of evidence and good evidence and research that can inform the policymaking process. Now we’re having a lot of conversations about, again, AI governance, internal governance, the future of work, what are the next skills, what’s really working and what’s really not. And that’s what we’re trying to do here, that’s the kind of bridge that we’re trying to create and generate by connecting this audience of policy and decision makers, for example, with academia, with experts, and with this kind of work that sometimes is not that easily available as we believe it could be. And at the same time, we’re also helping to generate capacities within or members and at the same time, or NOC colleagues in the sense that we’re trying to help them to have enough knowledge about what they’re doing, what their last research trends are, what kind of research is having more impact. And that also, I believe, it’s quite important for many of our colleagues also to have an increased relevance in the national policy conversations they’re involved in. So that will be the first point. Then I would like to talk a little bit more about the collaboration and the collaboration side. I think that science diplomacy through collaboration is essential. And that’s basically one of the terms. It sounds sometimes and people say, you talk a lot about collaboration. And I say, yeah, because that’s what we do. And also, it sounds as a very basic term, sometimes collaboration, it’s not difficult to build. And it’s, I think, of the essence, especially for these kind of science diplomacy efforts. So what’s collaboration? Basically, building something meaningful, creating trust, building that trust in a way in which basically entities want to really collaborate with each other, participate on grant applications, on funding mechanisms to share knowledge data. That’s not as easy as it seems to be. And sometimes there’s not enough trust in order to have this kind of meaningful collaboration. And that’s something which we basically are trying to work more and more to increase this kind of efforts and these kind of meetings and the work we do. And of course, efforts such as the ones we’re doing to build these bridges, again, is very important in that sense, in the collaboration and in the work that we’re trying to achieve. And then finally, we have this perhaps last element that is that we’re trying to also look into these non-traditional actors as system stewards and as stewards of digital collaboration and digital cooperation in that sense. So we really believe that we cannot just fully rely, and I think the geopolitical moment in which we are is showing us that we cannot just fully rely on institutions that are traditionally seen as the and Javier López. So, I think that this is a very important topic for us to discuss. I think that we should be very open to the possibility of having conversations in institutions where these conversations should be taking place or where these diplomatic efforts should be taking place. We believe that we need to be a little bit more creative and innovative and think on non-traditional actors and non-traditional scenarios as big elements of some of the dialogues that we want to have and at the same time to become like these kind of forums for many of us to participate and be involved. And that’s why we believe in a network of centers that we really want to increase this kind of work, especially with non-traditional actors and with other stakeholders and build that kind of engagement in a very different and meaningful way. And that perhaps and becoming stewards also of that digital cooperation, of observing and monitoring how this cooperation is taking place and the kind of alliances that are being built is something that we believe is very important. And of course, we have many examples. So just as a last point, we have many examples of how this is working, but basically what I can say, it’s like this idea of panel is a big example of what we are also trying to achieve. And thank you.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you, Armando. Thank you for these really active calls. For more of these initiatives, heading over to Isabel Acqua, maybe you can share some examples as one of those centers from the network of centers about your actions. And experiences.

Isobel Acquah: Thank you so much, Sophie. And to all my panelists. Thank you, Armando. I think he really set the tone. We joined NOC about two years ago. So we’re really one of the baby centers, a few that have joined since. And I think I’ll look at it from three perspectives. Africa’s position, the really intensive role of peer learning and then the multi-stakeholder governance. So I think when you when you look at Africa’s perspective and I’ve been walking through the IGF and there’s so much negative, you know, it’s one percent of research papers are from Africa or one percent of data center capacity. All of those things are true. But I think when you look at it from a global cooperation perspective, these challenges are really an opportunity for us to collaborate. The word that Armando used, and I think that’s the exciting thing, right? There’s a lot of challenges, but those same challenges are really truly opportunities for global cooperation, looking at ways that we can enhance research, how can we build academic partnerships so that you have people going from institutions in Rwanda, which is where we’re based, where Rwandan founded Think Tank, but we’re Pan-African focused. So how do we take young students from Rwanda who are incredibly brilliant, but don’t necessarily have all the resources, and bring them to Oslo or to Germany, et cetera. And we’re doing a lot of that cooperation already because there is really an opportunity for us to think more broadly when we have these sort of networks. As Armando said, it’s 140 people, which means you have these incredible opportunities to build knowledge and to think about things through different lenses. And I think it’s important, of course, the imperative is for the African governments and African ecosystem and African lawyers and policymakers to figure out how we’re going to deal when we’re looking at AI governance, for example. It is their imperative. However, when you think about the fact that the global population will be one in four African, it becomes an international obligation, right? So we have to think as an international body, how do we make sense of that? And how do we collaborate on that? The second thing I would say, which is really, for me, very unique about the NOC is truly peer learning. And I say that because I think you can have a lot of organizations that sort of have this tiered system. What I find is that when we are doing projects together, it really is around collaboration. It’s really about being… Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Nele Leosk, Lucien M. CASTEX, Víctor Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller and the global network of centers. So, what we decided to do, and again, co-hosting this, co-convening this with the global network of centers, is to host a multi-stakeholder meeting that brought in big tech, the startup community, policy makers, we had 20 policy makers and regulators from across the continent, and also, of course, some of our NOC peers. Armando was in Kigali, and we had a meeting with the global network of centers in Kigali, and providing sort of like, not a global, this is what we’re doing, follow what we’re doing, but this is what we’re doing insights panel, and what can we learn from each other. And that was really well received, and I think that’s a format we really experimented with, this innovative governance structure, because we really are learning at the same pace. And to be honest, the startup community is who’s really leading, and we’re already falling behind. And so I really see that multi-stakeholder engagement as a really critical piece of what we’re trying to do. We’re hosting our next innovative governance multi-stakeholder meeting in Accra. So again, bringing in different players, having more of a West African feel to the conversation. So very important that we have these sort of collaborative opportunities, and recognize that these non-traditional actors are actually more nimble to make a lot of headway, and to collaborate much more seamlessly, and not think through traditional channels, but bringing together civil society, like our organization, Serta Foundation, academia, but then also pulling in government and the tech community, et cetera, and to pull together a real document. So those are my thoughts on that.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much, Isabel. I think both you and Armando really underline how networked actors, Well, connections internationally can provide platforms for trying out new things, for collaborating, building together, and then also informing policy with regional and global knowledge and capacity, also outside of classical traditional ways of doing things, of funding things maybe. And that leads us to our last three speakers who are all here in person, who have a range of experiences in government and civil society institutions and the technical community. So maybe giving it to the three of you, just one after the other, what are your perspectives on what these kind of communities and other actors can contribute to the conversation? Let’s start with Víctor.

Víctor Munoz: Okay. Thank you, Sofie, and hello, everyone. It is an honor for me to be here. I just would like to mention a real case in Colombia. Basically, I would like to share how Colombia’s experience offers a real-world case of successful science diplomacy in action, or science for diplomacy, according to Sofie’s definition. Between 2018 and 2022, Colombia launched its AIX permission as a centerpiece of our national AI strategy. It is important to mention that what initiative was co-sponsored by CAF, that is a development bank in Latin America, and also the Inter-American Development Bank that are important actors in that conversation related with science diplomacy. The experiment was led by Sandra Cortesi from Harvard Berman Klein Center and Professor Gasser from TUM University in Munich, and also more than seven members from different centers of the network of centers. At that moment, we knew that we need everyone at the table, academics, government, industry, and civil society, To make the most scientific knowledge and protect our country’s interests, we even asked development banks to act like supporters of signed diplomats, helping us connect with experts around the world instead of relying only on government offices. Usually, the development banks are focused on roads and bridges, but that was the first time that basically they work in Latin America, supporting a country like Colombia, building our AI plans. At the same time, we help, we support these development banks in the process to escalate direct collaboration between international experts and regional decision makers. That was a win-win process that we have with them, an entirely new model for institutions that had previously focused almost on infrastructure. I would like to mention four big wins that we have with the expert mission because it is important to know that when you talk about signed diplomacy that you have papers. Really, we didn’t have papers. We had a real strategy and we implemented that strategy into the country. The first thing is that we had a clear technical roadmap for AI policy in Colombia. The second one was an ethical AI framework to guide the public sector in the AI pilot projects on safety, fairness, and community input. The third one was a skills roadmap to close our digital talent gap that was implemented in the last four years. Also, the recommendations. We have now two centers for AI excellence, one in Bogota and one in Medellín that we have working together. We have researchers, companies, startups, and students that are working together and they are learning and we are in the process to implement the new generation of the AI policy. It is important to mention that the expert mission recommendations are approved that the signed diplomacy doesn’t remain confined to policy papers. It creates concrete tools, infrastructure, and institutional capacity. And if we are looking ahead, I see three lessons for our countries in Latin America. The first thing is that teamwork, bringing many voices together, backed by development banks and universities, turn plans into action fast. Trust, building ethical rules with everyone’s input creates clear, fair guidelines. An ecosystem, connecting policymakers with startups, spreads good practices quickly. Our Colombian playbook is already being shared across the region. Experts that were part of our mission had advised governments like Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, and Uruguay in their own agendas. And these efforts and recent reports and case studies demonstrate that science diplomacy is scalable, replicable, and have an opportunity to improve really the tech and to close the gap that we have in the regions. Thank you so much.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you, Víctor. Handing it over right to Jan.

Jan Gerlach: Yeah, hello. Thanks for having me. I’m Jan Gerlach. I’m at the Wikimedia Foundation. We are the non-profit that hosts and supports Wikipedia. And I want to quickly focus on the word collaboration, which I’m very happy to have heard a couple of times already now. And it’s an integral part of digital cooperation. Wikipedia really is, I would say, peak collaboration on the internet. It’s open source, and people from all over the world work together in a collaborative manner to add and improve content all around the world, I said, all around the clock as well. And to describe it in a way that probably resonates with a lot of people who are in the academic side here and in the scientific community, Wikipedia is a massive peer review system. It gets better the more people add to it, the more people work on it together and edit each other’s work. Wikipedia has been very successful this way. We’ve just, Wikipedia has just crossed the milestone of 65 million articles across roughly 300 languages, and it’ll celebrate its 25th anniversary next year. But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum, let’s be clear about that. It’s an integral part of an open internet, which in turn depends on digital cooperation by all these non-traditional and traditional actors in this space. Around the world, this open internet is actually under threat right now, as I probably don’t have to explain to all of you. So this is a very timely matter for stakeholders from the academic world, from the scientific community, and in tech diplomacy, to be asking themselves how to engage and asking themselves the question of digital cooperation, how to empower actors, how to empower actors in this world, and really with the goal of keeping us all connected. I think it’s really important to ask towards what goal are we actually cooperating. Cooperation should not be the means, right, the goal itself. But there is a larger goal, which is to benefit us all, to work towards the SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals. And when we ask what these stakeholders need in order to be empowered in the conversation of digital cooperation, of course, multi-stakeholderism, multi-stakeholder approaches come to mind again. They’ve already been mentioned in the introduction here. And I think everyone here is also aware that it’s going to require a big push by everyone involved to ensure these policy spaces remain open for such approaches. So civil society, academica, the science community, and others can continue to contribute. As the Global Digital Compact is being implemented, multi-stakeholderism is key. It is crucial to making sure that digital public goods, like Wikipedia, can continue to thrive and be supported. But of course the science community through research can also represent the needs of those who may never have a voice in digital governance. Finally, and I’ll keep this short, an important part of the mix are the tools that we offer these non-traditional stakeholders for policy making, for governance, for digital cooperation. And one tool that we offer is a specific frame of thinking. We call this the Wikipedia test. Maybe you’ve already heard of it. Maybe it’s new. We ask everyone, including non-traditional actors, all stakeholders, to really consider the impact of any actions, of policies, of regulations on Wikipedia before making decisions. The point is this. If policies and actions are bad for Wikipedia, they harm the open internet and many digital public goods. In contrast, what supports Wikipedia, what’s good for Wikipedia, will be beneficial for online communities and for access to knowledge for everyone. And this in turn, of course, benefits digital cooperation as well, as we come here together in the physical space, but have remote participants on this panel as well. I think this really shows how an open internet actually is also the basis for digital cooperation itself. So this is all closely interwoven. So again, the tool that we use and that we want to offer everyone is the Wikipedia test. Think of Wikipedia before you take action, before you regulate, before you propose policies even. And talk to us if you want to learn more about this.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Handing over to Lucien directly.

Lucien M. CASTEX: Thank you, Sophie. That is a timely discussion indeed, science diplomacy, and having it framed in a global debate. on the Internet, Governance and Enhanced Cooperation, Digital Cooperation, a lot of definition and methodologies are needed. I wanted to start by highlighting that the information society and vision as a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented is today of a renewed importance with this review coming this year. And the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group has a main role, basically, it’s to operate the core functions, the key underlying infrastructures supporting the Internet, in particular IP addresses, domain names. And one key point is one always speaks from somewhere and operating Internet, running an Internet registry like AFNIC, gives you concrete examples, actually, on the working function of the Internet. Same goes for a regional Internet registry or working with ICANN, for example. Since OSS in 2003, 2005, the Internet has evolved a lot. It’s still evolving today with new protocols discussed at the IETF, new network being created and connected to the global Internet. And in that sense, navigating the rope seas of Internet global governance has been challenging. Internet as a key underlying infrastructure, which has enabled the information society and shown its resilience and importance in supporting, actually, the development of society, is access to culture and knowledge, is key and has a key component. and others are having a global, open, secure and interoperable Internet, as Schön’s success is. In that sense, and it’s been said already, the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, in its diversity, I mean, IGF, of course, here in Oslo today, but also ITF, ICANN, and AFNIC as well. It’s a variety of models which are multi-stakeholder, and the participation of the different kinds of factors is key to actually enabling diversity of viewpoints. Technical and academic communities can help find innovative solutions, science, diplomacy efforts, enabling collaboration between stakeholders to share knowledge from research projects to academic partnerships, but also finding concrete examples and successes of the Internet, which is of renewed importance today, of course. So broader participation also means local processes, building on cultural and linguistic diversity, bringing voices together in the diversity of languages. I’m thinking about, for example, also the local, regional Internet governance forum. It needs to be discussed here in Oslo and everywhere else as well to actually enable real collaboration. And then finally, as we approach the 20-year review of the WSIS, it’s especially important to ensure that the review is actually inclusive and open to stakeholder inputs, obviously academia and technical community. But this is not an easy question in today’s complex environment. geopolitical landscape. Wanted in that respect to highlight the work done last year in 2024 at NET Mundial plus 10 held in Sao Paulo that resulted in the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines which offer a proposed approach to digital governance and inclusive dialogue between stakeholders. With the the element paper just released a few days ago there is a clear need of engagement to ensure that the multi-stakeholder model is properly leveraged in 2025 and beyond. Thank you.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much and thank you to all of the panel and the audience. I think those statements and contributions really show how this is an ongoing project of bringing technology and science and diplomacy together and maybe we’re all non-traditional or new actors in that sense as as Nele Leosk pointed out. While we open the floor to questions in person please step to the microphones online feel free to submit your questions to the chat. I would just continue some reflections about what we just heard about technology really warranting us to engage with it across government and society to collaborate and to shape our joint futures and while times are of course complex and hard we’re not hopeless. We heard about different tools how we can shape and contribute and learn from each other be it in anticipation be it by using the Wikipedia test before issuing policies. Thinking about novel approaches that we can take for example in funding AI policy and stakeholder engagement or fostering local and regional engagement and collaboration. If there is no questions in the room, I would just take it back to all of our wonderful speakers, because we have started talking about specific methods and tools and collaborations, but if I could ask you for one call to action or action point for either your own organization or for other stakeholders, what would it be? Maybe we start with our online speakers. Nele Leosk, would you like to start?

Nele Leosk: Hello again and thank you, Sofie. I think I would call us all to co-create. Co-create across sectors but across borders, because what we have realized after the 20, 30 plus years of digitalization, or let’s say more active digitalization, is that our needs and our problems are actually quite similar and the solutions could also be. However, what we do not see that much yet is really creating our solutions together. We have some examples. I can bring, of course, from Estonia, the very famous digital identity that we have developed and use also across private and public sector, but also across border. Some of you may know there is a Nordic Institute of Interoperability Solutions, where we together with Finland, Iceland and by now also some other partners, develop digitalization components that are crucial. I would say the cornerstone of Estonia’s digitalization and this has helped us, of course, to save financial resources, but I would say what is even more important, it has really allowed us to pull together human resources, because we all lack the needed technological skills, and I’m really glad that our Finnish-Icelandic partners and contributors from different sectors have become also part of our own digital ecosystem here in Estonia. There could be other examples, but I leave it to the colleagues to add here. Thank you, Sofie.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much. Armando.

Armando Guio: Yeah, well, thank you. And adding to that, I think Nele’s point, it’s quite important. I would like to emphasize that one of the things I think we should be working more on is on reducing information asymmetries, especially about the new technologies and the kind of technology that is being developed. I think that is still a big challenge and we need to do more about this. And I think this kind of networks and science diplomacy and the kind of channels that we’re creating will try to work towards reducing those asymmetries, especially about the kind of technological development that we have. And we need to take policymakers and decision makers from all over the world and show them the technology. So if we’re talking about quantum technology, what is quantum technology? Where is it? How do you try to experience more of it? If we’re talking about the most advanced AI systems, where are those? How can we bring policymakers from different parts of the world to get closer to these systems and understand more of what they’re doing? So trying to do that, working actively on doing that, bringing people together and to bring them also to the science part and to the technical developments. It’s something that I think we need to continue to work. And again, reducing those information asymmetries is of the essence if we really want to have an inclusive and sustainable future and technological future. And of course, to build policies that are also sustainable in the long term. So that will be my call to action.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you. Turning over to our speakers in the room who have an eye on the clock. Maybe just go one by one.

Maricela Munoz: Thank you, Sophie. Well, I think that is no secret that we live in difficult times. Polarization, fragmentation, geopolitical tensions, transformation of the world order. So I think that we need to together defend the trust in science. We have been talking about evidence based policymaking, but also action. and also this anticipatory governance outlook, making sure that we prepare, that we democratize access to science and to knowledge, which has also been mentioned, so that we can all co-create the futures that we desire, respecting the values that we want to uphold. And I think that that will be my call to action, trust in science and anticipatory science, diplomacy and governance. Thank you so much.

Isobel Acquah: I think for me, you know, at the moment, I think you can look at Africa’s governance, AI adoption and governance as a ripple, but actually it’s a wave. I think it’s important that we work together to actually ride the wave and not get crushed by it. Africa is going to be not just a consumer market, but a lot of innovation is going to come from the content. A lot of data is needed from the continent when you look at things like the data we need to feed climate AI models. And so I think it’s important that we look at really innovative structures, this multi-stakeholder engagement and learning from each other. Like Armando was saying, I think you’ve got to bring the policy people to the tech people and make sure they actually understand. You cannot regulate what you don’t understand. And I think that’s a big, big gap, and that can be filled when you have true multi-stakeholder engagement.

Víctor Munoz: I would like to emphasize in the call to action that it is important to trust in science because if we are at this moment in a polarization, we are having a complex situation in terms of geopolitics. It is important to believe. It is important to believe in science. And it is important to have alternative challenge to have conversation between different regions. At this moment, for any reasons, we are having a different situations in terms of geopolitics agendas, but we can continue having the conversation through science. And that is my call to actions.

Jan Gerlach: My call to action would be think of Wikipedia before making decisions about the Internet, but more also work with your local volunteer communities who collect and build knowledge. Many of them are researchers themselves, they’re scientists, they’re experts in other fields and they know what’s needed locally.

Lucien M. CASTEX: And it’s always complicated to be last. I think having a forward-looking view beyond 2025, what do we actually want out of Internet, out of the multistakeholder governance model, what do you want to do with it? And navigating Internet governance actually requires multistakeholder dialogue. We can completely see it, but also a need to showcase concrete examples and successes of that multistakeholder collaboration. And for that, we need to actually work with each other. For example, AFNIC, we collaborate with, obviously, the Centre of Internet and Society in France, and in the Internet and Regulation Research Group to try to foster research and collaborative projects. Last example is a publicity kind of… We have a post-quantum report that we do with I3C, with its dynamic coalition at the IGF, to try to inform the global debate. That’s my two cents.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much. And thank you to all of the speakers and the audience, the speakers especially, in keeping their times and sharing such valuable and interesting perspectives. This whole session leaves me with an outlook that we have lots of things to do, but actually that we can do things and can contribute to ongoing governance discourses and actually implementing actionable outcomes and projects. I look forward to the collaboration with all of you, and thank you so much for joining. And thank you, Sofie.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Sofie Schonborn
– Maricela Munoz
– Armando Guio
– Isobel Acquah
– Jan Gerlach
– Víctor Munoz
– Lucien M. CASTEX

Arguments

Science diplomacy has existed for centuries through collaborative platforms, with IGF as a perfect example of multi-stakeholder collaboration

Academic networks can work as policy bridges connecting experts with policymakers across different countries and regions

Non-traditional actors are more nimble and can collaborate more seamlessly than traditional channels

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Colombia’s AI expert mission demonstrated successful science diplomacy through multi-stakeholder collaboration with development banks and international experts

Multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in digital governance, highlighting various successful examples and the need for diverse participation across government, academia, civil society, and technical communities.

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Capacity development | Human rights principles

Cross-border collaboration and knowledge sharing are crucial for addressing global technological challenges

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Armando Guio
– Isobel Acquah
– Maricela Munoz

Arguments

Co-creation across sectors and borders needed, as problems and solutions are similar globally

World is moving toward fragmentation and localization, requiring continued international engagement beyond borders

Africa’s challenges in research capacity and infrastructure represent opportunities for global collaboration and knowledge sharing

Anticipation is crucial ingredient for strengthening collaborative platforms in era of accelerated technological development

Summary

Speakers agreed that global technological challenges require international collaboration and knowledge sharing, with several emphasizing that countries face similar problems that could benefit from shared solutions.

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Capacity development | Digital access

Evidence-based policymaking requires bringing policymakers closer to technological developments

Speakers

– Armando Guio
– Isobel Acquah
– Maricela Munoz

Arguments

Reducing information asymmetries about new technologies by bringing policymakers closer to actual technological developments

Multi-stakeholder meetings bring together diverse actors including big tech, startups, policymakers, and regulators

Defending trust in science and democratizing access to knowledge for evidence-based policymaking

Summary

Speakers agreed on the importance of bridging the gap between technological development and policymaking through direct engagement and evidence-based approaches.

Topics

Capacity development | Interdisciplinary approaches | Digital standards

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that traditional diplomatic actors are still adapting to the technological landscape while emphasizing the need for continued international engagement despite global fragmentation trends.

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

World is moving toward fragmentation and localization, requiring continued international engagement beyond borders

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Digital standards

Both speakers advocate for peer learning and capacity building approaches that enable equal collaboration rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer, emphasizing the importance of building institutional capabilities.

Speakers

– Isobel Acquah
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Peer learning approach enables collaborative projects where institutions learn at same pace rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer

Network of centers helps generate capacities and increase relevance of members in national policy conversations

Topics

Capacity development | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both speakers emphasize the critical role of technical communities and civil society in maintaining open, diverse multi-stakeholder governance processes that include local and regional perspectives.

Speakers

– Jan Gerlach
– Lucien M. CASTEX

Arguments

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Unexpected consensus

Development banks as science diplomacy actors

Speakers

– Víctor Munoz
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Development banks can act as supporters of science diplomats, connecting countries with global experts beyond traditional government channels

Academic networks can work as policy bridges connecting experts with policymakers across different countries and regions

Explanation

The consensus on development banks playing a role in science diplomacy is unexpected because these institutions are traditionally focused on infrastructure development rather than knowledge diplomacy. This represents an innovative expansion of their role in global cooperation.

Topics

Capacity development | Sustainable development | Interdisciplinary approaches

Non-traditional actors being more effective than traditional diplomatic channels

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Isobel Acquah
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

Non-traditional actors are more nimble and can collaborate more seamlessly than traditional channels

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Explanation

The consensus that non-traditional actors may be more effective than traditional diplomatic channels is unexpected, especially coming from speakers with government experience. This suggests a significant shift in how diplomatic effectiveness is perceived in the digital age.

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Human rights principles | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, cross-border knowledge sharing, evidence-based policymaking, and the evolving role of non-traditional actors in digital governance. There was strong agreement on the need for peer learning, capacity building, and maintaining trust in science during times of geopolitical tension.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance. The agreement suggests a paradigm shift toward more inclusive, collaborative, and evidence-based approaches to technology policy. The consensus on non-traditional actors being more nimble than traditional channels indicates a fundamental change in how diplomatic effectiveness is understood in the digital age. This high level of agreement among diverse stakeholders provides a strong foundation for implementing collaborative science and technology diplomacy initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Definition of traditional vs non-traditional actors in technology diplomacy

Speakers

– Sofie Schonborn
– Nele Leosk

Arguments

Three dimensions framework: science in diplomacy, diplomacy for science, and science for diplomacy

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

Summary

Schonborn frames governments as traditional actors and others as non-traditional, while Leosk challenges this by arguing that governments themselves are still new to technology diplomacy and that private sector/individual players often have more power than traditional government actors

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches

Unexpected differences

Role of development banks in science diplomacy

Speakers

– Víctor Munoz
– Other speakers

Arguments

Development banks can act as supporters of science diplomats, connecting countries with global experts beyond traditional government channels

Explanation

Víctor Munoz uniquely positions development banks as key actors in science diplomacy, describing how they moved beyond traditional infrastructure to support AI policy development. This perspective was not echoed by other speakers who focused more on academic networks, civil society, and technical communities as primary non-traditional actors

Topics

Capacity development | Sustainable development | Future of work

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with most disagreements being subtle differences in emphasis or approach rather than fundamental conflicts. The main areas of difference were: 1) How to define traditional vs non-traditional actors, 2) Which specific mechanisms work best for collaboration, and 3) What institutions should play leading roles

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high convergence on core principles. The speakers demonstrated strong alignment on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, evidence-based policymaking, and the importance of non-traditional actors in science and technology diplomacy. Differences were primarily tactical rather than strategic, suggesting a mature field with established consensus on fundamental approaches. This high level of agreement may reflect the self-selecting nature of the panel participants who are already committed to collaborative approaches to digital governance.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that traditional diplomatic actors are still adapting to the technological landscape while emphasizing the need for continued international engagement despite global fragmentation trends.

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

World is moving toward fragmentation and localization, requiring continued international engagement beyond borders

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Digital standards

Both speakers advocate for peer learning and capacity building approaches that enable equal collaboration rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer, emphasizing the importance of building institutional capabilities.

Speakers

– Isobel Acquah
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Peer learning approach enables collaborative projects where institutions learn at same pace rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer

Network of centers helps generate capacities and increase relevance of members in national policy conversations

Topics

Capacity development | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both speakers emphasize the critical role of technical communities and civil society in maintaining open, diverse multi-stakeholder governance processes that include local and regional perspectives.

Speakers

– Jan Gerlach
– Lucien M. CASTEX

Arguments

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Key takeaways

Science and technology diplomacy involves three key dimensions: science in diplomacy (using scientific knowledge to inform policy), diplomacy for science (using diplomatic tools to support scientific cooperation), and science for diplomacy (using science as soft power for international relations)

Non-traditional actors (academia, civil society, technical communities) are increasingly important in digital governance as they are more nimble and can collaborate more seamlessly than traditional diplomatic channels

Academic networks serve as crucial policy bridges, connecting experts with policymakers across different countries and regions while providing evidence-based research to inform policy decisions

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance, requiring diverse viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

The open internet and digital public goods like Wikipedia depend on continued international cooperation and multi-stakeholder approaches to governance

Anticipatory governance is crucial in an era of accelerated technological development to prepare for future challenges and democratize access to science and knowledge

Successful examples like Colombia’s AI expert mission demonstrate that science diplomacy can produce concrete results through multi-stakeholder collaboration involving development banks, international experts, and diverse stakeholders

Resolutions and action items

Co-create solutions across sectors and borders, recognizing that global problems require collaborative solutions

Reduce information asymmetries by bringing policymakers closer to actual technological developments and ensuring they understand what they are regulating

Defend trust in science and promote evidence-based policymaking while democratizing access to knowledge

Apply the ‘Wikipedia test’ – consider the impact of policies on Wikipedia and digital public goods before making decisions

Work with local volunteer communities who collect and build knowledge, including researchers and experts in various fields

Showcase concrete examples and successes of multi-stakeholder collaboration to demonstrate the value of the model

Ensure the WSIS+20 review process is inclusive and open to stakeholder inputs from academia and technical communities

Continue building innovative multi-stakeholder governance structures that bring together diverse actors including big tech, startups, policymakers, and regulators

Unresolved issues

How to maintain multi-stakeholder approaches in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape where countries are moving toward more national rather than international projects

How to ensure adequate representation and capacity building for underrepresented regions, particularly Africa, in global digital governance processes

How to balance the need for rapid technological development with inclusive governance processes that allow all stakeholders to participate meaningfully

How to scale successful science diplomacy models like Colombia’s AI expert mission to other countries and regions

How to maintain trust in science and evidence-based policymaking in times of increasing polarization and geopolitical tensions

How to ensure that the benefits of technological development reach all populations, particularly in regions with limited research capacity and infrastructure

Suggested compromises

Using development banks as intermediaries and supporters of science diplomats to connect countries with global experts, expanding their role beyond traditional infrastructure projects

Creating loose networks and institutionalized information-sharing mechanisms that balance formal diplomatic channels with more flexible multi-stakeholder engagement

Implementing peer learning approaches rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer systems to ensure more equitable collaboration between institutions from different regions

Establishing regional and local Internet governance forums alongside global processes to enable broader participation while maintaining global coordination

Combining traditional diplomatic approaches with innovative governance structures that can adapt more quickly to technological changes

I’m actually wondering whether governments are already traditional actors in technology diplomacy, because the role of technology is still quite new, I would say, to traditional diplomacy… many diplomats actually find themselves in a rather new role in these current times, when private sector, and I would say even individual players, have so much power that often we see that they have more power than actually these traditional actors as governments.

Speaker

Nele Leosk

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenged the framing premise of the entire discussion by questioning the binary between ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ actors. It revealed that even supposedly traditional diplomatic actors are actually newcomers to tech diplomacy, and highlighted the power shift where private actors now often have more influence than governments.

Impact

This reframing set a more nuanced tone for the entire discussion, moving away from a simple traditional vs. non-traditional dichotomy to a more complex understanding of evolving roles and power dynamics in tech diplomacy. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on collaboration and adaptation rather than replacement of traditional structures.

We’re living in an era of accelerated change and we need to be able to anticipate what’s coming next… anticipation is that ingredient because we’re living in an era of accelerated change.

Speaker

Maricela Muñoz

Reason

This introduced the crucial concept of anticipatory governance as a missing ingredient in current science diplomacy approaches. It shifted focus from reactive to proactive governance, emphasizing the need to prepare for future technological developments rather than just respond to current ones.

Impact

This concept of anticipation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers referencing the need for forward-looking approaches. It elevated the conversation from discussing current collaboration models to thinking about future-oriented governance structures.

Academic networks can work as policy bridges… we are a bridge between some academic experts and policymakers… colleagues in Oslo are contributing to colleagues in Colombia and to policymakers in Colombia… or colleagues in Singapore are helping other colleagues in Africa.

Speaker

Armando Guío

Reason

This introduced a concrete operational model for how non-traditional actors can function in science diplomacy – as ‘policy bridges’ that create unexpected cross-regional collaborations. It provided a practical framework for understanding how academic networks can transcend traditional diplomatic channels.

Impact

This concept of academic networks as policy bridges influenced subsequent speakers to provide concrete examples of their own bridging activities. It moved the discussion from theoretical concepts to practical implementation models, with speakers like Isabel and Victor providing specific case studies.

These challenges are really an opportunity for us to collaborate… when you think about the fact that the global population will be one in four African, it becomes an international obligation, right? So we have to think as an international body, how do we make sense of that?

Speaker

Isobel Acquah

Reason

This reframed Africa’s technological challenges not as problems requiring aid, but as global opportunities requiring collaboration. The demographic projection created urgency and transformed the discussion from charity-based thinking to strategic partnership thinking.

Impact

This perspective shift influenced the tone of subsequent discussions about global cooperation, moving away from traditional donor-recipient models to more equitable partnership frameworks. It reinforced the theme of mutual benefit in international collaboration.

We ask everyone, including non-traditional actors, all stakeholders, to really consider the impact of any actions, of policies, of regulations on Wikipedia before making decisions… If policies and actions are bad for Wikipedia, they harm the open internet and many digital public goods.

Speaker

Jan Gerlach

Reason

This introduced a practical, actionable tool – the ‘Wikipedia test’ – that transforms abstract concepts about open internet governance into a concrete decision-making framework. It provided a tangible way for policymakers to evaluate the broader implications of their decisions.

Impact

This practical tool stood out among more theoretical discussions and provided a concrete takeaway for participants. It demonstrated how organizations can contribute specific methodologies to the broader science diplomacy toolkit, influencing the moderator’s final reflection on ‘actionable outcomes.’

We had a real strategy and we implemented that strategy into the country… signed diplomacy doesn’t remain confined to policy papers. It creates concrete tools, infrastructure, and institutional capacity.

Speaker

Víctor Muñoz

Reason

This emphasized the critical distinction between theoretical policy work and actual implementation, challenging the field to move beyond academic exercises to create tangible outcomes. It provided evidence that science diplomacy can produce measurable results.

Impact

This focus on implementation and concrete results influenced the final discussion toward actionable outcomes rather than just collaborative processes. It validated the practical potential of the approaches being discussed and encouraged other speakers to emphasize tangible results in their closing remarks.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging initial assumptions, introducing practical frameworks, and emphasizing implementation over theory. Nele’s opening reframe moved the conversation away from a simple traditional vs. non-traditional binary toward a more nuanced understanding of evolving roles. Maricela’s emphasis on anticipation and Armando’s policy bridge concept provided concrete frameworks that subsequent speakers built upon with specific examples. Isobel’s reframing of challenges as opportunities and demographic imperatives shifted the tone toward equitable partnerships rather than aid relationships. Jan’s Wikipedia test and Victor’s emphasis on implementation grounded the theoretical discussion in practical tools and measurable outcomes. Together, these comments created a progression from conceptual reframing to practical implementation, culminating in the moderator’s final reflection on ‘actionable outcomes and projects’ rather than just collaborative processes. The discussion evolved from questioning basic assumptions to providing concrete tools and evidence for effective science diplomacy.

How can we better define and establish universally agreed upon definitions for science diplomacy and tech diplomacy?

Speaker

Sofie Schonborn

Explanation

The moderator noted that there are no universally agreed upon definitions for these terms, which creates challenges for establishing common frameworks and understanding across different stakeholders and regions.

How can governments adapt to the new environment where private sector and individual players have more power than traditional diplomatic actors?

Speaker

Nele Leosk

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental shift in power dynamics in tech diplomacy where non-state actors often have more influence than traditional government diplomats, requiring new approaches to diplomatic engagement.

How can we make global digital governance processes more accessible and less complex for private sector players and academia to follow?

Speaker

Nele Leosk

Explanation

The complexity of following processes like the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 creates barriers for meaningful participation by non-traditional actors who have valuable contributions to make.

How can we better integrate anticipatory governance approaches into science and tech diplomacy frameworks?

Speaker

Maricela Munoz

Explanation

In an era of accelerated technological development, there’s a need to move beyond reactive governance to anticipatory approaches that can better prepare for emerging challenges and opportunities.

How can we effectively reduce information asymmetries about new technologies between different regions and stakeholders?

Speaker

Armando Guio

Explanation

There are significant gaps in understanding of emerging technologies like quantum computing and advanced AI systems, particularly among policymakers from different parts of the world, which hinders effective governance.

How can we scale and replicate successful science diplomacy models like Colombia’s AI expert mission across different regions and contexts?

Speaker

Victor Munoz

Explanation

The Colombian case study demonstrates concrete success in implementing science diplomacy, but questions remain about how to adapt and scale such approaches to different political, economic, and cultural contexts.

How can we ensure multi-stakeholder approaches remain viable and effective in increasingly fragmented geopolitical environments?

Speaker

Jan Gerlach and Lucien Castex

Explanation

The open internet and multi-stakeholder governance models face threats from geopolitical tensions and fragmentation, requiring new strategies to maintain collaborative approaches.

How can we better prepare for Africa’s growing role as both a consumer market and innovation hub in global technology governance?

Speaker

Isobel Acquah

Explanation

With Africa’s population projected to be one in four globally, and increasing innovation coming from the continent, there’s a need to understand how to effectively integrate African perspectives and capabilities into global governance frameworks.

What concrete tools and frameworks can be developed to help policymakers better understand technologies before attempting to regulate them?

Speaker

Isobel Acquah and Armando Guio

Explanation

There’s a recognized gap between technological development and policy understanding, with calls for bringing policymakers closer to actual technologies and creating better educational frameworks.

How can we maintain trust in science and evidence-based policymaking in times of polarization and fragmentation?

Speaker

Maricela Munoz and Victor Munoz

Explanation

Current geopolitical tensions and polarization threaten the foundation of science diplomacy, requiring strategies to preserve and strengthen trust in scientific approaches to governance.