Dynamic Coalition Collaborative Session

Summary

This discussion featured a Dynamic Coalitions cluster session at the Internet Governance Forum, moderated by Jutta Croll, focusing on emerging technologies and their impact on internet governance. Six different Dynamic Coalitions presented their perspectives on how evolving technologies are shaping the future of the internet and digital rights.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio from the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technologies emphasized the importance of using innovative technologies in a responsible and ethical manner, sharing examples from the UN Pension Fund’s implementation of digital identity solutions using biometrics and AI. The discussion highlighted concerns about creating new digital divides, particularly a “metaverse divide” that could exclude vulnerable populations from accessing emerging technologies.

Surabhi Srivastava representing the Dynamic Coalition on Journalism discussed how artificial intelligence is impacting media sustainability, freedom of expression, and access to reliable information. She raised concerns about the concentration of power in AI development and the financial pressures on newsrooms to adopt AI tools despite potential ethical implications.

A significant portion of the discussion centered on age-based exclusion in digital governance. Amrit Kumar from the Dynamic Teen Coalition argued that current youth definitions (18-35) systematically exclude teenagers from participating in internet governance discussions, despite teens being early adopters and active shapers of digital technologies. This sparked broader conversations about inclusivity and the need for multi-stakeholder approaches that truly represent all affected populations.

Dr. Rajendra Gupta from the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Economy stressed that 2.6 billion people still lack internet access, arguing that addressing this basic digital divide should remain a priority alongside discussions of emerging technologies. He advocated for treating certain technologies as digital public goods rather than purely profit-driven ventures.

Child rights perspectives were presented by Torsten Krause, who emphasized the need for child rights impact assessments and the importance of designing emerging technologies with children’s safety and participation in mind from the outset. Janice Richardson from the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Safety and Security Standards highlighted the critical role of standards in ensuring safety and security, while noting gaps in cybersecurity education and the need for better collaboration between the tech industry and educational sectors.

The panelists collectively emphasized that governance of emerging technologies requires ethical frameworks rather than just regulation, with several speakers warning against over-regulation that could stifle innovation. They stressed the importance of transparency, accountability, and the need to explain complex technologies in understandable terms to ensure meaningful participation in governance processes.

The discussion concluded with calls for more integrated approaches among Dynamic Coalitions and stronger messages about how to responsibly manage promising technologies while ensuring inclusive participation across all age groups and stakeholder categories.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Divides and Emerging Technologies**: The panelists extensively discussed how emerging technologies like AI and the metaverse risk creating new forms of digital exclusion, particularly affecting the 2.6 billion people without internet access and potentially creating an “AI divide” that could be more dangerous than the current digital divide.

– **Inclusive Governance and Multi-stakeholder Participation**: A central theme was the need for more inclusive participation in internet governance, with particular emphasis on including teens (13-19) who are currently excluded from many IGF programs that have 18+ age requirements, despite being active digital participants and innovators.

– **Ethical Standards vs. Over-regulation**: The discussion highlighted tension between the need for ethical frameworks and standards for AI/emerging technologies versus the risk of over-regulation that could stifle innovation. Panelists emphasized the importance of ethics education and “privacy by design” approaches.

– **Children’s Rights and Digital Protection**: Significant attention was given to protecting children’s rights in digital spaces, including concerns about biometric data collection, the need for child rights impact assessments, and ensuring children can participate meaningfully in digital governance while being protected from harm.

– **Impact on Journalism and Information Access**: The discussion addressed how AI and emerging technologies are affecting media sustainability, creating financial pressures on newsrooms, contributing to information pollution, and raising concerns about platform accountability and concentration of power in AI development.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to showcase the work of six Dynamic Coalitions within the Internet Governance Forum, focusing on how emerging technologies are shaping the future of the internet and digital governance. The session sought to highlight challenges, share best practices, and advocate for more inclusive, ethical approaches to governing emerging technologies.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with panelists building on each other’s points rather than disagreeing. The tone was professional yet passionate, particularly when discussing inclusion and rights issues. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital divides and ensuring ethical technology development, but the overall atmosphere remained solution-oriented and forward-looking. The moderator effectively maintained focus while allowing for meaningful cross-dialogue between panelists and audience participation.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jutta Croll** – Chairwoman of the German Digital Opportunities Foundation, Session Moderator

– **Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio** – Co-lead of the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technologies, Chief Information Officer (CIO) of the United Nations Pension Fund

– **Surabhi Srivastava** – Works at RNW Media (media development organization based in the Netherlands), representing the Dynamic Coalition on Sustainability of Journalism and News Media

– **Rajendra Pratap Gupta** – Dr., leads Dynamic Coalition on Digital Economy, runs Global Think Tank Health Parliament

– **Torsten Krause** – Represents Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety/Child Rights in Digital Environment

– **Janice Richardson** – Represents Dynamic Coalition on Internet Safety and Security Standards (IS3C), background in education, works on education and skills working group

– **Amrith Kumar** – Represents Dynamic Teen Coalition (DTC), youngest panelist, focuses on teen digital rights

– **Timothy Holborn** – Australian participant (online), works on W3C standards and royalty-free technology, involved with verifiable credentials and digital identity

– **Audience** – General audience member/participant

**Additional speakers:**

– **Wout** – Remote moderator for online participants

# Dynamic Coalitions Cluster Session: Emerging Technologies and Internet Governance

## Executive Summary

This Dynamic Coalitions cluster session at the Internet Governance Forum was moderated by Jutta Croll, Chairwoman of the German Digital Opportunities Foundation. The session brought together representatives from six different Dynamic Coalitions (out of 32 currently active) to examine how emerging technologies are reshaping internet governance and digital rights. The discussion focused on the need for more inclusive, ethical approaches to technology governance, while highlighting critical gaps in current frameworks that exclude key stakeholders, particularly teenagers and children.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

### Emerging Technologies Coalition

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio, Co-lead of the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technologies and Chief Information Officer of the United Nations Pension Fund, emphasized implementing innovative technologies responsibly and ethically. He shared concrete examples from the UN Pension Fund’s work with digital identity solutions using biometrics and artificial intelligence, including serving diverse global populations with varying levels of digital access. Dell’Accio described implementing ISO 42001 standards for responsible use of AI and developing alternative solutions like kiosk modes for retirees without smartphones or data plans.

### Journalism and Media Sustainability

Surabhi Srivastava, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Sustainability of Journalism and News Media at RNW Media, presented concerns about how artificial intelligence is altering media landscapes. She highlighted the concentration of power in AI development and financial pressures forcing newsrooms to adopt AI tools despite potential ethical implications. Srivastava argued that AI tool costs create barriers for smaller media organizations, potentially exacerbating inequalities in information access and threatening freedom of expression through misinformation and content pollution.

### Digital Economy and Access

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta, who leads the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Economy and runs the Global Think Tank Health Parliament, emphasized that 2.6 billion people still lack basic internet access. He described current technological changes as a civilizational transformation and advocated for treating certain technologies as digital public goods. Gupta introduced a framework of “three P’s” – people, profits, and purpose – where purpose should guide the relationship between the other two. He also mentioned “Gen Beta” – anyone born January 1, 2025 – as the next generation to consider in governance discussions.

### Youth and Teen Rights

Amrith Kumar, representing the Dynamic Teen Coalition, demonstrated how existing youth definitions (18-35) exclude teenagers from meaningful participation in internet governance discussions. He proposed a five-category age model encompassing child (0-12), teen (13-19), early career (18+), mid-career, and senior career participants. Kumar showed that even IGF programs like the 2025 Youth Mentorship Program maintain 18+ age requirements, effectively excluding teen participation in governance processes that directly affect their digital experiences.

### Child Rights and Protection

Torsten Krause, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety and Child Rights in Digital Environment, emphasized implementing child rights impact assessments for new technologies and services. He advocated for designing emerging technologies with children’s safety and meaningful participation in mind from the outset. Krause highlighted that biometric data collection from children requires higher protection standards and referenced General Comment 25 on children’s rights in digital environments.

### Safety and Security Standards

Janice Richardson, representing the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Safety and Security Standards (IS3C) with nearly 20 years of collaboration with Jutta Croll, highlighted gaps in cybersecurity education and the need for improved collaboration between technology industries and educational sectors. Richardson emphasized that standards must be technically sound and accessible to all users, not just developers.

## Major Thematic Discussions

### Digital Divides and Access Challenges

The discussion extensively examined how emerging technologies risk creating new forms of digital exclusion. Dr. Gupta’s emphasis on 2.6 billion people without internet access provided context for considering how AI and other advanced technologies might exacerbate existing inequalities. Dell’Accio supported this with practical examples, including work with Indigenous populations using remote sensing for health services and the need for alternative solutions for users without smartphones.

### Inclusive Governance and Age-Based Participation

A central theme was the inadequacy of current participation mechanisms in internet governance. Kumar’s analysis of age-based exclusion challenged assumptions about inclusive governance, demonstrating that teens are systematically excluded from IGF programs despite being active digital participants. Krause reinforced these concerns from a children’s rights perspective, arguing for meaningful participation in technology development processes.

### Ethical Frameworks and Standards

Panelists discussed balancing ethical guidelines with practical implementation. Gupta warned against over-regulation that could stifle innovation, advocating for ethical frameworks that prioritize human purposes. Dell’Accio emphasized the importance of explanation and transparency in AI systems. Richardson highlighted the gap between existing standards and their practical understanding and implementation.

### Children’s Rights and Digital Protection

The discussion addressed protecting children’s rights while ensuring meaningful participation in governance processes. Krause emphasized that children face unique vulnerabilities as early adopters but also possess rights to participate in decisions affecting their digital experiences. The conversation explored tensions between protection and participation.

## Key Areas of Agreement

### Human-Centric Technology Development

Multiple speakers agreed that technology development must prioritize human needs and rights over pure profit motives. Gupta’s “people, profits, and purpose” framework resonated across different coalition perspectives.

### Need for Inclusive Participation

Despite representing different constituencies, speakers consistently agreed that current digital governance structures inadequately serve various age groups, particularly teens and children.

### Digital Divide Concerns

Speakers across coalitions agreed that existing digital divides risk being amplified by emerging technologies, requiring proactive inclusion strategies.

## Recommendations and Next Steps

### Immediate Actions

– Attendees were encouraged to visit the Dynamic Coalitions booth located directly opposite to the plenary hall entrance

– Participation in the main Dynamic Coalitions session scheduled for Wednesday at 9 AM in the conference hall

– Engagement with three additional workshop sessions run by Dynamic Coalitions

### Structural Recommendations

– Implementation of Kumar’s five-category age model for inclusive participation

– Development of child rights impact assessments for new technologies

– Adoption of “inclusiveness by design” principles alongside existing “privacy by design” approaches

– Stronger partnerships between educational sectors and technology industries

### Framework Development

– Development of multi-stakeholder ethical frameworks for AI governance

– Focus on making standards understandable and widely adopted

– Treatment of certain technologies as digital public goods

## Conclusion

This Dynamic Coalitions cluster session demonstrated both consensus around human-centric technology development and significant challenges in current governance approaches. The discussion revealed strong agreement on the need for inclusive participation, ethical frameworks, and addressing digital divides, while highlighting structural barriers that prevent meaningful engagement across age groups. The session’s focus on practical solutions and concrete recommendations provides a foundation for continued work toward more inclusive and effective governance of emerging technologies.

The panelists’ emphasis on moving beyond purely technical approaches toward comprehensive frameworks addressing economic, social, and rights-based dimensions suggests that internet governance itself may need to evolve alongside the technologies it seeks to govern. The unresolved questions around implementation mechanisms and structural changes underscore the need for sustained engagement and innovative approaches to ensure that emerging technologies serve human purposes while respecting fundamental rights.

Jutta Croll: the Hello everybody. Welcome to the Dynamic Coalitions first cluster session. My name is Jutta Croll. I’m chairwoman of the German Digital Opportunities Foundation and I’m glad to be the moderator of the session today. To those of you who are not familiar with the concept of Dynamic Coalitions, let me just explain a little bit. Dynamic Coalitions have been set up as a certain format at the first Internet Governance Forum 20 years ago for groups and individuals who are working together to achieve a certain objective. Nowadays we have 32 different Dynamic Coalitions. If you’re interested in the work of them, just come to our booth in the IJF village which is positioned directly opposite to the plenary hall entrance. Today we have six different Dynamic Coalitions here and we want to showcase some of the work they are doing in regard of evolving technologies, emerging technologies. So we are talking about the future of the Internet and having that said, I want to introduce you to the first panelist. We will go through them and I will introduce them one after another when they are going to speak. And to my left is Dino De Calcio. He is the co-lead of the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technologies, so that means he’s in the perfect role to speak about the issue today. And I’m going to give the floor to you, Dino.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Thank you very much, Jutta. I’m happy to be here to share the experience of the Digital Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technology, as well as the contribution that, as a CIO, Chief Information Officer of the United Nations Pension Fund, we have been giving to the work of the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technology and, in turn, to the mandate and the mission of the Internet Governance Forum. So, very briefly, to introduce the work and the meaning of the work of the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technology is that recognize that when we are dealing with emerging technologies, we are also dealing with emerging standards. And as we know, as we, of course, align ourselves to the principle, to the values, to the mission of the United Nations overall, as well as the various initiatives such as the Internet Governance Forum, such as the Global Digital Compact, such as the UN Secretary General Agenda on Digital Cooperation, we want to make sure that emerging technology, innovative technology, transformative technologies are used in a responsible and ethical manner. And here is the mandated mission of the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technology, which is exactly to support, to coordinate, to document tangible and concrete examples of when these emerging technologies are used and how we can determine whether or not that has been done in a responsible and ethical manner. Thank you.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Dino. You gave us the perfect start for our session. I’m now turning to Surabhi. Surabhi is representing the Dynamic Coalition on Journalism, and I’m pretty sure you’re not only writing as a journalist about emerging technologies, metaverse, and so on, but also you have a background to explain what the Dynamic Coalition is doing.

Surabhi Srivastava: Yeah, thank you, Jutta, and it’s really nice to be here with fellow panelists. I am Surabhi. I work at RNW Media, a media development organization based in the Netherlands. I’m representing here, as Jutta mentioned, the Dynamic Coalition on Sustainability of Journalism and News Media. So the Dynamic Coalition has over 300 members from all over the world. These are journalists, media organizations, civil society organizations, all concerned about the impact of technology in terms of the news, media, and journalism landscape globally, nationally, regionally, and also very much concerned about the impact that technology and artificial intelligence has had and is having on freedom of expression, on censorship, the spread of misinformation online, and also the intersection of digital policies and regulatory frameworks on the state of media globally. In terms of our work, we produce reports, we gather evidence, look at data, which is shared by members that are part of the dynamic coalition, and also analyze how regulations are impacting both journalists but also media organizations at large. And so the new report that we have just launched, and I have a copy of it here with me, which is looking at the impact of artificial intelligence on news media organizations and especially public interest in independent media. And it’s trying to look at various different facets that I will get into later on in the discussion, but particularly looking at how artificial intelligence is shaping the sustainability trajectory and media viability in particular, especially for independent journalists, for public interest media, local journalists, and local newsrooms. What is the impact of AI policies and infrastructures on sustainability of news media, but also more broadly, how do we build more inclusive digital infrastructures and policies that ensure equitable participation from wide-ranging stakeholders, which includes journalists, media, civil society organizations, tech organizations, digital rights activists, but also governments as well. And I think we are really emphasizing on the multi-stakeholder approach, which is also the spirit of how Internet Governance Forum came about, and how can we ensure that the process of including multi-stakeholders is not just reflected in the process of how regulations are formed, but also in its outcomes. And I will dive into that a bit later as we continue the discussion.

Jutta Croll: Thank you. Thank you, Zorabi. I’m going directly to Dr. Rajendra Gupta on my right side, who has a long-standing experience in the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Economy, but also experience beyond the Dynamic Coalition, running already the Global Think Tank Health Parliament. You can tell us a bit about that, and I hope you can have a link to what Zorabi has said before in regard of ethical use of new emerging technologies.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Jutta, and I thank IGF and the wonderful Secretariat for hosting this and giving us the opportunity to pick a round of applause for those behind it. Roman, Marcus, and other team members, Celine, I would not forget to not name them for making it happen. I think IGF is almost on the way to becoming an adult. We are 20 years old, so we believe we have to be more responsible to drive the change. As someone who drives Dynamic Coalition on Digital Economy, we have always looked at getting to address the basics. While the narrative has shifted to artificial intelligence, for me still, I think that 2.6 billion people do not have access to internet. That means we are keeping them out of the economy of the current times, and we live in digital age. That’s the first thing that we all should look at addressing, because if we keep them out, not only that they are losing, we are losing out. I believe if we bring 2.6 billion people more, which is one-third of humanity, we would grow phenomenally as an economy with new ideas and innovations. For me, that matters most. The second thing is that what I said in Berlin a few years ago at IGF, that it is a small number of large companies that drive the internet. If you really want to democratize it, it has to be a large number of small companies. So that brings the question of governance of internet, and I think an organization like IGF and the wonderful work that we do as Dynamic Coalitions, we have to do. We came up with this report this year, Internet as a Great Equalizer. You can go to our DC page in a few days, as it gets updated to download that. And on the point of, I would say it’s ethical for us to here talk about what artificial intelligence is, what you’d ask me is that while there’s a lot of things that talked about how much it will add to individual efficiency, but each level of deployment will also lead to displacement. So we have to be mindful of that as well. should lead to a digital divide which already exists, but we should also not lead to an AI divide which will be far more dangerous to each one of us. I will stop here for now and then pick up the threats later as we interact. Thank you.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Rajendra. Picking up on the title of the document you have just referred to, the internet is a global equalizer, I would like to turn to my colleague Torsten Krause, who is talking about equalizing the opportunities for children from a child rights perspective. Please, Torsten.

Torsten Krause: Thanks, Jutta. Yeah, to prevent a mid-averse divide and ensure that all children can participate equally, I would pledge to implement a child rights impact assessment, but to, I would like to take a step back before and come later back on that and would remind you that children are early adopters, so the children, the internet wasn’t developed with children in mind, but children will use all these opportunities, will use the applications, the services, the games, all what is offered online, and they will use this without, with fun, with joy, and we don’t have such kind of a precaution in their mind, and we’ll use this for socializing, for education, for entertainment, and for all these, but they face risks, and often they also face harms online, and to get in a feeling about the amount, you have to know that one out of three users of the internet is a minor, so when we talk about children, then we talk about minors, so in general, we talk about persons until the age of 18, and the solution could not be that we put children out of these services and applications to keep them out, to ban them, then children have the right to access media and to take part in the digital environment also, and that’s why in 2021 the United Nations Committee of Children’s Rights released the general comment 25 on children’s rights in the digital environment, and declared, described, and also prescribed how to realize the protection, the provision, and also the participation of children in the internet, and when we say that the internet was shaped without children in mind, then we now are in a situation to do it better when we are going to the further metaverse, to emerging technologies, and I think also that we must do it that way, and to realize an equal participation of all children without an experience of discrimination of any kind, we have to take in mind the well-being of the child, the best interests should be taken into account, and to realize that, and to measure out how to realize that child rights impact assessment could be a real good tool and assessment to bring this in the forefront, and yeah, maybe I’ll leave it with that. Thanks.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Torsten. I think you provided the perfect segue to turn to Janice Richardson, a colleague of mine for nearly 20 years, I would say, having also been a member of the Dynamic Coalition on Child Online Safety, as it was called beforehand, but now you’re speaking on behalf of the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Safety and Security Standards. Please, Janice, you have the floor.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. What is the ISC3? Why do we join safety, standards, and security? Well, first of all, because for me, for our group, standards are at the heart of safety and security. The IS3C is a little different. than most of the dynamic coalitions, in that we have a number of working groups, usually there are about eight working at the same time, so that we can deep dive into various aspects, for example quantum computing, Internet of Things, procuration, so these working groups together can bring their knowledge in, can exchange ideas, can have a discussion, because when we look at the Internet, one of the big problems is that we’re all working in our silos, the cybersecurity people aren’t speaking to parents, government is not really listening to the voice of the user, and we all know that the user is in fact the weakest link in the chain of cybersecurity, so my working group is education and skills, we have conducted a study, we found there’s an enormous gap in what industry is expecting and what is being learned by university students, there are many gaps in fact, and I think the solution is, why don’t we all start working much more closely together in a hub, so that we can share information, we can learn from each other, it’s not happening, and it’s really great to be here today, because it looks like it is happening for the first time.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Janice. Having that said, I’m turning to our youngest Dynamic Coalition, I think, and also our youngest panelist, which is Amrit Kumar, and he should join us online. Yes, I already see you, Amrit, and I’m giving the floor to you now.

Amrith Kumar: Thank you, Jutta, and the colleagues that helped make the session today possible. Also, the participants, both online and in person, joining at all times. And firstly, I would just like to get a segue into the Dynamic Teen Coalition and the work that we’re doing. From our name, you can probably tell that our work is oriented around teens and supporting teen digital rights. So the main basis of our work is the understanding that teens are not passive users. We remain deeply engaged in various social platforms, in coding communities, in open science, and we help shape various platforms as creators, innovators, and stakeholders. Yet, there’s many barriers that still impact teens and the way that we work within these digital spaces. And that is where DTC comes in. So when we’re talking about all this innovation and these various technologies, it’s important to understand who gets to shape these technologies and ultimately the exclusion in place at the moment across the IGF based on structural age barriers. And that’s something that will be going further into this session and something we’d love to talk about. Thank you.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Amrit. Your input has forced me to kind of initiate a short dialogue between Dr. Rajendra and Amrit, because you have told me beforehand that you would like to talk about the fear of missing out the opportunities of evolving technologies. And I’m pretty sure you can explain us why you want to talk about that, and then we could turn back to Amrit to probably tell us what is the teen perspective of this kind of fear of missing out. And to say it’s FOMO called, for those who are not familiar with all these abbreviations.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Jutta. I think one of the things that gets with the internet is not just the democratization of what goes around, but also it becomes viral. Everyone gets to see things and watch them and get so excited, there is a fear of missing out. But I think there is one more fear that has started, is fear of starting late. That’s why we see every generation of people wanting to start now about technology, while some of them have not reached a level of maturity that we need them to be used and I think that’s where we need governance standards and more importantly self regulation but there should not be a fear of missing out or fear of starting late but on the point of whether the FOMO of AI is real the short answer is yes. I can assure you that anything we do today when we meet in IGF in 2027 I’m saying one year beyond that we will not be doing the same way as we are doing. We will not be doing like this. Two years back I hosted a meeting where we had robot as a panelist. I think it will for some still appear to be unusual but the robot answered the question on the global summit like this as a human being. I think we are in for something good but rather than fear of missing out or fear of starting late I would encourage everyone whether you are a teen or you are a older adult is to start playing with technology before you start using it because at the end of the day we are living in a digital era and as an economy of the dynamic collision on digital economy we believe internet for all and livelihoods for all. Thank you.

Amrith Kumar: Yeah of course thank you Uta. So in order to respond to that we first have to understand that teens are playing an important role in regards to all these technologies. So the main goal of the session is to talk about emerging tech. So we’re here talking about innovation, AI, the metaverse web 4.0 and other technologies. But before we can get into talking about the future of these technologies we have to understand who’s shaping this and ultimately at the moment as we’re raising it who’s systemically excluded from doing so despite being at the front line of these digital landscapes. So teens are playing a large role in how these technologies are being used. being shaped. And as fellow co-panelist Torsten mentioned as well, teens are ultimately accessing these technologies in these online spaces. So we have coding communities and open science international discourse and taking part as creators, innovators, but due to the age barriers in place, it makes it nearly impossible and we’re excluded in governance spaces based on our audits and what this shows is that without proper inclusion, teens cannot partake in governance and ultimately it’s our right to do so and that’s some of the challenges in place and it’s therefore important to ensure that that happens.

Jutta Croll: Thank you Amrit. I would like to turn to Dino again because when Amrit mentioned the systematic exclusion, that refers also to the emerging of metaverse divide. Do you think we are at risk of having such a, like a second digital divide in regard of emerging technologies?

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: So definitely. I think that again using two concrete examples, the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technology started some significant work in identifying those instances and to try to also document and acknowledge the solution that had been found. So first and foremost again as a representative of the United Nations Pension Fund within the Dynamic Coalition on Emerging Technology, we had a concrete example. The UN Pension Fund in 2021 implemented a digital identity solution for proof of life. Basically an application using emerging technology such as biometrics, facial recognition, such as blockchain, artificial intelligence and geolocalization to enable more than 72,000 individual retirees at the UN around the world in 192 countries to confirm every year that they are still alive and therefore confirm their eligibility to receive payment. As we went live, we used an application that our retiree can download on their smartphone. Very, very soon we actually realized that although in small cases, there are certain parts of the world, some of the users that do not have a digital device, or even if they have it, they cannot use it in an adequate manner. For example, very simply and practically speaking, they use the digital device only for voice call. They cannot afford to turn it on on the data plan. So that was a concrete example of a digital device that we had originally not identified. And immediately we had to think out of the box and become creative. And that’s when we came up with a solution in collaboration with other UN entity, the United Nations International Computing Center, and some of our colleagues in the UNDP, the United Nations Development Program, to install a kiosk mode of the application. So basically equipping the field offices of the United Nations in those area of the world where we identify those limitation and constraint, and enable the user, the retirees living there that do not have the possibility of using a smartphone, to go and visit the office and perform the proof of existence. The second example is that the Digital, the Dynamic Coalition Emerging Technology is hosted by Innovation Network Global. It’s a Canadian-based organization based in Vancouver that actually started to experiment solution for the use of emerging technology by indigenous population of Canada. And they also encountered a situation where members of the indigenous population did not have access to public health services. And with them, they start experimenting solution using remote censoring in order to enable them to have some sort of a diagnostic that could be sent to specific care provider and provide them the services that they need. So indeed, just to answer in short to your question, there are cases where unfortunately, we still experience this digital divide, but at the same time, there are ways to resolve them.

Jutta Croll: Okay, thank you. With regard to the solutions you have described, they are kind of showing creativity, but will they still fit into the standards that the Dynamic Coalition on Safety, Security, and Standards is asking for? What do you say, Janice?

Janice Richardson: Yes, first of all, I think we need to understand what standards are and why they’re so important, because they should be guiding the way that the emerging technology is being developed. They need to be very flexible to encourage innovation, but they also need to be well-known and taken up, not just by the people developing the technology, but also by all of us. You spoke a little while ago about children’s rights. I often go into schools and I ask, can you cite five rights, five human rights? I very rarely found someone who can actually cite them. And I think it’s the same thing here. Standards are important, rights are important, but what use if people don’t understand about them? We did a study three years ago, the study I just mentioned, and it actually came up with something very interesting. In the cybersecurity and the technical industry, the very big downfall of young graduates is that they don’t understand the architecture of the internet, the architecture of the cloud. We’ve all become these superficial users, but we don’t really understand what’s underneath. And this, I think, is a different sort of divide, because people, I think most of us here, really understand what the internet’s built on, what can happen if I do this or that. But the people who don’t understand that, who don’t understand the impact that the internet, that digital technology is having on their life, they’re the ones being left behind in the divide. So that’s my idea with the standards, which are crucial, but they’ve got to be well known, otherwise they’re just useless.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Janice. I think we will go back to human rights and standards when I turn to Torsten, but firstly, Rajendra, there is also an economic aspect to a further metaverse divide or digital divide, please.

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, thank you. You know, the challenge that I see today is the technology fight between two P’s, people and profits, where the third P purpose is missing. So I think what we need to look at, some of the things that have to be classified as digital public goods and digital public infrastructure, if we do that, like Dino has done in the UN, is to use blockchain as a digital public infrastructure and a public good. The moment we do that, profits will be there, but purpose will be above profits when it comes to people at the centre. I think that’s the biggest thing, otherwise digital divide will aggravate. There’ll be a disproportionate aggregation of money in the hands of few. Thank you.

Jutta Croll: Thank you. Torsten. My question to you would be, how do we prepare children, teens and youths for the impacts of an algorithm driven future and that might be also shaped by a divide, that not all have the same or have access to the same opportunities?

Torsten Krause: Firstly, when it’s possible, I would like to refer to what you said. Yes, I agree that children and also adults too often do not know what rights they hold and which rights exist, but maybe a difference to the standards is that children don’t know that it is a right, but if they express their feelings and interests, then you can find that it is a right, even if they don’t know that it is a right. I hope I expressed it in a way that you can follow them. But how to prepare children that they don’t miss? I would say to raise a child in our today’s society, in a digitalized world, means to raise them with media literacy too. As I said, children are early adopters, so there is a duty to prepare them to work, to use, to realize these tools and opportunities and this duty is a shared one. So it’s a duty, of course, of the parents of the children, but not alone. It’s also a duty of the adults surrounding the children, of the educational staff, of other responsible persons, but also of the services of these organizations and firms who offer these applications, these games, these opportunities. So I think there is a need for a mix of measures to prevent this gap and it will be an ongoing process of teaching media literacy from my perspective. It should be part of the curriculum in the kindergarten and preschool and further on up to the high school because it’s an every time evolving system and environment and there is not, we have learned it once and then we can live it our whole lives. So it’s an ongoing process and it should come together with an accompanied media usage, especially when children and we together dive the first time in an application or in a service, in a game, to experience it together, to face what’s happening there, how you can gain the joy and the fun of it. Maybe also the risks and harms. And so we could maybe put it simple that strong children are raised by strong relationships. So we have to listen to each other, to follow what we are doing and to be open also for the experience and keep in kind of an entrusted relationship. But we are also facing services that are not created in this way. So it’s necessary to put responsibility and accountability to these service providers and to help them accountable, for example, for safety, by design, for precautionary measures. We could, as said before, try to figure it out with a child rights impact assessment. place other too. It’s highly discussed all around the globe, our age assurance measure, just to put one example on the table.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Torsten. I think we can come back to that also further on in the session and please be prepared if you have any questions to the panelists or also to other representatives of dynamic coalitions who are here in the room. I will open up the floor after Surabhi has been speaking and then Amrit again. Surabhi, Torsten has been speaking about children’s rights and the right to freedom of expression and to access to information is laid down in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 13 and 15, but it’s also a general human right which the Dynamic Coalition on Journalism has put a special focus on. And do you think that these rights to freedom of expression and information access are under pressure with new emerging technologies?

Surabhi Srivastava: Yeah, thank you, Jutta, and I think it was very useful to actually listen to all of the panelists here and tie in some of the points that I wanted to bring here on behalf of Dynamic Coalition on Journalism. Yeah, I mean for us freedom of expression is certainly a very important standard, journalistic standard, that we hold dear to media and anyone working in the media space. And access to information has suffered a huge blow, not just in terms of the digital divide, but access to factually accurate, reliable information as we deal with more and more misinformation, propaganda, but also AI-generated content. When it’s really hard to sift through what’s really the truth, what’s really fake, and so of course there is a huge infringement to the right to freedom of expression, but also access to information that can save lives is useful for us in a meaningful way. And we are now suffering from information overload and a more polluted information ecosystem more broadly, and hence it’s important to understand this intersection of both access to information, freedom of expression, with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. And I wanted to refer to also something that was tied in from one of the panelists on a paper that’s appeared in our latest report by Jenna Fung, where she talks about access to information and news by Gen Z on social media. And while they’re experiencing FOMO, I think it’s important to also recognize that they’re also not necessarily having access to the best news or information out there. There’s a lack of nuance, there’s often a lack of perspectives and plurality in the kind of information they’re receiving, and of course we are all immersed in our own echo chambers when it comes to accessing and using information. So it really needs to be said that young people also need to be part of the processes in which we decide how our information systems are governed, how these ecosystems are regulated, how AI-generated content can be regulated and addressed or regulated in internet spaces. And another point to mention here is in terms of the ethical use of AI, I think again going back to FOMO, there’s also a lot of pressure in newsrooms and among news media outlets to start using AI tools. And while there’s a fear of missing out, I think it’s important to take a step back and also think about the ethical and mindful and responsible implications of using these AI tools. We often do not have the space or resources or time or the pressure within which we work to really think about how are these AI tools being developed, where is the funding coming from, who are the people behind it, who are the companies. And it’s really important, these questions are not, I mean they might be controversial and provocative, but they’re very important when we try to understand how are these AI tools being deployed and how do we use them as consumers and in our case as journalists as media makers globally. So it’s really important to understand these different aspects and I think we’ll come back to it in platform accountability questions, but it really does have a long-term implications and we are already seeing that on freedom of expression and access to information.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Sharabi, for these very relevant thoughts. I do think from the journalism, you are kind of, you have been talking about being under the pressure on the one hand, but you’re also kind of the gatekeeper to giving people access to information. So you’re in a double role, I would say. But turning to Amrit again, Amrit, do you think you are, as the Teen Coalition or as Teenagers at Large, in a perfect position to exercise your rights to freedom of expression and access to information? Or where do you feel there are certain barriers or even a divide?

Amrith Kumar: So I think we can take a look at this from a rights-based approach. So as mentioned before and referenced, we have frameworks like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and we have general comment number 25. So these ultimately affirm that teens do have the right to access, create and participate in digital life. So now it comes to ensuring that these frameworks and these digital governance models have the pathways that allow teens to partake in these discussions. So in this manner, some challenges we are experiencing is that the Internet Governance Forum and other multi-stakeholder institutions systemically exclude teens by the fact that youth and how it is defined is not very inclusive. So at the UN and nearly every global structure, youth begins at 18 and stretches to 35. This essentially conflates youth with young adulthood and even middle age. And as you can see, it completely erases teens. And the issue is that this is not a symbolic situation. It’s structural. As we’ve seen in our national and regional audits, the IGF’s 2025 Youth Mentorship Program only accepts participants aged 18 plus. So this is just an example of how every teen innovator under 18 regardless of their impact, experience, or readiness to contribute. This aspect of readiness, which was mentioned by both Dr. Rajendra and Janice before. And the issue is that this is not an outlier. So it’s a part of a pattern that we’ve been noticing. So various youth programs and initiatives, they show the same systemic issue where the participation thresholds simply to participate is set at 18 plus, or the age category overall is undefined. The issue of this is that creates quiet, but as you can tell, very powerful barriers that are keeping teens from participating in digital governance models. And I think that’s an important issue that needs to be addressed to ensure that teens are inclusively represented in these spaces.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Amrit, for your comments. Just to make this clear, dynamic collisions are open to everybody. There is no age limit to join a dynamic collision. That is also demonstrated by having a dynamic teen collision. We also have a dynamic youth collision on internet governance. So I do think that we try to be as inclusive as possible, but maybe we also have some voices from the floor, not only in regard of this aspect, but also in regard of all the other issues that have been brought up by the dynamic collisions here on the panel. We have two microphones. So if you want to, and one in the back as well, the microphone can be brought to you. Just raise your hand and then you will be given the floor. I’m turning to, wow, do you have any, I think you are the online moderator. Have you seen any, oh, oh, sorry. I’m really sorry to put you on the spot. Okay, maybe we have someone here in the room and then we have a look whether we have questions also from online participants, not to exclude them. You want to have the floor? Oh no, I thought you had raised your hand. Okay, then maybe let’s go first with the panelists in regard of that inclusiveness that we are providing with the dynamic collisions work. Would you like to go?

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Sure. So again, using the example that I shared before that the concept of inclusiveness is definitely foundational and this was a part of the. design. So usually, one of the common terms that is referred to when talking about the digital application is privacy by design. In our case, we added to that inclusiveness by design. And especially when you’re dealing with potentially disadvantaged groups, such as in the case of the UN Pension Fund with certain demographics, that level of inclusiveness was, if you will, a different level. It was not just about the age, it was not just about geography, but it was also about the potential level of digital easiness, if you will. So adopting a concept of human-centric, we definitely focus on making sure that during our testing, we were able to capture whether the user interface, whether the experience of the client with the application was such that anybody could have understood what was expected of them when using the application. But going beyond that, we also realized that it’s not only about using the application, but also trying to prevent certain fundamental questions. For example, in an application that uses biometrics, an instinctive question would be where is my biometric profile saved? Is my biometric profile protected? Is it transmitted during the course of the use of the application? And so forth and so on. So the concept of inclusiveness went beyond the concept of just making sure that everybody can use it, but that everybody can use it in a meaningful way, but able also to understand what they’re doing with the application and what are the pros and cons of the application itself.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Dino. I do think, Torsten, you have a certain position in regards of biometric data of children as a certain vulnerable group. Would you like to get into that? And then I turn to you with regard to the economic effects of what Dino just said.

Torsten Krause: Yeah, you’re right, Jutta. The data of children are protected by the general comment or by the Child Rights Convention, and they are protected not just for children, of course. We have several legal systems and laws and constructs in place to protect the data of all people, but when it comes to the data of children, then I think we have to raise the bar. We have a higher level of protection, and even when it comes then to the biometrics data of children, then we have to keep this in mind. And so I think we have to develop and establish systems that are not in general based on this data, so that children are able to decide if they want to provide this data and not to be excluded from the application, from the service, from the offerings, if they decide not to do so. And that’s why I think that necessary that we put this also as a kind of a standard, maybe it is also a standard, that it’s not obligatory to provide your biometrics.

Jutta Croll: So I got it from your answer that obviously we all come sometimes in the situation that we have to decide whether we give away our biometrical data or more data than we wanted to give away, on the one hand, or otherwise we are excluded from using a certain service. This is also an economical question, isn’t it?

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yes, yes, I want to spin this discussion on a very historical perspective. See, I’m a policymaker who writes policies, so I don’t look at few decades, I look at entire millennia, and this is very interesting for all of us to understand. So if I look at the like last 2,000 years, first few centuries, any economy that was strong in agriculture was a strong economy. India had 27% of the world GDP, one-fourth of the GDP. Then one who had a strong military or fire power was a strong economy. No wonder UK and US started controlling the world, and the times that we’re living now, it’s about trade. So we see China as the world power, but the future we are transitioning to is technology. So I think anyone who is strong in technology will control the world. So for all of us, one facet we have to understand, this is not technology change. This is a societal and civilizational change. Unless all of us move to this and start using technology, it will be a big disservice to the society and economies. So it is an economic imperative, but let’s understand it’s a societal and civilizational change. Everyone has to be on the internet and using technology. My worry always, as DC digital economy comes to, that still one-third of the people have no access to the internet. We are missing out a huge economic opportunity.

Jutta Croll: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Rajendra Surabhi. You have the floor. I know you have to leave a little bit early, so you can use it also for your final statement. Yeah, I

Surabhi Srivastava: think I also just wanted to make a point on the financial aspect of the impact of AI and emerging technologies on media and journalists. So in our paper where we interviewed media outlets, and primarily smaller media outlets that are doing more public interest work in the global majority, global South countries, but also in the paper by Mira Milosevic, which is included in the report, we find that the cost of accessing these AI tools is quite prohibitive for a small media organization. And again, because of FOMO, there is this whole pressure of using certain AI tools, buying in subscription plans, trying to assess, you know, which tools to use, and all of this, or if you’re doing local investigative journalism, there’s an increasing reliance, as Mira mentions in her paper, on data analytics, and for that you need certain kind of tools to get the latest insights. And all of this has an added economic cost for newsrooms, and especially if you are a newsroom that’s already struggling with financing and funds, this adds additional cost burden to you, and you have to make tough decisions around whether you’re going to use a certain AI tool or not, or, you know, what impact it might have on the news story that you are trying to produce. So I think it’s really important to also look at that financial angle of what these emerging technologies are doing in terms of shaping the financial viability and sustainability of newsrooms in the long term. And since I have to leave, unfortunately, for my another session, I do want to mention just maybe one last point on platform accountability. I think we need to start moving beyond just looking at access, or looking at, for instance, the gap apps in content moderation or online censorship, but also really advocating for anti-concentration of power and anti-monopolistic or monopolization of these technologies. If you have read the book Empire of AI by journalist Karen Howe, which was just released last month, or if you follow journalist Carol Katwadler, who’s writing a really excellent sub-stack on how to fight the broligarchy, you really understand who are the people and companies shaping these AI tools and the empire of AI, as it’s being called. And I think that really demands us also as media makers, as journalists, but also wide-ranging stakeholders to step up and ask the questions, why do they get to hold so much power over a tool that’s going to change not just the shape of our lives, but the trajectory of human civilization? So I think that’s something as journalists, as media makers, we need to start questioning along with everyone who’s interested in how AI governance needs to shape the next few years and decades of the work we are doing on internet governance. Thanks.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Surabhi, for your input and also for being with us on the panel. I do think you will also be able to be at the Dynamic Coalition’s booth for those who want to pose a question to you. Do we have a question from online participants? No question? Yes? And anyone who has woken up in the room can also ask, please. Yes. From Mr. Timothy Holborn, but perhaps he can be put online so that he can ask a question himself. OK. Can we get the person speaking? His name is Timothy Holborn. Holborn. Can you open the microphone to the Zoom participant? The technicians are working on it. They can type the question in, I think. They can also type it, but if someone from the room will come in. OK, we have him. Hello, can you hear me? Can you introduce yourself, please, and then pose your question?

Timothy Holborn: Hello, I’m Timothy Holborn. I’m Australian. I’ve been working on W3C standards and royalty-free technology to support the means for people to own, not merely be a licensee, of their thoughtware and to be able to have electronic evidence to support their human rights. So some of the works I’ve been involved with include verifiable credentials, which you might know as digital identity. And things like SOLID or Red Right Web, the MyData work and things like that. I think the point about children was at the heart of my works. And I’m very sad to say that after so many, after over a decade, 15 or so years, a lot of those objectives still seem far too far away. There’s a fundamental piece about technology, about artificial intelligence, about how we’re collecting an increasingly high resolution of who we are as people, of our consciousness, of our mindware, of our relationships, of our footprint. But the infrastructure to make sure that it’s actually owned by us as natural people, that somehow that’s allowed, seems to have a lot of friction. And part of that might be intellectual property and trade, where it’s kind of like people fighting over something that is a physical thing, rather than the fact that we are sharing this conversation. And so we have implied and express moral rights around that. And perhaps those sorts of things needs a different sort of series of considerations. But in my technology work, I wonder which is the best jurisdiction in the world to do this sort of work, because at the moment, if I did more. I’m concerned that we’ll just end up in a bunker, or perhaps in Facebook. And so that impacts adults as well as their ability to be parents and to protect their children. So I’m not sure if that question is clear. What jurisdiction in the world is leading the way in how the natural rights of people, the human rights of people, the fundamental needs, the agency, personhood, digital, those sorts of things, are able to be preserved through this wild road of digital transformation? Thank you.

Jutta Croll: Yes, thank you for your statement and for the question you’ve put into that statement. I do think it delivers us a perfect segue to talk about the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, because I don’t think we would find one jurisdiction that is perfectly in the situation to do all this, to regulate this. But as a multi-stakeholder community, we can address it. What do you think about that?

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Jutta. I think it’s a very important point. We have moved from the youth to children, the teen. I think we are in Gen Beta now. Anyone born on 1st January 2025 is Gen Beta. So how much we will get into. The bigger issue that comes to everyone is ethics, not regulation. I think we overly focus on regulation and standards. We under, I would say, give less importance to ethics. What we need is a course on ethics for people who work in technology, so that we first understand ethics, then get to the regulations and frameworks. Without ethics, no regulation is going to work.

Jutta Croll: Okay, Dr. Rajendra. Dino, please.

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: Yes, thank you. Actually, very, very good observation. a very good question. I can answer from the point of view of more conforming to a standard rather than complying to a specific regulation or jurisdiction. And here, again, concrete example of the UN Pension Fund. Being an international organization, we are not subject to any specific national jurisdiction, but we are subject fundamentally to demonstrate that we practice what we preach vis-a-vis the principle, the value, the resolution of the United Nations. So my colleague, Janice, before made emphasis to the need to have standards, but even more to the need to have standards that are understood. So in our case, we took this at heart, and we did not only adopt emerging technology implemented, but also we went further in making sure that the use of those emerging technology was being done responsibly in accordance with a standard. So not at the level of jurisdiction, but I can answer the level of technical standard. We certify the application in accordance with the international standard ISO, and specifically, most recently, the ISO standard on the responsible use of artificial intelligence, ISO 42001. And I will spare you reading the tens and hundred pages of the standard, but just focus on two things that are expected by organization that wants to demonstrate that they use AI in a responsible manner. There are two. One, to explain, and two, to be transparent. And in so doing, I think the best practice in order to address what Janice was saying before, how to make that conformance to a standard be understandable, is by adopting a standard that is technologically agnostic, that’s not based on a specific LLM or a specific technology, but which is process-based and principle-based. And this is where, for example, we had to explain. First and foremost, how a complex technology works, and two, to do in a transparent manner by demonstrating how the use of that complex technology was done in an ethical manner vis-a-vis the principle and the values of the United Nations. Thank you.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Dino. I’m turning to Janice.

Janice Richardson: Yeah, we’re talking about multi-stakeholder, but there’s one thing, because my background is in education, there’s one thing that absolutely intrigues me, because for the tech industry, what is education? A consumer. We know with the data sets that they develop, with the products that they create, that they see education as nothing more than a consumer. And I’m waiting for the day when they become real partners. Who in this room works in education? I think you see my point. There are what, four of us, five of us. But the day that education and the tech industry become real partners, not just multi-stakeholders, which is nothing more than a term, then we’re going to see a big difference. My next point, we did talk about societal change, and there’s one huge change underway, but we don’t seem to take it into consideration. We’re throwing everything nowadays at education. We are all expected to be able to look after our own cybersecurity online. But who is actually doing the teaching? And do these people really know what they’re talking about? Are they really up to the latest in what is technology? Multi-stakeholderism, my third point would be just look at AI. This is a fabulous case in point. UNESCO has developed, I can’t remember if it’s an act or a charter or whatever, the European Commission has developed the AI Act. The Council of Europe is developing some other sort of act or convention. But why don’t we have this joined up where the institutions are actually working together, and we’re getting a single set of standards in this very important area that is simple enough for all of us to understand. understand and therefore for all of us to file complaints and to make sure our rights are respected, but that are really flexible enough that we can keep creating and keep this technology emerging until we get to a point where everyone can have access because it’s free.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Janice. Torsten, it’s your turn now.

Torsten Krause: Thanks. Yeah, so many thoughts are going through my mind and I try to sort it out a little bit, but first maybe let me put your intention through again to the Convention of the Rights of the Child. Children have the right to participate, so the voices of children must be heard and not just be heard, but taken into consideration seriously. And so when we are coming again to the digital environment, the United Nations declares that all children should be involved and that they listen to their needs and give due weight to their views when developing legislation, as you talked about, policies, programs and services, and that comes on several levels. So if you’re talking about legislation, then I would like to see, or also the UN, I would like to see that children are involved, that their perspective is brought in and taken into consideration. And also when new services applications are developed, then why not talking to children? What’s the idea? What’s maybe the way to create this new application and to bring the perspectives of children in this developing process and not reacting afterwards when it’s rolled out and we see that there are some hinderings, there are hurdles, maybe it’s creating harms and risks, and then redeveloping it afterwards. So why not do it beforehand? And it also touches our multi-stakeholder. model. I think, and don’t don’t get me wrong, I really appreciate the work of AMRIT and the Dynamic Teen Coalition, also of the youth coalition, but from a child rights perspective you could also see it as a kind of exclusion of youth and minors within the IG ecosystem. So Jutta said all dynamic coalitions are open and we want to work inclusively, but I’m not aware about the situation in every dynamic coalition, but in every dynamic coalitions are minors and children present. Can they bring in their perspective? I think it’s one side of the coin is that we say and implement a system that is inclusive and open, but the other side is to create a situation where children are really invited and really find their place at the table and their voices will be heard. And I think in this regard we can increase participation in this model in the coming years.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Torsten. I will give the floor in a minute to you, AMRIT, to react to that suggestion and also turning to all the panelists to say what is your key takeaway from this session. But firstly I would like also to take off my moderator’s hat and answer to the question that came from the online audience, because what Jan has said before in regard of education in this regard, I do think when we refer to the AI Act in the European Union, a sector with absolute limits. legislation over AI tools at large. For that separation which might also regulations across the world and in other jurisdictions. What we don’t have in the AI Act is that we have in the AI Act is that we have to educate the general public. We have to educate the general public and companies that are deploying AI tools to educate their staff, but no obligation for the general public to be educated. So no obligation for governments. And that’s kind of a missing link. Also, children are not mentioned at all in the AI Act. So we have to educate the general public and companies that are deploying AI tools. So that’s not all expectations, I would say. And therefore, it’s necessary to further go on and try to find also in the multistakeholder environment of the Internet governance ways to go further within the regard. And now I’m turning to Amrit for your final remarks and also please refer to the slides as well.

Amrith Kumar: Thank you. As we close the session, I think one common takeaway we can take is that governance only succeeds when it’s truly representative. So we have a multistakeholder ecosystem and it should include digital participants of all ages, sectors, experiences, and bring their perspectives forward to co-create meaningful solutions. And I think that’s a key part of the conversation that we’re having right now. And I think that’s a key part of the conversation that we’re having right now. So just to address one point, as Torsten mentioned, while the D.C.s may be inclusive to an extent of teens as well as teen representation that may not always be the case across the IGF as we found in our audits and there are still age restrictions 18 plus regulations and as a result exclude teens but that’s what we want to address so over the three years our DTC co-chairs Stacey Guildenson and Pirate Ruby Purcell developed a model that actually reflects how people engage across our lifespan so within this model they have five subcategories so 0 to 12 is child which is a category focused on safety care and supported expression expression 13 to 19 which is teen an entry point for digital rights civic agency and active participation so connecting to the UN Convention on Children Rights and general comment number 25 then from 18 plus to early career we have a bridge to the leadership mentorship and opportunity for those within this category then we have mid career which expands the impact of collaboration and decision-making and finally senior career where we have legacy building structural guidelines and intergenerational mentorship the goal of this model is to create an inclusive lifelong multi-stakeholder framework where it’s not just teens that are included but it’s right to this pathway for all stages of life this is a common message across all of the panelists that we’ve seen today that we must create an inclusive environment and we believe this is the way forward across the general IGF ecosystem thank you thank you

Rajendra Pratap Gupta: so firstly these are not emerging technologies these are promising technologies they’re delivering so first thing we have to get our heads clear that AI is a promising technology along with others that we don’t talk about much the second on the governance point I think we need an ethical framework I also see a FOMO among regulators in terms of over regulating AI everyone is jumping to regulate AI and we don’t know where we are going over regulation will kill innovation I think what we need is a multi-stakeholder ethical framework for regulating AI and I think IGF is very best position to handle that objective in a very fair manner thank you thank you

Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio: thank you so my concluded remarks would be about just acknowledging that when dealing with these emerging technologies fundamentally we have very simple question but at the same time a very demanding question simple such as those that I alluded to before for example the ISO standard the responsible use of AI requires that an organization is able to demonstrate that they can explain the use of the technology and it can be transparent about but of course explaining how an algorithm works in an AI system and application is very challenging is very demanding but And I think that with the collaboration and with the principle and the value that is being shared and expressed by distinguished panelists, I think we can achieve that. Thank you.

Janice Richardson: Yes, we are here to talk about governance and effective governance, which in fact doesn’t rely on reglementation, to my mind. What it does rely on is accountability of every single user in the world. It depends on fostering trust amongst all of those users. As someone rightly said, this is a lifelong path. A child needs to learn about human dignity from the cradle if it’s going to be implemented in human rights later on. So I’ll go back to it. We need to inform, but really inform. We need to educate, but we need to build the agency of every single person so they understand what accountability means. And then I think we’ll have a very different Internet.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Janice. Thorsten, you have the last word.

Torsten Krause: Thank you very much. Okay, there’s a question. Okay, so maybe it’s not the last. Yeah, I think we are facing new challenges with the upcoming metaverse, with emerging technologies, with artificial intelligence, with the Web 4.0. And these challenges are huge. So we have to find solutions. And on the other side, we have fundamental rights of us, the fundamental human rights. And I think or I believe that we’ll find the answers for these challenges in our fundamental human rights. So technology should serve humans, they should serve us, and they should respect our rights. And so we can level up our societies and gain from the opportunities. I think that could be a way.

Jutta Croll: Thank you. We have a final voice from the floor.

Audience: Yes. Thank you, Jutta. I think there’s one comment that we have online from Stacey, that she’s saying that the teens should also become part of YouthDIG, but perhaps even here at the IGF, that they’re more involved in the youth IGF than they are now. I’m taking off my hat as remote moderator, listening to you all. I think that there is a strong message coming out of the different DCs which at a little higher level is one message that we need to become more integrated, more aware of what we’re doing, and perhaps be able to submit a strong message as dynamic coalitions at the end of this IGF on what emerging technologies or promising technologies are and how we should deal with them. Because I think we’ve heard the message already from you, so thank you for that. Thank you.

Jutta Croll: Thank you, Wout, for that final statement. Also thank you to Stacy from the online participants. Thanks to all of you who have been taking part. If you want to get more information on the work of the dynamic coalitions, just come to our booth where you get also the information of three further workshop sessions that are run by dynamic coalitions, and also you are invited to the dynamic coalitions main session which takes place on Wednesday morning at 9 o’clock in the conference hall. And thanks to all my panelists and to all those people who have been very, very helpful in the preparation of this session. Thank you. See you later.

Agreement points

Need for inclusive participation across all age groups in digital governance

Speakers

– Torsten Krause
– Amrith Kumar
– Jutta Croll

Arguments

Children have right to participate and their voices must be heard in developing digital legislation and services

Current youth programs systematically exclude teens by defining youth as 18-35, erasing teen participation

Dynamic Coalitions are open to all ages, but broader IGF ecosystem still has exclusionary practices

Summary

All three speakers agree that current digital governance structures systematically exclude certain age groups, particularly children and teens, despite their active participation in digital spaces. They advocate for more inclusive participation mechanisms.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Technology should serve humans and be developed with ethical considerations

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio
– Torsten Krause
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Technology development should prioritize people and purpose over profits, with ethics as foundation

Emerging technologies must be used responsibly and ethically, aligned with UN principles and values

Technology should serve humans and respect fundamental human rights

Effective governance relies on accountability and trust among users, not just regulation

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasize that technology development must be human-centric, ethical, and aligned with fundamental human rights and values, rather than being driven solely by profit motives.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Digital divide risks being exacerbated by emerging technologies

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio
– Surabhi Srivastava

Arguments

2.6 billion people lack internet access, excluding them from the digital economy and AI opportunities

UN Pension Fund had to create alternative solutions like kiosk modes for retirees without smartphones or data plans

Cost of AI tools is prohibitive for small media organizations, creating financial barriers to adoption

Summary

Speakers agree that existing digital divides risk being amplified by emerging technologies, with economic barriers preventing equal access to new technological opportunities.

Topics

Development | Economic | Digital access

Need for education and digital literacy as ongoing processes

Speakers

– Torsten Krause
– Janice Richardson
– Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Arguments

Media literacy should be ongoing curriculum from kindergarten through high school as evolving process

Major gap exists in understanding internet architecture and underlying technology among users

Need for ethics education for technology workers, not just regulation and standards

Summary

All speakers emphasize that digital literacy and education must be continuous, comprehensive processes that go beyond basic usage to include understanding of underlying systems and ethical implications.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for coordinated, ethical approaches to governance rather than fragmented over-regulation that could stifle innovation

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Need for ethical frameworks rather than over-regulation, as excessive regulation could kill innovation

Need for joined-up approach where institutions work together on single, understandable standards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that young people are active digital participants who face unique challenges and barriers in digital spaces and governance

Speakers

– Torsten Krause
– Amrith Kumar

Arguments

Children are early adopters who use internet services without precaution, facing risks and harms online

Teens are active creators and innovators but face structural age barriers in governance spaces

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the importance of accessible, understandable frameworks that protect fundamental rights while enabling innovation

Speakers

– Surabhi Srivastava
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

AI threatens freedom of expression and access to reliable information through misinformation and content pollution

Standards must be flexible for innovation but well-known and understood by all users, not just developers

Topics

Freedom of expression | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Multi-stakeholder approach requiring true integration rather than fragmented efforts

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Janice Richardson
– Amrith Kumar
– Audience

Arguments

Need for ethical frameworks rather than over-regulation, as excessive regulation could kill innovation

Need for joined-up approach where institutions work together on single, understandable standards

Multi-stakeholder approach requires inclusive representation across all ages, sectors, and experiences

Dynamic Coalitions should integrate and submit unified message on emerging technologies

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from very different backgrounds (economics, cybersecurity, teen advocacy, and audience) all converged on the need for better integration and coordination in governance approaches, moving beyond siloed efforts to unified frameworks.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Recognition that current terminology and framing may be inadequate

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Amrith Kumar

Arguments

These are promising technologies delivering results, not just emerging technologies

Current youth programs systematically exclude teens by defining youth as 18-35, erasing teen participation

Explanation

Both speakers, from different generational and professional perspectives, independently identified that current definitional frameworks (for both technologies and age categories) are inadequate and need reconceptualization.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around human-centric technology development, inclusive governance, addressing digital divides, and the need for comprehensive education. Speakers consistently emphasized ethics over regulation and integration over fragmentation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance reform. The agreement spans technical, social, economic, and rights-based perspectives, suggesting broad stakeholder alignment on fundamental principles for emerging technology governance. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing unified approaches to digital governance challenges.

Different viewpoints

Regulation vs Ethics Approach to AI Governance

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Need for ethical frameworks rather than over-regulation, as excessive regulation could kill innovation

Need for joined-up approach where institutions work together on single, understandable standards

Summary

Rajendra warns against over-regulation of AI and advocates for ethical frameworks over regulatory approaches, while Janice emphasizes the need for coordinated regulatory standards across institutions. Rajendra sees regulation as potentially harmful to innovation, while Janice sees fragmented regulation as the problem.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Standards vs Jurisdictional Approaches to Technology Governance

Speakers

– Dino Cataldo Dell’Accio
– Timothy Holborn

Arguments

International organizations can adopt technical standards like ISO rather than specific national regulations

No single jurisdiction leads in preserving human rights through digital transformation

Summary

Dino advocates for international technical standards as an alternative to jurisdictional regulations, while Timothy expresses concern about finding any jurisdiction that adequately preserves human rights in digital transformation. Dino sees standards as a solution, while Timothy sees jurisdictional approaches as fundamentally inadequate.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Digital identities

Terminology: Emerging vs Promising Technologies

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Other panelists

Arguments

These are promising technologies delivering results, not just emerging technologies

Summary

Rajendra specifically corrects the session’s terminology, arguing that technologies like AI should be called ‘promising technologies’ rather than ’emerging technologies’ because they are already delivering results, while other panelists continue using ’emerging technologies’ throughout the discussion.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Role of Education Sector in Technology Development

Speakers

– Janice Richardson
– Other panelists

Arguments

Need for better collaboration between education sector and tech industry as true partners, not just consumers

Explanation

Janice’s criticism of the tech industry viewing education as merely a consumer rather than a partner stands out as an unexpected disagreement, as other panelists focus on inclusion and access issues but don’t challenge the fundamental relationship between education and technology sectors.

Topics

Online education | Economic | Sociocultural

Effectiveness of Multi-stakeholder Governance

Speakers

– Janice Richardson
– Amrith Kumar

Arguments

Effective governance relies on accountability and trust among users, not just regulation

Multi-stakeholder approach requires inclusive representation across all ages, sectors, and experiences

Explanation

While both support multi-stakeholder approaches, Janice questions whether current multi-stakeholderism is ‘nothing more than a term’ and emphasizes individual accountability, while Amrith focuses on structural inclusion. This represents an unexpected tension about the effectiveness of current governance models.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most conflicts centered on approaches and terminology rather than core principles. Main disagreements involved regulation vs ethics approaches to AI governance, standards vs jurisdictional solutions, and terminology preferences.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on core issues like inclusion, digital rights, and the need for ethical technology development. The disagreements are primarily methodological rather than philosophical, suggesting strong potential for collaborative solutions and unified approaches as suggested by audience members.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for coordinated, ethical approaches to governance rather than fragmented over-regulation that could stifle innovation

Speakers

– Rajendra Pratap Gupta
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Need for ethical frameworks rather than over-regulation, as excessive regulation could kill innovation

Need for joined-up approach where institutions work together on single, understandable standards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that young people are active digital participants who face unique challenges and barriers in digital spaces and governance

Speakers

– Torsten Krause
– Amrith Kumar

Arguments

Children are early adopters who use internet services without precaution, facing risks and harms online

Teens are active creators and innovators but face structural age barriers in governance spaces

Topics

Human rights | Children rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasize the importance of accessible, understandable frameworks that protect fundamental rights while enabling innovation

Speakers

– Surabhi Srivastava
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

AI threatens freedom of expression and access to reliable information through misinformation and content pollution

Standards must be flexible for innovation but well-known and understood by all users, not just developers

Topics

Freedom of expression | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Emerging technologies should be reframed as ‘promising technologies’ that are already delivering results and must be used ethically and responsibly

A significant digital divide exists with 2.6 billion people lacking internet access, and there’s risk of creating an even worse ‘AI divide’

Current governance structures systematically exclude teens (13-19) by defining youth as 18-35, despite teens being active digital creators and innovators

Children’s rights and protection require higher standards in digital spaces, with child rights impact assessments needed for new technologies

AI is creating financial barriers for small media organizations and threatening information quality through misinformation and echo chambers

Standards must be understandable and widely adopted, not just technically sound, with emphasis on explanation and transparency

Digital literacy and media education should be lifelong processes starting from early childhood

Multi-stakeholder governance only succeeds when truly representative across all ages, sectors, and experiences

Technology represents a civilizational transformation requiring ethical frameworks rather than over-regulation

Effective governance relies on user accountability and trust, with technology serving humans while respecting fundamental rights

Resolutions and action items

Visit Dynamic Coalitions booth for more information on their work and upcoming sessions

Attend Dynamic Coalitions main session on Wednesday morning at 9 o’clock in the conference hall

Consider implementing five-category age model for inclusive participation: child (0-12), teen (13-19), early career (18+), mid-career, and senior career

Adopt child rights impact assessments when developing new digital services and technologies

Implement ‘inclusiveness by design’ principles alongside ‘privacy by design’ in technology development

Develop multi-stakeholder ethical frameworks for AI governance rather than rushing to over-regulate

Create stronger partnerships between education sector and tech industry beyond consumer relationships

Unresolved issues

Which jurisdiction globally leads in preserving human rights through digital transformation

How to effectively bridge the gap between technical standards and public understanding

How to ensure meaningful teen participation in IGF governance structures beyond Dynamic Coalitions

How to address the concentration of power in AI development and prevent monopolization

How to make AI tools financially accessible to small media organizations and local newsrooms

How to create joined-up international standards when multiple institutions (UNESCO, EU, Council of Europe) are developing separate AI frameworks

How to mandate public education about AI and digital rights when current legislation like the EU AI Act lacks such requirements

How to ensure children’s voices are meaningfully included in technology development processes, not just consulted after problems arise

Suggested compromises

Adopt technical standards (like ISO 42001) rather than specific national regulations for international organizations

Create kiosk modes and alternative access points for those without digital devices or data plans

Develop systems that allow opt-out from biometric data collection without excluding users from services

Balance innovation encouragement with ethical guidelines through flexible but well-understood standards

Implement accompanied media usage and gradual digital literacy education rather than complete restriction or unrestricted access for children

Focus on process-based and principle-based standards that are technologically agnostic rather than technology-specific regulations

I believe if we bring 2.6 billion people more, which is one-third of humanity, we would grow phenomenally as an economy with new ideas and innovations… it is a small number of large companies that drive the internet. If you really want to democratize it, it has to be a large number of small companies.

Speaker

Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Reason

This comment reframes the digital divide discussion from a problem-focused to an opportunity-focused perspective, highlighting the economic potential of inclusion while also addressing power concentration in internet governance. It challenges the assumption that AI and emerging technologies should be the primary focus when basic internet access remains unresolved.

Impact

This comment established a foundational tension throughout the discussion between focusing on cutting-edge technologies versus addressing fundamental access issues. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider economic implications and power dynamics, and set up the framework for discussing various types of digital divides.

At the UN and nearly every global structure, youth begins at 18 and stretches to 35. This essentially conflates youth with young adulthood and even middle age. And as you can see, it completely erases teens… the IGF’s 2025 Youth Mentorship Program only accepts participants aged 18 plus.

Speaker

Amrith Kumar

Reason

This comment exposes a systematic structural exclusion that contradicts the multi-stakeholder principles of internet governance. It reveals how age-based definitions create invisible barriers that prevent meaningful participation of a key demographic that are primary users of emerging technologies.

Impact

This observation shifted the conversation from theoretical discussions about inclusion to concrete examples of exclusion within the IGF itself. It prompted other panelists to reflect on their own practices and led to Torsten’s acknowledgment that even within Dynamic Coalitions, true inclusion of minors may not be happening despite stated openness.

The technology fight between two P’s, people and profits, where the third P purpose is missing… some of the things that have to be classified as digital public goods and digital public infrastructure… The moment we do that, profits will be there, but purpose will be above profits when it comes to people at the centre.

Speaker

Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Reason

This comment introduces a powerful framework for understanding technology governance challenges by identifying the missing element of ‘purpose’ in the people vs. profits tension. It offers a concrete solution through the concept of digital public goods and infrastructure.

Impact

This reframed the entire discussion about emerging technologies from a purely technical or regulatory perspective to a values-based approach. It influenced how other panelists discussed solutions, with several subsequently emphasizing ethical frameworks and human-centered design principles.

We need to start moving beyond just looking at access… but also really advocating for anti-concentration of power and anti-monopolistic or monopolization of these technologies… why do they get to hold so much power over a tool that’s going to change not just the shape of our lives, but the trajectory of human civilization?

Speaker

Surabhi Srivastava

Reason

This comment elevates the discussion from technical implementation issues to fundamental questions about power, democracy, and control over civilization-shaping technologies. It challenges the audience to think beyond traditional internet governance approaches to consider broader systemic issues.

Impact

This comment introduced a critical perspective on platform accountability that went beyond typical content moderation discussions. It connected the journalism coalition’s work to broader themes of democratic governance and power concentration, influencing the final discussions about the need for ethical frameworks and multi-stakeholder approaches.

This is not technology change. This is a societal and civilizational change. Unless all of us move to this and start using technology, it will be a big disservice to the society and economies… Anyone who is strong in technology will control the world.

Speaker

Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Reason

This comment provides crucial historical context by comparing the current technological transition to previous economic paradigm shifts (agriculture, military power, trade). It reframes the urgency around technology adoption as an existential civilizational issue rather than just a technical upgrade.

Impact

This historical perspective fundamentally shifted how other participants framed their responses, moving from incremental policy discussions to recognition of the transformative nature of the current moment. It influenced the final recommendations toward more comprehensive and urgent approaches to inclusion and governance.

Standards are important, rights are important, but what use if people don’t understand about them?… In the cybersecurity and the technical industry, the very big downfall of young graduates is that they don’t understand the architecture of the internet, the architecture of the cloud.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment identifies a fundamental gap between the existence of protective frameworks and their practical implementation. It highlights how superficial digital literacy creates a new form of digital divide – not just access, but understanding.

Impact

This observation influenced the discussion toward emphasizing education and understanding rather than just policy creation. It connected to multiple other themes about the need for ethical frameworks, media literacy, and the importance of making complex technologies comprehensible to users.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical showcase of Dynamic Coalition work into a profound examination of power, inclusion, and the civilizational implications of emerging technologies. The discussion evolved from presenting individual coalition activities to identifying systemic challenges in internet governance itself. Rajendra’s economic and historical framing provided the foundation for understanding the stakes involved, while Amrith’s concrete examples of exclusion and Surabhi’s power concentration analysis revealed how current governance structures may be inadequate for the challenges ahead. The comments collectively shifted the conversation from ‘how do we govern emerging technologies’ to ‘how do we fundamentally restructure governance to be truly inclusive and serve human purposes rather than just profits.’ This created a more urgent and comprehensive understanding of the work needed, culminating in calls for ethical frameworks, educational reform, and structural changes to multi-stakeholder processes.

How can we ensure that emerging technology standards are not only developed but also well-known and understood by all stakeholders, including end users?

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Explanation

Richardson emphasized that standards are crucial but useless if people don’t understand them, drawing parallels to how most people cannot cite basic human rights despite their importance.

What is the best jurisdiction in the world for preserving natural rights and human agency through digital transformation?

Speaker

Timothy Holborn

Explanation

Holborn raised concerns about finding appropriate jurisdictions that can protect people’s ownership of their digital identity and thoughtware, rather than just licensing arrangements.

How can we develop a multi-stakeholder ethical framework for AI regulation that balances innovation with responsibility?

Speaker

Rajendra Pratap Gupta

Explanation

Gupta warned against over-regulation killing innovation and suggested IGF is well-positioned to develop such a framework, emphasizing ethics over pure regulation.

How can we create truly inclusive age-based participation models across the entire IGF ecosystem?

Speaker

Amrith Kumar and Torsten Krause

Explanation

Both speakers highlighted the need for better inclusion of teens and children in governance processes, with Kumar proposing a five-category lifespan model for participation.

How can we make the tech industry genuine partners with education rather than just seeing education as consumers?

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Explanation

Richardson pointed out the problematic relationship where tech companies view education primarily as a market rather than as collaborative partners in development.

How can we ensure children are involved in the development process of new technologies and services from the beginning, rather than reacting to problems afterward?

Speaker

Torsten Krause

Explanation

Krause emphasized the UN Convention on Rights of the Child requirement for meaningful participation and suggested proactive inclusion in technology development.

How can we address the financial barriers that prevent smaller media organizations from accessing AI tools and maintaining competitive journalism?

Speaker

Surabhi Srivastava

Explanation

Srivastava highlighted how the cost of AI tools creates additional economic burdens for already struggling newsrooms, particularly those doing public interest work.

How can we develop systems that don’t require biometric data as mandatory, allowing people to choose whether to provide such data without being excluded from services?

Speaker

Torsten Krause

Explanation

Krause emphasized the need for higher protection standards for children’s data and systems that don’t force biometric data sharing as a condition for access.

How can we address the concentration of power in AI development and challenge the monopolization of these transformative technologies?

Speaker

Surabhi Srivastava

Explanation

Srivastava called for questioning why a few companies and individuals get to hold so much power over tools that will change human civilization’s trajectory.

How can we create coordinated international standards for AI that are simple enough for everyone to understand yet flexible enough to encourage innovation?

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Explanation

Richardson criticized the fragmented approach where different international bodies are developing separate AI frameworks instead of working together on unified standards.