Okay, we are a couple of minutes now beyond time. I think that we can slowly start with a few introductions, maybe. So, good day to all.

My name is Marília Maciel. I am Director of Digital Trade and Economic Security at Diplo. And it’s my pleasure to moderate this session, which is being jointly organized by Diplo, Open Knowledge Foundation and the Geneva Internet Platform.

And this is actually the second event of an online series that is dedicated to closely follow the developments and the progress that has been achieved so far by the UNCSRD Working Group on Data Governance in order to strengthen transparency, to enhance understanding about this process and perhaps to encourage further participation in this process, which is very important as we’re going to discuss.

So, perhaps just to get us started, I don’t know if we were here for the first meeting or if it is your first meeting today to discuss this issue. So, let’s just make a brief recap of where we are. So, as most of us know, at the United Nations Summit for the Future, which took place in 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted the Pact for the Future, which includes the Global Digital Compact as Annex 1.

So, one of the pillars of the Global Digital Compact or GDC, for short, is data governance. And we have in objective number four, which is one of the objectives of the GDC, a call for the advancement of responsible, equitable and interoperable data governance approaches. So, in order to assist the UN in fulfilling this goal, paragraph 48 of the GDC has requested the Commission on Science and Technology for Development, or CSTD, to establish a dedicated multi-stakeholder working group.

to engage in a very comprehensive, inclusive, open conversation on data governance. We know that this is not the first working group that has been created in the context of the CSTD and perhaps we can exchange a little bit our experiences on previous working groups as well. But this working group on data governance has been formed.

The first meeting took place last May. The second meeting took place in July. And now there is an upcoming meeting which will take place next week in Geneva on the 15th and 16th September.

And just to highlight that the meetings are open to observers. So if you feel like you would like to follow this joyful today event at the UN, registrations are still open. In a minute, I’m going to paste the link for registrations in the chat.

And so observers are welcome to follow the discussions and many of us have done so for the last meetings. So in the event today, our goal here will be to discuss the progress that has been made by this group so far. It has approved some very important documents, as we will discuss, and the expectations for this next meeting.

We are very fortunate to have with us not only members of the working group, but people who are particularly involved in getting their hands dirty and being involved in facilitating discussions inside the working group.

So let me just briefly introduce our speakers. We have Karl Ganberg. He’s director of policy development and research at the Internet Society.

We have Maria Daniela Garcia, who is deputy permanent representative from the mission of Ecuador to the WTO and to other international economic organizations in Geneva. We have, hopefully, I cannot see the list in front of me, but Nick Ashton Hart, who is senior director from digital economy policy at APCO worldwide. And we have Renata Avila, who is the CEO of Open Knowledge Foundation.

who has also been a partner in crime in terms of organizing these events and this meeting series. So let’s perhaps take a look at what happened in the last meeting, which took place in July. In the last meeting, the UN CSCD Working Group produced two important documents, as I mentioned, that provide a framework moving forward for the group.

One of them is the Terms of Reference of the Working Group and the other one is a working plan that sets the wheels in motion, so to speak. So let’s start looking perhaps at the Terms of Reference. And after much discussion in May, the members decided to adopt perhaps a very concise version of the Terms of Reference, which starts formally the work of the group.

And my question to you would be, how do you feel about this document? After so much exchange, do you feel like the document sets the group in a solid foundation? And if you go a little bit deeper and look at some key deadlines and milestones, the document says that the group is supposed to present a progress report at the 81 session of the General Assembly, which is in September 2026.

What will be a progress report? What does it look like in your opinion? I know that we are looking a bit into the future.

And what are some entering milestones that we should have in mind as people who are interested in the process between now and this milestone at the 81 General Assembly? Perhaps I will start by calling on you, Carl.

Sure. Thank you very much for that introduction. Thank you very much for having me.

And thank you very much for organizing this. I think, as you mentioned, this is a working group and work that is open for anyone to join in and follow. And I think one of the ambitions of the meeting today and the call today is to get people up to speed.

And I think. allow them to participate if they want to, to not feel like the train has left the station, so to speak, but that there is still time to join in and follow along. And I think that’s kind of reflected in the first two meetings that we haven’t progressed as far yet.

The first two meetings, it took us two meetings to settle down on the terms of references, which I think many in the working group would have hoped we would have been done with in the first afternoon, if you will, and to be able to get into more of the substantive discussions that we just recently have started with.

In terms of the terms of references being solid, I think, I think for now that it looks like a good solid document. I think we will see to what extent they will sort of stand the test of time. But the terms of references are absolutely critical in this work.

And that goes to the fact that what is not necessarily visible from the outside is that there is politics lurking in the background of this work. And that means that when you’re starting off the work, there are divergent views of what is meant by data governance, what is the actual scope of the working group, what should it be delivered, not delivered, what are the types of questions that should be discussed, etc.

And that’s why the terms of references stuck so close to paragraph 48, which is forming the mandate of the group, for good and for bad reasons, right? Like, for good reasons, it allows the working group to sort of stick to the topics that that mandate sets us up to do for bad, because it does create some path dependency in terms of how we organize our work.

And I think we’ll get into that. But I think the terms of references that this stands now, they’re absolutely necessary to have pinned down early on, because you don’t want to progress work, start delivering things, and then have those deliverables, if you will, of the group being challenged on the basis of not having been encompassed in terms of reference.

So they’re absolutely necessary to create some sort of stability in terms of the conversations and make sure that What we do produce in the end is not going to be sort of renegade it all and that it was followed.

In terms of The quickly address the progress report. What to expect. I don’t know.

I think at minimum, there will be a recount of the discussions that we’ve had. We’ve had some Interesting and perhaps creative ideas for how to resolve differences in terms of how do we deal with I mean, obviously, we’re going to express where we agree, but how we how do we agree to disagree and what we cannot even agree to disagree.

We will be making use of the chair summary, for instance. So there’s different little technicalities in there and I think will shape up how the final report looks like. And to the extent you will have .: Agreements in there.

And to what extent that report will be Around of chair summaries. It’s, it’s too early to tell. Hopefully it’s not too many chair summaries, because that would indicate that we couldn’t really find agreement.

But we’re still kind of shaping up here. And I think something to be. And I think this will be reflected in the conversations that we’ll have today is that The starting point for this work was quite broad.

I think people went into this conversations with different understandings. What is data governance. What are the topics that should be discussed under this particular work group on data governance and we’re kind of right now in the face of crystallizing that a little bit in terms of having these tracks that it’s starting to substantive conversations

But I’ll leave it at that and let my colleagues jump in and and correct me or add to what I just mentioned. Thanks, Carl. If I can perhaps jump to you, and that you were also very vocal in these discussions and together with the terms of reference.

The group has also approved the working plan. Once again, the group remain very close. have been closely attached to the language of the GDC for that.

And accordingly, the group has decided to work in terms of splitting the working tracks that are in line with the topics that had been foreseen in the GDC. So the first is principles of data governance at all levels, interoperability between national, regional, international data systems. The third is sharing the benefits of data.

And the fourth is data flows, including cross-border data flows. And I remember you coming into the meeting and talking about the working tracks. So why do you think these working tracks have been created?

And what is your view as a facilitator? What is the rationale behind them and how do they plan to carry out discussions moving forward?

First of all, I want to say something in context for those attending the meeting who are not familiar with this kind of processes. Because I came to the convening with high hopes. And in my mind, when the group was convened, I was thinking, okay, this will be a super comprehensive report where we will discuss so many things.

Basically, I was thinking more in terms of a very long and detailed document. And through these two sessions that we had held so far, a reality check came. And the reality check is that this interim report that we are supposed to present is going to be very short, synthetic, extremely synthetic.

And if we are lucky, it will be presented to the UN General Assembly in something like 10 minutes. So we are thinking, we from academia and civil society and so on, might have a different idea in mind on how to define. I am explaining this in context because sometimes it is more difficult to create a synthetic document with the essence of the key message that we need to send members of the General Assembly than producing a big and detailed report.

And I think that explains the rationale behind the working groups, because it is not deluding or not making weaker the work of the working group, but it is just making it in such a short time, making it possible to arrive to the synthetic essence of the path forward that we want to share with the UN General Assembly.

At the beginning, I was not happy with the idea of dividing it into working groups because it is, and we have seen it now in practice, it’s overwhelming. It’s an overwhelming amount of activity dispersed in so many different days and dispersed in different dynamics. And somehow we are coming to realize that many of the topics are closely interlinked.

If we think about interoperability and we think of the benefits of data and free flow of data, the data flows, sometimes it is impossible to discuss things in isolation. And it is like a puzzle that we examine only one piece of the puzzle. It misses the big picture.

So now the challenge is. I understand the practicalities because of the synthetic nature, but now the challenge that we are facing with these separate tracks is how to go back to the plenary and make a sense of this puzzle and I think that the difficulty going ahead would be precisely that making it all fit and making it offer a comprehensive whole that is at the same time brief enough to fit the requirements of the reports that are submitted to the UN General Assembly which are very very very short I don’t remember the exact number of pages but it’s very short it’s like something like under 30 pages even less so imagine all the big challenge that a global digital compact is presenting and to choose the right words to choose and to make sure that everybody is happy with the words that we are putting forward and the most important to make sure that the words are not just words but that are like able to be translated into practice once our mandate is completed is a big big big challenge yeah so initial thoughts I’m still not fully convinced of the of what it is done and the separate tracks now the challenge is to make each track talk to each other and make all the pieces of the puzzle fit and one additional challenge is that already constrained countries and non-state actors from developing countries who are like the ones with the most at stake in this process might find even less it might be like even less equipped to follow such a complex process than the countries that already have I have a segue question to Nick and to Daniela on this issue that departs exactly from where you stopped, which is how to make this process open and participatory, and how to make sure that the voices that matter the most in this conversation will be heard.

I have a segue question to Nick and to Daniela on this issue that departs exactly from where you stopped, which is how to make this process open and participatory, I think that a good measure was to create a consultation which was shared with the broader community throughout the month of August.

August is perhaps not the best month, at least not in the Northern Hemisphere, and some of us were out, but turning to Nick and to Daniela, which are also facilitators of some of these working tracks, how do you feel that it is possible to do to involve the broader community besides the consultation that has already happened, and do you expect to have new consultations coming, and what is, in a nutshell, the gist of what you’re going to take back to the meeting next week, perhaps also bridging the discussion about the meeting in May and the upcoming meeting, what are you going to report back, what was your first feeling from this first consultation?

Nick, please. Okay, thank you for the question and for hosting this, actually, we need more opportunities like this to reach out to the people who are not in the room.

Well, firstly, you should know that I think all the co-facilitators, even without comparing notes to each other, we all realize we couldn’t just have a consultation running in August, because so many people would come back and not even know that their chance to comment was gone, so it will get extended.

It’s a question of, will it get extended to the end of September or a month after the next meeting, which would be mid-October? This is for mid-October because September is crazy. People have to deal with hunger in New York like your life is just eaten.

But anyway, people need a reasonable amount of time. These are all complex subjects, and the General Assembly handed us an ocean to boil, candidly, with this. And they handed it to somebody else because, I mean, I was part of the GDC negotiations because they couldn’t agree on what to do.

So I mean, I’m a little more optimistic than Renata is on this. We don’t have to produce a final report on an ocean to boil. We have to provide an initial report and at least give the General Assembly some ideas of what they could ask us to do or others to do to take things to the next stage.

So there will be areas where we won’t be able to agree. I think that this modified consensus thing that we’ve come up with may turn out to be really important, though. I think it will make it easier for us to come up with a report that’s actually as interesting for the differences of views as the commonalities of views.

And my hope is that in some other formats they would use something similar for consensus instead of what is happening now, which is it’s just a way to veto things that different interests don’t want in the report, whereas we’re making a faithful effort to actually reflect differences.

So I actually have some hopes. I don’t think that, like Carla said, I don’t think the whole report should become like he said, she said, because that’s not useful either. But there are different ways to approach and different views on some of the issues that we’re confronting.

And it’s reasonable to say what those are, because they’re going to reflect, they’re going to also be reflected in the General Assembly when it takes up this report and decides what to do next. So I would be, if we were asked for a final report, I would say, well, like, there’s no way in the time allowed we can do a final report on all these subjects. So at least we don’t have to.

boil the entire ocean. We may just have to boil a couple seas and point the direction for the rest of the ocean boiling. Nick, perhaps before I pass to Daniela, can you just explain to those who are not following the discussions in the group what the modified consensus is?

Because I think it’s quite an interesting point. So yeah, so I was part of the working group on enhanced cooperation, which couldn’t agree in the end on a final report because of a couple of sentences. And we didn’t want that to happen this time around.

And so what we ultimately hashed out is there would be things that would be agreed by consensus, where we couldn’t agree, we would agree how to reflect the different views by consensus. And if we couldn’t do that, then the chair would do a, from his perspective, a very neutral recitation of here are the differences that the group had. The group can comment on his report, but ultimately it will be up to him.

And critically, instead of burying things in an annex, the differences would be reflected in context in the report where the issue is actually addressed, the other aspects of the issue are addressed. Because of course, this is the other problem is if you try and say, okay, we’re going to put an annex, we’re going to put everybody’s submissions in there, or we’re going to put in, you can say anything you want.

No one reads that stuff, like it doesn’t get read. But if it’s in line, then people will see, okay, I see this was so contentious, the members couldn’t even characterize their different views, the chair had to do it. That’s actually, I think, useful for the reader to understand.

And in the cases where we can agree how to reflect our differences, that’s also a useful signal to the reader. So I am quite hopeful that we will actually have a substantial report because we have these safety valves. and there’s now no incentive for somebody to hold up the entire report anymore.

I think it’ll be very difficult to see somebody saying we can’t adopt a report at all because of this one thing I want over here. There would be so much pressure on them to say no, no, like we need to reflect this as a difference. Yeah, so that helps us actually come to consensus on things in a way that the veto system would actually prevent.

Daniela, of course, being a WTO negotiator, she and I participated in many conversations where consensus was really a veto. Daniela, let me bring you into the conversation.

Thank you, Marilia, and I wanted to thank you and well Renata for this kind invitation, but also very happy to be here sharing this panel with Carl, Nick, Renata, yourself. I find I’m very honored to be surrounded by experts on the field. So just bringing this side of the expertise needed to tackle this important issue, I think the multi-stakeholder working group on data governance brings a unique opportunity.

It’s the first time that I’m working in other expert groups, but it’s the first time that I’m working with stakeholders as part of the conversation, and it’s the first time that I’m co-facilitating actually a group with a colleague from academia.

So it’s a unique opportunity for us to learn from each other, but to work towards common objectives, being the digital world and data governance, which is the subject at stake and what is relevant for development, which is in our mandate in the different areas.

So depending on different actors and a diversity of not only people but also, and we’re talking about people expertise, but also constituencies. By saying this, I’m just saying that this is a unique opportunity for us to really prove we can work towards fulfilling our mandate. We are not a decision-making group per se.

We’re an expert group that is working under the basis of a mandate that came to us. And by saying this, I agree with everything that my colleagues said previously. And just going in line to perhaps what Carl mentioned, we haven’t done that much, but we have done, we have taken, we have gotten rid of the not fun stuff in terms of, OK, we are going to work this way.

So terms of reference are in place. Very simple but meaningful roadmap that will allow us to advance towards, with a specific date, but also with the flexibility that we need to advance in these conversations. And of course, with a format in which we have different tracks, as Renata mentioned, Carl and Nick, that we’re advancing in these different tracks in a way where we are working with different tools like consultations.

And you mentioned, yes, we started, we asked for submissions to start with our work. And I’m sure this wouldn’t, this won’t be the only opportunity. Of course, having said that, as a facilitator, I depend, we are in the hands of the group, right?

And what I have seen in the group is that there is a lot of, there is, the group wants to advance. If not, we wouldn’t have achieved what we did in the two meetings, even if it was slow. But I think that’s how processes work.

And this new format was somehow we needed to be clear on how it was going to work because it’s new. And this happens when new formats are in place. But we have now moved forward.

And now we are going to start our conversations in a substantive way and harnessing all the expertise that we have within the group. That’s one important issue, a group that has multistakeholders, but that has also member states that have been, that have, that are representing regional groups. So that’s something, or that come from regional groups.

So that’s something important. What I can say, also, just to mention what Renata said in terms of the interlinkages, being able to work together in a way that actually allow us to identify those interlinkages, identify those objectives.

That always, I like to talk always about common objectives because there are, there might be a diversity of views, but I think the group has been able to identify common objectives. And that will be a very important issue to achieve meaningful, holistic, but implementable results when we talk about a report that hopefully will come from the group. That’s our mandate and that’s our desire, right?

So we need to work. Ultimately, it will depend on the group, it will depend on us. And I see the group is willing to advance in that way.

Every member of the group has been very constructive in the way that we have been discussing. So that’s good. It’s only normal that we have different views.

And as Nick mentioned, we have been in very difficult conversations where we haven’t been able to achieve consensus. But there have been other conversations as well where consensus have been successful. And certainly in this topic, there are new ways on how we’re seeing our work being fulfilled as per our mandate.

But I will stop there.

But just thanking you a lot again. And here to respond to any question. Thank you very much, Daniela.

And I think you touched upon some important points. One of them, the composition of the group. Of course, we have some experience in multi-stakeholder working groups under the CSCD before.

But for this topic, it’s extremely essential that we have this composition. It has been a very rich exchange so far as well. I totally agree with you.

Let’s just look at the agenda for the next meeting, which will take place next week. Let me just call your attention to the chat because I have posted some links there for the TOR of the group, the work plan, and also the link for registration. So as I mentioned, anyone can register and follow the meeting online.

And by registering as an observer, we also have access to the mailing list of the group. And all the documents, the preliminary sentences of the consultations, they are circulated in this mailing list. So since the beginning, the chair, Mr.

Peter Mayer, has made sure that observers are really having access to all the information that has been circulated to working group members. And this is really nice. From yesterday to today, I think that the CSCD secretary didn’t sleep because they were sending emails through.

Thank you so much for joining us this evening. It’s 3 a.m., 4 a.m. during the evening with a synthesis of this first round, this preliminary round of consultations that happened in August.

So let me turn to you who are facilitators of this Working Tracks because the agenda of the meeting next week will be mostly dedicated to a reporting back from the Working Tracks, an overview of this preliminary round of consultations.

So, Renata, what are you going to report back on interoperability Working Track?

Well, we are very happy to report that the interoperability Working Track work has been very smooth, actually, surprisingly good. And what we submitted the preliminary, we not only want to just report of the progress that we have achieved as a group, but we also want to move a little bit forward and use the face-to-face time to advance the agenda.

Just give me one second to… I wanted to say some quick thing, practical thing, before I address the interoperability because I saw some of the comments. Something that can be a resource that actually we can put together that will be useful is a calendar that people can subscribe to.

Just blocking, because there’s so four tracks and consultations and deadlines to submit things, perhaps we can go keep a calendar that people can subscribe to, so people know what’s happening next because the deadlines are quite confusing sometimes, and that will help everybody know what they need to submit next.

For the next meeting, I’m just looking for the proposed agenda that we submitted. To go forward, what we want is basically give opportunity for people to participate in the to address three things. The first is a pending conversation on the definition of interoperability that will be crucial for our track and the work forward.

And so if there’s any input that can be sent to us ahead of time, a good definition that covers all the multidimensional nature of interoperability that is not just technical, but legal, social, and so on, it would be like extremely helpful.

Also potential areas of overlap with other tracks. We will also address the challenges and risks that we want to, that we see of interoperability. Practices in general of interoperability.

Good cases, but also cases where not addressing interoperability was harmful actually for development. We, that’s not set in stone, but that’s the three main things that we want to discuss. The space that we want, that we have a unique space of face-to-face interaction and so on, we want to use it to address these three main topics.

Thank you, Renata. Nick, you are facilitating the working track on sharing the benefits of data. What do we expect to hear from you next week?

You are muted, I think.

Sorry about that. I mean, next week we’re going to go over what we have received to date. This is sort of 23.

The online questionnaire filling in the blanks only and some written, some quite long. But not exhaustively, more explore what commonalities do we observe so far in the submissions? What differences do we observe?

And because the consultation is still open, because people can still put their comments together, the synthesis paper that we’re working on with the secretary really isn’t sort of the beginnings of a report or anything like that.

It’s more, it’s going to be more simply a here, you know, we received these many responses to these questions and for each question, where there’s some observed similarities, where there’s some differences.

And then we’ll, once we have a full set of responses, then we can finish that up and then start working on preparing a report based on what we have seen, what we have been sent. So I expect it will be a kind of an exploratory conversation on the key subjects. And the objective also is to make sure that we don’t, we have five questions.

One of the questions is, are we missing a question? And so far we have gotten responses, but the responses we’ve gotten to that question haven’t been additional questions. They’ve been comments about the report as a whole.

So, because ideally you can’t do everything. So we came up with five questions that we thought were broad enough that you could discuss most things, but then there would at least be a lens through which to look at how to develop the report and what themes that section of the report would be about.

So if we get your agreement on that, I think that will be good. And then the question is, sorry, the question is, you know, what do we then still get from those who haven’t responded yet?

Thank you, Nick. You mentioned that the questionnaire is still open and it’s one of the things that I hope that the group can harmonize because some questionnaires are open, some questionnaires have been closed. Some groups are talking about extending the deadline to September, other groups to October.

So for us who want to participate and contribute. It’s a little bit confusing. I hope that we can come up with a unified calendar between the groups.

Although I understand that perhaps they are at different stages in terms of their work and how much they manage to elaborate. Daniela, the working group on cross-border data flows is, I imagine, a very, very tricky one in terms of what you cover. It’s important from digital trades to artificial intelligence.

So I imagine there’s a lot to be discussed there. Where are you and what are you going to report back next week?

Thank you, Marilia. In our work, everything is complex given the different topics at hand, but that makes it worth it. And I think when I received the request of the chair to facilitate, I was very happy for this one because, yes, there is a trade element and there are other elements as well in the different areas.

And the group is actually fit for purpose in this sense because we have all the expertise in-house. So one thing, same in the line of what was mentioned by Nick, we don’t have still a synthesis that can reflect the plethora of information that there is on data flows, including cross-border data flows.

And the mandate for the working group is to develop options for safe, secure, and trusted data flows, including cross-border data flows, when we talk about data governance, as relevant for development.

So it’s very specific. It’s very focused. But that means that we need to start on what exists in terms of broadly set of measures, what exists in terms of mechanisms that are set to accomplish these objectives, facilitate safe, trade, secure data flows.

So that being said, what we did is what you know already and you have mentioned. I’m sorry to repeat that again. But what we did is call for submissions with very simple, broad questions to get all the information that we need for the group to know what is in there.

Of course, the work will evolve, hopefully, into an analytical mode. But we need to make sure that we have the right, not only quantity of information that we need, but the right information, meaning feasible data when we talk about what we’re going to analyze. So by saying that, I hope we have a meaningful discussion.

What the group wants is to keep exchanging experiences and to keep feeding into the information that we have received. So we are in the hands of the group and we are going to provide that space for the group to keep providing that information. And another thing that we have requested the group to do and to.

advance in an organized way that is the structure and as you have mentioned, Renata, we need to have of course deadlines and we need to organize our work in a way that the process can support a meaningful discussion.

So we have also requested the group to let us know what they see as outcomes, outputs from each meeting. That way we can work towards those outcomes in an organized way. We have sent questions to the group as slightly modified based on a consultation that we have by virtual means in August and we look forward, as I said, for a meaningful conversation.

It’s the first step in a substantive conversation, certainly not the last one, but we’re advancing in a step-wise approach and that makes sense because to go faster we need to have solid foundations and that means having reliable information that really reflects what the group thinks and beyond the group what implement, what the people that or what the implementers think, what they implement, what they know and the diversity of stakeholders, their contributions.

So we’re in that stage and that’s where we need this conversation. It’s so important because then we have the contribution from the broader community towards work. That’s what we’re going to discuss and hopefully also set the agenda for the November meeting in a forward-looking way.

So substantive discussion, next steps, a structure, a step-wise approach and a structured organization of work that can hold a process, that can hold a meaningful discussion towards realistic, meaningful and of course implementable outputs.

That’s what we can do.

Thank you. Thank you, Daniela. Karl, let me turn to you.

I know you are not a facilitator, but I think I saw your name in the working… If you were in the meeting, is there anything that you can report back or if it was my mistake, let me ask you, looking at this process and hearing from the facilitators at the end of the meeting next week, what would make you think that it was a successful meeting?

What are your general expectations? How do you want to see the group at the end of the meeting next week and say, we did a good job and we have a good foundation to move forward into the next round of intersessional work, Carl?

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, as mentioned, I’m not a co-facilitator, but I am a participant in three, I don’t know, four. I’ve lurked in NICS, but I haven’t been that active in NICS working group, but I follow three of them.

So I think, first of all, I really want to emphasize, I think the co-facilitators have done a really good job in the time that we’ve had in trying to coordinate input, try to synthesize the material and try to find sort of what should the topics of conversations be.

And understanding why that is a challenge, I think, comes back actually to the terms of reference and paragraph 48, because these working tracks are a little bit artificial in the sense that we needed to start somewhere.

And those working tracks reflect what was described in paragraph 48. And they are helpful starting points. But you also realize that there is a ton of overlaps between the different tracks, right?

You can think about them as kind of attacking the same issue or similar issues just from different angles. So working track one that I’ve been the most active in, I would say, is around principles for data governance. Second track is around interoperability and then the third about sharing benefits and then the fourth one around data flows.

And I think the sharing of benefits is kind of easy to kind of separate from the other three, but the other three, there’s very clearly a lot of overlap between them. So it has been helpful, though, to have those separate tracks because… mentioned, they’re kind of creating three different angles of attack to the same topic, if you will.

But it also means that I think going forward, we need to figure out why do we keep these three tracks? What is the added value of keeping them separate? Is there value in consolidating them or effectively just making sure that they don’t just become parallel work streams about the same thing?

So in terms of my expectation of the next working group meeting, and what I think would be a good outcome, is I think we need to set the expectations right. And if we’re able to narrow down the scope, either by narrowing down sort of the specificities around each track, so that it’s a bit more clearly defined, you know, what are the topics that we’re going to discuss in track one versus track four and versus track two, for instance, I think that would be one small step forward of just concretizing and streamlining and having this bit more focus so that we don’t create these overlaps.

I mean, when I’m looking at my contributions to those three very similar tracks, my contribution so far has been quite similar along all three tracks. And that’s sort of why I think we need a little bit more focus. So I don’t need to, you know, follow three processes unless it’s actually necessary for me.

And I think that goes a little bit actually to the capacity issue that Renata was mentioning that when the lines are a bit blurry between what’s being discussed in the different tracks, it forces you to follow all tracks rather than being able to exclude and you know, those topics, I don’t have the expertise in or in those topics, I might not have a great interest in and I can focus more on track one and two, etc.

So I think it’s actually necessary for stimulating more participation to clarify those tracks and to the extent possible or needed consolidate whatever it might be, but something from the next meeting that yeah, help folks it either if it’s within tracks or across tracks, I think that would be very important.

And that would I think it should honestly be seen as a success because that will set us up for the next iteration of consultations and be able to refine and get more into the substantive issues.

Thank you Carl and you touched many important points but also two words that are very used in the UN system which is a synergy and overlap. So yes there are there is a chance to have overlap between the working tracks but I was also wondering about synergies and potential overlaps with other processes going beyond the working group looking at the broader internet governance landscape.

For example the WSIS plus 20 zero draft just came out, it mentioned the importance of the working group, it talks about the mandate of the working group and there’s an expectation about the results but it also talks about data governance more broadly.

There are other UN processes dealing with that data governance, potentially the AI scientific panel has just been created. So there are several processes that touch on the issue of data. So let me just throw a question a little bit broadly at whoever wants to come in.

How do we identify the synergies and we make sure that we connect the work of this working group with the broader initiatives that are taking place in the broader UN system or that are being implemented by other actors?

Is it something that the working group is starting to think about and discuss how to build these bridges or is it a little bit too early? How do you see that?

May I jump in? I think that the observers will play a crucial role on this and the international organizations that are attending as observers deep into the topics but for example if I think of World Health Organization, if I think of UNICEF, if I am OECD, and different organizations will play a key role in bringing this input and information to our table.

I think as well that non-state actors, civil society, academia and the private sector will also bring another element and that’s the element of reality that we are facing today. We have seen how all the uncertainty around the existing governance frameworks is very high. I mean now that it is having or not having certain protections becomes leveraged for getting harsher tariffs for example.

It’s a reality that we are seeing with the big actors globally and how trade and other political situations have been like you know all the gains in data protection for example, all the gains in having robust consumer protections on the data that is collected and so on.

I’m not as resilient and I’m not as permanent as we thought so I think that there is a combination going forward. It will not only be the processes underway within the UN system but also the processes of undoing the gains that are happening on the ground, that are happening in many countries that have to give up many of the safeguards and protections regarding data that they had because of the trade reality or because of the political reality.

And a third element I think that it is important to consider is I think that actually I think that we should be not only getting these processes to talk to us, but getting a little bit of input into these processes.

So I think that non-state actors will play a key role in bringing this and serving as conduits and links between processes, but also international organizations. It would be really, really, really helpful within their mandates to make sure that we don’t leave out important aspects that might be neglected, that are being developed in a deeper way within their mandates and their organizations.

Thank you, Renata. I will continue with the same question, but let me just point one additional issue in the conversation based on the comments made by Craig. He has mentioned some relevant initiatives in the field of data governance developed by the World Health Organization, and it made me remember there was a mapping that was conducted by the group on relevant initiatives.

Do you have an update on this mapping? Is it a living document? Can we continue to add to this body of knowledge?

And also in the GDC, there is another paragraph. I don’t remember if it’s 49 or if it’s 47, but that talks about an initiative to try to understand what has been conducted in terms of data governance in the UN system and in the broader landscape, and all this body of knowledge will be taken to the General Assembly together with the recommendations of the working group.

Do you have any information on that or any reflection about the previous question with regards to how to better connect this with broader Internet governance processes and discussions?

I can give it a go. In terms of still receiving input, I think that’s still possible. I don’t think we set a cutoff point for when we can identify additional frameworks like that.

So I would definitely encourage Craig to submit this and send it to the Secretary. If it’s not already listed, I can’t remember the list that they’ve already identified. To your question about sort of linkages into the other processes out there, I know Nick was quite involved in the AI stuff, so I’m going to let him maybe speak to that one.

But if you look at the WSIS one, at least the serigraph that has come out, effectively, the piece of data governance there is just recapping that this working group is happening. So I think there isn’t that much more information in there. But I think it’s for our working group, it’s a bit too early to figure out.

And it’s going to depend a little bit on how WSIS plays out. If there’s new processes being established by WSIS or new ways of working that our working group might want to sort of link to. If it’s some form of recommendations or similar, like guidance of where could subsequent discussions happen or subsequent work happen.

I think it’s a bit too early to think about that. But the link to, for instance, the WSIS plus 20 process right now is just that it’s recalling this working group. But I think we will see down the line as WSIS plus 20 shapes up, if there might be something in there that this working group could refer to in its process report.

But in the WSIS context, I think it’s a little bit too early, but the AI might be more substantive linkages. So maybe I’ll ask Nick to speak to that one.

Nick, I know that you had also experience in the negotiation of the AI track. How do we make these connections in your view? Yeah, I mean, the AI panel and dialogue negotiations started in February and ended on the 26th of August, which was

I think three meetings of the General Assembly before the end of the entire year’s assembly, for the start of the new one, seems very difficult. I think the governance dialogue, which will meet immediately before or after AI for Good in Geneva next year for its inaugural session, that would be an obvious place where there’s an opportunity for the members of this working group to talk about our work and what we’re doing and how it relates to the AI governance discussion.

It also depends on, once they pick co-chairs for that process, the theme of the first governance dialogue. But this would be an obvious opportunity to surface our work at. We don’t actually know when precisely we have to turn in our report.

We’re still waiting to hear whether we can turn it in later in the 81st session or we have to do it earlier. But in any case, I suspect we will still be working on a report next July. But I think that’s likely.

So it would be a good time, that session, to see what we can organize to surface our work.

Thank you, Nick. And thanks, everyone, for the links that you are circulating. Definitely, I think they should be fed into the work of the group.

We are reaching the top of the hour. Daniela, let me pass over to you for a quick reaction to get us…

No, just to mention… Thank you, Ariljana. Just to mention, I think there’s no other group within the UN that is working in what we’re working on.

So just to highlight that fact, things UN-wise and coming from member states mandate in terms like what is suspected from us, I think we’re the only ones working on this. Of course, there is a lot of opportunities. Interlinkages and Data Governance is such a broad topic also related with other areas.

Jess, I liked what Carl mentioned in terms of focusing and that I think is narrowing, we’re talking about narrowing down but focusing our work will be important as we advance so that will allow us to really advance in a way that is not only pragmatic but is conducive to achieving and fulfilling our mandate.

So focusing and while recognizing also the relation, the interlinkages with other processes and how we can harness those interlinkages will be a challenge but that’s something certainly to take into consideration not only among the four set of co-facilitators and I’m taking Carl that back to the meeting with the facilitators that Nick mentioned we have, so how we can do that in an organized way but focusing while recognizing those interlinkages will be certainly a challenge but a good thing to do.

Jess. Thank you. Thank you, Daniela.

Thank you very much. Let me take the opportunity to

thank all of you who stayed with you this moment to thank Carl, Daniela, Nick, Renata for joining us today and for sharing their experience and knowledge and hope to see many of you as an observer next week and if not we see again in the next debriefing about this working group to stay informed about what’s to come next.

Thank you very much. Have a good continuation. Everybody see you next time.